Old Cathedral and Church of St Michael

Hi Baz, That's a good observation you've made, and one that I've partly tried to address on one of my web pages - https://www.historiccoventry.co.uk/cathedrals/oldcathedral.php?pg=bent-arcade I need to expand on that page one day with further points about the gradual development of the place from tiny chapel to larger church, then to the size with which we're now familiar. One feature that anyone can look for without having to climb the tower is the original church's roofline, which is still visible just above the tower's arch. I've highlighted the area in the 2005 photo below, and you can see the two sloping lines of stone, showing how low the roof was until at least the late 1400s. At that point in time, the church had a newly built tower, which was centrally positioned, and the church was possibly about two-thirds of the current length. It is my theory, until I learn otherwise, that the surviving south porch, the oldest part of the ruins, originally formed the south trancept of what might then have been a cruciforn shaped church. Time to bring in Tony Robinson's Time-Team maybe?

What brilliant observations. I wonder how many folk have ever noticed that. Very interesting topic this one.

Not especially Rob. I was just amazed when doing personal research how many priests and pacifists had been former RAF personnel. I can only suppose their wartime experiences must have affected them very badly. Also the idea of leaving the shell of a building standing as a testimony to the horrors of war is not entirely original, the entire village of Oradour-sur-Glane in France probably being the most famous example.

I accept that what I am about to say may be controversial to some, especially those who remember the war so apologies if I cause offence! Having spent many hours in the old cathedral ruins I have come to the conclusion that time has eroded their impact. I imagine in the 50's, 60's or even 70's, when the ruins still bore the evidence of fire damage from the bombs but had not yet begun to suffer the effects of weathering to a great extent, they looked stark and evocative. Also, with memories of the war still fresh in the minds of many visitors, they had a great emotional impact. The contrast between the burnt-out shell of the old building and the clean modernity of the new was much greater and therefore communicated the story of destruction and rebuilding very effectively. Fast forward to 2013 and we have a ruin which is heavily weathered, filled with various art pieces and other alterations and to which we have made considerable repairs. Many of the walls show signs of new stonework, other areas of walls are heavily deteriorated from weathering, there is moss and plant growth visible and modern structural supports are appearing. All of this takes away from the starkness - to many people the ruins could be any ancient ruin, not the burnt out remains of a beautiful building destroyed in the most horrific of episodes in human history. The building doesn't wear it's history like it did. Also, for many newer generations the second world war doesn't have the impact it did for earlier generations. They don't "get it" when they walk into the ruined building. It isn't as immediate and fresh an image as it was. This is a natural result of time. I remember having a conversation with one of the cathedral staff around a year ago. We discussed the fact that the ruins are at the stage where they are literally falling down. The member of staff commented that they would have to practically rebuild several parts over the next few years. He agreed that time has diminished the impact. All of this makes me wonder if it is time for the cathedral to change its strategy for the ruins. I'm not sure what that means but I just get the feeling that the original Spence design had a degree of obsolescence due to the emotional and personal nature of its inspiration. Just some thoughts! I'd love to hear discussion of this. (By the way, I'd like to see something utterly insane happen e.g. we rebuild the damn thing a'la frauenkirche)

From what I've read, the cathedral (or church, which is what it was) was heavily rebuilt by the Victorians, especially the tower, which by the 19th century was in quite poor condition. So much of the stonework you see might be Victorian. I actually agree with you. The living memory is fading, and to most of us it's difficult to imagine the impact that the ruins had during the 1940s. To me it's just an interesting place with some bits and piece of artwork in it, but I sometimes wonder if it's worth 'maintaining' it for many more decades. I don't know if it actually gets many tourists anymore. I did read some years ago that tourist numbers were plummeting. Maybe Coventry has maybe reached a point where the 2nd world war and the cathedral are no longer the draw they once were? Interesting point about Spence's design and obsolescence. The cathedral ruins must be very difficult to maintain and preserve, as there's still quite a lot of structure there. Not sure what they could do with it, though. Rebuild it and turn the new cathedral into a concert venue? Although knowing our council it'd be turned into student flats and takeaways.

I am glad not everyone thinks the same. The new buildings going up today would not stand the ravages of time like the old cathedral. I was brought up to respect our heritage and the way things are there will not be much heritage left to respect. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and I respect that too but lets not shovel everything away and forget what made Coventry historic in the first place.

Very interesting points "hackjo" makes about the long term future of the ruins. I just assumed they would always be there, though he is right that eventually it just becomes a ruined building with some history attached and ceases to have a direct emotional connection to those viewing it. I still think it represents what it did 70 years ago, despite the passage of time and should be kept as a monument. The structural deterioration is a problem, but then agencies like English Heritage and Historic Scotland specialise in maintaining and restoring ruined buildings like castles, and use new matching materials to replace bits that have fallen apart. Is the Old Cathedral any different to somewhere like Kenilworth Castle? When we visited last autumn, the cathedral guide pointed out something I hadn't realised previously and that is that the floor of the Old Cathedral is three or four feet higher than it should be. Apparently the debris from the destruction was levelled out and paved over as we see it today. She mentioned that there are ideas to excavate it sometime? I agree that things change over time, and I doubt if the Council and the Church Authorities considered very much what would happen to ruins 60 to 70 years later when they decided to keep them. It was all very immediate and highly emotional. One of the options would have been to reconstruct it (as eventually happened with Dresden's Frauenkirche - a monumental task). I think in the architectural competition for the New Cathedral in 1951, the remit stated that only the spire of the old building needed to be retained and something new or reconstructed could take the place of the ruins. Spence's design retained the ruins and connected them to the new building, an inspired idea that won. Another thing I vaguely remember is that after the War there were some who lobbied to have Holy Trinity designated as the new cathedral of Coventry. Others thought it wasn't grand enough, but today this would have probably been the solution and would have saved a lot of money. Here's a newspaper cutting I found from 1972 about Provost Howard and how his dream came true after witnessing the destruction of the Old Cathedral.

It didn't withstand the ravages of time. It was heavily restored in the 19th century. Sandstone is soft and weathers quite badly - take a look at Saint Mary's guild hall and see how weathered that is. I believe one part of it was completely rebuilt as well sometime in the 1800s. No buildings withstand the ravages of time without constant attention. All materials weather and structures move and shift. Leave any building empty for a few years and it'll quickly become unsafe. The original article didn't suggest 'shovelling' anything away, but made a valid, and interesting, point - you're exaggerating it to something that wasn't said to make a straw man argument.

Don't get into a flap Flapdoodle.

Walking along Cuckoo Lane this morning, the sun just caught the colour in these remnants of the stained glass windows in the cathedral

Visited this morning and can report that the scaffolding has gone and the repair is completed PS : There's a lot of work going on inside the Cathedral grounds

That's great news Cliff, glad they didn't dilly-dally over the fixing of that wall. I think there was pressure from lots of places, not only Coventry, to get our Old Cathedral sorted out. I wonder what they're doing inside.... maybe excavating the bits I've always wanted them to, eh? We live in hope!

It's great to see the repair work completed at last. Is there any more to be done do you know?

Yes Dreamtime, loads! - Coventry Cathedral ruins crack repair complete

I am tracing my ancestry and have found that a number of my ancestors were baptised, married and buried at St Michaels Church (now the Old Cathedral). After the church was bombed during WWII were the graves destroyed or did they survive? Are there any existing graves there now? If not what has happened to those buried in the grounds?