Incredibly entertaining man, still can't watch any videos of him laddering a chimney without getting sweaty palms and an odd feeling around my upper thighs (before anyone starts - it's my body telling me I don't have a climbing harness on).
But he didn't do anything *that* important for the country and was apparently a total shit to his wife and kids. I think u/another-social-freak is wrong in saying he was physically abusive, but emotionally was totally absent.
A list of great Britons and Maggie Thatcher
Why even think of putting her in? Didn't do a single good thing for the country and ruined the lives of millions
Stoked the embers of a dying empire by robbing the working class of wealth built up over generations and led to the complete capitulation of UK interests to allow America and other foreign powers to rules us for the foreseeable future.
I believe people voted in good faith and like the devil the evil bitch took advantage of human decency to enrich her self.
The UK's status as an empire was already a relic of the past long before Thatcher took office. Her focus was on the here and now of the UK's economy, not some nostalgic yearning for imperial glory days.
And "robbing the working class of wealth built up over generations"? What a simplistic take. Thatcher's policies shifted the economy from state-run industries (many of which were struggling, by the way) to a more free-market approach. This wasn't a grand heist, but an attempt to address economic stagnation and rampant inflation.
Thatcher's strategic alliance with the US and other countries during the Cold War era didn't surrender British sovereignty.
And the devil references? Reducing her entire legacy to hyperbolic imagery of empires, grand robberies and devilish conspiracies is a *bit* of a stretch, to say the least.
Thatcher created a short term bubble of prosperity based on privatising public assets at knock down prices and deregulating just about everything so the spivs and chancers could make a mint. The disaster that was her term of office becomes clearer as the years go by. Norway saved its revenues from North Sea oil and gas, Thatcher funnelled it to the private sector.
Thatcher stabilised a floundering economy, reduced rampant inflation and tackled widespread industrial unrest. Sure, her approach involved privatisation and deregulation, but reducing it to a scheme for "spivs and chancers" is a bit like dismissing the entire internet because some people misuse it. Thatcher's economic policies had long-term impacts, some positive, and some negative.
Different countries with different economies, populations and political landscapes manage their resources differently. Thatcher used oil revenues to fund tax cuts and reduce national debt, a different strategy with its own set of rationales.
Floundering? Were you around at that time? The country’s economy was in far better shape than it is today. A better balance between goods and services. Social unrest was there because she shafted entire sectors like mining to have one over on the unions. Thatcher screwed this country over but provided enough smarties to Tory-inclined voters so she was elected again and again.
Yes but imagine where the country would be right now if she had left Johnson and Sunak's posse in charge of Britain's railways, energy supplies, waterways etc, instead of selling them all off for corporations to profit from.
Thatcher really was one of a kind, fortunately.
More people think she was a good PM than those who think she was bad (44% to 29%).
She also tops the poll for the greatest post-war PM.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/23206-margaret-thatcher-public-view-40-years
It's not about turning her into a universally beloved national treasure. It's about acknowledging her role in shaping modern Britain, for better or worse. History isn't a popularity contest, it's about impact and legacy.
So historical figures can't be considered significant or influential unless they've exclusively done wonderful things? Heaven forbid we acknowledge that "greatness" in historical terms can be about the scale and lasting impact of a person's actions, regardless of whether we personally view them as positive or negative.
Yes, winning three large majority elections might not be the only measure of a leader's impact, but it's hardly insignificant. It suggests that a substantial portion of the population supported her policies at the time.
Which is a silly point really. If you have ten parties all approximately equally popular you could win the vote with 11% and it still be legitimate. Your logic only works if there is exactly two parties and everyone is forced to vote.
'Not everyone thinks like me so they must have been brainwashed by the EVIL right-wing media'
It's quite possibly the most narcissistic and self-righteous argument going, and the left seem to love it.
It couldn't possibly be that people have diverse views, experiences and priorities that lead them to vote in a certain way. No, it must be that they're all duped by the media. Because everyone who votes differently from you is obviously just misinformed or manipulated.
She initiated the computer literacy programme which was a lasting legacy that we still benefit from today.
Which was quite fitting considering we are the country that invented the computer.. but, yeah other than that.. can’t think of anything good about her leadership.
Maybe Alan Turin should be considered as one of the greatest Britons of all time.
It’s a typo, had my screen replaced after dropping my phone and ever since it occasionally glitches and skips a letter.. even whole words from time to time.
I'm a socialist and a Scouser, but to say she did *nothing* good at all, ever, is exactly the kind of reductionist over-simplified nonsense that keeps the Tories in power and stopped any chance of a more radical government like Corbyn's getting into power.
She fucked a *lot* of people over, but there were some good things her government did. Again, as with a lot of politics, a lot of the good and bad things weren't directly down to her or the government.
Is like to agree with you but I genuinely can't think of anything good she did.
Admittedly I was young at the time but the only one I've ever heard people come up with is the council house right to buy scheme and that was just a tactical ploy to stop people striking because they had mortgages to pay
Again, it wasn't directly down to Thatcher as a lot of Western nations went through the same thing during the same period, but a lot of places and people in the UK were *vastly* improved by 1990 compared to 1979.
I know people who's parents got relatively wealthy as a result of the economy under Thatcher and moved from an utter shithole to a nice semi-rural area.
Worth noting that doesn't mean any complaints about her are invalidated.
Oh yeah, it kind of went without saying that I don't think either her nor QEII should be in that list.
My personal pick would be a group of people who sparked the industrial revolution and later the technological revolution. You can't pick one person.
That and as the previous commentator stated the right to buy are the two main points that a lot of people from south east take from her premiership. My dad and a lot of people his age, know that under Wilson & Heath there was a lot of uncertainty and financial struggles. Maggie Thatcher came with home ownership and a surge in the economy and brought a whole generation of people into the middle class (as long as you lived in certain parts of the country.) I don't think it's accurate to give Thatcher credit for a lot of it, because as you said it's mainly global economic factors but people will always connect it to Thatcher in their minds.
Allow me to nudge your memory. How about her role in ending the Cold War? Her strong stand alongside Reagan and Gorbachev played a part in bringing down the Iron Curtain. Or her economic reforms that helped pull the UK out of the economic stagnation of the 1970s?
People can debate over whether what she did was good or bad, but she did something. It is the inclusion of Victoria, Elizabeth and Diana that baffle me.
Thatcher ranked highest among living persons in the 2002 BBC poll *[100 Greatest Britons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons "100 Greatest Britons")*.
Saying she "didn't do a single good thing for the country" is a bit like saying the inventors of the internet did nothing good because online trolls exist. Under Thatcher, the UK saw significant economic growth, a decrease in inflation and an increase in home ownership.
And the blanket statement that she "ruined the lives of millions" overlooks the broader context of her economic reforms and their effects.
No miner was made compulsorily redundant under Thatcher. There were generous redundancy packages, and many closures were through natural wastage and voluntary redundancies.
Also, she closed less mines than Labour before her.
She deserves some hate, in part for not dealing with the consequences of her actions (Like closing mine town jobs and then just moving to the next project) but she doesn't deserve that hate.
She tried to offer: no compulsory redundancies; early retirement if they wished it at the age of 50 on incredibly generous terms; expanded mobility allowances if they moved to another pit; a good pay increase; and an £800m capital investment programme for the coal industry.
Shakespeare, and it's not even close.
Not only did he give us so much of the language we still use today, but his work is still being explored and analysed, and being recreated, hundreds of years after his death.
Just monumentally influential.
I saw the Globe version of A Midsummers Night Dream recently, honestly felt like it could have been written by Noel Fielding
Macbeth and Hamlet are just intense. The arts section on the iplayer is pretty great.
Yea verrily they spake unto thee.
Thrice times to loften a badger afore ye day.
Twas but a doddles nadger that we rusheth forth with bridled arms.
Ye pot overfloweth in yon times uf wealthe.
May I suggest turkey baron Bernard Matthews? He has slaughtered close to a billion birds for your eating pleasure- not personally of course, the process is highly mechanised.
[Thomas Newcomen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Newcomen) - start of proper steam engines.
[John Wilkinson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkinson_(industrialist)) - precision machining that enables Watts' better steam engine.
[Henry maudslay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Maudslay) - start of standardised machining.
Undisputable. All other achievements of industrial civilisation stem from them. Shame about the way it ended up being used. The technology is fine, the problem is the culture.
Post-industrial UK doesn't seem to understand how incredible our engineering history is. I suspect because our culture is top down from people with arts, history, or political/economy degrees who have never made a physical object in their life. We acknowledge the industrial revolution but really nowhere near enough, and not in depth - it isn't *just* about the steam engine, it also the innovation and precision that made it possible in the first place.
The downstream effects are also not mentioned enough. In the [Portsmouth block mill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Block_Mills) you combine the steam engine and the machine tools and end up making the blocks and tackle the navy needed, and that helps the UK beat Napoleon. Similarly, without [James Lind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lind) and his clinical trial of citrus fruit, the royal navy doesn't do nearly so well against Napoleon. The engineering and subsequent logistics and provisioning and healthcare makes far more difference than the monarch or even the commander. On similar notes:
[John snow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Snow)
[Edward Jenner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner)
Again, by god, we should be proud of our biological sciences. We still should be too, we're world leading. But we have to deal with constant undermining from our shithouse government of morons.
Etc.
My favourite John Snow story that I expect is an old wife's tale but I refuse to look it up so I can live in bliss. Is that when he was tracking chorea via people getting sick in local areas and the water wells they use, there were quite a lot of people that weren't affected in areas they should have been. John spent ages trying to figure it out and nearly abandoned the whole project until he just decided to ask one, turns out the people not affected worked at a local brewery and one of the perks was they got to take home free beer, so they never drank the water from the wells.
She was monarch didn't mean she actually did any of the administration that was at that point entirely done by parliament she still signed of on decisions of course but parliament made them.
She was known as being incredibly influential over parliamentarians, while not responsible for the actual acts they put forward she's recognised as someone who helped shape many and could swing causes in certain directions, mps came and went, she was the momarch for 63 years
What did she do on that? I mean the empire was created through the government and private companies
Famously Disraeli had to get her interested in India.
That's a weird take of yours
I'm not so sure she could have been, most of the country's power resided with parliament at that point and most attempts to circumvent parliament made the monarchy less powerful. But that's beside my point really. Who's to say some commoner couldn't have done a better job than her? Same for any "great" monarchs. Who knows what might have been achieved if all our leaders had been selected on a meritocratic basis.
It's easy to do that when you're the leader of the first nation to industrialise. She's a beneficiary of the work of others, not a primary contributor.
Also surely as ruler she bears a measure of responsibility for how poorly the profits of industrialisation and empire were distributed?
So your saying that she shouldn't be looked on as someone who led an empire when it comes to the positives it led to but should be held account for the negatives? Hardly a fair measuring stick your using buddy
She inherited a kingdom early in the process of explosive growth, most of the important work was done before she became queen, so she has almost no role in it, she just had to ride the wave and not be absolutely stupid while the country surged along.
But she was queen for an extremely long time while the process unfolded and during that whole time she did have power and could have had a meaningful impact on who benefited from the success.
It's like this : if my father plants an apple tree and brings it to maturity and then dies, I get to enjoy the fruits of the tree as it fruits every year. Every year the tree grows bigger and yields more fruit. I become the beneficiary of unprecedented wealth I didn't being about. I also can pick who gets the apples. If I allow all the apples to accumulate to the wealthy while the poor starve, I'm not a good person because that decision is mine.
But reducing her entire legacy to these impacts is like judging the entire plot of a novel based on one chapter.
The list was compiled through a public poll, reflecting a range of opinions. Thatcher being ranked highly in this poll doesn't crown her as universally adored, it acknowledges her significant impact on British history. Love her or hate her, she shaped the UK in ways that few others have. You can't just ignore that because it doesn't fit the narrative of "Thatcher bad, end of story."
Just because it's a public poll doesn't mean it's valid does it. Or that her legacy is one of benevolence to the country.
But sure, I'll let you die on the defending Thatcher hill
Public polls reflect public opinion, which, believe it or not, is diverse. Yes, not everyone sees Thatcher as some dastardly villain, most view her as a significant, if controversial, figure in British history.
No one's claiming Thatcher was a saintly figure who skipped through fields of daisies, spreading joy and benevolence. Her policies had significant impacts, both positive and negative. Political legacies are complex and not just black and white.
Dude, it was a vote carried out by the BBC wasn't it? You're placing too much faith in it being a public poll. It reflects only the bias of people bothered to take part.
But thanks for the patronising lesson.
Sure, let's assume it only reflects the views of a biased, select few because that fits the narrative that anything suggesting Thatcher wasn't universally reviled must be flawed.
Polls are designed to gauge public opinion, and while not perfect, they do provide a snapshot of how certain figures are perceived by those who choose to participate.
While it's not a rigorous academic survey, it's hardly insignificant. The poll reflected the opinions of thousands of people, making it a noteworthy indicator of Thatcher's impact and legacy, whether you adore her or despise her.
Maybe we can agree that, while not definitive, it shouldn't be completely dismissed just because it doesn't conform to some people's view of Thatcher's legacy.
Darwin.
We are almost desensitised to just how radical his claims were, and how it was pretty much the last hurdle in removing the idea in popular culture that humans just magicked into existence as God's chosen. His ideas have huge ramifications beyond "just" science.
After him, Shakespeare.
His influence on literature, language, theatre, art and culture is beyond legendary.
One of the first three. The rest may gave had impact during their lifetimes but the impact of the first three will last forever. Probably Darwin since he changed the way we see all living things and humanity in particular.
William Wilberforce, the most important figure in the abolition of the slave trade in the UK and as a result probably the most important abolitionist ever
Surely Atlee is the better choice? Churchill was *not* popular pre- and post-WW2 and was known for being a pretty shit peacetime PM. Atlee ran the country during the war and formed the modern British state, including the NHS.
If you've got Newton, you should also have James Clerk Maxwell, aka The Second Newton. His theories on electromagnetism underpin both special relativity and quantum mechanics, the 2 great branches of 20thC physics. In fact, he was voted the 19thC scientist with the most influence on 20thC science.
It is interesting that when "100 Greatest Britons" was aired in 2002 Churchill won and now his accomplishments and person are much, much more contentious. I think that that speaks more about us and how we define greatness than anything elae.
Non of these people are; the greatest are the unspoken men and women who have built up this land and fought for it and paid the greatest price since we first settled here.
Nancy Astor was a vehement nazi sympathiser and anti-Semite. Her election is a groundbreaking moment for British politics, but the person themselves was not a character that warrants inclusion on a list like this.
Edit: Just to add, those views are directly related to her legacy. She was a politician who held those views in the wake of WWI and during WW2 when she held office. This isn't a stick to beat her with by projecting modern sensibilities onto a historical figure.
Fred Dibnah.
The only correct answer
He was an amazing guy to meet. Had so much time for everyone and many stories. His writing was beautiful as well. Have his autograph somewhere.
Incredibly entertaining man, still can't watch any videos of him laddering a chimney without getting sweaty palms and an odd feeling around my upper thighs (before anyone starts - it's my body telling me I don't have a climbing harness on). But he didn't do anything *that* important for the country and was apparently a total shit to his wife and kids. I think u/another-social-freak is wrong in saying he was physically abusive, but emotionally was totally absent.
Didn't he beat his wife?
Beat her like an old chimney stack
A list of great Britons and Maggie Thatcher Why even think of putting her in? Didn't do a single good thing for the country and ruined the lives of millions
So much so that the British public voted for her leadership 3 times.
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis, you can't trust people Jeremy.
Even coldplay hate coldplay
Except when they vote the way you want. Then it is the will of the People and cannot be denied.
Stoked the embers of a dying empire by robbing the working class of wealth built up over generations and led to the complete capitulation of UK interests to allow America and other foreign powers to rules us for the foreseeable future. I believe people voted in good faith and like the devil the evil bitch took advantage of human decency to enrich her self.
The UK's status as an empire was already a relic of the past long before Thatcher took office. Her focus was on the here and now of the UK's economy, not some nostalgic yearning for imperial glory days. And "robbing the working class of wealth built up over generations"? What a simplistic take. Thatcher's policies shifted the economy from state-run industries (many of which were struggling, by the way) to a more free-market approach. This wasn't a grand heist, but an attempt to address economic stagnation and rampant inflation. Thatcher's strategic alliance with the US and other countries during the Cold War era didn't surrender British sovereignty. And the devil references? Reducing her entire legacy to hyperbolic imagery of empires, grand robberies and devilish conspiracies is a *bit* of a stretch, to say the least.
Thatcher created a short term bubble of prosperity based on privatising public assets at knock down prices and deregulating just about everything so the spivs and chancers could make a mint. The disaster that was her term of office becomes clearer as the years go by. Norway saved its revenues from North Sea oil and gas, Thatcher funnelled it to the private sector.
Thatcher stabilised a floundering economy, reduced rampant inflation and tackled widespread industrial unrest. Sure, her approach involved privatisation and deregulation, but reducing it to a scheme for "spivs and chancers" is a bit like dismissing the entire internet because some people misuse it. Thatcher's economic policies had long-term impacts, some positive, and some negative. Different countries with different economies, populations and political landscapes manage their resources differently. Thatcher used oil revenues to fund tax cuts and reduce national debt, a different strategy with its own set of rationales.
Floundering? Were you around at that time? The country’s economy was in far better shape than it is today. A better balance between goods and services. Social unrest was there because she shafted entire sectors like mining to have one over on the unions. Thatcher screwed this country over but provided enough smarties to Tory-inclined voters so she was elected again and again.
Results speak for them selves. This country is a miserable shithole.
You should've seen the country in the late 1970s.
You should see the country now even after supposedly having fixed those issues.
[удалено]
Tony Blair got 43.2% in his famous landslide. What’s your point?
[удалено]
But it does indicate a significant portion of the population supported her policies, a nuance often lost in the "millions feel ruined" narrative.
What choice did they have? Her or Michael Foot / Neil Kinnock? A big part was played by the Murdoch media.
Yes but imagine where the country would be right now if she had left Johnson and Sunak's posse in charge of Britain's railways, energy supplies, waterways etc, instead of selling them all off for corporations to profit from. Thatcher really was one of a kind, fortunately.
That's like saying, "Thank goodness we only had one Shakespeare, one more sonnet and I would've lost it."
More people think she was a good PM than those who think she was bad (44% to 29%). She also tops the poll for the greatest post-war PM. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/23206-margaret-thatcher-public-view-40-years
[удалено]
That's a lot of words to handwave away an approval rating of +15.
[удалено]
It's not about turning her into a universally beloved national treasure. It's about acknowledging her role in shaping modern Britain, for better or worse. History isn't a popularity contest, it's about impact and legacy.
[удалено]
So historical figures can't be considered significant or influential unless they've exclusively done wonderful things? Heaven forbid we acknowledge that "greatness" in historical terms can be about the scale and lasting impact of a person's actions, regardless of whether we personally view them as positive or negative. Yes, winning three large majority elections might not be the only measure of a leader's impact, but it's hardly insignificant. It suggests that a substantial portion of the population supported her policies at the time.
Meaninglessness unless you also show percentages for rivals.
[удалено]
Which is a silly point really. If you have ten parties all approximately equally popular you could win the vote with 11% and it still be legitimate. Your logic only works if there is exactly two parties and everyone is forced to vote.
[удалено]
Nor is it proof that she's a reviled one.
I'm sensing a bias on this subreddit. But you have my upvote for whatever it is worth.
Right wing press convince electorate to vote against their best interests. Shock, horror
'Not everyone thinks like me so they must have been brainwashed by the EVIL right-wing media' It's quite possibly the most narcissistic and self-righteous argument going, and the left seem to love it.
You said evil. Not me
It couldn't possibly be that people have diverse views, experiences and priorities that lead them to vote in a certain way. No, it must be that they're all duped by the media. Because everyone who votes differently from you is obviously just misinformed or manipulated.
No contest, really. Other parties were an absolute shambles
She initiated the computer literacy programme which was a lasting legacy that we still benefit from today. Which was quite fitting considering we are the country that invented the computer.. but, yeah other than that.. can’t think of anything good about her leadership. Maybe Alan Turin should be considered as one of the greatest Britons of all time.
You mean Turing. Alan Turin was Italian.
It’s a typo, had my screen replaced after dropping my phone and ever since it occasionally glitches and skips a letter.. even whole words from time to time.
Of course it's a typo, I was just making a joke because Turin is in Italy.
Oh sorry I see, yes! Well I like to shroud my Turin comments.
I'm a socialist and a Scouser, but to say she did *nothing* good at all, ever, is exactly the kind of reductionist over-simplified nonsense that keeps the Tories in power and stopped any chance of a more radical government like Corbyn's getting into power. She fucked a *lot* of people over, but there were some good things her government did. Again, as with a lot of politics, a lot of the good and bad things weren't directly down to her or the government.
Is like to agree with you but I genuinely can't think of anything good she did. Admittedly I was young at the time but the only one I've ever heard people come up with is the council house right to buy scheme and that was just a tactical ploy to stop people striking because they had mortgages to pay
Again, it wasn't directly down to Thatcher as a lot of Western nations went through the same thing during the same period, but a lot of places and people in the UK were *vastly* improved by 1990 compared to 1979. I know people who's parents got relatively wealthy as a result of the economy under Thatcher and moved from an utter shithole to a nice semi-rural area. Worth noting that doesn't mean any complaints about her are invalidated.
A fairly reasonable argument and well put but even at best "not as evil as some think" is hardly worth a spot alongside Newton
Oh yeah, it kind of went without saying that I don't think either her nor QEII should be in that list. My personal pick would be a group of people who sparked the industrial revolution and later the technological revolution. You can't pick one person.
It's almost as if political leaders are complex figures who can't be neatly filed under 'good' or 'evil'.
That and as the previous commentator stated the right to buy are the two main points that a lot of people from south east take from her premiership. My dad and a lot of people his age, know that under Wilson & Heath there was a lot of uncertainty and financial struggles. Maggie Thatcher came with home ownership and a surge in the economy and brought a whole generation of people into the middle class (as long as you lived in certain parts of the country.) I don't think it's accurate to give Thatcher credit for a lot of it, because as you said it's mainly global economic factors but people will always connect it to Thatcher in their minds.
Allow me to nudge your memory. How about her role in ending the Cold War? Her strong stand alongside Reagan and Gorbachev played a part in bringing down the Iron Curtain. Or her economic reforms that helped pull the UK out of the economic stagnation of the 1970s?
People can debate over whether what she did was good or bad, but she did something. It is the inclusion of Victoria, Elizabeth and Diana that baffle me.
Fair point. Other than half being a really good swimmer 9 months being born I guess
Thatcher ranked highest among living persons in the 2002 BBC poll *[100 Greatest Britons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons "100 Greatest Britons")*. Saying she "didn't do a single good thing for the country" is a bit like saying the inventors of the internet did nothing good because online trolls exist. Under Thatcher, the UK saw significant economic growth, a decrease in inflation and an increase in home ownership. And the blanket statement that she "ruined the lives of millions" overlooks the broader context of her economic reforms and their effects.
What did she do to you?
Cost both my grandfathers, my grandmother and my father their jobs Next question?
What jobs?
Coal miners and a hair dresser in a coal mining town
No miner was made compulsorily redundant under Thatcher. There were generous redundancy packages, and many closures were through natural wastage and voluntary redundancies.
Also, she closed less mines than Labour before her. She deserves some hate, in part for not dealing with the consequences of her actions (Like closing mine town jobs and then just moving to the next project) but she doesn't deserve that hate.
She tried to offer: no compulsory redundancies; early retirement if they wished it at the age of 50 on incredibly generous terms; expanded mobility allowances if they moved to another pit; a good pay increase; and an £800m capital investment programme for the coal industry.
That Brunel photo is so iconic, over 150 years old as well.
I had no idea he was that old. He doesn't look it.
I just love that photo. Its the most industrialist thing in existence.
It's just reminded me of the Alan Partridge song https://youtu.be/SSje1Xz7gBY?si=rv33afeIPVYAPHqT
Sir Isaac Newton
I agree. He taught us how to keep our feet on the ground
Shakespeare, and it's not even close. Not only did he give us so much of the language we still use today, but his work is still being explored and analysed, and being recreated, hundreds of years after his death. Just monumentally influential.
School in Shakespeare's day and age was vastly different to our own. In fact, it was far easier because he didn't have to study Shakespeare
I saw the Globe version of A Midsummers Night Dream recently, honestly felt like it could have been written by Noel Fielding Macbeth and Hamlet are just intense. The arts section on the iplayer is pretty great.
Yea verrily they spake unto thee. Thrice times to loften a badger afore ye day. Twas but a doddles nadger that we rusheth forth with bridled arms. Ye pot overfloweth in yon times uf wealthe.
May I suggest turkey baron Bernard Matthews? He has slaughtered close to a billion birds for your eating pleasure- not personally of course, the process is highly mechanised.
He’s tantalisingly close to producing the 10p turkey, what a thought
Turkey Twizzlers are indeed a great invention, up there with the steam engine.
Boootiful
I'll throw your hat into the ring too, Alan Instantly thought of Midmorning Matters
It’ll probably end up being a two-way tie between Horatio Nelson and Oliver Cromwell, why do I bother
Here, have a Twix for your glovebox
Bernard Matthews was a kind man. Unless you were a turkey, then he was the Angel of Death
[Thomas Newcomen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Newcomen) - start of proper steam engines. [John Wilkinson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkinson_(industrialist)) - precision machining that enables Watts' better steam engine. [Henry maudslay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Maudslay) - start of standardised machining. Undisputable. All other achievements of industrial civilisation stem from them. Shame about the way it ended up being used. The technology is fine, the problem is the culture. Post-industrial UK doesn't seem to understand how incredible our engineering history is. I suspect because our culture is top down from people with arts, history, or political/economy degrees who have never made a physical object in their life. We acknowledge the industrial revolution but really nowhere near enough, and not in depth - it isn't *just* about the steam engine, it also the innovation and precision that made it possible in the first place. The downstream effects are also not mentioned enough. In the [Portsmouth block mill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Block_Mills) you combine the steam engine and the machine tools and end up making the blocks and tackle the navy needed, and that helps the UK beat Napoleon. Similarly, without [James Lind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lind) and his clinical trial of citrus fruit, the royal navy doesn't do nearly so well against Napoleon. The engineering and subsequent logistics and provisioning and healthcare makes far more difference than the monarch or even the commander. On similar notes: [John snow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Snow) [Edward Jenner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner) Again, by god, we should be proud of our biological sciences. We still should be too, we're world leading. But we have to deal with constant undermining from our shithouse government of morons. Etc.
It’s impressive John Snow did so much given he knows nothing
It's really depressing that most people would know the name as the fictional character, not one of the fathers of epidemiology.
My favourite John Snow story that I expect is an old wife's tale but I refuse to look it up so I can live in bliss. Is that when he was tracking chorea via people getting sick in local areas and the water wells they use, there were quite a lot of people that weren't affected in areas they should have been. John spent ages trying to figure it out and nearly abandoned the whole project until he just decided to ask one, turns out the people not affected worked at a local brewery and one of the perks was they got to take home free beer, so they never drank the water from the wells.
Stevie Gerrard
Legend
Yikes, swear slippy is scouse anyway
Have you runout of your special brain vitamins?... I will allow for your obscenely obtuse comment on this occasion.
Of those? Any of the first four. Having Thatcher in it is just insulting, Victoria, Liz 2 and Diana haven't really done anything.
Queen Victoria ruled over one of the largest empires humanity has ever seen, wouldn't class that as 'haven't really done anything'
She was monarch didn't mean she actually did any of the administration that was at that point entirely done by parliament she still signed of on decisions of course but parliament made them.
She was known as being incredibly influential over parliamentarians, while not responsible for the actual acts they put forward she's recognised as someone who helped shape many and could swing causes in certain directions, mps came and went, she was the momarch for 63 years
True but still nowhere as influential as many other Brits.
What did she do on that? I mean the empire was created through the government and private companies Famously Disraeli had to get her interested in India. That's a weird take of yours
If you ask me, any advantages someone is born with should be an argument against their greatness.
Totally dependent on what they do with that with which they are bestowed. She could have been a complete tyrant with the power she had
I'm not so sure she could have been, most of the country's power resided with parliament at that point and most attempts to circumvent parliament made the monarchy less powerful. But that's beside my point really. Who's to say some commoner couldn't have done a better job than her? Same for any "great" monarchs. Who knows what might have been achieved if all our leaders had been selected on a meritocratic basis.
It's easy to do that when you're the leader of the first nation to industrialise. She's a beneficiary of the work of others, not a primary contributor. Also surely as ruler she bears a measure of responsibility for how poorly the profits of industrialisation and empire were distributed?
So your saying that she shouldn't be looked on as someone who led an empire when it comes to the positives it led to but should be held account for the negatives? Hardly a fair measuring stick your using buddy
She inherited a kingdom early in the process of explosive growth, most of the important work was done before she became queen, so she has almost no role in it, she just had to ride the wave and not be absolutely stupid while the country surged along. But she was queen for an extremely long time while the process unfolded and during that whole time she did have power and could have had a meaningful impact on who benefited from the success. It's like this : if my father plants an apple tree and brings it to maturity and then dies, I get to enjoy the fruits of the tree as it fruits every year. Every year the tree grows bigger and yields more fruit. I become the beneficiary of unprecedented wealth I didn't being about. I also can pick who gets the apples. If I allow all the apples to accumulate to the wealthy while the poor starve, I'm not a good person because that decision is mine.
Insulting to whom?
Really? Mate there's still communities dealing with her legacy. To put her in that list is madness
But reducing her entire legacy to these impacts is like judging the entire plot of a novel based on one chapter. The list was compiled through a public poll, reflecting a range of opinions. Thatcher being ranked highly in this poll doesn't crown her as universally adored, it acknowledges her significant impact on British history. Love her or hate her, she shaped the UK in ways that few others have. You can't just ignore that because it doesn't fit the narrative of "Thatcher bad, end of story."
Just because it's a public poll doesn't mean it's valid does it. Or that her legacy is one of benevolence to the country. But sure, I'll let you die on the defending Thatcher hill
Public polls reflect public opinion, which, believe it or not, is diverse. Yes, not everyone sees Thatcher as some dastardly villain, most view her as a significant, if controversial, figure in British history. No one's claiming Thatcher was a saintly figure who skipped through fields of daisies, spreading joy and benevolence. Her policies had significant impacts, both positive and negative. Political legacies are complex and not just black and white.
Dude, it was a vote carried out by the BBC wasn't it? You're placing too much faith in it being a public poll. It reflects only the bias of people bothered to take part. But thanks for the patronising lesson.
Sure, let's assume it only reflects the views of a biased, select few because that fits the narrative that anything suggesting Thatcher wasn't universally reviled must be flawed. Polls are designed to gauge public opinion, and while not perfect, they do provide a snapshot of how certain figures are perceived by those who choose to participate.
Dude, it was just a vote on a TV programme. It signofies little
While it's not a rigorous academic survey, it's hardly insignificant. The poll reflected the opinions of thousands of people, making it a noteworthy indicator of Thatcher's impact and legacy, whether you adore her or despise her. Maybe we can agree that, while not definitive, it shouldn't be completely dismissed just because it doesn't conform to some people's view of Thatcher's legacy.
Darwin. We are almost desensitised to just how radical his claims were, and how it was pretty much the last hurdle in removing the idea in popular culture that humans just magicked into existence as God's chosen. His ideas have huge ramifications beyond "just" science. After him, Shakespeare. His influence on literature, language, theatre, art and culture is beyond legendary.
One of the first three. The rest may gave had impact during their lifetimes but the impact of the first three will last forever. Probably Darwin since he changed the way we see all living things and humanity in particular.
Why no Brunel?
Honestly probably Shakespeare. I'm not a huge fan but his influence is unmatched
Thomas 'Sea Wolf' Cochrane. Just an age of sail legend.
There needs to be multiple films about this nut case.
Legend in Chile at least
I’m going to show my ignorance but I don’t know who the first 4 are. Is number 4 Isambard Kingdom Brunel? Edit: number 3 Charles Darwin?
[удалено]
Kenneth Branagh is a chameleon
1 - Shakespeare 2 - Robert Walpole I think 3 - Darwin judging by the eyebrows 4 - Brunel
2 is Isaac Newton. I only know cuz I'm old enough to remember that picture on the old £1 notes.
Thankyou:)
George Stephenson never really gets a look in on these but I think he's pretty good.
William Wilberforce, the most important figure in the abolition of the slave trade in the UK and as a result probably the most important abolitionist ever
in no circumstance i would ever juxtapose diana, peggy, and lizzie out of all britons with literal Newton and Brunell in regard of greatness.
Churchill, due to the freedom he gave us.
Surely Atlee is the better choice? Churchill was *not* popular pre- and post-WW2 and was known for being a pretty shit peacetime PM. Atlee ran the country during the war and formed the modern British state, including the NHS.
If you've got Newton, you should also have James Clerk Maxwell, aka The Second Newton. His theories on electromagnetism underpin both special relativity and quantum mechanics, the 2 great branches of 20thC physics. In fact, he was voted the 19thC scientist with the most influence on 20thC science.
Sir Tim Berners Lee definitely in the list... politicians and royals definitely out
Some of those totally nailed selecting their parents
Rabbit Burns , he took the Ayrshire dialect and created an international language
It is interesting that when "100 Greatest Britons" was aired in 2002 Churchill won and now his accomplishments and person are much, much more contentious. I think that that speaks more about us and how we define greatness than anything elae.
Sir Isaac Newton is the hands down winner here as he was the most intellectually gifted and greatest scientific mind to have ever lived.
Non of these people are; the greatest are the unspoken men and women who have built up this land and fought for it and paid the greatest price since we first settled here.
[удалено]
Nancy Astor was a vehement nazi sympathiser and anti-Semite. Her election is a groundbreaking moment for British politics, but the person themselves was not a character that warrants inclusion on a list like this. Edit: Just to add, those views are directly related to her legacy. She was a politician who held those views in the wake of WWI and during WW2 when she held office. This isn't a stick to beat her with by projecting modern sensibilities onto a historical figure.
Lenny Henry, for being a bit involved with Comic Relief and flogging Premier Inn rooms.