Verbal

Who?

I look forward to it.

Why wait?

Is it, oh great One, because you are not humble, useless Sergei, but Nostradamus?

Come on Lord Tender, you're better than that. Aren't you? And when are you going to give up your exclusion of the possibility that a reason people will stay away from voting yes is their general disenchantment with politics - the kind of disenchantment that has been charted by psephologists (presumably except from your 'most eminent' colleague) for decades? There's a danger yours is a self-fulfilling argument: FPTP, with its encouragement of safe seats and other forms of disenfranchisement leads to political disenchantment with the political process; therefore any attempt to offer a change is met with the same disenchantment. Furthermore, if the turnout is as low as it is on the 5th, your self-satisfied conclusion that 'therefore everyone is happy' might be stretched a little bit - unless you really want to argue, like those aristocratic nobs who defended rotten boroughs on the same grounds, that the sign of a healthy democracy is that few take part in it.

But why the need for anyone? This is not directed at you, but I do wonder whether many 'monarchist' supporters of Liz (and her half-witted offspring) have a serious mother fixation. Chuck the royals out of their palaces and vast estates, plonk them in a semi in Penge or somewhere appropriate and get the tourists into Balmoral, Buck House, etc.

Yes, it's dumb. By far Britain's most famous republican is Thomas Paine, a touchstone thinker for American Independence - hardly a hard-left socialist. His put-down of the whole idea of monarchy, particularly in Britain, still reads pretty well: "...the most plausible plea which has been offered in favour of hereditary succession is that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas it is the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom sine the conquest, in which time there have been no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions." And that was just up to the 18th century! So they were dangerous when they wielded actual power, and now useless when stripped of it.

Quite. William and Kate have done nothing more to earn their 'celebrity' status than did Jade Goody. Gushing feebly over the wedding of two dubious celebrities therefore makes no sense, unless it's somehow thought to be a good idea to have a collective emote over these self/family appointed celebs. It'a all just a bit pathetic watching grown-ups acting like weepy nine-year-old girls addicted to OK Magazine. Good luck to anyone (and that includes, I suspect, the majority) who used the occasion as nothing more than a good excuse for a p!ss up.

Deppo, is that you?

What? This pantomime today was a 'duty'? and don't forget, Wills is not doing ANYTHING yet. We've all got his dad to put with before that.

"We happily put up with invaders, lunatics, serial philanderers and Germans who spoke no English so long as we could have a monarch while everybody else quietly ditched theirs. We call this perverseness tradition - even when they are socialising with colourful characters, as was Princess Margaret in the 1970s when she mixed with [notorious gangster] John Bindon, or enjoying dubious parties with oil-rich sheikhs or wealthy US paedophiles, as the Duke of York is alleged to have done." Professor Clive Bloom.

You need to swot up on the republican history of this country.

And there we have it. The final retreat into a thoughtless, obsequious kneeling to monarchical dictatorship.

No, not at all. I think loopy King Charles sounds fine. I heard the reason those trees were in the abbey was because he was asked to invite 20 of his best friends.

I bet you can't wait for Prince Andrew to get remarried. What a party you'll have.

Thank **** for that.

Sadly, you have a poor grasp of logic and politics it seems, Lord T. If you read back over the thread, you'll find plenty of convincing argument showing how poor turnouts and a sense of disenfranchisement are a consequence, at least in part, of FPTP. I don't recall ANY Yes supporter on here saying the public is 'thick' (how did you come by such a weird conclusion, except presumably to suit your own ill-thought out conclusions?) - only that we need an electoral system that (1) weakens the latter-day rotten boroughs, safe seats, (2) weakens the hold of single-issue, protest-vote parties, and (3) gives everyone a sense that their votes actually count. Have a little think, read the thread again, and get back on here. I have a 'liberal elite' sew-on badge all ready for you.

Thank you. You are very sweet.

Only if you are sweetie. Actually, I'm going to the one on Sat, but no one in their right mind sets foot in that waste of space town we're in on Monday.

Said with a quivering lower lip. Never mind, Sergei will give you a big hug.

No, hate it. Especially right now.

True, of course. But what's your point?

Admit it delldays, you shed a tear when you saw the wedding dress.

Football makes perfect sense. Royals not so much.

Why? Do you need 60 million cuddles?