The prescriptive nature of Diocesan Churchyard Regulations provides parochial clergy with delegated authority to allow memorials which fall within the certain specified criteria, although they are perfectly at liberty, should they wish, to decline to permit a memorial even though it complies with the Regulations. The case Re St. Cuthbert Kentmere [2025] ECC Car 12 demonstrates the progress of a petition to erect a headstone in the churchyard of St Cuthbert’s, Kentmere, from the initially unsuccessful approaches – informal and via the DAC – to discussions with the Chancellor, and final approval of the agreed format[*].
The petitioner, Mr. Yeats, first applied informally for permission to introduce the gravestone to commemorate his late wife Lucy Nelson, who was widely known as Cinders[1]. Fryer-Spedding Ch. concluded that he was unable to deal with his application in that way because of three matters[2]:
[3]. The Petitioner wished to commemorate his wife without referring to her given name, Lucinda, a name she actively disliked. That proposal did not appear to comply with the Carlisle Diocesan Churchyard Regulations including the requirement (paragraph 2.5.4 of Appendix B) that “The Christian and surnames of the deceased should be given”.
[4]. Mr. Yeats proposed a design showing a large sunflower on the reverse of the stone. At least one member of the PCC expressed reservations about the design.
[5]. Only a bare majority of the PCC favoured the initial proposal, and some concerns had been raised which were not obviously unreasonable.
Following further engagement with the PCC, Mr. Yeats presented his petition – a stone to be designed and created by Pip Hall – which received the unanimous support of all PCC members present at its meeting on 23 May 2024 [6]. The DAC commended the high-quality craftsmanship of Pip Hall’s work and the Chancellor was satisfied that the proposed stone would be of high aesthetic quality and appropriate within the churchyard of this Grade II listed church.
The DAC did not consider that the design would set an unwelcome design precedent and advised regarding use of the names “Lucy” (rather than “Lucinda”) and “Cinders”. The DAC’s view (with which the Chancellor agreed) was that the use of the name “Lucy” was suitable, appropriate and commonly recognised as a familiar form of the name “Lucinda” [9]. Whilst the DAC favoured placing the name ‘Cinders’ on the front of the stone, beneath ‘Lucy Nelson’, leaving the reverse to focus on the carved sunflower motif [10], Mr Yeats wished to avoid putting the name “Cinders” on the front of the stone, in part so as to leave space for an inscription in his memory, in due course [13].
The Chancellor accepted the DAC’s advice but concluded that, in the particular circumstances, personal expression and the deceased’s own preferences justified allowing the name “Cinders” to appear on the reverse beneath the sunflower motif. A faculty was therefore granted; the petitioner was required to pay the costs of the petition including any fees incurred by the Registry in dealing with the faculty application.
[*] As a rule, we would not name petitioners in cases such as this, but in Re St. Cuthbert Kentmere, names are an important factor.