International Heraldry describes hatchments as “a distinctive rendering of a dead person’s arms, represented on a lozenge, not lozenge shaped arms, but arms painted within a lozenge shaped frame”[1] . The tradition of hanging these armorial shields or escutcheons in churches goes back to the 17th century and its roots extend further back to the time when the family of a dead knight would display his helmet and shield in the church or family chapel[2].
Hatchments have now largely fallen into disuse, but many hatchments from former times remain in parish churches throughout England. Many English parish churches contain one or two hatchments to a lord of the manor, or previous vicar. Nevertheless, hatchments (and similar heraldic memorials) occasionally feature in consistory court judgments.
New hatchments
With regard to the installation of new hatchments memorializing a former member of the congregation, in Re St. Michael Bowness-on-Solway [2025] ECC Car 7, permission was sought by Mrs. Mary Maxwell-Irving to hang a hatchment at St. Michael’s Church, Bowness-on-Solway in memory of her late husband, Dr Alistair M T Maxwell-Irving [1]. Fryer-Spedding Ch. commented:
“[2] The petition is unopposed and has the unanimous support of the PCC. Nonetheless, I consider it appropriate to give this judgment for two reasons. First is because of the law to the effect that permission for memorials in churches ought to be sparingly granted. Second is because, by a majority, the Diocesan Advisory Committee has not recommended this proposal for approval”.
By a majority, the DAC did not recommend approval, considering a hatchment anachronistic, and questioning the Petitioner’s involvement with the parish. However, Fryer-Spedding Ch. reviewed the law on memorials, especially: Re St Margaret Eartham [1981] Court of Arches, (memorial fixed to wall); Re St. Mary Longstock [2006] 1 WLR 259, (stained glass window); Re St. Mary Magdalene Adlestrop 2017 ECC Glo 2, (hatchment) and Re Holy Trinity Bledlow [2020] ECC Oxf 4, (heraldic banners to 6th Baron Carrington). He concluded that hatchments occupy a “hybrid” category akin to heraldic banners, and determined that the test of exceptionality applied. Rejecting arguments of anachronism, he held continuity with tradition a virtue and directed that the faculty be granted.
With regard to involvement in the local community, in Re St. Mary Magdalene Adlestrop 2017 ECC Glo 2, Rodgers Ch. observed:
“[37] … Three people from a village of 80 does not to me indicate a groundswell of opposition…it appeared that there was a subplot [at the PCC meeting] involving some local objections or dislike of changes at Adlestrop Park following Mrs. Collins’s death in 2013…As I say these arguments did not help me, and as they appeared to be being carried on not by the persons involved but ostensibly on their behalf and smacked of village tittle-tattle which did not go to the matter in hand”.
She concluded that there were amply sufficient reasons to permit this hatchment to be introduced, and more generally:
“Hatchments, if displaying legally authorised Coats of Arms[3], can with sufficient reason be introduced by Faculty. The fact that they are now rare does not in itself preclude them being introduced”.
A faculty was granted on condition “that the design on the hatchment is formally approved by a Herald from the College of Arms: i.e. is it suitable to reflect that it is for a deceased wife, or should it be altered to reflect that her husband is still alive (so that on his death it can subsequently altered as appropriate)”[4] .
The judgment Re Holy Trinity Bledlow [2020] ECC Oxf 4 [2020] ECC Oxf 4 considered the introduction of two heraldic banners which had belonged the 6th Baron Carrington. One of the banners had previously hung in St Paul’s Cathedral, London, and the other in St George’s Chapel, Windsor; according to custom, these had been returned to the family on his death. Hodge Ch. outlined the proper approach to be taken, viz,
“[5] Since the banners are to be hung in the church to commemorate the late Lord Carrington, the court has to consider whether the requirement of exceptionality relating to the character or service of the person to be commemorated that would apply in the case of the erection of a monument or memorial plaque applies also in the case of the present faculty application. A similar question was considered, in the context of the introduction of a stained glass window…in Re St Mary, Longstock [2006] 1 WLR 259 (decided prior to the decision of the Court of Arches in the leading case of Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158)…”.
The court was satisfied both that during his long life the Late Lord Carrington had made an outstanding contribution to the life of the nation and that he had enjoyed a sufficiently close connection to the village of Bledlow and its church.
[11]. …When worshippers in, and visitors to, the church view Lord Carrington’s heraldic banners, they should feel inspired that a local person should have achieved so much in life, having served his country so selflessly, and having behaved with such integrity.
[12]. Turning to the Duffield questions, the court agrees with the DAC’s assessment that the installation of the two heraldic banners will not harm the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest. As the DAC has noted, in principle the introduction of the banners is reversible. In practice, however, once they have been installed it is unlikely that the banners will ever be removed from the church. The court should therefore approach this application on the basis that the banners will become a permanent feature of the west end of the nave… When looking west from the chancel the banners will have little visual impact. They will be mounted sufficiently high that they will not obscure the view of the nave arch or the clerestory windows… “
Stolen hatchments subsequently returned
Despite their size and restricted accessibility, the theft of hatchments is not unknown. Nevertheless, there are recent cases in which examples have been returned. On 31 May 2026, the BBC reported a hatchment stolen in 1996 from St Leonard’s Church, Flamstead, Hertfordshire, had been identified and would be reintroduced on 4 June as part of the local Arts Festival. This bore similarities with the case of a hatchment from St Margaret’s Church on the Felbrigg estate in Norfolk, stolen in 1993 but was eventually returned by the Essex Police Rural Engagement Team. To date no judicial consideration of these cases has been reported.
Reintroduction of stolen “church treasures”
The introduction of new items into churches and the retrospective approval of existing ones introduced without permission are frequently addressed by the courts. However, the conditions under which stolen “church treasures” may be reintroduced have received less judicial consideration; Lists A and B of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules include provisions for: “the sale or other disposal of an article of architectural, archaeological, artistic or historic interest“; and “the introduction of a monument, or the carrying out of work to a monument erected in or on, or on the curtilage of, a church or other consecrated building or on consecrated ground“.
However, there is no generic heading for the reinstatement of items which have been stolen and returned. Whilst it might be argued that the replacement of a stolen item that already had faculty approval is akin to the “like-for-like” provisions in Lists A and B, there are important differences: even if reintroduced in its former location without additional changes to the fabric of the church, the fact that it has been stolen may require additional security precautions to be introduced.
These issues were considered in Re Coombes Parish Church [2016] ECC Chi 5 following the unexpected return of the small corpus from a crucifix following its theft which led to a consideration of its future safe-keeping; in Gorilla’s head leads to return of church relic we supplemented the consistory court judgment with a summary of the complex police investigation, initiated by the enforcement of the CITES regulations.
The importance of Re Coombes Parish Church lies in the application of the Court of Arches judgment in Re St. Lawrence Oakley with Wootton St. Lawrence [2014] Court of Arches, and the conditions imposed which ensure that the corpus remains within the jurisdiction of the consistory court, despite its relocation to the Cathedral Treasury.
The above examples of recovery of “church treasures” which have been stolen indicate the potentially long time-line between “theft” and “recovery”; they also highlight the importance of the churches’ own records for proof of ownership; the Art Loss Register (“the leading due diligence provider for the art market”); catalogues of auctioneers; the work of local police rural engagement teams, and others interested in the art market.
[1] In heraldic terms a “lozenge” is a diamond or rhomboid shape, with four sides of equal length.
[2] “Hatchments were usually placed over the entrance of the armiger’s residence, at the level of the second floor, and remained for from between 40 days and twelve months, after which they were removed to the local parish church. The practice developed in the early seventeenth century from the custom of carrying an heraldic shield before the coffin of the deceased, then leaving it for display in the church. In medieval times, helmets and shields were sometimes deposited in churches and a few examples may still be seen in English parish churches”. See Re St Andrew, Thornhaugh [1975] Peterborough Const. Ct., T.R. Fitzwalter Butler Ch. on the Sale of the “Russell Helmet”; and Re St Lawrence Wootton [2013] Winchester Const. Ct, Christopher Harvey Clark Ch. on the sale of the armet.
[3] The College of Arms states: When the memorial is submitted the fees due upon a grant of arms become payable. Such fees are laid down by Earl Marshal’s Warrant. As of 1 January 2026 the fees payable upon a personal grant of arms and crest are £9,600, a similar grant to an impersonal but non-profit making body, £19,830, and to a commercial company, £29,560. When a grant of arms includes the grant of a badge or (to eligible grantees) supporters, or the exemplification of a standard, a further fee is payable. A special reduced fee of £11,380 has been introduced for parish, town and community councils, to cover the grant of arms alone, without crest.
[4] The importance in hatchments lies in the background as well as the Coat of Arms, for the colour of the former will determine whether the deceased was a widower or a widow. The background will vary from all black to black and white halves. The custom developed for impaled arms that when the spouse was still living the background behind their half of the shield would be rendered white, as distinct from the black background of deceased person.
Typical examples are shown here, including the Hatchment of: a Widower whose second wife survives him (four options); a Bishop; a Man who has married an Heraldic Heiress.