History Podcasts

If the heir to a Kingdom is called Crown Prince, what is the heir to a Duchy called?

If the heir to a Kingdom is called Crown Prince, what is the heir to a Duchy called?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Just like the title said.

What a heir to a hereditary Duchy is called? (as opposed to someone appointed by a King). I mean a Duchy where the Duke inherited his title to his son/daughter.

Since the only sovereign Duchy in the world is Grand Duchy of Luxembourg where they styled the heir as "Hereditary Grand Duke", then is by the same analogy, the heir of a hereditary Duchy is "Hereditary Duke"?


The children of a sovereign Grand Duke may be titled "Prince" (Luxembourg, Tuscany, Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt, Saxe-Weimar) or "Duke" (Oldenburg) in accordance with the customs of the dynasty. The heir of the throne of a Grand Duchy is titled "Hereditary Grand Duke", as soon as he reaches the full legal age (majority). wikipedia

I continue to maintain that the real answer is, "Whatever the currently reigning Archduke says to call him", or "Whatever tradition says" - but wikipedia's (unsourced) assertion has some merit. If the ruler is sovereign then the heir apparent is a Prince.

Update: As @Semaphore has pointed out, Grand Dukes are distinct from Archdukes. The critical fact is that the duke is sovereign. A sovereign ruler use any title including Duke, Grand Duke, ArchDuke or "poobah and bottle washer"; the heir apparent to a sovereign rule is a "Prince" unless local tradition or autocratic decree mandates a different title.


Don't be misled by translations and cognates (words in different languages sharing a common root). German "mist" and English "mist" are cognates - but German "mist" is what farmers spread on their fields at night. Dignities are what they are, and reflect the specific history of every family - translation can only attempt description that is non-offending to title holders.

  • The Habspurg royal family has never used the title Archduke - that is an English-language description of the German title Erzherzog that attempts to place it into an English title system without insulting the dignity of any holders. The plain-language translation of "erz" from German to English is "ore" not "arch".

  • German Prinz(essin) are cognate to English "Prince(ss)" - but that doesn't make them the same. The Prince(sse)s Electors of the Holy Roman Empire were titled "Kurfürst(in)" and not Prinz(essin). Notwithstanding that "Kronprinz(essin)" and "Crown Prince" happen to have the same meaning, in German a ruling "prince(ss)" is most commonly a "Reichsfürst(in)", not of a "principality" but rather of a "Fürstentum".

  • The style of a sovereign is very much a political statement - in both formal and informal contexts. The style of British sovereigns included a claim to the French throne almost continuously from 1340 through 1801.

All claims contrary to the above are, frankly, mist - in the German sense.


Crown Prince is a colloquial (and descriptive) term, not a proper title. The phrase Heir Apparent likewise is simply a descriptive term rather than a title. The official title for various European royal heirs are:

  • England: Prince of Wales

  • Scotland: Duke of Rothesay

  • France: le Dauphin

  • Spain: Prince of Asturias

  • Netherlands: Prince of Orange

For British nobility (as opposed to royalty above) it is traditional for the heir of a peer to hold a courtesy title selected from the lesser titles held by the peer. In the case of a Duke this is most often a title of marquess, but may be earl or viscount depending on the lesser titles available. The heir of an heir in turn may be granted a courtesy title (from those available) at least one step down from his parent, and so on, until only Lord is available. Note that while holding only a courtesy title, such an heir would be eligible to sit in the House of Commons, not (yet) being a Peer eligible (only) to sit in the House of Lords.

For German nobility it was common for a nobles heir to prefix his parent's title with "Erb", as in "Erbgraf". William Addams Reitwiesner writes:

"Erb" in German (in this sense) means "hereditary"[… ] The oldest son and heir of a Mediatized Count would be an "Erbgraf". The oldest son and heir of a Grand Duke would be an "Erbgroßherzog". And so on. Another way of spelling the title would be "Erb-Prinz" or "Erb-Graf", etc. The wives of these men have equivalent feminine titles, such as"Erbprinzessin", "Erbgräfin", "Erbgroßherzogin", etc. The French form is "prince heredetaire", "comte heredetaire" "grand-duc heredetaire", etc. (toss in accents as appropriate).


In Europe some titles descend by primogeniture, and some titles descend to all agnatic (male line) descendants of the first title holder. And the same goes for hereditary rulers - in some principalities the rule descended to one person by primogeniture, but in other principalities the land divided among the sons of a ruler upon his death, so those principalities became smaller and smaller and more and more numerous over the years.

In the Lichtenstein dynasty, for example, the title of prince is shared by all members of the dynasty, but the rule of the principality descends to one person by agnatic primogeniture. So there are many princes of the Lichtenstein dynasty at any time but only one ruling and reigning prince of Lichtenstein at a time.

Many titles are granted so a higher title goes by primogeniture and a lower title goes to all agnatic members of the grantee's descendants. So the dynasty might have one duke and several lower ranking princes (or vice versa) or it might have one duke at a time and several counts, and so on in various other combinations.

As nearly as I can tell, it is common to describe the heir to the Duchy of X or Principality of Y as the hereditary duke of X or the Hereditary Prince of Y.

In the UK it is common for a noble to have a number of different titles. The Duke of A might be in full Duke of A, Marquess of B, Earl of C and D, Viscount of E, and Baron of F, G, H, and I, for example. So it is common to call a Duke's eldest son and heir apparent by the next senior title the Duke has - but that is just a courtesy title. So the Duke of A's heir could be called by the courtesy title of Marquess of B. And I guess the Duke's senior grandson could be called the Earl of C, and his senior great grandson could be called the Viscount of E, and his senior great great grandson could be called the Baron of F.

PS missing a letter from my keyboard.

added 03-20-2020 I put in the missing "w"s.


In a Sovereign duchy the title is either a specialized title of nobility, Count of N or the like, hereditary duke or prince. The heir of a non-reigning duke is Lord N, a lesser one of his/her father/mother's titles, or no title at all if he is a distant relative.

For example, the Grand Duke of Tuscany's Heir is the Grand Prince of Tuscany.


Life [ edit | edit source ]

Family [ edit | edit source ]

The prince was born on 15 January 1893 in Dresden, Saxony, Germany. Β] He was the son of Prince Frederick Augustus, the later King Frederick Augustus III and his wife, Louise, née Archduchess Louise of Austria-Tuscany. His siblings were the Princes Friedrich Christian and Ernst Heinrich and the Princesses Margarete, Maria Alix and Anna Monika

Youth and education [ edit | edit source ]

After his parents divorced in 1902, his father took sole parental responsibility for his children. He emphasized the Christian faith and a Catholic lifestyle. The children were educated by private tutors in a "prince's school" established by their father at the Saxon court. Most of the teachers were Protestants this contributed to his later ecumenical attitude. Georg became Crown Prince at age eleven, when his father acceded to the throne in 1904.

After graduating from high school in 1912, Georg studied political sciences for three months at the University of Breslau. He then began to study economics. During this time, he joined the KDSt.V. Winfridia.

First World War [ edit | edit source ]

After completing his studies in 1912, Georg joined the 1st Royal Saxon Lieb-Grenadier Regiment No. 100. His friend and fellow officer Ludwig Renn also served in that regiment at the time, Ludwig still used his birth name Arnold Friedrich Vieth von Golßenau.

Georg held the rank of Captain when he was sent to the front at the start of World War I. He suffered a serious leg injury during the first months of the war. Γ] In 1915, Kaiser Wilhelm II granted him the Iron Cross first class "in recognition of the services he rendered in the recent battles.". Γ]

On 27 July 1916, he was added to the staff of army group Gallwitz. On 30 August 1916, he received the Military Order of St. Henry for his services in this staff. Δ]

On 30 November 1917, he was promoted to major and made commander of the 5th Royal Saxon Infantry Regiment "Crown Prince" No. 104. He commanded this regiment on both the Eastern and the Western Front. He held this command until 22 May 1918.

Engaged to be married [ edit | edit source ]

In the spring of 1918, newspapers announced the prince's engagement to Duchess Marie Amelia, daughter of Albrecht, Duke of Württemberg, the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Württemberg. Ώ] The end of the Saxon monarchy and the prince's desire to become a priest apparently led to the end of the engagement. The duchess died unmarried in 1923. Ε]

Jesuit priest [ edit | edit source ]

Crown Prince Georg in 1916, by Robert Sterl

When Germany lost the war, the monarchies in Germany collapsed. Georg's father on 13 November 1918. This marked a fundamental turning point in his career planning. In 1919, he decided to renounce his rights on the Saxon throne, and become a Catholic priest instead. This decision was very controversial among people who hopen that the monarchy might one day be restored, and also met with significant concerns from the side of the Catholic Church. For example, Franz Löbman, the Apostolic Vicar for Saxony and Lusatia, and Archbishop Adolf Bertram of Breslau initially held that Georg should continue to hold political responsibility for Saxony. Nevertheless, Georg entered the Franciscan Order. Ζ] After his ordination, the prince was generally known as Vater Georg (Father George) and used the last name von Sachsen. Α] Η]

Finding the Franciscan life too intellectually limiting, Georg soon applied to transfer to the Jesuits instead. Ζ] In the winter semester 1919/20, he studied philosophy at the University of Tübingen. During this period, he joined the A.V. Guestfalia Tübingen . In the next semester, he studied at the University of Breslau.

In the winter semester 1920/21, he began studying theology at the University of Freiburg. He joined the KDSt.V. Hohenstaufen and Saxo-Thuringia. He completed this study in 1923. In the same year, he formally renounced his rights to the Saxon throne and became a Jesuit priest. ⎖] He worked in Berlin where he was credited with protecting Jews from the Nazi regime ⎗] in notable contrast to his pro-Nazi brothers-in-law, Prince Frederich of Hohenzollern and Prince Franz Joseph of Hohenzolllern-Emden.

He was ordained as priest in Trzebnica on 15 July 1924 by Bishop Christian Schreiber of Meissen. The next day, he celebrated his first mass at the royal palace in Szczodre (German: Sibyllenort . His uncle Maximilian gave homily during this service. After his ordination, Georg worked as an auxilliary priest in his native Diocese of Meissen.

He then continued his studies at the Jesuit Collegium Canisianum in Innsbruck. In the fall of 1925, he joined the Upper German province of the Society of Jesus, however, in 1927, he switched to the East German province, which included his native Saxony. From 1928 to 1930, he studied at a Jesuit college in Valkenburg.

From 1933, he did pastoral work in Berlin. He helped building the Jesuit residence Canisius College with the Catholic Gymnasium at Lietzensee. He took his final vows in Berlin in 1936. He gave lectures and spiritual exercises all over Germany. In his lectures, he promoted ecumenism and in particular the Una Sancta movement. Among his friends were spiritual leaders of different religions.

Opponent of Nazism [ edit | edit source ]

During one of his many lectures, he said in Meissen in 1929, referring to the increasing antisemitic agitation by some right-wing parties: Love is the order of the day in the relationship between Catholics and Protestant, and also to our Jewish fellow citizens. So he opposed Nazism from the beginning. He was unbearable for him that the Nazi Party and after 1933 the state vilified and sought to destroy core values that were important to him personally — monarchical and dynastic Saxon traditions and fundamental values of Western Christianity. He felt that his family honor was offended and his work as a pastor was significantly impeded. As crictic of the regime and a member of the former Saxon royal family, but in particular as a Catholic priest and a member of the Jesuit order, he was seen as highly suspect by the Nazi regime. He was shadowed by the Gestapo because he helped Jews leaving the country and he helped opposition politician hiding for the regime. Sometimes, he had to go into hiding himself, and the police searched his home several times. He knew some of the people who later attempted the failed 20 July plot, in particular Ulrich von Hassell and general Paul von Hase. It is not clear whether he actually participated in the resistance.

Death [ edit | edit source ]

The former prince died on 14 May 1943 apparently while swimming in the Groß Glienicke Lake in Berlin, Germany. ⎘] Georg's diary was found on the lakeshore with a final Latin entry reading Vado ad patrem , Ζ] which is the Latin version of a phrase Jesus frequently spoke to his disciples in the Gospel of John and means "I go to the Father" or "I go to my Father." ⎙] His body was found several weeks after his death. Some people, including his brother Ernst Heinrich expressed doubts that his death had been an accident. Nevertheless, the autopsy determined that he died after suffering a heart attack. Ζ]

He was buried in the Catholic Church of the Royal Court of Saxony, today known as the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, in Dresden on 16 June 1943. His grave was disturbed by Russian soldiers in 1945 and later by the floods of August 2002.


On Crown consent

Crown consent has been in the news recently. For those who haven’t seen the stories, a couple of British newspapers reported that the Queen and Prince of Wales had used a ‘secret’ veto power to stop bills from making their way through Parliament. The reports gave the impression that the Queen and Prince were going out of their way to interfere with the legislative process, killing bills that they didn’t like. One as might expect, journalists are now trying to see if a link can be made between this supposedly secret veto and Prince Charles’ habit of writing to ministers regarding his particular hobbyhorses. In light of all this, a committee of the British House of Commons has decided to look into this so-called royal ‘veto’ power.

What lies behind these charges and concerns? The issue at hand is an opaque royal privilege called Crown consent. As outlined by the British Cabinet Office (PDF), this privilege requires that bills touching on the prerogatives of the Crown, the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the property and interests of the Sovereign as a natural person be granted the Queen’s consent before they receive royal assent and become laws. Similarly, the Prince Charles’ consent is required for bills touching on the Duchy of Cornwall or his position as the Prince of Wales.

At first blush this privilege appears undemocratic and unjustifiable. Yet when one looks at how Crown consent is used and why is exists, the practice appears far less scandalous it can even be defended.

The first point to note is that Crown consent is normally granted or withheld on the advice of ministers. Despite references to a royal ‘veto’, Crown consent is actually a privilege that is exercised on ministerial advice and with the executive’s concerns in mind. Likewise, it is up to ministers to secure the Crown’s consent for legislation, if need be. The idea that the Queen or Prince are running around refusing to consent to bills doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. While there may be very, very rare cases where the Queen might signal her personal opposition to a bill and warn her ministers that she would rather not grant consent, the decision is ultimately left with ministers and she must accept their choice.

Next, we should recognize that there are two types of Crown consent: prerogative consent and interest consent. Let’s take a look at the rationale behind both.

Prerogative consent is required for bills that affect the Crown’s prerogative powers. However, prerogative consent is not required if the Crown’s powers are not directly or substantially affected. The logic for maintaining prerogative consent is to protect key executive authorities and the constitutional powers of the Sovereign from ill-advised statutory infringements and alterations. A bill that tried to make parliamentary approval a precondition for exercising the Crown’s power to deploy armed forces should probably not be given consent unless it takes emergency circumstances and other exceptions into account. Likewise, a bill that attempted to terminate the Sovereign’s power to dismiss a prime minister might not be given the Crown’s consent unless it included alternative means of removing a head of government under certain situations.

Is prerogative consent democratic? I think so. The principle behind it is that the executive requires certain discretionary powers and that these authorities should only be circumscribed with great care and caution. Moreover, if Parliament is faced with a government that is withholding Crown consent on spurious grounds, then the House of Commons is free to withdraw its confidence in the government, and attempt to replace it with a new ministry that is willing to provide the Crown’s consent. In the same vein, the constitutional powers of the Sovereign should only be erased by legislation that provides equal or better protection for the constitution than the monarch’s personal discretion. And here again, if a government is seen as obstructionist or overly protective of the Sovereign’s constitutional powers, then the ministry can always be removed by the House of Commons.

Interest consent is required for bills that affect the Crown Estate, Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, and the personal interests and property of the monarch. This type of Crown consent exists to safeguard the political independence of the Sovereign. In the United Kingdom, the Sovereign meets regularly with the prime minister. Both the Sovereign and Prince of Wales can also express their personal views and concerns about matters of policy and state, though these are non-binding. In exceptional circumstances, furthermore, the Sovereign may be required to exercise her personal constitutional powers, and the Prince of Wales could be required to so do if named regent. To ensure that the Sovereign and Prince of Wales are independent when performing these functions, they must never make decisions under duress. Accordingly, interest consent exists to guarantee that parliamentarians are unable to target the Crown Estate or the personal property of the Queen or Prince in an effort to coerce or threaten the Sovereign or Prince of Wales. Now, this does not mean that Parliament cannot alter the Crown Estate. It has done so before and surely will again. But it does mean that the Queen cannot be easily threatened with a vast reduction in income or personal wealth as part of some scheme to sway her politically or get her to promote certain positions. Interest consent, then, exists to protect the impartiality of the constitutional monarch and head of state in the United Kingdom. (In Canada, a similar principle explains the generous financial privileges that were previously accorded to the Governor General.)

To conclude, it’s worth recalling that Crown consent applies to the Crown of Canada, too. However, insofar as Sovereign of Canada does not have Crown Estates or duchies, and the monarch interests and property as a natural person do not affect the how the Crown operates here, Canadian Crown consent involves prerogative consent alone.


Contents

Sometimes, the crown commonly depicted and used in heraldry differs significantly from any specific physical crown that may be used by a monarchy.

Photograph of the physical crown of Norway

Representation of the physical crown of Norway

The heraldic crown for the King of Norway

If the bearer of a coat of arms has the title of baron or higher (or hereditary knight in some countries), he or she may display a coronet of rank above the shield, usually below the helm in British heraldry, and often above the crest (if any) in Continental heraldry.

In this case, the appearance of the crown or coronet follows a strict set of rules. A royal coat of arms may display a royal crown, such as that of Norway. A princely coat of arms may display a princely crown, and so on.

A mural crown is commonly displayed on coats of arms of towns and some republics. Other republics may use a so-called people's crown or omit the use of a crown altogether. The heraldic forms of crowns are often inspired by the physical appearance of the respective country's actual royal or princely crowns.

Ships and other units of some navies have a naval crown, composed of the sails and sterns of ships, above the shield of their coats of arms. Squadrons of some air forces have an astral crown, composed of wings and stars. There is also the Eastern crown, made up of spikes, and when each spike is topped with a star, it becomes a celestial crown. [1]

Whereas most county councils in England use mural crowns, there is a special type of crown that was used by Scottish county councils. It was composed of spikes, was normally shown vert (green) and had golden wheat sheaves between the spikes. [2] Today, most of the Scottish unitary authorities still use this "wheat sheaf crown", but it is now the usual gold.

In formal English, the word crown is reserved for the crown of a monarch, whereas the word coronet is used for all other crowns used by members of the British royal family and peers of the realm.

In the British peerage, the design of a coronet shows the rank of its owner, as in German, French and various other heraldic traditions. The coronet of a duke has eight strawberry leaves, that of a marquess has four strawberry leaves and four silver balls (known as "pearls", but not actually pearls), that of an earl has eight strawberry leaves and eight "pearls" raised on stalks, that of a viscount has sixteen "pearls", and that of a peerage baron or (in Scotland) lord of parliament has six "pearls". Between the 1930s and 2004, feudal barons in the baronage of Scotland were granted a chapeau or cap of maintenance as a rank insignia. [ citation needed ] This is placed between the shield and helmet in the same manner as a peer's coronet. Since a person entitled to heraldic headgear customarily displays it above the shield and below the helm and crest, this can provide a useful clue as to the owner of a given coat of arms.

Members of the British royal family have coronets on their coats of arms, and they may wear physical versions at coronations. They are according to regulations made by King Charles II in 1661, shortly after his return from exile in France (getting a taste for its lavish court style Louis XIV started monumental work at Versailles that year) and Restoration, and they vary depending upon the holder's relationship to the monarch. Occasionally, additional royal warrants vary the designs for individuals.

In Canadian heraldry, special coronets are used to designate descent from United Empire Loyalists. A military coronet signifies ancestors who served in Loyalist regiments during the American Revolution, while a civil coronet is used by all others. The loyalist coronets are used only in heraldry, never worn.


There are some today who mistakenly believe that if they can show a family genealogy that traces back to a Hawaiian ali‘i (nobility) they can lay claim to the throne. If this were true than anyone can lay claim. But it is not true because the Hawaiian Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy that provides rules and protocol.

The first rule is that under Hawaiian law titles of nobility are not inheritable. However, in Europe titles of nobility are inheritable, which traces back to the Middle Ages. This is a feudal rule that developed when the nobility were able to inherit their lands and consequently their titles were also inheritable within the family. The Hawaiian Kingdom did not rise from the Middle Ages. It is Polynesian. According to Article 35 of the 1864 Hawaiian Constitution “All Titles of Honor, Orders, and other distinctions, emanate from the King.”

Three Estates of the Hawaiian Kingdom

The government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is a constitutional and limited monarchy comprised of three Estates: the Monarch, Nobles and the People. An Estate is defined as a “political class.” All three political classes work in concert and provides for the legal basis of the government and its authority. Article 45 of the 1864 Hawaiian constitution, provides: “The Legislative power of the Three Estates of this Kingdom is vested in the King, and the Legislative Assembly which Assembly shall consist of the Nobles appointed by the King, and of the Representatives of the People, sitting together.”

This provision is further elaborated under §768, Hawaiian Civil Code (Compiled Laws, 1884), “The Legislative Department of this Kingdom is composed of the King, the House of Nobles, and the House of Representatives, each of whom has a negative on the other, and in whom is vested full power to make all manner of wholesome laws, as they shall judge for the welfare of the nation, and for the necessary support and defense of good government, provided the same is not repugnant or contrary to the Constitution.” As each Estate has a negative on each other, no law can be passed without all three Estates agreeing.

According to Hawaiian law “No person shall ever sit upon the Throne, who has been convicted of any infamous crime, or who is insane, or an idiot (Article 25, 1864 Constitution),” which, by extension, extends to the Nobles whereby “The King appoints the members of the House of Nobles, who hold their seats during life, unless in case of resignation, subject, however, to punishment for disorderly behavior. The number of members of the House of Nobles shall not exceed thirty (§771, Compiled Laws).”

Representatives of the People shall be Hawaiian subjects or denizens “who shall have arrived at the full age of twenty-five years, who shall know how to read and write who shall understand accounts, and who shall have resided in the Kingdom for at least one year immediately preceding his election provided always, that no person who is insane, or an idiot, or who shall at any time have been convicted of theft, bribery, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, polygamy, or other high crime or misdemeanor, shall ever hold seat as Representative of the people (§778, Compiled Laws).”

The number of the Representatives of the people in the Legislature shall be twenty-eight: eight for the Island of Hawai‘i (one for the district of North Kona, one for the district of South Kona, One for the district of Ka‘u, one for the district Puna, two for the district of Hilo, one for the district Hamakua, one for the district of Kohala) seven for the Island of Maui (two for the districts of Lahaina, Olowalu, Ukumehame, and Kaho‘olawe, one for the districts of Kahakuloa and Ka‘anapali, one for the districts of Waihe‘e and Honuaula, one for the districts of Kahikinui and Ko‘olau, one for the districts of Hamakualoa and Kula) two for the Islands of Molokai and Lanai eight for the Island of O‘ahu (four for the districts of Honolulu that extends from Maunalua to Moanalua, one for the districts of Ewa and Waianae, one for the district of Waialua, one for the district of Ko‘olauloa, and one for the district of Ko‘olaupoko) and three for the island of Kaua‘i (one for the districts of Waimea, Nualolo, Hanapepe and the Island of Ni‘ihau, one for the districts of Puna, Wahiawa and Wailua, and one for the districts of Hanalei, Kapa‘a and ‘Awa‘awapuhi) (§780, Compiled Laws).

Electors of the Representatives shall be Hawaiian subjects or denizens “who shall have paid his taxes, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have been domiciled in the Kingdom for one year immediately preceding the election, and shall know how to read and write, if born since the year 1840, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters of his district…shall be entitled to one vote for Representative or Representatives of that district provided, however, that no insane or idiotic person, or any person who shall have been convicted of any infamous crime within this Kingdom unless he shall have been pardoned by the King, and by the terms, and by the terms of such pardon have been restored to all the rights of a subject, shall be allowed to vote (p. 222, Compiled Laws).”

The Estate of the Crown

The first constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom was promulgated in 1840 by King Kamehameha III, which was superseded by the 1852 Constitution. Article 25 of the 1852 Constitution provided: “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.” Kamehameha III proclaimed his adopted son, Alexander Liholiho, to be his heir apparent after receiving confirmation from the Nobles in 1853. Alexander ascended to the Throne upon the death of King Kamehameha III on December 15, 1854.

King Kamehameha V ascended to the Throne through the process of appointment by the Premier (Kuhina Nui) Victoria Kamamalu, and confirmation by the Nobles in 1863, because Kamehameha IV had no surviving children. His son and heir, Prince Albert Kamehameha, died at the age of four on August 27, 1862. Since the young Prince’s death, Kamehameha IV did not appoint a successor before he died on November 30, 1863. According to the 1852 Constitution, Article 47 provided, “Whenever the throne shall become vacant by reason of the King’s death…the Kuhina Nui, for the time being, shall…perform all the duties incumbent on the King, and shall have and exercise all the powers, which by this Constitution are vested in the King.”

In 1864, a new constitution was promulgated by King Kamehameha V, and Article 22 of the 1864 Constitution provides that, “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 the 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 to the heirs of her body.” Princess Kamamalu died on May 29, 1866 without any lineal descendants, leaving the successors to the Throne solely with King Kamehameha V.

Since Kamehameha V had no children, Article 22 of the 1864 Constitution provides that a “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 such 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 Ali‘i of the Kingdom as Successor to the Throne.” The Cabinet Council replaced the function of the Premier (Kuhina Nui) under the former constitution, whose office was repealed by the 1864 Constitution, and according to Article 33 would serve as a Council of Regency.

On December 11, 1872, Kamehameha V died without children and he did not appoint a successor. Kamehameha V’s Cabinet, as a Council of Regency, convened the Legislative Assembly in special session on January 8, 1873. A regent is a person or persons who serve in the absence of a monarch. In their speech to the Legislature, the Council stated:

“His late Majesty did not appoint any successor in the mode set forth in the Constitution, with the consent of the Nobles or make 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, and Ordered—That a meeting of the Legislative Assembly be caused to be holden at the Court House in Honolulu, on Wednesday which will be the eighth day of January, A.D. 1873, at 12 o’clock noon and of this order all Members of the Legislative Assembly will take notice and govern themselves accordingly. By virtue of this Order you have been assembled, to elect by ballot, some native Ali‘i of this Kingdom as Successor to the Throne. Your present authority is limited to this duty, but the newly elected Sovereign may require your services after his accession.”

On that day the Legislature elected Lunalilo as King. From December 11, 1872 to January 8, 1873, the Kingdom was headed by a Council of Regency. Article 33 of the 1864 Constitution provides that “the Cabinet Council at the time of such decease shall be a Council of Regency…who shall administer the Government in the name of the King, and exercise all the Powers which are Constitutionally vested in the King.”

The Legislative Assembly convened again in special session on February 12, 1874 and elected King Kalakaua after Lunalilo, who died without children, failed to appoint a successor. Upon ascension to the Throne, King Kalakaua appointed his brother Prince William Pitt Leleiohoku as his heir apparent and received confirmation from the Nobles. Leleiohoku died April 10, 1877, which prompted Kalakaua to immediately appoint his sister on the same day, Princess Lili‘uokalani, as his heir apparent and he received confirmation from the Nobles. An heir apparent is a person who is first in line of succession to the Throne according to Hawaiian law and cannot be displaced. An heir presumptive, however, is the person, male or female, entitled to succeed to the Throne, but can be replaced by an heir apparent pronounced according to Hawaiian law.

When the Legislative Assembly elected King Kalakaua in 1874, a new Stirps had effectively replaced the former Stirps, being the Kamehameha dynasty, with the Keawe-a-Heulu dynasty. Although Lunalilo was an elected King, he was of the Kamehameha dynasty, through Kamehameha’s father, Keoua. Stirps is a direct “line descending from a common ancestor,” and applies to monarchical dynasties. The Stirps for the Kamehameha Dynasty was a direct line from Kamehameha with Keopuolani, being the highest ranking of his wives. Lunalilo was not a direct descendant of Kamehameha, but a direct descendant of Kamehameha’s father, Keoua, whose son, Kalaimamahu, was Kamehameha’s half-brother.

Keawe-a-Heulu was one of the four counselor chiefs to Kamehameha I when the islands were consolidated under one kingdom. The other three counselor chiefs were Ke‘eaumoku, Kamanawa and Kame‘eiamoku. Ke‘eaumoku was the father of Ka‘ahumanu, one of Kamehameha’s wives and who later served as Prime Minister after Kamehameha’s death in 1819. Kamanawa and Kame‘eiamoku were brothers and are also represented in the Hawaiian Kingdom’s coat of arms.

The Kamehameha dynasty also included the descendants of Kamehameha’s other wives, other than Keopuolani who was the mother of Kamehameha II and III, and the young Princess Nahienaena. These wives and children included: Peleuli who had Maheha Kapulikoliko, Kahoanoku Kina‘u, Kaiko‘olani and Kiliwehi Kaheiheimalie who had Kamamalu and Kina‘u, who was the mother of Kamehameha IV and V, and Premier Victoria Kamamalu.

In 1883, the Keawe-a-Heulu Stirps was formally declared at the Coronation of King Kalakaua and Queen Kapi‘olani. Princess Lili‘uokalani as the heir apparent, and the heirs presumptive, being Princess Virginia Kapo‘oloku Po‘omaikelani, Princess Kinoiki, Princess Victoria Kawekiu Kai‘ulani Lunalilo Kalaninuiahilapalapa, Prince David Kawananakoa, Prince Edward Abnel Keli‘iahonui, and Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole comprised the new royal lineage.

Queen Lili‘uokalani appointed Princess Ka‘iulani as her heir apparent in 1891, but was unable to get confirmation by the Nobles because they were prevented from entering the Legislative Assembly as a result of the so-called 1887 bayonet constitution that began the insurgency. In 1917, Queen Lili‘uokalani died with no such appointment or Proclamation leaving the Throne vacant. After the Queen’s death, only Prince Kuhio was left of the heirs presumptive. All the rest had died. Of the heirs presumptive, only Prince David Kawananakoa died with lineal descendants, but these lineal descendants did not inherit the title of heirs presumptive because they were not proclaimed as such by a reigning Monarch, as King Kalakaua did by proclamation in 1883. While these lineal descendants have no claim to the Throne, they are part of the Estate of the Ali‘i (Chiefs).

Crown Lands

Under the 1848 Great Mahele (Division), the King and Chiefs divided their interest between themselves and the Government. Under an Act Act relating to the lands of His Majesty the King and of the Government of June 7, 1848, the King separated his lands to be called Crown lands from the Government. In the Act it stated:

Know all men by these presents, that I, Kamehameha III, by the grace of God, King of the Hawaiian Islands, have given this day of my own free will and have made over and set apart forever to the chiefs and people the larger part of my royal land, for the use and benefit of the Hawaiian Government, therefore by this instrument I hereby retain (or reserve) for myself and for my heirs and successors forever, my lands inscribed at pages 178, 182, 184, 186, 190, 194, 200, 204, 206, 210, 212, 214, 216, 218, 220, 222, of this book, these lands are set apart for me and for my heirs and successors forever, as my own property exclusively.

The “book” Kamehameha was referencing the page numbers was the 1848 Buke Mahele also called the Mahele Book.

In 1863, the Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court decided a case titled In the Matter of the Estate of His Majesty Kamehameha IV, 2 Haw. 715 (1863). The case centered on dower rights of Queen Kalama wife of Kamehameha III and Queen Emma wife of Kamehameha IV. The case also clarified who are the successors to the nearly one million acres of Crown land. The Supreme Court stated:

By the said Act, which is entitled “An Act relating to the lands of his Majesty the King and of the Government,” the lands reserved to the then reigning sovereign, descend in fee, the inheritance being limited to the successors to the throne, each successive possessor having the right to dispose of the same as private property.

The heirs and successors to the Crown lands are successors to the throne and not the family. In 1864, Kamehameha V asked the Legislature to remove all encumbrances such as mortgage liens on the property that had greatly encumbered the Crown lands.

That year on January 3, the Legislature passed An Act to Relieve the Royal Domain from Encumbrances (January 3, 1865).This Act authorized the Minister of Finance to issue government bonds up to $30,000.00, and the money received through the bonds would pay off the debt lenders had on the Crown in order to release the mortgages. After the debts were cleared, the Act made Crown lands inalienable and limited the ownership of tenants to 30 year leases. By making the Crown lands inalienable they were no longer capable of being mortgaged.

The Act also established a Board of Commissioners of Crown Lands who collected the lease rent. The Commissioners of Crown Lands managed the purse of the Crown. There was no tax that the people paid for to maintain the office of the Crown.

Currently, there are pretenders to the Estate of the Crown. Some claims are well known, while others are not, but all claims to the Crown lands have no basis in Hawaiian law because Her late Majesty Queen Lili‘uokalani did not appoint and thereafter proclaim her successor in accordance with the law as it was done in the past. The office of the Crown can only be filled by an election by the Legislative Assembly as it was done in the case of King Lunalilo in 1873 and King Kalakaua in 1874.

The Estate of Nobles (Chiefs)

The political class of Ali‘i is an integral component of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its government and has its origin deeply rooted in Polynesian society. The entire land system of the Kingdom that continues to exist today is grounded and based on actions taken by the Ali‘i such as the granting of Royal Patents, Land Commission Awards, and the Great Land Division (Mahele) between the Government and Chiefs, which also set the terms of division between both the Government and Chiefs and native tenants desiring to get a fee-simple title to their lands.

In 1880, confusion as to who comprises the Hawaiian nobility got the Hawaiian Legislature to enact “An Act to Perpetuate the Genealogy of the Chiefs of Hawaii.” In the preamble of the act it stated, “at the present day it is difficult to ascertain who are the chiefs, as contemplated by said Article of the Constitution, and it is proper that such genealogies of the kingdom be perpetuated.”

According to the Rules of the Board, their principle duties are: “1. To gather, revise, correct and record the Genealogy of Chiefs. 2. To gather, revise, correct and record all published and unpublished Ancient Hawaiian History. 3. To gather, revise, correct and record all published and unpublished Meles (Songs), and also to ascertain the object and the spirit of the Meles, the age and the History of the period when composed and to note the same on the Record Book. 4. To record all the tabu customs of the Mois (Kings) and Chiefs.”

In its Report in 1884, the Board stated it was examining copies of genealogical books by Kamokuiki, Kaoo, Kaunahi, Unauna, Hakaleleponi, Piianaia, Kalaualu and David Malo, and that the “Board has not entered into revision of these books and those written by foreign historians as the time has been taken up mostly in attesting the genealogy of those that have applied to have their genealogy established.” The Board also reported, that it “has avoided entering into controversies with the genealogical discussions that have been going on for a year or more in the local Hawaiian newspapers, as these discussions have been more or less conducted in a partisan spirit instead of on scientific principles. They loose the merit of usefulness by the hostilities assumed by the contending writers.”

On July 5, 1887, the newly appointed Cabinet Council and two members of the Supreme Court committed the high crime of treason by coercing King Kalakaua to sign a new constitution under threat of assassination. This so-called constitution came to be known as the Bayonet Constitution and was never submitted to the Legislative Assembly for approval, which is required under law. Hawaiian constitutional law provides that any proposed change to the constitution must be submitted to the Legislative Assembly, and upon majority agreement, would be deferred to the next legislative session for action. Once the next legislature convened, and the proposed amendment or amendments were “agreed to by two-thirds of all members of the Legislative Assembly, and be approved by the King, such amendment or amendments shall become part of the Constitution of this country (Article 80, 1864 Constitution).”

This so-called constitution was drafted by a select group of twenty individuals and effectively placed control of the Legislature and Cabinet in the hands of individuals who held foreign allegiances, which led to the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government by the United States of America. The leader of this insurgency, Lorrin Thruston, was the Minister of the Interior, and he refused to fund the Board of Genealogists as required by law. In a letter to Her Royal Highness Princess Po‘omaikelani, President of the Genealogical Board, dated July 29, 1887, Thurston writes, “I beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 27th inst. in which you state the labors of the board need not be suspended because the appropriation cannot be paid. There can, of course, be no objection to a continuation of the work of the Board of Genealogy so long as it is carried out without expense to the Government.”

Despite the lack of government funding and the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, the Board continued their work to compile the genealogies of Hawaiian Chiefs (Mo‘okua‘auhau Ali‘i) that were eventually published in the Ka Maka‘ainana newspaper in the year 1896.

The acting Government is providing these publications, which are in the Hawaiian language, to the public at large with a link to the original publication in PDF by date of the publication. The names of Hawaiian Chiefs below are printed as they are written in the published genealogies, which did not have any diacritical markers such as the ‘okina or kahako. The English translations of these publications can be drawn from Edith Kawelohea McKinzie and Ishmael W. Stagner, II, Hawaiian Genealogies, vol. 1. A basic glossary of terms that can be used to understand the published genealogies are:

“k” is short for kane (male)
“w” is short for wahine (female)
noho (to live with, but used to mean the same as marriage)
mare (married)
a‘ohe pua (no lineal descendants)
kuamo‘o (lineage)
kuauhau (genealogy)
loa‘a (had)
mo‘o kuauhau (genealogical succession)

June 1, 1896—Genealogies of King Kamehameha IV and King Lunalilo, both of whom died without lineal descendants.

June 8, 1896—Genealogies of King Kalakaua and Queen Liliuokalani, both of whom died without lineal descendants.

June 15, 1896—Genealogy of Princess Kaiulani, who died without lineal descendants.

June 29, 1896—Genealogies of Queen Kapiolani, who died without lineal descendants Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole who died without lineal descendants and David Kawananakoa.

July 6, 1896—Genealogies of William Piikoi Wond, Lydia Kamakee Cummins, and Maraea Cummins Daisy Napulahaokalani, Eva Kuwailanimamao, Roberto Kalaninuikupuaikalaninui Keoua and Virginia Kahoa Kaahumanu Kaihikapumahana.

July 13, 1896—Genealogy of Albert Kekukailimoku Kunuiakea who died without lineal descendants.

July 20, 1896—Genealogies of Princess Bernice Pauahi who dies without lineal descendants, Princess Ruth Keelikolani who died without lineal descendants, and John Kamehamehanui who died without lineal descendants.

July 27, 1896—Genealogies of Alexandrina Leihulu Kapena who died without lineal descendants, Edward Kamakau Lilikalani, and Annie Palekaluhi Kaikioewa who died without lineal descendants.

August 3, 1896—Genealogies of Sabina Kahinu Beckley, Frederick Kahapula Beckley, Jr., and Frederica Beckley Leander Kaonowailani, Violet Kahaleluhi Kinoole, Grace Namahana i Kaleleokalani, Frederick Malulani, George Heaalii and Benjamin Kameeiamoku William Kauluheimalama Beckley, Henry Hoolulu Beckley, Juanita Beckley, and George Mooheau Beckley, Jr. Henry Hoolulu Pitman, Mary Kinoole (Mrs. Mary Ailau), and Benjamin Pitman, Jr. Robert Hoapili Baker, Henry Kanuha, and Rev. J. Kauhane of Kau.

August 10, 1896—Genealogies of William Hoapili Kaauwai, Jr., Luka Kaauwai and Lydia Kahanu Kaauwai Mary Parker (Mrs. Maguire), Eva Kalanikauleleiaiwi Kahiluonapuaonahonoapiilani Parker, Helen Umiokalani Parker, John Palmer Parker, Hattie Kaonohilani Parker, Palmer Kuihelani Parker, Samuel Keaoililani Parker, Ernest Napela Parker, and James Kekookalani Parker.

August 17, 1896—Genealogies of Lydia Kamakanoe Kanehoa, Albert Kaleinoanoa Kanehoa, Jno Kupakee Kanehoa, Davida K. Hoapili Kanehoa, and Maria Kalehuaikawekiu Kanehoa Hoapiliwahine-a-Kanehoa and the children of Makainai-a-Kuakini and Kauina, being Jesse Makainai, Keeaumoku, Kapaleiliahi, Kaumaumaeha, Hoapili Liilii, and Paulo Hoapili Henry St. John Kaleookekoi Nahaolelua, George William Lua Nahaolelua, John Vivian St. John Kapokini Nahaolelua, Charles Kalaninoheainamoku Nahaolelua, Albert Kamainiualani Nahaolelua, Alexander Pahukula Kuanamoa Nahaolelua, Elizabeth Alice Kalakini Nahaolelua, and Emma Rhoda Kaaiohelo Nahaolelua William Kapahukula Enelani Stevens who died without lineal descendants, and Keliikui Stevens who also died with lineal descendants.

August 24, 1896—Genealogies of Rose Kekupuohi Simerson, William Kuakini Simerson and Isaac Kaleialii Simerson and the children of Annie Niulii and Kahaleaahu, being Helen Kalolowahilani, John Paalua and David Kauluhaimalama.

August 31, 1896—Genealogies of Annie Thelma Kahiluonapuaonahonoapiilani Parker Kahaule-o-Kuakini and Mrs. Maluhi Reis John Meek, Jr. and Maraea Kaoaopa died without lineal descendants.

September 7, 1896—Genealogies of Adele Mikahala Unauna, John Koii Unauna, Maraea Kapumakokoulaokalani Unauna, Kaniu Unauna, Kahelemanolani Unauna, Jane Kulokuloku Unauna, Hattie Kaauamookalani Unauna and James Kalimaila Unauna Julia Kailimahuna Koii, Lydia Kahuakai Koii, Lydia Kahuakai Koii, David Koii who died without lineal descendants, and Esther Namahana Koii Julia Kapakuialii Kalaninuipoaimoku Doiron and Moses Koii Luhaukapewa Doiron William Kahoapili Kekohimoku Alohikea, Alfred Unauna Alohikea, David Kauahiaalaiwilani Kaili Alexander Boki Reis, Palmyra Lonokahikini Reis, and Helen Kekumualii Reis and Helina Kaiwaokalani Maikai, David Unualoha Maikai, Samuela Kahilolaamea Maikai, and Abigaila Kalanikuikepo‘oloku Maikai.

October 5, 1896—Genealogies of Stella Keomailani Cockett who died without lineal descendants and the child of Kekulu and Kaiakoili, being David Kalani.

October 19, 1896—Genealogies of Tilly Kaumakaokane Cummins, Thomas Keauiaole Cummins, and John T. Walker Cummins King Keaweaua Mersberg, James Kahai Mersberg, Jr., Lily Kahalewai Mersberg, Marie Mersberg, Lydia Mersberg, Jane Piilani Mersberg, and Charles Mersberg John Adams Kaenakulani Cummins, Thomas C. Kaihikapu Cummins, and Raplee Kawelokalani Cummins May Kaaolani Cummins Creighton Flora Kahanolani Cummins children of Kekupuo-i Ponilani Kaiama (w), Margaret Loe Kaiama, Esther Nahaukapuokalani Kaiama, Levi Kaiama and Keliimaikai Kaiama Grace Kamaikui Piianaia, Niaupio Piianaia, and Heulumanawaokalani Piianaia (k) Phoebe Ulualoha Wilcox and Daniel Kekuhio Keliiaa and Kekukamaikalani Keliiaa.

October 26, 1896—Genealogy of Katherine Kaonohiulaokalani Brown who died without lineal descendants.

November 2, 1896—Genealogy Hana Kaunahi and Akahi who both died without lineal descendants.

After the death of Prince Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole on January 13, 1922, the Associated Press reported, “Fourteen chiefs selected by the committee from the high chiefs of Hawaii will bear the casket of Prince Kuhio at the funeral Sunday morning. The selection are Henry P. Beckley, Edwin Kea, David Hoapili, Sr., Kaliinonao, John Nahaolelua, Alex Nahaolelua, Jesse Makainai, William Simerson, John H. Wise, William Taylor, Geo. Kalohapauole, David Maikai, Ahapuni Boyd, Clement Parker, Samuel Parker, Jr., as bearer of orders and David Hoapili, Jr. as bearer of the tabu stick.” These men were selected from the Estate of Ali‘i (Chiefs).

Any person today who is a direct lineal descendant of the Hawaiian Chiefs identified in these published genealogies belong to the Estate of Nobles (Chiefs), and are eligible to be appointed as Nobles in the Legislative Assembly and/or to the Throne in accordance with Hawaiian law.

The Estate of the People

Any person today who is a direct lineal descendant of a Hawaiian subject before the United States occupation began on January 17, 1893, belong to the Estate of the People.


There are some today who mistakenly believe that if they can show a family genealogy that traces back to a Hawaiian ali‘i (nobility) they can lay claim to the throne. If this were true than anyone can lay claim. But it is not true because the Hawaiian Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy that provides rules and protocol.

The first rule is that under Hawaiian law titles of nobility are not inheritable. However, in Europe titles of nobility are inheritable, which traces back to the Middle Ages. This is a feudal rule that developed when the nobility were able to inherit their lands and consequently their titles were also inheritable within the family. The Hawaiian Kingdom did not rise from the Middle Ages. It is Polynesian. According to Article 35 of the 1864 Hawaiian Constitution “All Titles of Honor, Orders, and other distinctions, emanate from the King.”

Three Estates of the Hawaiian Kingdom

The government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is a constitutional and limited monarchy comprised of three Estates: the Monarch, Nobles and the People. An Estate is defined as a “political class.” All three political classes work in concert and provides for the legal basis of the government and its authority. Article 45 of the 1864 Hawaiian constitution, provides: “The Legislative power of the Three Estates of this Kingdom is vested in the King, and the Legislative Assembly which Assembly shall consist of the Nobles appointed by the King, and of the Representatives of the People, sitting together.”

This provision is further elaborated under §768, Hawaiian Civil Code (Compiled Laws, 1884), “The Legislative Department of this Kingdom is composed of the King, the House of Nobles, and the House of Representatives, each of whom has a negative on the other, and in whom is vested full power to make all manner of wholesome laws, as they shall judge for the welfare of the nation, and for the necessary support and defense of good government, provided the same is not repugnant or contrary to the Constitution.” As each Estate has a negative on each other, no law can be passed without all three Estates agreeing.

According to Hawaiian law “No person shall ever sit upon the Throne, who has been convicted of any infamous crime, or who is insane, or an idiot (Article 25, 1864 Constitution),” which, by extension, extends to the Nobles whereby “The King appoints the members of the House of Nobles, who hold their seats during life, unless in case of resignation, subject, however, to punishment for disorderly behavior. The number of members of the House of Nobles shall not exceed thirty (§771, Compiled Laws).”

Representatives of the People shall be Hawaiian subjects or denizens “who shall have arrived at the full age of twenty-five years, who shall know how to read and write who shall understand accounts, and who shall have resided in the Kingdom for at least one year immediately preceding his election provided always, that no person who is insane, or an idiot, or who shall at any time have been convicted of theft, bribery, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, polygamy, or other high crime or misdemeanor, shall ever hold seat as Representative of the people (§778, Compiled Laws).”

The number of the Representatives of the people in the Legislature shall be twenty-eight: eight for the Island of Hawai‘i (one for the district of North Kona, one for the district of South Kona, One for the district of Ka‘u, one for the district Puna, two for the district of Hilo, one for the district Hamakua, one for the district of Kohala) seven for the Island of Maui (two for the districts of Lahaina, Olowalu, Ukumehame, and Kaho‘olawe, one for the districts of Kahakuloa and Ka‘anapali, one for the districts of Waihe‘e and Honuaula, one for the districts of Kahikinui and Ko‘olau, one for the districts of Hamakualoa and Kula) two for the Islands of Molokai and Lanai eight for the Island of O‘ahu (four for the districts of Honolulu that extends from Maunalua to Moanalua, one for the districts of Ewa and Waianae, one for the district of Waialua, one for the district of Ko‘olauloa, and one for the district of Ko‘olaupoko) and three for the island of Kaua‘i (one for the districts of Waimea, Nualolo, Hanapepe and the Island of Ni‘ihau, one for the districts of Puna, Wahiawa and Wailua, and one for the districts of Hanalei, Kapa‘a and ‘Awa‘awapuhi) (§780, Compiled Laws).

Electors of the Representatives shall be Hawaiian subjects or denizens “who shall have paid his taxes, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have been domiciled in the Kingdom for one year immediately preceding the election, and shall know how to read and write, if born since the year 1840, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters of his district…shall be entitled to one vote for Representative or Representatives of that district provided, however, that no insane or idiotic person, or any person who shall have been convicted of any infamous crime within this Kingdom unless he shall have been pardoned by the King, and by the terms, and by the terms of such pardon have been restored to all the rights of a subject, shall be allowed to vote (p. 222, Compiled Laws).”

The Estate of the Crown

The first constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom was promulgated in 1840 by King Kamehameha III, which was superseded by the 1852 Constitution. Article 25 of the 1852 Constitution provided: “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.” Kamehameha III proclaimed his adopted son, Alexander Liholiho, to be his heir apparent after receiving confirmation from the Nobles in 1853. Alexander ascended to the Throne upon the death of King Kamehameha III on December 15, 1854.

King Kamehameha V ascended to the Throne through the process of appointment by the Premier (Kuhina Nui) Victoria Kamamalu, and confirmation by the Nobles in 1863, because Kamehameha IV had no surviving children. His son and heir, Prince Albert Kamehameha, died at the age of four on August 27, 1862. Since the young Prince’s death, Kamehameha IV did not appoint a successor before he died on November 30, 1863. According to the 1852 Constitution, Article 47 provided, “Whenever the throne shall become vacant by reason of the King’s death…the Kuhina Nui, for the time being, shall…perform all the duties incumbent on the King, and shall have and exercise all the powers, which by this Constitution are vested in the King.”

In 1864, a new constitution was promulgated by King Kamehameha V, and Article 22 of the 1864 Constitution provides that, “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 the 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 to the heirs of her body.” Princess Kamamalu died on May 29, 1866 without any lineal descendants, leaving the successors to the Throne solely with King Kamehameha V.

Since Kamehameha V had no children, Article 22 of the 1864 Constitution provides that a “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 such 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 Ali‘i of the Kingdom as Successor to the Throne.” The Cabinet Council replaced the function of the Premier (Kuhina Nui) under the former constitution, whose office was repealed by the 1864 Constitution, and according to Article 33 would serve as a Council of Regency.

On December 11, 1872, Kamehameha V died without children and he did not appoint a successor. Kamehameha V’s Cabinet, as a Council of Regency, convened the Legislative Assembly in special session on January 8, 1873. A regent is a person or persons who serve in the absence of a monarch. In their speech to the Legislature, the Council stated:

“His late Majesty did not appoint any successor in the mode set forth in the Constitution, with the consent of the Nobles or make 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, and Ordered—That a meeting of the Legislative Assembly be caused to be holden at the Court House in Honolulu, on Wednesday which will be the eighth day of January, A.D. 1873, at 12 o’clock noon and of this order all Members of the Legislative Assembly will take notice and govern themselves accordingly. By virtue of this Order you have been assembled, to elect by ballot, some native Ali‘i of this Kingdom as Successor to the Throne. Your present authority is limited to this duty, but the newly elected Sovereign may require your services after his accession.”

On that day the Legislature elected Lunalilo as King. From December 11, 1872 to January 8, 1873, the Kingdom was headed by a Council of Regency. Article 33 of the 1864 Constitution provides that “the Cabinet Council at the time of such decease shall be a Council of Regency…who shall administer the Government in the name of the King, and exercise all the Powers which are Constitutionally vested in the King.”

The Legislative Assembly convened again in special session on February 12, 1874 and elected King Kalakaua after Lunalilo, who died without children, failed to appoint a successor. Upon ascension to the Throne, King Kalakaua appointed his brother Prince William Pitt Leleiohoku as his heir apparent and received confirmation from the Nobles. Leleiohoku died April 10, 1877, which prompted Kalakaua to immediately appoint his sister on the same day, Princess Lili‘uokalani, as his heir apparent and he received confirmation from the Nobles. An heir apparent is a person who is first in line of succession to the Throne according to Hawaiian law and cannot be displaced. An heir presumptive, however, is the person, male or female, entitled to succeed to the Throne, but can be replaced by an heir apparent pronounced according to Hawaiian law.

When the Legislative Assembly elected King Kalakaua in 1874, a new Stirps had effectively replaced the former Stirps, being the Kamehameha dynasty, with the Keawe-a-Heulu dynasty. Although Lunalilo was an elected King, he was of the Kamehameha dynasty, through Kamehameha’s father, Keoua. Stirps is a direct “line descending from a common ancestor,” and applies to monarchical dynasties. The Stirps for the Kamehameha Dynasty was a direct line from Kamehameha with Keopuolani, being the highest ranking of his wives. Lunalilo was not a direct descendant of Kamehameha, but a direct descendant of Kamehameha’s father, Keoua, whose son, Kalaimamahu, was Kamehameha’s half-brother.

Keawe-a-Heulu was one of the four counselor chiefs to Kamehameha I when the islands were consolidated under one kingdom. The other three counselor chiefs were Ke‘eaumoku, Kamanawa and Kame‘eiamoku. Ke‘eaumoku was the father of Ka‘ahumanu, one of Kamehameha’s wives and who later served as Prime Minister after Kamehameha’s death in 1819. Kamanawa and Kame‘eiamoku were brothers and are also represented in the Hawaiian Kingdom’s coat of arms.

The Kamehameha dynasty also included the descendants of Kamehameha’s other wives, other than Keopuolani who was the mother of Kamehameha II and III, and the young Princess Nahienaena. These wives and children included: Peleuli who had Maheha Kapulikoliko, Kahoanoku Kina‘u, Kaiko‘olani and Kiliwehi Kaheiheimalie who had Kamamalu and Kina‘u, who was the mother of Kamehameha IV and V, and Premier Victoria Kamamalu.

In 1883, the Keawe-a-Heulu Stirps was formally declared at the Coronation of King Kalakaua and Queen Kapi‘olani. Princess Lili‘uokalani as the heir apparent, and the heirs presumptive, being Princess Virginia Kapo‘oloku Po‘omaikelani, Princess Kinoiki, Princess Victoria Kawekiu Kai‘ulani Lunalilo Kalaninuiahilapalapa, Prince David Kawananakoa, Prince Edward Abnel Keli‘iahonui, and Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole comprised the new royal lineage.

Queen Lili‘uokalani appointed Princess Ka‘iulani as her heir apparent in 1891, but was unable to get confirmation by the Nobles because they were prevented from entering the Legislative Assembly as a result of the so-called 1887 bayonet constitution that began the insurgency. In 1917, Queen Lili‘uokalani died with no such appointment or Proclamation leaving the Throne vacant. After the Queen’s death, only Prince Kuhio was left of the heirs presumptive. All the rest had died. Of the heirs presumptive, only Prince David Kawananakoa died with lineal descendants, but these lineal descendants did not inherit the title of heirs presumptive because they were not proclaimed as such by a reigning Monarch, as King Kalakaua did by proclamation in 1883. While these lineal descendants have no claim to the Throne, they are part of the Estate of the Ali‘i (Chiefs).

Crown Lands

Under the 1848 Great Mahele (Division), the King and Chiefs divided their interest between themselves and the Government. Under an Act Act relating to the lands of His Majesty the King and of the Government of June 7, 1848, the King separated his lands to be called Crown lands from the Government. In the Act it stated:

Know all men by these presents, that I, Kamehameha III, by the grace of God, King of the Hawaiian Islands, have given this day of my own free will and have made over and set apart forever to the chiefs and people the larger part of my royal land, for the use and benefit of the Hawaiian Government, therefore by this instrument I hereby retain (or reserve) for myself and for my heirs and successors forever, my lands inscribed at pages 178, 182, 184, 186, 190, 194, 200, 204, 206, 210, 212, 214, 216, 218, 220, 222, of this book, these lands are set apart for me and for my heirs and successors forever, as my own property exclusively.

The “book” Kamehameha was referencing the page numbers was the 1848 Buke Mahele also called the Mahele Book.

In 1863, the Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court decided a case titled In the Matter of the Estate of His Majesty Kamehameha IV, 2 Haw. 715 (1863). The case centered on dower rights of Queen Kalama wife of Kamehameha III and Queen Emma wife of Kamehameha IV. The case also clarified who are the successors to the nearly one million acres of Crown land. The Supreme Court stated:

By the said Act, which is entitled “An Act relating to the lands of his Majesty the King and of the Government,” the lands reserved to the then reigning sovereign, descend in fee, the inheritance being limited to the successors to the throne, each successive possessor having the right to dispose of the same as private property.

The heirs and successors to the Crown lands are successors to the throne and not the family. In 1864, Kamehameha V asked the Legislature to remove all encumbrances such as mortgage liens on the property that had greatly encumbered the Crown lands.

That year on January 3, the Legislature passed An Act to Relieve the Royal Domain from Encumbrances (January 3, 1865).This Act authorized the Minister of Finance to issue government bonds up to $30,000.00, and the money received through the bonds would pay off the debt lenders had on the Crown in order to release the mortgages. After the debts were cleared, the Act made Crown lands inalienable and limited the ownership of tenants to 30 year leases. By making the Crown lands inalienable they were no longer capable of being mortgaged.

The Act also established a Board of Commissioners of Crown Lands who collected the lease rent. The Commissioners of Crown Lands managed the purse of the Crown. There was no tax that the people paid for to maintain the office of the Crown.

Currently, there are pretenders to the Estate of the Crown. Some claims are well known, while others are not, but all claims to the Crown lands have no basis in Hawaiian law because Her late Majesty Queen Lili‘uokalani did not appoint and thereafter proclaim her successor in accordance with the law as it was done in the past. The office of the Crown can only be filled by an election by the Legislative Assembly as it was done in the case of King Lunalilo in 1873 and King Kalakaua in 1874.

The Estate of Nobles (Chiefs)

The political class of Ali‘i is an integral component of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its government and has its origin deeply rooted in Polynesian society. The entire land system of the Kingdom that continues to exist today is grounded and based on actions taken by the Ali‘i such as the granting of Royal Patents, Land Commission Awards, and the Great Land Division (Mahele) between the Government and Chiefs, which also set the terms of division between both the Government and Chiefs and native tenants desiring to get a fee-simple title to their lands.

In 1880, confusion as to who comprises the Hawaiian nobility got the Hawaiian Legislature to enact “An Act to Perpetuate the Genealogy of the Chiefs of Hawaii.” In the preamble of the act it stated, “at the present day it is difficult to ascertain who are the chiefs, as contemplated by said Article of the Constitution, and it is proper that such genealogies of the kingdom be perpetuated.”

According to the Rules of the Board, their principle duties are: “1. To gather, revise, correct and record the Genealogy of Chiefs. 2. To gather, revise, correct and record all published and unpublished Ancient Hawaiian History. 3. To gather, revise, correct and record all published and unpublished Meles (Songs), and also to ascertain the object and the spirit of the Meles, the age and the History of the period when composed and to note the same on the Record Book. 4. To record all the tabu customs of the Mois (Kings) and Chiefs.”

In its Report in 1884, the Board stated it was examining copies of genealogical books by Kamokuiki, Kaoo, Kaunahi, Unauna, Hakaleleponi, Piianaia, Kalaualu and David Malo, and that the “Board has not entered into revision of these books and those written by foreign historians as the time has been taken up mostly in attesting the genealogy of those that have applied to have their genealogy established.” The Board also reported, that it “has avoided entering into controversies with the genealogical discussions that have been going on for a year or more in the local Hawaiian newspapers, as these discussions have been more or less conducted in a partisan spirit instead of on scientific principles. They loose the merit of usefulness by the hostilities assumed by the contending writers.”

On July 5, 1887, the newly appointed Cabinet Council and two members of the Supreme Court committed the high crime of treason by coercing King Kalakaua to sign a new constitution under threat of assassination. This so-called constitution came to be known as the Bayonet Constitution and was never submitted to the Legislative Assembly for approval, which is required under law. Hawaiian constitutional law provides that any proposed change to the constitution must be submitted to the Legislative Assembly, and upon majority agreement, would be deferred to the next legislative session for action. Once the next legislature convened, and the proposed amendment or amendments were “agreed to by two-thirds of all members of the Legislative Assembly, and be approved by the King, such amendment or amendments shall become part of the Constitution of this country (Article 80, 1864 Constitution).”

This so-called constitution was drafted by a select group of twenty individuals and effectively placed control of the Legislature and Cabinet in the hands of individuals who held foreign allegiances, which led to the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government by the United States of America. The leader of this insurgency, Lorrin Thruston, was the Minister of the Interior, and he refused to fund the Board of Genealogists as required by law. In a letter to Her Royal Highness Princess Po‘omaikelani, President of the Genealogical Board, dated July 29, 1887, Thurston writes, “I beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 27th inst. in which you state the labors of the board need not be suspended because the appropriation cannot be paid. There can, of course, be no objection to a continuation of the work of the Board of Genealogy so long as it is carried out without expense to the Government.”

Despite the lack of government funding and the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, the Board continued their work to compile the genealogies of Hawaiian Chiefs (Mo‘okua‘auhau Ali‘i) that were eventually published in the Ka Maka‘ainana newspaper in the year 1896.

The acting Government is providing these publications, which are in the Hawaiian language, to the public at large with a link to the original publication in PDF by date of the publication. The names of Hawaiian Chiefs below are printed as they are written in the published genealogies, which did not have any diacritical markers such as the ‘okina or kahako. The English translations of these publications can be drawn from Edith Kawelohea McKinzie and Ishmael W. Stagner, II, Hawaiian Genealogies, vol. 1. A basic glossary of terms that can be used to understand the published genealogies are:

“k” is short for kane (male)
“w” is short for wahine (female)
noho (to live with, but used to mean the same as marriage)
mare (married)
a‘ohe pua (no lineal descendants)
kuamo‘o (lineage)
kuauhau (genealogy)
loa‘a (had)
mo‘o kuauhau (genealogical succession)

June 1, 1896—Genealogies of King Kamehameha IV and King Lunalilo, both of whom died without lineal descendants.

June 8, 1896—Genealogies of King Kalakaua and Queen Liliuokalani, both of whom died without lineal descendants.

June 15, 1896—Genealogy of Princess Kaiulani, who died without lineal descendants.

June 29, 1896—Genealogies of Queen Kapiolani, who died without lineal descendants Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole who died without lineal descendants and David Kawananakoa.

July 6, 1896—Genealogies of William Piikoi Wond, Lydia Kamakee Cummins, and Maraea Cummins Daisy Napulahaokalani, Eva Kuwailanimamao, Roberto Kalaninuikupuaikalaninui Keoua and Virginia Kahoa Kaahumanu Kaihikapumahana.

July 13, 1896—Genealogy of Albert Kekukailimoku Kunuiakea who died without lineal descendants.

July 20, 1896—Genealogies of Princess Bernice Pauahi who dies without lineal descendants, Princess Ruth Keelikolani who died without lineal descendants, and John Kamehamehanui who died without lineal descendants.

July 27, 1896—Genealogies of Alexandrina Leihulu Kapena who died without lineal descendants, Edward Kamakau Lilikalani, and Annie Palekaluhi Kaikioewa who died without lineal descendants.

August 3, 1896—Genealogies of Sabina Kahinu Beckley, Frederick Kahapula Beckley, Jr., and Frederica Beckley Leander Kaonowailani, Violet Kahaleluhi Kinoole, Grace Namahana i Kaleleokalani, Frederick Malulani, George Heaalii and Benjamin Kameeiamoku William Kauluheimalama Beckley, Henry Hoolulu Beckley, Juanita Beckley, and George Mooheau Beckley, Jr. Henry Hoolulu Pitman, Mary Kinoole (Mrs. Mary Ailau), and Benjamin Pitman, Jr. Robert Hoapili Baker, Henry Kanuha, and Rev. J. Kauhane of Kau.

August 10, 1896—Genealogies of William Hoapili Kaauwai, Jr., Luka Kaauwai and Lydia Kahanu Kaauwai Mary Parker (Mrs. Maguire), Eva Kalanikauleleiaiwi Kahiluonapuaonahonoapiilani Parker, Helen Umiokalani Parker, John Palmer Parker, Hattie Kaonohilani Parker, Palmer Kuihelani Parker, Samuel Keaoililani Parker, Ernest Napela Parker, and James Kekookalani Parker.

August 17, 1896—Genealogies of Lydia Kamakanoe Kanehoa, Albert Kaleinoanoa Kanehoa, Jno Kupakee Kanehoa, Davida K. Hoapili Kanehoa, and Maria Kalehuaikawekiu Kanehoa Hoapiliwahine-a-Kanehoa and the children of Makainai-a-Kuakini and Kauina, being Jesse Makainai, Keeaumoku, Kapaleiliahi, Kaumaumaeha, Hoapili Liilii, and Paulo Hoapili Henry St. John Kaleookekoi Nahaolelua, George William Lua Nahaolelua, John Vivian St. John Kapokini Nahaolelua, Charles Kalaninoheainamoku Nahaolelua, Albert Kamainiualani Nahaolelua, Alexander Pahukula Kuanamoa Nahaolelua, Elizabeth Alice Kalakini Nahaolelua, and Emma Rhoda Kaaiohelo Nahaolelua William Kapahukula Enelani Stevens who died without lineal descendants, and Keliikui Stevens who also died with lineal descendants.

August 24, 1896—Genealogies of Rose Kekupuohi Simerson, William Kuakini Simerson and Isaac Kaleialii Simerson and the children of Annie Niulii and Kahaleaahu, being Helen Kalolowahilani, John Paalua and David Kauluhaimalama.

August 31, 1896—Genealogies of Annie Thelma Kahiluonapuaonahonoapiilani Parker Kahaule-o-Kuakini and Mrs. Maluhi Reis John Meek, Jr. and Maraea Kaoaopa died without lineal descendants.

September 7, 1896—Genealogies of Adele Mikahala Unauna, John Koii Unauna, Maraea Kapumakokoulaokalani Unauna, Kaniu Unauna, Kahelemanolani Unauna, Jane Kulokuloku Unauna, Hattie Kaauamookalani Unauna and James Kalimaila Unauna Julia Kailimahuna Koii, Lydia Kahuakai Koii, Lydia Kahuakai Koii, David Koii who died without lineal descendants, and Esther Namahana Koii Julia Kapakuialii Kalaninuipoaimoku Doiron and Moses Koii Luhaukapewa Doiron William Kahoapili Kekohimoku Alohikea, Alfred Unauna Alohikea, David Kauahiaalaiwilani Kaili Alexander Boki Reis, Palmyra Lonokahikini Reis, and Helen Kekumualii Reis and Helina Kaiwaokalani Maikai, David Unualoha Maikai, Samuela Kahilolaamea Maikai, and Abigaila Kalanikuikepo‘oloku Maikai.

October 5, 1896—Genealogies of Stella Keomailani Cockett who died without lineal descendants and the child of Kekulu and Kaiakoili, being David Kalani.

October 19, 1896—Genealogies of Tilly Kaumakaokane Cummins, Thomas Keauiaole Cummins, and John T. Walker Cummins King Keaweaua Mersberg, James Kahai Mersberg, Jr., Lily Kahalewai Mersberg, Marie Mersberg, Lydia Mersberg, Jane Piilani Mersberg, and Charles Mersberg John Adams Kaenakulani Cummins, Thomas C. Kaihikapu Cummins, and Raplee Kawelokalani Cummins May Kaaolani Cummins Creighton Flora Kahanolani Cummins children of Kekupuo-i Ponilani Kaiama (w), Margaret Loe Kaiama, Esther Nahaukapuokalani Kaiama, Levi Kaiama and Keliimaikai Kaiama Grace Kamaikui Piianaia, Niaupio Piianaia, and Heulumanawaokalani Piianaia (k) Phoebe Ulualoha Wilcox and Daniel Kekuhio Keliiaa and Kekukamaikalani Keliiaa.

October 26, 1896—Genealogy of Katherine Kaonohiulaokalani Brown who died without lineal descendants.

November 2, 1896—Genealogy Hana Kaunahi and Akahi who both died without lineal descendants.

After the death of Prince Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole on January 13, 1922, the Associated Press reported, “Fourteen chiefs selected by the committee from the high chiefs of Hawaii will bear the casket of Prince Kuhio at the funeral Sunday morning. The selection are Henry P. Beckley, Edwin Kea, David Hoapili, Sr., Kaliinonao, John Nahaolelua, Alex Nahaolelua, Jesse Makainai, William Simerson, John H. Wise, William Taylor, Geo. Kalohapauole, David Maikai, Ahapuni Boyd, Clement Parker, Samuel Parker, Jr., as bearer of orders and David Hoapili, Jr. as bearer of the tabu stick.” These men were selected from the Estate of Ali‘i (Chiefs).

Any person today who is a direct lineal descendant of the Hawaiian Chiefs identified in these published genealogies belong to the Estate of Nobles (Chiefs), and are eligible to be appointed as Nobles in the Legislative Assembly and/or to the Throne in accordance with Hawaiian law.

The Estate of the People

Any person today who is a direct lineal descendant of a Hawaiian subject before the United States occupation began on January 17, 1893, belong to the Estate of the People.


Foundations: Brandenburg, Prussia and Hohenzollern

Hohenzollern Dynasty and Brandenburg
House of Hohenzollern is a German dynasty, commonly known for ruling over Margraviate of Brandenburg (1415-1806) , Prussia (1525-1918) and German Empire (1871-1918). And although the dynasty is mostly associated with Prussia, their origins go as far south as to a town named Hechingen in Zollern county, in the region of Swabia.The first historical records mentioning the Hohenzollerns are dated around 1061. Back then, the Hohenzollerns were called the Zollerns and they were carrying the unofficial title of Count of Zollern until this became official in 1111 when the Emperor himself granted them the title.When Frederick (later known as Barbarossa) of House Hohenstaufen dynasty, a Swabian dynasty and overlords of the Zollerns, became Holy Roman Emperor in 1155, House of Zollern proved their loyalty and expanded their territory. Frederick III, count of Zollern and head of Zollern dynasty at the time, fought many battles with Barbarossa and later his sons which gained him enough fame to arrange a marriage with the only daughter of Conrad II , Burgrave of Nuremberg in 1184. After the death of Conrad in 1191, Frederick inherited the title and became Frederick I of Burgraviate of Nuremberg.

The possession of new lands in Nuremberg created another branch in the dynasty, after Frederick I’s death in around 1200, his sons Conrad and Frederick inherited different parts of his lands.Conrad, the older brother, inherited County of Zollern and Frederick, the younger brother, inherited Burgraviate of Nuremberg. In around 1218 however, these lands were exchanged between brothers thus making Conrad I the Burgrave of Nuremberg and Frederick IV the Count of Zollern. Conrad’s line adopted the name Hohenzollern for the first time and later this branch was known as Franconian branch of the dynasty while Frederick’s line was named Swabian branch.Of these two branches, members of the Swabian continued to rule over the ancestral lands of the Hohenzollerns and various other smaller counties inside the empire until 1849 when rulers of Swabian branch abdicated their thrones to the Franconian branch, which was the ruling family of Kingdom of Prussia at that time.Swabian branch also provided rulers for Kingdom of Romania between 1866-1947.

Francian branch, however, proved to be much more successful throughout history. While ruling Nuremberg as the Burgraves, they gradually added new territories under their rule, some of them being important cities such as Ansbach and Kulmbach. After the death of Frederick V in 1398, his lands were partitioned between his two sons by the younger son Frederick taking Ansbach and the older son John taking Kulmbach while Burgraviate of Nuremberg being jointly ruled by these two brothers. In 1910, after helping Sigismund succeed to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire, Frederick was granted control over Margraviate of Brandenburg, where Sigismund had hereditary rights. Frederick was officially granted the title of Margrave of Brandenburg, the Prince-Elector and became known as Frederick I of Brandenburg. Frederick I faced many rebellions from local nobles in Brandenburg, most of which he supressed with artillery. Constant fighting made him abdicate his throne in favour of his son John but holding his Elector title. John’s rule was negatively responded by the people of Brandenburg because of his obsession on alchemy. John was interested in alchemy, and was obsessed with the idea of creating gold through other objects. His father Frederick realized this incompetency and appointed John to Kulmbach and made his other son Frederick II, the Margrave of Brandenburg in 1437. After his death, the Elector title was also inherited by Frederick II in 1440 and Kulmbach was fully inherited by John the Alchemist.


Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, power behind the throne

Few people outside Saudi Arabia had heard of Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud before his father became king in 2015. But now, the 35-year-old crown prince is considered the de facto ruler of the world's leading oil exporter.

He has won plaudits from Western leaders for some of the reforms he has overseen in the conservative Gulf kingdom, including lifting the ban on women driving and seeking to diversify the economy.

But he has also been heavily criticised for pursuing a war in neighbouring Yemen that has caused a humanitarian catastrophe starting a diplomatic dispute with Qatar that has divided the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) and cracking down on dissenting voices.

There were even calls for him to be replaced as crown prince after the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent critic of the government, was killed by Saudi agents at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018. He denied any involvement, but the murder badly damaged his international reputation.

Mohammed bin Salman was born on 31 August 1985, the eldest son of then-Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud's third wife, Fahdah bint Falah bin Sultan.

He worked for several state bodies before being appointed special adviser to his father, who was serving as governor of Riyadh, in 2009.

Mohammed bin Salman's rise to power began in 2013, when he was named head of the Crown Prince's Court, with the rank of minister. His father had been appointed crown prince the previous year.

In January 2015, King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz died and Salman acceded to the throne, appointing his son as minister of defence.

One of Mohammed bin Salman's first acts in the post was to launch a military campaign in Yemen in March 2015 along with other Arab states.

They intervened after the Houthi rebel movement, which they saw as an Iranian proxy, seized control of the capital Sanaa and forced President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi to flee abroad.

The campaign has made limited progress over the past five years. The fighting has also reportedly left more than 110,000 people dead seen Saudi Arabia and its allies being accused of possible war crimes and triggered the world's worst humanitarian disaster, with millions on the brink of famine.

Mohammed bin Salman's power increased with his appointment in April 2015 as deputy crown prince, second deputy prime minister and president of the Council of Economic and Development Affairs.

Now in charge of the war in Yemen and Saudi Arabia's economy, his importance as a policymaker became clear the following year when he unveiled an ambitious and wide-ranging plan to bring economic and social change to the kingdom and end its "addiction" to oil.

The plan, called Vision 2030, envisages increasing non-oil revenue to 600bn riyals ($160bn £124bn) by 2020 and 1trn riyals by 2030, up from 163.5bn riyals in 2015.

The plan also involved changing the education curriculum, increasing the participation of women in the country's male-dominated workforce, and investing in the entertainment sector to help create jobs for young people.

The prince was also seen as having spearheaded a boycott of fellow Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member Qatar in 2017 over its alleged support for terrorism and meddling in its neighbours' affairs - charges Qatar denies.

Mohammed bin Salman's ascent continued when in June that year King Salman replaced the crown prince - his nephew, Mohammed bin Nayef - with his son.

The new crown prince subsequently sought to consolidate his power, launching a crackdown against perceived opponents.

More than 20 influential clerics and intellectuals were detained as the authorities targeted a group allegedly acting on behalf of "foreign parties against the security of the kingdom".

When King Salman announced (despite objections from conservatives) that a bar on women drivers would end in June 2018 in Saudi Arabia - the last country in the world where such a prohibition existed - Mohammed bin Salman was given much of the credit.

Ostensibly aimed at recovering a fortune in ill-gotten gains, many analysts said the purge of powerful princes and business figures removed the final obstacles to Mohammed bin Salman gaining total control of the kingdom.

The mass arrests however unsettled the foreign investors he was counting on to help modernise Saudi Arabia's economy, and new foreign direct investment plunged to a 14-year low in 2017.

Women's rights activists were also rounded up shortly before the ban on women driving was lifted.

Several were accused of serious crimes, including "suspicious contact with foreign parties" - a sign of the Saudi leadership's intolerance of criticism despite the appearance of social reforms.

Mohammed bin Salman defended the detention of the activists, saying they had "misused" their right to free speech.

"Here we are trying to get rid of extremism and terrorism without civil war, without stopping the country from growing," he said. "So if there is a small price in that area, it's better than paying a big debt to do that move."

But it was the murder in October 2018 of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi which was to tarnish Mohammed bin Salman's image abroad the most.

Khashoggi had fled Saudi Arabia the previous year and written columns critical of the crown prince.

UN Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard said Khashoggi was "brutally slain" inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul by a team of Saudi agents, who dismembered his body and then disposed of it.

She concluded that Khashoggi was "the victim of a deliberate, premeditated execution" for which the Saudi state was responsible. She also said there was credible evidence that high-level Saudi officials, including Mohammed bin Salman, were individually liable.

However, the Saudi government insisted the journalist's death was the result of a "rogue operation" and that the crown prince was not involved in any way.

Mohammed bin Salman denied he had ordered the murder, but said he took "full responsibility. especially since it was committed by individuals working for the Saudi government".

Saudi prosecutors put 11 unnamed individuals on trial over the killing (five were found guilty and sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment three others received jail terms).

Ms Callamard called the Saudi trial a "parody of justice" and said the crown prince "remained well protected against any kind of meaningful scrutiny".


Family

The prince was born on 15 January 1893 in Dresden, Saxony, Germany. [4] He was the son of Prince Frederick Augustus, the later King Frederick Augustus III and his wife, Louise, née Archduchess Louise of Austria-Tuscany. His siblings were the Princes Friedrich Christian and Ernst Heinrich and the Princesses Margarete, Maria Alix and Anna Monika

Youth and education

After his parents divorced in 1902, his father took sole parental responsibility for his children. He emphasized the Christian faith and a Catholic lifestyle. The children were educated by private tutors in a "prince's school" established by their father at the Saxon court. Most of the teachers were Protestants this contributed to his later ecumenical attitude. Georg became Crown Prince at age eleven, when his father acceded to the throne in 1904.

After graduating from high school in 1912, Georg studied political sciences for three months at the University of Breslau. He then began to study economics. During this time, he joined the KDSt.V. Winfridia.

First World War

After completing his studies in 1912, Georg joined the 1st Royal Saxon Lieb-Grenadier Regiment No. 100. His friend and fellow officer Ludwig Renn also served in that regiment at the time, Ludwig still used his birth name Arnold Friedrich Vieth von Golßenau.

Georg held the rank of Captain when he was sent to the front at the start of World War I. He suffered a serious leg injury during the first months of the war. [5] In 1915, Kaiser Wilhelm II granted him the Iron Cross first class "in recognition of the services he rendered in the recent battles.". [5]

On 27 July 1916, he was added to the staff of Army Group Gallwitz. On 30 August 1916, he received the Military Order of St. Henry for his services in this staff. [6]

On 30 November 1917, he was promoted to major and made commander of the 5th Royal Saxon Infantry Regiment "Crown Prince" No. 104. He commanded this regiment on both the Eastern and the Western Front. He held this command until 22 May 1918.

Engaged to be married

In the spring of 1918, newspapers announced the prince's engagement to Duchess Marie Amelia, daughter of Albrecht, Duke of Württemberg, the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Württemberg. [1] The end of the Saxon monarchy and the prince's desire to become a priest apparently led to the end of the engagement. The duchess died unmarried in 1923. [7]

Jesuit priest

When Germany lost the war, the monarchies in Germany collapsed. Georg's father abdicated on 13 November 1918. This marked a fundamental turning point in his career planning. In 1919, he decided to renounce his rights on the Saxon throne, and become a Catholic priest instead. This decision was very controversial among people who hoped that the monarchy might one day be restored, and also met with significant concerns from the side of the Catholic Church. For example, Franz Löbman, the Apostolic Vicar for Saxony and Lusatia, and Archbishop Adolf Bertram of Breslau initially held that Georg should continue to hold political responsibility for Saxony. Nevertheless, Georg entered the Franciscan Order. [8]

Finding the Franciscan life too intellectually limiting, Georg soon applied to transfer to the Jesuits instead. [8] In the winter semester 1919/20, he studied philosophy at the University of Tübingen. During this period, he joined the A.V. Guestfalia Tübingen. In the next semester, he studied at the University of Breslau.

In the winter semester 1920/21, he began studying theology at the University of Freiburg. He joined the KDSt.V. Hohenstaufen and Saxo-Thuringia. He completed this study in 1923. In the same year, he formally renounced his rights to the Saxon throne and became a Jesuit priest. [9]

He was ordained as priest in Trzebnica on 15 July 1924 by Bishop Christian Schreiber of Meissen. The next day, he celebrated his first mass at the royal palace in Szczodre (German: Sibyllenort . His uncle Maximilian gave the homily during this service. Thereafter, the prince was generally known as Vater Georg (Father George) and used the last name von Sachsen. [3] [10] After his ordination, Georg worked as an auxiliary priest in his native Diocese of Meissen.

He then continued his studies at the Jesuit Collegium Canisianum in Innsbruck. In the fall of 1925, he joined the Upper German province of the Society of Jesus, however, in 1927, he switched to the East German province, which included his native Saxony. From 1928 to 1930, he studied at a Jesuit college in Valkenburg.

From 1933, he did pastoral work in Berlin. He helped building the Jesuit residence Canisius College with the Catholic Gymnasium at Lietzensee. He took his final vows in Berlin in 1936. He gave lectures and spiritual exercises all over Germany. In his lectures, he promoted ecumenism and in particular the Una Sancta movement. Among his friends were spiritual leaders of different religions.

Opponent of Nazism

During one of his many lectures, he said in Meissen in 1929, referring to the increasing antisemitic agitation by some right-wing parties: Love is the order of the day in the relationship between Catholics and Protestant, and also to our Jewish fellow citizens. So he opposed Nazism from the beginning. He found it unbearable that the Nazi Party and after 1933 the state vilified and sought to destroy core values that were important to him personally — monarchical and dynastic Saxon traditions and fundamental values of Western Christianity. He felt that his family honor was offended and his work as a pastor was significantly impeded.

He worked in Berlin where he was credited with protecting Jews from the Nazi regime [11] in notable contrast to his pro-Nazi brothers-in-law, Prince Frederich of Hohenzollern and Prince Franz Joseph of Hohenzolllern-Emden.

As crictic of the regime and a member of the former Saxon royal family, but in particular as a Catholic priest and a member of the Jesuit order, he was seen as highly suspect by the Nazi regime. He was shadowed by the Gestapo because he helped Jews leaving the country and he helped opposition politician hiding for the regime. Sometimes, he had to go into hiding himself, and the police searched his home several times. He knew some of the people who later attempted the failed 20 July plot, in particular Ulrich von Hassell and general Paul von Hase. It is not clear whether he actually participated in the resistance.

Death

The former prince died on 14 May 1943 apparently while swimming in the Groß Glienicke Lake in Berlin, Germany. [12] Georg's diary was found on the lakeshore with a final Latin entry reading Vado ad patrem , [8] which is the Latin version of a phrase Jesus frequently spoke to his disciples in the Gospel of John and means "I go to the Father" or "I go to my Father." [13] His body was found several weeks after his death. Some people, including his brother Ernst Heinrich expressed doubts that his death had been an accident. Nevertheless, the autopsy determined that he died after suffering a heart attack. [8]

He was buried in the Catholic Church of the Royal Court of Saxony, today known as the Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, in Dresden on 16 June 1943. His grave was disturbed by Russian soldiers in 1945 and later by the floods of August 2002.


Lisbon Regicide

On 1 February 1908 Luís Filipe and his family were returning to Lisbon from Vila Viçosa Palace, in Alentejo, private head [ clarification needed ] to the House of Braganza. Alfredo Costa and Manuel Buiça, two members of a revolutionary society called the Carbonária, shot at all the royal family, hitting Luís Filipe, his father King Carlos, and his younger brother Infante Manuel, Duke of Beja. Carlos I died immediately, while Luís Filipe lived for another twenty minutes. Manuel survived the attack, having only been shot in the arm, while the queen was unharmed. Had automatic ascention to the throne been the law, Luís Filipe would've been one of the shortest-reigning monarch in history, with a reign of, as mentioned above, just twenty minutes.

Manuel would succeed to the throne as Manuel II.

Luís Filipe is buried next to his father and forefathers in the Royal Pantheon of the House of Braganza in Lisbon. His younger brother, King Manuel II of Portugal, and his mother, Queen Maria Amélia, are buried opposite.

On 5 October 1910, the monarchy under the reign of his surviving younger brother, Manuel II, was overthrown in a military coup and the Portuguese First Republic was established.

Royal styles of
The Prince Royal of Portugal
Reference style His Royal Highness
Spoken style Your Royal Highness
Alternative style Sire


Watch the video: Who Would be Jacobite King of the UK Today? (July 2022).


Comments:

  1. Roman

    You are wrong. Let's discuss this. Email me at PM.

  2. Verrill

    Actions don't always bring happiness! but there is no happiness without action =)

  3. Geteye

    Interesting site, but you should add more information

  4. Motaur

    instructive !!!! gee gee gee



Write a message