Of course they did, otherwise London would not exist, but the fire meant that London could be built differently, with wider streets, which for the most part are the streets that exist today.
No, it survived the fire.
1 second
London didn't actually burn down, but a horrifing fire took over London, called the Fire of London. It took a long time to rebuild London after it.
It could be the shakespearean globe Theatre(The original was burnt down) or the Royal Albert Hall.
The Crystal Palace in London was burned down in 1936 due to an accidental fire caused by a workman's blowtorch during renovations.
Yes. The fire of London did affect the people. This is because many people were killed but the fortunate ones' homes were burnt down and left homeless.
My class and I went on a tour of the new Globe Theater and, if I heard correctly, the tour guide mentioned that the Globe did not burn down in the great fire. It burnt down some time before the great fire occurred.
Even though 80 percent of the city was burnt down, there were only 6 verified deaths.
It's actually spelt "Sydenham" and is in South London, just down the hill and to the East of Upper Norwood, which is where the "Crystal Palace" was until it burnt down in 1936. That site is marked by a BBC Television Transmitter mast.
It took a year to rebuild The Globe. they played the winter in their private playhouse, Blackfriars, and may have made arrangements to perform in other public playhouses or inn-yards playhouses until the rebuild was completed. It reopened in June of 1614.
In 1614, the Globe Theater was rebuilt after having been burnt down. Yes, William Shakespeare worked as an actor at the Theater and an investor.
no it did not get burnt down -trinity(: