The only other things that I have observed about the inscribed stone is...
1. The photographer's head must have been a bit below the level of the stone (you can't see the top surface of the capping stones). So the stone itself must have been set on that wall above, say five feet high.
2. Because we cannot see the bottom of the wall, we don't know quite how high the wall was. In the photo there are 11 courses of brick showing below the stone so if you allow about 2.5 inches per course it works out around 30 inches (750mm). There could have been as much wall again, off picture below.
3. The stone is now set fairly low in the Church Hall wall so it seems likely that it was 'rescued' from its 1940s setting.
4. I have a feeling that the inscribed stone was used in some other context/place during the period before the Manor House was replaced/rebuilt in 1790 and so, part of the first house built on the site in the mid 1600s...but just guessing.
5. Having looked closely at the whole complex, I was surprised to see that the nave of St. John's is not aligned with the west wall of the Manor, as you would expect. Only the east facing gable of the transept does this.
The more this discussion goes on the more I feel that Mac, you and I will appear to be a trio of anoraks to the rest of the readership here! However, being an anorak in this weather is all part of the clever thing
« Back to index | View thread »