Feminists anger over bank notes

Right, just like how non-monarchist state are ruled by autocrats. I see the logic in your point.

Why are feminists such miserable *****?

That wasn't the case at all, during the time in which she existed the women's rights movement was hardly in the public eye, therefore nothing to do with the fact she was a woman at all. Your information is wrong and I've stated that I feel arguing who is better is idiotic, I'm not arguing her achievements against anyone else, making stupid statements about all she did was clean and undermining a woman who risked her life for soldiers I think is wrong.

Im not undermining her acachievement sand I never said "all she did was clean"
but the discovery of penicillin for example would be considered a more significant discovery in terms of medical progression
My information is not wrong and I've just done my a level history on suffrage so don't say my info is wrong

Im also not condoning that putting Churchill on a note instead is ccommendable if you looked at my earlier post I spent most of it slating churchill

im just saying use a better argument that Florence ninightingale perhaps rosa parks? Or the famous woman radiographer whose name escapes me

Women are commendable at their achievements and I say this as a girl...
but this topic has been blown out of proportion

I don't think there's any malicious intent behind the decision, but I do think it rather questionable that there apparently isn't one woman deemed worthy enough to feature on a bank note (apart from the Queen, who is there by accident of birth). After all, the only reason women haven't historically been as prominent in their achievements as men is because of their historical oppression, politically and socially. Whilst these men were doing their undoubtedly great deeds, they were probably supported by the women in their lives who worked just as hard and without credit in running their households. As women do make up 50% of the population, I think it would be the least they could manage to find one to put on a bank note - and I'm sure there are plenty of great women to choose from. I don't think that's a lot to ask really.

Rosa Parks wasn't British. If you're thinking of Marie Curie for the second suggestion, she wasn't British either.

It's not that there are no women worthy of it, it's that there are no women more worthy than churchill, and notably very, very few men I would say. The gender here is completely irrelevant.

I wasn't referring to British people
It was more relevant to the general men/women achievements

but the radiographer would be outdone but the discovery of DNA and rosa parks would be outdone but MLK eteg I was more just making a point that men's achievements are generally better than women and using Florence nightingale isn't a good example of saying a women that was better than chchurchillim seems that the user is getting very heated and defensive and unable to look at the topic objectively

tipical woman

Absolutely

But Churchill is no saint....
i prefer Lloyd George

or nye Bevin would be bbetter NHS deserves some recognition I think

Oh wow. This has descended in to:

People arguing over who the "better" sex is...

Im not undermining her acachievement sand I never said "all she did was clean"
but the discovery of penicillin for example would be considered a more significant discovery in terms of medical progression
My information is not wrong and I've just done my a level history on suffrage so don't say my info is wrong

Im also not condoning that putting Churchill on a note instead is ccommendable if you looked at my earlier post I spent most of it slating churchill

im just saying use a better argument that Florence ninightingale perhaps rosa parks? Or the famous woman radiographer whose name escapes me

Women are commendable at their achievements and I say this as a girl...
but this topic has been blown out of proportion

A level history does not mean all of your information is correct, I never said I wanted Florence Nightingale on the bank note, I really couldn't give less of a ****, I just don't agree with slating individuals which have achieved a lot, lessening what they have done by comparison of others isn't noteworthy, it's just disrespectful of their honour. You've argued a point against me that I was never trying to make, who cares if a woman is on the banknote, what I do care about is people being disrespectful to historical heroes based on gender.

He was no saint, sure, but nobody in the history of our country has been truly saintlike. Their achievements just overshadow their darker actions or views.

Fair enough, although I think that you didn't really make this clear in the post that I quoted. You mentioned these people as a "better argument" to Florence Nightingale, who had originally been cited as a female candidate to appear on the bank note, which is restricted to British nationals only. Given this, it reads as if you are citing these people as alternatives to Nightingale as candidates to appear on British bank notes.

I agree that the debate should become less heated. I wasn't the one who negged you, by the way.

You are honouring her because of her gender

im putting what she actually achieved into peperspective yes she did achieve a lolot but if a man had done they same they would not have the same recognition

your saying what she did is amazing which isn't really true it's good and should be seen las such but you can't say she risked her life when she was no where near the front lines and hearing people she actually were

theres not really any point arguing oopinion you thinks he was a,asking and I don't neither of us are going to change our minds

In Britain/Western Europe, the next dictatorship will emerge from the "democratic" system. If a democratically elected government begins to openly warmonger and oppress, the monarch reserves the right to (admittedly autocratically) dissolve the government and hopefully nip it in the bud before we do a Hitler.

Since the monarchy is secure in its power - unlike a democratic politician - it is less likely to seek more. And since the Western consensus is so opposed to monarchist authoritarian states, and so not opposed to democratic corporatist authoritarian states (such as ours is slowly becoming), any monarchist power grab would be an object of derision and lead immediately to heavy trade sanctions, ostracisation from the Security Council, the European institutions, and eventually the coerced or forced removal of that monarchy.