…so held Bishop Ch. in the recent determination of the Lincoln Consistory Court, Re St. Mary Tetford [2026] ECC Lin 2, in relation to “a simple error in administration” of burial plots. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below (with added emphasis); the ELA summary is here.
Re St. Mary Tetford [2026] ECC Lin 2
[3]. What has happened here is an object lesson for all parishes that churchyard plans must be up to date and readily understandable by everyone, and copies available.
It appears that the churchwarden who usually directs the gravedigger where to dig was away when this interment was to take place. Although the other churchwarden had the churchyard plan, neither she nor the gravedigger could understand it. It was known that Mrs Myers should be interred at the end of one of the rows where her husband was buried (it was known that Mr Myers was interred on the end of a particular row) but they were not able to work out which end of the row Mr Myers had been buried.
This was because the churchyard plan had not marked by name the interment of Mr Myers, nor had the name of the person interred at the other end of the road been recorded on the plan (the person interred there was Mr Freiston). This was particularly important because no memorials had been erected on either grave.
[4]. I am informed that the gravedigger rang the family who attended but there was a lack of clarity as to which end of the row Mr Myers had been interred. Eventually it was agreed (wrongly) that Mr Myers had been interred where Mr Freiston had been interred. Therefore, this grave was reopened to permit the body of Mrs Myers to be interred therein.
Comment
As we have noted before, “…the funerals industry is seldom subject to the time pressures of FMCGs – fast-moving consumer goods – and the required skills and management associated with burial are at a very basic level”. However, at the time of an interment, uncertainties in the relevant details must be resolved, and errors such as those in the instant case impact on both the family of the bereaved and the parish concerned.
With regard to the latter, the Chancellor noted:
“[13] It has been a condition of Faculties for grave reservations in this diocese for many years that up to date copies of churchyard plans should be available and on view in the sacristy/vestry. I am pleased to note that a new churchyard plan has now been drawn up which I have seen. This should now be on public view in the sacristy/vestry to assist gravediggers/churchwardens/visiting clergy, to avoid the error that occurred in this case.
[16] …The Faculty Fee, and the costs of the exhumation and reinterment must be paid by the PCC.
It is practically impossible to draw up an accurate graveyard plan for many if not most ancient churchyards, or even of burials before say 1975 where no record was kept. The law is based on wishful thinking.
The Chancellor was commenting on an interment on 6th February 2024. Furthermore, much of the uncertainty encountered would have been avoided with a less ambiguous plan.
Yes, alas there is always going be an element of uncertainty with old churchyards. Ours is divided into an “old” section (from time immemorial up to 1950), where we know nothing beyond what can still be read on the memorials, and a “new” section where thankfully the records and plan are reasonably good.
We had an enquiry last week about the possibility of reopening a grave from 1942. We have no idea where said (unmarked) grave is, but apparently someone in the family knows.
We also have some more recent burials in the “old” churchyard up to the mid 1980s, where we simply have no idea now of the location. “Old churchyard near shed” is no use as a location when not only is there no longer a shed, but not even any folk memory of there having once been one.
There’s also a plague pit there somewhere…
Thank you for a most interesting post. The object lesson also applies in South Africa, where the law on funerals lags behind that of England.