Wren's Masons: The Strongs and the Rebuilding of London after the Great Fire. 

Thank you. I’m glad you enjoyed it.

Thank you Andrew. I hope to do some more soon

Thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Thank you.

Thank you Richard.

Hi Ann, The simple answer to the first question is tax. The Crown almost immediately hit upon the idea of a tax on the coal that came into London, mostly from Newcastle. There were a few disadvantages with this system. Contemporaries realised how much pollution coal created and some, including John Evelyn, had called for its use to stop. Coal use was seasonal, obviously, and in mild winters its use would fall. More, the barges bringing coal to London down the east coast of England were a tempting target for enemy ships (England was at war with Holland 1665-67 and 1762-74, and France 1689-97 and 1702-13). But the advantages were far more obvious. Almost everyone in London was dependent on coal so it spread the burden across all the citizens. Those with the biggest homes would use more coal, so in that way it was progressive. The barges came into London in huge fleets delivering a commodity for which the growing city was increasingly hungry. The fuel was already measured as it arrived in London by coal meters so the systems were in place to begin collecting the tax immediately. It was a hard tax to evade and smugglers would find it difficult to transport coal into London in quantities large enough to eb worthwhile. All things considered, while it might seem somewhat ironic to use the proceeds from a tax on coal to pay for the rebuilding of the city after a fire, it is hard to think of a better way to raise the money.

Fantastic! Thank you for this. Could you get in touch with me to discuss it?

Thank you. Stone was brought from all over the country, and even at times from Caen in Normandy, for St Paul’s. Only stone from Portland, Ketton and Burford, that is from the Strongs’ quarries, was used on the exterior. The Burford Stone, however, was not as durable as that from Portland and it was badly damaged by air pollution in London. It was, then, replaced with Portland stone towards the end of the eighteenth century. I’ll reply on the dome separately Richard

Hi Richard, By the 1680s, what had become apparent to Wren, and those working on the site of St Paul's, was that the Cathedral's foundations were unable to take the weight of the structure. When Wren came to make his final plans for the dome, then, he had to design a dome which would be very light indeed, yet still able to support a lantern on the top which weighed in excess of 700 tons. Wren, thus, designed the first ever triple dome. My understanding is that if one stands inside and looks up, the first dome which one sees, the inner dome, is made of brick not timber. I'm happy to stand corrected if I'm wrong. Above this is a cone, made of brick and stone, and it is this which supports the lantern. Above that is the dome which we see from the outside, which is made of timber and lead. The work on this triple dome was contracted out to four different masons/partnerships. Edward Strong did the NW quarter, Nathaniel Rawlins the NE, Christopher Kempster and Ephraim Beauchamp (the latter Edward Strong's son-in-law) the SE, and Thomas Wise junior and Thomas Hill the SW. In James Campbell's Building St Paul's, there is a good diagram which shows how the work at the Cathedral was divided between the various teams.

@@thehistoryoflondon Didn't know that. So some Burford stone was originally used on the exterior. I wonder if it was only in places that were hidden from view, as it is quite golden in colour.

@@richardshepley8480 You're right. It is golden. In fact, the original cathedral had a two-tone effect to it.