- This topic has 120 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Eh?
What relevance has that got??
Churchill I believe was Lord of the Admiralty and ultimately responsible for the disasters sberry has quoted and was possibly removed from the post because of them
On a technical point Princess Di’s funeral was not a State Funeral it was a Royal Ceremonial Funeral, as was the Queen Mum’s, which was her choice. even though as Queen Consort she was entitled to a State Funeral.
There were four non-Royal State Funerals in the 19th Century – Nelson, Wellington, Palmerston and Gladstone (although in all probability the latter two were probably because Queen Vic was particularly fond of them
To compare Thatcher on any par Churchill is just ridiculous. Churchill galvanised a nation to stand up against massive odds for years against fascism and fight for a nations very survival.
Thatcher picked a fight with a small country on the other side of the world without any proper consideration of the realities of what this meant. Luckily the British forces managed to save her bacon. Indeed as was pointed out earlier in this thread it was her government’s policy decision to pull out and not replace the royal navy boat presence in South Georgia/Falklands that created the opportunity for the Argies in the first place. It was not Thatcher that beat the Argies. Before the Falklands war Thatcher was the most unpopular PM ever. Even now she polarises opinion over many things.
Rather see them burn the money.
Grassy;
Simon’s on about Churchill who was the mastermind of the Gallipoli campaign in the 1stWW. It haunted him all his days and did for tens of thousands of British, ANZAC & colonial troops.Yes, I understand that Kevin, and I did get the reference. What I fail to understand is the relevance it has, in terms of Churchill being accorded a State Funeral.
Was he to be denied one on the basis of what happened whilst he was First Sea Lord, despite what he did in leading the nation during WW2?
It is the suggestion that Thatcher’s ‘achievements’ during the Falklands conflict are somehow on a par with Churchill’s during WW2 that I’m taking issue with i.e. the "she won a war" argument.
In the first place, it’s a nonsense reason to accord her a State Funeral, and secondly, her contribution pales into insignificance alongside that of Churchill.
but thatcher was probably the biggest prime minister since churchill.
I would have thought that was Callaghan frankly
Yes, I understand that Kevin, and I did get the reference. What I fail to understand is the relevance it has, in terms of Churchill being accorded a State Funeral.
Was he to be denied one on the basis of what happened whilst he was First Sea Lord, despite what he did in leading the nation during WW2?
It is the suggestion that Thatcher’s ‘achievements’ during the Falklands conflict are somehow on a par with Churchill’s during WW2 that I’m taking issue with i.e. the "she won a war" argument.
In the first place, it’s a nonsense reason to accord her a State Funeral, and secondly, her contribution pales into insignificance alongside that of Churchill.
GH
I agree with the majority of what you are saying and its a good job he was given a second chance, something some people on this forum if he was a naughty jockey or trainer certainly wouldn’t have given him
Are you being serious Aaron????
I agree (rare this) with much of Spacehoppers piece, but a bit like the honours syetem, im neither here nor there with what sort of funeral it should be…
I think it was in John Campbells bio of Thatcher that I was suprised to find that the Falklands were a very difficult period for her. The public gung ho (and it had to be that way i suppose) was masking extreme doubts and real fears. She seemingly hated every minute of it. Campbell is a wonderful biographer without any noticeable bias, so worth taking on board
There arent many politicians or leaders whos words can still stir years after the events that shaped them, but Churchill’s speechs during what must have been a terrifying time make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. Leadership of this nature and brilliance should never be underestimated.
clivex
You said "There arent many politicians or leaders whos words can still stir years after the events that shaped them, but Churchill’s speechs during what must have been a terrifying time make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. Leadership of this nature and brilliance should never be underestimated."
I couldn’t agree with you more. I was just trying to say (not very eloquently) that it was a good job his past failure at Galipoli didn’t prevent him from presiding over the most important period of our recent history.
There have been many recent posts regarding a number of jockeys and trainers resurrecting their careers after an enforced absence, albeit by their own hand, and my post centered around that
The analogy in hindsight was maybe not the best
As regards the state funeral of Mrs T , I don’t really think it is warranted IMVHO
Politics – what a load of shite
If it can’t be settled on a football pitch then it ain’t worth arguing over!
Mike
If Thatcher gets a state funeral then so should Dame Shirley Porter, it could be some sort of ‘Crime Really does pay’ initiative for the inners cities, that she was always blarting on about.
she is an icon
Therefore she should have been hung up on a wall in a dark church in Greece or Russia. A dreadful woman.
love the linking to dame shirley [tesco] porter ,what happened to her,last i heard she had done a runner to south america.
I agree with the majority of what you are saying and its a good job he was given a second chance
True, but pretty much only by default, because the first choice baically didnt want the job. Churchill at the time was considered to be a dangerous, adventurous, war mongering sod, something which is almost certainly true.
love the linking to dame shirley [tesco] porter ,what happened to her,last i heard she had done a runner to south america.
Isreal .. she owes the British taxpayer £37M and has paid £9M of the debt. As I understand it, there are no plans to extradite this crook and extract from her the outstanding balance.
she’s back and living in westminster – they asked for a few more millions in final settlement which she luckily found under the sofa after thinking she was skint so that’s settled that little problem
as for thatcher it appears it hasn’t yet been decided whether or not she will have a state funeral :
Reports last month suggested officials of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Queen were in discussions with Lady Thatcher’s office about arrangements.
If granted, it would make Lady Thatcher the first premier since Sir Winston Churchill to be given the honour.
But Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman says the stories are inaccurate.
"There is no arrangement on this and those stories are not accurate," Ms Harman told the Guardian newspaper.
Ms Harman, who has been "minding the shop" during Mr Brown’s holiday this week, declined to say whether she thought the former Conservative leader should have a state funeral.
that sums up harriet as far as any leadership contest might go – "ooh, they’ve asked me as potentially the next woman prime minister if i think maggie should have a state funeral – bugger, i don’t know what to say, i’m bound to get it wrong, i’d best say nothing" new labour – rabbits in the headlights
I didn’t realise Porter had sneaked back into the country .. anyone else would get the jail for not paying their poll tax.
I was reading there was even more dithering about a state funeral or not for Thatcher today. They are probably just testing the water to see if there will be mass protests and street parties.
Well at least when they privatised british gas we all got cheaper bills, so it wasn’t all bad.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.