a much better idea than the queen's birthday holiday

[Ken Gargett]

June 14, 2013, 3:46 pm

New Jersey Declares Clarence Clemons Day

Clarence Clemons and Bruce Springsteen performing in 2009.

Here’s further proof that in New Jersey the members of Bruce Springsteen’s band are folk heroes akin to knights of the round table: Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has signed a resolution declaring Jan. 11 to be Clarence Clemons Day, wire services reported. That day was Mr. Clemons’s birthday.

Known as the Big Man, Mr. Clemons was an original member of Mr. Springsteen’s E Street Band and perhaps its most charismatic member besides “the Boss” himself. He was a big-boned a rock ‘n’ roll saxophonist with riveting stage presence and a tone that seemed to rip through the audiences.

Mr. Clemons died in 2011 from complications of a stroke. He was 69.

Though his politics are mostly to the right of Mr. Springsteen’s, Governor Christie, a Republican, has attended more than 140 Springsteen concerts. The governor, at the time of Mr. Clemons’s death, had ordered flags in the state to be lowered to half-staff as a sign of respect.

The Clarence Clemons Day resolution was proposed by State Senator Jennifer Beck, a Republican representing Monmouth County.

[dpodiluk]

You guys in Oz not fans of being part of the Commonwealth?

[Ken Gargett]

You guys in Oz not fans of being part of the Commonwealth?

don't have any problem at all with being part of the commonwealth - all a very strong part of our history.

having a head of state from another nation is completely different. the most mindbogglingly ridiculous thing imaginable. most brits i meet have no idea why this historical anachronism still exists. just a few sad, live-in-the-past dills over here.

tho i could live with bruce as king of australia!

[David67]

don't have any problem at all with being part of the commonwealth - all a very strong part of our history.

having a head of state from another nation is completely different. the most mindbogglingly ridiculous thing imaginable. most brits i meet have no idea why this historical anachronism still exists. just a few sad, live-in-the-past dills over here.

tho i could live with bruce as king of australia!

Firstly monarchs can have more than one realm, secondly the Crown is divisible (no longer indivisible as it once was). Our Sovereign Lady The Queen is also Head of State of other great nations such as Canada not just Australia and the UK.

The Crown is above party politics in a way no President could ever be.

Also Ken do you have a new written Constitution that we can look at?

Finally people such as myself are not "live-in-the past dills" as you so simply put it. I am head of my local Australian Monarchist League in the Central West NSW and guarantee I could debate you into the ground on this

[AndrewNR]

Insert southpark you got served video here? Seriously though chaps, is this worth the commotion? Queen sells vegetables to keep afloat and acts as a nice mascot, lets just leave it at that :-P

[Ken Gargett]

Firstly monarchs can have more than one realm, secondly the Crown is divisible (no longer indivisible as it once was). Our Sovereign Lady The Queen is also Head of State of other great nations such as Canada not just Australia and the UK.

The Crown is above party politics in a way no President could ever be.

Also Ken do you have a new written Constitution that we can look at?

Finally people such as myself are not "live-in-the past dills" as you so simply put it. I am head of my local Australian Monarchist League in the Central West NSW and guarantee I could debate you into the ground on this

you can debate it as long as you like. won't make it any less absurd and it won't make it right. it is completely unfathomable to me as to why some people find it necessary to perpetuate such a cringe.

i'm not advocating general elections for the position. a simple effectively innocuous transfer to a situation where an appropriate australian is head of state, not an irrelevant family from the other side of the planet whose main use these days is ceremonial and to sell souvenirs (i met charles years ago and got to have a long talk with him - thought he was a terrific bloke and i have nothing against him personally, even if most of the rest of the family seem about as dysfunctional as the simpsons, but, although he was of course far too proper to say so, i am sure he thinks it is as absurd as most australians do). so little more than formalising the position of gov-gen as head of state. same role. effectively ceremonial.

howard was extremely clever in the last time this rose up for consideration by a rather deceiptful manipulation of the vote. instead of a simple yes/no, which howard knew was likely to be lost, he put up options for the republic, splitting the vote. and turnbull and others were simply not able to, or not up to, fighting that.

a terrorist bullet or two and we'd have that gibbering idiot harry as australian head of state. anyone really want that?

simply swap the queen for a respected australian. nothing else needs to change. as much as i hate politicians deciding anything, make it a 75% majority needed from a vote of both houses - after a joint committee puts forward an appropriate person. that will rule out a political appointment.

why does that terrify monarchists?

why this ridiculous inferiority complex?

[David67]

you can debate it as long as you like. won't make it any less absurd and it won't make it right. it is completely unfathomable to me as to why some people find it necessary to perpetuate such a cringe.

i'm not advocating general elections for the position. a simple effectively innocuous transfer to a situation where an appropriate australian is head of state, not an irrelevant family from the other side of the planet whose main use these days is ceremonial and to sell souvenirs (i met charles years ago and got to have a long talk with him - thought he was a terrific bloke and i have nothing against him personally, even if most of the rest of the family seem about as dysfunctional as the simpsons, but, although he was of course far too proper to say so, i am sure he thinks it is as absurd as most australians do). so little more than formalising the position of gov-gen as head of state. same role. effectively ceremonial.

howard was extremely clever in the last time this rose up for consideration by a rather deceiptful manipulation of the vote. instead of a simple yes/no, which howard knew was likely to be lost, he put up options for the republic, splitting the vote. and turnbull and others were simply not able to, or not up to, fighting that.

a terrorist bullet or two and we'd have that gibbering idiot harry as australian head of state. anyone really want that?

simply swap the queen for a respected australian. nothing else needs to change. as much as i hate politicians deciding anything, make it a 75% majority needed from a vote of both houses - after a joint committee puts forward an appropriate person. that will rule out a political appointment.

why does that terrify monarchists?

why this ridiculous inferiority complex?

Ken, I've never met you but I see you on the video reviews and you seem like a nice chap and I'd love to meet you one day, so none of this is personal.

You say of Prince Charles " i am sure he thinks it is as absurd as most australians do" what do you base that on, anyway the polling on this issue over the last 5 years has shown support for the monarchy to be in a majority.

Okay with regards to the referendum. You cannot have a vote that just says "yes or no to a republic", why; because any constitutional change needs to have the details of the change - that is law, ask a constitutional lawyer.

A President vote in the way you have put forward would have a greater political mandate than the Prime Minister. Even if they had no real power they would still have a big mandate to talk against the elected government of the day.

Ken I don't throw insults at you like "why does that terrify monarchists?

why this ridiculous inferiority complex? just put your view forward, it's a free county. Remember the Queen has always said she will respect the views of the Australian people, she is a Constitutional Monarch after all.

I am a proud Australian who believes in the system of constitutional monarchy, you don't and that's OK. Just don't hate me mate because we differ on this subject.

[Ken Gargett]

Ken, I've never met you but I see you on the video reviews and you seem like a nice chap and I'd love to meet you one day, so none of this is personal.

You say of Prince Charles " i am sure he thinks it is as absurd as most australians do" what do you base that on, anyway the polling on this issue over the last 5 years has shown support for the monarchy to be in a majority.

Okay with regards to the referendum. You cannot have a vote that just says "yes or no to a republic", why; because any constitutional change needs to have the details of the change - that is law, ask a constitutional lawyer.

A President vote in the way you have put forward would have a greater political mandate than the Prime Minister. Even if they had no real power they would still have a big mandate to talk against the elected government of the day.

Ken I don't throw insults at you like "why does that terrify monarchists?

why this ridiculous inferiority complex? just put your view forward, it's a free county. Remember the Queen has always said she will respect the views of the Australian people, she is a Constitutional Monarch after all.

I am a proud Australian who believes in the system of constitutional monarchy, you don't and that's OK. Just don't hate me mate because we differ on this subject.

absolutely not personal at all. some of my best mates are monarchists. had screaming rows with them and i know we will never agree but it doesn't stop us being mates.

i sent the same post above to a few mates including one (chap called malcolm badgery - he is heavily involved in the 'keep australia chained to the past' movement up here, though he doesn't call it that) who responded as below, which you might enjoy and also in the interests of fairness.

ps - i'll accept that some may take the inferiority comment as an insult tho from my end, i really do feel it is appropriate but the query re why it terrifies monarchists was a genuine puzzled enquiry, and i see nothing insulting in that.

At least Governor Christie (unlike Bligh) didn’t create a new public holiday, forcing the state’s struggling small business community to pick the cost in wages, lost revenue, etc etc.

BTW, Australia was the first place in the world to celebrate the sovereign’s birthday. Not only is it Australia’s oldest public holiday, its observance elsewhere is one of our gifts to the world.

From the diary of Watkin Tench...

Hours of festivity, which under happier skies pass away unregarded, and are soon consigned to oblivion, acquire in this forlorn and distant circle a superior degree of acceptable importance.

On the anniversary of the King’s birthday all the officers not on duty, both of the garrison and his Majesty’s ships, dined with the Governor. On so joyful an occasion, the first too ever celebrated in our new settlement, it were needless to say, that loyal conviviality dictated every sentiment, and inspired every guest. Among other public toasts drank, was, Prosperity to Sydney Cove, in Cumberland county, now named so by authority. At day-light in the morning the ships of war had fired twenty-one guns each, which was repeated at noon, and answered by three vollies from the battalion of marines.

Nor were the officers alone partakers of the general relaxation. The four unhappy wretches labouring under sentence of banishment were freed from their fetters, to rejoin their former society; and three days given as holidays to every convict in the colony. Hospitality too, which ever acquires a double relish by being extended, was not forgotten on the 4th of June, when each prisoner, male and female, received an allowance of grog; and every non-commissioned officer and private soldier had the honor of drinking prosperity to his royal master, in a pint of porter, served out at the flag staff, in addition to the customary allowance of spirits. Bonfires concluded the evening, and I am happy to say, that excepting a single instance which shall be taken notice of hereafter, no bad consequence, or unpleasant remembrance, flowed from an indulgence so amply bestowed.

God save the Queen!

to which another mate responded as well....

Given that every non-commissioned officer and private soldier had a pint of porter, in addition to the customary allowance of spirits, is it too churlish to suppose that the “single instance which shall be taken notice of hereafter” was the pack rape, by said officers and soldiers (but blamed on the four unhappy wretches) of the women who received an allowance of grog?

One cannot doubt that the author was convinced that there was no bad consequence, or unpleasant remembrance; he was probably a dandy who customarily sported blue ties ...

[David67]

absolutely not personal at all. some of my best mates are monarchists. had screaming rows with them and i know we will never agree but it doesn't stop us being mates.

i sent the same post above to a few mates including one (chap called malcolm badgery - he is heavily involved in the 'keep australia chained to the past' movement up here, though he doesn't call it that) who responded as below, which you might enjoy and also in the interests of fairness.

ps - i'll accept that some may take the inferiority comment as an insult tho from my end, i really do feel it is appropriate but the query re why it terrifies monarchists was a genuine puzzled enquiry, and i see nothing insulting in that.

At least Governor Christie (unlike Bligh) didn’t create a new public holiday, forcing the state’s struggling small business community to pick the cost in wages, lost revenue, etc etc.

BTW, Australia was the first place in the world to celebrate the sovereign’s birthday. Not only is it Australia’s oldest public holiday, its observance elsewhere is one of our gifts to the world.

From the diary of Watkin Tench...

Hours of festivity, which under happier skies pass away unregarded, and are soon consigned to oblivion, acquire in this forlorn and distant circle a superior degree of acceptable importance.

On the anniversary of the King’s birthday all the officers not on duty, both of the garrison and his Majesty’s ships, dined with the Governor. On so joyful an occasion, the first too ever celebrated in our new settlement, it were needless to say, that loyal conviviality dictated every sentiment, and inspired every guest. Among other public toasts drank, was, Prosperity to Sydney Cove, in Cumberland county, now named so by authority. At day-light in the morning the ships of war had fired twenty-one guns each, which was repeated at noon, and answered by three vollies from the battalion of marines.

Nor were the officers alone partakers of the general relaxation. The four unhappy wretches labouring under sentence of banishment were freed from their fetters, to rejoin their former society; and three days given as holidays to every convict in the colony. Hospitality too, which ever acquires a double relish by being extended, was not forgotten on the 4th of June, when each prisoner, male and female, received an allowance of grog; and every non-commissioned officer and private soldier had the honor of drinking prosperity to his royal master, in a pint of porter, served out at the flag staff, in addition to the customary allowance of spirits. Bonfires concluded the evening, and I am happy to say, that excepting a single instance which shall be taken notice of hereafter, no bad consequence, or unpleasant remembrance, flowed from an indulgence so amply bestowed.

God save the Queen!

to which another mate responded as well....

Given that every non-commissioned officer and private soldier had a pint of porter, in addition to the customary allowance of spirits, is it too churlish to suppose that the “single instance which shall be taken notice of hereafter” was the pack rape, by said officers and soldiers (but blamed on the four unhappy wretches) of the women who received an allowance of grog?

One cannot doubt that the author was convinced that there was no bad consequence, or unpleasant remembrance; he was probably a dandy who customarily sported blue ties ...

Thanks Ken,

having a sherry and cigar right now and will raise a glass to you mate.

Cheers

[AndrewNR]

This all could have been avoided with that darn southpark clip..