Authority for the Use of the Royal Arms in Churches

Abstract

In 1953 a number of parishes throughout England wished to commemorate the accession and coronation of Her Majesty the Queen by placing representations of the royal arms in their churches. As the introduction of such devices into churches may only be made with the authority of a faculty from the diocesan consistory court, a number of these petitions came to be considered judicially. Two judgments were reported. The consistory courts are bound by their own decisions, but not by decisions of those of a consistory court in another diocese. Decisions of other consistory courts are, however, persuasive, and these reported decisions have since been the principal authority relied upon for deciding such questions. The reports however disclose a conflict. Chancellors Garth Moore and Macmorran, in the Southwark and Chichester Consistory Courts respectively, were at odds with the Home Office over the legality of displaying the royal arms without the consent of the Crown. The Home Office believed that its leave was necessary for the erection of royal arms. The Chancellors believed that if the royal arms were used to symbolise the royal supremacy, no leave, otherwise than by faculty, was required. It is submitted that the matter was not as clear-cut as the learned Chancellors' then believed, due to the then state of knowledge of the Law of Arms. The decisions ought to be re-examined in light of new learning stimulated by the almost contemporaneous decision of the long dormant High Court of Chivalry, in the case of Manchester Corpn v Manchester Palace of Varieties Ltd. This case was heard on 21 December 1954 before the Earl Marshal and his Surrogate, Lord Goddard, then Lord Chief Justice of England. Both consistory court decisions were decided earlier, Re West Tarring Parish Church on 30 March, and Re St Paul, Battersea on 26 May, and both without the benefit of argument from the Home Office. In Re St Paul, Battersea, the Chancellor of the Southwark Consistory Court, the Worshipful E Garth Moore, considered an unopposed petition for the grant of a faculty for the introduction into the church of various forms of decorations, including a number of heraldic devices. He held, following Re West Tarring Parish Church, that the introduction of the royal arms, signifying the royal supremacy, was a matter within the jurisdiction of the consistory court, and that so long as the Crown claimed supremacy in the established church, it was unreasonable that the Crown should object to the badge of that supremacy being displayed. It is respectfully submitted that the learned Chancellor was incorrect on findings (1), (2) and (4), for the reasons which will be shown.