Judgments on Memorials

Judgements of the Consistory Court regarding petitions about churchyard memorials.

It is known that there are churchyards in this diocese where the Regulations are not adhered to.

Clergy should bear in mind the Chancellor's view that a cleric who fails to adhere to the diocesan Churchyard Regulations exposes him or herself to censure in the Consistory Court and may be ordered to pay the costs of faculty proceedings and/or of remedial action required in the churchyard. In addition, such neglect of duty may give rise to a complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003;
Monumental Masons should pay particular attention to the comments at paragraph 28 and 29 of the judgment in relation to the representations being made on the forms of applications under the regulations for memorials the representation by the Mason that a monument was within the regulations when it was expressly excluded was deprecated by the Chancellor, as was the practice of signing pp someone else; the Chancellor says that These are serious matters, which can have significant consequences. Monumental masons must ensure that applicants sign applications and appreciate the content of what they are signing.

All clergy should actively apply the Churchyard Regulations which are applicable in this diocese, and take care to ensure that the Churchyards for which they are responsible are cared for properly.

2024-06 June Norton Canes St James

Petition for the introduction of a memorial in the churchyard at Norton Canes, St James. The petitioner wished to include the face and wings of an angel within the design of the memorial. The petition was refused however as per paragraph 8 of the judgment the petitioner accordingly agreed to modify the design and a Faculty was issued.

2025-08 Rangemore All Saints

Petition for the introduction of a memorial at Rangemore All Saints to Dave Myers. The petitioner wished for a headstone and “full kerb”; the latter being a flat grave covering (albeit raised somewhat off the ground). The headstone would be wider than the regulations permit (1498.6mm compared to a maximum of 915mm) and in mid-grey and lavender blue polished granite (the use of polished granite also being outside the regulations). The flat monument would be in the same material, and is also outside the terms of the regulations.

2026-09 Croxden St Giles

Petition sought a memorial which was to include kerbs and chippings sought in respect of a young man tragically killed at the age of just 32. The petition was supported by the PCC but opposed by the DAC. There were some other examples of kerbed memorials in the Churchyard, but none were recent and only one at the back of the Church (the area of the grave in question). The judgment reviews the last decade of case law and examines the varying reasons given for prohibiting kerbs. In the end, despite the tragedy of the case, a faculty was refused in respect of the kerbs and chippings on the basis that the proposed memorial would jar with the open and rural setting of the Churchyard

2022-07 July: Newchapel St James the Apostle

The petitioners wished to erect a memorial of irregular shape, made of blue pearl granite (with gold lettering) and bearing the inscription of 'Dad'. The PCC had reservations about the introduction of the memorial both in style and the use of 'Dad' rather than 'Father'. The Deputy Chancellor found that the proposed memorial would not jar visually or in sentiment in this particular graveyard the faculty was granted.

2022-07 July: Pelsall St Michael and All Angels

The petitioner wished to install a memorial on her mother's grave. The memorial did not conform to the churchyards regulations, being in the shape of a large heart with two smaller hearts as flower containers. Also, the petitioner wished to have her mother's maiden name on the memorial, rather than her married name. Given the number of heart-shaped memorials close to the grave, the Deputy Chancellor decided to permit the large heart-shaped stone, and also the small heart-shaped flower holders, provided that they were fixed to the plinth. As to the inscription, although the deceased had not consistently used her maiden name after being divorced, she had expressed a wish for her maiden name to appear on her memorial. The Deputy Chancellor considered that there was no objection to the deceased's maiden name being used, as it was the name known by those whom the deceased knew well, but he recommended that, to avoid confusion, both the married name and maiden name should be entered in the Burial Register and on the churchyard plan.

Judgments on Memorials before 2022

Judgements made in 2021 and earlier