I know I keep writing this, but I think this has been the warmest and driest spring since we moved to West Cumbria in 2004.
It is often said that the rise of social media and particularly the ability to post anonymous insults, has meant a reduction in civility and I think there is a great deal of truth in this.
But I had a reminder today that, historically, extreme rudeness is nothing new.
Indeed, in the 18th century, political and social discourse was often nearly as rude as it is today. Even the existence of a functioning if illegal duelling code - one with such overwhelming social force that even very powerful men who strongly disapproved of the whole business were forced to take part in duels - did not always prevent people being very rude about one another.
In fact the very powerful were often in an impossible position when harsh words were exchanged, in that they would be seen as cowards and lose face if they did not fight a duel but as breaking the law if they did so and actually harmed their opponent.
Hence the practice known as "deloping" which appears to have been employed by all four parties on the two occasions when a present or former Prime Minister was forced to take part in a duel with another peer or MP. The challenged party selected pistols rather than swords and then one or more usually both parties would turn up for the duel but deliberately missing, usually be firing into the air or the ground rather than aiming at their opponent.
The theory behind deloping appears to have been that honour was satisfied because you turned up and gave your opponent the opportunity to try to shoot you, and therefore proved that you were not a coward, but you were not liable to be accused of murder or attempted murder because you didn't actually try to kill anyone. Certainly the politicians who took part in duels where both parties deliberately fired wide - or missed by a mile and claimed to have done so deliberately - suffered far less career damage - or indeed physical damage - than those who took part in duels where someone actually got hurt.
To be clear, I would never, ever want to see the practice of duelling ever brought back, but the mere thought of some of the trolls who write vicious and hurtful lies about other people behind the shield of anonymity provided by a computer being found out and having to stand on a duelling field holding a pistol and praying that the individual they had grievously insulted will have the sense to fire into the air rather than try to kill them, does present a certain entertainment value.
Of course, women were not allowed to fight duels, and could get away with being far more rude than men in the era, although if a gentleman insulted a lady her father, husband or brothers were all to liable to throw down the gauntlet.
What started this whole train of thought was that, while researching a post for tomorrow on the battle of the Glorious First of June, I came across a story about the captain of one of the RN ships in that battle, who had previously been at court as an aide to and friend of the Prince of Wales (later King George IV.)
The gallant captain had been rash enough allow himself to be overheard referring less than respectfully to Queen Charlotte by the Duchess of Gordon.
She put him in his place with the words
"You little, insignificant, good-for-nothing, upstart, pert chattering puppy"
"You little, insignificant, good-for-nothing, upstart, pert chattering puppy"