Margaret Thatcher to get full ceremonial funeral - have they gone mad?

(211 Posts)
rowtunda Mon 08-Apr-13 14:31:43

Its bloody disgraceful - a tory/establishment decision that insults many. We should riot in the streets on the same day.

I fear becuase she had a film made about her everyone has forgetten what she actually did - including devastating whole communities - and now we are expected to stump up for her lavish funeral?

Bloody disgrace

(oh and she definietly wasn't a feminist icon either!)

Sopster Mon 08-Apr-13 14:33:34

"Riot in the streets on the same day"

What a mature attitude!

rowtunda Mon 08-Apr-13 14:35:18

well maybe not riot but there should certainly be some form of protest

Strangemagic Mon 08-Apr-13 14:36:06

WTF biscuit

quoteunquote Mon 08-Apr-13 14:36:19

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

EuroShaggleton Mon 08-Apr-13 14:36:38

Do you really think someone's funeral is a time for protest?

Roseformeplease Mon 08-Apr-13 14:36:56

She was PM here until 20 years ago and the funeral she has is in accordance with tradition and precedence. It is nothing to do with politics and everything to do with doing the right thing to honour a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader. It will not be a full state funeral, it will be as laid down for someone who achieves that position on the world stage.

Making this about politics or your own views is pretty vile and loathsome and you should be ashamed of yourself.

BikeRunSki Mon 08-Apr-13 14:38:58

I hope it will be funded by selling shares to the highest bidder.

Altinkum Mon 08-Apr-13 14:40:23

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

tiggytape Mon 08-Apr-13 14:40:48

a tory/establishment decision that insults many

Gordon Brown proposed it in 2011. In fact he proposed a full state funeral.

She was Britain's first and only woman PM, served as such for 11 years and had huge impact nationally and internationally. Whether you welcome that impact is neither here nor there. She was one of the most imprtant figures in 20th Century Britain.

Nancy66 Mon 08-Apr-13 14:41:53

yes...riot in the streets - but not until after the school run and before going to Waitrose.

LeeCoakley Mon 08-Apr-13 14:42:00

She herself didn't want a state funeral so you should be GLAD she's not getting what she wants wink

Altinkum Mon 08-Apr-13 14:42:34

Tight not many have been re- elected THREE

Not bad for a women who was hated so much!!

HotelTangoFoxtrotUniform Mon 08-Apr-13 14:43:02

The decision to honour her with a state funeral was made 5 years ago. By Gordon Brown. So it's not a Tory decision that insults many.

Please do check your facts before screaming "nasty Tories". It's getting boring.

CloudsAndTrees Mon 08-Apr-13 14:45:36

Protest at what? About a woman who we actually elected to be treated the same in her death as two women who just married well?

Pathetic attitude.


LividDil Mon 08-Apr-13 14:46:19

Why on earth did GB propose that?

Lonecatwithkitten Mon 08-Apr-13 14:46:44

Whether you liked her or not she at least made a decision and stuck by it through thick or thin after all 'The Lady did not turn'. She is not the first prime minister to be afford this honor and I very much doubt she will be the last.

NotAnotherPackedLunch Mon 08-Apr-13 14:48:16

Does that mean we get a day off work?
If so, bring it on. grin

LividDil Mon 08-Apr-13 14:48:45

Well if it was going to make a difference I would also happily protest about State funerals for those who marry well, and indeed for those born of a particular womb.

tiggytape Mon 08-Apr-13 14:48:55

Labour discussed it for years and were the ones who decided to approve it. It was much documented a lot at the time. Here's an article from 2008 about Labour's decision on it.

LividDil Mon 08-Apr-13 14:50:46

They won't dare give the plebs a day off - that just increases the chances of large legitimate protests

shallweshop Mon 08-Apr-13 14:51:07

OP get a grip! Whatever your personal views are on her politics, your comments are very offensive.

shesariver Mon 08-Apr-13 14:51:32

Given the level of public feeling against her I think it would be naive not to think that some sort of protest/celebration will be set up. And I would imagine the Police will be thinking the same.

Skinnywhippet Mon 08-Apr-13 14:53:05

Have some respect.

erowid Mon 08-Apr-13 14:54:32

Privatising her funeral would be a fitting tribute to her legacy.

FairyJen Mon 08-Apr-13 14:54:48

She deserves one and I hope she gets a decent send off surrounded by people who loved and respected her.

The same that I would want anyone to have. A nice peaceful funeral. A riot would t spoil it for her but it would her family and how is that fair? Her children were tiny when she was elected her policies were nothing to do with them and they have the right to lay their mother to rest without idiots like you op causing a ruck

Maggie111 Mon 08-Apr-13 14:55:07

Exactly what Tiggytape said, and I am no MT supporter - but I completely understand the need for a state funeral.

SueDoku Mon 08-Apr-13 14:55:08

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

LividDil Mon 08-Apr-13 14:55:27

Thank you for the link Tiggytape.

rowtunda Mon 08-Apr-13 14:57:38

I can't belive people don't care. It is not normal for previous PMs to be given full ceremonial funerals. The labour prime minister Clement Attlee who brought in the NHS didn't have one. They are taking about it being on the same scale at the queen mums and princess Dianas. Unbelievable.

GB did propse it but it is David & the monarch who have signed off on this - hence me blaming the tories - maybe unfairly granted.

er fairy, her children were not tiny when she was elected...they were adults.

Who could forget the "We are a grandmother"?

Fargo86 Mon 08-Apr-13 15:00:49

When was the last time Conservatives celebrated the death of a Labour PM?

FairyJen Mon 08-Apr-13 15:01:24

They were tiny web she joined politics but regardless funerals are for the ones left behind, should they pay the price?

Sunnywithshowers Mon 08-Apr-13 15:01:26

I don't think she should have a state funeral. I do think it could be a flashpoint for protests.

I am not a fan, but I wish her family a peaceful funeral - they have lost a mother and grandmother and she is theirs to mourn.

PeaceandFUCKINGLove Mon 08-Apr-13 15:02:19

What a crock of shite. Why does the public have to pay? We don't do it for most ex Prime Ministers so she can have a bloody private one.

Lottashakingoinon Mon 08-Apr-13 15:04:41

Tight not many have been re- elected THREETIMES

Not many, but it's been repeated since. Do you think Tony Blair will get that kind of send off?

ClaraOswald Mon 08-Apr-13 15:07:22

Surely she would be better served by a private service paid for out of her estate which is what happens to most people when they die?

tiggytape Mon 08-Apr-13 15:07:41

It is too late to moan about it now.
Gordon Brown proposed it and the Labour Party and monarch agreed it a long time ago. It was never a secret that it would happen. Why did nobody complain then? If anything it has been 'down graded' (for want of a more respectful term) at her request from a full state funeral to 'just' a Ceremonial one. She was entitled to have laid in state but requested that did not happen.

You may not agree with it but it is not unusual in the context of long serving and important figures. It is not a political decision since obviously you'd assume the last Labour government weren't her biggest fans. It is a decision taken to reflect her national and international importance over many decades of British history.

HoHoHoNoYouDont Mon 08-Apr-13 15:08:20

Excellent post tiggy

rowtunda Mon 08-Apr-13 15:11:14
niceguy2 Mon 08-Apr-13 15:12:07

The venom from the left really does show how nasty they are that even when she has died they cannot let go of their own bitterness.

I am surprised by the level of ceremony. Only Churchill had a state funeral in 20th Century so why is MT getting such a high degree of pomp?

dizzyhoneybee Mon 08-Apr-13 15:14:55

She shouldn't have a state funded funeral, it should be funded by her family. Nothing to do with who she was, what she did or what she believed but it's a family matter.
It should be the same for all politicians.

TheRealFellatio Mon 08-Apr-13 15:17:24

Oh God. I was wondering if there would be a bit of attention-seeking, opportunistic rioting on the day of her funeral. What the fuck would that achieve? hmm

I am disheartened to hear a Mumsnetter actually suggesting it though.

CheCazzo Mon 08-Apr-13 15:18:12

YY niceguy and

Making this about politics or your own views is pretty vile and loathsome and you should be ashamed of yourself

^ ^ ^ ^ to the hate-spewers on this matter wherever that hate is posted.

For the love of all things holy - a person, a human being, someone's family - is dead. I cannot believe what I am reading from some posters - utterly puke-making. Those posting that stuff really really should be ashamed of themselves.

UptheChimney Mon 08-Apr-13 15:18:28

Ironic for a politician who wanted to smash the State (together with the working class), and now her supporters want to State to pay for her funeral.

Let those who mourn her passing pay for the mourning.

Meanwhile, Not In My Name.

tiggytape Mon 08-Apr-13 15:19:06

rowtunda - And the date on the article again emphasises that this was discussed long ago under Labour and finalised then. She herself did not request it and the current government did not decide upon it.

thewitchisdead Mon 08-Apr-13 15:20:07

rowtunda - thanks for posting this. People do care and lots agree with you. There will be demonstrations, protests (juries out on the riot).

I'm not too worried about offending Thatcher's racist daughter and her failed-coup-jailbird son to be honest. Those of you that are - are you as worried about the offence to the families of the 1,000 needlessly killed in an unnecessary Falklands war which Thatcher bore responsibility for? Pretty offensive to them for her to receive a state-funded funeral.

tiredemma Mon 08-Apr-13 15:20:35

If a 'nice peaceful funeral' is what is wanted then perhaps she should have a small private/ privatised family affair.

Wasn't her son an arms dealer???

UptheChimney Mon 08-Apr-13 15:21:30

Those of you who think the OP is NBU can sign here:

Why do you think she should be the first prime minister in 50+ years to get a state funeral?

tiggytape Mon 08-Apr-13 15:24:22

I don't think the people who live on the Fawklands and whose home was invaded by foreign troops would agree it was an unneccessary war. It wasn't just about territory, it was about freeing people who are British citizens and wanted to remain so from an invasion force.

timidviper Mon 08-Apr-13 15:24:33

*Ironic for a politician who wanted to smash the State (together with the working class), and now her supporters want to State to pay for her funeral.

Let those who mourn her passing pay for the mourning.

Meanwhile, Not In My Name.*

Absolutely agree with this

HelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 08-Apr-13 15:25:20


Just a reminder that, while we have no problems with folks expressing their strong opinions about Thatcher's funeral arrangements, we may well delete posts that are simply beyond the pale.

timidviper Mon 08-Apr-13 15:25:22

Bugger failed to bold that!

.....but definitely not in my name.

BarbarianMum Mon 08-Apr-13 15:26:27

<<For the love of all things holy - a person, a human being, someone's family - is dead. I cannot believe what I am reading from some posters - utterly puke-making. Those posting that stuff really really should be ashamed of themselves.>>

Well pardon me but I think the evil you do in your lifetime shouldn't just be forgotten because a)you are dead b) you have a family. I wouldn't riot but I'm not about to forgive and forget either.

tiggytape Mon 08-Apr-13 15:26:46

niceguy Why do you think she should be the first prime minister in 50+ years to get a state funeral?


Not her supporters.
Not her family
Not the Tories
Not the current Government

It was a LABOUR GOVERNMENT decision that has been known about for years and years so if you object strongly, the time to have spoken up was in 2008!
And the reason was obviously not political - it reflected her hugely influential position in British politics and all over the world.

Manchesterhistorygirl Mon 08-Apr-13 15:26:54

Why all the vitriol about the Falklands? I have never heard that before EVER. They are British, just as much as you or me, did they not deserve the full protection of the state then?

CheCazzo Mon 08-Apr-13 15:27:29

I for one am pleased to hear that Helen. There are ways of expressing distaste without descending into the visceral hatred seen on this matter today. It lessens all of us to speak of any deceased person in that way.

thebody Mon 08-Apr-13 15:27:30

I guess lots of posters don't actually remember the winter of discontent 1979 and the dreadful state of the country.

Margaret thatcher did much that was good for this country and much that wasn't.

To write her off as an 'old witch' is very childish and very offensive to women in general.

Attack her politics by all means but not her personally.

Yes op you riot. And the come back when you have actually grown up a bit.

ClaraOswald Mon 08-Apr-13 15:27:44

She lived as a private citizen in recent years and should be accorded a funeral to mark that.

Private and not paid for from public funds.

Morgause Mon 08-Apr-13 15:29:19

No State funeral for Thatcher -

LineRunner Mon 08-Apr-13 15:29:30

The vitriol about the Falklands is usually about the sinking of the Belgrano. Much discussed previously on MN threads whilst Thatcher was ill.

I personally think a private funeral would be better.

gordyslovesheep Mon 08-Apr-13 15:29:58

how old where you in 1979 Thebody ?

Just because Labour sanctioned it tiggy doesn't make it right

Clara I agree x

There is no need to shout.

I know Labour decided it. I was asking niceguy for his views because he was dismisssing every objection as left wing bile.

I don't agree with her having a ceremonial funeral any more than any other prime minister. I could see the logic with Churchill as a wartime leader who arguably changed modern history.

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 08-Apr-13 15:40:19

It's totally wrong for her to have a 'ceremonial' funeral IMO.
I've said this on another thread so I'm repeating myself, but the only former PM that had the equivalent is Churchill.
This is setting a precedent, if she can have one, does that mean all our former PMs should have one?
How about Tony Blair, didn't he do 3 terms?
It's the tax payer that will be paying for it and in this economic climate with all the cuts, it sticks in my throat. I was no lover of MT and I am not gleeful over the death of an old woman
But this is wrong, let her have a private one surrounded by her loved ones, and then a memorial service for those that want to pay their respects.
That should be enough.

PipkinsPal Mon 08-Apr-13 15:41:43

I don't care how they conduct her funeral but I would be mightily pissed off if they start buggering up the TV schedules by putting on Maggie programmes, especially since I've circled the programmes in my tv mag I want to watch this week smile

thebody Mon 08-Apr-13 15:44:57

I was late teens Gordy.

Don't misunderstand me I am no supporter Tory and have never voted conservative. However the country was in chaos when she came to power and it was a dreadful time,, far far worse than now.

As I said she did good and bad things but to relegate her to an old witch and heap on personal vitriol is childish and unpleasant.

Like it or not she was a world leader and a trail blazer for women.

When she entered politics in 1969 it was unusual for a woman to have her own bank account.

People forgetter don't understand how sexist the 70s was. To get to the top was a remarkable achievement for a 'wife and mother'

Shame some posters can't accept this and I think that maybe because they simply don't remember ever NOT being taken seriously as women.

My mum was a 60s libber and defiantly left of left wing but she can see how thatcher did change attitudes to women.

tiggytape Mon 08-Apr-13 15:45:31

Sorry about the shouting but so many people seem to think this is a decision taken this morning and are cross about it not knowing that it is a Labour decision and not at all politicial.

The rationale is similar to the rationale for Churchill. That doesn't mean I am comparing their premierships or deeds - just their influence and importance.
Thatcher has supporters around the globe who would wish to send representatives to her funeral.
She held the office of PM for 11 years and was an important political figure for a long time before that - not least of all because she was a woman elected to become an MP in 1950's Britain. She won 3 General Elections and a War and held huge influence over all sorts of international issues and debates as well as national ones.
None of this is a good/bad judgement - it is about her importance as a political figure in 20th century Britain and by anybody's estimations, her influence and impact and legacy was far greater than many Prime Ministers of that century.

All of those factors and more no doubt were taken into account when Labour made the decision to endorse a state funeral (even though it will now only be a ceremonial one). It isn't a reward or endorsement of her politics but as a reflection of her national and international importance and position.

fedupofnamechanging Mon 08-Apr-13 15:48:59

thewitchisdead, so if somebody invaded Kent, you'd consider it a waste of time to defend it? The Falklands is populated by people who are British and therefore it should be defended as we would defend mainland Britain.

She had her faults, but she did defend the Falklands, when the likes of Tony Blair would probably have just given it away.

Fucking horrible user name by the way. Presume you have name changed for this thread. Think you should have the courage of your convictions and post under your 'proper' name, tbh.

Darkesteyes Mon 08-Apr-13 15:49:03

Really niceguy Venom from the left??
What about the venom from the right last week towards the Daily Mail cover of the Philpott children.

The fucking hypocrisy here. Those children didnt get any respect yet the same publication will be fawning all over Thatcher.

Remember she said "there is no society" Moral here is Be careful what you wish for.

Kithulu Mon 08-Apr-13 15:57:58

A better link to no state funeral for maggie petition.
For those who think money would be better spent elsewhere.

Thanks for your answer.
I can see her importance as the first woman prime minister but I am concerned about the precedent it sets. Tony Blair having a ceremonial funeral too?

On a lighter note
I would almost support her ceremonial funeral for getting rid of school milk which I utterly detested - I still don't drink milk today decades later.

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 08-Apr-13 16:03:40

Doesn't matter who made the decision though Tiggy, it was still the wrong one.
An not a wise one given the depth of feeling about her.

PeaceandFUCKINGLove Mon 08-Apr-13 16:04:42

I don't give a shiny shit who decided and when, she shouldn't be having a state funeral.

I am waiting to hear when this will be happening and I am going to book myself a train ticket to join the protests.

ComposHat Mon 08-Apr-13 16:04:43

As far as I know, Wilson, Heath and Callaghan didn't have all this pomp and ceremony when they were buried. If she was burried quietly and at private expense no one would get worked up. But trying to present her as a unifying public figure will backfire dangerously.

She isn't a national figure, she is a partial political figure whose legacy is divisive. Organising a state/ceremonial funeral will cause a bloody big couter demonstration and rightfully so.

BangOn Mon 08-Apr-13 16:19:45

Why should the OP 'show some respect'? Respect can be earned & respect can be lost. Many people lost respect for her due to her heartless neo-liberal policies and the pain, poverty & suffering he caused. Are you demanding that people feign what they simply don't & can't feel? Why?

tiggytape Mon 08-Apr-13 16:20:50

I don't think she is represented as a unifying public figure - just an important one. She was the longest serving PM of the whole 20th century and her national and international importance is something not disputed by even her fiercest critics.
Any brief look at the news today will show you that her passing isn't a news item, it isn't a headline, it is the only news being covered here and elsewhere. Any look at online papers will show hourly tributes and messages coming in from every major country and world leader. Her importance as a figure in 20th century Britain is unlike that of many other leaders no matter what party they came from.

Tony Blair for example said today:
"Very few leaders get to change not only the political landscape of their country but of the world. Margaret was such a leader. Her global impact was vast."

Of course change doesn't mean good necessarily but it does mean influential and important and that is why she has been singled out in this way.

VivaLeBeaver Mon 08-Apr-13 16:23:07

Do we get a day off work? That's the important question.

UptheChimney Mon 08-Apr-13 16:25:37

I am waiting to hear when this will be happening and I am going to book myself a train ticket to join the protests


And thanks to whoever did the link right!

LeeCoakley Mon 08-Apr-13 16:30:00

According to the BBC it's not a state funeral. It will be a ceremony with full military honours like Princess Diana and the Queen Mother.

Darkesteyes Mon 08-Apr-13 16:33:50

Thats only just stopping short of a state funeral.

rowtunda Mon 08-Apr-13 16:38:07

LeeCoakley - its still going to cost a bloody fortunethough - the only difference is that she won't be lying in state (they daren't do that!)

niceguy2 Mon 08-Apr-13 16:42:21

niceguy Why do you think she should be the first prime minister in 50+ years to get a state funeral?

I'm not bothered whether she gets a state funeral or not. As long as her family are happy with said arrangements then so am I.

I was referring to the idiots who are saying very nasty things about a woman who has just died.

YouTheCat Mon 08-Apr-13 16:47:27

What Compo said.

So if we are paying for it, we are allowed to dance on her grave then yeah?

eatyourveg Mon 08-Apr-13 16:55:25

Surely you can have a ceremonial funeral without having to drive a hearse through potentially crowd lined streets from Parliament up the Mall along the Strand transfer to a gun carriage at St Clements and carry on all the way to St Pauls?

How can they expect that to go smoothly given she was such a divisive figure - unfortunately there will always be idiots who will take advantage of the potential arena

Whats done is done and can never be undone - history books will retell it for years to come but at the end of the day, she was a frail 87yr old lady, and despite not agreeing with her policies, her family on that day deserve respect

Manchesterhistorygirl Mon 08-Apr-13 16:58:51

The sinking of the Belgrano was horrible, but war is not nice and the Argentinians never have had any claim to the Falklands and they should never have invaded. For that Thatcher did the right thing.

Also look at her history re: the Cold War. Her, Gorbachev and Regan changed the political global landscape. Some of her domestic policies were terrible, as I said in the other thread, but can people please look at her whole political career and not just cherry pick the bits that suit their agenda. She was a massive global political figure.

Fwiw I took me of my local Tory councillors to task about his hijacking of the Philpott case. That is disgusting and should never have been a political football.

niceguy2 Mon 08-Apr-13 17:09:59

Yep, i agree. As I just said on another thread, if you look at the UK when she came to power and again when she left, you cannot reasonably argue that the UK was worse.

Were there winners and losers? Yes of course. But that's life. The left of course hate her but no matter if you measure the UK on economic output or living standards as a nation we were much better off. Even those who hate her can't deny that.

givemeaclue Mon 08-Apr-13 17:13:00

Is her son still under house arrest?

givemeaclue Mon 08-Apr-13 17:14:17

No day off work. You will need to sob/celebrate depending on your views, in your own time

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Mon 08-Apr-13 17:14:34

Hypocrisy ? The Left always show their true colours in the end.
Ad nauseam, they try to maintain their entitlement to the moral high ground. But threads and comments over the last week,with changes to benefits in the offing, have revealed a lot of unpleasant, bitter and very intolerant people. I suspect Thatchers death will be another chance for them to spew their bile. Let them. A timely reminder of the particular type Thatcher fought against.

eatyourveg Mon 08-Apr-13 17:17:59

The left may hate her but Ed Milliband was still able to show respect in his comments about her - pity others can't

firesidechat Mon 08-Apr-13 17:18:11

OP, you don't think Labour would have done the same thing if they were in power? They would you know.

firesidechat Mon 08-Apr-13 17:20:00

Oh, and what eatyourveg said.

firesidechat Mon 08-Apr-13 17:25:24

I may regret saying this, but what the heck.

I hate and detest Tony Blair with every fibre of my being. Not because he is Labour, but he has always made me feel that he couldn't be trusted. Oh and the Iraq war didn't help. But I will not be posting celebratory comments on forums when he dies.

yousankmybattleship Mon 08-Apr-13 17:30:55

I agree with all those who have said that it is bloody disgrace that she gets any kind of funeral funded out of public money. I will be joining those who protest. She was a disaster for this country. Let her family grieve in private and let the rest of us just be thankful that she no longer wields any power.

comfysofas Mon 08-Apr-13 17:32:56

She was a prime minister who brought this country to its knees, and some people still have not recovered from it yet.

I shall lose no sleep over her nor watch any news/documentaries or her funeral.

DisorganisednotDysfunctional Mon 08-Apr-13 17:41:28

Given the level of public feeling against her I think it would be naive not to think that some sort of protest/celebration will be set up. And I would imagine the Police will be thinking the same.

Sums it up, Shesariver. I'd go. The DM has a headline I find amusing:

Lady Thatcher to be honoured with State funeral, but Palace fears there might not be enough troops to line streets of London

Fargo86 Mon 08-Apr-13 17:45:04

Some very bitter people in this thread. The country was in a far better state in 1990 than it was in 1979. All of the people celebrating tonight will wake up tomorrow morning with massive hangovers and all the problems they have today will still be there tomorrow.

MizK Mon 08-Apr-13 17:45:27

Hmm. I just wonder whether those who want to 'riot' about the state funeral ever bother their arse to actually campaign for real changes that might help people here and now. Public money may be spent at her funeral, but she was a prime minister, the highest public office we have, so it follows that she is buried as such. I am no fan, but I think people hold her up as a pantomime villain and are using her death as a way of venting pointless anger. We currently have the modern day equivalent in power - do something constructive about the way he is trampling on the vulnerable. Or maybe see if you outlive DC and picket his funeral, that'll be useful.

INeedSomeSun Mon 08-Apr-13 17:46:19

If you are not happy with the politicians why don't you do something yourself? No party or leader can please everyone & tough decisions have to be made.
It is easy to moan rather than get up & do something yourself.
MT was the first woman PM in an era when things very difficult for women. Whether we agree with her policies or not, she should be respected for this alone imo.

INeedSomeSun Mon 08-Apr-13 17:47:14

Mizk - looks like we think alike!

MizK Mon 08-Apr-13 17:47:54

Hmm. I just wonder whether those who want to 'riot' about the state funeral ever bother their arse to actually campaign for real changes that might help people here and now. Public money may be spent at her funeral, but she was a prime minister, the highest public office we have, so it follows that she is buried as such. I am no fan, but I think people hold her up as a pantomime villain and are using her death as a way of venting pointless anger. We currently have the modern day equivalent in power - do something constructive about the way he is trampling on the vulnerable. Or maybe see if you outlive DC and picket his funeral, that'll be useful.

Bits of the country may have been in a far better state but other bits were not.

Spot the problem.

I don't feel any joy at the death of a frail old woman and I have some respect for he honesty as politician even if I didn't like her policies, but I don't want to pay for her funeral.

"but she was a prime minister, the highest public office we have, so it follows that she is buried as such"

But no PM since Churchill has been buried as such. e.g. Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Eden etc none of them had a ceremonial funeral.

PeaceandFUCKINGLove Mon 08-Apr-13 17:56:56

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MizK Mon 08-Apr-13 18:00:17

chaz true, I suppose I think they should all get some sort of official funeral though. Would certainly make it less of an issue with the controversial ones!

MizK Mon 08-Apr-13 18:00:49

chaz true, I suppose I think they should all get some sort of official funeral though. Would certainly make it less of an issue with the controversial ones!

complexnumber Mon 08-Apr-13 18:11:08

A ceremonial funeral is not the same as state funeral.

How many on her can remember the last STATE funeral (Winston Churchill 1965)? I was alive, but no memory.

Even the Queen Mum was not given a Royal State Funeral.

Darkesteyes Mon 08-Apr-13 18:13:59

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmmMon 08-Apr-13 17:14:34

Hypocrisy ? The Left always show their true colours in the end.
Ad nauseam, they try to maintain their entitlement to the moral high ground. But threads and comments over the last week,with changes to benefits in the offing, have revealed a lot of unpleasant, bitter and very intolerant people. I suspect Thatchers death will be another chance for them to spew their bile. Let them. A timely reminder of the particular type Thatcher fought against

Like the colours that the right showed last week when they used six dead children to make a political point and further their agenda on welfare cuts by trying to make it look like ALL claimants are like Mick Philpott.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Mon 08-Apr-13 18:33:03

No they didn't. The left joyfully, and I mean joyfully, were the ones who attributed to Osborne a link he never made between Philpott and ALL benefit claimants. If there was a link to be made, it would be quite correct to make a link between him and a certain type of benefit claimant. The type which apparently "don't exist" or are 0.00000001 % of the benefit claimant population. I hold no brief for the Daily Mail, the paper makes me feel ill. But revulsion for the antics of the DM are no excuse (imho) for the sort of nonsense I expect to see over the next weeks.

But bile,and hate, whether from the left or the right, is not helpful.

cerealqueen Mon 08-Apr-13 18:37:11

Given the level of very real hatred, she should not be having a ceremonial funeral. Keep it private and but maybe have a memorial service some months down the line if the powers that be want to honour her.

Viviennemary Mon 08-Apr-13 18:42:02

I don't think she should be having a ceremonial funeral. She was Prime Minister yes and a woman yes. It was different for Churchill as he was a war time PM. I think given the current climate of cuts and so on it isn't a good idea to have a ceremonial funeral. Heads of State present and gun carriages and military and so on. No. I don't approve.

complexnumber Mon 08-Apr-13 18:57:55

She was our primeminister and DEMOCRATICALLY elected in 3 successive elections. How many other prime ministers have that honour.

That makes her rather special.

LineRunner Mon 08-Apr-13 18:59:16

I really think it would be best if her funeral were private.

tiggytape Mon 08-Apr-13 19:03:22

I am surprised so many people are surprised about this.
There is a MN thread dating back to 2008 about the state funeral agreement - it has been known for years that this kind of funeral was planned.

If anything today's announcement about arrangements marks a 'toning down' of what was agreed by the last Labour Government who approved (with the Queen) a full state funeral with laying in state too. Neither of those things will now happen - it is a ceremonial funeral not a full state one and no laying in state will take place.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pilgit Mon 08-Apr-13 19:07:16

There were those that objected to Churchill getting a state funeral. His career wasn't without blemish or sectors of the population that he annoyed (both nationally and internationally). The collective memory only remembers the war but there were compromises and poor decisions along the way. She is getting this honour because of her position on the world stage. If she didn't get this treatment other countries would wonder why and because she is a very prominent public figure. There are probably as many people that would want it as don't - why are their wishes not as important in our democracy? And as to the cost - in the scheme of Whitehall waste it will be a drop in the ocean.....

what is the difference between A ceremonial funeral and a state funeral.

tiggytape Mon 08-Apr-13 19:11:20

I know the monarch definitely attends all state funerals. I don't think it is automatic with ceremonial ones.

complexnumber Mon 08-Apr-13 19:12:34

"what is the difference between A ceremonial funeral and a state funeral."

(I think) it is which way the cannons are drawn...duh!

complexnumber Mon 08-Apr-13 19:16:02

oops "Spouses and widows of monarchs usually receive a ceremonial funeral, which differs only in the fact that the gun carriage bearing the coffin is drawn by horses, as opposed to sailors."

Double duh!!

EnidRollins Mon 08-Apr-13 19:20:18

Its bloody disgraceful - a tory/establishment decision that insults many. We should riot in the streets on the same day.

Rioting or protesting at a funeral. Nice. I despair with attitudes like that.

why is public money being wasted on this,her family can afford a private funeral, when the goverment are taking money away from disabled people

Figgygal Mon 08-Apr-13 19:24:05

Fireside i shall stand alongside you with your contempt of that war mongering weasel blair!!

LineRunner Mon 08-Apr-13 19:25:14

That's why the funeral shouldn't be a public event, because public events in this country will rightly be attended by the public, who are entitled to make their views publicly known.

You can't have it both ways.

The family should arrange a private funeral.

Westminster could have a memorial event if Cameron insists, later on.

Kithulu Mon 08-Apr-13 19:26:03

Some people will defiantly protest at the big funeral. That is why they should have left it a quiet private affair. Its going to be real trouble, the depth of feeling is tremendous.

tiggytape Mon 08-Apr-13 19:29:31

Its bloody disgraceful - a tory/establishment decision that insults many. We should riot in the streets on the same day.

It was a Labour decision actually - taken 2008 - 2011

MooMooSkit Mon 08-Apr-13 19:31:54

Horrible thread! I don't like her at all and am not upset but find the comments just vile on her and feel for her family as much as I don't agree with anything she did.

LineRunner Mon 08-Apr-13 19:38:56

Then the family should arrange a private funeral.

ClippedPhoenix Mon 08-Apr-13 19:41:04

I actually liked her, or what I saw of her, the thatcher years for me were good ones.

I'm pleased she's going to be recognised and I was rather sad today when I heard the news.

CheCazzo Mon 08-Apr-13 19:51:50

* comfysofas Mon 08-Apr-13 17:32:56*

She was a prime minister who brought this country to its knees, and some people still have not recovered from it yet

Some of us, when we're done rioting and dancing on the grave of an old woman, would do well to go sign up for evening classes in History. The country WAS on it's bloody knees when she came to power. There was nowhere lower for it to go.
Incidentally - if her policies were that bad how come the Labour government (which absolutely did not bring the country to it's knees - oh no!) did not rescind any of them?

thewitchisdead Mon 08-Apr-13 20:17:21

Ken Loach: "Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive and destructive Prime Minister of modern times. Mass unemployment, factory closures, communities destroyed – this is her legacy. She was a fighter and her enemy was the British working class. Her victories were aided by the politically corrupt leaders of the Labour Party and of many Trades Unions. It is because of policies begun by her that we are in this mess today. Other prime ministers have followed her path, notably Tony Blair. She was the organ grinder, he was the monkey. Remember she called Mandela a terrorist and took tea with the torturer and murderer Pinochet. How should we honour her? Let’s privatise her funeral. Put it out to competitive tender and accept the cheapest bid. It’s what she would have wanted."

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Mon 08-Apr-13 20:47:48

Well, you go an organise your little riot, then OP. hmm

... and hide. I would like it very much if people could see how many posters have hidden their threads. >>> off to site stuff to suggest it.

amothersplaceisinthewrong Mon 08-Apr-13 20:52:54

She should not get a ceremonial funeral - she is not royalty, she only thought she was.

Bodicea Mon 08-Apr-13 20:56:57

You might not agree with her politics. But she managed to be elected in for three terms so clearly a lot of people did and a lot of people loved her so show a bit of respect!

FrillyMilly Mon 08-Apr-13 21:15:20

Regardless of who's decision this was she should not get a state funeral. We are endlessly told the country is in debt and so I really don't think it's a good move for millions to be spent on a funeral. It is undeniable that many people still hate her and feel the effect of her policies. It would be far better if they did away with all the pomp and ceremony that is bound to attract controversy let her have a private funeral.

I must say though that personally I am shocked that she will be getting a similar funeral to Churchill. He led this country in defeat against a fascist. Thatcher on the other hand preferred to drink tea with one.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsPeeWee Mon 08-Apr-13 21:22:03

Oh, OP. How mature are you?

So pleased shes getting the works, RIP amazing lady. smile

Seems to be very little difference between a State funeral and a Ceremonial funeral as far as I can see.

Queen Mums funeral cost is estimated at over £4 million. We are several years on and with the protests likely how much more will this cost? At a time when cuts are being made that take people right to the edge of existence. 'We are all in it together?' What a load of rubbish.

Mitzyme Mon 08-Apr-13 22:15:01

Typical of this country. No protests on the streets about the draconian cuts on the poor , disabled, vulnerable and elderly. Yes let's take to the streets to protest about a women who has died because that will really send a message to the Government.

racmun Mon 08-Apr-13 22:18:05

I cannot believe some of the disgraceful comments being posted on here.

An 87 year old lady has just died. She came up from a working class and worked her way through the ranks in what really was a class ridden mans world.

She got elected 3 times, it was a democracy- she was Mugabe for gods sake.

Regardless of politics people need to learn some common courtesy and decency and let her family lay her to rest in peace.

Also just watching the news with the miners being interviewed- interesting no later politicians or government reinstated the mines- is that because they weren't viable and MT is an easy scape goat. Labour was in power for years but they didn't reinstate did they.

With regard to the country being skint in the basis that we can afford policing for god knows how many events associated with the royals I am sure they can get the pennies together to respect someone who worked for her position as opposed to just being born into it.

racmun Mon 08-Apr-13 22:19:24

Sorry typo

Wasn't Mugabe

Lovecat Mon 08-Apr-13 22:24:43

It's not just the policing, it's the army, the procession... let her family and friends lay her to rest and pay their respects in peace - and pay for it themselves.

No other PM since Churchill has had a big public funeral and I fail to see why someone who divided the country so badly (as comments on this thread have shown) should be accorded a send off funded by us. Especially in a time of austerity elsewhere.

tiggytape Mon 08-Apr-13 22:34:37

No other PM since Churchill has had a big public funeral and I fail to see why

It is because she wasn't just a British Prime Minister or a woman or a long serving politician, it is because she is regarded (like Churchill) as being one of the most important world leaders of the 20th century - helping to bring the Cold War to an end and involvement in so many other international affairs.
Her fiercest critics may not agree with what she did but every single one of them has agreed that she shaped Britain and the whole world during her time in office in a way that not all leaders can or do.

exoticfruits Mon 08-Apr-13 22:42:09

I was going to say the same as tiggytape. I didn't like her, or most of her policies, but she will go down in history as an important World leader and should be honoured with a public funeral IMO. I think it is quite a nasty thread.

Lovecat Mon 08-Apr-13 23:18:51

You conveniently missed off the end of what I said, tiggy smile

Someone who was so disastrously divisive (just look at the opinions on this thread!) should not be afforded a funeral on behalf of the whole country. If nothing else, given the current climate it's just giving a focus for protest on what should be a private ceremony, which can only cause her family more distress. In my opinion smile

Tbh I'm not a fan of massive public funerals in general, whether for politicians or the royals.

tiggytape Mon 08-Apr-13 23:37:46

I didn't miss it off for any other reason than it was just a bloody long setence - you implied she wasn't similar to Churchill whereas in fact she was in terms of being a 'statesman' and of importance far beyond Britain.

I have to say I probably agree with you on not being overly fond of public funerals in general but, if the criteria to being awarded one is being somebody of national and international importance combined with long ervice then she qualifies. Churchill was pretty controversial too at times - he sent troops to intervene in a south Wales miners' dispute in 1910 and changed political party often enough to annoy a lot of people

tiggytape Mon 08-Apr-13 23:38:14

I meant to put a wink in there - was just teasing you about your long sentence!

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Mon 08-Apr-13 23:44:02

grin At anyone quoting Ken Loach on Margaret Thatcher.

Not exactly an old friend of hers..........

fluffypillow Tue 09-Apr-13 00:04:54

She should have a private funeral. I don't want to pay for it.

I will be avoiding all programmes about her over the coming weeks (yawn), and certainly don't want to watch her funeral on TV.

She didn't do anything good for this country, quite the opposite.

Awful woman.

PoppyField Tue 09-Apr-13 00:18:59

I think a really good pomp and ceremony funeral would get the country in a spirit of togetherness...just like the Blitz! But there could be various nice touches in the spirit of Thatcherism and her amazing legacy.

She wouldn't want the taxpayer to subsidise her funeral - she was much happier rolling back the frontiers of state - better to maybe have it sponsored by British business - one of the privatised water companies could put a tasteful logo on the coffin, or more appropriately one of the Scottish distilleries could step in.

Perhaps, to show real respect, the boy Mark could hover above the cortege in one of his military helicopter 'ambulances' ready to stage a coup by accident.

Then an honour guard of third generation-unemployed people could form an avenue up to the doors of Westminster Abbey. Some old miners from Oop North perhaps? Maybe they could have the deserving poor on one side of Whitehall and the undeserving on the other, for the benefit of TV viewers trying to tell them apart.

Perhaps we could also find a few nice gay people to come and celebrate her work on equal rights and Section 28. Or some of those 16-18 year olds who were thrown out on the street when they stripped them of housing benefit in the late 80s? How old must they be now?

Finally the hearse would have to be driven by a cabbie yabbering non-stop about how Maggie singlehandedly stopped this country going to the dogs, got rid of all those effing trade unionists trying turn the lights out and yes, she was working for proper British people and would never have let in all those lazy foreigners who are now stealing all our jobs.

cricketballs Tue 09-Apr-13 00:35:54

and mnetters wonder why the press are having a field day about the users of this site; no matter what your politics are can you please remember that she has died and has family that are grieving hmm.

I have seen many threads on this site and on facebook that are celebrating her death - have we really got to the point in our society that we are that callous to forget that someone has a family that are grieving?

gaelicsheep Tue 09-Apr-13 00:39:09

I was no fan of her politics, but she was a formidable politician and a formidable woman. Whether I agree or not, SHE believed in what she was doing and I admire her for that.

cf the current shower.

Darkesteyes Tue 09-Apr-13 01:00:23

cricketballs the six children who died in that fire have relatives including half brothers and sisters who are grieving.
It didnt stop that awful Daily Mail front page last week did it? Or from certain other people both in and out of Government using the deaths of six chlildren for their own political ends.

applecrumbleandcream Tue 09-Apr-13 01:08:52

MT was in no way any sort of national treasure and undeserved of a state funeral. She crippled this country with her policies decimating industry and destroying the livelihoods of hard working families some of which are still paying the cost of what she did.

That said even though I don't agree with her politics, I don't wish ill of the dead. That is all.

Morloth Tue 09-Apr-13 01:11:25

If everyone hated her so much, how come she kept getting re-elected? Genuine question.

LadyBeagleEyes Tue 09-Apr-13 01:14:06

Poppy, that was a brilliant post. grin
It's too late and I'm too tired but that could be the making of a brilliant thread.

MidniteScribbler Tue 09-Apr-13 02:34:00

It's a special kind of arsehole that thinks that a funeral is the appropriate place to stage a protest. Someone has died, and a family is grieving, but oh yes, let's all go along like a bunch of feral yobs and start a riot! Disgraceful.

PigletJohn Tue 09-Apr-13 03:02:38


Because you can get elected even if most people don't vote for you.

Bartlebee Tue 09-Apr-13 03:13:38

She was the most important PM since Churchill.

Elected 3 times.

A hugely important figure in our national history.

Absolutely she should have ceremonial funeral. Much more entitled to it than that daft bint, Diana, imo.

Panzee Tue 09-Apr-13 03:18:17

She couldn't be Prime Minister in the current Government. Far too elitist now.

Bartlebee Tue 09-Apr-13 03:26:49

I'm just watching Nancy Reagan being interviewed about MT.

I thought Nancy Reagan was dead!

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs Tue 09-Apr-13 05:35:18

I am as left as left can be. I wouldn't protest at her funeral, it is her funeral. HOWEVER I truly believe that unless a ceremonial funeral will become standard for every former PM still currently alive, then MT shouldn't be having one.

The funeral should be a PRIVATE affair, for her family and friends.

I disagree with the use of public funds on a ceremonial funeral for a politician when that money could be spent on NOT making people with disabilities pay additional rent for essential rooms, say.

I feel it is a misappropriation of public funds.

That is MY take on the subject, as the great granddaughter of a miner, whose entire hometown and the rest of his family were decimated by MT.

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs Tue 09-Apr-13 05:37:16

And yes, I spent time campaigning against the Welfare Reform Bill.

cricketballs Tue 09-Apr-13 07:48:50

the examples you include from the last week quite rightly had the vast majority of mnetters angry Darkesteyes; but how are we any different if we celebrate a death?

twofingerstoGideon Tue 09-Apr-13 07:53:03

grin PoppyField

melika Tue 09-Apr-13 08:08:10

C'mon she was a world leader who stopped the cold war. Does she deserve a ceremonial funeral, probably more so than Diana or the Queen Mother!

Believe me, I didn't like some of the things she did, but she had the courage of her convictions and mostly carried it off.
(Gordon Brown okayd the ceremonial funeral).
I grew up with her in power until I was 25yrs old and even though I was a jobless, labour supporting, teen etc I had some admiration for her as a woman.

I won't protest at her funeral but I'd rather not have to pay for it.

Poppy smile

rememberthefallout Tue 09-Apr-13 10:40:15

She certainly finished off the Tory party in Scotland. There was a so-called economic miracle in the South East where all the votes could be collected and the rest of the country suffered. She ruined the manufacturing industry. She was a disaster as Minister for Education. The poll tax was grossly unfair, her monetarism policy has been discredited... Yes, she took on the unions, but she never tackled the underlying problems of industrial relations.
I think we've taken leave of our senses even considering a ceremonial funeral for such a controversial figure.

Inertia Tue 09-Apr-13 10:40:55

If this country cannot afford to fully support its people with disabilities, or elderly people needing care, or families escaping domestic violence, then it sure as hell cannot afford to lash out millions on the kind of ceremonial funeral that no other prime minister in the last half-century has had.

She didn't achieve more than 50% of the vote in any election. She was never the choice of the majority.

Her family are perfectly able to pay for her funeral . Alternatively it could be privatised - sponsorship from arms manufacturers might be appropriate, and introduce a family touch for her son. Or it could be put out to competitive tender, with the family forced to go with the lowest price regardless of the service provided. Any of these would be a far more accurate reflection of her policies and her legacy. She's had hundreds of thousands of pounds in state benefits since she retired - she should have been putting some money away from that to pay for her funeral. She tried to dismantle the State, but she's been quite willing to milk it since she retired and now the state has to cough up for her funeral. It's sheer hypocrisy , which the right-wing foamers conveniently ignore in their rants about spongers. (I am no New Labour apologist either).

If we are in austerity measures then there is no excuse for this sort of unnecessary public waste. So what if Gordon Brown suggested it - financial circumstances have changed since 2008, and the govt have discarded plenty of his other plans.

rememberthefallout Tue 09-Apr-13 11:03:27

I would not take part in any sort of active demonstration but I would like to register a protest somehow - by signing a petition say. Has anybody heard anything?

niceguy2 Tue 09-Apr-13 11:08:32

She didn't achieve more than 50% of the vote in any election. She was never the choice of the majority.

The way our electoral system works, it's practically impossible for any party to get over 50% of the vote.

Even when his Tonyness came to power with a landslide majority and a swing not seen for 50 years, even Labour failed to get the 50%.

Using your logic, no government we've had since around the 1950's has been the choice of the majority. And even then in 55 & 59 is was slightly less than the magic 50% (around 49%). Interestingly both were Conservative governments.

LadyBeagleEyes Tue 09-Apr-13 11:20:05

I've read 8 million pounds to pay for this.
In these days of cutbacks i'ts shocking.
I now wonder how many people will turn up to line the streets to watch.
Princess Di and The Queen Mother had millions watching on route or on the tv but they were both held with a lot of affection.
MT divided the nation, I can't believe there won't be people who turn out just to protest.

LookingThroughTheFog Tue 09-Apr-13 11:21:46

Five years ago we weren't in the grip of such an awful depression. As a country, we cannot afford to take care of our poor or our sick. Apparently we can't afford an NHS and schools are being sold to the private sector. We have scant and often inappropriate social housing, because it was sold off. State possessions were sold off leaving us with no product to cover our debt.

We simply cannot afford a lavish funeral for her. I was anti it 5 years ago when things weren't so dire, and it's worse today.

If, as I have heard often over the past 24 hours, we need to spare a thought for her mourning relatives, frankly, I think they should pay for her funeral.

Flobbadobs Tue 09-Apr-13 11:27:17

If Winston Churchill had one then so should Margaret Thatcher.
Don't forget that Churchill as first Lord of the Admiralty was responsible for the Gallipoli campaign costing thousands of lives on both sides, oppossed Indian independance and Ghandi's peaceful revolt, linked Bolshevism to a Jewish conspiracy and was not a generally popular choice to replace Chamberlain at the start of WW2.
And yet he is considered to be a grand old statesman and the embodiment of British spirit...
I was born in the 70's so I don't have specific memories of the time but my parents tell me of power cuts, unburied bodies, rubbish left in the streets and food shortages.
I live in a Northern town btw, many people bought their council houses, my own house is a legacy of that, the previous occupant bought it.
My day remained for the most part unchanged yesterday, I'm no Tory or a particular fan of MT but she changed this country. Labour had their chance to reverse her policies, they failed to do so.
It's not even up for debate, the funeral will happen. The usual mouthing off will happen, rent a gobs will pop up all over the place spouting bile and being photographed drinking champagne and celebrating while a family mourns in the public eye, the issue has probably been taken out of their hands (although I believe she will have a private cremation).
And anyone who starts trouble when London will be crawling with armed soldiers is an idiot...

sarahtigh Tue 09-Apr-13 11:27:30

no government has got 50% for years they get in with 42-47% because even more people are against opposition
because of system a party can get a landslide victory of 100+ seats with less than 50% so while current government may have 54% of population against labour would have had about 67% against them at least election so on that basis they definitely do have the mandate to govern just like every other government in past 100 odd years

as at least 350 of the 600 seats in parliament have not changed party since 1950 and generally the election turns on about 100 -150 vulnerable seats getting more than 50% is impossible to achieve

more people wanted the tories in power at last election than any other party, they did not have a majority but were closer to it than anyone else

tiggytape Tue 09-Apr-13 11:34:14

Being democratically elected is not the same as having more than 50% of the votes. That has never been the case.

When Labour won in 2005 they had 35% of the vote.
When the Tories 'lost' in 2010 they had 36% of the vote.

badtime Tue 09-Apr-13 11:45:35

I believe the reference to the percentage of votes achieved by the Conservatives under Thatcher was in response to the people asking 'if most people hated her, how come she won elections?'.

I am struggling to see why so many people think that protesting a public event like a ceremonial funeral is the same as protesting at a private funeral.

I don't think anyone wishes to upset the bereaved family. I don't think anyone (certainly very few people) would ever dream of protesting at a private funeral, which, according to precedent, should be occurring in this case.

People do not object to Mrs Thatcher having a funeral, they object to her being honoured by the state with a ceremonial funeral. Protests would be against this honour, not the funeral. I think it is perfectly acceptable that people should be permitted to voice their objections, whether it be on the grounds of cost or because they think Thatch is an unsuitable candidate for a public ceremony of this nature.

Turning the funeral into a public event invites public comment, and a great deal of this comment will be negative, and exhuberant.

LadyBeagleEyes Tue 09-Apr-13 11:54:23

A private funeral, followed by a Memorial Service later in the year would have been the way to go IMO.
The Memorial service would allow world leaders and the Queen to pay their respects, and wouldn't cost the taxpayer 8 million quid.

tiggytape Tue 09-Apr-13 11:56:10

I agree it is perfectly acceptable to object to state paid or ceremonial funerals (of anyone) on principle. And the time to make that objection known is when the plans are being finalised and become public knowledge i.e. back in 2008
It is disrespectful to object publically at the actual funeral itself when the person has passed away. This has been known about for years and years (it was even discussed on MN back in 2008 but nobody actually did anything about it)

MidniteScribbler Tue 09-Apr-13 12:02:50

What Tiggytape said. I have no feelings one way or the other about her entitlement to a state funded funeral as I'm not in the UK, but the time to protest about it was when the decision was made. Protesting at the actual funeral is not only like shutting the gate after the horse has already bolted, but it's downright disrespectful. Like her or not, she was respected by many people and she had a family, all of whom deserve to be able to mourn and pay their respects without loudmouthed fools acting like pork chops at what should be a dignified occasion. Just think how you would feel it if were your mother, or grandmother that had passed away, and you had to run the gauntlet of yobs.

badtime Tue 09-Apr-13 12:03:25

People did object to it back then. It still happened, and they still object to it now. It clearly wasn't set in stone (as it is going to be a 'ceremonial' rather than a 'state' funeral hmm), so given that 'we're all in this together', I think it is still appropriate to show disapproval for the honour of a ceremonial funeral.

The best suggestion I saw (some time ago) was that people should go and line the streets, and turn their back as she is wheeled past - respectful disrespect at its best.

Inertia Tue 09-Apr-13 12:06:00

I know that it is virtually impossible to achieve more than 50 % of votes in an election. I included the comment about votes in response to the posts above which implied that the fact that she won three elections suggested most people were in favour of her being prime minister. My point is (and it applies to pretty much every government, including the present one ) that more people voted against her than in favour of her, regardless of the fact that no single other party won more votes individually.

tiggytape Tue 09-Apr-13 12:09:59

badtime - going from state to ceremonial means it has been toned down in fact and a lot of that is because of the family's wishes. What was planned was far grander (laying in state and a military plane fly by). The fact it will be state funded and a national occasion is something they had little say in and something that was decided long ago. It had monarchy approval and was signed off - it was set in stone by Gordon Brown.

I remember it being discussed and I remember some very cross news articles dating back from that time but I don't remember any public protest or petition or letters of complaint - nothing like that at all. So if people didn't know about it or didn't object when it was finalised years ago, they are perfectly entitled to still be against it now but it never justifies disrupting the funeral itself.

And as for the money - the funeral plans were agreed 2008 - 2011 at the height of the recession, credit crunch and bank crisis so again if austerity is the objection, that would have been a valid point to raise then. It is too late now.

rememberthefallout Tue 09-Apr-13 12:13:25

Well, if this thread is reflective of public opinion, she was certainly a very divisive figure. I'm not against ceremonial funerals. I just think it's unwise to hold one for a person who can elicit so much bad feeling even after so many years. And eight million is a modest figure. What will it cost in terms of policing and security? I'm not sure BTW if we should respect people for the courage of their convictions. I'd rather admire someone for both.

Inertia Tue 09-Apr-13 12:15:12

If her family want her to have a dignified ceremony where only people who loved her are present, then it's very simple. They can pay for her to have a private funeral with private security and still invite whichever heads of state they like.

If the family agree to her having a public funeral, paid for by taxpayers and with taxpayer-funded police and armed forces security, then it becomes an issue about which the public are entitled to an opinion.

MidniteScribbler Tue 09-Apr-13 12:16:08

badtime, why do you feel that there is any excuse to be disrespectful? If you don't agree with it, then don't go. There is never an excuse for being disrespectful at someone's funeral.

There are many things that are passed by governments that I don't agree with. The arguments are done, both sides present their point of view, and decisions are made. Some I agree with, others I don't. I have never voted for the current ruling political party in my country, and never will. But in a democracy, you don't always get what you want. I have met the current PM, who is someone I don't agree with most of their politics and stances on most issues, but I still respected the office and the person.

A bunch of protesters disrupting important occasions will rarely get any respect for their position or for themselves.

It isn't about being disrespectful at someone's funeral, it is a protest against public money funding it. There were parties around the country last night and police officers were injured trying to break them up, if they want a re-run of the riots then they are doing everything that they need to, to ensure this happens. Do I want her paid as little respect as the dying and dead at Hillsborough? I'm not sure, tbh.

And rather than just go on the stories of the strikes that caused power cuts etc, read social policy books as to why the strikes were taking place. Ask why it has taken so long to have maternity and paternity rights in the UK and all the other possible legislation that was ignored because “society didn't exist, just individuals“.

badtime Tue 09-Apr-13 12:39:47

There is never an excuse for being disrespectful at someone's funeral

As I have said before, the issue is not with the funeral - a private event would be entirley different. A publically-funded 'ceremonial funeral' is more than a funeral. It is a public event. By having a public event where none is needed, this is inviting public participation.

You concede that it is an 'important occasion' - I assume you don't just mean for the friends and family of the deceased? So you agree that it is more than a funeral.

I will say this again - protests would not be about the funeral they would be about the cost and because people disagree with having the funeral as a public event.

cuteboots Tue 09-Apr-13 12:49:17

The outpouring of vile comments on this post has really shocked me. Her family are grieving and we seem more concerned with venting our anger and rioting at her funeral? We may or may not have liked her views and what she stood for but show some respect people. Also are the current shower of shit we have in place doing a better job !Hmmmmm lets think about that one then.

tiggytape Tue 09-Apr-13 12:55:08

I will say this again - protests would not be about the funeral they would be about the cost and because people disagree with having the funeral as a public event.

And I'd say again: it is too late to moan about it now. It was agreed by the last Labour Government and it has been public knowledge for at least 5 years that she would get this type of funeral. If people really object, they should have protested or complained at the time it was all being discussed and agreed. To do so 5 years too late and after she has died is disrespectful

badtime Tue 09-Apr-13 12:55:34

It is not a funeral, it is a state ceremony occasioned by a funeral. No-one would object to a private funeral.

How many people are advocating riots? What is 'vile' about suggesting there are better ways to spend money than celebrating the political legacy of such a divisive figure?

badtime Tue 09-Apr-13 12:58:34

I don't respect her.

tiggytape Tue 09-Apr-13 13:02:44

There's nothing vile about objecting to money being spent on such things. I am not personally in favour of huge, state funerals (except for the monarch) and agree they are better as private occasions with a separate memorial for world dignitaries and others if they want to mark it.

BUT I am against any form of disruption to anyone's funeral no matter what other people thought of them. That is vile.

And I fail to see why the whole idea is more objectionable to some people now that it is actually happening than it was 5 years ago when it was agreed (and discussed and in all the papers)
Everyone knew this was planned all along so moaning about it now just seems like an excuse to be disrespectful since if anyone genuinely objected on principle then surely they would have voiced that objection at the correct time and had their protests at the time the last government signed it all off?

PigletJohn Tue 09-Apr-13 18:35:25

I don't understand your point, tiggy

Are you under the mistaken impression that those who disliked Thatcher and her policies (of whom there are many millions) did not start to express their opposition to a state-funded ceremonial funeral until yesterday?

Or are you perhaps under the mistaken impression that the common people were allowed to have a say in it?

yousankmybattleship Tue 09-Apr-13 19:20:24

I think very few people are advocating riots, but quite a few of of will protest. If her family had a quiet funeral only for people who knew her personally and wanted to share their grief then of course I would not protest, but the minute her funeral becomes a vast affair, attended by foreign heads of state and funded by public money it has been politicised and I therefore feel perfectly justified in expressing my displeasure. And no, I will not show respect because in my view she didn't earn it.

Yellowtip Tue 09-Apr-13 19:39:20

Is the fact that public money is being spent on this less reprehensible than the fact that public money was spent on the Kate and Will wedding? The royals can be pretty divisive as well.

tiggytape Tue 09-Apr-13 19:41:27

The first one Piglet - people have expressed shock and outrage (or in some cases just surprise) at a public funeral when in fact it had been debated and agreed upon years ago so I am under the 'mistaken' impression I guess that they didn't know about it before yesterday let alone make their objections known in 2008.

LineRunner Tue 09-Apr-13 19:45:51

tiggy, there have been MN posts for years about opposition a state-sponsored funeral for Thatcher.

Inertia Tue 09-Apr-13 19:51:49

Objecting in 2008 and objecting now are not mutually exclusive.
But as PigletJohn says, public objections are rarely taken into consideration. Doesn't mean we can't have an opinion now if our opinions were disregarded at the time.

PigletJohn Tue 09-Apr-13 19:55:08

"it had been debated and agreed upon years ago"

Not by me.

ubik Tue 09-Apr-13 20:04:38

Well obviously the funeral should be opened up to private competition and the cheapest bid accepted.

I'd do it fir £50.

LineRunner Tue 09-Apr-13 20:09:41


ubik Tue 09-Apr-13 20:14:23

Damn you compulsory competitive tendering!

<shakes fist at sky>

redlac Tue 09-Apr-13 20:15:53

Heck bring her up north and folks would do it for free (and bring their own shovels)

PigletJohn Tue 09-Apr-13 20:22:09

the Scots have been offering to do that for years.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now