At least I can vote Fat Dave out of office, I can't vote Charlie off the throne.

But what power does Charlie really have? If you have a republic then you end up with them demanding power.

I think he's a level two cleric, but you'd have to check with the DM.

Just to give a contrasting view-point on the monarchy, rather better expressed than I could.

You miss the point entirely my friend.

Nope. As that would mean having a lying bastard politician as head of state. Not a good thing at all.

Wait, what? How do you two know me?
Who told you I was fat? I'm just "big boned", my mummy told me so.

Don't vote me out of the office, it's cold in the carpark at this time of year.

Other Half’s comment last night was “were they told to get married?” - she then went on to ask what news had been buried. It’s not just me being cynical then.

Sorry I was talking about Fat Dave who went to Eton and currently resides in Downing Street.

All other Fat Daves should not be evicted or ejected from their offices. Sorry for any confusion caused.

Phew!

No, I'm just making a different point.

I admit that it's actually just a distraction from the pretty awful daily grind most of us currently have. The monarchy in the UK is essentially ephemeral - it presents pageantry and power, but possesses no actual constitutional power worth a damn. I find it amusing that people banging on about a republic don't seem to realise having one will actually change pretty much nothing at all in any concrete way. You'll still get the option to vote for a government every so often, you'll still pay taxes. Whether William is single, married or even exists makes absolutely no measurable difference whatsoever to your circumstances or my circumstances. I think the media went over the top on it but then they do that all the time. Making a mountain out of a molehill seems to be their current raison d'etra.

The argument I am making is that that rarified issue is no good reason to stop lots of people having a good time. It's there, why not use it as an excuse? Why does the news programme only have to be filled with 'real important stuff' when the real important stuff is unremittingly bleak and horrible? Lots of things happened yesterday, some of them are nice, some of them are not. Why is it somehow worthy to only report the nasty ones? Why is suffering somehow more valid reportage than joy?

I'm not actually bothered whether prince William is single or not. I wish them happiness, as I'd wish any other couple on earth who had made the decision they have. But I think we've all become so worn down by the negativity we're surrounded by on a daily basis that some of us no longer seem able to rise above it.

Two people announce they are very much in love and want to get married and what are the first reaction?
'Oh it'll be too expensive', 'Why am I being told this? I don't know them', 'Ah, it's obviously a consipracy to hide bad news isn't it'?' What, like they suddenly feel the need to hide bad news anyway? Isn't that pretty much all we've had for about the last year?

Sometimes, a thing is just what it appears to be. Sometimes, looking for a good thing to take your mind off all the bad things is actually a good idea. Sometimes, just sometimes, isn't it possible to let people be happy for a while without somebody saying "well, you all know it's going to be [LIFTED] again tomorrow, don't you"?

Jon

In this society, I wonder how long until they divorce, not wanting to push it on them, but it does seem that divorce isn't as taboo and is OK to do...



+1



One of my lecturers presented on Robot Wars, Myra Wilson. She's a terrible lecturer though...

What jonbwfc said.

duplicate post - server very slow today.