One of my abiding memories from the spate of historic TV interviews shown following the death of Margaret Thatcher 10 days ago was of her speaking after she had left Downing Street, emphasizing how important her family had been to her throughout her time in Government and how vital it is for people in public life to also have a home life to return to. As recent events have unfolded one of the most disturbing issues has been the extent to which this value or priority as stated by Mrs Thatcher when she had no incentive to be dishonest has largely been overlooked or ignored throughout the arrangements following her death.

Many of us have been fortunate enough to have had some experience of the so called nuclear family as well as of a broader extended family. It is my view that both elements of these structure can be seen in the response to the death of our longest serving PM.

There have been a number of public statements to suggest that the funeral was the final public act by a woman who managed to dominate politics during the 1970’s and 1980’s. However there were also signs that some elements of this weeks events were decided post mortem by people with an eye on approaching local elections. I wonder what would have happened if Mrs Thatcher had survived another couple of years and the Prime Minister of the day had been a Labour Politician in the early days of a new administration?

It has emerged that despite living for many years in a house (apparently owned by some form of tax avoidance organisation) in London’s Belgravia, that the final place of residence and home for Mrs Thatcher was actually the Ritz Hotel. Although Mark Thatcher was on hand some hours after the death was announced to speak about his Mother, Carol did not return to the UK until Saturday 13^th April. In both cases Mark and Carol spoke outside a house that had long since ceased to be home to their Mother. They both spoke in a manner that suggested that the familial elements of her life was diminished, even 25 years after her semi retirement from public life. If the words of her children reflected a distance from her daily existence it was a Parliamentarian, Conor Burns MP who spoke about his weekly visits to the Ritz to take tea with his Political Hero.

In contrast to the timing of Carol Thatcher’s return to the UK to respond to her Mother’s death, the Prime Minister broke off a business tour of Europe and rushed home (this action was also in contrast to his begrudging return when London was ablaze in August 2011). The Prime Minister then called on his 650 colleagues to return to their place of work from their holidays even whilst Carol Thatcher was still abroad. The public cost of this recall has not been disclosed and may remain hidden for some time. It is reasonable to suggest that Parliament was acting prematurely in holding its debate before the family had been fully able to respond to their loss.

All Funerals are public events to one extent or another although this one was rather exceptional. Although the funeral was planned by a small number of people including the deceased herself, it was only partially funded by the nuclear family and the largest part will be paid by Millions of people who were not consulted on the scale and scope either directly or even through a debate conducted by their elected representatives. It is regrettable that taxpayers have not yet had a statement to explain the likely costs of this exercise.

Prior to a family funeral it is now relatively unusual for the corpse to remain in the family home overnight allowing close family to pay their respects in private. However in this case the body was held in chapel of St. Mary Undercroft in the Palace of Westminster to be attended by close relatives and around 100 MPs, peers and parliamentary and Downing Street staff. Clearly few people can have access to either the finances or influence to organise such a procedure. Although many of us work in places that matter to us, how many would choose to have our bodies stored in our place of work and share such a personal experience with work colleagues?  

If the close family of Margaret Thatcher has become so closely entwined with the work she did and her political legacy, then perhaps George Osborne’s tears are not so surprising?

My final reflection regards the behaviour of the ‘extended family’ (who are expected to fund the greatest part of this ceremony). The vast majority expressed views in support of the process and came to mourn with those who were grieving. However a small number have expressed anger and their views need to be heard and understood by those whose feelings are very different. These people are not in mourning, but mourning does generate feelings of anger as well as grief. If a conventional family can come to terms with both grief and anger at the same time, it is not unreasonable to expect a nation to do the same. It is very disturbing that some of the men and women who seek to lead our national institutions seem unable to accept that these two emotions can be held in tension and are criticising those whose behaviour is not what they wish to see. We need leaders who can take perspective on this and not jump to criticism of others, particularly when their own actions leave a number of questions unanswered!