There is some difference of opinion as to whether leave should be given to relatives to add anything further [to the headstones]. It is clearly undesirable to allow free scope for the effusions of the mortuary mason, the sentimental versifier, or the crank; nor can space be given for a lengthy epitaph. On the other hand, it would give satisfaction in many individual instances to be allowed to add an appropriate text or prayer or words of dedication; and notably it is certain that in the case of members of the Roman Catholic communion there would be a strong desire to place a customary formula beneath the name. I am inclined, therefore, to recommend that leave should be given for a short inscription of not more than three lines to be added on application of the next-of-kin or other person or organization (such as a regiment or a religious community) whose claim is approved by the Commission, and at the cost of the applicant; but that the inscription must be in the nature of a text or prayer, and that the Commission shall have absolute power of rejection or acceptance." How the Cemeteries Abroad will be Designed Lieutenant Colonel Sir Frederick Kenyon, KCB, Director of the British Museum, HMSO 1918
On 27 November 1918, The Times commented in detail on Sir Frederick Kenyon's recently published advisory report to the Imperial War Graves Commission, 'How the Cemeteries Abroad will be Designed'. Now at last the general public could see what plans the Commission had in store for their war dead. Five days later, on 2 December, a Times leader gave a hint of what the general public were thinking: "We are receiving many letters from correspondents who are distressed at the decisions of the War Graves Commission; not unnaturally, for the proud affection of relatives would prefer to mark in some distinctive way the spot where their dead lie."
The Times expresses its sympathy with relatives' feelings but states that it believes the reasons for a uniform headstone are too strong to be resisted. However, this makes it all the more important that "any concession which can be made to the desires of relatives should be made freely." The writer is referring here to the concession over inscriptions: that they can only be three lines long, must be in the nature of a text or prayer and that the Commission are to have "absolute power of rejection or acceptance".
Kenyon justifies this censorship on the grounds that "it is clearly undesirable to allow free scope for the effusions of the mortuary mason, the sentimental verifier, or the crank". But, the writer asks, "is it wholly undesirable?" before stating in a surprisingly unpatrician manner, "The heart of the bereaved may be in an epitaph which may seem absurd to people in another class of life; nor, by the way, is it at all certain that later generations will confirm the judgement of contemporary culture".
The next day the paper carried the Commission's response, "It would appear that some misapprehension has arisen as to the limitations imposed on these personal inscriptions". The three-line restriction, it explained, was due to considerations of space, and the question of censorship would only arise when inscriptions were "plainly unsuitable" since the Commission had every intention of respecting personal feelings. Finally, when it said that inscriptions should be in the nature of a "text or prayer" the Commission didn't mean it had to be be chosen from the bible or prayer book, it was merely indicating the general character of the words.
Two months later, on 17 February 1919, The Times carried an article on the nature and progress of the Commission's work, written by Rudyard Kipling and published with the Commission's authority. The words covering the question of inscriptions have been considerably toned down, "the Commission feel that relatives should, if they wish, add a short inscription of their own choice as an expression of personal feeling and affection. These inscriptions will be at the relatives expense, and to avoid unduly crowding the stones with very small lettering, which, besides being difficult to read, does not weather well, it has been found necessary to restrict the length of the inscription to 65 letters".
When the final verification forms were printed for next-of-kin to confirm the particulars of the dead, the information they wanted inserted in the cemetery registers, and the personal inscription they had chosen for the headstone, the rubric stated, "Not to exceed 66 letters in length". And that's where it stayed, 66 letters, to include counting the space between words as one letter - 66 letters to express "the heart of the bereaved".