The Report of the Ecclesiastical Judges Association Working Party into Churchyard Memorial Regulations (“the Report”), reviewed here and reproduced at the end of this post, included a consideration of how chancellors have dealt with petitions that do not comply with the criteria set by the diocesan Churchyard Regulations for the introduction of a memorial without a faculty. Twenty four examples of such cases were identified and are listed below in chronological order, to which links to our posts have been added. The Report observes;

“The reported cases cover a variety of issues as there seems to be no end to the ingenuity and variety of what some bereaved families request. The underlying principle is not that if it is not permitted in the regulations, you cannot have it, but whether there is a good case made out for permitting what is requested to be introduced into the particular churchyard.”

“The underlying principles often stated are that the grave space does not belong to the family; that what is erected by way of a memorial needs not only to respect and reflect the ambience of the churchyard as it is, but also to be appropriate as a memorial to the deceased which is likely to be in place for many years and will outlive the family members who erected it in memory of their much loved relative.”

Appendix C

“Non-standard” cases – chronological list

Re Kilnhurst St. Thomas [2012] Sheffield Const. Ct., McClean Ch. Replacement memorial (1946/2002) in polished black granite (with kerbs and green chippings). Petition was to remove it and replace with replica of original and was granted.  Turns on family dispute rather than type of stone. Includes a very useful summary of the law about a vicar’s “ownership” of the churchyard; who owns the monument (including the place of the heir at law) and generally  for whom and  for what permission may be granted. [L&RUK link]

Re St. James Newchapel [2012] Lichfield Cons. Ct., Eyre Ch.  Cremated remains had been placed into a family grave at which there was already an upright polished black granite memorial with gold lettering at its head. There were said to be other black granite memorials with gold lettering in the churchyard. The chancellor refused to  allow a wedge shaped stone, but said that in the circumstances he would permit “a 12 inch cube in polished black granite and bearing the proposed words in gold lettering”. [No L&RUK link]

Re St. Andrew Witchford [2016] ECC Ely 2  Petition for polished blue granite memorial 48” high on a base 60” wide, on top of a 14” plinth, refused notwithstanding that there were other memorials in the churchyard outside the regulations installed without faculty. [L&RUK link]

Re St. Paul Rusthall [2016] ECC Roc 2  Petition for polished black granite headstone with gold lettering refused. There was another  similar headstone on the deceased’s parents’ grave in the same churchyard, but the PCC  were now attempting to establish conformity to the Regulations. [L&RUK link]

Re St. Mary Magdalene Lyminster [2017] ECC Chi 1  Petition for black polished granite memorial with matching kerbs and chippings refused, considered inappropriate for the particular churchyard, chancellor holding that the unlawful  introduction of unsuitable memorials of a similar type in the past did not justify this  proposal. [L&RUK link]

Re St. Leonard Ryton on Dunsmore [2017] ECC Cov 2 Petition for polished dark grey granite memorial in shape of traditional gypsy caravan. Deputy chancellor approves the memorial (apart from proposed additional inscriptions on the rear side). [L&RUK link]

Re All Saints Bransgore with Thorney Hill [2017] ECC Win 3  Polished black granite with kerbs – refused. [L&RUK link]

Re St. Bartholomew Areley Kings [2018] ECC Wor 1 Stonemason petitioned for faculty for memorial with a polished stone face he had placed in the churchyard without any authority. Faculty granted “the lack of uniformity in the immediately surrounding area is that the extent of that non-compliance is not sufficient to justify  ordering the removal of the memorial”. [L&RUK link]

Re St. James the Less Fradswell [2018] ECC Lic 4  The petitioner applied for permission to erect a memorial in the churchyard to her late  husband, the memorial to be of polished black granite with gold lettering. …  In the circumstances the chancellor determined that it would be unfair to the petitioner to refuse  to grant a faculty. Accordingly, he directed that a faculty be issued. [L&RUK link]

Re St. James Bulkington [2018] ECC Cov 2  Petition for dark grey granite memorial polished on its face with silver gilded lettering (and open book design, also for kerbs etc). The Deputy chancellor determined the memorial would not be out of place in this particular churchyard, bearing in mind other memorials nearby. [L&RUK link]

Re St. Vedast Tathwell [2018] ECC Lin 4  The executor of the widow wished to carry out her wishes by erecting on her grave a memorial similar to that on the grave of her husband in the adjacent grave, namely memorial in polished dark grey granite with an asymmetrical pointed top, with a carving of a church window on it and with gold lettering. In the special circumstances allowed the matching memorial. [L&RUK link]

Re St. James Bulkington [2019] ECC Cov 1 Petition for memorial with many features outside the regulations on dark grey honed granite with a polished obverse side and a gold lettering. Bearing in mind the context of the grave which had near it other memorials with polished faces the memorial was allowed, although not some of the other features prayed for. [L&RUK link]

Re St. Matthew Worthington [2019] ECC Lei 2 Petition refused for memorial outside regulations in a number of respects including polished blue granite. [L&RUK link]

Re St. Leonard Thrybergh [2020] ECC She 3 Churchwardens petitioned to remove very dark grey polished granite headstone placed on grave along with kerbs and a ledger stone, after permission refused by the Area Dean. The chancellor decided that, if the owner of the memorial had gone about things correctly, she would have authorised the stone. Chancellor dismissed the petition for its removal, but required the owner of the memorial to pay the costs of the proceedings. [L&RUK link]

Re All Saints Dilhorne [2021] ECC Lic 1 Polished red granite with gold lettering – allowed as many other polished granite, including some in red granite, in churchyard. [L&RUK link]

Re St Mary Barnet by le Wold [2021] ECC Lin 1 On second death and burial, petition to move black polished granite headstone to place between two graves and to add further inscription in gold lettering.  As there were many instances of memorials outside the churchyards regulations in the churchyard, including examples of memorials erected between adjacent graves, and in view of the fact that the churchyard would shortly need to be closed for further burials, the chancellor granted a faculty. [L&RUK link]

Re St. John the Baptist Berkswell [2021] ECC Cov 6 Existing dark grey polished headstone with images thereon. On a further interment and with no room for a further inscription, petition to replace headstone with a new one with polished surface and images. Chancellor granted a faculty. [L&RUK link]

Re St. John the Baptist Baginton [2022] ECC Cov 2 The petitioners wished to erect a headstone on the grave of their uncle. The proposed memorial was to be dark grey granite, partly polished, with gold lettering (with engraved image of a motor cyclist …). As there were already several other polished stones in the churchyard, and the image was appropriate to commemorate the life of the deceased, the chancellor granted a faculty. [L&RUK link]

Re St. Mary Stamfordham [2022] ECC New 3 Petition for light grey polished granite memorial where local regulations required sandstone to blend in with the sandstone of the grade 1 listed church, and in an area where all memorials were in sandstone. Faculty refused. [L&RUK link]

Re St. Mary Middleton [2022] ECC Lee 3 A 2 day old baby died in 2014. That polish granite memorial with kerbs installed after petitioner had been told by churchwarden (during interregnum) that there were no restrictions on what she could have. In 2022 petitioner (child’s mother) sought a confirmatory faculty. Deputy chancellor was unhappy about many of the features of the memorial which were outside the regulations but in the exceptional circumstances of the family having been badly misled many years previously granted the faculty. [L&RUK link]

Re St. Mary Denver [2023] ECC Ely 3 Petition for polished green granite memorial refused as no good reason had been advanced for allowing an exception to the regulations. [L&RUK link]

Re St. George Fatfield [2023] ECC Dur 2 A13 year old child killed in RTA. Petition for memorial outside regulations in a number of respects including: polished black granite with gold lettering. Chancellor accepted there were already several memorials of polished black stone with gilded lettering in the churchyard and that a faculty should not be refused for another. Other issues also addressed to reach a compromise on them. [L&RUK link]

Re St. James Barkham [2023] ECC Oxf 7 Petitioner to authorise the installation of a dark grey, unpolished, upright granite memorial to mark the grave of petitioner’s late wife. The proposed memorial fell outside the scope of the diocesan churchyards regulations. The design incorporated two carved hearts. The petitioner wished to have a design similar to the one for his mother’s memorial (for which a faculty had been granted) just a few feet away from the petitioner’s wife’s grave. The Chancellor granted a faculty. A faculty had already been granted to the family for a similar memorial; there was room in the churchyard for only about 12-15 burials, so the chances of further applications for similar memorials was small; and there were pastoral reasons supporting the grant of a faculty. [L&RUK link]

Re St Mary, Fawkham [2024] ECC Roc 1 The Petitioner wished to install a memorial in the churchyard in memory of his late wife. The proposed memorial was a headstone and kerbs, the proposed stone being polished paradiso granite, described as “a swirling mixture of pink, grey, red and black colours in a strongly defined tortoiseshell-type pattern.” The PCC objected to the proposed type of memorial and the DAC did not recommend the grant of a faculty. The concerns were as to the colour, the polished finish and the inclusion of kerbstones. The petitioner produced a “petition” signed by several people purporting to support the application for a faculty. The Chancellor determined that such petition was inadmissible. The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow a headstone of paradiso granite, provided that the stone had a matt finish, but he refused to permit the installation of kerbs.  [L&RUK link]

Ecclesiastical Judges Association Report

The Ecclesiastical Judges Association has published the Report of its Working Party into Churchyard Memorial Regulations. The report, its annexes, and the two documents that make up the draft template for an Additional Matters Order may be downloaded below:

• Churchyard Memorials Report v4
• Churchyard Memorials Report – Appendix A – Comparative Table of Diocesan Regulations
• Churchyard Memorials Report – Appendices B-F
• Recommended Template – Additional Matters Order
• Recommended Template – Schedule 1.

The Report (pp19-21) and Appendix D include consideration of the Bratton Review – an internal review of the Diocese of Coventry, following the recommendation of the Arches Court in Re St Giles Exhall [2021] EACC 1.