grammar - The time before place mantra

As a Dutch schoolboy, during English grammar lessons (long ago...) I got one rule hammered into my head like a mantra: time before place:

In the 1930s, in England, nobody prepared for war.

But as I gradually got more fluent in English I started to wonder whether this "rule" really made sense. Let me change the sentence a bit:

In the 1930s, in England, nobody prepared for war, whereas in the 17th and 18th centuries everybody did.

Correct grammar, right? (Let history.stackexchange challenge the historical truth). But I think it makes sense to say

In England, in the 1930s nobody prepared for war, whereas in the 17th and 18th centuries everybody did.

because it emphasizes the contrast between the time periods better than in the former sentence.

And when I just say

In England, in the 1930s, nobody prepared for war.

does that sound warped to a native speaker?

So: how valid (or natural) is this rule?

(By the way, later I learned that the full rule is manner before time before place, but let's not go into that — yet).

Answer

You can bring more or less anything to the front of a sentence to give it prominence, so your examples are not the best way to illustrate a fairly solid "rule" in English, namely that time usually occupies the last position. [This is the opposite of what you seem to have learned.] So, we would normally say:

• I went to the bank yesterday.


• She usually dines at home on Sundays.


• We are planning to visit Prague next week.

not:

• I went yesterday to the bank.


• She usually dines on Sundays at home.


• We are planning to visit next week Prague.

If you add manner into the mix, you have a fairly solid rule: manner - place - time:

• I walked leisurely along the beach all day yesterday.


• She played very well in the chess tournament last night.