A MEMBER of the Traveller community has been given permission to put in a memorial in the shape of an open book in a churchyard in Southampton, despite objections that the design was “ostentatious”.
The Traveller, Sammy Cooper, sought a college for the memorial over the grave of his father within the churchyard of the Grade II listed church of St John the Evangelist, Rownhams. The design of the proposed memorial was not one which was permitted throughout the terms of the present churchyard regulations.
The Consistory Court of the diocese of Winchester granted the school. Both the PCC and the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC) objected, nevertheless.
The PCC was initially supportive of Mr Cooper’s proposals on the understanding that certain modifications were made. Mr Cooper accepted a few of these modifications, but not all. The PCC then objected to the proposals which Mr Cooper put before the Consistory Court. The DAC also beneficial refusal.
On 18 October, a hearing was held within the church before the diocesan Chancellor, the Worshipful Matthew Cain Ormondroyd. The Rector, the Revd Graeme Dixon, appeared for the PCC. Canon Jonathan Herbert, chaplain to the Travelling community within the diocese of Salisbury, was called as a court’s witness to help the Chancellor on any particular pastoral or theological issues that he should consider, given the status of Mr Cooper and his family as Travellers.
Mr Cooper confirmed that the entire memorial wouldn’t extend outside of the plot, that the open book wouldn’t be wider than the ledger stone and wouldn’t extend over the trail and out of doors of the plot, and that there can be no picture or photograph on the book. He explained that, on various points, his proposals represented a compromise on what he and his family would ideally have liked.
The Chancellor said that the “mere incontrovertible fact that the memorial is different to the norm didn’t make it harmful or objectionable”, and that an “objection based simply on the incontrovertible fact that it falls outside the churchyard regulations [could not] be sustained”.
The memorial had “clearly been designed with care to answer the needs of a grieving family”, and drew on “elements which can be common in churches and churchyards”. The design was, nevertheless, “undoubtedly more elaborate than most of the memorials present in the churchyard”, the Chancellor said, although he didn’t agree with the PCC’s use of the term “ostentatious”. Mr Cooper had “forcefully identified” that it was considerably less elaborate than certain other memorials within the churchyard, particularly certain memorials from the Victorian period.
The plot on which the memorial was proposed to be situated was near the church, an element which was necessary to the DAC. But the plot was to the rear of the church, and never visible to many public views.
The Chancellor found that the introduction of the memorial would cause a really limited degree of harm to the experience of some users of the churchyard, who would find it out of keeping, and a really limited degree of harm to the importance of the adjoining constructing.
In regard to “the actual pastoral issues” arising from the “cultural background of Mr Cooper and his family”, the Chancellor accepted the “helpful evidence” of Canon Herbert that, for Travellers, the grave bore a special cultural and spiritual significance. It was the one everlasting “home” in a historically nomadic culture; and it was the main target of grief in a culture of huge and tightly knit family groups. The memorial was particularly necessary as an indication of respect to the deceased, to guard the sacred space of the grave from incursions, and to discover the ultimate resting place in a culture where not everyone was literate.
The Chancellor observed that Mr Cooper’s proposals might be seen to reply on to those considerations, and in addition to compromise on what the family would naturally have wanted, for instance by not including an image of the deceased.
Canon Herbert had also observed that Gypsies and Travellers had faced centuries of persecution and discrimination, which, in some instances, had originated within the Church. But, on the whole, Canon Herbert said, Travellers retained more trust within the Church than in other institutions.
In that context, the Chancellor said, “It was incumbent upon the Church, whether it is to take part in God’s mission to all of his creation to create space for Travelling communities.” That “should include making appropriate allowances for the actual cultural traditions of those communities in relation to memorials, whilst also making an allowance for the needs of the settled community”.
The Chancellor was persuaded that there was clear justification for the grant of a college which outweighed the very limited harm that Mr Cooper’s proposals would cause.
