The Diocesan Churchyard Regulations provide that:
Where there is ambiguity as to whether a proposal comes within the incumbent's delegated authority, or where the incumbent is favourably disposed to the introduction of a headstone which may be just outside its scope, an application may be made by the incumbent to the Chancellor for the delegated authority to be extended so as to permit the proposal. Such applications will be considered on their merits on a case by case basis.
Following an enquiry, the incumbent applied under this provision for delegated authority to permit a memorial including Chinese characters, and the court took the opportunity to issue the following general guidance:
i. There is no general prohibition on the inclusion in inscriptions on headstones of words or phrases in a language other than English;
ii. There is no general requirement for an English translation to be additionally inscribed on headstones (whether in a smaller font or otherwise) whenever non-English words or phrases are permitted;
iii. To the contrary, in a linguistically diverse nation, liberty should be afforded to the bereaved to memorialise their loved ones in a language which reflects a range of features including their heritage, culture, nationality, race and ethnicity;
iv. However, clergy should be astute to refuse the inclusion of words or phrases which have the potential to offend Christian doctrine or teaching.
To the extent that Re St Giles, Exhall [2020] ECC Cov 1, (2021) 23 Ecc LJ 118 sought to declare propositions of general application, the court would prefer not to adopt them. It was unsurprising that, with the civic functions of the Church resulting in a mixed economy of burials, there were likely to be legitimate demands for an inclusive approach to what is written on headstones, and in what language. The court inclined to the view that the Church of England should lean towards generosity and expansiveness, provided that proposed inscriptions were not contrary to Christian teaching and doctrine.
The court indicated that because the judgment of the Court of Arches in Re St Giles, Exhall would also be binding in the Northern Province, in consequence of the new statutory deeming provision in section 14A of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018, it would revisit this guidance when that judgment had been delivered. [Frank Cranmer and David Pocklington]
