Talk:Holmes's Bonfire

Hehe
We sure got you gents back with the big fire 'o London in 1666 didn't we?

Ye, that whot I thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.85.247.51 (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dates
The dates here appear to be Gregorian dates, not Julian. In the article on the Great Fire of London, which occurred later the same year, the dates are given in Julian, with the notation that the convention for dates in English history is to use the calendar in use at the time. Holmes' Bonfire is not as clearly English history, since the Dutch were involved, but weren't the Dutch on the Julian calendar at this time as well? In which case, I would think that the same convention would be to give the Julian date here instead. What are others' opinions? Mlouns (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the Dutch mostly used the Gregorian calendar in this period. There is indeed a convention (though not one very strictly applied) to give Julian dates when referring to events in 17th century English history but only when the action indeed took place on English soil. This obviously is not the case here. However, I'll add the Old Style dates for the most relevant days such as the beginning and end of the attack.--MWAK (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that helps my confusion when I first read the article. I ought to have looked up the Dutch changeover -- I had forgotten they had already converted to Gregorian by then. Mlouns (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous title?
Is Holmes's Bonfire actually correct? Shouldn't it be Holmes' Bonfire? --85.151.35.185 (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The historical name is Holmes's Bonfire. The present rule that "s'" should be used with words ending in a z-sound (like today Holmes is pronounced) apparently wasn't in existence yet. Also it is quite possible the name was then pronounced more like "Hollmess" instead of "haumz".--MWAK (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)