12thc arch of unknown provenance reset as a garden feature.

Loxton (1999) notes that Rack provides a pre-1791 sketch which shows the arch free-standing and looking much as it does now, so it must have been moved before that date.

Parallels and siting

The first order of the arch is slightly reminiscent of the decoration on both sides of the priest’s door at Portbury. With respect to the left side showing more erosion, given that the side of portals away from the prevailing wind tends to become more eroded than the other, does this suggest that this portal came from the north rather than the south side of the original building?

Source

While it is easy to assume that the arch must have originated from the nearby parish church of St Margaret (see St Margaret, Queen Charlton, St Margaret, Somerset - CRSBI), its lavish style contrasts markedly with the sheer austerity of the other sculptural material there, and it is hard to believe that the same patron could have been responsible for both. Given that the arch was recorded here by 1791, it cannot have been moved during Victorian renovations (the listing text is incorrect in stating it was placed here in the 19thc), and there is no obvious place in the church that it could have been taken from. Could it instead have been moved from a monastic setting after the Dissolution? One possibility is that it came from Keynsham Abbey, about 2 miles distant. Keynsham was re-founded as Augustinian in 1166 (a date in the late 1160s-1170s would fit well with the arch) and moreover the abbey enjoyed royal patronage which would explain the lavish decoration. Indeed, a possible link between the arch and Keynsham has already been suggested, and there is even an oral tradition which claims that the last abbot John Stourton retired to the village and brought the arch with him. While this is technically possible - there is plenty of evidence for the re-use of monastic stone, stained glass and pavement tiles in parish churches at the Dissolution - it seems more likely that this story represents a conflation of two entirely separate events. The arch may well have been moved across at a later date, most probably in the mid-18^th century as a fashionable folly. The fieldworker suggests it is likely that its re-erection took place at least a generation or two before Rack’s visit in 1791.