One Problem with dating the church is that there is obvious renovation in the porch like windows covered with bricks and addition to simpler archways which shows that no original date can be found as most of the original porch is hidden behind new additions to the porch
Another problem with dating this part of the church is that Brakspeare wrote that he thinks that the outer north porch was built in 1290 which according to the first style sheet it seems correct however the second style sheet suggests 1290 is in the early English period.
There are also statues missing, this could be because of puritans. Puritans were extremist Christians who believed that the reformation of the Catholic Church to the Church of England. They believed that statues in churches was idolatry and they especially hated statues of Mary as she no longer had a place in the church of England’s worship. So they would rip down statues from churches. These statues however could have given us extra clues at when the church was built, but them being taken away only adds to the confusion of dates however the puritans being around in the 16th-17th century does mean that the porch must have been built by then. Not that we thought it might have been but it does at least tell us something.
The inner north porch, I infer, was built in the Early English style (1150-1250 or 1200-1300) this is because that the walls ceilings and archways remain mainly undecorated but are arched or curved unlike the Norman style(1066-1150 or 1066-1200) which is mainly straight and undecorated.
The same problem of statues being taken away is evident within the inner north porch but also the fact that the entrance is very decorated which would be built during the decorated period (1250-1350 or 1300-1400) it contains exquisite floral patterns and other awesome designs.
Brakspeare also adds to problems of dating the church by being very vague and dating the inner north porch as not a day later than 1190 which seems confusing as the entrance is dated by the style sheets as 200 years later.
There is also evidence of renovation in the porch as the ceiling has been repainted and there are missing statues because of the puritans which changes the style of the porch making the style sheets less reliable.
The south porch is a mixture of two different styles from two different periods; the decorated period (1250-1350 or 1300-1400) and the perpendicular period (1350-1550 or 1400-1500) which presents as the first problem as it may be two different designers who built the church as a myth goes which says that one designer died in the black death and another designer stepped in to finish or whether it was just built as the style changed so the designer changed ideas. Both these theories would work to why the bottom half is built is decorated style and the top perpendicular. Parts of the roof however to not match a style sheet at all so that part can not be dated.
Brakspeare dated the South Porch at 1320 which is in the decorated period but it is very obvious by studying the church that parts of it were built during each period meaning that 1320 may be correct but only for part of the porch as some of the decoration would not of been possible for the level of architecture needed to complete the top half of the south porch in the decorated period. Puritans stealing statues was a problem in the South Porch too along with renovation issues but the south porch definitely has been the most renovated of all parts of the church which we studied as the top half especially is very obviously painted gold and seems to have had a lot more added decoration on the ceiling.
The final part, the Tower, is split very obviously into three different sections built in three different periods the bottom being Early English (1150-1250 or 1200-1300) the middle section seems to be in the decorated style (1250-1350 or 1300-1400) and then the top section is in the perpendicular style (1350-1550 or 1400-1500). I can infer these things as the level of decoration and shape of archways gets more intricate as the tower changes. It starts with simple tall pointed window and then gets to more floral geometrically designed windows and then at the top are even more detailed with wider windows and a lot more separations within the window.
This obviously puts putting one date on the tower into complete jeopardy as there is a number of times this must have been renovated to go through these three styles. Also the puritans have taken our statues again (how dare they!) so that is more change to the tower which causes a lot of problems.
Also there seems to have been gargoyles placed on top of previous decorations and they may not necessarily fit with the design. According to books this could be because gargoyles were meant to warn away evil spirits so many people paid to have gargoyles added to their own buildings to keep them safe and that is what seems to have happened with the Tower and other parts of the church.
Brakspeare dates the tower within the year 1230 however as this falls within the Early English era it seems that the kind of architecture seen in the higher parts of the tower would not have been available or possible to do. This makes Brakspeare’s dates very hard to believe. It is possible 1230 is the starting date but it would have to be finished at least 100 years later.
Also the Bristol Merchants who owned Redcliffe Church built up the south porch to rival the Merchants who owned Bristol cathedral and this became a battle for a long time and involved massive renovation to many parts of Redcliffe Church.
So overall dating Redcliffe Church seems like almost an impossible task with Brakspeare’s writing proving very vague and he definitely got some dates wrong, also interpreting contradicting style sheets with each part of the church proved very hard and there were even social groups which made caused problems in dating the church with puritans taking statues away and Merchants adding more and more to the buildings. So the title is ‘What Problems do we face in deciding when the church was built?’ Well answering that in one word I would say ‘many’!
