A GREEN headstone with a bird, moon, lyrics, and cursive script commemorating the celebrated singer and songwriter Marianne Faithfull has been permitted by the diocesan Chancellor of Oxford, even though some features did not comply with current churchyard regulations.

Her remains were laid to rest in the churchyard of the Grade I listed church of St Mary the Virgin, Aldworth, on 20 February 2025. In March 2026, her son, Nicholas Dunbar, sought a faculty for the introduction into the churchyard of a green slate, honed but unpolished, monolith memorial headstone.

The front face of the headstone would have a bird in flight above her name, in capitals, and 1946-2025, with the words “She walks in Beauty”. On the reverse face, there would be a small image of a sunken gilded moon above the inscription, “As below, then so above/the only thing that stays/the same is love”: lyrics from one of her final songs. Below those, there would be her signature, “Marianne Faithfull”, in cursive script.

Her son said that the lyrics expressed his mother’s “spirituality as she returned to the Christian faith in her final years, with the signature expressing her creativity”.

The petition was unopposed and the incumbent, the PCC, and the diocesan advisory committee (DAC) indicated their support for the memorial. It was considered by the Consistory Court of the Oxford diocese and a faculty was granted.

The Diocesan Chancellor, the Worshipful Judge David Hodge KC, explained in his judgment that Regulation 43 of the Oxford Churchyard Regulations stated: “Cursive script (that is a script which gives the appearance of having been written in a running hand) is not permitted.” The Chancellor assumed that “the reason for this regulation is to ensure that memorial inscriptions can be read without any difficulty.”

The model regulations of a working party of the Ecclesiastical Judges’ Association, which had been looking at churchyard regulations in different dioceses of the Church of England, prohibited lettering other than on the principal face of the inscription plate. In Oxford diocese, however, the Chancellor said: “There is nothing that prohibits lettering on the reverse of a memorial.”

The Court of Arches had indicated that consistory courts should approach the suitability of a memorial on its own merits, the only constraint being the inability of the court to permit something that was contrary to, or indicative of, any departure from the doctrines of the Church of England in any essential matter.

Mere non-compliance with the regulation itself could never be the only basis on which to refuse a faculty. It was necessary to consider whether the particular memorial was inherently desirable or, at any rate, not undesirable, whether or not it complied with the standards of the regulations.

The Chancellor had, he said, no doubt that it was desirable. This particular cursive script could easily be read and was the intended reproduction of the signature of Marianne Faithfull. The regulations permitted an inscription, provided that “it is simple, reverent, and not contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England,” and might include quotations “from literary sources”.

He asked: “What could be more expressive of the creativity of any singer-songwriter than a short extract from one of their songs . . . more expressive of their personality than an image of their signature, reflecting the many occasions during her long musical career, when [she] must have given joy to her many fans by signing her autograph for them?”

He continued: “The design of the proposed headstone is attractive and well thought through.” It would “perform the three-fold function of honouring the late Marianne Faithfull, comforting those she [had] left behind, and informing posterity about her spirituality and creativity, giving vivid expression to her role as a celebrated performance artist”.

The Chancellor concluded that “in matters concerning the appearance of a churchyard, the Consistory Court should accord great weight to the reasoned views of the incumbent minister and the PCC.” In this case, they felt that “the uniqueness of the application reflects the significance of the person [memorialised] . . . and has been carefully designed to be in keeping with the church surroundings.”

In these circumstances, the court should unhesitatingly defer to the reasoned views of the PCC, the Chancellor decided. The memorial would serve as a “lasting adornment to this churchyard”.

The location of the memorial within the grave space was to be agreed with the incumbent minister in writing.