The question is not based on reality. In the 16th century beacons were lit in a sequence to identify where along the coast there was a suspected enemy landing. Beacons in near-coast valleys had three baskets, coastal hilltops two, and inland hilltops one.When two valley baskets were lit, the fore hills lit one; when three were lit the forehills lit two and inland hills lit. This was about summoning troops to the localities of threats. There was no advantage in sending a signal to London or York or wherever, unless there was a means of backing this up with detailed instructions on horse-back. Otherwise what are people fifty, a hundred, three hundred miles away to decide based simply on seeing a light?

During the threat of Napoleonic invasion 1803-1806 they lit sequences of bonfires to relay information inland such as to London, but again backed by riders. This is based on research I carried out for a book "Hilltop Bonfires: marking royal events" but you can equally look up White's papers on the subject in the 1930s.

The Armada beacons were designed to be seen over shorter distances to mark an area of immediate threat. London already knew to expect the Armada ships, and our seamen followed them up the channel and engaged them. Near land beacons were lit where a landing was feared. But there is not a question to be answered because in the 16th century the exercise described would have been pointless.

The question is not based on reality. 

In the 16th century beacons were lit in a sequence to identify where along the coast there was a suspected enemy landing. Beacons in near-coast valleys had three baskets, coastal hilltops two, and inland hilltops one. When two valley baskets were lit, the fore hills lit one; when three were lit the forehills lit two and inland hills lit. 

This was about summoning troops to the localities of threats. 

There was no advantage in sending a signal to London or York or wherever, unless there was a means of backing this up with detailed instructions on horse-back. Otherwise what are people fifty, a hundred, three hundred miles away to decide based simply on seeing a light?

During the threat of Napoleonic invasion 1803-1806 they lit sequences of bonfires to relay information inland such as to London, but again backed by riders. 

This is based on research I carried out for a book "Hilltop Bonfires: marking royal events" but you can equally look up White's papers on the subject in the 1930s.

The Armada beacons were designed to be seen over shorter distances to mark an area of immediate threat. London already knew to expect the Armada ships, and our seamen followed them up the channel and engaged them. Near land beacons were lit where a landing was feared. 

But there is not a question to be answered because in the 16th century the exercise described would have been pointless.

The question is not based on reality. In the 16th century beacons were lit in a sequence to identify where along the coast there was a suspected enemy landing. Beacons in near-coast valleys had three baskets, coastal hilltops two, and inland hilltops one.When two valley baskets were lit, the fore hills lit one; when three were lit the forehills lit two and inland hills lit. This was about summoning troops to the localities of threats. There was no advantage in sending a signal to London or York or wherever, unless there was a means of backing this up with detailed instructions on horse-back. Otherwise what are people fifty, a hundred, three hundred miles away to decide based simply on seeing a light? During the threat of Napoleonic invasion 1803-1806 they lit sequences of bonfires to relay information inland such as to London, but again backed by riders. This is based on research I carried out for a book "Hilltop Bonfires: marking royal events" but you can equally look up White's papers on the subject in the 1930s. The Armada beacons were designed to be seen over shorter distances to mark an area of immediate threat. London already knew to expect the Armada ships, and our seamen followed them up the channel and engaged them. Near land beacons were lit where a landing was feared. But there is not a question to be answered because in the 16th century the exercise described would have been pointless.

The question is not based on reality. In the 16th century beacons were lit in a sequence to identify where along the coast there was a suspected enemy landing. Beacons in near-coast valleys had three baskets, coastal hilltops two, and inland hilltops one.When two valley baskets were lit, the fore hills lit one; when three were lit the forehills lit two and inland hills lit. This was about summoning troops to the localities of threats. There was no advantage in sending a signal to London or York or wherever, unless there was a means of backing this up with detailed instructions on horse-back. Otherwise what are people fifty, a hundred, three hundred miles away to decide based simply on seeing a light? 

During the threat of Napoleonic invasion 1803-1806 they lit sequences of bonfires to relay information inland such as to London, but again backed by riders. This is based on research I carried out for a book "Hilltop Bonfires: marking royal events" but you can equally look up White's papers on the subject in the 1930s. 

The Armada beacons were designed to be seen over shorter distances to mark an area of immediate threat. London already knew to expect the Armada ships, and our seamen followed them up the channel and engaged them. Near land beacons were lit where a landing was feared. But there is not a question to be answered because in the 16th century the exercise described would have been pointless.