WI: London Burnt

[SunDeep]

So, WI in an ATL the authorities fail to organise coordinated firefighting efforts quickly enough to combat the Great Fire of London in 1666 effectively, resulting in far more widespread damage? ITTL, Southwark, Bishopsgate, Aldgate, the Palace of Whitehall and Westminster are all burnt to the ground in the same manner as the city of London. Even IOTL, evacuation from London and resettlement elsewhere was strongly encouraged by Charles II; could London have potentially been abandoned altogether in such a scenario, with the capital of the UK moved elsewhere- perhaps to Portsmouth, the home of the Royal Navy and the location where the Royal Couple had been married only four years previously? And if so, how profound an impact would this have had on the course of history?

 

[Alex Richards]

Well, for starters Southwark and the bridge are safe in any case as a fire in 1633 had burnt 42 structures around the northern end of the bridge which hadn't been replaced creating an accidental firebreak. Westminster also looks likely to be saved as if the fire actually reaches Whitehall Charles would probably just have most of Scotland yard blown up before it reached the Banqueting Hall and Royal Apartments (and it would give him a splendid excuse to rebuild the palace as he'd been wanting to do anyway). I think Aldgate and Bishopsgate had more to do with wind direction than putting in firebreaks, and those which were done in the eastern part of the city were by the wardens of the Tower acting on their own so I don't think that could be any more ramshackle than OTL. Indeed, the fire could have been stopped much earlier but the leadership of the city were unwilling to allow Charles to send the army into the city so soon after the civil war.

As for total abandonment, that's very unlikely. London had been pretty much destroyed by fire in 1066, and again in 1135, and Southwark had burnt down in 1212, and there were other notable fires in the 12th and 13th Centuries. Further afield Amsterdam was pretty much burnt to the ground in 1452 and Moscow in 1547. I'm really struggling to find accidental fires in this period which actually did lead to the city being abandoned or even a noticeable change in importance.

 

[Simreeve]

Even leaving aside sentiment due to its previous importance, London was too good a site for a port for trading with northern Europe -- particularly as the access point to/from the Thames valley & surrounding areas -- and as the lowest feasible bridging point (in those days) for the Thames to be abandoned completely.
If the functions of the capital were moved then, in those days, Oxford was probably the likeliest alternative location. After all, IOTL Parliament still considered moving thence a possibility as recently as the 'Great Stink' of 1858...

Mind you, fire reaching the large quantity of gunpowder that was stored in the Tower would have been rather awkward...