In Re St Mary the Virgin Weston Turville [2024] ECC Oxf 8, Mrs Deborah Clark sought a faculty authorising the installation of a memorial commemorating her late husband, Joe. Though a Christian, he was of Jewish heritage, and Mrs Clarke wanted both a Star of David and a cross on his gravestone, explaining that “whilst Joe accepted Christianity, he was brought up with the Jewish Faith, and so I want to represent both Faiths on the headstone”. In doing so, she had the support of the Archdeacons of Buckingham and Oxford [5-7]. Her petition was unopposed; however, the former Chancellor of the Diocese of Norwich had recently ruled against allowing a Star of David on a memorial stone in that diocese [2].
Hodge Ch noted that in Re All Saints Honington [2017] ECC SEI 3, Etherington Ch had concluded that, though the petition before him was an exceptional case and he would allow the petition, the Star of David would not generally “be a permissible and appropriate symbol to be inscribed upon a monument in a churchyard under the jurisdiction of this court” [10-16]. He had concluded at [50] that:
“… save in exceptional circumstances of the sort demonstrated in this case, an image of the Star of David would not ordinarily be permitted to be placed on a monument in a churchyard or cemetery within the jurisdiction of the court … It is also my judgment that, whilst not expressly prohibited by the Rules at present, the placing of a symbol primarily associated with any another faith [sic] than Christianity, as expressed in the beliefs of the Church of England and enshrined in its doctrines, on any monument in consecrated ground within the jurisdiction of this court is ordinarily impermissible” [17].
Etherington Ch had returned to the subject in Re St Mary Shotesham [2024] ECC Nor 4, this time as Chancellor of Norwich, and had ruled against allowing a Star of David on the gravestone of the petitioner’s husband, Raz, who had been born into the Jewish faith and had subsequently become attracted to the Quakers while retaining his links to his Jewish identity [18-21].
As to the present case, Hodge Ch noted the judgment of the Court of Arches in Re St Giles, Exhall [2021] EACC 1 at [8.7] endorsing
“as an accurate statement of the purpose of a monument over a grave, the following short extract from the Churchyards Handbook, published by the Church of England: ‘To honour the dead, to comfort the living and to inform posterity.’” [22].
He concluded that a faculty should issue [35]. The cross and the Star of David recognised the Jewish tradition and the subsequent Christian faith of the deceased. Further, when the petitioner was, in due time, interred in the same grave, the two symbols would represent their separate religions. However, he made it clear that a Star of David should only be permitted for good and sufficient reasons and should always be the subject of a faculty application.
His reason was that the issue “essentially raises a matter of doctrine, rather than law and, in the circumstances, it would be wrong to refuse the application [35]; however,
“I make it clear that my decision is confined to the facts of this particular faculty application: a request by a Christian widow for a Star of David and the symbol of the Cross to be placed on a memorial commemorating her late husband, who was of Jewish heritage, to be erected above a grave in which she too will, in due time, be laid to rest. I say nothing about the propriety of placing the symbol of any other religion on a memorial in an Anglican churchyard. I would also agree that a Star of David should only be permitted with the authority of a faculty since good and sufficient reason for its display on a memorial within an Anglican churchyard must always be shown. Indeed, the different reasoning and conclusions expressed in this judgment and the two judgments of Chancellor Etherington KC make it all the more necessary for any applicant for such a symbol to proceed by way of petition for a faculty” [36].
