The Untold Story Of The Great Fire Of London

[Raistlin]

The Great Fire of London started accidentally in a bakery, right...

That wasn't the view at the time - many believed it was a terrorist attack and violent reprisals against possible suspects soon followed. The date 1666 is one burned on to the collective memory of a nation.

Everyone learns at school that the fire raging for four days in that hot, dry summer began in a bakery in Pudding Lane.

But a new Channel 4 documentary focuses on the lesser known story of the fire - it sparked a violent backlash against London's immigrant population, prompted by the widely-held belief at the time that it was an act of arson committed by a foreign power.

In the days and weeks following the fire, ordinary Londoners - many of whom were displaced and homeless - gave evidence to a parliamentary inquiry swiftly launched to find out what happened.

All those witness statements can be found in the inquiry's report, a 50-page document held in the capital's Guildhall.

It suggests the city on the eve of the fire was one fraught with anxiety and paranoia, says Sue Horth, the documentary's executive producer, and the finger of blame was pointed at two countries with which England was at war, Netherlands and France.

"We teach people about Pudding Lane and the hot summer but we don't say that weeks before the Great Fire, the British Navy sailed into the city of West Terschelling in the Netherlands and set fire to it in an act of diplomatic piracy.

"London was expecting an act of reprisal against the city. It was expecting something bad to happen, not because it was superstitious or frightened, but because the government had done something bad. So when the fire happened, it was a natural and quite sensible suspicion for the people of London to have."

As the fire raged, and rumours spread that the French had invaded, angry mobs hunted anyone who appeared to be foreign, says Ms Horth. A Swedish diplomat was lynched. A French woman trying to escape to a refugee camp in Spitalfields had her breast cut off because people thought the baby chicks she carried in her apron were fireballs.

"London was a city turned to constant night, with the ash cloud and smoke, and the sun couldn't penetrate, so it was a frightening place to be. Thousands of buildings were razed. People either tried to escape or they fought the fire or they tried to find those responsible."

This violence is the untold story of the fire, says Adrian Tinniswood, author of By Permission of Heaven: The True Story of the Great Fire of London.

The fire burned for four days

Most people thought it was an attack by the Dutch, because of the recent atrocity by the Royal Navy under Admiral Robert Holmes.

"There was cheering in the streets of London when that happened, so when the fire started, people thought it was the Dutch getting their own back.

"In fact, the fire was caused by a gale blowing across London for four days. It hit London in the early hours of Sunday morning, just as [Thomas] Farriner's bakery goes up in flames. The gale blew embers and bits of straw across the city and fires broke out all over the place, so people said: 'This isn't a fire spreading, it has to be arson'."

On the fourth day, when the fire was finally quelled, King Charles II, the newly restored monarch after years of civil war, tried to calm matters by going to a new camp of 100,000 homeless, and declaring the fire was an act of God.

Shaky confession

The king took a very enlightened view and always believed it was an accident, says Mr Tinniswood. His brother, James, Duke of York, went even further. He rode into the city with his bodyguards and rescued people from the mob, some of whom were in the very act of being hanged on street corners.

Hubert, in a detail of a wider picture of Catholic conspirators from 1667

The hunt for a foreign scapegoat continued, until one volunteered for the role. At the end of September, the parliamentary committee was appointed to investigate the fire, and a French Protestant watchmaker, Robert Hubert, confessed to having deliberately started the fire at the bakery with 23 conspirators.

Although his confession seemed to change and flounder under scrutiny, he was tried and hanged. Afterwards, colleagues told the inquiry Hubert had been at sea with them at the time, and the inquiry concluded the fire had indeed been an accident. No-one knows why he confessed.

Until the 19th Century, the plaque at London's Monument stated that followers of the Pope were to blame, says Ms Horth, and named Hubert as the fire-starter. It was only after Catholic emancipation in the 19th Century that the government decided the plaque was inflammatory and had those inscriptions removed.

"This story [about it being an accident] is not necessarily the most helpful for us all to believe," Ms Horth says. "The truth is that we will never know how it began. We now believe it was an accident but 350 years ago certain people thought differently. There are many perspectives to events and it's up to us to understand them all."

It's natural the version of events told to youngsters should airbrush the gruesome details, says Meriel Jeater, curator at the Museum of London.

The famous dome of St Paul's dates from its restoration after the fire

"The traditional view taught in schools is that it all happened as a happily-ever-after sort of story. It was a terrible disaster, but not many people died, we rebuilt the city in brick so it was fireproof, and isn't St Paul's pretty?

"But the more you investigate, you realise it wasn't all like that. The dark side was that the fire burst on to the surface religious tension and paranoia about national security."

[Bizarra]

Certainly a different view, & quite possibly the accurate one.

" Plus ca change, plus la meme chose!" Have we learnt anything since then ? I fear not, giving the BNP as an example :(

[Raistlin]

Certainly a different view, & quite possibly the accurate one.

" Plus ca change, plus la meme chose!" Have we learnt anything since then ? I fear not, giving the BNP as an example

It's on Channel 4 this evening, if you can get it.

[Calisto]

Watching it!!

[Raistlin]

How was it for you... :D

[Bizarra]

I didn't watch it , having read your excellent post <_<

Painkiller Jane was on SyFy & end to end programs of Two & a half Men, also, on Comedy Central. No contest :P

[Raistlin]

What, No Sky +

[Bizarra]

What, No Sky +

Often nothing on Sky :( Why pay more for more nothing ? :ffs:

[Raistlin]

Err... the adult documentaries