Talk:Principality of Hutt River

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)

How the Prince is addressed.

Someone needs to correct the style of address, as Prince Leonard is addressed as 'His Royal Highness' or personally, 'Your Royal Highness'.

The style of 'Majesty' is reserved only for kings, queens, emperors, & empresses. - (202.89.142.159 (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC))

That's what he wants to be called. If I ever met him I'd call him Len or Captain Nutbag. And the end of the day it doesn't matter what he wants to be called - his "titles" are self-generated with no recognition at an official level by any country (and I mean a UN member not a fellow nutter). Just because I issue a decree tomorrow saying my pool is a new country and that I am now Emperor Tigerman doesn't mean that it is something other people need to be aware of. Tigerman2005 (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

How about "Mr Casley"? That's all he would get from me. What is puzzling in the article is the bold statement that it "achieved" legal status - though unrecognised by Australia or any other nations. Where does the legal status exist if the rulers of the body of land which surrounds the "independent state" does not recognise it's status? Very strange state of affairs. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Why "Royal", btw? The prince of Monaco or Liechtenstein isn't "Royal". —Tamfang (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I imagine it's 'Royal' be because Leonard Casley doesn't know what he is talking about ! That's just what he wants to be called. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I've removed a number of sentences that are contradicted by other sources, unverified, or lack appropriate verification. I've also altered some wording to make it clear that the whole thing (the HRP, the titles, etc) are the personal fantasy of Casley and his family. Sorry if fantasy seems like a put down but I can't otherwise describe it. Among the things I have changed:

Shirley hosting foreign dignitaries and heading up the Red Cross in HRP. This has gone unverified since last year. If someone can point to anyone of an official (current) nature visiting the place in an official capacity I'm all ears. I'm sure the Red Cross do not recognise the HRP branch, assuming it exists. It may appear harmless to claim this but the Red Cross is obviously a serious group who shouldn't have their name dragged into someone's fantasy.

Far from not having a position or intervening, the Aust Govt has consistently stated it does not recognise the HRP as a legal entity. It has done so through its website (Australia.gov) the ATO, and the Aust ambassador to the UAE. The "failure" of the Australian govt to act in a 2 year period means nothing although if someone can produce a legitimate source to say otherwise please do so. I could secede tomorrow but getting through 2 years doesn't mean a de facto recognition. I'd have thought the Aust govt could take any position it wants at any time on the legitimacy of nations.

Lonely Planet is not (IMHO) a legitimate source when discussing the legality of the Australian position on HRP.

I've changed the "Royal Family" section to "Casley Family" while leaving the bulk of the content. Making personal claims on titles doesn't make you a royal family. Having others recognise you are a royal family with actual titles does. I note that none of the Casleys scored an invite to the Willam/Kate wedding recently. The Australian government doesn't recognise the titles nor does anyone of substance beyond people playing along with the joke.

The occasional border person stamping a passport does not constitute any recognition of the HRP or its power to issue international travel documents. It may work in non-English speaking countries or you may strike a clueless border guard who doesn't know it is fake, or you may convinice an immigration official to stamp it along with a legitimate passport. However, try turning up to the USA or the UK with only a HRP passport and see far you get. For that matter try producing one when leaving Australia.

I hate to be a wet blanket but this matter has to be treated in a factual manner. The fact that the Aust govt no doubt thinks its less trouble to mostly ignore the Casleys is not some de facto or otherwise recognition of anything other than that they have better things to do. I'm more than happy to keep the BS claims that Casley has made on behalf of his family over the years since it is part of the HRP story. Tigerman2005 (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edits use POV wording and include OR. The definition of fantasy is a situation that is not true or real, the province undeniably exists and functions as described.

• Shirley hosting foreign dignitaries and heading up the Red Cross in HRP is not disputed. The Hutt River province has hosted both foreign and domestic politicians and nowhere in the article does it say they were acting in an official capacity. Casley himself has been invited to visit "dignitaries" overseas and he has these invitations framed and on public display. The Hutt River Red Cross exists. Whether the Red Cross recognises the Hutt River Red Cross or not is irrelevant as they do not claim to be a branch of the Australian Red Cross but a "parallel organisation". Additional info; Hutt River has hosted fundraising for the Australian Red Cross. One of Hutt River's citizens is the International Coordinator for the British Red Cross.
• The article does not say the government does not have a position. It is clear on the governments’ position. A single mention in two sentences is not "consistently stated". You can secede all you like but the article is clear that the loopholes that allowed the Hutt River secession have been closed. The Australian Constitution effectively ties the government's hands, it can only act once the succession has been taken to arbitration by the WA government and they won’t do it in case Casley wins so the legality of the succession remains in limbo.
• Your opinion on Lonely Planet not being a legitimate source is OR.
• Whether the titles are recognised by the government is irrelevant. Government correspondence with Casley sometimes uses the titles which is what started the whole thing in the first place. They are used by the Casleys and are no different to the practice of people using "master" or "esquire" etc. A member of the British royal family has accepted a knighthood (I'm assuming it was Prince Phillip as he has corresponded with and met Casley but that's my OR) If the Casleys use titles, etiquette requires that you do as well.
• From what I've read, Casley and his wife travel on their Hutt River Passports.

I'll have a look around for more references when I get time. Wayne (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• You seem fired up by this, however you're a bit all over the place. My edits are not OR or POV. They seek to overcome those problems. Every edit I made relies on evidence or removes claims made without evidence. On the other hand your claims seem mainly based on what the Casleys have told you or trying to use 3rd party sources. It's fine to say Casley or his wife claim this or that so long as it is clear they are personal claims made by them. Trying to shoehorn some sort of official stance that favours these positions through weak sources or unsourced claims weakens the article.
• His claims are fantasy. I don't dispute there is a property that Casley calls Hutt River Province.
• If there is no dispute about Shirley hosting these people where is the evidence? Who are they? In what capacity where they there - as tourists or in an official capacity?
• Source evaluation is not OR - it is what decent writers do. You're seriously going to suggest Lonely Planet is an authority on legal issues? Come on now... It's common sense. You call it OR which it isn't - it is about getting appropriate references for what is in the article. It is a travel book.
• There was no loophole to secede - the AG does not recognise that it is not part of Australia. No UN member does either. A loophole suggests something was allowed - nothing was. The change in law was to stop other people pulling similar stunts and wasting everyone's time.
• There is no limbo either. The absence of action does not equate to a lack of certainty over the issue. Why would the WA government want to do anything? They have no real interest - state governments are service providers - there is no tax to collect. If Casley drives around with a HRP number plate that might be worth noting.
• Someone claiming to represent an organisation needs to provide some evidence they have the right to do so. Failing that, it needs to be made clear that her position is not recognised by the Red Cross. Someone claiming to be the head of something does not make it so. The article implies that she heads a division on a real organisation. She doesn't - she heads up something she invented. Nobody recognises her in that title apart from herself. Does it exist? In what form? What does it do? She can claim she's the head of the Hutt River Nobel Prize Committee as well but that's just as fanciful. The article makes no attempt to provide sources for Shirley's claims to head squat - it seems based on the personal research of people such as yourself who've spoken to them or based on a claim that a "citizen" (un-named, unsourced) has links to the Red Cross. The IRC website DOES NOT mention HRP as a member. Which means Shirley's claim means nothing.
• The article in various sections implies that the Australian Government as made a de facto recognition of HR when, as other parts of the article point out, they have consistently maintained a solid line that HRP as a legal entity is a fiction.
• Of course recognition of tiles matters - that's what gives them gravitas or some legal standing. Individuals inventing names for themselves is fine and I make no attempt to remove it from the article but the lack of recognition from the global political and royalist communities needs to be pointed out. Both Master and Esquire have actual meanings - people's misuse of them at times not withstanding. Where are these letters from the govt? More OR based on your conversations with the Casleys? Where is the evidence that Prince Phillip or any royal has "accepted" a knighthood? I'd be amazed if Prince Phillip claims or uses this title.
• I'd be stunned if Casley or anyone has travelled anywhere solely on a HRP. They have no legal right to issue a passport in the sense of international treaties/agreements. As I pointed out I'm sure the odd person gets a HRP stamped but I await evidence that any country has a legal position that it will recognise HRP as a legitimate passport.

As I said I don't want to ruin anyone's fun but claimed titles, positions etc need to be written as just that - claims made by individuals which are not legally recognised by anyone. Tigerman2005 (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read the article before you edit and you may be able to make a coherant arguement. It seems I have to waste my time stating the obvious.

• Lets get your edits out of the way. You did not add the ATO stance. You added the ATO repeating the government stance making it a duplication. The ATO's own stance is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Go to HRP and they will exchange your $ for theirs on a one for one basis. That I believe is called a currency exchange rate. There is no claim in the article that the ARC recognises the HRPRC.
• Casley sends invitations to "dignitaries and diplomatic representatives", many accept. Many "dignitaries and diplomatic representatives" also send invitations to Casley, one example I remember is the Governor of Kentucky hosting the Casleys and giving Leornard and Shirley honorary titles. It is irrelevant whether they do so in an official capacity or not as the article does not claim they do. What is relevant is that the visits take place. Casley keeps all the documents on display.
• That particular Lonely Planet book is not a travel guide. It is non-fiction and qualifies as a RS. It is not pretending to be an authority on legal issues, it is used as a ref for a single claim regarding Australian law. I have read the same claim in the newspaper but cant remember the date.
• See loophole. There is nothing in the definition that requires recognition by the AG let alone the UN.
• The absence of action does not equate to a lack of certainty over the issue. Read the article, the only uncertainty mentioned is that there is no guarantee that WA would win if they took Casley to arbitration. There is no mention that other government depts do not act through uncertainty. BTW... State governments collect tax as do local councils.
• I cant be bothered replying to this one. Ive already told you that the Hutt River Red Cross does not claim to be a branch of the Australian Red Cross. The Casleys are free to claim that they head whatever they like. They dont have to ask for your permission.
• Sigh....nowhere in the article does it claim that the Australian Government gives HRP de facto recognition. What it says is that the province has de facto autonomy. Two completely different things.
• Titles: The government wanted to prosecute the Casley's. They took the Royal titles to prevent it. The government dropped the case and changed the law to prevent others doing the same. Not changed to stop people giving themselves titles but changed to prevent titles from preventing prosecution. Because the constitution prevents retrospectivity, if the Casleys drop the titles they leave themselves open to prosecution.
• Leornard casley has traveled overseas frequently. He claims he only uses a HR passport. Wayne (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Look I'm happy to compromise on some of these things if you are but a few of them I still object to. Starting from the bottom,

• that's an unverified claim so I have an issue with including that. I'm saying that nobody leaves through Australian immigration without a recognised passport. I have no evidence but neither do you. Don't care what Casley claims.
• Your titles claim needs a verification. If there is something saying the Aust government did those things, go for it.
• Define "de facto" autonomy? What makes HRP "de facto" autonomous? If a crime was committed there I'd suspect the WA police and legal system would treat it like anywhere else. Forget the sighs too...
• THey can claim what they want but the article has to reflect it is a claim without substance. Just because someone claims to be something does not make it worthy of a mention on Wikipedia. I'll keep deleting the reference every time. It is not needed and is verifiably wrong to suggest Shirley's BS group is an official branch of the Australian or International Red Crosses. If you insist on going along with Shirley's delusions of grandeur at least word it "Shirley claims to be the..." or "Shirley is the self-declared head of the HR Red Cross which she claims is the official representative of the Australian Red Cross". Thinking about it more, it sounds like Shirley (if anything) is the head of the local sub-branch which puts her on par with the head of the Dapto branch. In which case I'd suggest it is trivial information.
• There's no guarantee they would lose too so why bother stating something that can't be verified one way or another? If someone has given a legal opinion I'm all ears. State governments/councils collect taxes/charges where they provide a service. Now I don't know if Lord Whatsy pays his rates but if he doesn't I'm thinking his garbage goes uncollected. The state govt doesn't directly tax people but the HRP crowd would have to pay the same charges everyone else does.
• The loophole (I know what it means) in this context refers to act of secession. I'm saying there was no secession just a one man saying he did. The article implies that HRP can claim independence based on this now closed loophole. I'm pointing out that nobody outside of the HRP actually believes they are independent. As I've said, if the article makes it clear these are claims by Casley then by all means refer to them but there is a suggestion that the Aust govt are unable to act against HRP because of some loophole. The constitution doesn't prohibit retrospective law at all. There is a general prohibition on retrospective criminal laws but this is derived from UN treaties and relates to prosecuting individuals for offences that were legal at the time. So no the Aust government couldn't prosecute Casley is his actions were legal at the time but there is absolutely nothing to stop the Aust government passing a law to ban any person claiming to have seceded from Australia at which point Casley could be charged then. I realise this is unlikely and speculative so obviously it doesn't belong in the article but the assumption you refer to are incorrect.
• If it doesn't claim to be a legal reference why use it to cite a legal reference? That makes no sense. If there is a law, cite the law. I'll take your point that this LP isn't a travel guide since I haven't seen it but they still aren't a recognised expert on legal and constitutional matters. Just because a book is non-fiction doesn't make it a RS all of a sudden. Cookbooks are NF but if Nigella passes commentary on something non-cooking I'll treat it at the level it deserves to be.
• Who are these many? You can't just say that without providing some evidence. Accept what? It is a simple matter - Has any office holding member of a foreign government ever gone to HRP in an official capacity? A number of people who don't claim to be heads of state have been made Honorary Kentucky colonels. It's not an official title nor a recognition of anything apart from being famous. Means nothing apart from garden variety trivia. Even the HR website suggests the certificates were mailed out. There is zero evidence to suggest the Governor officially hosted the Casleys or vice versa. Your recollections are not verifiable evidence of them hosting foreign dignitaries nor are letters on display at the Casleys house.
• No currency exchange (as a reasonable person would understand it) is where financial institutions will exchange currency based on an exchange rate rate. What Casley is doing is selling his currency to you - it is not currency exchange. Try and get your HRP cash transferred back into any other currency outside HRP. Banks won't do it, Forex won't do it. Me printing my own currency and swapping it with someone on a one-for-one basis isn't currency exchange anymore that this is.

I'm not trying to destroy the article or deny King Leo his right to live his dreams. All I am asking for is that claims made by him are referred to as such - that they are self generated. You've obviously been to HRP and were impressed by what was there. For all i know you might have acquired some HRP currency or purchased a citizenship or title. No problems but try and work through these issues without getting in a huff. As it is the article is pretty solid and well put together - it just needs relatively minor changes. Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your misinterpretaions of the article are getting tiresome. If you have a problem take it to the noticeboard.

• Casley has made this claim repeatedly on national television and no one, even when a politician is interviewed on the same program, has ever refuted him.
• I dont understand what you mean by this question. Be more specific.
• John Ryan uses the word de facto in his book and the dictionary definition supports it's use. Australian law provides statutes of limitation for actions taken by the federal government. Apparently in this case the limit was two years for the federal government but the law still allows the state government to take action. They have not done so and the federal government has not pressured them to take action. Therefore the province acts with de facto legality. There is no indication the province has ever acted outside the law so your mention of a crime seems to be based on your own OR.
• The language you use and the false claims you make proves your POV position. Despite your claims otherwise, Shirley does not just claim to be, but IS the head of the HR Red Cross. The HRRC makes no claim of affiliation with the ARC and does not claim to represent them in any way (although they have donated money collected by the HRRC to the ARC). She specifically says they are a parallel organisation.
• HRP pays no state or federal taxes (apart from import duties on goods from overseas). For example, HR postage stamps are accepted by AP for letters posted from within the province in the same way that U.S. postage stamps are accepted for letters posted from within the U.S.
• The article is clear that the province has only de facto and not actual legality. The federal government DID pass a law banning any person from seceding from Australia but it can not apply to claims made prior to the law being passed which is what is meant by retrospectivity. The federal government cant take action over the sucession but the state government still can but choose not to. Even if they do take action and win the case, Casley has not broken any laws so why do you keep saying he can be charged?
• The Nigella reference is a straw man, the book is a RS speaking in it's area of expertise and has not had it's claim disputed by anyone apart from you. If it was a travel guide it may not be a RS on legal or constitutional matters, but as a dedicated book it can be used as a reference for the claim.
• Not my recollections at all. The New York Times has an article making the same claims: many officials in Western Australia, some quite high up, and even nationally in Australia are happy to play out the myth of Hutt River’s sovereignty [by] attending [Hutt River] functions, returning correspondence [and] abandoning the claim for tax. Many newspaper articles refer to the claims so they can be mentioned in the article.
• Now you are just getting pedantic.

The article is clear on who is claiming what and what recognition is given to the claims. I've never been to the HRP or had anything to do with them but at least once a year the newspapers have an article about the province so the situation is well known here. It's possible that Australians understand the situation better than people from other countries. You appear to read more into the claims than is meant. Wayne (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth I am Australian so your point there is not valid. I understand the situation well enough. You seem to believe you own the article and make no effort to discuss the issue rationally. If you find it tiresome to get the article right I apologise. Tigerman2005 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I discuss the article rationally but you do not seem to listen. What I find tiresome is having to answer the same claims repeatedly even after they have been explained to you. For example, despite the article not making any claim that the HR Red Cross is an official representative of the Australian Red Cross and despite you being told several times that the HRRC do not even claim to be affiliated, you keep repeating that they claim to be. Wayne (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As per your suggestion I'm seeking a 3rd opinion on this matter. You seem to believe that editing this page consists of you being the sole decision maker of what is fair and reasonable (e.g. "despite you being told...). My personal belief is that claims where the source provided is the person themselves is not sufficient. The article is full of citation needed tags that you've had some time to get a source for. I'll let someone else offer their viewpoint. Tigerman2005 (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. The Third Opinion request made in regard to this discussion has been removed due to the lack of any recent discussion or dispute about the issues in question (none in the last 5 months). If the discussion resumes and then comes to a standstill, a new request may be made at that time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading the article, I have to echo the concerns expressed here - many things stated as fact (regarding law etc.) in the first section of the article are I assuming just claims made by Leonard Casley (and treated as claims, not fact, in a later section of the article, regarding "controversies"). At the very least, this makes the whole article inconsistent - things later treated as merely claims by Casley and as 'controversies' are started as simple fact at the beginning of the article. Similarly, the links given for the claims simply refer to various newspaper or magazine articles, no doubt soft "cat up a tree" or local weirdo pieces, not serious legal or historical works. I have read the Micronatons book by Lonely Planet and, while a perfectly entertaining work, is mostly light-hearted, not really exMning any serious legal or political questions. I don't believe Wkipedia is written in a similar manner, and should instead deal with this thing factually, rather than going along with the fun. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I should also add that Wikipedia generally doesn't/shouldn't have 'criticism' sections. Rather, these things should be distributed throughout the article. I would suggest that many of the thins n the criticism and status section should be dealt wi withing the first section. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2013 (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)