The Jodi TaylorBookshelf

Great Fire of London, and the St Mary's book that visits it

The Great Fire of London devastated much of the City in September 1666. Closely packed buildings, dry conditions and wind helped it spread. No Time Like The Past names the fire in its publisher description; this guide explores the real disaster without adding novel spoilers.

Imagined timber rooftops glowing in a London fire beyond a riverside viewpoint.
AI-generated illustration.

By Does Your Duck Quack · Last updated:

What happened in September 1666?

The fire began in a bakery on Pudding Lane during the early hours of 2 September. Over the following days it destroyed homes, churches and businesses across much of the City of London. London Museum records 13,200 houses and 87 churches lost, including the old St Paul’s Cathedral. The disaster’s importance lies in that combined loss, rather than simply the size of the flames. Source

A dry summer, strong winds and closely packed timber buildings helped the fire spread. Stored materials such as rope, tar and oil added fuel. There was no fire brigade: local people used buckets, hooks and simple water squirts. Demolishing buildings created gaps, and gunpowder later made demolition faster. Weaker winds also helped bring the fire under control. Source

What can eyewitnesses tell us?

Samuel Pepys’s diary lets us follow an individual response as the danger grew. At first he thought the fire distant enough to go back to bed. Later, seeing its spread, he went to report to the king and urged the removal of houses. His account also describes people carrying possessions away and sick people being moved in beds. Reading those details alongside the wider chronology makes evacuation a human experience rather than a line on a map. Source

Evidence has gaps. The National Archives explains that the people present in the bakery are not all clearly identified in surviving reports. Servants were often left unnamed. Its teaching collection invites readers to compare diaries, letters and official statements. That comparison matters: an urgent personal observation, a rumour and a government explanation do different jobs, even when they describe the same disaster. Source

Which familiar stories need questioning?

The claim that the fire ended the Great Plague is misleading. London Museum points out that plague deaths were already declining, that people continued to die afterwards, and that several badly affected districts escaped the fire. The closeness of the two disasters makes the story memorable, but timing alone does not establish a cause. This is a useful example of why a tidy historical explanation can be less reliable than a complicated one. Source

Nor should we picture flames simply racing over thatched roofs. Thatch had long been restricted, and most London roofs were tiled by 1666. Brick construction also existed before the disaster. Post-fire rules strengthened and extended earlier building requirements; they did not introduce an entirely unknown material. The museum’s evidence replaces an abrupt before-and-after picture with a longer history of regulation and uneven compliance. Source

How did people rebuild their lives?

The emergency continued after the flames subsided. Londoners sheltered in fields, including Moorfields, while rents rose in surviving neighbourhoods. Some moved out of London altogether. London Museum traces these movements through contemporary writing and trade tokens that identify businesses and locations. Its account shows why rebuilding should be understood as a housing problem as well as an architectural project. Source

Christopher Wren and John Evelyn proposed new street arrangements, but property rights and the urgent need for homes complicated wholesale redesign. Much of the older street network returned. The surviving pattern is a reminder that a disaster does not give planners an empty sheet: ownership, money and people’s immediate needs still shape what follows. Source

Where can you see the legacy today?

The Monument commemorates both destruction and recovery. Robert Hooke and Christopher Wren developed its final design; construction began in 1671 and it opened in 1677. Visiting the memorial offers a way to connect the event with the present-day City. Use the official Monument website to plan your visit and check its current practical information. The building is a later memorial, rather than a surviving structure from the night the fire began. Source

History sources