Memorials

A proposed memorial comprised an upright stone with a 'cover slab' supported on kerbs. The parish priest did not support the proposal, because (a) no similar type of memorial had been approved for very many years, (b) the memorial did not comply with the diocesan guidelines, and (c) the memorial would inhibit maintenance. The PCC objected on the grounds that (a) the memorial would create maintenance problems and (b) it might set a precedent that others might wish to follow. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty as requested, but said that he would approve the upright memorial element of the proposal.

The parents of a stillborn baby wished to erect on their baby's grave a heart-shaped blue pearl granite stone memorial measuring 27 inches by 21 inches by 3 inches. Stars were to be etched into the edge of the memorial and a heart etched underneath the proposed inscription. There were three other heart-shaped memorials in the churchyard, which had not been authorised by faculty in accordance with the churchyards regulations, but the Chancellor decided that this did not justify him granting a faculty for a further heart-shaped memorial.

The Huddersfield & District Army Veterans Association applied for permission to remove of the memorial cross of the Association’s founder, who died in 1907, from the churchyard  to the Association’s military plot at Edgerton Cemetery, Huddersfield. At some time in the past, the memorial had been moved from the founder's grave to the churchyard wall, to facilitate the laying of a path over the grave. The Deputy Chancellor refused to grant a faculty: 'I am not convinced either that the removal of the Monument is necessary to celebrate the memory of Major Welsh at the Huddersfield plot, or that the benefits in doing so would outweigh the harm in removing it from St Sebastian’s churchyard.'

The executor of a widow wished to carry out the late widow's wishes by erecting on her grave a memorial similar to that on the grave of the widow's husband in the adjacent grave. The husband's memorial stone was a polished dark grey granite stone with an asymmetrical pointed top, with a carving of a church window on it and with gold lettering. Notwithstanding that the diocesan churchyards regulations did not permit a parish priest to allow a polished stone with gold lettering, the Chancellor, in the special circumstances of this case, allowed a matching memorial.

The petitioner wished to erect a memorial to her late father. The design of the memorial had a number of features outside the churchyard regulations. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposed use of the words “Sunrise” and Sunset”, the proposed tablet at the foot of the grave or the inscription “See you on the other side.” Whilst the priest-in-charge and Parochial Church Council would not normally agree to a “non-standard” memorial, they were prepared to make an exception in the present case as there was a similar family memorial nearby, some three plots away. They also seem to have taken into consideration the fact that the grave is about 90 yards from the church, and at the edge of the churchyard. The Chancellor granted a faculty approving the memorial, apart from the proposed tablet at the foot of the grave.

The Petitioner applied for permission to erect a memorial to her son, who had been tragically run over and killed by a motor car. The memorial as installed bore features which were not mentioned in the memorial application - black stone; gold lettering; a photo plaque; the insignia of a football club; and the club colours (red and white) painted in alternate stripes along the edges of the memorial. The Chancellor directed that the edges of the memorial should be painted black, and the photo plaque should be removed or replaced with an incised, uncoloured portrait. In default of the amendments being made within three months, the Chancellor directed that the memorial should be removed from the churchyard.

The petitioner, the daughter and an executor of her late father, wished to erect a memorial to her father in the churchyard. The memorial had already been manufactured without prior approval and did not fully comply with diocesan churchyard regulations. Although the shape of the memorial was a technical departure from the regulations, the Chancellor regarded this as a minor issue that would not, by itself, have prevented permission being granted. The principal difficulty arose from an objection by the petitioner’s mother to the inscription, specifically the phrase “A dear husband,” which she contended did not reflect the deceased’s own manner of expression. The Chancellor emphasised that executors have no legal right to determine the design of a memorial in consecrated ground; any memorial requires ecclesiastical permission. The Chancellor therefore exercised her discretion, noting family disagreement, the absence of malice by the petitioner, the fact that the wording was not intrinsically objectionable, and that the stone had already been made, making replacement wasteful and costly. Balancing these factors, she granted the faculty and allowed the memorial to be installed.

A private individual applied for a faculty to authorise the cleaning of the war memorial in Tuxford churchyard and the re-colouring of the inscriptions. The Chancellor highlighted various difficulties presented by the matter: the status of the petitioner; the fact that originally the question as to ownership of the memorial had not been investigated; what should be the recommended method of cleaning; what should be the appropriate colouring of the lettering; and whether (as the memorial was listed Grade II) Listed Building Consent would be required. The Chancellor accepted that the petitioner had a sufficient interest to present the petition and that investigations after the lodging of the petition to establish ownership were unsuccessful. He granted a faculty authorising the cleaning of the memorial with plain water or steam cleaning and the re-colouring of the lettering only on a like-for-like basis. He also required that no work should be done until the local authority had confirmed in writing that Listed Building consent would not be required.