Talk:House of Kawānanakoa

Heirs Presumptive
I was going to remove that whole section, but decided to just leave it since some people have this belief.

In the 22nd Article of both the 1864 and the 1887 Constitution it says how either through the descendants of the ruling monarch, or the monarch can appoint someone, or in the case of no descendants and the monarch not appointing anyone as heir to the throne, that they can vote for one at the discretion of the Legislature.

Queen Lili'uokalani had proclaimed that her niece Princess V. Kawekiu Lunalilo Ka'iulani as heir-apparent to the throne. Apparently she also had Prince D. Kawananakoa and Prince J. Kuhio Kalaniana'ole to succeed after Princess Ka'iulani. However Ka'iulani died in 1899, never got to ascend to the throne. Because of that, the next person in line was Kawananakoa, but he died in 1908. He too never got to ascend to the throne, so at his death it makes Kalaniana'ole the next person in line. He also never got to ascend to the throne.

Had any of these 3 ascended to the throne, their descendants would have qualified (according to Article 22) to be heirs to the throne. But none of them did, and only one of them (Kawananakoa) had descendants.

Because of Article 22, the Kawananakoa family has no claim to the throne. Owana S. has no claim to the throne. Akahi Nui has no claim to the throne. No one else has claim to the throne.

Heirs Presumptive?
To say that the "heir presumptive" would be proclaimed monarch of Hawaii if the monarchy were restored--that's quite a questionable statement! The present "heir presumptive" would be Quentin Kawananakoa, who is a professional politician. It's absolutely inconceivable that he would have the slightest desire or inclination to become the figurehead ruler of a constitutional monarchy. The whole scenario is silly. Tom129.93.17.135 01:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Plus according to the Constitutions (1852, 1864 and the faux-1887), only the king (or queen) can name who their heirs would be.  Liliuokalani did name hers but that was during her lifetime, as stated according to Article 22 of the Constitution. Mamoahina (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It might, I suppose, be argued that the Liliuokalani's designated successor has the same right she had to appoint a successor as head of the House of Kawananakoa and thus as pretender to the throne. That successor might then have the right to appoint his/her successor. Tom129.93.17.220 (talk) 05:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actualy..not sure if Liliuokalani ever named heirs while queen. Her brother named two heirs and they both died before they could take the throne. There is no actual Heir Presumptive. There are pretenders.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In Article 22 of the unratified 1893 constitution, Liliuokalani did name heirs: Kaiulani, Kawananakoa, and Kuhio and their heirs of body as eligible for the throne after her. But yes, heir presumptive is non-neutral and shouldn't be used.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Liliuokalani did have a written constitution? I did not know that. If unratified though, those named heirs were never formally recognized, but thanks for the information. I did not know she actually got something put together. I'll have to look into that someday. Very interesting.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The Governmenr of Hawaii?
Exactly when did the government of the Government of Hawaii, that is the government of the US state of Hawaii ever recognize anybody as the rightful heir to the throne?

While historians, members of the Government of Hawaii and a majority of Hawaii residents have considered the House of Kawananakoa the rightful heirs to the throne,

Important factual update concerning wikipedia's article on Hawaii's Royal House of Kawananakoa
[Moved from article page john k 04:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)]

The above article erroneously states the often circulated fabrication that HRH Prince David Kawananakoa was not the father of Kapiolani Kawananakoa, the eldest child of three in his marriage to Abigail Campbell. This has been circulating by various souces devoid of factual knowledge about the true facts about the story of Kapiolani II Kawananakoa's "adoption" which in actuality was use of the ancient and traditional Hawai'ian practice of Hanai, in which a senior relative "adopts" the child involved who can best care for him or her due to finacial and other reasons.

There is actual factual proof of the fact that Kapiolani II Kawananakoa was indeed the blood child of Prince David Kawananakoa and therefore her descendents are legal blood-heirs to the throne (ie- her grandchildren and the children of her eldest son, the late Edward Abnel Keliiahonui Kawananakoa, Quentin Kuhio Kawananakoa and siblings, heirs and family) and the line in fact does not "end" or "go to another line" after the passing of the dynasty's senior member, Abigail Kinioki Kekaulike Kawananakoa.

This website lists all the information and leagl photocopies, etc. of the last will and testament of HRH Prince David Kawananakoa prior to his passing away in 1908 and much further proof, verified leagl testimony and information.

The website can be accessed directly by going to the following URL:



Mahalo,

Kenneth Elliot Kaumuali'i Hodges Saratoga, California 27, December, 2006

e-mail 

Factual?
I don't know if you missed it, but Kawananakoa does not claim Abigail to be his daughter. He said his wife said they're his. LOL And lickety-split on the next paragraph, he's getting rid of the kid!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.100.168 (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Check the actual will please. It is explained why she was left out of the will because she would inherit her grandmother's Abigail Campbell's fortune instead and be provided for in that matter. Nowhere is it stated that she was illegitimate. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Kawānanakoa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415044150/http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~royalty/files/pix_hawaii5.html to http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~royalty/files/pix_hawaii5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Catholicism

 * https://www.newspapers.com/clip/53854674/kawananakoa-only-hawaiian-royal/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KAVEBEAR (talk • contribs) 06:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)