denlin Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 None left, they are all back filled and built over. Same as the railways that the Tories destroyed. The best thing would be a burial at sea, same as Bin Liner. Then there would be no grave to be desecrated would there? (Somewhere off The Falklands would be best, for she so loved those islands that hundreds of young men died for them, due her great love of them.) If they do that I won't be able to dance on her grave, I can't swim:roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 It has happened before.Churchill,Wellington,Gladstone and, I think, Palmerston. Churchill has been the only one since the turn of the 20th century. Wellington was a Duke and Palmerston a Lord; in both cases, their state funerals were not given because of their having been Prime Minister. I'm not so sure about Gladstone; but it may well, indeed, be that Churchill was the only PM ever to have been awarded a state funeral because of his time as PM. It's fairly irrelevant what we think about the prospects of Thatcher getting a state funeral - because in reality, there are none. It's not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoatwobbler Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 You do realise that there were enough people that idolized her and did well in the 80's that asking for donations to fund her funeral would probably result in more being spent on her than the Tories could hope to allocate out of the public purse. If people want to do that with their own money then I for one cannot possibly disagree with them doing so. With government finances in the parlous state they are, private donations for such an event should be welcomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 ... but it may well, indeed, be that Churchill was the only PM ever to have been awarded a state funeral because of his time as PM. Or it might not. Gladstone and Disraeli, between them, dominated the British political landscape for almost fifty years; Gladstone served as PM four times, Disraeli twice. Disraeli was to have been given a state funeral but expressly refused it in his own will. Wellington, before (and the reason why) he was ennobled, was one of the great heroes of the Napoleonic Wars - Admiral Nelson was accorded a state funeral for the same reason. Palmerston served as Foreign Secretary under government of both colours for more than forty years, covering part of the Napoleonic Wars and several others during his time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 So therefore if Thatcher gets a state funeral we will find that the president is set for all modern prime ministers to get one. No, we can't set a president; the UK is a monarchy. We'd not even be setting a precedent, mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 I suppose you could argue that Winston Churchill was the only British Prime Minister to be given a state funeral if you ignore the existence of The Duke of Wellington, Palmerston and Gladstone. You seem to be trying to politicise this matter. Thatcher was clearly supported by enough of the population to be elected to office 3 times. She also led the country to victory in a war. I would imaging when Tony Blair comes to his dotage folks will start proposing a state funeral for him. The wins were helped by the SDP who split the opposition vote.She started a war quite needlessly and did win but hardly earnt credit either for UK or MT.It was a chimera designed to combat her unpopularity-the gamble paid off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 She started a war quite needlessly and did win but hardly earnt credit either for UK or MT.It was a chimera designed to combat her unpopularity-the gamble paid off! A gamble that earnt no credit hasn't paid off, has it? In any event, that canard should have been put to bed even before the 1983 election. A politician who manufactures a war for the purpose of being re-elected, does not then wait twelve whole months after winning it before holding the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 A gamble that earnt no credit hasn't paid off, has it? In any event, that canard should have been put to bed even before the 1983 election. A politician who manufactures a war for the purpose of being re-elected, does not then wait twelve whole months after winning it before holding the election. Whats it got to do with ducks(canard)?The credit was conceived in the moral sense ,not in terms of expediency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Whats it got to do with ducks(canard)?The credit was conceived in the moral sense ,not in terms of expediency. He canardly believe it, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 He canardly believe it, either. That canard family built some fine ships,like EGGE2,and the Preen Marie,with unsurpassed bouyancy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.