Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 4      1   2   3   4   Next
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #1 
Quite interesting. As a poor university student, I am considering a request for foreign aid.

http://www.huttriver.net/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Leonard

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #2 

I take little interest in these micronations, though I suppose some of them are faintly amusing. I was intrigued though the other day to come across the Kingdom of Tavolara, which appears to have been a whole European monarchy of which I had never heard. Since it was confined to a minuscule island off Sardinia, I suppose I had some excuse.

ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I take little interest in these micronations, though I suppose some of them are faintly amusing. I was intrigued though the other day to come across the Kingdom of Tavolara, which appears to have been a whole European monarchy of which I had never heard. Since it was confined to a minuscule island off Sardinia, I suppose I had some excuse.


That's great. It actually seems to be a full and legitimate Kingdom, according to law.

Then again, the Principality of Hutt River was responded to in a letter as 'the Administrator of Hutt River Province' by the Queen or one of her representatives; thus, I am not sure, but I think that, according to royal prerogative, every court in the commonwealth automatically recognises Hutt River Province as a legitimate nation and Leonard Cansly as Prince Leonard of Hutt, or at least as having supreme jurisdiction that supersedes the claims of the Australian government.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

AndrewAussieGB

Registered:
Posts: 219
Reply with quote  #4 
There was a thread on this a while ago.

Quote:
the Principality of Hutt River was responded to in a letter as 'the Administrator of Hutt River Province' by the Queen or one of her representatives;  


Which one was it? I doubt that Her Majesty would contradict Her Australian Government's policy on this subject.

Quote:
every court in the commonwealth automatically recognises Hutt River Province as a legitimate nation and Leonard Cansly as Prince Leonard of Hutt, or at least as having supreme jurisdiction that supersedes the claims of the Australian government.


Um think again. Hutt River is treated as a joke, with Leonard as just a crazy farmer trying to get out of paying Commonwealth tax. The simple legal and Constitutional fact is that, no part of Western Australian can declare itself to be or be declared as a separate entity, this requires the direct authorisation of Her Majesty The Queen of Western Australia. The West Australian Constitutional expressly states that ONLY Her Majesty can modify the boundaries of the Colony (later State) of Western Australia. Therefore Hutt River Province cannot declare itself independent.

Also if you go with the argument that he is succeeding from the Commonwealth, not Western Australia, it must be noted that only Western Australia, as a whole, can succeed from the Commonwealth, not individual parts, and this can only be done via a referendum in which the majority of West Australian's vote for succession. He cannot declare succession from one (the Commonwealth) but not the other (Western Australia) when Western Australia is still part of the Federation.



__________________
"Should the worst happen Australia would rally to the Mother Country to help and defend her to our last man and our last shilling" - Andrew Fisher, Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Australian Opposition WWI
ContraTerrentumEQR

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,026
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewAussieGB
There was a thread on this a while ago.
Quote:
the Principality of Hutt River was responded to in a letter as 'the Administrator of Hutt River Province' by the Queen or one of her representatives;  
Which one was it? I doubt that Her Majesty would contradict Her Australian Government's policy on this subject.


I believe it was Elizabeth herself who recognised Leonard as 'Administrator' of Hutt River Province.

Quote:
Quote:
every court in the commonwealth automatically recognises Hutt River Province as a legitimate nation and Leonard Cansly as Prince Leonard of Hutt, or at least as having supreme jurisdiction that supersedes the claims of the Australian government.
Um think again. Hutt River is treated as a joke, with Leonard as just a crazy farmer trying to get out of paying Commonwealth tax. The simple legal and Constitutional fact is that, no part of Western Australian can declare itself to be or be declared as a separate entity, this requires the direct authorisation of Her Majesty The Queen of Western Australia. The West Australian Constitutional expressly states that ONLY Her Majesty can modify the boundaries of the Colony (later State) of Western Australia. Therefore Hutt River Province cannot declare itself independent. Also if you go with the argument that he is succeeding from the Commonwealth, not Western Australia, it must be noted that only Western Australia, as a whole, can succeed from the Commonwealth, not individual parts, and this can only be done via a referendum in which the majority of West Australian's vote for succession. He cannot declare succession from one (the Commonwealth) but not the other (Western Australia) when Western Australia is still part of the Federation.


He has a unique interpretation to constitutional law that has not been formally dismissed as erroneous. In fact, Elizabeth recognised him as Administrator, which supersedes interpretations of the law that could make it possible for the Australian government to seize his land. He exploited the law saying, 'Anybody who hinders a defacto Prince attain his rights can be prosecuted for treason,' or some such thing. In any case, he found a niche and prints his own money, stamps, and licence plates. He never seceded from the Commonwealth at all, only from Australia.

__________________

PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,547
Reply with quote  #6 
It was the Governor-General, or someone on his staff, who mistakenly addressed this person as "administrator". They probably thought they were being polite, as opposed to wandering into a constitutional minefield. Hutt River has no pretensions to valid sovereignty. Sovereignty yes, valid no.

PS I know your views, but could you please make it Elizabeth II on first mention at least? She is a reigning Sovereign, and mine at that. I like to see her position given respect.
AndrewAussieGB

Registered:
Posts: 219
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
I believe it was Elizabeth herself who recognised Leonard as 'Administrator' of Hutt River Province. 


If this is the case the point still remains, nothing has been issued from Her Majesty establishing Hutt River Province as a separate entity, it is therefore still apart of Western Australia and Australia and NOT an independent Principality.

Quote:
He has a unique interpretation to constitutional law that has not been formally dismissed as erroneous.


No, it has. The fact that successive Australian Governments have laughed this off is case in point. It is not up to an individual to interpret Constitutional law, it's up to the High Court of Australia, if anyone can claim to have a different interpretation of the law then we become a lawless society because everyones interpretation will be different.

Quote:
In fact, Elizabeth recognised him as Administrator, which supersedes interpretations of the law that could make it possible for the Australian government to seize his land.


I seriously doubt that Her Majesty did such a thing. And no it doesn't. Referring to someone as something and recognising him as such are two different things.

If the Australian Government wanted to seize "his" land, they could very well do so, but they tolerate him as a joke.

Quote:
He exploited the law saying, 'Anybody who hinders a defacto Prince attain his rights can be prosecuted for treason,' or some such thing.


How is that the exploitation of law? I can say 'The sky is purple' but it doesn't make it so.

Quote:
In any case, he found a niche and prints his own money, stamps, and license plates.


And they are not legal tender, not legal stamps and not legal license plates. Just because one prints their own money doesn't make their claims to being a Sovereign Prince legitimate. I could print my own money tomorrow but that doesn't make me anything more than a Subject of Her Majesty The Queen, who has printed some cheap worthless "currency".

Quote:
He never seceded from the Commonwealth at all, only from Australia. 


I don't know if you are aware or not but the official name of Australia is The Commonwealth of Australia. When I said Commonwealth I was referring to Australia, not to The Commonwealth of Nations.

But I agree he never seceded from the Commonwealth; because he can't.

__________________
"Should the worst happen Australia would rally to the Mother Country to help and defend her to our last man and our last shilling" - Andrew Fisher, Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Australian Opposition WWI
AndrewAussieGB

Registered:
Posts: 219
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
It was the Governor-General, or someone on his staff, who mistakenly addressed this person as "administrator". They probably thought they were being polite, as opposed to wandering into a constitutional minefield. 


Ah I see. Thanks for clearing that bit up Peter.

Quote:
She is a reigning Sovereign, and mine at that. I like to see her position given respect.


Hear hear.

__________________
"Should the worst happen Australia would rally to the Mother Country to help and defend her to our last man and our last shilling" - Andrew Fisher, Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Australian Opposition WWI


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter

PS I know your views, but could you please make it Elizabeth II on first mention at least? She is a reigning Sovereign, and mine at that. I like to see her position given respect.
 
And mine as well.
phrconsul

Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #10 

Greetings to you all,

 

Principality of Hutt River is sovereign and independent country for 38 years. And this cannot be deny.

Citizens of Principality do not pay taxes to Australia and they are non-resident in Australia (claimed by Australia). Also there is a document called Austeo Secret from Department of Territories and there is written that Principality is legal entity independent from Australia.

 

Some UN member countries recognized Principality of Hutt River, also Principality is member of few UN committees. We have several diplomatic relations with other countries and we are recognized by international organizations like World Federation of Consuls.

 

So, Principality of Hutt River is like Kosovo.

I don’t know why this little land can be a problem to a big Australia.

 

Best regards,

Zeljko


AndrewAussieGB

Registered:
Posts: 219
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Principality of Hutt River is sovereign and independent country for 38 years. And this cannot be deny.  


Denied.

Quote:
Citizens of Principality do not pay taxes to Australia and they are non-resident in Australia (claimed by Australia). 


Most of the "citizens" of Hutt River are non-resident in Australia for the fact that they don't even live on the Australian continent. You can buy "citizenship" to Hutt River. Of course people who live in other countries don't pay taxes to Australia, you'd pay taxes to your own countries.

Quote:
Some UN member countries recognized Principality of Hutt River, also Principality is member of few UN committees


So? Other countries cannot dictate or make judgements on Australian territory.

And what committees does Hutt River sit on? It's not in the UN, how can it sit on a committee?

Quote:
So, Principality of Hutt River is like Kosovo.


What an illegal creation? I'm glad we agree.

Quote:
I don't know why this little land can be a problem to a big Australia.


It's not a problem exactly, it's just a joke really.

__________________
"Should the worst happen Australia would rally to the Mother Country to help and defend her to our last man and our last shilling" - Andrew Fisher, Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Australian Opposition WWI
phrconsul

Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #12 

Well, Kosovo is not a illegal creation, I worked in Kosovo thru OSCE peacekeeping mission, and it is foolish to say that Kosovo is illegal.

Only Russia and Serbia thinks that it is illegal, rest of the world thinks different.  Also Australia recognized Kosovo in spite of Serbia, so what is this telling to us.

 

We can argue about everything but fact remains, they are independent for 38 years and in diplomatic relations with various countries. So, Australia is like Serbia, denied Principalities existence, but we are here, and some recognize us.

I support Principality because Republic of Croatia also went a hard and bloody secession from Yugoslavia, and I know how these steps are hard.

AndrewAussieGB

Registered:
Posts: 219
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Well, Kosovo is not a illegal creation, I worked in Kosovo thru OSCE peacekeeping mission, and it is foolish to say that Kosovo is illegal.


Good for you. Kosovo is illegal.

Quote:

Only Russia and Serbia thinks that it is illegal, rest of the world thinks different


And that doesn't make the rest of the world right. I agree with Serbia and Russia (very rare that I agree with Russia on anything) on this.

Quote:
We can argue about everything but fact remains, they are independent for 38 years and in diplomatic relations with various countries.


No, it's not and never has been independent.

Quote:
So, Australia is like Serbia, denied Principalities existence, but we are here, and some recognize us.


Good for the some. The fact remains that Hutt River is nothing more than a crack pot's farm who claims to be a Prince based on the fact that he didnt want to pay tax. He has no claims to sovereignty nor independence because only one person can break up apart of Western Australia and that is Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Western Australia!

Quote:
I support Principality because Republic of Croatia also went a hard and bloody secession from Yugoslavia, and I know how these steps are hard


What part of Hutt River's "existence" has been bloody? The Australian government has laughed this nutter off.

__________________
"Should the worst happen Australia would rally to the Mother Country to help and defend her to our last man and our last shilling" - Andrew Fisher, Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Australian Opposition WWI
phrconsul

Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #14 
Well, If you have farm in USA, and you stop pay taxes and claim Independence from USA, how long will you survive? maybe a month, than it will bi joint operation by FBI Homeland security against you.

What Australia did? Nothing, because they don't have legal right, and about 20 citizens with HRH Prince Leonard who lives there, don't pay taxes to Australia for 38 years. I don't know about you, but if I stop paying taxes in my country I would be very fast in jail.

So, lets stop arguing ok? Peace for everyone!
LegitimistJacobite

Registered:
Posts: 218
Reply with quote  #15 

There are plenty of these micronations.  As long as they are content to be regarded as a joke, no one really objects.  Onethinks of the Kingdon of Ross on Wye (a town on the English/Welsh border), which Richard Booth, a bookseller, declared back in the 1970s. Erwin Strauss 'How to Start your own Country', published by the US libertarian publisher Loompanics Unlimited back in the 1980s, is probably still the standard work, and quite funny too.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.