Jump to content

User:Waysider1925/Draft PR2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heading 1

[edit]
title here

Church from SE is thumb/140px. There was an earlier small church, probably just a small chancel and a nave without aisles, which would have been in roughly the same position as the present nave.[1]

Interior is thumb/140 px.

title here

Bold heading

The church was enlarged by the addition of the nave arcades and aisles in the early or mid 13th century[2] The arches at the western end of each arcade were added in the late 13th or early 14th century, those on the south being later. The columns are octagonal with plain chamfered bases and moulded capitals. There were ......The east window is modern.[3]


In the south aisle the window at the east end is of about 1300.[4]

title here
title here

The easternmost window in the south wall is "a fine triplet of lancets".................250px not thumb

thumb/title here

Piscina 100px/thumb.

At the end of the south wall of the south aisle, next to the altar, are a piscina (a shelf on which the sacred vessels were washed after mass) and a sedile (a stone seat for the priest)..........

title here
title here

Interior north 100px not thumb.

In the north aisle are four modern windows from the 19th century rebuilding of this wall, using some old materials.[5] The fourteenth century door on the north side was formerly blocked but now serves as the entrance to the new parish rooms which were built at the start of the 21st century on the north side of the church.

Church from E 150px/thumb.

thumb/title here

Heading 2

[edit]

The church originally had a tower covered with galvanised iron.[6] In 1907/08 a new tower and spire were built from the foundations, designed by John Oldrid Scott.


title here

Heading 3

[edit]

St Teresa 350px thumb.

The nave arcades have octagonal piers and are of 14th century date, the south aisle being earlier than the north. The transept may be earlier. However the windows are all in the perpendicular style of the 15th century, except those in the south aisle, where the eastern window is modern but the windows in the south wall are 14th century. In the 15th century the roof was raised and the clerestorey built. The old roof line can still be seen on the west wall of the nave. The present roof of the nave and south porch are 15th century, when the chancel was also rebuilt. The chancel roof is modern. The font is Norman, of the 'Aylesbury' late 12th century type, and presumably came from the earlier church. There is a 15th-century chancel screen, though without its original tracery, with crudely re-painted figures below. At the left side of the chancel arch is the opening for the door which led to the rood loft. There are three memorial brasses in the church, two of the 15th century and the other undated. A random collection of 14th and 15th century stained glass has been put together in a window in the south aisle, including a small 14th century Madonna and child.[7]

Gallery

Heading 3

[edit]
title here

Cross thumb no size.

Whiteleaf Hill, has a large cross with a triangular base cut into the chalk on the side of the hill, making an important landmark for miles around, known as Whiteleaf Cross. The date and origin of this cross are unknown. It was mentioned as an antiquity by Francis Wise in 1742, but no earlier reference has been found. The cross is not mentioned in any description of the area before 1700.

References

[edit]

Domesday Book (text & translation edited by John Morris) Vol 13 Buckinghamshire (Phillimore, Chichester 1978)


Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ RCHM 269. VHCB 265.
  2. ^ According to VHCB p.265 the arcades date from about 1220 and this was confirmed by RCHM, but Pevsner & Williamson (p.602) considered that the detail is too thin for that date and would put them later
  3. ^ RCHM p.269
  4. ^ RCHM p.270
  5. ^ VHCB p.265 RCHM p.270
  6. ^ James Joseph Shearman: History & Topography of Bucks (London. 1862) pp.192-3
  7. ^ Pevsner & Williamson pp.570-1; RCHMB pp.257-63; VHCB pp.258ff. The latter two works both have a plan of the church. They took a different view to Pevsner & Williamson on the dating of some parts of the church.