I can't belive that U.S. did that. Drmacracy, HA! It is the foult of american aggession. Why did we even atacked them? I had a feeling that hawians had supported the monarchy and the only reason it fell was becouse of stupid demacratit(I maent as a in demacracy) america.
@TheDerekneseEmporer. I guess you could say that. Hawaii is a democratic monarchy. The first Consitiutional Monarchy in the world to have demorcatic forms of government. Mm-mmm. The main reason why America took over Hawaii, though knowing quite well that what they did was wrong, was because of military power. It is America's sysmbol of how they became the world military power today.
@DeltaEagle7700 That's a giant claim. I believe France and the UK were constitutional monarchy before Hawaii. Hawaiian monarchs weld more executive power than Queen Victoria or other British monarchs in their time.
@SaveChinaTiger. That is true. Yes, the UK was a Constitutional Monarchy before Hawaii was. Hawaii became a Constitutional Monarchy in the 1840's. Then eventually became a Unitary Legislative Democracy and a Constitutional Monarchy. And yes that is true. Queen Victoria verses the Kingdom of Hawaii did had more power then Britian's monarchy. But our system of government is different then England's system of government. And our monarchs when coming Constitutional, reduced their power in the years.
"unless preceded by war, the unilateral annexation of the territory of another State without contractual consent is illegal. It makes no difference that the territory involved may already be under the firm control of the State declaring the annexation." -Encylopedia of Public International Law III
@ciaali2001 No, but the family does continue and there is a "royal heir" today in Hawaii. However, as things stand now the islands cannot have a king or queen as long as they are a state in the Union as the Constitution requires all states to have a republican form of government. Hawaii would have to restore her independence in order to restore her monarchy.
@JiminPalmSprings The most generally recognized is Prince Quentin of Hawaii, aka Prince Kawānanakoa. His great-grandfather was the successor of the last Queen of Hawaii as head of the royal family.
the kings of Hawaii (c.1730-1893) Helohanakua I c.1730-c.1742 Helohanakua II c.1743-1750 Kihailani c.1750-1763 Kihailani II 1763-1780 Keko'iapouwa 1780-1783 Kamehameha I 1783-1819 Kamehameha II 1819-1824 Kamehameha III the Great 1824-1854 Kamehameha IV 1854-1863 Kamehameha V 1863-1872 Lunalilo 1873-1874 Kalakaua 1874-1891 Liliuokalani 1891-1893 The first 5 monarchs didnt rule over all of hawaii. LONG LIVE THE MONARCHIES OF THE WORLD!
@Abc14ize Your list is really distorted. Who is Keko'iapouwa? If you mean Kamehameha's mother Kekuiapoiwa, she didn't rule. Before Kamehameha were at least twenty different kings that ruled just the big island of Hawaii stretching back all the way to the year 1000. The first 5 on your list is totally made up. Try Kiwalao, Kalaniopuu, Alapainui, Keawe II, Keakealaniwahine, Keakamahana.....
Yeah one of the government types thats been suggested for an independent Texas is actualy a constitutional monarchy. If we choose that I think San Antonio would make a better capitol since it has more history and is filled with the most famous landmarks of Texas. They could still keep the senate in Austin since they already have everything they need there.
I'm rather surprised to hear that. I would agree about SA -it already has a royal palace there. Of course even a mayor or city councilman probably wouldn't live in so small a house. Good enough for the reps of the King of Spain but not for a modern politician. Isn't that odd. ha
The monarchy movement must be very small because I only heard of it a few months ago, but I can see how people would consider it since monarchies tend to be more stable then most republics.
Well, the US *had* to invade and conquer Hawaii in order to protect it from foreign aggression! _____yes, I'm being very sarcastic. It is a shame that it ended and can only now be seen as a museum piece.
you should do one on other Pacific island monarchies like Tonga or Tahiti.
SaveChinaTiger 2 months ago
what the name of the song?
TheStealthx808 6 months ago
I can't belive that U.S. did that. Drmacracy, HA! It is the foult of american aggession. Why did we even atacked them? I had a feeling that hawians had supported the monarchy and the only reason it fell was becouse of stupid demacratit(I maent as a in demacracy) america.
TheDerekneseEmporer 9 months ago
@TheDerekneseEmporer. I guess you could say that. Hawaii is a democratic monarchy. The first Consitiutional Monarchy in the world to have demorcatic forms of government. Mm-mmm. The main reason why America took over Hawaii, though knowing quite well that what they did was wrong, was because of military power. It is America's sysmbol of how they became the world military power today.
DeltaEagle7700 9 months ago
@DeltaEagle7700 That's a giant claim. I believe France and the UK were constitutional monarchy before Hawaii. Hawaiian monarchs weld more executive power than Queen Victoria or other British monarchs in their time.
SaveChinaTiger 2 months ago
@SaveChinaTiger. That is true. Yes, the UK was a Constitutional Monarchy before Hawaii was. Hawaii became a Constitutional Monarchy in the 1840's. Then eventually became a Unitary Legislative Democracy and a Constitutional Monarchy. And yes that is true. Queen Victoria verses the Kingdom of Hawaii did had more power then Britian's monarchy. But our system of government is different then England's system of government. And our monarchs when coming Constitutional, reduced their power in the years.
DeltaEagle7700 2 months ago
@TheDerekneseEmporer spellcheck
XXGDUBSXX 7 months ago
"unless preceded by war, the unilateral annexation of the territory of another State without contractual consent is illegal. It makes no difference that the territory involved may already be under the firm control of the State declaring the annexation." -Encylopedia of Public International Law III
yogi4itij 10 months ago
HAWAII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
historylover04 10 months ago
for the last queen does she or did she have any childrens....and can hawaii still have kings or queen's today.....
ciaali2001 1 year ago
@ciaali2001 No, but the family does continue and there is a "royal heir" today in Hawaii. However, as things stand now the islands cannot have a king or queen as long as they are a state in the Union as the Constitution requires all states to have a republican form of government. Hawaii would have to restore her independence in order to restore her monarchy.
MadMonarchist 1 year ago
@MadMonarchist who is the heir today?.. the pretender,,,, and how is she or he related to the last Queen?
JiminPalmSprings 1 year ago
@JiminPalmSprings The most generally recognized is Prince Quentin of Hawaii, aka Prince Kawānanakoa. His great-grandfather was the successor of the last Queen of Hawaii as head of the royal family.
MadMonarchist 1 year ago
@Hawnguy100
Thanks! Free Hawaii!
TheTEXANJEDI 1 year ago
Abc14ize 2 years ago 3
@Abc14ize Your list is really distorted. Who is Keko'iapouwa? If you mean Kamehameha's mother Kekuiapoiwa, she didn't rule. Before Kamehameha were at least twenty different kings that ruled just the big island of Hawaii stretching back all the way to the year 1000. The first 5 on your list is totally made up. Try Kiwalao, Kalaniopuu, Alapainui, Keawe II, Keakealaniwahine, Keakamahana.....
SaveChinaTiger 2 months ago
Good job MadMonarchist,
Aloha from Hawai'i.
MrNightOwl88 2 years ago 2
Free the Kingdom of Hawaii! Greetings and Support from the Texan Nationalist Movement!
TheTEXANJEDI 2 years ago 8
Yes, Free the Kingdom of Hawaii and then free the Texian Empire! Hurrah for Lamar and boo for Houston!
MadMonarchist 2 years ago
@MadMonarchist
Thats right here in Texas, Bob Wills is still the King! :D
TheTEXANJEDI 2 years ago
no matter who's in Austin lol
MadMonarchist 2 years ago
@MadMonarchist
Yeah one of the government types thats been suggested for an independent Texas is actualy a constitutional monarchy. If we choose that I think San Antonio would make a better capitol since it has more history and is filled with the most famous landmarks of Texas. They could still keep the senate in Austin since they already have everything they need there.
TheTEXANJEDI 2 years ago
I'm rather surprised to hear that. I would agree about SA -it already has a royal palace there. Of course even a mayor or city councilman probably wouldn't live in so small a house. Good enough for the reps of the King of Spain but not for a modern politician. Isn't that odd. ha
MadMonarchist 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheTEXANJEDI 2 years ago
@MadMonarchist
Yeah it realy is.
The monarchy movement must be very small because I only heard of it a few months ago, but I can see how people would consider it since monarchies tend to be more stable then most republics.
TheTEXANJEDI 2 years ago
Nicely done! I like the statue of Kamehameha with all the leis!
It sounds like Hawaii was pretty progressive in its system. A shame that it ended...
9ops 2 years ago
Well, the US *had* to invade and conquer Hawaii in order to protect it from foreign aggression! _____yes, I'm being very sarcastic. It is a shame that it ended and can only now be seen as a museum piece.
MadMonarchist 2 years ago
Awesome! I'm in Hawai'i right now. Splendid!
steeps24 2 years ago
lol It's like I know 8-o
MadMonarchist 2 years ago