Idiotic thickos. Yes, another thread!!!

nightowl Well if it makes people realise that the monarchy is not politically neutral but is the natural bedfellow of Conservatism, then at least one good thing has been achieved.

When you say she was a "divisive figure" that must mean some liked and admired her.

And actually quite a lot of people did, and still do.

I think it's mostly the anti's who come on boards like this to express their dislike.

I think that the Queen's personal views about Mrs Thatcher are her own affair and irrelevant. The fact is, as others have said, those responsible have completely misjudged the strength of feeling that still exists and the potential for great unrest. The Queen should have been advised not to attend. I am shocked by the decision and as someone who felt a great deal of warmth towards HM at the time of the jubilee, I have been saddened and disillusioned.

I do not condone in any way the actions of the moronic few who have been celebrating Mrs Thatcher's death. I feel no satisfaction that she has gone but neither will I shed any tears. I will simply be remembering my dad who worked his whole life in the steel industry, apart from when he fought in the war. Her policies directly destroyed him, his friends, and our community. That is her legacy. The Queen's decision to attend her funeral seems to confirm that the monarchy will always be wedded to the right and the rest of us should remember our place.

I don't think anybody can say the government is asking for mindless violence and disorder. As gillybob and others have said, this is simply "rentamob" - louts who have no idea what they are "protesting" about - just another excuse for civil disorder and they cannot attribute responsibility to anybody but themselves. Who's running this country, anyway - the forces of law and order or gangs of hooligans? Let's not dignify their actions by calling it a "protest" - a protest about what - a protest about things which happened before many of them were born? Come off it. Nobody is "bigging up" (whatever that may mean) this funeral, it is a funeral with full military honours - not a State funeral - and, guess what, you don't need to go to it, watch it on TV or take any notice of it whatsoever. But I expect righteous indignation will fuel a good few pages of threads yet.

I don't think the Queen does 'obeying orders', gillybob but attending a ceremony when she'd rather not, is water off a duck's back.

DH has been remarking on the idiots who probably weren't even born when MT was in power. As you say, any excuse.

But gillybob by bigging up the funeral and not accepting that there are genuine deep felt negative feelings about her, the govt's asking for trouble. It's not about the protests as such it's about completing ignoring that she was a divisive figure. So it looks very partisan - maybe because it is?

I think perhaps the queen did have a fondness for Mrs T or she would not be attending her funeral would she? I cannot imagine she is simply obeying orders to do so.

I bet if you sat most of these idiots down and asked them exactly what Mrs thatcher did that they disapproved of they wouldn't be able to tell you. They are simply jumping on an excuse to behave like the thugs they quite clearly are.

From the news film I saw, the people "celebrating" Thatcher's demise couldn't even have been born when she left No 10! Any excuse for a riot.

I mean, whether or not she liked her.

I would the Queen would know that better than we do Greatnan

I think a bit more of it might belong to them than it does to me tbh.

I don't think the queen was very fond of Thatcher.

J08 - well if its not my state - and yours and everyone else's, whose it is? It certainly doesn't belong to the Windsors

But Merlot, neither her or a rep is ok- the queen does not go to dead pms funerals -Churchill was a completely acceptable exception - because of the war. It looks so political doesn't it? And it's too late now. I don't know if there will be more trouble and of course I hope not but I think all the decisions about the funeral are a kick in the teeth to a lot of decent people . As you say she was a very divisive pm - she never united the country and only ever served the interests of certain groups. So I need to know why the hell is the queen going if not to provoke trouble . If it were convention to go to all dead pms funerals , that would be ok but once you pick and choose, you are asking for trouble.

I think it's up to the Queen whose funeral she goes to. Perhaps she liked the old girl.

Your state Bluebell?! Delusions of grandeur there I think.

Prince Andrew would be a good representative. He served in the Falklands and it's about time he did something worthy.

Surely the Queen could be represented by another high ranking Royal? Even though I supported the decision to go to war over the Falklands, bluebell is right. It didn't turn MT into another Churchill. Those who want to cause trouble have a whole week to organise themselves. It's a very dangerous situation.

Margaret Thatcher's time as Prime Minister was full of conflict. We don't need any of it back again now she has died.

What the queen does as head if state is very much my business - it's my state!!!

Perhaps j8 - that it shows that neither Mr Cameron, nor the Queen and her entourage, have their finger on the pulse of the nation- and that is very dangerous. I pray that my predictions won't come true, but I am VERY concerned about next Wednesday turning into hell on earth for Britain.

Nobody says you h ave to understand it Bluebell. It's likely to be the Queen' s own choice. None of our business.

That will always be the case though won't it. Some did not want the Jubilee. Some did not want the Olympics. Some will say the Queen does not deserve a state funeral. Some just want, well I won't say it.

Yes but my point is that there should have been some thought about the funeral arrangements and the large number of people who do not feel she deserves it. Why are the pro MTers getting it all their own way? There should be some restraint - she is a divisive figure .

Bluebell

That's the trouble you have your views and others have theirs. There are some who don't understand why not.

One of the roles of the government should be contingency planning. It was perfectly obvious that when she died there would be some trouble - probably hard to know how much I admit. It was also obvious that any trouble would be exacerbated by a certain type of person 'rent a mob' who join in any protests - look how some of the Occupy protests were hi-jacked. Now the decision for the Queen to go is adding fuel to the fire. Why is she going? I really really don't understand it - MT is no Churchill. The Falklands was not WW2.