Prince Harry gets engaged to an American and the world goes nuts

There's something we need to talk about and it's really quite important. I swore several months ago I was not going to get sucked into writing a blog about same sex marriage and that it was so low on my radar that it didn't even factor. Of course, I'm bringing it up now because of something related yet unrelated.

As you may have heard the news last night, Prince Harry and his girlfriend, Meghan Markle announced their engagement and upcoming Spring wedding.

Apparently it's a big deal because not only is Meghan 36, and he's 33 (Ashton Kutcher anyone!), she's also a divorcee (Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles, hello! Does anyone remember the negative press they got for several years?), she's also an African American citizen and once again, call the Police and lock the gates because she's an actress, an actress! Oh heaven forbid! This is a total disaster!

Well according to several newspapers, this is a very big deal.

I would like to take the time to correct the media and simply state the following:

After an 18 month courtship, which saw her meet key members of the Royal Family including Her Majesty Herself, the Queen, Prince William, his wife, the Duchess of Cambridge Kate, and many others, Prince Harry has proposed to his American girlfriend Meghan Markle. Ms Markle, a divorcee moved to London earlier this month after quitting her role as Rachel Zane on the legal drama Suits. This is a huge moment in history as Prince Harry was known for his bad boy ways in his younger days. Could this engagement mark the beginning of a new chapter in Prince Harry's life? Has he finally settled down?

That my readers is actually all that needs to be said. Whether or not Markle is white, black, yellow, purple is irrelevant.  Cue Michael Jackson's Black or White:

The only thing that's actually relevant is that the Prince and the actress are engaged to be married. It's 2017, nearly 2018, and for the MSM to make such a big deal out of skin colour shows that there is still prejudice towards people of different ethnicities. Those only actually disappear when people stop mentioning someone's race. Meghan has done perfectly well on her own and forged an excellent career for herself before meeting the prince, so why even bring race into it?

Although Meghan Markle is an American, it obviously doesn't occur to mainstream media journalists that people move around the world in greater numbers than ever before, which actually means the likelihood of marrying someone who was born in another country is significantly increased, and therefore a non event. If the same sex marriage brigade are to be believed then the only thing that should actually matter is whether or not a couple actually love eachother and not their ethnic background. The Royal Family are just like any other family around the world. They have feelings and they have to live their lives as they wish. In many ways Prince Harry is lucky because he's 6th in line to the throne (once Kate and William's third baby is born) so he has more leeway than others. He is also the youngest in his blood line and as we all know, the youngest child often gets away with more than the oldest one(s).

Now that we've got that out of the way, the Royal Wedding is going to be in the Spring. It can't be before March or April at the very earliest because his brother, Prince William and Kate are expecting their third baby, so the family will already be tied up with the organisation of that. It's likely to be May or June which gives William and Kate the space and time to get used to having a third child, and the family to organise what will be a massive event.

Prince Harry has always been the bad boy of the Royal Family, so him settling down is a huge deal. He's previously been linked to his sister in law, Pippa Middleton and singer Ellie Goulding but finally settled on Ms Markle after an 18 month courtship.

So what does the marriage actually mean?

Well, despite some Australians and New Zealanders being republicans and wanting to leave the Commonwealth, the interest in the Royal Family means that we are less likely to become republics. People are still very fond of the Royal Family, and even though most people don't like Prince Charles or what him to be King, the Royal Family are still hugely relevant.

Forget for a moment that they are born into huge wealth and royalty, they do a lot of good and help hundreds of charities around the world. They inspire people and give them something to aspire to. Given that Meghan, Kate, the late Princess Diana and even Camilla were commoners prior to joining the Royal Family, everyone can aspire to become royalty.

It's expected that Prince Harry and Meghan will become full time royal representatives now that they are engaged and that their duties will increase when they are married.

Fortunately for us here in Australia, that will mean we can expect Prince Harry and Meghan to make a royal visit in either late 2018 or 2019 (most likely 2019), and that is very exciting, especially for us younger Royal Family followers.

The only thing that I wish is that John Key and Tony Abbott were still Prime Ministers of NZ and Australia respectively. They would've lapped up the opportunity to mix with royalty and genuinely care about the royal family. Prime Ministers Jacinda Ardern and Malcolm Turnbull have made it very clear that they are republications and want NZ and Australia to break away from the commonwealth. Key and Abbott were much better on the world stage than Ardern and Turnbull.

That aside, Royal Family followers are going to be doubly treated next year with both a new royal baby AND a royal wedding!

Hospitals around the world can expect the names Harry, Henry, Meghan, William, Kate, Charlotte and George to increase in popularity.

We can also expect Royal Family followers to go mad when Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announce that they're planning a visit down under.

Concert Review: Lorde - Melodrama Tour, Sydney Opera House, 22nd November 2017

Every so often an artist comes along who strikes a chord with people of all ages. In the 90s that was Mariah Carey and Madonna. For a while, Britney Spears was the Queen of pop, as was Beyonce and Taylor Swift in recent years, until Swift's reputation got damaged (Taylor Swift's reputation, and her latest album of the same name will be discussed in another blog).

It's very rare though that a singer from New Zealand will hit the international stage, which makes Lorde's ascent to the top even more magical.

It all started five years ago when Lorde, who at the time was living in Takapuna/Devonport on Auckland's North Shore uploaded an EP to the internet. Her debut song, Royals was captivating and propelled her to the top of the US charts and many other charts around the world.

Four years after her debut, Lorde released Melodramaa, which has since had the singles Green Light, Liability, Homemade Dynamite and promotional single, Perfect Places.

Naturally, international artists of Lorde's standing embark on world tours, and that's exactly what Lorde has done. Even though she could fill stadiums, Lorde chose smaller, more intimate venues, one of which was the Sydney Opera House, which has a capacity of 5,500.

She played two shows at the iconic venue, on the 21st and 22nd of November 2017. I was lucky enough to be at the show on the 22nd of November.

The support act was George Maples, an electronica singer from Sydney, who has just released her debut album, Lovers. She wasn't anything special.

As with all shows there was about half an hour between the time that Maples' set finished and Lorde's started. Looking around the venue there were literally people of all ages from 10 right through to 60. Lorde has mass appeal.

Lorde opened with Homemade Dynamite and as you'd imagine, she has stage presence and oozes charisma when she's out there on stage. Unlike other artists of her calibre, Lorde has a scaled back show, but it doesn't matter because you can't help but be captivated by her singing.

In between songs, she spoke to the audience. Early on in the show, she said that Sydney was the most beautiful place that she's played and she couldn't believe that she was actually playing at the Opera House. She was really taken aback by the whole thing. Now we all know that artists say that the city they're in is their favourite, but later on in the show Lorde said that whenever she's in Sydney she goes out on a boat and that it's the only other city that actually feels like her home.

The show was split into three parts, with three costume changes. Her first outfit was a black boho inspired maxi skirt and a dark grey sparkly top. She then changed a third of the way through into a blue dress that easily could have belonged on a commune. The final outfit was similar, but was red.

Musically, the best part of the show was the final third where she played all her biggest hits: Royals, which the crowd went crazy for and sung along to, Perfect Places, Team and Green Light, which she was emotional before singing and asked the audience to sing along with her.

After Green Light a couple of minutes of fireworks were let off, and then she departed the stage before returning for an encore of her song, Loveless from Melodrama.

All in all, Lorde cannot only sing but she can work a crowd and truly connect with her audience. There is no lip syncing during the show. Every song is sung 100% live.

The highlights of the show were when she sung Royals; and when she spoke about how she was so grateful to be singing at the Opera House.

The lowlight was the song chosen for the encore. If I'd been in charge of the set list arrangement, I would have ended with Royals, the song that got her entire career started.

Overall the show deserves 4.5/5 stars.

Why do people gain weight?

Let's talk about health and fitness today. Did you know that two thirds of Australians are overweight or obese? That is a truly alarming statistic. It shows that people just don't take their health seriously. That's not the scary part though. The scary part is actually that according to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald published in 2012, the majority of overweight or obese people are in denial about their weight. They simple don't realise what they're doing to their health.

When people are in denial not only do they think they're thinner than they actually are, they also eat foods they shouldn't and don't exercise enough because they don't think they need to.

So what actually causes people to gain weight? Let's not blame age. The simple answer is overeating and a lack of exercise. But more often than not there is a trigger for someone to make poor eating decisions. It could be that a relationship has broken up or that they're stressed with work. Whatever the cause, when people are stressed they make poor decisions and those poor decisions lead to weight gain and it causes a vicious cycle.

So how do you actually get out of denial? If it was simple then people wouldn't actually be in denial but there is no quick fix. For some people, it could be that a stressor is removed so they can notice what's going on with their health. It's a long process though. 

First you start to realise you've gained weight but what you won't know is that by the time you realise you've gained weight, you've actually gained double what you think you have. That's quite scary. So if you think you've gained 10 kilos the reality is you've probably actually gained 20. 

Once you come to that realisation you'll probably make a couple of changes but when you're truly out of denial you up the ante will really kick start your weight loss project. As you were leaving denial you probably started exercising or modified your diet slightly. When you're truly out of denial you'll do both and you'll start recording your progress and setting goals. You'll analyse the mathematics of the situation so you know exactly what you have to do. It won't be easy because internally you'll actually be beating yourself up for destroying your health. You will ask yourself how you actually let this happen when you had been so committed to your health. You'll wonder why nobody told you that you'd gained weight but you'll also know that the only person in control of your weight is you.

You'll no doubt feel embarrassed. Imagine going from obese to a healthy weight and then back to obese. You'll feel embarrassed that you allowed yourself to get to such an unhealthy weight and embarrassed what you look like. Of course you won't ask your friends why they didn't say anything because you'll know that they will say they didn't want to hurt your feelings but in reality by not telling you when it was only 5 kilos they've created a bigger problem.

People say that you can be fat and fit but you actually can't be. Such a thing simply does not exist. When you are carrying extra flab you'll struggle to run and you'll find yourself losing breath easily. You won't be able to walk the distances that you used to be able to. That's just your physical health. You'll also find that your

mood is affected by the extra flab.

So to conclude: if you suspect that you've gained a lot of weight there are a few things you should do.

1 - Increase your exercise.

2 - Once you've been exercising a few weeks change your diet.

3 - Face the scales. It's only when you face the scales that you'll know exactly what the damage is. Once you know the damage you can devise a strategy to fix it.

4 - Modify your diet further.

5 - Set yourself goals and keep records of your progress. If nothing else, it will motivate you to stick to your new health regime.

Good luck folks and remember to stick to your healthy eating and exercise plan, even when you've lost the weight.

Options for the Arderns-Gayfords if they were to have kids and why it should not even be an issue in 2017

Unless you've been living under a rock the last few days you would know that Mt Albert MP Jacinda Ardern has become leader of the NZ Labour Party following the resignation of former leader Andrew Little. The resignation came after terrible poll results.

Ardern's ascent to the top job in the party was not instant. She had been a leader in waiting since she first entered parliament in 2008.

Unfortunately, it would seem that the New Zealand media has forgotten that she actually has quite a lot of experience behind her.

Instead they have relegated her to just being a female, and just being capable of having children. They've reduced her to being a uterus and a baby maker. They've completely ignored that she has actually held several important portfolios.

I won't bore you with the portfolios that she's held because that's not actually the purpose of tonight's blog. The purpose is to say how truly disappointed I am that in 2017, in a country that first had a female Prime Minister in 1998, NINETEEN YEARS AGO, women are still being treated as if they're not capable of doing a job just because of physical anatomy.

I'm not going to talk about how a male MP wouldn't be asked the question because that's been done to death and it's just a really boring response.

Instead I'm going to talk about workplace discrimination, gender issues, pay issues and sexism.

I don't like New Zealand. I make no secret of that and even though I'm renouncing my citizenship when I become an Australian citizen, I am, as a New Zealand citizen truly disappointed in what I've witnessed over the last couple of days. I was hoping that Jacinda Ardern would be asked about policy and her plans for when she is Prime Minister. For her to be asked about her family plans a mere eight hours into the job just isn't right.

So let's talk about what would happen if she was to get pregnant.

She's in a long term relationship with TV personality Clarke Gayford. I don't know his work schedule, but I do know that New Zealand has gender neutral parental leave and that his job, although important, isn't as important as hers. I would expect that he would take time off if anyone actually took time off. This assumes that they wouldn't take advantage of alternatives.

Now given the base salary that the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition gets, I have a sneaky suspicion that paying for childcare wouldn't actually be an issue for Jacinda or Clarke. It could be assumed that they could easily hire a nanny, possibly a live in nanny.

Now let's assume though that they didn't want to have a nanny, Jacinda has a family, so too does Clarke. What's to say their family wouldn't look over Baby Ardern-Gayford? It's pretty presumptious to think that one of them would need to take time off.

But, for argument's sake, let's say Jacinda did take time off, that's written into New Zealand law. All employees, whether they be public or private sector employees have a right to parental leave. Jacinda would not be excluded from that. If she was Prime Minister at the time then the deputy would simply take over, while she would obviously be available if anything massive happened.

The media commentators such as Mark Richardson and Mike Hosking seem to be living in the dark ages where there is only one option for women who do have children, but in 2017 that's not the case at all. Women, in fact all parents, do have options.

In short: if Jacinda Ardern has children while in office, it's not the end of her career, and nor should it be.

Now let's talk about the average woman though. The average woman doesn't earn as much as an MP and often due to limited childcare hours and funding, one parent will often stay at home, so shouldn't this debate actually be turned to childcare and early childhood education? Shouldn't it be turned to flexible working conditions?

Hell, if Jacinda Ardern did get pregnant in office, why couldn't she work from home? So many people do with the rise of new technology and it's not impossible.

Sure, it would be tough, but Jacinda Ardern knows what she signed up for when she agreed to be the leader of the NZ Labour Party.

Of course, on the other side of the equation, she can't have kids. It's a non issue, but that doesn't mean that it would be right for her to have been asked.

The question assumes that women are nothing more than baby factories and that there aren't options available for women to have both a career and children, when really that's not the case at all.

Given NZ was the first country to give women the vote, and one of the first to have a female prime minister, it's incredibly disappointing that Ardern's plans to have, or not have children was asked, and it is disappointing that the media ignored the options available to her and her partner Clarke Gayford, assuming they even remain together long enough to have, or discuss having children.

To conclude: This is 2017 and couples who choose to have children have options and parents have a right to parental leave. They do not need to leave their employment just because they become parents.

Music Review: Katty Perry's Witness

This year American singer, Katy Perry has received a lot of flak for her new political image. She has also received a lot of flak for her music and even the artwork of her new album, Witness.

Let's start by talking about the artwork for Witness.

It features Katy Perry with her new blonde pixie cut slicked back and her hands over her eyes. An eye is in her mount and it almost looks as if she is naked with a shadow of colour around her.

Rather than jumping to conclusions and saying the album cover is awful (which on the surface it is) we should actually dissect it and analyse it.

When you look at the colours, it almost looks as if the background could be Katy's aura. One part of the aura is purple. A quick search shows that purple is a colour of vision, imagination and daydreaming. With Katy's new political image, it's no surprise that she would choose a colour symbolic of her desire to look to the future. The pastel pink on the other hand symbolises a need for serenity and sensitivity, which definitely seems to tie in with Katy's new image.

The blocked eyes conveys a message that people have their eyes closed and don't want to see what's going on in the world around them. This is a fairly true analysis of how most people live there lives. You only have to look at people when they're on public transport and you'll see that they all look like zombies. In fact, on that note, I was on a bus a couple of days ago and some guy said that exact same thing. I had been the only one to pay attention to what he said. Most people ignore their surroundings.

They tend to just speak.

That's where the second part of the cover comes in. She has an eye in her mouth. In an interview Katy said that she sees her voice as her eye the world and that she speaks what she sees.

Basically the cover is about her opening her eyes and rather than just speaking, watching what's around her.

Her view on the world is evident in her song, Chained to the Rhythm.

Are we crazy?
Living our lives through a lens
Trapped in our white-picket fence
Like ornaments
So comfortable, we live in a bubble, a bubble
So comfortable, we cannot see the trouble, the trouble
Aren't you lonely
Up there in utopia
Where nothing will ever be enough?
Happily numb

It clearly indicates that people are going on in their lives without looking at what's around them. They're just focused on their everyday existences without even questioning what's happening. People like to live in a bubble.

Katy's previous music was pop like this, however it was very superficial whereas this isn't. When you really look at the lyrics and see them, they have an excellent meaning, and are about serious issues.

Witness is similar, however it's a love song, where Katy sings and questions, "would you stay with me if I lost it all?" It's an interesting question given she's been in the public eye for more than 10 years now. She wants to know if the people around her are genuine or if they're only around her for her success.

The second single from the album, Swish Swish is rumoured to be about Taylor Swift who she has been feuding with for the last few years, but is it really? It could really be about any friendship that has turned sour. One line in the song sounds like another song.

It's the line:

Another one in the basket

It sounds very much like the song Another one bites the dust featured below.

It's very subtle though, but there is definitely a similarity.

Power, sounds like it's a follow up to one of Katy's earlier tracks, Pearl, featured on her album Teenage Dream. It's a little bit faster paced than Pearl though and sounds like it could have been written when she was with Russell Brand.

The album changes pace with the song, Miss you more, which is a love ballad. Katy sings of missing an ex and reflecting on the times gone by.

Another couple of standout tracks are Tsunami, Save as Draft and Into Me You See, which closes off the album.

The album is much better than what you'd expect based on the first three singles.

It's confusing why the songs chosen as the singles were actually the singles. Collaborations, as they all are, are never ever good. The album generally speaking retains Katy's old sound.

My only criticism of the album (aside from the cover, but from a visual point of view, the cover is rather fitting) is the collaborations and the amount of auto tune used on the songs. They'd be better if they were more raw but that is true of most music released today.

I give it 3.75 out of 5 stars.

Why Australian uni fees for foreigners aren't expensive

Every week there is at least one headline where New Zealand citizens are either whinging about a lack of access to welfare in Australia or the cost of studying. It's not just New Zealand citizens whinging about fees but for the purposes of this article that is what I will focus on (because we all know how much I love NZ bashing).

So when the budget was announced last month the idea was that permanent residents will pay full fees for university education and that the fees for New Zealand citizens will also increase.

The picture painted by the mainstream media was that these fee increases will be astronomical and will force some people to leave the country because they no longer get subsidised education and will have to pay up front.

Let's talk about that though. Is it really a problem?

Presumably the majority of New Zealand citizens are of working age, and let's say they live in Sydney and earn the average salary of around $80,000. That's around $1500 per week. 

Let's then assume the average rent or mortgage payment each individual pays is $500 per week. That still leaves $1000 but minus tax and you're left with $700.

Now to make another assumption, living expenses would be $200-$300 per week which leaves you with $400-$500 per week worth of discretionary income.

Each undergraduate university unit costs anywhere from $793 - $1324. It can be as high as $2900 for some units.

Either way, that's still very affordable.

Now let's analyse the cost of living in Auckland (Auckland is used because that's where the majority of jobs are).

The average wage is allegedly $76,000 (Im doubtful of this based on viewings of Seek advertisements and think it's closer to $50,000. Wages tend to peak lower in NZ than they do in Australia where $100,000-$200,000 is not impossible). Rent is around $300 a week per person and the cost of living would be comparable with that. When you minus tax you'd have about $200-$300 left over.

The average university unit in New Zealand would cost $886  for an undergraduate qualification.

So the question is, which country is more affordable for tertiary education? 

As you'd expect, I'm going to say Australia and I'll explain why.

The fees are comparable between the two countries and although the cost of living in Sydney is more than in Auckland, the higher wages compensate for that. There is a greater capacity to earn a very high income in Sydney than there is in Auckland.

Yes, New Zealand citizens do have to pay up front but most people would easily spend thousands of dollars a year on things they don't need so is paying for education really a huge cost? When you consider that your earning potential and job opportunities are greater, it's actually a tiny investment.

Most people who don't have qualifications end up stuck in jobs that aren't going anywhere because they don't have anything to offer their employer. They have limited knowledge and few jobs are open to them unlike those with tertiary qualifications.

This brings me to my next point. 

Are New Zealand citizens just looking for an excuse to go back to New Zealand? I would say yes. If people truly wanted to live in Australia then they would find any way to do so. The other question is, is it truly that people can't afford an education or is it that they don't value it? These same people who criticise the up front fee payment would no doubt be taking at least one holiday per year which would cost them thousands of dollars. An education may cost $32,000 but when you consider that over your lifetime you'll earn significantly more than that as a result, it actually pays for itself.

Not being eligible for HECS is actually a good thing because it saves you getting into debt which constantly rises each year at the rate of inflation.

The only thing that doesn't make sense about university fees in Australia is that those who take out a HECS loan get a discount but those who pay upfront don't: Shouldn't it actually be the other way around because the person who pays upfront is not a drain on the Australian taxpayer? You would think that you're doing the government a favour by not taking out a HECS loan.

All the talk from foreigners whinging about the cost of tertiary education jumps up and down as if there is a massive difference between domestic and international fees but $200 per unit (in most cases) is pretty insignificant when you consider the opportunities available as a result of that education.

The bottom line is that as long as you work full time, studying as a foreigner in Australia is extremely affordable. Anyone who says otherwise is just expecting handouts from the government. If you don't study the most you can expect to earn in a city like Sydney is about $50,000 whereas if you do study that amount is actually limitless.

Shortland Street's 25th birthday - A review

In TV land, a cliffhanger is defined as an episode that leaves you on the edge of your seat, grasping to know what will happen in the next episode. It's an episode where the stories haven't been resolved and there isn't closure. And unlike relationships that end where there is closure, there was no closure from tonight's episode of Shortland Street, which was a celebration of the program's reign over the last 25 years.

Once the program had ended, the viewer was only left with more unanswered questions that are likely to be as gripping as the question mark over Lionel Skeggins' disappearance in 1999. The generation of questions means that as the writers, cast and crew expected, it was in fact the most successful Shortland Street episode of all time.

The event

Prior to tonight's episode of the program, there had been some hints that the show would feature a "cataclysmic event that would leave the lives of the residents of Ferndale up in the air", and let me tell you that's exactly what happened.

If you've been watching the program for the last few weeks then you would know that there have been a few earthquakes and that might have been predictable, so the Shortland Street writers decided to create a script where Mount Ferndale (played by Mount Eden) would erupt. Any long term fan of the show would have seen that coming, but despite the predictability, it was massive, like nothing ever done by the writers of Shortland Street ever before.

While the hospital staff were racing to save the lives of patients, there were conflicts, reunions and of course Chris Warner's 50th birthday party.

The characters

Writing Chris Warner's 50th birthday into Shortland Street paved the way for old characters to return to the show. The characters amongst that list included: Marjorie Brasch, Nick Harrison, Waverley Harrison, Stuart Neilson and Lionel Skeggins (but more about his return later). As you'd expect though, there's no way that the residents of Ferndale can ever have a party without something going wrong. When you look back on previous years you'd realise that something bad often happens to the characters who are trying to celebrate.  

In 1994, when Gina and Leonard held their going away party, there was a fatal car accident where nurse Steve Mills and Sam's wife TP tragically died. Initially Steve survived the crash but he went back to save TP and then the car blew up. Nurse Carmen Roberts died on Christmas Day after a truck smashed into the clinic and another momentus occasion was in 1999 when Lionel Skeggins married Mackenzie Choat before disappearing without a trace.

Tonight's 25th birthday episode was no different, with Mount Ferndale (which appears to be based on Mount Eden) erupting during Dr Chris Warner's birthday, and Marjorie Brasch (the original clinic receptionist) dying of a cardiac arrest.

It's not yet known, but Lucy Rickman-Karim might have died in the program after bleeding to death following the bith of her and Ali's baby girl.

The villian

Shortland Street has had its fair share of villians since the show began in 1992, with Ferndale Mayor Mason Coutts playing that part now. Although we've known he was a murderer for a while, tonight was only the second time we'd seen him kill. Earlier in the week he killed one of his foreman, George, and tonight he killed one of his accomplices, Lizzie. It was suspected during the program that he had killed triplet Frank Connelly, but fortunately he managed to survive. Mason suffered a stab wound and he is still alive as well. It is not yet known what will happen to him given that his wife, Sass stabbed him when she thought he'd killed her triplet brother Frank. It's possible that he will end up in prison, or that he will die from the toxic fumes caused by the volcanic eruption and the stab wound.

The humour

Whenever you have a serious episode, you need to have some humour thrown into the mix as well. Nick and Waverley provided that, with them arguing with eachother every five seconds, and then Waverley uttering a phrase she'd used in 1994, "I'm pregnant as anything", when she thought she had been pregnant to Nick or Stuart (she wasn't though. She is this time).

Until the end of the episode when Marj quietly died in recpetion, she had been very humerous with her interactions with Chris, receptionist Leanne, and other cast members Harper and her on screen son, Stuart Neilson.

The relationship between Boyd and Eve has been somewhat up and down the last few months, with it progressing somewhat tonight. Eve had gone up to the mountain and managed to get a rock (which if you recall, she and Boyd had discussed when they first met before she had a job at the clinic), but now they seem to be making progress though we'll know more about that next week.

Leanne and Damo are such opposites that their relationship works. Leanne is very dry whereas Damo is a joker. Tonight saw the pair get back together. 

The tragedy

No soap opera fan likes when a character dies unless it's a villian. It's different for someone like Mason Coutts to get injured and attacked because he's evil and you want him to get what's coming to him. When it's someone like Lucy however (though it's up in the air if she lives or dies), even though she's annoying and boring, people do care about the character. It's the same when someone like Lizzie gets killed. Even though she's working for the bad guy it's not all her fault. Sass had thought that her triplet brother Frank had been killed, and that's what prompted her to stab Mason, however he wasn't dead. He is still alive.

It's even worse when an original cast member dies without warning. That's exactly what happened tonight with Marj. She had been in hospital becaus she had a fall, but she ended up stuck in a lift and then suffering a cardiac arrest in reception. She had a DNR order so she couldn't be revived without her son Stuart's approval, which he did not give. 

The romance

The New Zealand Herald hinted that returning character Stuart Neilson would find romance in the corridors of Shortland Street and that's exactly what he did. He found it with Harper, although that was swiftly ended and she returned to her fiance Drew who she had a falling out with last week over her neice, Ashley. Hawks and Sass finally reuinted after they'd had a fling last year and Mason had tried to stand in his way, knowing that there was true chemistry between the characters.

The unanswered questions

 It's unknown if Lucy has survived her blood loss, however, given she and Ali were moving up north, it's likely that she has been killed off the show. We won't know until it returns on Monday.

The next question left unanswered following the episode is, will Marj's funeral be on screen or off screen, and if it's on screen, why isn't Jenny Harrison returning for it given they are best friends?

These are just minor questions compared to the true cliffhanger question, that after 18 years, we still don't have an answer to, is, in the words of Dr Chris Warner, "Lionel, is that you?"



Copyright is owned by South Pacific Pictures. I do not own the copyright to this screenshot from Shortland Street, May 25th 2017.

It looks like Lionel to me, however after 18 years of not being on the program and fans (like me) suspecting he was still alive, we now have our answer. Lionel is alive. He's been alive this whole time, but we don't know the following:

1 - What happened after he was swept off the rock?
2 - Was he even swept off or did he swim out to get away from Mackenzie?
3 - Did he end up going to Makara to live? If you recall, he went to Karori Normal School (here's a fun fact, so did I).
4 - Does he have amnesia like Harold Bishop from Neighbours did when he disappeared for a few years?

5 - What's he been doing the last 18 years?
6 - Does he still bake muffins and run a coffee shop?
7 - Is it possible he knows that he's Lionel but after 21 years he doesn't recognise Chris Warner due to time lapse?
8 - Did he ever meet up with Kirsty in Wellington if that's where he was?
9 - Who rescued him if he was swept out to sea?
10 - If he knows who he is, and he's pretending he's not Lionel then why?
11 - Did he end up finding Caroline Buxton and ending up happy with her?
12 - If he was living outside of Ferndale for the last 18 years then what brought him back to Ferndale?
13 - Or, did he fake his own death? And if so, why?
14 - Why didn't Waverley recognise him?
15 - Does Lionel have any other kids we don't know about other than Luke?
16 - If Lionel answers to the name Lionel why is he pretending he doesn't know Chris Warner?

This is the only thing that was wrong with the episode, the moment when Lionel returned for a split second. It's opened up so many more questions. Please campaign the writers to bring him back to tell this story. This story needs a conclusion as there are just too many questions, and in soap opera land, if there's no body, as there wasn't for 18 years, the character is still alive (I always knew he was still alive).

We now have evidence that Lionel is alive, and that story needs to be told. We need answers and closure.

All in all though, I give the program a 4.9 for tonight's episode. It loses minor points for killing off Marj, and opening a raft of new questions about Lionel's disappearance.