The petitioner sought to erect a memorial stone to her deceased husband, the patriarch of a group of traveller families who had a long association with the church. The stone fell outside the churchyard regulations in material, size and engraving. It included intertwined hearts, one of which was inscribed with her husband's details, the other to be inscribed with her own when she was herself buried, double-depth burials being impossible in the churchyard. The petitioner argued that the width of the stone, covering two graves, would not be excessive. The Diocesan Advisory Committee, parish and archdeacon had reservations about the width of the stone, although they accepted the other aspects which breached churchyard regulations. The chancellor had regard to the purpose of the churchyard regulations, being to ensure fairness, equality and consistency of treatment for all and to preserve a sense of peace and repose, making departures from the regulations exceptional. He also recognised the jurisdiction to allow exceptions for, among other things, artistic merit, the context of the particular churchyard, existing exceptions to the regulations within the churchyard, and compelling personal or other circumstances. Applying these principles the chancellor held that the design, stone and engraving were acceptable on the basis that there were similar examples reflecting traveller culture in that churchyard. However, the size of the memorial was excessive and would dominate the churchyard. The faculty was therefore issued on the basis of reduced dimensions. [Catherine Shelley]