Talk:Francis de Groot

Untitled
No mention of his plans to kidnap Jack Lang? The article on the bridge includes in his quotation, as he slashes the ribbon, "His Majesty the King". Which is just what one would expect, given his motives. I have no idea what is correct though. 84.135.242.18 13:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Brian Wright (op. cit.), he didn't mention the King, because this would be disrespectful, and it was the New Guard (not de Groot personally) who talked about arresting Lang, but did nothing to bring this to fruition. De Groot then decided to act on his own, with the New Guard's blessing.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

King or his rep?
In the Sydney Harbour Bridge article it says

However, in this article it says   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flash man999 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Who opened the bridge?This was changed from the Governor General to the State Governor, however this conflicts with this link Bridge Medal. Does anyone have a better idea of who actually opened the bridge and what were the purported reasons for de Groot's actions. Ozdaren (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a lot of public opposition to Premier Lang's decision to personally open the bridge, rather than allow the Governor to do this. Normally the governor would have officiated. De Groot's actions were a protest against the premier upstaging the governor. Accordingly the wording that he upstaged the premier is rather unfortunate. I would also suggest that the term "notorious" is not needed. De Groot's protest, if not his politics, were popular.JohnC (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Captain or Colonel?
Was de Groot a Captain or Colonel? Most of this page seems to have been lifted from Francis de Groot: Irish Fascist Australian Legend  This is a copyright violation. Ozdaren (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Contesting speedy delete
This was most definitely NOT taken from Willan Publishing. It was created in 2004! I can only assume Willam have copied material from this article. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I thought I'd picked the right person to clarify this. Ozdaren (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Legality
I suspect that anyone upstaging a dignatory and declaring a bridge opened is not acting illegally. There may be some minor legal breaches, but that would be peripheral to the main issue.

However I would question the accuracy and point of the comment that "A large part of the plan to humiliate Lang was for all of de Groot's acts to be legal." What is the basis for that statement? This was a protest against the premier upstaging the governor (and people). How many protestors are overly concerned with the legality of their protests?JohnC (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It was clearly illegal, but de Groot did argue that his actions were legal, largely by arguing that his duty as a military officer to the King overrode any duty to obey the government of Jack Lang, which he viewed as illegitimate and treasonous...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have always been confused as to whether De Groot's actions were legal. I gather that Jack Lang, in one of this books, states that De Groot's offensive behaviour was overturned on appeal. The argument was that offensive behaviour could only have occurred if the unopened bridge was a public place, but if it was a public place that would mean that the road was part of the King's Highway, and any one of His subjects was entitled under common law to remove any obstruction, including ribbons, barring free progress on the King's Highway. It seems clear that De Groot successfully sued for wrongful arrest, which he could not have done if he had been convicted. Does anyone have any further information on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plerdsus (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)