THE Consistory Court of the diocese of Coventry has refused permission for the partner of a person buried in the churchyard of St Peter’s, Bourton on Dunsmore, to add her name to his headstone. The court was applying the Anglican teaching that graves should not be a focus for discord, and should not be disturbed unless there is a clear reason for doing so.

The petitioner, Basia Kurzweil, stated that she had been the life partner for 25 years of John Mark Parnaby, who died in 2018, and that she was the principal beneficiary of his estate. His headstone had been commissioned and paid for by his mother, Lillian Parnaby.

Mrs Kurzweil was upset that her connection with the deceased was not mentioned in the inscription on the headstone. She said that Lillian Parnaby had been reimbursed in full, out of her son’s estate, for the cost of the headstone, that therefore the memorial belonged to the estate of the deceased, and that, as the principal beneficiary, she was permitted to have words added to the headstone without the consent of other members of the family.

The inscription on the headstone stated his name, John Mark Parnaby, and the dates 21.09.1963-15.09.2018. Below that, it stated “Beloved Son, Brother and Dad. Cherished by Friends and Colleagues. Sadly Missed”. Mrs Kurzweil wanted the words “Loving life Partner + Soulmate to Basia”, and the words “Until we meet again, JCK” added. JCK is an abbreviation for “I love you” in Polish.

Lillian Parnaby had no objection to Mrs Kurzweil’s being buried in her son’s grave in due course, but objected to the inscription on the gravestone being amended at the present time. Mrs Parnaby said that the remaining space on the headstone should not be taken up with further messages until there had been another burial in the double-depth grave. She had no objection to the amending of the memorial to honour Mrs Kurzweil as and when she was interred in the grave.

The family’s objections to Mrs Kurzweil’s proposed amendments to the inscription were based partly on what had occurred when Mr Parnaby died. It was said that Mrs Kurzweil then returned to Yorkshire and did not attend the funeral, stating that she was too ill from grief. The family said that her relationship with Mr Parnaby had been part-time only, and that she lived elsewhere during the week.

They had also discovered that she was still married to someone else, and owned property jointly with her husband, some of which had been purchased after Mr Parnaby’s death. Mrs Kurzweil admitted that she was still married, but said that neither she nor Mr Parnaby had seen any reason why she should seek a divorce.

The Chancellor, the Worshipful Glyn Ross Samuel, said that he had had to ask himself whether the proposed new wording was intended to honour the memory of the departed, or whether it was instead more about Mrs Kurzweil’s own wishes and wants. It was of note that Mr Parnaby’s family — his mother, siblings, and children — were not named on the headstone. Therefore, “to identify Mrs Kurzweil by her forename would be to give her greater precedence than his closest family, which would not be appropriate,” the Chancellor said. It would be in rare circumstances only that it would be appropriate to include in the inscription on a memorial the name of someone who was not buried in the grave.

To allow the additional inscription in this case “would cause upset, distress, or even further grieving among the late Mr Parnaby’s relatives”, the Chancellor said, and that that was “not appropriate in a memorial in a churchyard”. Where one member of the family objected, and in the absence of any express legal authority, such as a prior reservation of a grave space, the presumption was that the grave should not be disturbed.

Since the proposed addition to the inscription was refused, there was no need to consider the issue of who the “owner” of the headstone was, and whether consent should be sought from that person to permit the proposed change to the headstone. The Chancellor, however, doubted Mrs Kurzweil’s interpretation.

The Chancellor said that he realised that Mrs Kurzweil would be upset, but to grant the permission sought “would equally be to cause distress to some of the late Mr Parnaby’s blood relations”.

Mrs Kurzweil was ordered to pay the court costs of £1444.