-looking (and badly weathered) corbel tower along its top stage complete with a distinctly Norman-looking two-headed monster! This form of decoration is not typical of Early English architecture at all.

Putting all this together, it seems to me that the existing church was probably built in the Transitional period. This would explain the untypically plain Norman south doors and the slightly anachronistic corbel table around what appears to be a wholly Early English period tower. None of the literature says this, so I may be wrong of course but its the only rational explanation I can come up with.

It’s an oddity, Harpole. There is no Church Guide to be had, yet inside there is a copy of a huge academic work about the church that would take a long time to read and sadly for me, but happily for the couple, a wedding was about to take place so we I had no time to read it! This is a modest church, unused to visitors it seems, and yet that font is well worth a detour to visit. It may not stand comparison with the likes of Eardisley and Chaddesley Corbett, but beyond them I can’t think of too many others that are better.

I can’t claim that I “discovered” Harpole: I read about its font in a book first published in 1908. Not only, however, is it not covered by Simon Jenkins but it doesn’t make it into the new edition of “Betjeman’s Best British Churches” which describes (rather superficially) 2500 churches. Well maybe they’re right because if Norman fonts don’t interest you then there it’s hardly an outstanding church. But if you are close to this pretty little church and you don’t make a detour you should give yourself a good kicking!