Talk:Principality of Seborga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


If the little dot on Italy is supposed to be Seborga, it's in the wrong place. Liguria, where the article states Seborga is located, is considerably to the northwest of the black dot.Doovinator 17:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


This was severely POV and I've toned it down a lot. This "micronation" has put a lot of effort into its websites etc, but it is still nonetheless just another scam. That people will buy your coins doesn't in itself make them "legal". I'll let others argue over the "unrecognised" nonsense. That you have no hope of recognition because you have absolutely no basis for it should seal the matter, but a little fantasy never hurt much. BTW, Italy was unified in large part by conquest and war, and, like all modern states, assumes its interior integrity without regard to the historical situation in the 1500s. I daresay there are a couple of villages somewhere in France that really do still belong to England (a reversal of the case in Passport to Pimlico) but I can't see them being handed over any time soon. If Seborga wants its independence, I suggest it buys some tanks.Dr Zen 10:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

this is severely biist against the principality if it is technically correct than the articles tone should be neutral. Paladine

Italy was unified in large part by conquest and war, and, like all modern states, assumes its interior integrity without regard to the historical situation in the 1500s while the above stament is true it should be noted that the principality technicly belonged to the country doing the conquring(the country that owned it never thought it important to offically add it to his country) and as such could not be conquered. If it had been mentioned in the artical that united Italy this would not be a problem, it would belong to Italy, but this tiny place was overlooked(twice!). Until a higher coart such as the world court steps in to examine its legitimacy we can't say wether it is or is'nt a independent principality.

Why are you talking about if it offically exists, i want to know how much i can buy it for Swalesy

Really a state?[edit]

There are a lot of factors that determine the legitimacy of statehood. They have their case and beliefs, and the question really is an open one. Now, the question of whether the article should be up or not should not correlate to whether it is an actual, widely recognized state, but rather whether there is relavent information. In this regard, leave the article up, however it does need to be neutral and objective. They have a right to opinion, and people have a right to learn of it.


I have took a long time reading documents, books, and websites about Seborga, and as for my judgment I can say that the Principality established is not a "micronation" but is either an aspirational state or a seccessionist movement. Since they recognize Italian authority on the area, I can consider it as a gesture to avoid brutal conflict. Moreover, they have an organized government. However due to the fact that they have only one army member as their armed force, they can't reinforce policies thay make. Moreover, as this town is just small and receive a small income, they can't raise funds to establish their own post office. And their historical claims are not "eccentric", the proper term being "lapsed". They have just not acknowledged that they were the ones who gave their allegiance to Italy.

To add, some references say that the population of Seborga is 2,000+ but only 300+ are citizens of the Principality. However some also argue that there are only 300+, which means all citizens support seccession, as attested by a referendum done by the Principality in 1995. So I ask everyone to help me in discussing the real status of Seborga. Thank you all. Christian Mac Juane (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a neutral article[edit]

This article is not neutral: it talks about Seborga as it is currently existing today as a sovereign state. Naturally this is not the case: Seborga is just a city belonging to the province of Imperia in the Liguria region in Italy. The luigino currency is not legal tender anywhere and no resident of Seborga has the right to issue a real monetary unit: the only recognized currency is of course the euro. Luigino coins are more like "tokens" worth some money and sold to tourists visiting the small city. In 2002 there were even disputes between the "prince" and the real "ruler" of Seborga: the mayor. The mayor was becoming increasingly sick with the anachronistic idea of self-proclaiming a principality while Italy is focusing on European integration. Since we're just talking about a bunch of people playing monarchy (as a touristic attraction), derided by the few who know about them, the article should be modified to be neutral and report the real situation.

The article is fairly NPOV as far as I can see. I makes it clear that the principality isn't recognised by anyone. You're wrong about the currency however. The Luigino does actually circulate widely within Seborga, and there are numerous commercial and banking establishments in Seborga that convert Euros to Luigini and vice versa. As for "a bunch of people playing monarchy" you're actually talking about an entire town of 300 or so people who elected their own prince in 2 near unanimous votes, so its hardly insignificant. --Gene_poole 23:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably picked the wrong title: what I meant is that this seems like a promotional pamphlet about their claims, not an informative article. I know luiginos really exist and are "exchangeable for money": even phisces in casinos are tradeable for money but this does not make them a monetary unit. That "currency" is un-recognized as the "state" issuing them. About the "prince", he may have been elected by hundreds or even thousands... he has no political power and the principality does not exist. Now, I find the article interesting but IMO is not clearly stated that this micronation does not exist; "Seborga is a little town [...] and it is a principality"; this line at the beginning of the article does not reflect reality, and the general mood as well.

Whomever is posting these unsigned comments should post their user link Paladine

At times I'm starting to get tired of these constant bickering on Wikipedia about what might be called a state, nation, or whatever political in question. Basically the arguments bog down to the relevance of recognition by outside parties. Personally, I believe it's totally ludicrous that something might only be called 'exisisting' if a certain number of outsiders agree that it does, and think that more important in a case like the one of Seborga is the nationality inscribed in the passports issued to its inhabitants and inclusion of the town in Italian civil administrative records. I do not per se think this article is not neutral, though at times it might be somewhat uncarefully phrased. The opening line is not really a faulty one, but an explanation on the factuality should immediately follow. I shrink from editing the header, though, because of a more serious flaw in the article itself: a complete lack of reference on who claims what. In effect, who is it that claims an independent principality, and who support this claim? The citizens of the town? The civil authorities? This should be clarified first before we fall over the claim issued in the first line. --Santetjan 16:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I am the author of the unsigned edits... sorry about that: I was a Wikipedia newbie at that time. Back on topic, I still believe it is a lot deceiving to read the opening line "and it is a principality" on a page with the exact same look of "real" countries pages (table with info, flag, etc.). At least I would change the first line in "it is claimed to be a principality" and then investigate about that. --Lorenzodv 23:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

... the principality isn't recognised by anyone ??[edit]

Not true at all.

For what i know, and i leave no more than 15 km to Seborga, the principality has been recognized at the moment by 92 sovreign states in the world, and the needed number to obtain legal independancy is just 100. This is all based on the tons of ancient documents, proved for real, in possess of the Principality Secretary. This question of legal independancy of Seborga is in some way parallel to the story of whole Ligurian region. In fact, even if included in the italian republic, in all italian history there is no prove about any signings of submission acts by Liguria to the Italian Republic (as all the other regions did), and is warm and alive the movement leading to recognize the independancy of all Liguria and its original state of "Repubblica Marinara di Genova". Look here: MiL Of course at the present moment Liguria is Italy, and Seborga is Italy too.

===>What? Can you provide the names of any of these 92 states, or any third-party verification of this claim? Furthermore, I have no idea where you got this standard of "legal independancy."

This is nonsense. --pippo2001 09:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course there's no records Itally started there and expanded to cover all of what is now italy. The country that was there IS italy! Zazaban 20:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Principality is not recognized by any state formally, but Burkina Faso, Great Britain and France recognized the Principality in a different fashion, note that the "fashion" I am referring to is different than that used for the ROC. Christian Mac Juane (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear[edit]

If somebody kills somebody else in Seborga, the Italian Police will come and an Italian judge will rule. They have the Italian Post office. They pay taxes to the Italian State. They use Italian schools and Hospitals. It is just a folkloristic revival, supported by some ambiguity in documents, that basically forgot about it. It is worthwhile a mention, but it should not be presented by a state. Simply because it is not. --pippo2001 09:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice to get rid of the accuracy dispute. --pippo2001 09:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. You may want to refer to the article State to see what a micronation is. Seborga is not even a principality. It is a clear example of folklore. The ruling Mayor is elected according to Italian Law. On April 23, 1995 Seborgans voted, 304 in favor, 4 against for the Principality's Constitution and its general rules. However the "Prince" cannot change laws, there is no enforcement of rules decided by him. Please, consider that the Tourist Passport is available from the Direction of Tourism of Seborga see here. I have nothing against microstates or in favor of any Italian empire. I actually don't care. However, wikipedia should be correct and neutral. And folklore should not confound reality. I tried to make a neutral article. --pippo2001 18:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

He's just as much of a prince as Norton I was an emperor. By the way, the Italian and Portugese Wikipedias say that Seborga has 4 km2, and so does the Italian statistics authority. Ausir 09:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

To user pippo2001, there has been a slight lapse of judgement in your statements. As I explained in some preceding parts of this discussion, the Principality can be either a secessionist movement or an aspirational state, being inspired by Mr. Carbone. Christian Mac Juane (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy[edit]

I think it would be wise to either make it clear that this is a micronation (and perhaps even define a micronation) in the first sentence or to remove the country bar on the right at the very least. Given that Seborga is located in a part of the world where there are indeed several sovereign nations with clouded histories and confusing forms of government (e.g.: Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino) I see a huge potential for confusion here, at least among people who are not particularly informed about Europe, don't speak English as a first language or are young/poorly educated. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground.

An article on the topic itself is fine, but it shouldn't be presented in the manner that it is currently. Gabe 22:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


The arm is not the right one of "Comune di Seborga". You can see the right one at it.wikipedia. ediedi

Fixed. Pavel Vozenilek 01:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


It says the population is 339,000,000 in Seborga. I think that is incorrect as that would be saying that the population almost the size of USA lives in this small town.

Please, notice that the Municipality of Seborga (Comune di Seborga, in Italian) has no flag, but just a coat of arms. You used the flag of the "principality" as it was the one of the Municipality, which isn't. Of course, as clearly explained by others, it is only a tourist call, which runned because tourism increased very much. According to the Wikipedia file "Prince of Seborga" Giorgio Carbone, the so-called Prince, abdicated on July 1, 2006 in favour of American actor Nate Richert, now Prince Carlo Luigi I. I've the legitimate suspicion that this actor (I never heard about, before) needed some pubblicity....VAL

Seborga is Recognized ??[edit]

Quisiera saber si el Principado de Seborga es reconocida por alguien (alguna nacion o pais) como Estado Independiente o Principado.

O tal vez esto esta en tramite o en discusion ?

Que pasa con el Vaticano o Monaco ... estan en igual condicion que Seborga ? o son reconocidas como paises independientes ?

Gracias por sus comentarios

Carlos Escudero

...Ok, can someone translate this?--Wilson 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Je voudrais bien savoir si la Principauté de Seborga est-elle reconnue par quelqu'un (quelconque nation ou pays) en tant que État Indépendant ou Principauté.

Ou peut-être est-ce qu'il y a de démarches ou discussions à ce propos ?

Quelle est la situation avec le Vatican ou Monaco ... sont-ils dan la même situation que Seborga ? Ou sont-ils reconnus en tant que pays indépendants ?

Merci de votre avis.

Charles Écuyer

You're welcome. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

3 articles[edit]

Is there any reason why this small town needs 3 articles, one on the town, one on it's jokey independence claim, and one on the local man who serves as "head of state"? Giorgio Carbone. I suggest no; this should be covered as a curiosity in the main Seborga article. --kingboyk 10:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Because each article meets notability standards. If unhappy then AfD. BlueValour 14:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Notability doesn't mean that seperate articles are needed. Why do we need a seperate article on the "micronation", given that it's the same town? AFD isn't relevant because I'm not arguing that this should be deleted, merely merged. --kingboyk 14:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Giorgio Carbone should be merged into Principality of Seborga, which is an article about a very well known micronation. Seborga (municipality) is about a little-known Italian town. These are 2 entirely separate entities. In this case the micronation is actually far better known than the town - in fact the only reason most people outside the imediate locality have even ever heard of the town is because of the micronation - so there is no justification whatsoever for a merge. --Gene_poole 23:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but "very well known micronation" is an oxymoron. And the idea that it even is a micronation in the first place is only POV. DreamGuy 06:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
But notable and reliably sourced POV, and therefore appropriate for Wikipedia as long as it is neutrally described (rather than promoted). PubliusFL 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Pages are merged when individually they are not notable enough for their own articles. Each of these three have sufficient notability to justify their own article. Even if all his claims are total tosh, Giorgio Carbone easily meets WP:N by having multiple non-trivial sources. If he is merged into one of these articles then logically all political bios should be merged into the articles of their respective countries. BlueValour 04:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagree... the alleged principality and king articles are certainly NOT notable on their own, and the only notability they have is based upon the the main article, which already has a section fully and adequately describing everything of any importance. With a merge that section could become a little larger, but there's no justification at all for separate articles that mostly repeat the same basic facts present in the others. DreamGuy 06:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The micronation is notable on its own, as there are multiple non-trivial reliable sources that cover it. I originally supported separate articles for the micronation and the municipality in order to avoid "tainting" the article about the municipality (which is uncontroversial and mainstream) with potentially confusing information about the micronation (which is controversial and not mainstream). The topics should be addressed separately. I don't think merging them is a good idea, for the same reason I think merging Republic of Texas (group) into Texas would be a bad idea. Fringe information should be segregated from mainstream information. The article on the individual, however, should certainly be merged into the article on the micronation. PubliusFL 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the mergers. I think that all these micronations are total cobblers but being total cobblers is no reason to eliminate the articles. I guess most on here will be sceptical of the claims of the Flat Earth Society and IMHO Creationism is also total cobblers but there is a whole stack of articles on that. What counts is that the total cobblers should be sourced and these pages are. Gee, dude, this encyclopedia is stacked with unsourced articles - why eliminate some that are? Bridgeplayer 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've already articulated above, this discussion concerns two discrete entities that share similar (but not identical) names - a micronation and a town. One is a legal questionmark and the other is a legal fact - however both "exist" and are separately documented in all manner of reliable third party sources. Arguing that they should occupy the same article makes no more sense than suggesting that the article about Confederate States of America should be merged into United States of America, or that Independent Sovereign State of Australia (another micronation), should be merged into Commonwealth of Australia just because they share part of a name and claim to occupy the same or similar territories. WP does not exist as a platform for people to promote the POV that "micronations are ephemeral and inconsequential and so should not be documented in discrete articles". WP exists to document reality, and like it or not, micronations - both generally, and in particular - as a very well documented global phenomenon - are an undeniable part of contemporary reality. As such, the only consideration that needs to be taken into account when debates of this nature arise is "is this particular micronation documented in multiple reliable third party sources?" If the answer is affirmative, then WP:N and WP:V are established by default, and there is no sustainable justification for asserting that WP should not have a dedicated article on the subject in question. --Gene_poole 05:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Recognition questions[edit]

In this artical: "List of micronations" it states that Seborga is recognized by San Marino (which is a UN member state). So my questions are:

  • A. Which article is correct?
  • B. Doesnt that make it a unrecognized sovereign state? (Just like the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which is also recognized by only one other nation)

--SelfQ (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Seborga does not have diplomatic relations with San Marino or any other sovereign state. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean that the list is incorrect?-- (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think so. The statement in the other article is unsourced and very dubious. I removed it until someone offers something to back it up. PubliusFL (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Principality of Seborga has only a mere symbolic value, so its "prince" and ministers don't really have any legal powers, therefore no international institution (or state) has recognized it, thus it can't have any diplomatic relation with anyone --Frukko (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Most sources are nonexistent or fake, this voice needs a thorough cleaning--Frukko (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


"It came into being in 954, when the Count of Ventimiglia ceded Seborga to the monks of Lérins Abbey, at the foundation of the Cistercian monastery there. In 1079 the Abbot of this monastery was made a Prince of the Holy Roman Empire, with temporal authority over the Principality of Seborga."

Here there is the text of supposed "donation", copy of a document that was in Lérins Abbey archive. The document has the signs, as witnesses, of Thomas (count of Savoy) & of Boemundus (marquis of Monferrato)

The document was recognized as a fake, due the fact that in 954 there wasn't any Holy Roman Emperor named Ludvig, Louis or similar. In the same way there wasn't any king of Spain named Alfonse, Ildefonse oi similar.

There wasn't any Count of Ventimiglia in these year: the first count of Ventimiglia was Conrad, ca. 960

In the same way there wasn't any count of Savoy, the 1st count of Savoy being Humbert Biancamano in 1032.

So the March of Montferrat was founded 7 years later.

Perhaps a date possible for this document is around 1220, perhaps.

--Carlo Morino aka zi' Carlo 10:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hohenstaufen descendants[edit]

some editor 'Koala' alleges in his own talkpage illegotimacy about women. As that misguided allegation bears specifically to this article, I see it useful to copy Koala's whole (though mistaken) idea here:

The house of hohenstaufen has no legitimate descendants today, there way be female dependents, but they are not legitimate. It is a fine line. Since the male line went extinct Conradin there are no legitimate descendants and the line is extinct - and that clearly needs to be shown in this case. Outback the koala (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There is something very problamatic in Koala's that stance - somethiong whivch made me to even suspect he is out of touch from reality. I must say that the Koala is possibly not cognizant of terminological difference between women and illegitimate. There exist next to no people who dare to claim that women and descent through them would be 'illegitimate'. as of fine line, mr Koala obviously is on the wrong side of any fine line, alleging that descendants via perfectly legitimate women and their marriages would be illegitimate.. I sincerely hope that Mr Koala stops spreading his very peculiar notions about geneaogy and legitimacy. By the way, the word 'dependent' (instead of descendant) speaks already for the Koala not grasping even the basic terminology in this. (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I hope, that unknown anon will use better English and will cease with personal attack. "Outback the koala" is respected member of the community and Anon is .. anon.--Yopie (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Koala claims that there are no legitimate descendants of the Hohenstaufen, which is a different thing than saying that legitimate male line is extinct. And in this very case, it is incorrect to allege that legitimate descents via women are nonexistent, while legitimate male line descent truly is extinct. They are not the same thing, as those of us who know genealogy, are well aware. I observe that the Yopie has chosen to join the same falsehood. I think Yopie and Koala need to cease their falsehoods and stop those edits of theirs. I understand Yopie is not fluent enough in English (being obviously a foreigner, from Czechia). Those 'warnings' Yopie distributes here and there, are manifestly unwarranted, and rather a signal of twisted tactics in Wikipedia conduct than anything constructive. For example, Yopie sometimes alleges vandalism in clear cases of non-vandalism. Yopie's such behavior should and may lead to him getting sanctioned. Henq (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

as to Yopie's quibbling using unrelated claims, I suppose he means to say that all female-line descents from all dukes of Anjou are illegitimate. But of course those who know genealogy and titles, are aware that strictly speaking, neither of those peinces actually are 'princes' of Anjou, they would themselves be first to admit that their claim is to the title of duke of that. While Louis' daughter may well be known as princess of Anjou, if they so wish. Henq (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree that, there are legitimate descendants of Hohenstafens in female line. And of course, the head of royal house of France can create princess of Anjou. --Yopie (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible International Recognition[edit]

According to this article one the UK's Times Online website, a consulate from Burkina Faso was opened in Seborga. Is there anything else to back this up? Would this be enough to change its classification to a state with limited recognition, similar to Northern Cyprus which has only one UN member state recognizing it? The exact quote is "Burkina Faso opened a consulate" and can be found halfway down the article. (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The link doesn't work. --Carlo Morino aka zi' Carlo 22:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Seborga is unreal[edit]

Please dont cancel this statement: Seborga is not real.-- (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This page is for talk about the article, not chat etc. About reality, read Micronations.--Yopie (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


Edit warring on Seborga? I would never imagine... --E4024 (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

there is no edit war on Seborga. A user is sistematicallly trying to insert an unverified and unsourced statement that may be removed (even because completely false). --Frukko (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I see. Indeed I heard about Seborga for the first time here in WP. I hope it will not become another international dispute area... --E4024 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

35km away from Monaco, not "in sight"[edit]

I forgot to log in before making the edit to remove a statement saying that Monaco is "in sight" of Seborga. I doubt that's true, given the distance and hilly terrain; however, it's possible that there's a vista somewhere. If anyone knows that to be so, please revert my change (and perhaps add details and attribution, for example a Google Street View link proving it). --tgeller (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Micronations and what they are[edit]

Hello User:Kendall-K1. A micronation is per definition unrecognized, so the word in the lead to the article is superfluous. A micronation is however not a fictional country. A fictional country is an item of fiction as film or literature. Micronations are about people who may or may not mean to have founded an actual state, but that state is in all practical terms in the imagination of people and therefore an imaginary state. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Micronations are a fantasy. Perhaps that's a better word. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how removing the word "unrecognized" improves the article. I could live with "fantasy" although that word is not commonly used by the sources ( uses it along with "unrecognized" but I can't find any others that do). I don't like "imaginary" because that gives the impression that it's not a real place; Seborga exists in the sense that you can visit its supposed territory and talk to its supposed citizens, it's just not a country. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Farce state[edit]

This is a farce state. See Italian newspaper Il Fatto quotidiano and La Stampa.--Civa61 (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is not the only matter, but exactly what the article states now. Also it's history as related by the founder is without merit. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


Can someone find the Population or an Estimate of this town/micronation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman0226 (talkcontribs) 18:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)