Great Fire of London retold with wooden replica blaze

[Blackleaf]

A giant wooden replica of 17th century London has been set ablaze on the River Thames in a retelling of the Great Fire of London 350 years ago.

Crowds gathered on the banks of the Thames to watch the 394-feet long model go up in flames.

The inferno in 1666 raged for four days, destroying most of the city, which then was largely of wood.

Great Fire of London retold with wooden replica blaze

4 September 2016
BBC News

The replica was lit as part of a retelling of the Great Fire of London

A giant wooden replica of 17th century London has been set ablaze on the River Thames in a retelling of the Great Fire of London 350 years ago.

Crowds gathered on the banks of the Thames to watch the 394-feet long model go up in flames.

The inferno in 1666 raged for four days, destroying most of the city, which then was largely of wood.

It paved the way for large-scale reconstruction including the building of today's St Paul's Cathedral.

More than 13,000 homes, businesses and structures, including the old St Paul's, were destroyed.

Following the fire, stone started being used in the capital as a building material and an organised fire service and insurance industry were established.

The replica was 394 feet long

More than 13,000 homes, businesses and structures were destroyed in the Great Fire of London

At the time of the fire most buildings were made from wood

The retelling of the blaze was described as a "spectacle"

The event was part of a festival held to commemorate the Great Fire

The burning of the replica of London took place during a festival held to commemorate the Great Fire.

London's Burning, which was held from 30 August to 4 September, featured a series of art installations, performances, talks and tours and was organised by the company Artichoke.

Helen Marriage, director of Artichoke, said: "I feel so relieved that it actually went off, because obviously when you do a live event you never know."

Tim Marlow, the artistic director of the Royal Academy of Arts, said it was a unique event.

He said: "I've seen a shed blown up in the name of art. I've seen fireworks. I've seen artists bury themselves. I've seen the trace of an artist shooting himself in the hand or nailing himself to a car, but actually I've never seen anyone collaborate with so many people in such an extraordinary and exciting way, to make a commemorative replica of a skyline 350 years ago and then set fire to it.

"I mean this is spectacle and then some."

Great Fire of London retold with wooden replica blaze - BBC News

 

[Danbones]

Century 2 Quatrain 51
The blood of the just will be demanded of London
Burnt by fire in the year ’66
The ancient Lady will fall from her high place
And many of the same sect will be killed.
The official story of the Great Fire of London is that the fire started when a neglected oven fire in a baker´s shop in Pudding Lane caught hold of a wood stack. The fire could have been confined to a small area and easily controlled by the fire brigade had the Mayor of London, Sir Thomas Bloodworth given the order pull down buildings that would have starved the flames of fuel. This method was the most common practice at the time, but Bloodworth refused to give the order, commenting instead, “a woman might piss it out.” The fire raged for another three days and consumed 13,200 houses and 87 parish churches including St. Paul´s Cathedral, or in other words, 75 per cent of the city.
Before becoming mayor of London, Bloodworth was a wealthy merchant and a member of the mercantile guild of the Company of Vintners which received a royal charter in the 14th century. Though it had a monopoly on wine imports and was the most powerful company in the wine trade, Vintners did not have a licence giving them the right to sell wine. So here we can already establish the corruption of the mayor and the royal family.
So why did Bloodworth not give the order for the fire brigade to follow common practice and tear down buildings to prevent the fire from spreading? The answer can only be insurance, to raise taxes for the rebuilding process and to blame the fire on the Catholics – which is exactly what happened.
Great Fire of London Conspiracy. Did Nostradamus Predict The Great Fire of London? - Nostradamus Predictions

LOL, Sure you folks weren't burning an effigy of Joan of Arc in there somewheres?

just had to add this bit from my above link

"The man accused for starting the fire was a simple-minded French man named, Robert Hubert who is said to have confessed to the crime and was working as an agent of the Pope. The only evidence against him was his confession and he was subsequently hanged. However, the evidence does not add up.
Great Fire of London Conspiracy. Did Nostradamus Predict The Great Fire of London? - Nostradamus Predictions

interesting...
a medi evil false flag

 

[tay]

So who is paying for this? I truly hope it's not the taxpayers or they should build replica hanging gallows for those who stole the taxpayers money for this insanity and hang them.......

 

[Blackleaf]

So why did Bloodworth not give the order for the fire brigade to follow common practice and tear down buildings to prevent the fire from spreading? The answer can only be insurance, to raise taxes for the rebuilding process and to blame the fire on the Catholics – which is exactly what happened.

Too much nonsensical conspiracy there.

Lord Mayor Bloodworth simply thought the fire wasn't a big deal after it had just started. Buildings on fire would have been a very common site in a largely wooden city as London was 350 years ago so, after he was awoken in the middle of the night, at sometime between 1am and 3am (it was around 1am on 2nd September that the fire started), irritable and grumpy that he'd been awakened, he just simply said "A woman might piss it out" and went back to bed. He just obviously thought it was no great deal.

However, once the fire spread and became a bit more serious, Bloodworth seemed to regret doing nothing from the outset. Later that morning, at sometime around 9am or 10am, Samuel Pepys went to visit Bloodworth. He found him at an office in Cannon Street. According to Pepys, in his diary, Bloodworth looked ‘like a man spent’. Bludworth had a handkerchief around his neck, and when Pepys gave him the King’s message, ‘he cried like a fainting woman’. Bludworth insisted he was already doing everything that could be done and that . . . ‘he needed no more soldiers; and that he must go and refresh himself . . .’ which he promptly did.

As for blaming it on Catholics, there's no evidence that Bloodworth did such a thing. There were rumours, though, spreading around the generally anti-Catholic Londoners that the fire had been started by the Catholic French and Frenchmen were attacked and brutally set upon in the streets.

As for home insurance, there was no such thing in those days. It was only after the fire, as a result of it, that modern home insurance that we know it came into being.

 

[Curious Cdn]

With Bubonic Plague going on at the same time, they must have felt as if the wrath of God was upon them. The recent and particularly bloody civil war and dubious restoration must have sent the extremists running for their matchlocks.

 

[Blackleaf]

With Bubonic Plague going on at the same time, they must have felt as if the wrath of God was upon them. The recent and particularly bloody civil war and dubious restoration must have sent the extremists running for their matchlocks.

There was nothing dubious about the Restoration.

And it was supported by, more than likely, the vast majority of citizens.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Yeah.Oliver Cromwell was a warm and fuzzy guy.

This same period is when the fundamental roots of New England were established and those who were less than keen on the monarchy got into little ships and sailed west. They held on to their beliefs and proto-democratic republican practices and they are still embedded deep in New England culture.

 

[Blackleaf]

Yeah.Oliver Cromwell was a warm and fuzzy guy.

This same period is when the fundamental roots of New England were established and those who were less than keen on the monarchy got into little ships and sailed west. They held on to their beliefs and proto-democratic republican practices and they are still embedded deep in New England culture.

Well republicans were, and are, a tiny minority in England.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Well republicans were, and are, a tiny minority in England.

They left.

 

[Blackleaf]

They left.

But republicans were, and are, a tiny minority of the English population.

There was rejoicing throughout London and the British Isles when Charles II took to the Throne in 1660.

And those years of England (including Wales), Scotland and Ireland being republics throughout the 1650s were bad years. The ruling Puritan regime banned theatres, football, even Christmas. Fun, basically, was banned. It's no wonder people were glad to see the back of it when the monarchy was restored in 1660 with the theatre-loving Charles II taking the throne. That bad experience of republicanism in the 1650s did a lot to establish the largely anti-republican sentiment that exists in Britain today.