Re St. Mary the Virgin, Aldworth [2026] ECC Oxf 10

The celebrated singer and song-writer Ms Marianne Faithfull died in London on 30 January 2025 at the age of 78, and is buried at St Mary’s Church, Aldworth, Berkshire. By an application dated 20 March 2026, Ms Faithfull’s adult son, Mr Nicholas Dunbar, sought a faculty for a memorial to commemorate his late mother which falls outside the Churchyard Regulations for the Diocese of Oxford (2016). Nevertheless, Hodge Ch. noted:

“[1]…The design of the proposed headstone is attractive and well thought through. It will perform the three-fold function of honouring the late Marianne Faithfull, comforting those she has left behind, and informing posterity about her spirituality and creativity, giving vivid expression to her role as a celebrated performance artist. This proposed memorial will serve as a lasting adornment to this churchyard. Its approval reflects this diocese’s willingness to welcome well-conceived and attractive commemorative memorials in its churchyards”.

Details of the headstone are outlined at [2] and images are included at the end of the judgment. The applicant’s special reasons for wanting this particular memorial are as follows:

“My mother was a world-renowned recording artist and songwriter with strong connections to Aldworth. We wish to convey this on the back of the gravestone, with an extract from one of her final songs with her carved signature beneath it. The lyric expresses her spirituality as she returned to the Christian faith in her final years, with the signature expressing her creativity.”

The proposed headstone fell outwith the diocesan Churchyard Regulations because it included Ms Faithfull’s signature in cursive script on the reverse, together with a short extract from one of her final songs. Having viewed samples of the proposed material, and with the design height at three foot six inches, the PCC “[was] content to ascribe support for this memorial”. Furthermore, the vicar commented[3]:

“The PCC have been delighted how much cooperation we have received from the applicant in addressing any queries and concerns, even to the point of arranging samples of material. It has been very much appreciated. The PCC feels that the uniqueness of the application reflects the significance of the person it memorialises (Marianne Faithfull) and has been carefully designed to be in keeping with the church surroundings”.

By its Notification of Advice dated 30 April 2026, the Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the proposal for approval by the court without any comments or provisos. With regard to the Diocesan Churchyard Regulations, the Chancellor commented that the applicant’s proposed memorial falls outside their ambit since Regulation 43 provides that: “Cursive script (that is, a script which gives the appearance of having been written in a running hand) is not permitted“.

However, interestingly, no similar provision appears within the model form of churchyard regulations recently proposed in a report by a Working Party of the Ecclesiastical Judges’ Association; this has been looking at the churchyard regulations that apply in different dioceses  with a view to seeking to introduce a greater measure of uniformity across the Northern and Southern Provinces of York and Canterbury. He suggested:

“this suggests either that there is nothing inherently objectionable in the adoption of a cursive script, or that this issue was not considered by the Working Party”.

The court reviewed the law governing memorials that do not comply with churchyard regulations, noting that the correct approach is a merits-based assessment rather than requiring exceptional circumstances. Non-compliance with regulations is a relevant factor but is not, by itself, a reason to refuse a faculty. Also, the model regulations prohibit lettering otherwise than on the principal face of the inscription plate, although for those in the Diocese of Oxford, there is nothing that prohibits lettering on the reverse of a memorial.

With regard to the Legal Test:

[7]. Until June 2021, ecclesiastical case law had disclosed two competing approaches to applications for a faculty where there was non-compliance with the relevant Churchyard Regulations: one required ‘exceptional’, ‘powerful’ or ‘substantial’ reasons for departing from the Regulations; the other simply asked whether the proposed memorial was ‘suitable’. In Re St Giles, Exhall [2021] EACC 1 … the Arches Court of Canterbury […] considered these different approaches and how churchyard regulations should be used in decision-making. At paragraph 11.8, the Arches Court considered the right approach to be a ‘merits-based’ one:

“Clearly, any Regulations in place for the parish or diocese concerned will be part of a matrix of relevant considerations, but we do not think that consideration of a faculty petition should start with a presumption against allowing a memorial outside the parameters of the Regulations …”

The Arches Court cited with approval the approach articulated in a number of first-instance judgments[*], summarized in [8] to [10]. On the use of cursive script for the name of Marianne Faithfull on the reverse face of the proposed headstone, the Chancellor had no doubt that this was desirable. It would appear immediately below a short extract from what […] was one of Ms Faithfull’s final songs; Regulation 38 permits an inscription provided “it is simple, reverent and not contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England”. Subject to that overarching limitation, by Regulation 39, an inscription may include quotations “from literary sources”, which this clearly was.

Noting the minister minister recorded that the PCC “feels that the uniqueness of the application reflects the significance of the person it memorialises (Marianne Faithfull) and has been carefully designed to be in keeping with the church surroundings”, he concluded “[i]n such circumstances, it is my judgment that the court should unhesitatingly defer to the reasoned views of the PCC”`.

A faculty was granted, subject to conditions[12].

[*] Re St. Mary Great Chart [2022] ECC Can 2; Re Christ Church, Harwood [2002] 1 WLR 2055; Re St Giles, Exhall [2021] EACC 1, [2021] PTSR 1622.