Worcester Consistory Court: Mynors Ch, December 1998
The petitioner sought a faculty for the replacement of a headstone over the grave of his late son. The original headstone had been erected by his former wife (the mother of his son) and her new husband, and stated that the deceased was their son. When aged 10, the deceased had been formally adopted by his paternal grandfather and his new wife but on joining the army aged 16. the deceased was told he was no longer welcome in their home. Thereafter, until his death aged 24, the deceased's de facto home was with his mother and her new husband, contact with his father being very limited. The proposed epitaph would have substituted the name of the mother's new husband with that of the petitioner. The mother of the deceased and her husband, who at common law and under section 3(4) of the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964 were joint owners of the headstone, objected to the granting of a faculty. Although at common law the chancellor had no jurisdiction to allow the alteration of the headstone, he was empowered so to do by section 3 of the Measure. The primary purpose of the statutory power was to enable the reordering of a churchyard for the general good of a parish and it would be inappropriate for it to be exercised at the request of a private individual unless the circumstances were exceptional. The fact that the words on the existing headstone were altogether inaccurate or at best highly misleading constituted exceptional circumstances. Accordingly a faculty was granted for the erection of a new headstone which omitted all reference to the parents of the deceased, speaking merely of'a precious son". Note: Both the chancellor and his predecessor were of the opinion that the archdeacon should be invited to become a party to these proceedings and if possible be represented by counsel who could act as amicus curiae in relation to the point of law: The bishop declined to give his approval for the archdeacon's costs to be borne by the DBF under section 16(4) of the CCEJM1991 feeling that the expenditure could not be justified.
(1999) 5 Ecc LJ 302-303
