Setting the Record Straight on Descendants of Kamehameha I and Heirs to the Hawaiian Crown

There is a common misunderstanding that if you are a direct descendent of Kamehameha I today you are an heir to the throne as well as an heir to the Crown Lands. This is incorrect.

It is true that Kamehameha I had many wives. According to the second revised edition of the book Kamehameha’s Children Today by Charles Ahlo, Rubellite Kawena Kinney Johson, and Jerry Walker, Kamehameha I had 30 wives, 18 of whom had 35 children. The other 12 did not have any children. Of the 18 was Keōpūolani who gave birth to Liholiho, who later succeeded to the throne as Kamehameha II in 1819, Kauikeaouli, who succeeded to the throne as Kamehameha III in 1824, and a daughter, Nahiʻenaʻena who died in 1836 while her brother Kamehameha III was King. Of all the wives, she had the highest chiefly rank and she was acknowledged as such by Kamehameha’s Chiefs.

The Kamehameha extended family was not the leadership of the kingdom. Rather, the leadership of the Island of Kingdom of Hawai‘i was comprised of Kamehameha as its Ali‘i Nui (King) and his most trusted Chiefs, which included Kalaʻimamahu, Chief of Hāmākua, Ke‘eaumoku, Chief of Kona, Ka‘iana, Chief of Puna, and Kame‘eiamoku, Chief of Kohala. After defeating the Maui Kingdom of Kalanikupule in 1795 and acquiring the Kaua‘i Kingdom from Kaumuali‘i in 1810, the leadership of Chiefs increased due to the acquisition of additional islands of his expanded domain. These Chiefs extended from Kamehameha’s Chiefs, while the Kamehameha Dynasty extended from the children of Keōpūolani and not from the other 17 wives who had children. The decision of which wife’s children were to be the heirs to the throne was not the decision for Kamehameha I to make on his own. It had to be sanctioned by his Council of Chiefs. Without the support of his Chiefs, Kamehameha’s kingdom would be fractured after his death.

As Kuykendal wrote, “The desertion of Kaʻiana [in 1795], the revolt of Nāmākēhā [in 1796], and Kaumuialiʻi’s dalliance with the Russians [in 1817] were overt acts showing clearly how unwillingly some of the chiefs submitted to his authority.” The Russian explorer, Lieutenant Otto von Kotzebue, who arrived in the islands in 1816 and 1817, was made aware of Kamehameha’s concerns of the longevity of his kingdom. In his 1821 book, Voyage of Discovery, Kotzebue states of a proposed division of the kingdom with Kalanimoku having O‘ahu, Ke‘eaumoku having Maui, Kaumuali‘i retaining Kaua‘i, and Liholiho, Kamehameha’s heir, having Hawai‘i island. Kamehameha took the necessary steps to prevent such breakup from happening. According to Kamakau, Kamehameha sought to strengthen the British alliance because he believed the British supported his dynasty. He was correct.

On May 18, 1824, Kamehameha II arrived in London with the Hawaiian royal retinue that included Mataio Kekūanāo‘a husband to Kamehameha II’s sister, Kīnaʻu. Before the King could meet with King George IV he and his wife Queen Kalama died of measles. High Chief Boki was the highest ranking Chief and he and the royal retinue met with King George IV. According Kekuanao‘a:

The King then asked Boki what was the business on which you and your King came to this country?

Then Boki declared to him the reason of our sailing to Great Britain We have come to confirm the words which Kamehameha I gave in charge to Vancouver thus—“Go back and tell King George to watch over me and my whole Kingdom. I acknowledge him as my landlord and myself as tenant (or him as superior and I inferior). Should the foreigners of any other nation come to take possesion of my lands, then let him help me.”

And when King George had heard he thus said to Boki, “I have heard these words, I will attend to the evils from without. The evils within your Kingdom it is not for me to regard; they are with yourselves. Return and say to the King, to Kaahumanu and to Kalaimoku, I will watch over your country, I will not take possession of it for mine, but I will watch over it, lest evils should come from others to the Kingdom. I therefore will watch over him agreeably to those ancient words.”

Kamehameha II’s body arrived in Lahaina on May 4, 1825. After the funeral and time of mourning had passed, the Council of Chiefs met on June 6, 1824, in Honolulu with Lord Byron and the British Consul. It was confirmed that Liholiho’s brother, Kauikeaouli, was to be Kamehameha III, but since he was only eleven years old, Ka‘ahumanu would continue to serve as Regent and Kalanimōkū as Premier. Kalanimōkū addressed the Council “setting forth the defects of many of their laws and customs, particularly the reversion of lands” to a new King for redistribution and assignment. The chiefs collectively agreed to forgo this ancient custom, and the lands were maintained in the hands of the original tenants in chief and their successors, subject to reversion only in times of treason. Lord Byron was invited to address the Council, and without violating his specific orders of non-intervention in the political affairs of the kingdom, he prepared eight recommendations on paper and presented it to the chiefs for their consideration.

1. That the king be head of the people.

2. That all the chiefs swear allegiance.

3. That the lands descend in hereditary succession.

4. That taxes be established to support the king.

5. That no man’s life be taken except by consent of the king or regent and twelve chiefs.

6. That the king or regent grant pardons at all times.

7. That all the people be free and not bound to one chief.

8. That a port duty be laid on all foreign vessels.

Lord Byron introduced the fundamental principles of British governance to the chiefs and set them on a course of national consolidation and uniformity. His suggestions referred “to the form of government, and the respective and relative rights of the king, chiefs, and people, and to the tenure of lands,” but not to a uniform code of laws. Since the death of Kamehameha in 1819, the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a feudal autocracy, had no uniform system of laws systematically applied throughout the islands. Rather it fell on each of the tenants in chief and their designated vassals to be both lawmaker and arbiter over their own particular tenants living on the granted lands from the King.

When the Hawaiian Kingdom was transformed into a constitutional monarchy, written laws became the legal foundation for the kingdom. Confirming that only the children of Keōpūolani were the heirs to the Throne, the 1840 Constitution stated:

The origin of the present government, and system of polity, is as follows: KAMEHAMEHA I, was the founder of the kingdom, and to him belonged all the land from one end of the Islands to the other, though it was not his own private property. It belonged to the chiefs and people in common, of whom Kamehameha I was the head, and had the management of the landed property. Wherefore, there was not formerly, and is not now any person who could or can convey away the smallest portion of land without consent of the one who had, or has the direction of the kingdom.

These are the persons who have had the direction of it from that time down, Kamehameha II, Kaahumanu I, and at the present time Kamehameha III. These persons have had the direction of the kingdom down to the present time, and all documents written by them, and no others are the documents of the kingdom.

The kingdom is permanently confirmed to Kamehameha III, and his heirs, and his heir shall be the person whom he and the chiefs shall appoint, during his life time, but should there be no appointment, then the decision shall rest with the chiefs and house of Representatives.

In the 1852 Constitution, Article 25 states:

The crown is hereby permanently confirmed to His Majesty Kamehameha III during his life, and to his successor. The successor shall be the person whom the King and the House of Nobles shall appoint and publicly proclaim as such, during the King’s life; but should there be no such appointment and proclamation, then the successor shall be chosen by the House of Nobles and the House of Representatives in joint ballot.

In the 1864 Constitution, Article 22 states:

The Crown is hereby permanently confirmed to His Majesty Kamehameha V, and to the Heirs of His body lawfully begotten, and to their lawful Descendants in a direct line; failing whom, the Crown shall descend to Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria Kamamalu Kaahumanu, and their heirs of her body, lawfully begotten, and their lawful descendants in a direct line. The Succession shall be to the senior male child, and to the heirs of his body; failing a male child, the succession shall be to the senior female child, and the heirs of her body. In case there is no heir as above provided, then the successor shall be the person whom the Sovereign shall appoint with the consent of the Nobles, and publicly proclaim as such during the King’s life; but should there be no appointment and proclamation, and the Throne should become vacant, then the Cabinet Council, immediately after the occurring of such vacancy, shall cause a meeting of the Legislative Assembly, who shall elect by ballot some native Aliʻi of the Kingdom as Successor to the Throne; and the Successor so elected shall become a new Stirps for a Royal Family; and the succession from the Sovereign thus elected, shall be regulated by the same law as the present Royal Family.

According to this constitutional provision, the Kamehameha Dynasty would continue if Kamehameha V had “Heirs of His body lawfully begotten.” The term “lawfully begotten” is a child born in wedlock. A child born out of wedlock was called a bastard child. Kamehameha was not married, and he had no children. In that case, his sister Princess Victoria Kamamalu Kaahumanu would be the successor to the Throne should Kamehameha V not “appoint [a successor to the throne] with the consent of the Nobles, and publicly proclaim as such during the King’s life.” She never married before her death on May 29, 1866, leaving the successor to the Throne to be decided by Kamehameha V. The are some who claim that the Princess had a child. Whether this is true or not, it does not matter because the Constitution states that a child shall be “lawfully begotten,” which can only happen if the child is born in wedlock. The Princess was never married.

When Kamehameha V died on December 11, 1872, he did not appoint a successor and receive confirmation by the Nobles. This was precisely why the Cabinet of Kamehameha V, serving as a Council of Regency, stated to the Legislative Assembly on January 8, 1873, when it was convened in extraordinary session to elect a successor to the throne:

His Majesty left no Heirs.

Her late Royal Highness the Princess Victoria Kamamalu Kaahumanu, to whom in the event of the death of His late Majesty without heirs, the Constitution declared that the Throne should descend, died, also without heirs, on the twenty-ninth day of May, in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty-six.

His late Majesty did not appoint any successor in the mode set forth in the Constitution, with the consent of the Nobles or make a Proclamation thereof during his life. There having been no such appointment or Proclamation, the Throne became vacant, and the Cabinet Council immediately thereupon considered the form of the Constitution in such case made and provided.

There is no doubt that there are descendants of Kamehameha I from his 17 wives, other than Keōpūolani. Ahlo, Johnson and Walkerʻs book Kamehameha’s Children Today reveals that. There is no dispute.

These descendants, however, which include Ahlo, Johnson and Walker, are not a part of the Kamehameha Dynasty that headed the government from 1791, after the death of High Chief Keōua, until the death of Kamehameha V in 1872. Those children and grandchildren that headed the Hawaiian government as an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy were Kamehameha II, Kamehameha III, Kamehameha IV and Kamehameha V. The Kamehameha Dynasty was succeeded by the Lunalilo Dynasty in 1873, and the Kalākaua Dynasty replaced the Lunalilo Dynasty in 1874. In 1922, the Kalākaua Dynasty ended with the passing of Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole.

The Lunalilo and Kalākaua Dynasties descended from Kamehameha Iʻs Chiefs, which are part of the nobility class of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The genealogies published throughout 1896 in the Maka‘anana newspapers reveal the families of the nobility class. To access these genealogies go to The Three Estates of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

22 thoughts on “Setting the Record Straight on Descendants of Kamehameha I and Heirs to the Hawaiian Crown

  1. come on! This not straight, still crocked! This only one interpretation by persons claiming an uninvestigated and unprosecuted act of treason of the acts committed under the unapproved and unratified constitution of 1864 (Hawaiian Kingdom), the Hawaiian Evangelical Association (Hawaii Conference United Church of Christ) missionaries got their interpretation, the provisional puppet and Republic of Hawaii (Kingdom of Hawaii), U.S. federal and State of Hawaii criminals all have their own version.

    This kingdom (Hawaiian Islands) known by all of its approved, ratified and published Laws, Declaration, Constitutions, Treaties, Session Laws, Statutes, Penal and Civil Codes arise from the first complete translation of the Holy Bible (Hebrew Bible) from the Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew into the oleo ihe ihe (ancient tongue) published by the American Bible Society less than 30 day before the Declaration of Rights, Both of the People and Chiefs of the Hawaiian Islands, his Majesty Kauikeaouli quotes Acts: Ch. 17:24. 1840 Constitution of the Hawaiian Islands: Article I. No law shall be pass which is at variance with the general spirit and word of Iehovah.

    This is the foundation of the Hawaiian Islands. Look at Palapala Sila Nui and Land Commission Awards. I Kauikeaouli King of the Hawaiian Islands, “By the grace of God” not by the grace of England, Russia or the US congress.

    This is the only kingdom in the world that adopt the Christian laws as the laws of their country, no other country like the Hawaiian Islands. The kanaka-maoli people and chiefs where clear about the laws in the Hawaiian Islands.

    If you need help with making the record straight, hala

    • wow. cut it with a double-edged sword. i like it. the most important, yet, misunderstood blessing is from king kamehameha I to Queen Liliuokalani, the Hawaiian Kingdom was/is/will be again under God’s providence & protection.

  2. Beyond the doctrine of discovery and the American jurisprudence which explicated their domination, our nation is not subject to public international law. Congress is the problem.
    The State of Hawaii like Ukraine didn’t just happen overnight. In context Ukraine began in 2014-2015 with loan guarantees from Congress triggering the slaughter in Odessa and the Donbas of Russian Ukrainians.
    No different than what is being done to African Americans or what was done to aboriginal Hawaiians by the Republic and Territory governments.
    Congress is the one using their powers to do commerce with foreign nations to economically control, extort and/or exact regime change…it was Congress that funded the Republic of Hawaii which restyled itself into the Territory of Hawaii. And it’s Congress that finances the State of Hawaii and the various entitlements that keeps everyone voluntarily subject to them, in their jurisdiction. Thus, the political question is who are we? Are we US citizens?
    I don’t blame Kai for staying home but he should have and we must lobby Congress for reparations and restoration of our right to self government via Queens agreement, not entitlements for US citizens in the Hawaiian Islands. Congress provided alot of money, not currency, to underwrite this commercial enterprise way before the petrol dollar.
    Or we can just ask them for more funding in the pillaging and plundering and perpetuating of the fraud…the choice is yours!

    • These are criminals expropriating private properties belonging to both kanaka-maoli and alien residence living within the physical maritime and jurisdictional territorial boundaries of the Hawaiian Islands during a continuing crime and campaign of genocide.

      This is how your kupuni established the laws of this great kingdom known as the Hawaiian Islands.

      It is our design to regulate our kingdom according to the above principles and thus seek the greatest prosperity both of all the chiefs and all of the people of these Hawaiian Islands. But we are aware that we cannot ourselves alone accomplish such an object – God must be our aid, for it is His province alone to give perfect protection and prosperity. Wherefore we first present our supplication to HIM, that he will guide us to right measures and sustain us in our work.

      We not asking them for nothing, but to obey the laws of God, our resistance is always peaceful.

      We are telling the people of the world that this lawlessness and evil practice by todays so-called leaders and rulers of this world who want mankind to accept their resolve to the war crimes and crimes against humanity are fix by giving the victims of these atrocities and genocide weapons to defend against one of their own sitting in their high places and handing out sanction as if.

      These are criminal and we need to call them out by prosecuting them in our own courts, compelling all International organizations to defend their own charters and missions and demand investigations of these continuing campaigns of genocide in the Hawaiian Islands to exterminate all kanaka-maoli inherent and in-common essential and fundamental rights you received from Io. The choice have always been yours.

      You either kanaka-maoli or native Hawaiian american (42 USC 11701 & 11711.

      Mahalo Iesu

      • Wow, what a contradiction. You say they in our jurisdiction “…physical maritime and jurisdictional territorial boundaries of the Hawaiian Islands…” then claim they have jurisdiction over everyone under Title 42 USC. You are so confused. Because of occupation they don’t have jurisdiction. All contracts are void. Regardless of consent by the parties, no jurisdiction means no contract. Consent between parties doesn’t magically make the occupation go away so they have jurisdiction to enforce contracts. What a clown show. Is the circus in town?

        • Its ok Mr. kekoa not everyone will understand. Words matter Mr. kekoa, read 42 USC 11701 & 11711. I will help you understand why I said “You either kanaka-maoli or native Hawaiian american (42 USC 11701 & 11711”, here the US federal statute create and define native Hawaiian as citizens of the United States among other colorful word, you must be native Hawaiian american to think “they have jurisdiction over everyone under Title 42 USC” bcuz the US federal statute do not have any force of law against kanaka-maoli, pololei? Also you should understand that this manao is healthy for our people and chiefs of the Hawaiian Islands, your ridicule is small minded and childish and I shake the dust and yet just like Iehovah my arm are still stretched out, read your bible, your kupuna did, they knew what it meant to be God fearing, it’ll teach you how to behave and conduct yourself.

          E Ike Hou

          Mahalo Iesu Kristo

          • Keliihuluhulu, simple question. Is Hawaii illegally occupied? Yes, or No? It’s a simple question.

          • Who was the Pope’s agent in the islands protecting the interests of the Papal states?

        • Territorial jurisdiction and extraterritorial jurisdiction. American charters operating in the Hawaiian Islands since Princess Liliu’okalani was appointed regent. Secret society regulations did not prevent members organizing and incorporating themselves within Hawaiian Kingdom as Honolulu Rifles. Backed by American finance via sugar trade helped enable and mobilize the coup de main/de tat. Federal trade and customs enterprise established with Republic, restyled as Territory, under code for territories and insular possession. Congressional ratification of Republic of Hawaii public acts, laws, statutes, etc. and restyled Territory of Hawaii.
          Federal reserves established begins the end of gold standard. Bonds, notes, negotiable instruments become the new norm and LEGAL TENDER replaces lawful money within Federal matrix.. Restyle Territory into State of Hawaii and incorporation of State into Federal trade and customs union (US commerce code matrix) in 1959. 1971 Nixon floats the dollar. Run it up and export inflation weaponizing the global currency to enslave and control other nations under bilateral FTA (private, not public, international law). Obfuscate private matters with public psychological operations campaigns. Then manage the blowback from foreign nations attempting to cut the dollar from their trade agreements with MIC and privateering contractors for regime change to formulate global trade system and order.🌹

  3. Yes, occupation is part of the evidence of the expropriation of private properties belonging to kanaka-maoli of the ko Hawaii Pae Aina during the continuing campaign and crime of genocide to annihilate the people and chiefs domiciling and living within the physical maritime and jurisdictional territorial boundaries of the Hawaiian Islands NOT the USA or State of Hawaii. RU attached to the SOH or USA in any manner? For many kanaka-maoli that beleive they are native Hawaiian americans and have a dependency or allegence to the USA or SOH need to choose.

    Your humble servant

    Mahalo Iesu

    • Keliihuluhulu, you did not respond to my last question but since you did agree that Hawaii is illegally occupied then the Laws of occupation and humanitarian laws do apply to Hawaii just like it applies to all the other past and present occupations in the world.

      These laws EXPOSE the FLAW in your claim that during occupation the legal status of Hawaiian Subjects can be changed by the occupier or by the Hawaiian Subjects themselves.
      2. Legal Status of the Population

      541 “The legal status of the population shall not be infringed by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the occupying power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory. (Art. 47 GC IV).

      1. “According to Article 47 GC IV, the rights of the inhabitants of occupied territories shall not be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power on one hand and the authorities of the occupied territory on the other. This provision is intended to prevent local authorities, under pressure from the occupying power, from making concessions to the detriment of the inhabitants of the territory which would impair their legal status. Any such agreement is void.”

      2.”In particular, the annexation of foreign territory by the occupying power is prohibited by international law (see commentary to section 525). Such annexation would be invalid even if ‘concessions’ in this respect were offered to the local authorities.”

      542 ” Protected persons cannot abrogate their rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention (Art. 8).

      “This principle applies to the entirety of the international humanitarian law. In all circumstances it is prohibited for the inhabitants of an occupied territory to renounce their rights under GC IV. Whether on their own initiative or as a result of coercion, such a renunciation is null and void. This is to prevent the occupying authorities, acting from a position of strength, from exploiting the weak position of the subject population and revoke, apparently legally, the protection guaranteed by international law.”

  4. Keliihuluhulu, you affirmed that Hawaii is illegally occupied. It would only be logical that you would also agree that the laws of occupation and humanitarian laws would apply to the occupation. Do you agree that the Laws of occupation and Humanitarian Law applies to this occupation?


  6. Keliihuluhulu, well for starters let’s begin with step number (1) where you said Hawaii is illegally occupied. Step (2) we apply all the laws that regulate occupations. Under all the laws of occupation a Hawaiian Subject’s legal status cannot be abrogated by the U.S. nor by themselves. “,, Whether on their own initiative or as a result of coercion, such a renunciation is null and void…” Let’s start there and let’s finish with your false claim that Hawaiian Subjects can be made into native Hawaiian Americans. That totally contradicts the laws of occupation. If your foundation is GOD like you claim then you can either admit you made a mistake in your analysis or continue and preach a lie. If GOD is not your starting point then, who is your starting point? The farther of lies?

  7. Mr. kekoa, you should read what i have shared again, you are still talking about your own position. 1893 unprovoked invasion of a neutral and peaceful country the “Hawaiian Islands” this not the starting point for kanaka-maoli, this is just a point in the history of events continuing within the territory of the Hawaiian Islands, you gotta go at least 54 years back in time to find Hauikalani and the adoption of the Christian laws of the Hebrew Bible to establish the essential foundations of the Hawaiian Islands.

    Our Moi/kupuna understood and knew the wickedness about the doctrine of discovery the papal bull declared and the evil intentions of the catholic churches. Our Moi/kupuna understood this before and after the translation and publishing of Ka Palapala Hemolele, Hebera the instructions and Will of God of what we are to do and how kanaka-maoli are to behave and conduct ourselves.

    So our Moi/kupuna and kanaka-maoli flipped the doctrine of discovery on its feet and discovered themselves, no pillaging, plundering or killings to take possession belonging to other peoples. All kanaka-maoli right and interest in your family names come from God and is pass down to our keiki in perpetuity. This is our starting point.

    The US rely on the doctrine of discovery for the pillaging, plundering and killing of the Indians to justify their atrocities and genocide for the properties the say the own today, look at Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) landmark case. These Americans cannot use the doctrine against kanaka-maoli bcuz for at least one reason, the entry of the Hawaiian Islands into the family of nations by the 1843 treaties with Great Britain, France and England by our Moi/kupuna declares a Christian claim over the Hawaiian Islands. The entire Christian community need to defend their belief, still Gods anger is not turned away and like Babylon (King Nebuchadnezzar) America has fallen.

    There is so much more to understand.

    Righteous Concept is talking about what our Moi/kupuna understood, read some of his/her manao.

    God is great and in control.

    Mahalo Iesu

    Your humble servant

    • Kamehameha, why are you refusing to answer a simple question? You said USC Title 42 11701 and 11711 is the basis for how the U.S. transformed us Hawaiian Subjects into native Hawaiian Americans. That is what YOU said MANY times in many of your posts. You agreed Hawaii is occupied and I proved to you how that is not possible under the laws of occupation and humanitarian law. Why are you so afraid to answer YES or NO? It’s a simple question. Do you still say USC Title 42 11701 and 11711 has changed our legal status from Hawaiian Subjects to native Hawaiian Americans? It is a simple YES or No answer to a simple YES OR NO question.

  8. We are one people, Kanaka Maoli period. United we stand ,divided we fall. What matters is that we work together with one goal. We should remember Haunani-Kay Trask

Leave a Reply