Talk:Principality of Hutt River/Archive 1

very early comments

This page is not NPOV. Nobody takes the HRP seriously, and I suspect some of the claims are flat-out wrong. I'll be revising this shortly, as soon as I've dug up the relevant AUSLIG map. --Robert Merkel 00:18 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

You should read the original version - I almost fell out of my chair laughing. --mav

Yes, the HRP is pretty funny, but I'd just like it so that *everybody* gets the joke. See deadpan humor and Australian English--Robert Merkel 01:05 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

Not at all - there are govt letters, linked here, that indicate the Australian govt seemed to have doubts about whether he can be taxed or not. And the fact is, he does sovereign activity and remains untouched by the government, including issueing company registrations and selling coinage which would get any other citizen tossed in jail by ASIC (the Australian Corporate Regulatory body) or ACCC (the Australian Consumer regulatory and enforcement body) in no time at all. There's a bit more to this than just a joke. What the full story is anyone's guess. Deathlibrarian 03:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Here is a link to the letter where the govt seems to indicate HRPs claims have some grounds. See for yourself, unless this is a forgery. http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/AUSTEO_SECRET.gif taken from here http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/Principality01.htm

---

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the HRP has been recognised by the Vatican. Can anyone confirm/deny this? --Paul A 09:09 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

___ Previously it was seen as a joke, but a lot of Australians admire HRP for thumbing their noses at Authority. The HRP, while not recognised, has been for all intensive purposes an independant sovereign state doing its own thing for more then 30 years now. Papal recognition - the Prince has had an audience with the pope, but I don't think it has been recognised by anyone. The HRP traditionally supports the rights of smaller nations. Bernie Lyons 30/11/03

---

Why is the whole list of other micronations required here under "see also"? Why not just link to micronation? Gzornenplatz 01:00, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Because there is no longer a dedicated article that includes an aggregated list of all micronations that have Wikipedia articles, and it is very likely that anyone researching one will also be interested in the others. If such a list doesn't appear on each micronation article page, then it should certainly appear in the "see also" section of the Micronation article. --Gene_poole 01:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Micronation article lists (and links to, where applicable) the various micronations under various headings. A repeat list under "see also" is unnecessary. Gzornenplatz 02:09, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Now that there is a micronation category listing, I agree. --Gene_poole

External Links

I have restored the external link Coins of the Hutt River Province deleted maliciously by Gzornenplatz. The URL links to a website authored by myself which constitutes the only complete catalogue of Hutt River Province coins in existence. The site was cited and quoted extensively in this context by "Australasian Coin & Banknote Colectors Magazine" (August, 2003 edition), and is obviously of relevance to the article.--Gene_poole 23:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That link is a further attempt by Gene Poole at advertising his "Empire of Atlantium". The "Imperial Collection" website conflates very real and important former secessionist states like Biafra and Katanga with the "Empire of Atlantium" (which consists of Gene Poole's apartment), as if this were somehow comparable. This must be considered misinformation, and it is therefore not an acceptable link. Gzornenplatz 11:39, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I have again restored the external link Coins of the Hutt River Province vandalised by Gzornenplatz. The URL links to a website authored by myself which constitutes the only complete catalogue of Hutt River Province coins in existence. The site was cited and quoted extensively in this context by "Australasian Coin & Banknote Colectors Magazine" (August, 2003 edition), and is obviously of relevance to the article. --Gene_poole 12:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The given link is, indeed, an Empire of Atlantium "advertisement". However, with some searching, it does prove to have a large collection of Hutt River coins. A more appropriate link would be http://www.imperial-collection.net/hutt_river_coins_01.html, which leads directly to the coin listings and contains fewer Atlantium references. --125.238.166.106 20:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The part under "Statistics" where it says that Hutt River never actually seceeded is not NPOV. It should say something along the lines of, never recognized as seceeded by the government of Australia, as it says elsewhere. The idea that secession must be recognized by external bodies or other sovereign states is not a neutral point of view. Can someone properly adjust this?

This article is in need of a major overhaul, and I am intending to get around to it eventually, but there's also [[]]nothing to stop you from making any changes you think are appropriate.--Gene_poole 22:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Hutt River Province Principality is a legitimate country.

The Hutt River Province Principality has been a legitimate country since it became independent on the 21st of April 1970 (Queen Elizabeth II's birthday), so therefore, it qualifies for full membership of the British Commonwealth, as does the Republic of Somaliland. - (Aidan Work 06:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC))

The Hut RIver PP is as much a country as Disneyland is. ;) --Qwertypoiuy 02:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Disneyland is not a country, whereas, the Hutt River Province Principality is. So, you are wrong there, Qwertypoiuy. - (Aidan Work 06:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

Hutt River Province is not and has never been a "country". It is a business that pretends to be a country - and does so very effectively. --Gene_poole 21:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Gene_poole, you are not correct. It is not a business masquerading as a country. The Hutt River Province Principality does qualify for recognition as a British Commonwealth country, as Prince Leonard I has found a British Act of Parliament which entitled him to declare independence from both Australia & Western Australia. - (Aidan Work 02:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

In that case I will look forward to seeing Hutt River take up its seat at the next CHOGM conference. I think there's one coming up in Brisbane fairly soon. Funny that they've waited 36 years to do so; maybe they're just a bit slow. --Gene_poole 02:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Aidan Work, it's one thing for him to claim he's found a British Act etc, but it's quite another for that to be tested in practice, to be legitimised by a court (after all, it's the courts that rule on points of law, not private citizens), and to be accepted by the international community. Has he ever sought to have this claim tested anywhere, or is he just full of bluster? JackofOz 08:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Micronation

(I'm pasting this into the talk page of all the micronation category articles.)

I've just started a template for the micronation infobox, based on the Sealand box. I've also written usage guidelines on it's talk page. I'd like to please invite any interested people to go over its talk page to discuss the template itself, along with my guidelines. As a demo of the template, please see Lovely (micronation), which I just edited to use the template. --Billpg 23:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Affect on wheat dispute

What affect, if any, did micronationhood have on the dispute about wheat quotas? Andjam 13:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

None. The Casley family simply switched to another source of income - tourism. I understand they also have a healthy business selling wildflowers to Japan. --Gene_poole 06:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

British Law

What is this loophole that he found? I want to see what he read and how he interpreted it because I'm very curiuos about this. Maybe you could put it in a seprate section?

Sign of weakness

Shouldn't every country reinforce its souvereignity? The territorial integrity must be protected at all cost or the country falls apart. Therefore the army should be sent in just like WACO. I can't see how this is different from the chechens trying to get out of Russia and getting the shit cluster bombed out of them until they smarten up. 195.70.32.136 09:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The branch dividians were storing weapons and ammunition.

The Principality of Hutt river is not, nor has it shown any malevolence towards anyone. The Australian government doesn't seem to care too much about it mainly because of this.

Legitimacy

This article is really a bit misleading on the legitimacy of this thing. For starters, it's really not well known. And it's obviously not a real country in any meaningful way. So to mention that there is no "standing army" is sort of like mentioning that Mickey Mouse does not own any property in the US. Suggest a less credulous tone to the article. Stevage 11:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is very well known. With 49,000 Google results it seems to be about on par with Sealand (with 54,000). But I agree that the article needs some serious NPOVing. --Centauri 03:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This etire article is laughable in the extreme. It speaks about the HRPP as if everyone in Australia knows about it or even cares or admires it/him etc. Those over 40 may remeber it in passing, but 49,000 Google hits (from who knows where) does not mean it is well known. I'd hazard a guess that if I asked anyone on the street in the CBD today they wouldn't have a clue. To add that this, saying it's as well known as "Sealand", I've never even heard of that...while the only reaon I know of THRPP is because it's a standing joke amoungst oldies.

I'd love to see this supposed section of English law that provides THRPP a loohole... because if it were indeed true (which it is not) then countless hordes of others would do the same to alos avoid paying tax.

Gimmick and tourist attraction at best, and has always been regarded as such by the general public, or the small amount that do know of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.10.111.39 (talk • contribs) .

Please try to be constructive with your comments. Andjam 14:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's the truth. I would suggest that while the general opinion of people that know about it would be "good on them for sticking it to authority", approximately no-one outside the HRP takes Prince Leonard for an actual head of state or his country to be anything deserving serious diplomatic recognition; the subject of a The Castle-esque comedy film, not a documentary. Emcee N 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So what's your point? --Centauri 08:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

nup. NPOV means NEUTRAL POINT OF VEIW. it also means listing other points of view. so, list everyones opinion. btw, i feel the whole article isnt NPOV like this: "Hutt River Province Principality is Australia's oldest micronation.". thats a POV issue. some regard it as a proper nation. i do. the whole article is too NPOV for my liking. Alexander101010 13:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does mean that every minor personal opinion on a subject can or should be listed. It means that data is presented in a values-neutral manner, based on verifiable sources. Nobody of any importance regards Hutt River as a "proper nation". The general international consensus, supported in dozens of printed sources, is that it's a micronation. --Gene_poole 11:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation

An anonymous contributor added this text, and said it was copied from huttriver.net. Unfortunately, that is not permitted. Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, and unless the text you're copying is licensed under the GFDL, you're not permitted to add it to Wikipedia. I've removed the text, and I need to check to see if the diff needs to be removed by an admin, as well. Captainktainer * Talk 11:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Treason Act 1495?

This article states that the founder claimed legitimacy under the Treason Act 1495. That article only says that a person fighting for the de facto king cannot be prosecuted for treason for fighting against the de jure king. What does that have to do with the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the HRPP? Is there some other section to the Act that relates to this sort of thing? Nik42 01:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Treason Act is apparently relevant because Australian constitutional law is derived in part from British law. Hutt River claims that Leonard Casley was declared a prince under the terms of this act so that he could not be prosecuted while his initial confrontation with the WA government was happening. --Gene_poole 02:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, HRP was not founded under the treason act. It was founded under different legal principles. There is a detailed page here decribing the legal aspects, though would be impossible to make any good sense of it without some legal knowledge. http://www.huttriver.net/HRHistory.htm

The Treason act is merely relied on to defend their people from legal action by Australia. After HRP secceded, they decided to refer to their administrator as a Prince, and the Treason act states that anyone going to war with their prince cannot be tried for treason. HRP are therefore arguing that under this law, if their people were tried by Australia, then their defence could be that they were defending their King (or prince in this case) and therefore they are protected by the Treason Act of 1495. God knows if it would work, and you would have to prove that he was their king, but very interesting anyway. Deathlibrarian 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Prince Leonard" is well-known in Australia

I doubt this is true, and another fact is that lots of people seem not to know of the place. Enlil Ninlil 09:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is true. Articles about Prince Leonard have appeared in Australian newspapers and women's magazines, and on current affairs and general interest shows, with monotonous regularity, for decades. There's been an exhibit about the guy in the National Museum for over half a decade. Like it or not, he's a well-known part of Australia's popular culture. --Gene_poole 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

as well known as Rove, or the crock hunter, not likely. More like Bernard King. Still I dont think he is that popular or known. Enlil Ninlil 03:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about it. I'm Australian. I read too ^_^. The problem is its a weaselly statement with no back up (unless you can produce a survey of modern Australia showing it, or maybe it occurs on 20 to 1 or something) --ZayZayEM 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's no more weasly a statement than "the Sydney Harbour Bridge is commonly referred to as 'the Coathanger'. Facts of this nature don't end up being documented in National Museums unless they're pretty well known. It's pretty ridiculous to suggest we can't include uncontroversial statements of this nature in Wikipedia unless someone's done a survey to gauge the popularity of public figure A angainst public figure B. --Gene_poole 03:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is asking for a National Museum to use it. It just needs to backed up by something. It isn't an uncontraversial statement. It's being disputed. I think you'll find "coathanger" mentioned in many-a-touristresource --ZayZayEM 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He's a two-point "intermediate" question in the Age's "Superquiz" of November 30, 2006. A search of Australian newspapers in Factiva turns up 16 articles, total. He's not unknown, but he's hardly a household name. It's hardly strong evidence to claim him as "very well known". --Robert Merkel 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think Factiva is an authoritative source. There were literally dozens of news and magazine articles on file in the State Library of NSW when I last researched the subject - and that was in the mid 1980s. There are probably 100s now. Steve Irwin he aint, but he's certainly an iconic figure. I think you also missed the point about the National Museum - he already has an exhibit about him there - it's been there for a least half a decade. --Gene_poole 04:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He is fairly regularly written about, particularly by the West Australian Newspapers, and particularly with the recent interest in silly micronations. I'd say over the 30 years it would have to be closer to 100's of articles. One Newspaper alone, "The Australian" had 9 articles written about him between 1995 - 2007 (you can search their archive online).Still not a household name though.Deathlibrarian 03:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to look at keeping the paragraph however changing "well-known" to something less direct. I believe many Australians know of the situation and have heard of Prince Leonard, however "well-known" implies wide knowledge of Prince Leonard; I disagree that most Australians could tell me more than vague points of information about the situation (I certainly didn't know much about it until happening upon this article). I think a solution to this conflict could be to change the paragraph to something like...

Many Australians are somewhat familiar with the Principality of Hutt River and know of "Prince Leonard". Some Australians view him affectionately as a harmless eccentric who admire his tenacity in taking on "big government", while others believe him to be looking for a fight where none exists. He is the subject of a permanent exhibit at the National Museum of Australia, in Canberra.

...or along those lines anyway. I don't believe most Australians admire him for "taking on big government" and that's a statement that I doubt could be proven. Thoughts? --DanielBC [_talk^contrib_stats] 06:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your suggested changes are pretty reasonable. It's not true that "most Australians" admire his stance. It would be more accurate to state that many of those who are aware of him view his actions with something approaching sympathic wry amusement. --Gene_poole 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the paragraph. --DanielBC [_talk^contrib_stats] 01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Two things - Those Australians who do know of him do admire his stance, and see him as "sticking it to the man". Checking references to him in blogs and articles, the vast majority are sympathetic and admiring of him, particularly the West Australian media which report more regularly on HRP. I would say a lot of older Australians are aware of him, but the younger ones in the Eastern stares may not be, unless they are well readDeathlibrarian 03:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Deathlibrarian 03:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tags and External Links

I've added various clean up tags simply because I find it hard to take this article seriously in the form it is currently presented. There are some very large claims made by this article, and thus it needs concrete sources to back them up. Primary sources are not acceptable for an article as controversial as this one.

If someone feels the need to swap the dispute tags with less dramatic ones, I wouldn't object. --AtD 14:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the tags, although I have combined them to {totally-disputed}. Some claims are wild and not backed up by anything - in this particular situation I am a fan of "Prove it or lose it" (back up everything on a controversial article with NPOV sources - that means no sources from the HRP sites, they are not NPOV), and I have started removing some of the most disputed statements. --DanielBC [_talk^contrib_stats] 02:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Daniel. Already the article is a lot more NPOV, especially in the first few paragraphs. A general question: Why are there so many 'official' web sites listed in the External Links section? Surely there's only one. What does that make of the rest, and which one is the real one? --AtD 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Hutt River "government" is a pretty confused and confusing beast. Over the years lots of people have been authorised to produce "official" websites in various parts of the world. This is pretty characteristic of the way Hutt River operates. --Gene_poole 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added when they appear to be last updated to the list and tried to describe them a little to avoid confusion. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more "official websites" out there, AtD --DanielBC [_talk^contrib_stats] 06:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is having listed the Delegations of Hutt River to the US and Germany in the external links NPOV? Is there any evidence that either the US or Germany recognise the HRP? Is it verifiable that they're legitimate web pages? If not, what does that make of these so called representatives? --AtD 01:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, AtD. I don't think its POV necessarily, well any more POV than having the home-page link anyway, but perhaps it should be mentioned if we cannot find any official comment by the USA or Germany Governments? --DanielBC [_talk^contrib_stats] 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's POV to refer to them as "delegations" - after all, anyone can send a delegation anywhere, if they so desire. It's not a legally defined term. Having said that I think "representative office" might be a better choice of term here. --Gene_poole 00:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --DanielBC [_talk^contrib_stats] 02:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Correctly referring to Prince Leonard

Out of politeness to him "Prince Leonard" is the way in which he is commonly referred to in the Australian media, not "Casley" or "Leonard Casley" which IMHO may be derogatory and assumes that his claims have been proven to be illegitimate, which they have not. I have changed the references to him in this regard. This is the way that major newspapers and TV stations(including the ABC) refer to him in interviews and articles. West Australians, when meeting him, also refer to him as "Prince Leonard", and I believe even his Admiral is referred to a such by the members of the Perth Yaghting community!.Deathlibrarian 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Deathlibrarian 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The man's name is Leonard Casley and that is how we ought properly write it. If "Bush" is good enough for the US president, then "Casley" will do fine for an Australian bush lawyer. "Prince Leonard" is certainly a common affectation, but any suggestion of the title being taken seriously by the media or anyone else is delusional. --Gene_poole 08:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling him "Leonard Casley" is POV and implies that his claim is incorrect. Prince Leonard is his de facto title, and this is how he should be referred to. Wether the title is taken seriously or not, it is how he is normally referred to, and so should be the way he is referred to here. Deathlibrarian 11:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not "POV" to refer to someone by the name that appears on their birth certificate. Prince Leonard" is merely an assumed affectation. Unless he's changed his name by deed poll, it remains Leonard George Casley. If there is documentary evidence to the contrary, please present it. It is important to note that his claims to being a sovereign prince have never been tested in a court of law, which is the only place questions of law can properly be determined. --Gene_poole 23:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The government letter calls him "Prince Leonard" and that is how he is best known. Poole can't get that kind of respect as "Emperor George" so he wants to bring him down to his own level. Harvardy 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What he was known as when he was born is irrelevant, his name has now changed with his circumstance. Read the letter from the Dept of Territories. It refers to him as Prince Leonard of Hutt. Simple as that. Deathlibrarian 03:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That letter doesn't seem to be dated, but I can assure you that the Department of Territories ceased to exist many years ago, I think in the mid 1980s at latest. I can check and find out exactly when. The letter contains an opinion by a bureaucrat - it's not and never was either official government policy or law. Since the Australian government has never recognised the secession of HRP, how could they recognise its protagonist as "Prince" anything. They may choose not to take much action about his goings-on, but that certainly does not equate to any kind of formal recognition or acceptance of his "nation", or of him as prince of it. I'll bet he's listed in the Electoral Roll - assuming he's still enrolled at all - as Leonard George Casley. JackofOz 15:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Unless there's evidence that he's actually legally changed his name, it remains the same as the one he was born with. It is entirely inappropriate to supplant the man's legal name with his assumed title. Exactly the same principle applies to how WP describes the leaders of all other micronations, including the Principality of Seborga and the Principality of Sealand - both of which are far more eminent than Hutt River - so there's no reason to make an exception here. --Gene_poole 22:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Prince is the "title" that he is known by, not his "name". A person need not change name to achieve a title. The government letter accepts his title. It is defacto recognition. There is no need for dejure recognition to accept his title. Harvardy 00:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no. Prince is the title he has claimed for himself, and one that some people recognise (but very few). Those other Australians who know of him may refer to him as Prince Leonard, but only in the same sense that they refer to John Howard as Honest John. Both of these names are jokes, obviously. The letter contains an opinion by an employee of the government. That employee communicated his opinion to the government of the day, but that government and all successive Australian governments have never given any indication that they have accepted his opinion. This letter cannot be claimed to be "a government document" without serious misleading going on. The letter may have been created within the bureaucracy, which is responsible to the government, but as I said above, it cannot possibly be interpreted as an expression of government policy, because it is simply not. Governments get given advice and opinions all the time, from all kinds of sources, but only some of them end up as government policy. Leonard Casley has no title, either de jure or de facto, except in the minds of the very few people who recognise his secession. The problem is, ordinary citizens do not have the power to recognise a secession. Not even the Australian government can do that unilaterally. Section 123 of the Australian Constitution [1] enables the Commonwealth to alter the boundaries of a State (which the secession of HRP would require, amongst other things), but only with the consent of the Parliament of that state, and the approval of a majority of electors in that state, ie. a state referendum. So, it’s technically possible – but the government has no power to unilaterally recognise any secession. Which is why they haven’t agreed that L G Casley is Prince Leonard, and never will. JackofOz 00:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We've gotten a bit off track here I think. The original proposal was to replace most references to "Leonard Casley" in the article with "Prince Leonard" as a sign of "respect". However, this implies recognition of his claims, and is therefore inadmissibly POV. While accepting (and noting in the article) that he uses the assumed title "Prince Leonard" and that many Australians know him by that appellation, he remains, from a legal standpoint, Leonard Casley - which is how we must properly refer to him. --Gene_poole 01:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Honest John" reference is completely not applicable. John Howard is referred to in the media and commentary as John Howard. That is his term of reference. Prince Leonard is referred to in the media as Prince Leonard. That is the normal way of referring him. To refer to him in an unusual way, like calling him "Leonard Casley" is I think POV and implies that his case has been proven invalid, which the letter clearly shows has not. I think where other commentary have chosen not to disrespect this person, so should Wikipedia. The fact is, Government lawyers, as per the letter, have presumabely looked at this and decided that his case does have some grounds, and appear to be treating him as a sovereign state.(Unfortunately) the situation is more complex than simply looking at a section of the consitution. In involves Imperial law, tort law, and the area where British law supercedes Australian law. It may also involve the powers of the Queen over Australia. On top of this, it applies to 1978 (when he secceded)..not the law as it is now. I'm guessing if it was simple legal arguement for the Australian Government to prove wrong, there would be no Austeo letter and no HRP 30 years later. Deathlibrarian 03:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC) It seems if they didn't believe he was a defacto sovereign, they would have taken the same action they took against the princes of Ponderosa. Couldn't you just put quotation marks around the word "Prince" to settle this problem? Also, the press calls him "prince" and under WP rules wouldn't that be enough justification? Harvardy 01:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Rigoli's were prosecuted and jailed for perpetrating massive tax fraud against the Australian Commonwealth, not for setting up a principality. --Gene_poole 01:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's the point, this "Prince" doesn't pay taxes either and hasn't for 30 years. As an Australian "Emperor" do you think you could get away with that? Harvardy 01:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of discussion. --Gene_poole 02:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Harvardy is correct.HRP don't pay taxes, print money, sell coins, and even register companies (very illegal). Australian government hasn't touched them, apart from warning people away from them. Deathlibrarian 03:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the suggestion to refer to him as "Prince" Leonard, may I make an analogy with Bob Geldof. Please bear with me, it's relevant to the topic. The media usually calls him Sir Bob Geldof, yet every time any other non-Commonwealth citizen is given an honorary knighthood, the media lecture us about them not being entitled to "Sir", just the postnominals KBE (or whatever). Then in the next breath they turn around and refer to Mr Geldof as "Sir Bob" again. I've raised with issue with the media from time to time, but their response is usually "that's what everyone calls him". I've asked that they at least write Sir in inverted commas, to indicate that this is not his proper title, but no luck so far. So, from that standpoint, I kinda half-support the "Prince" Leonard idea. In Geldof's case, we're talking about a bestowed knighthood (albeit honorary), so it's understandable that the Sir might get attached, in the public's mind. But our article does not call him Sir Bob, and goes into some explanation why not. We don't even call him "Sir" Bob. If we don't do it for him, then we certainly shouldn't do it for a guy who plucked his Prince title out of the air all by himself. JackofOz 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Geldof can't use the title "Sir" as he is not a commonwealth citizen. They are incorrectly using the title. Prince Leonard status appears that as the administrator of this in all practical senses sovereign (albeit unrecognised) state, he has been given the title of prince by his people (all 30 of them!!!). Technically, he is entitled to the title and Bob Geldof is not. So while the media is giving them both titles, they are doing it in different contexts. I'm guessing calling him "Sir" Bob rather than Sir Bob, somehow would look odd and imply that he actually wasn't knighted at all Deathlibrarian 03:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Been given his title by his people"? Did they have a town meeting and decide to honour their sovereign with this title? Hardly. He chose it himself. Under which technicality is he entitled to the title? JackofOz 04:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Bob Geldof, I think you're right - "Sir" Bob might imply what you say. But they chose the wrong alternative, Sir Bob, rather than simply Bob. JackofOz 04:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well according to the HRP history, they had a meeting and decided to make the place a principality, and decided as a group to make him Prince. So no, I don't think that counts as him declaring himself Prince. Not that it really matters. If he is theoretically in his own sovereign state with its own laws, he can probably call himself whatever he wants Deathlibrarian 10:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Letter from the Department of Territories stating HRP claims to have some validity

This document appears to indicate that HRP claims have some validity under the constitution. I'd love to see some comment on it from the government. I guess it could be a forgery, but it looks pretty authentic to me, except for a spelling mistake and the fact it is not signed. Its definitely written by someone with a good knowledge of legal English. Anyone know anything about this, curios as to its origins, or why this hasn't been referred to before? Deathlibrarian 11:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) So far the only references I have found, seem to indicate it is a legitimate document. A paper written by J lattas from Macquarie Uni in Sydney on seccesion movements in Australia refers to it: "DIY Sovereignty and the Popular Right in Australia", and a few articles refer to it - I have not seen anyone challenge it so I assume it is valid? Deathlibrarian 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not look real to me. It has at least one spelling mistake, capitalisation has been missed in some cases, and its Legal English is no better than mine - and I'm fifteen. However, I have not encountered any challanges to its authenticity, so for now I assume it is authentic. --125.238.166.106 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well...I work in a law firm (not a laywer though) so I thought its legal English was pretty good, if not slightly arcane. Also if it was typed with a typewriter (it was written in 1989) then that would explain the spelling mistake and some of the odd spacing. I think it would be pretty stupid of HRP to forge this, and it doesn't seem in their nature to do that anyway. I'm guesssing its a real document too. Deathlibrarian 03:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My answers to the topic above this one explore this very issue in some detail. I have no reason to doubt it's a genuine document, but am absolutely certain it has absolutely no bearing on Casley's claim for recognition. JackofOz 01:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, HRP goes unrecognised. However they say in the letter that the fact that it is not recognised by the government is a "Muta Point". So while HRP is unrecognised, the legal aspects of the secession appear to possibly have some validity under the constitution, and it appears that the government is (secretly??) treating him as a sovereign entity within Australia. Deathlibrarian 03:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. This letter that everyone's talking about is not a government document, except in the sense that they own the paper and the ink, and it's probably in the National Archives. It is not a creature of any Australian government. It has nothing to do with constitutional validity of HRP - that's for the High Court alone to decide. It's an opinion written by a bureaucrat. It has no standing in law. It's a red herring. Prince Leonard may choose to use it to support his case, but he's clutching at straws, and a very thin straw it is indeed. We should never have even mentioned it in the article, because it muddies the waters and causes people to think "Hmm, maybe he does have a case after all". He has no case. Inactivity by a government in relation to an illegal act should not be taken as acquiesence to it or acceptance of it. JackofOz 03:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Its not a Parliementary documement but its issued by the Department of Territories - thats obvious, and it states the ATO's and Department of Territories legal opinion opinion in it, which are both Federal Government departments. I'm no lawyer, but this appears to be an official document and would completely have *huge* standing in a court of law, unless it could be proven to be fake. You are saying he has no case - but the letter implies they have investigated constitutional law and he does have a case. Ultimately you are correct, it would come down to a high court case to definitely prove he can or cannot seccede, but both parties appear to be avoiding that, and in the meantime, the letter says that the ATO and the Dept of territories are treating him like a sovereign state. I'll ask you this....do you think they would exempt him from taxes if he didn't have a case?Deathlibrarian 04:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was thinking government as in the ministers who comprise the Australian Government. The term in its broader sense does indeed extend to the departments and agencies, but internal communications between departments and their ministers are still not statements of government policy. Now to the letter:

• This Ministerial brief contained a "suggestion" for action. It wasn't even called a "recommendation". That says something about its level of importance.

• If the Australian Taxation Office had a view on whatever issue this Ministerial brief was addressing, I’d like to hear it from the horse’s mouth, not on the mere say-so of another party. What are these "facts as currently available to all parties"? What are the facts in relation to? What is this "statement issued by one Leonard George Casley"? What is the subject matter? Was it a written statement? When was it issued?

• If the Dept of Territories had indeed investigated constitutional law about the matter, don’t you think the Attorney-General’s Department would have been consulted about it, and their learned opinion provided in the brief? The absence of any reference to A-G’s tells me the issue - whatever it was - had nothing to do with any interpretation of the constitution.

• Point 4 is vacant, but the three non-vacant points are "subject to the guidelines we have had to adopt". We have no idea what those guidelines are, what they are about, what effect they have on anything, when they were adopted, and why the dept "had to" adopt them. Who required them to adopt them?

• "Nothing in any legislation currently would preclude recognition." -- Is the Constitution not legislation?

• "It is our considered opinion ... the following points are in fact the situation currently." -- An opinion that something is a fact is still only an opinion.

• "It is therefore our suggestion that you at all costs contain this situation." -- What situation is the author talking about?

• "The Department would at your request therefore institute the required action". -- What action would be required, and in relation to what issue? Did the Minister ever come back and request any action? What was the outcome?

• I would say this letter was written by a very junior officer, because of the following spelling and other errors, which would not have been made by an officer experienced in briefing Ministers:
  • there’s no such thing as the "Taxation Department". It’s the Australian Taxation Office. In common parlance it's referred to as the Tax Department, but officers briefing Ministers have to get it right. I know this from personal experience, and the requirements are very stringent about these sorts of details.
  • thier (considered opinion) = their
  • muta point = moot point
  • "... as the residents of the area do, and there has been now, and in the past a legal uncertainty ..." – what a shemozzle!
  • "... the act can be used to isolate them requirement of visa’s" [sic] – What on earth does this mean? Which act are they referring to?

So, we have no idea who wrote this, what status that person had in the Department of Territories (but it was certainly not the head of the department or anyone even close to his level), when it was written, who the Minister was at the time, or what the issue was that caused the letter to be written in the first place. To rely on this lamentable excuse for a professionally prepared Ministerial brief for anything would be the greatest folly. For the supposed sovereign of an independent state to rely on it for the very existence of his state is absolutely laughable. JackofOz 05:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Call me a naturally suspicious type, but it appears that the existence of the letter seems way too convenient to be accepted without question. Has its existence actually been verified in the National Archives? To my mind, it would certainly not be beyond the realms of possibility for a junior officer of the said Department with sympathies for Casley to have knocked it up on official letterhead as a favour. The odd, archaic compositional style employed does bear some resemblance to original documents authored by Casley himself that I have in my posession - but I may just be reading way too much into things here. --Gene_poole 08:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What we are saying it its not a letter from Parliament, its a letter from a Government Department. The more I look at it, the more I realise how bad the grammar is. I equally am interested in this letter, and what is not stated in it. However, I think as Wikipedia writers its not in our powers to investigate for the purposes of trying to write and article, or to try to legally interpret it....though if someone found out more about it, I'd be interested to know! I guess what I'm saying is, I think we basically have to accept it at face value. We can really only question if its real or not, but trying to legally interpret it, and work what other aspects they are referring to is beyond us. When they refer to "the Act" I assume they are talking about the constitution, as thats the only piece of leg. they are talking about. It is possible this letter is referring to other letters or phone conversations..which is why it may seem to refer to things that are not obvious. As for it being a forgery by HRP, well its possible but no one claims that the letter is not real so I'm assuming it is?Deathlibrarian 10:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(a) It's a Ministerial brief, prepared by an officer in the Dept of Territories, and addressed to the then Minister for Territories. It was never intended for public dissemination. (b) I think it's of very limited value until the context of the brief can be determined (if it ever can be). (c) I've never heard anyone in government refer to the Constitution as "the Act". Nor have I ever heard of anyone using the Constitution to achieve administrative outcomes such as those relating to visas. I'm sure they're referring to some Act of the Australian Parliament. JackofOz 10:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, wether it was meant for public consumption or not, it is available to the public now :-) (heh). The point is, it states how these two dapartments see HRP and what they think of its legal standing, and thats what is of relevance to this article. While the extra information would be useful, (and very interesting!) its only theory they are going to contradict the letter, and in any case, they are not available. I like you, would love to see more of this stuff, but in terms of some aspects of HRP the letter is perfectly clear, and I hardly think it should be *discounted* because some other theoretical documents may exist...which we don't have access to. Besides, as Wikipedia authors, its not up to us to do primary research or hire private investigators, we just go with what we have at hand...and all we have is this letter. They may certainly be referring to some other act, and you may be right about the Visa stuff more likely to be in some other leg., but as for "the Act", "The Constitution" is, of course, an Act. In law, whenever you are writing about an area of law, you refer to the principal legislation for that area of law, or the the piece of legislation you are writing about as "The Act"...this is just to save time and so you don't have to type out the the full name of the leg. again.Deathlibrarian 13:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am the son of the late Prince Regent - Prince Kevin.I have control of all of the HRP documentation from the "Regency Years".I was the HRP administrator from May-July 1996, following my fathers assassination by ASIO, on April 24 1996 (not 1995 as in article).

The text of the document is authentic, but the actual letter in the picture is a mock up of the original, which is still buried in an archive somewhere.I know this because I have the original fax that was sent to the HRP. One of the many HRP moles, working in several fed & state government departments, intercepted it.Yes the HRP had spies!!!

No one has mentioned the fact that it is marked "AUSTEO". This means: Australian Eyes Only, The Aus version of "Top Secret".Fairhaven 13:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in the Island Prince Kevin was going to buy, can you let us know anything about it? Any chance you could send us a scanned copy of the Fax, would be most interesting.Deathlibrarian 07:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Fairhaven. It therefore seems to me that the document in question is not what the departmental officer wrote to the Minister for Territories, but what someone else claims the officer wrote. I'm not suggesting any words were changed, but I doubt it can any longer qualify as an original reference that we can cite. I certainly noticed the AUSTEO tag, but assumed the doc had been declassified. Now, it seems this is not the case. Perhaps this is even further reason not to cite it. -- JackofOz 08:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairhaven, could you scan something and put it up on the internet, so we can refer to it as a reference and disprove the letter? Is there a proper reference we can site? Deathlibrarian 11:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As I am planning to publish a few books on the real HRP, I am reluctant to release to much info.I hope to soon release, all of Prince Leonards letters to Prince Kevin. {Deathlibrarian: I will try to help.} {JackofOz: Are you a public servant with a vested interest?} Three days after his death, he was due to purchase half sovereignty of an island in the Solomon Islands, from their government, for $20 million.He had 3 Hong Kong banks willing to pay $11 million each for tax free properties on the island.They wanted to create a new Pacific economic centre before Hong Kong reverted to mainland control.The remainder was to be paid to a P.N.G. earthmoving company & a Brisbane builder, to construct a "City".The purchase of this island would have given the HRP unquestionable validity and a seat on the UN.For security reasons,The Australian gov could not afford to have a second country occupying part of the continent.Fairhaven 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Half sovereignty" ? What is that exactly? --Gene_poole 12:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairhaven, no I am not a public servant. I used to be some years ago. I have no interest, vested or otherwise, in HRP except an interest in Wikipedia telling its story using proper, verifiable citations and references. -- JackofOz 05:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the discussions of the document, the document is original research and therefore cannot be included here. Also, the inclusion of this document or the text thereof purported to be in or from a document classified under a relevant security classification is just plain inappropriate. If in fact it does exist and it's in the national archives, and has been officially declassified - then go down there, get the correct file reference, and then reference information from it in line accordingly. Until then, this document has been removed, the relevant user who added it has been warned, and I am in discussion with a number of Australian administrators to see if this warrants notification to the administrator's noticeboard for further consideration and action. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The letter by itself is not original research, it is already published in two places, and appears to of have been available online has for some time. An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

• It introduces a theory or method of solution;
• It introduces original ideas;
• It defines new terms;
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

I believe that it is of interest to those who would like to know about HRP. I will be seeking to have a link to the letter put back on. I also believe you should not have removed it without discussion here. Winchester, it is normal wikipedia practice to discuss disputes on the talk page, rather than just delete them or take things to the administrators. Please discuss putting back on, otherwise I will be taking this to the dispute resolution: Third Opinion option.Deathlibrarian 06:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that publishing or linking to allegedly "Austeo Secret" stuff on Wikipedia opens up a whole can of worms which could involve legal action against the site (in fact, the fact such action has *not* been taken against the sites hosting it further convince me of its lack of veracity). It is the job of administrators to ensure that material which does not comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or with the Wikimedia Foundation's legal requirements as a site owner, is removed appropriately. This is uncontroversial and happens day in, day out, across thousands of articles. Oh, and searching on the National Archives site under Agencies confirms that the Department of Territories actually had a very limited shelf life and did not exist after 1968 - two years before the HRP issue came up, and 21 years before this document allegedly arose. Orderinchaos 12:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Brumbywatvh site wouldn't qualify as a reliable source for political information on HRP and its communications to/with the Australian Government, its even doubtful that it would qualify as an RS for an aritcle on wild horses in Australia. Gnangarra 13:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Department of Territories did exist after 1968 - they were publishing Annual reports in 1986. - Australia. Dept. of Territories. External Territories Division : extract from the Department of Territories annual report 1985-86. [Canberra] : The Department, [1986]. Description: 27 p. : ISBN: 0642115710 : (at 2 libraries). - However, its well obvious that now at least three people find this document not from a verified reputable source, and I agree about the Austeo secret argument. May be some day someone will investigate this whole thing and publish a book on it so we can all know the real story.Thanks guys.Deathlibrarian 16:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Make that at least four people. That doc is a poor quality hoax if I ever saw one. In my experience, Govt departments don't write internal memos to Ministers with at least a dozen spelling and grammatical errors. —Moondyne 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Principality of Hutt River ---> Hutt River Province
Hutt River Province seems the more common name on google, 30k hits to 1.5k --Astrokey44 09:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Hutt River Province" is more common because it's been in use since the 1970s, whereas Prince Leonard changed the name of his micronation to "Principality of Hutt River" barely 2 months ago. The current "official" name is the latter, which is properly reflected in the current article name. "Hutt River Province" should redirect to this. --Gene_poole 01:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What if he changed it to the "Kingdom of Hutt River", or the "Hutt River Empire"? Should we just blindly acquiesce as if these titles have any serious standing anywhere except in the minds of Mr Leonard Casley and his followers? Given that the place exists we have to call it something, but honouring it with "Principality" or any other assumed title is just kowtowing to a misguided and bloody-minded demagogue who has used a legal dispute that happened over 35 years ago to create a world where he can abrogate his responsibilities as an Australian citizen, but would still expect Australia's immediate help if ever his land was under attack from a foreign power. I support the move to "Hutt River Province". JackofOz 02:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What ever your opinions of his legal position with Australia, the owner of area officially calls it Principality of Hutt River as such the article should respect that naming, though it maybe more commonly referred to as Hutt River Province as such HRP should be a redirect. Gnangarra 02:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, except that it's "official" only in his mind. If I suddenly choose to call my land "The Kingdom of Gullarganbone", and install myself as "His Majesty King Murgatroyd I of Gullarganbone", how would those in any sense be "official" titles? JackofOz 03:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Leonard Casley can "officially" call his micronation whatever he likes, because its his creation. What lends weight to his decisions concerning nomenclature is if third party sources and external observers then defer to them when reporting his activities, eventually resulting in his chosen terminology entering the realm of popular culture. This level of "notability" is a quality the Kingdom of Gallargambone would distintly lack at the outset. --Gene_poole 04:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened on Wikipedia when Prince (musician) changed his name? Casley is the leading officialdom of HRP or PoHR, so Wikipedia doesn't have much choice but to acquiesce IMHO. But statements of Casey's official declarations do need to be published in verifiable sources (and preferably third party ones) before wikipedia can attribute them as official declarations--ZayZayEM 06:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if a country changes their official name, Wikipedia keeps the article at the common name. It should be the same for microstates --Astrokey44 09:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Then what about Bombay and Calcutta(no offense or intent to change intended), there better known outside of India with these names yet we use the "official name" Gnangarra 11:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things: (a) In Australia, Bombay and Calcutta are always now referred to as Mumbai and Kolkata. Maybe we're just that much ahead of the rest of the world in recognising and respecting official name changes. (b) HRP has no status as a microstate or any other kind of state. It's not recognised by any government on Earth as a sovereign entity, so the Wikipedia rules don't apply to it. -- JackofOz 13:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

First point nothing is exempt from wikipedia policy, even WP:IAR is a policy.

So what is the Principality of Hutt River if its not a microstate - under your definition the application of the term HR Province because the article Province defines it as A province is a territorial unit, almost always a country subdivision. with the legal term from the article being it is considered to be sovereign in regard to its particular set of constitutional functions. also from the article. With these definitions by calling it a province your saying its considered a sovereign state. Yet you say its not and therefore if it changes its name we dont have to respect/recognise that change.

Well then, lets assume its not a state/principality, do we then presume it to be a corporation? If so it still has the right to choose/change its name as such we respect that, take Coles Myer when they changed the name to Coles Group so did the article name.

If your referring to Leonard Casley as the example below prescribes, then you'd use the name he is most commonly known by whether it includes a title or not, this isnt an individual its a place/business/state so WP:BIO and WP:BLP dont apply.

Please explain what makes HRP the correct name, because each policy I see in relation to geographic and corporate naming supports the PHR. Maybe we're just that much ahead of the rest of the world in recognising and respecting official name changes then again... Gnangarra 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're going around in circles now. You believe HRP exists in some "official" capacity; I don't. The place, whatever we call it, is legally separate from Australia only in the mind of Mr Leonard Casley. You believe we're bound to change the name of our article every time he decides to rename his parcel of land and upgrade his "title"; I don't. I think that is according him undue deference. Very few people would be aware that he's changed it from Hutt River Province to the Principality of Hutt River, and those who are aware of it are giving his "decree" the respect it deserves by laughing even harder than they were before. Mr Casley may be serious, but the rest of the sane world regards this is as a joke, or the folly of a madman. Let's not feed it. -- JackofOz 02:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

JackofOz with respect it appears that your letting personal opinion about Casley impede your judgement. Gnangarra 10:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP has a general convention concerning naming micronation articles which has evolved over the last 5 years. We generally use the full "official" name of the micronation as the article name. This differentiates them from "real" countries. Any other common names for the same micronation then redirect to the main article. --Gene_poole 02:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hutt River Province is more notable as an 'official' name than Principality of Hutt River; it is still distinguishable from countries as it is not at simply 'Hutt River'. --Astrokey44 10:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Its "officially" Principality of Hutt River, the question is do we use the "official" name or do we name retain it at a previously known name? Gnangarra 10:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions from PRH passport holder

Dear Friends! I am a responsible person from the Principality of Hutt River. I want to ask you a few questions: 1. If PRH is the part of Australia, why PRH is exempted from the taxes levied on the Australian Nationals? 2. If PRH is the part of Australia, why HRH Prince Leonard is not convicted for issuing the currency and passports? 3. If PRH is the part of Australia, why we are receiving letters with the stamps of PRH? Is there any other state or province of Australia that is using its own postal stamps? 4. If PRH is not taken seriously in the world why and how we are traveling on the passports of PRH? I would like to upload the image of the letters (with stamps) sent by PRH to Spain to show to all of my friends. If permitted, I would also show the visas issued on my passport. I'll be thankful if anyone helps me uploading the images, please. I would be happy to see a healthy critic about our Principality. If we have not moved fast, it is not because of our legality, it is because of our lack of resources. But we are sure that we'll get the recognition in this decade. Thanks to all.

Moved to the reference desk by Cameron.

comment

As an Australian I can confirm that Hut River has been reported in the media for many years. it is fair dinkum... The key thing is, as I understand it, that he declaired War on Australia and hence susceeded. As far as I know it has not been legally tested - but there are some serious questions about taxation... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.193.254 (talk)

I like Prince Leanoard's attitude, especially as the momentum for his principality came out of that ridiculous and vile wheat quota era. The appeal that HRP & Prince Peonard has to Australians is that it's a way of telling interfering Governments to 'stick it'. Apparently Australia has more of these self-declared Micronations than anywhere else on earth - about 26, I believe. The other famous one is the Gay and Lesbian Kindom of the Coral Sea, ruled by Emperor Dale I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.25.166 (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

517 or 595 km from perth

... seems as if Hutt-River-Peolple don't know themselves. You can find both on their official pages. --89.56.178.173 (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Both distances could be correct. The Province consists of two separate "properties" (see map). They are probably 78km apart or close to it. Wayne (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Would be 595. It's not far from Kalbarri, which is a considerable distance from Geraldton, which itself is 420km from Perth. I've been there (I should upload some of my photos actually.) Orderinchaos 09:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Silver Jubilee $1 coin

Is there any relevence of this section to the rest of the article?124.169.103.187 (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A little facts

Hi

Discussing micro nations is always fun. There are all kinds of legal, semi-legal, and no-legal arguments thrown around. Ultimately the discussion can never be settled because there is no universal legal code the defines what constitutes a country.

New countries are still established from time to time (ex Kosovo, South Ossetia, East-Timor(but are often controversial and seldom universally recognized as such)).

I think this particular micronation can be classified as: “recognized by some people for fun” “recognized by owner of land, as per his official australian deed”

If people find it fun to discuss this further I have found some facts:

The area is located in the Western Australia Shire of Northampton. According to official website there are no internal international borders or enclaves.

See: http://www.northampton.wa.gov.au/our_shire/boundaries.html

The Western Australia Office of the Electoral Distribution Commissioners, formed in 2007 to determine new electoral boundaries in Western Australia. Its official map does not include any international borders or enclaves in the area.

See: http://www.boundarieswa.com/2007/Final-Boundaries/Agricultural-Region/Moore/Post.aspx

Geoscience Australia, the Australian Government Agency responsible for mapping Australia does not show any international borders or enclaves in the area.

See: http://mapconnect.ga.gov.au/MapConnect/imf.jsp?accept_agreement=on&site=MapConnect

The website for the area is www.Principality-hutt-river.com. It is registered by a Australian company and is classified by ICANN as a Australian IP-address. The owner of the website lists and Australian postal address. http://whois.domaintools.com/principality-hutt-river.com

A number of companies that also lay claims to Principality are registred with The Australian Securities & Investments Commission

See: http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c

More interesting is the fact that there are a number of companies registered whose names “seems” to be related to Principality of Hutt River.

Among them are:

THE HUTT RIVER BUREAU

HUTT RIVER WINES

HUTT RIVER PROVINCE PRINCIPALITY PTY LTD

HUTT RIVER PROVINCE PRINCIPALITY PTY. LTD.

HUTT RIVER PROVINCE BUREAU PTY LTD

HUTT RIVER COASTAL ESTATES PTY LTD

HUTT RIVER WINE GROWERS

HUTT RIVER PROVINCE STAMP SALES

HUTT RIVER PROVINCE PHILATELIC PROMOTIONS

HUTT RIVER PROVINCE PRINCIPALITY STAMP SALES

HUTT RIVER (CLARE) PROBUS CLUB INCORPORATED

HUTT RIVER PRINCIPALITY INVESTMENTS (N.Q.)

MISS HUTT RIVER PRINCIPALITY BEAUTY QUEEN QUEST

HUTT RIVER PROVINCE PRINCIPALITY STAMP SALES AGENCY

See http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c

Family: Leonard George Casley was born 1925 in Western Australia. Leonard married Shirley BUTLER on 19 Apr 1947. Shirley was also born in 1925. His son Ian George CASLEY was born on 21 Nov 1947. Ian married Annette Sue DRAGE in 1967. Annette was born around 1947

I dont want to take anyones fun away, only to point out some relevant facts for the editors of this article.

Thanks, Apupunchau (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Apupunchau (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Also,

Prior to 4 April 2002, Section 17 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 provided that adult Australians who did "any act or thing- the sole or dominant purpose of which, and the effect of which, is to acquire the nationality or citizenship of a foreign country shall upon acquisition cease to be an Australian citizen".

Did anyone in Hutt River Province or anyone who brought Passports from them lose their Australian citizenship? I dont think so...

Futhermore there is no contacts on a diplomatic level between a entity called "hutt River Province" and The Commonwealth of Australia.

This means that there are no de facto or de jure independece for HRP vis-a-vis Australia. Or any other entity for that matter.

Apu, from a different IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.26.238 (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Some more questions

Two things that I have not been able to work out, that seem to point to PRH being treated like a sovereign nation by Australia. (1)How the hell can PRH register companies?. Normally ASIC (the Australian Securities Investment Commission) would be down on anyone in Australia that registered companies like a ton of bricks, but they leave PRH alone. (2) Why does the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) seem to leave PRH alone too. ATO have a warning on their website telling people not to deal with PRH..... but they don't act to prosecute. http://www.ato.gov.au/atp/content.asp?doc=/Content/62019.htm My only conclusion is that the Australian govt wants to keep this out of court?. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an interesting legal problem in disputing sovereignty. The HRP is legally an independant nation under the Australian legal system as the Commonwealth has no right to dispute the legality it was (accidentally?) given by the Governor Generals office (it is a legal tax haven which is why it is not prosecuted). While not recognised as an independant nation by the Australian (or any other) government which they are entitled to do despite it's legal recognition, to overturn this legal recognition, the Governor General of Western Australia has to submit the sucession to arbitration which he wont do. I believe the reason for this is that Western Australia was never claimed by the British government (only the settlement of Perth was). As the Hutt River Province was never proclaimed, under British law it belongs to whoever claims it which the Casley's were the first to do. Wayne (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know that, but the Australian Government seems to officially not recognising it as a separate power, while its Government departments do seem to be treating it as a separate entity. Australian Government Authorities seem to be treating it as some sort sovereign power that is out of their reach. This is VERY interesting. ATO, ASIC and the ACCC have teams of lawyers ready to jump on anyone that breaks corporations/company law in Australia. But they are hands off with the Hutt River Province, and in its 40 years of existence have never taken it to court. This is despite the fact that HRH register companies, and do a whole host of things. Normally, if anyone else started selling car registrations, or registering companies, ASIC's lawyers would be down on them in a flash. As mentioned before, ATO put a warning on their website about the HRH in 2005, and have never(nor has any Australian govt department) acted against them illegally.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a silly question, perhaps, but are citizens of the Hutt River Province eligible for benefits available to other citizens of Australia, such as coverage under Australia's national health care? I just wondered, since these things are paid for via government taxes, which Hutt River citizens apparently do not pay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.118.83 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. In the book "The Status of Hutt River Province -- A case study in International Law" researched and compiled by author Gunnar Agathon Stolsvik, it is stated on page 38 that:

In a letter dated 8 December 1971 from the Commonwealth Department of Social Services, Perth, addressed to Mrs Annette Casley, Hutt River Province, WA, she was notified of the cancellation of her child endowment payments. This was done after Mrs Annette Casley queried their ineligibility to be able to receive social services from the Commonwealth of Australia. The Department wrote and said that they did not have at that time official confirmation of secession and until they had, they could not cancel it. Six months later the same person wrote and said that the Social Service Child Endowment payments were now cancelled and asked for all that had been received since the date of secession to be repaid.

The reference given is this: "Notes of evidence taken 14 September 1978, Court of Petty Sessions, Perth, WA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.109.119 (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Micronations vs. Category:Micronations in Australia

Category:Micronations in Australia is a category within Category:Micronations by country which is in turn a category within Category:Micronations. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Many category adders regularly misunderstand that parent child categories should not sit together - I would suggest removing the parents - there are thousand of examples throughout wikipedia where some eds show their enthusiasm and lack of understanding about what categories are about SatuSuro 14:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Loyalty - which crown?

Casley says he remains loyal to the Queen. But that must be to the person of the Queen, because there's no crown he could possibly be loyal to.

It can't be the Queen of Australia, as he's gone to some pains to claim to have seceded from Australia.

It can't be the Queen of Canada, as he's never had any connection with that country or its separate crown.

It can't be the Queen of New Zealand, as he's never had any connection with that country or its separate crown.

It can't be the Queen of the United Kingdom, as he's never had any connection with that country or its separate crown.

It can't be the Queen of Jamaica, as he's never had any connection with that country or its separate crown.

And so on for the rest of them.

Is he proposing that there be a new title - Queen of the Principality of Hutt River - and a new Commonwealth realm? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It says Queen Elizabeth II. The reason why we need to pipe it is solely because the wiki-article is called "...of the United Kingdom." As for the new commonwealth realm -- the answer is yes. (but don't bother with a redirect, I don't think you'll get that approved...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(answering the question before it was edited) Why isn't it clear? Because one cannot be loyal to this monarch in a non-specific way. She wears 16 different crowns, but only one of them is relevant to any particular person. The Crown of Papua New Guinea is not relevant to a citizen of Belize. The Crown of Belize is not relevant to a citizen of the Bahamas. Etc. Which specific crown does "Queen Elizabeth II" refer to in Casley's case, and why? Or is this really a personal loyalty to Mrs Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor, which does not necessarily extend to her heirs and successors? -- JackofOz (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I took my question out because a) I thought it might be sarcastic/offensive and b) I don't know the answer. He simply states what it says in the article. I understand the technicalities you bring up, but I'm not sure how Casley would interpret it. If you find some better statement he might have made regarding the issue, we can clarify it. I guess the crux is that the law he bases his independence on states something along the lines of "a prince can declare independence as long as he remains loyal to [the crown?/the queen?/the king?]. For now, it will simply have to remain as vague as he puts it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The answer is that nations have become realms of the Commonwealth even if none of their land was "ever were a colony or possesion or territy of the UK" or any other such path. Your logic is failing at all levels.. its the land which is under the crown, that the people support it is just a moral/political point , not an aspect of law. Much of the article is referring to moral points not the actual laws and legalities. It refers to quite irrelevant legalities...

They could sell the title for millions of dollars. Then when the new owners come to evict them, claim the title is worthless :)

202.92.40.8 (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

cleanup

There is a spectacular need for cleanup here. Most of the material is uncited and Pov from the Hutt River point of view.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

...and after a year, it's still in much the same state. WTF is "de facto legal status," and why would you cite a Lonely Planet travel guide as an authoritative source on it? 99.250.12.151 (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Lonely Planet book is actually a non fiction book in the style of a guide, not an actual guide and it's the only detailed secondary source apart from the province's own website. The primary source of course is the law itself. It was also explained in the Advertiser article Secession Success. I'm unclear as to why you tagged the newspaper as unreliable and dubious as it is the states only daily newspaper. de facto legal status means exactly what it says: "in practice or actuality, but without being officially established." Under Australian law, in practice the province is a legal entity and is accepted as such due to the governments failure to challenge the claim. This is why the province does not pay taxes and the government has not challenged the provinces right to issue number plates or act as a tax haven. The National Museum of Australia even has a display for the province that states: "successfully seceded from Australia." The Federal Government has no legal right to dispute the sucession and the only remaining avenue to legally overturn the de facto status is for Western Australia to go to Arbitration. Unfortunately, unlike the rest of Australia, only Perth was formally claimed by Britain leaving the rest of the state effectively Terra Nullius, a principle recognised in Australian law in 1971. If the case is Arbitrated, there is no guarantee that the court wont find in Prince Leonards favour which would give the province full indendence under Australian law. The state government has declined to Arbitrate leaving the matter unresolved (IE:de facto legal status) and the Federal Government unable to overtly interfere with the province. All the loopholes have been closed so that this situation can never happen again but the constitution prevented retrospectivity. Wayne (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me. "De facto" means in practice but without lawful authority. "De facto legal status" is a contradiction in terms. What on earth is it supposed to mean that Hutt River is legally independent "in practice or actuality, but without being officially established?" That makes literally no sense. Legal status is by definition that which has been officially established.

What you're describing isn't "de facto legal independence," it's de facto independence, plus few quirks of domestic law / domestic politics that apparently make it inconvenient for the state to bother challenging that status. (Internationally, of course, there is no question of Hutt being recognized, which is another blow to the notion of "de facto legal independence.") Please. 99.250.12.151 (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"Authority" is too harsh a word. "Established" or "recognised" would be closer to how the term is used in Australia as you can have legal "authority" without legal "recognition" or "establishment". Our Legal Services Commission defines the term as: De Facto: In reality but not in law. In other words, legally while not legally recognised. An example of this here is the de facto relationship. Unmarried couples here are automatically considered to be in a de facto relationship if they cohabit in an intimate relationship for 12 months or more. As this time period does not need to be consecutive days, there is no limit to the number of de facto relationships you can be in at the same time, IE: you can live with one woman and commute to spend time with another (or live with both at the same time as does a prominent Aussie actor) with both recognised as your de facto wives. Yet in a marriage this would be polygamy and illegal. Although "not a relationship recognised at common law", the partners are subject to exactly the same laws regarding maintenance and child support, custody of children and division of assetts etc as if they were legally married, even if they are still legally married to other people. In effect, the couples union has a de facto legal status without being officially recognised. Regardless, the term de facto legal status is used by the media for Hutt River so we can do so here. The province actually is recognised in various ways by some overseas countries. It is a recognised tax haven not subject to Australian law. Several countries accept Hutt River passports. Several countries recognise degrees given by Hutt River online universities as does the U.S. State of Florida. Hutt River is a special case regarding land based micronations as it does effectively have independence despite the Australian Government not "officially" recognising it. Wayne (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

New source: NY Times article on Principality of Hutt River

Those looking to beef this article up with a solid WP:RS can access this new article from The New York Times: Rewards for Rebellion: Tiny Nation and Crown for Life. --Bobak (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Map

The map as portrayed in the article includes an exclave to the SW of the main territory of the principality. I am wondering on what basis this exclave is included in the map. The official map on the Hutt River Principality website (see http://www.principality-hutt-river.com/Principality%20Downloads/PHR%20Brochure.pdf ) does not show this exclave, and I suspect it is bogus. Can anyone confirm the authenticity of the exclave? Ptilinopus (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find an online source for this, but The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations has a map also showing this exclave. Perhaps HRH told a porky pie to the author? :) IgnorantArmies 11:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Province consists of two separate "properties" 78km apart or close to it. Both are properties owned by Casley but I believe the smaller has no buildings or infrastructure etc. This is the reason two different distances from Perth can be found in sources. Wayne (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Location Map and Region Map (both from http://www.principality-hutt-river.com/visitors/PHR_Snapshots.htm) include an exclave. Aotearoa (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

link not working

Please note that the link titled "Australian Taxation Office's viewpoint on HRP's business" no longer points to an active page on the ATO website.

ffffloyd 04:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffffloyd (talk • contribs)

Evidence of de facto recognition by Australian Government

" On 21 April 1970 Leonard George Casley served formal notice on the Premier and the Governor of Western Australia, the Acting Prime Minister, Sir John McEwen, and the Governor-General, Sir Paul Hasluck, that his land was to be the Hutt River Province and that he was to be its administrator. In a further application of bush law he changed the province to a principality and declared himself Prince Leonard and his wife Princess Shirley. He had successfully seceded from Australia.

Casley was reacting to what he regarded as an unfair wheat quota set by the Western Australian government. He turned his 18,500-acre property near Geraldton into a tourist mecca, printing his own stamps, passports and currency, and adopting all the trappings of a real principality."

Source: National Museum of Australia Website (an Australian Government Website) http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/now_showing/eternity/separation/#row_10

118.208.8.149 (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A parapgraph from the National Museum's website hardly constitutes evidence of a de facto recongnition by the Australian Government. Tigerman2005 (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And my balcony is now an independent state. (Much to the chagrin of my neighbour on the first floor who has to show me his passport whenever he walks under it.) Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Recognition" by Hong Kong 1982

I was in Hongkong in 1982 when the news broke in the local press, that Hutt River had appointed an ambassador to Hongkong, who had duly presented his credentials to the governor of the colony, and had them accepted! Of course, being a crown colony at the time, not a nation, Hongkong did not have or receive ambassadors, and in any case Hutt River was not a recognized nation. Red faces all round in Hongkong, and repudiations were the order of the day - and the media had a lot of fun! (See http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19820316&id=k_1jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UucDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6978,5558496 ). I cannot access them now, but there was considerable space taken up over the affair for a few days in the South China Post (HK newspaper)! Ptilinopus (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

At the time the Governor of Hong-Kong was in no position to receive or accredit diplomats of any entity, except when acting in the name of the Queen. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well obviously - as I indicated above - being a crown colony at the time. And not even when acting in the name of the Queen. Any diplomatic accreditation (and only at the consular level) would have been dealt with by the UK government, not the governor, in my understanding. Nevertheless, the above diplomatic faux pas did occur. Ptilinopus (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Adelaide Advertiser reference

Many of the cites given claiming that letters were sent by people such as Paul Hasluck refer to an article with no link to the original. Google searches only bring up sites about HRP (i.e. nothing from the Advertiser itself). I'm not saying the article doesn't exist but it weakens its worth as a source if nobody can verify the original document? The article relies heavily on this source to cite claims made on the reasons for non-intervention by the government. Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The worth of a source is only weakened if nobody can verify the original document. The article can be viewed and verified by anyone who visits the newspapers offices where the originals are on public display. You dont even need to ask anyone for them, they are filed openly in the lobby on the ground floor so a member of the public just needs to walk in the front door, go to the date required and open it. There has been more than one article making those claims but as they are not online you need to have come across them in person. Wayne (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, there is no onus for wikipedia articles to only refer to sources that are online. As many good sources are *not* freely available online, this would mean Wikipeida articles were written without reference to many good sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

" the oldest micronation in Australia"

Oh my! How many are there? --BjKa (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There are around 70 micro-nations around the world. Thirty of these are in Australia. Most are farm properties and there are four in Gatton alone, the Principalities of Range View, Argyll, Cochrane and Woodlands. Interesting examples are The Republic of A1, it is a school in Victoria where the students declared independence as a school project. The Grand Duchy of Avram run by a politician who was prosecuted for running his own bank, the government spent $22 million on the prosecution and lost. The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands was declared on a large number of uninhabited islands in the Great Barrier Reef to protest the lack of recognition of same-sex marriages, the official currency is the Euro, they make money from selling their postage stamps and Gloria Gaynor wrote their nation anthem. The Principality of Wy is a single house in Sydney which was declared after a 17 year dispute with the local council for refusing permission for the owners to build a driveway. Wayne (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)