That is impressive.
Though why the Victorians thought they had to add a spire to it...
Yes, it doesn't need one. At least the spire's not particularly domineering.
Some of those windows look Gothic but the smaller ones look Romanesque
It looks pretty sturdy!
It would have been a very dark little building if they'd hadn't put in some larger windows. The originals are tiny.
It seems to have a larger variety of different-coloured stones than usual. Or is that just because it's not covered with soot or something like more urban stone structures?
It's possibly because when the church was built 1000 years ago, there were a lot of stones lying around that were gathered up to use in the walls. Cottages would have been wooden framed and wattle and daub. Later buildings tend to be made from stone all cut from the same quarry, so it's more uniform.
At least that's what happened in the little Welsh town where I live. The oldest building has examples of all the different local stones whereas the stones in the church are all the same, as are the stones in the bank.
I agree with what Helininwales has to say. And I'd want to add that the Saxons were more used to building in wood- which is one reason why Saxon buildings are such a rarity- and why their stonework has such a rough, cobbled together look.
Ooh lovely, is Worth near Crawley>
That's right. Just to the east of it.