Sheffield Consistory Court: McClean Ch, November 1998
The petitioners, the widow and other relatives of the deceased, sought a faculty for the erection of a memorial over his grave. The proposed memorial fell outside the chancellor's approved churchyard rules being heart shaped and of polished blue pearl granite. The PCC and the DAC were against granting permission and the chancellor noted that there were neither heart shaped headstones in the churchyard nor any of blue stone. In rejecting the petition the chancellor commented that whilst not wishing to impose absolute uniformity of headstones he felt it important not to encourage inappropriate memorials with some competition to be 'different'. Noting that other chancellors disapproved of the use of pet or nick names and of familiar terms such as Dad or Grandee (as had been proposed here) in epitaphs the chancellor did not share that restrictive approach, stating 'provided there is nothing scandalous or open to theological objection, I take the view that the bereaved should express their love and respect for the deceased in the language which comes naturally to them".
Note: Regarding pet names and churchyard rules generally, see Re Holy Trinity, Freckleton  1 WLR 1588, (1994) 3 Ecc LJ355per Bullimore Ch andRz Holy Trinity, Freckleton (No. 2) (1995) 3 Ecc LJ429per Spafford Dep Ch.
(1999) 5 Ecc LJ 302