Anti -Vaxxer Named Health Secretary
News2 mins ago
State funeral planned to honour Margaret Thatcher
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Really not sure.
Sitting on the fence on this one.
Maggie really polarised views - guessing that half the population see her as a hero and the other half as a person who ruined this country.
The former will want her recognised with a state funeral, the latter would like to dance on her grave.
I did vote conservative back then (and have done since) however although she did some great things, I also believe that she did help make people more selfish.
Sitting on the fence on this one.
Maggie really polarised views - guessing that half the population see her as a hero and the other half as a person who ruined this country.
The former will want her recognised with a state funeral, the latter would like to dance on her grave.
I did vote conservative back then (and have done since) however although she did some great things, I also believe that she did help make people more selfish.
Everyone here knows I'm 'pro-Thatcher' (ish) but I don't think she deserves a State funeral.
Sure, she did some good stuff and as I've argued elsewhere, while she did cause a lot of pain for a lot of people the overall legacy is a positive one.
But that doesn't change the fact that as far as I'm aware the only non-Monarchs so far to have had a state funeral were Wellington and Churchill . The former did a visible service to the country in that he largely engineered pushing the French out of Spain and also was instrumental in the defeat of Bonaparte - a clear threat to the stability and safety Europe and the country.
The latter does have a few nasty blots on his record (but then so does every politician), but it's no exaggeration to say he saved the country.
Compare Thatcher - arguably had an overall positive impact and deserves credit for several things (and certainly derision for others), also had at least as much guts as the first two. But did she visibly save the country in quite so literal a sense? I don't think so.
Sure, she did some good stuff and as I've argued elsewhere, while she did cause a lot of pain for a lot of people the overall legacy is a positive one.
But that doesn't change the fact that as far as I'm aware the only non-Monarchs so far to have had a state funeral were Wellington and Churchill . The former did a visible service to the country in that he largely engineered pushing the French out of Spain and also was instrumental in the defeat of Bonaparte - a clear threat to the stability and safety Europe and the country.
The latter does have a few nasty blots on his record (but then so does every politician), but it's no exaggeration to say he saved the country.
Compare Thatcher - arguably had an overall positive impact and deserves credit for several things (and certainly derision for others), also had at least as much guts as the first two. But did she visibly save the country in quite so literal a sense? I don't think so.
great stuff - can't wait to see either Broon or Blair's faces when the day comes - if they are invited.
They have and still are ruining this countries' culture and over a decade of lies and deceit they have sold us to a European constitution, started wars , ruined pensions , spent all our taxes , reduced our freedoms, ruined our control of law and order and left our borders open to an invasion of mostly unwelcome parasites from europe who we cannot afford.
Well done your Maj
They have and still are ruining this countries' culture and over a decade of lies and deceit they have sold us to a European constitution, started wars , ruined pensions , spent all our taxes , reduced our freedoms, ruined our control of law and order and left our borders open to an invasion of mostly unwelcome parasites from europe who we cannot afford.
Well done your Maj
Churchills ancestors had royal connections though. The Marlboroughs I think.
Churchill had aristocratic connections. Not Royal.
And besides, with those two exceptions aside, the state funeral has always been reserved for reigning monarchs, so both he and Wellington are still exceptions despite being aristocrats.
Churchill had aristocratic connections. Not Royal.
And besides, with those two exceptions aside, the state funeral has always been reserved for reigning monarchs, so both he and Wellington are still exceptions despite being aristocrats.
Six non-royals have been given state funerals:
Nelson (1806), Arthur Wellesley, First Duke of Wellington (1852), Henry Temple, Third Viscount Palmerston (1865), William Gladstone (1898), Frederick Roberts, First Earl Roberts of Kandahar (1914), and Winston Churchill (1965). Disraeli was offered one, but declined.
Nelson (1806), Arthur Wellesley, First Duke of Wellington (1852), Henry Temple, Third Viscount Palmerston (1865), William Gladstone (1898), Frederick Roberts, First Earl Roberts of Kandahar (1914), and Winston Churchill (1965). Disraeli was offered one, but declined.
I can't see why heads of state shouldn't have state funerals. But Thatcher was head of government, not of state (that's the queen). Why should she get one and Tony Blair not? Blair was PM longer, wasn't he? For myself, I can't see why either of them should get one.
(I don't mind that Churchill had one; he was a genuine war leader in a genuine war when Britain's survival was at stake. That was not true of the Falklands or Iraq.)
(I don't mind that Churchill had one; he was a genuine war leader in a genuine war when Britain's survival was at stake. That was not true of the Falklands or Iraq.)
Latest Posts
News9 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Enigmatic Variations N0 1669 By Kcit
Crosswords12 mins ago
Jobs & Education13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.