Georgeham (St Georges)

Fig 92 © Author NW

Fig 93 © Ordnance Survey 1:50 000 2005

50

Brief history and floor plan of Georgeham parish church: In Domesday, Georgeham is known simply as ‘Hame’ old English for hemmed in land. We know that prior to 1066 the manor was held by Edmer, passing into the ownership of Theobald son of Berner after the conquest. On maps of the seventeenth century, the village is still marked as Ham suggesting the original name continued in use until the late eighteenth century, when George Ham begins to appear on maps of Devon. It is possible that this change in name stems from the beginning of regular postal services, and the requirement to distinguish between the numerous ‘Hams’ in Devon The first mention of a church occurs in 1231. The rector and patron is listed as Robert de Edington. It is likely he built a stone church, of which nothing remains except a piscina in the south chapel. There is also some archaeological evidence to suggest that the first stone church of Georgeham shared the site of the current church.

14th C 15th C 18th C 19th C

During the Victorian restoration of 1876-7, foundations were discovered running parallel to the outer wall of the vestry, and the north wall of the nave. It was assumed at the time they were the remains of a north aisle, long demolished. This study considers this conclusion unlikely. There are no topographical reminders

E

in the present structure to suggest the building extended further north at any stage. Professional investigation of these features may be

Fig 94 © Author 2010

useful, should the opportunity arise. The present church is the product of several stages of construction. The earliest is the tower, W

which is fourteenth century, followed by the nave and south aisle, which are fifteenth century in date. The chancel and vestry are the results of a comprehensive nineteenth century restoration, which uniquely in the ‘AONB’ parish churches, altered the interior and exterior of this building greatly.

51

The exterior: The entire structure containing the chancel is a product of an extensive Victorian restoration. It was constructed during 1876/7, although we have to suggest Fig 95 © Author NW

that it is entirely sympathetic in appearance to older areas of the building. Only subtle differences betray its much later date, examples being the lack of a load bearing arch above the window dripstone, and the uniformity of the stonework. The east wall of the south aisle, which is fifteenth century in date, demonstrates where an east window has been removed. The aperture was blocked probably during the eighteenth century facilitating the installation of a large monument located in the internal recess. This image

Fig 96 © Author W

demonstrates the load bearing arch which is a common feature of fifteenth century church window construction. It appears that much of the masonry was replaced or rebuilt by the Victorians, suggesting this building was in extremely poor condition prior to the nineteenth century restoration. The geometric windows of the south aisle are of the

Evidence that the original church roof

1876/7 restoration including the glass. It is likely

was of a far steeper pitch than the

that much of the wall was rebuilt, and buttresses

Victorian replacement, can be seen

added at this date.

where it would have met the tower.

The south porch has a

reasonable to suggest that the porch is also of this date, or slightly earlier. 52

Fig 97 © Author NW

sundial dated 1773. It is

The exterior: The tower is the oldest remaining feature of the church. It is similar to those of Berrynarbor and Combe Martin. Three stage, and embattled, it was probably completed in one phase. The north aspect

at approximately ninety feet tall. The west doorway appears contemporary with the fourteenth century date of this tower. The moulded frame contains fleuron motifs with male and female figures in dress of that period. The west (tower) window may be slightly later. Its perpendicular style suggests fifteenth century. The nave appears to have received considerable attention from the Victorian restorers. It is likely that all the windows date from the nineteenth century, as does the stonework which surrounds them. The 1877 vestry is also visible. The typically Victorian chimney is an obvious feature which would have serviced a boiler feeding the new nineteenth century under floor heating system. Exactly Fig 99 © Author SE

how effective this may have been in such a large space is unknown. However it was no doubt better than nothing, which is exactly what the parishioners had prior to the restoration. It is in a line from the edge of the vestry wall that foundations were discovered during its 1877 construction. If these are as was suspected at the time, the remains of a north aisle, this image demonstrates clearly how narrow it would have been. Assuming the foundations carry on for the entire length of the nave, they may represent the remains of an earlier stone building which almost certainly existed in the vicinity of the current church. Professional investigation might be useful in this matter. 53

Fig 98 © Author N

has a pronounced turreted staircase. The whole structure standing

The restoration: The restoration of 1876/7 was carried out by the architect James Fowler. He is well known for the numerous church restorations that he carried out throughout Lincolnshire. It is possible that Georgeham is the only example of his work in the South West. Opinions of his alterations appear to fall into two distinct camps. Some consider him to be a vandal, a man who turned historic medieval buildings into nothing more than a caricature of a plain Victorian villa. Others view his work as sympathetic to the building he was charged with restoring. A well known example is Sixhills church in Lincolnshire which he rebuilt from virtually a ruin, into a faithful representation of the original church in the old English style. This report would have to suggest that the work Fowler performed on Georgeham would also fall into the latter camp, being largely faithful to the earlier building, both internally and externally. Those who criticise the Victorian restorers should remember that they were usually working for a benefactor. In the case of Georgeham, this was the Hole family of Pickwell Manor. It may have been that the benefactor had more influence over the appearance of the finished structure than the architect. Georgeham provides the evidence to suggest, that by the nineteenth century many medieval parish churches must have been in desperate need of extensive restoration. Georgeham appears to have required two years of work, including considerable rebuilding of the external fabric. This included a new chancel, a new roof, several new windows, heating was installed, new walls, new floors, new pews and the vestry was added. Rather than criticise any of the work carried out, this study is inclined to take the view that if not for the generosity of the Hole family, and the diligent work of men such as James Fowler, Georgeham may be a ruin today at worst, or a standing building requiring the expenditure of many millions. This would be necessary not only to ensure the long term survivability of the structure, but also to ensure the building remains a place in which people want to spend time. This is a constant process, in the nineteenth century heating was installed in many churches, the process of improvement continued throughout the twentieth century. The installation of electricity being an example. The process needs to continue if churches such as Georgeham are to remain in use, and there for us all to enjoy. 54

The interior: The nave is backed by a typically tall tower arch. The tower area itself is separated from the main

which could be nineteenth century in date. All the benches in this church are products of the nineteenth century restoration and plain in ap-

Fig 100 © Author

body of the church by a plain hardwood screen,

pearance. The interior image provides further evidence that the north wall of the nave has been rebuilt. It is possible that the only remaining area of this wall, dating

for this theory is contained within the window apertures, which show the wall to be unusually thin, possibly inferring a modern

Fig 101 © Author

to the fifteenth century, are the immediate footings. The evidence

date. It is from the interior that we can suggest the entire church roof has been replaced during the 1876/7 restoration. The structural timbers are accurately and uniformly cut, suggesting they were produced in a mechanised sawmill. The roof is also straight and true. There is no distortion in the roof so common among the wagon roofs detailed in this report, which is usually caused by the extra weight placed upon them with the introduction of more modern roofing materials. The only possible reminder of a wagon roof which may have once existed at Georgeham, is the horizontal beading with occasional bosses, which may have been saved from a fifteenth century roof. This mid nineteenth century image depicts the church as the restoration

roof, and box pews which were installed in 1767. There is an obvious eighteenth century classical ‘Romanesque’ feel to the interior. Examples are the pulpit cover and ornate plaster moulding above the monument in the Pickwell chapel, all being in fashion during this period. It is noticeable that the Victorian restoration removed most of the more ornate and interesting features in this image. It is known that the box pews were considered to be unfashionable by the Victorians, and therefore were an obvious target. The same can also be said for the pulpit cover. Other changes such as the new roof and new walls, must have been forced by structural weakness. 55

Fig 102 © Genuki UK

of 1762 left it. It displays an unusually high fifteenth century wagon

The interior & Pickwell chapel: The fifteenth century five bay arcade separating the nave and the south aisle, is one of the only interior areas to remain largely untouched since

low the arch. The capitals are surprisingly small, except those of the fifth bay, which are nineteenth century and larger. The piers and arches appear

Fig 103 © Author

its construction. The piers are set diamond wise, with fleuron motifs be-

to be constructed from the pale, easily worked, durable Bath stone, so common in the churches of the ‘AONB’. The Pickwell chapel takes its name from the manor of Pickwell in the parish. It is separated from the south aisle by a fine screen, probably installed during the restoration of 1762. It is typical of the Romanesque period with Corinthian pillars, ionic pilasters and a broken

was moved to its current and original position, having been moved elsewhere during the 1876/7 restoration. The arms of Fursdon were

Fig 104 © Author

segmental pediment. It is in extremely good condition. During 1912 it

mounted upon it at this time. There is a piscina located in the south wall of the chapel, which may be contemporary with a thirteenth century church on this site. Another relic of this early building may be a rectangular plain font bowl, which is placed upon the chancel floor beside the altar. It was apparently discovered outside the present church and although likely, it cannot be confirmed beyond all doubt, this is of Georgeham’s early English church.

legged knight in armour, which is thought to be Sir Mauger St Aubyn (d. 1264). Little is known about him, other than he was involved in the Crusades. His effigy has certainly been moved to the location it currently occupies. It is thought that his wifes effigy once rested next to his, although quite what happened to it is unknown. There is a large eighteenth century monument dedicated to various members of the Richards family, in the recess created by blocking the east window. The Newcourt family are also represented in the chapel. There is no monument in this area of the church dedicated to the Hole family, who financed the nineteenth century restoration. It was more desirable to have a monument as near to the altar as possible, rather than in a private chapel, during the latter nineteenth century. 56

Fig 105 © Author

In a recess under the south window of the chapel lies an effigy of a cross

The chancel:

15th century

19th century

It is argued in some local historical pamphlets that the chancel

1876/7. This report will argue that the entire structure is a nineteenth century rebuild, possibly on the foundations of the original fifteenth century structure.

Fig 106 © Author

is actually fifteenth century, although heavily restored during

There is ample architectural evidence to support this theory. There is a chancel arch, which as we have seen is unusual in the larger parish churches of the ‘AONB’. This is decorative, but also necessary to support the east wall of the nave. We can also see that the most easterly fifteenth century arcade pier and arch, is twinned with an obviously newer example (Fig 106). This sug-

rather than directly onto, the older structure. It does have to be stated however, that all the new stonework is extremely sympathetic to the older structure. If it wasn’t for the lack of wear and tear, and slight variances in the carving of the capitols, it would be a challenge to tell the difference. The fifteenth century trefoil headed piscina of the old chancel, has been incorporated into the nineteenth century structure, now residing in the south wall next to the altar. It has been suggested that the quatrefoil window in the north wall directly above the altar, is a further remnant of the fifteenth century building. There is reason to doubt this theory. Although the design could be of that period, the actual stonework appears similar to other nineteenth century windows in the church. This is open to debate. The reredos and altar are undoubtedly nineteenth century, as is the decorated arch which appears to have been purpose built to contain the organ, such is the fit. This chancel is a credit to the Hole family and James Fowler, who constructed a new building incorporating fashionable gothic revival features such as the chancel arch, whilst staying true to the fifteenth century areas of the church. Fowler certainly cannot be branded a vandal when judged upon his work at Georgeham. 57

Fig 107 © Author

gests that the new chancel has been built beside,

The interior: The font and pulpit could date from the eighteenth century restoration. The font is

The pulpit is slightly more interesting in its detail, with three faces depicting biblical scenes contained within classical enclosures. The grey marble ornate piers are

Fig 108 © Author

a plain example, with gothic inlayed hexagonal inlays within rectangular faces.

typical of the Romanesque period, it is of excellent quality. It was probably during the installation of the pulpit, that an ogee headed door-

to the former rood loft stairway, confirming, at some stage, this church almost certainly had a chancel screen and rood loft above it. From this evidence we are able to suggest that the original layout was similar to Berrynarbor and Combe Martin, displaying a roof of continuous height through the nave into the chancel, with no chancel arch as exists today. In the cavity, a panel was discovered believed to date from the thirteenth century, depicting Christ on the cross flanked by four weeping figures. Two of the figures have been beheaded, probably by the puritans. This has been restored, and still remains in the ownership of Georgeham parish church. It is extremely rare.

58

Fig 109 © Author

way was discovered behind it. Behind the doorway a cavity was found leading