Church refuses exhumation from Astwood Cemetery, Worcester

For that to happen it would be necessary for the cremated remains of one of the family members to be exhumed from Astwood Cemetery in Worcester. 

But the Church of England refused consent for it to happen.

The Church of England philosophy is a last resting place should be just that and unless there are special circumstances or there has been a mistake consent will not be given for exhumation from consecrated ground.

A judge of the Church’s Consistory Court has ruled that there has not been a mistake and that there are no special circumstances.

CEMETERY: Astwood Cemetery (Image: Newsquest)

Consent was sought by Gillian Rose Ramsey for the remains of her father Gerald Dainty, who died in 2013, to be exhumed so they can be re-buried in unconsecrated ground on a farm owned by Mrs Ramsey at Bigsweir in Gloucestershire.

Jacqueline Humphreys, Chancellor of the Diocese of Worcester in her role as a judge of the Consistory Court, said she sympathised with the family but that in view of the church law on exhumation she could not grant the request.

The court had been told that Mr Dainty’s widow has since died and it was hoped that the remains of Mr Dainty could be exhumed to be re-buried with those of his wife on the farm.

Mr and Mrs Dainty’s son, Malcolm Dainty, and daughter, Mrs Ramsey, would also eventually be buried in the same grave.

The judge said she had been shown photographs and Google screenshots of the site which is close to the River Wye.

She said she had also been told that the late Mrs Dainty had come to dislike the location of her husband’s grave and had “expressed a disinclination to be buried there.”

READ MORE: Terrifying moment drunk woman going wrong direction on M5 causes head on crash

READ MORE: Woman taken to hospital after paramedics called to city centre

READ MORE: BBC Hereford and Worcester disrupted by strike action

But the judge continued: “This ground is not strong enough to overcome the difficulty with the proposed unconsecrated location for an intended family grave.”

She said there was nothing to stop Mrs Ramsey burying or scattering her mother’s ashes on the farmland but the matter was different once someone’s remains had been buried in consecrated ground where “the presumption of permanence applies as was the case with Mr Dainty’s ashes.”

“I have every sympathy with the petitioner and her brother who would prefer to lay their parents to rest together and who now have to determine where to lay their mother’s ashes to rest in view of this decision,” said the judge.

“Nevertheless, in view of the law on exhumations I cannot grant Mrs Ramsey’s request."