Should the Queen of Hawaii be recognized as such? With formal recognition from the US govt? As a figurehead?

Question

Should the Queen of Hawaii be recognized as such? With formal recognition from the US govt? As a figurehead?

Answer 1

No.  Not even as a figurehead.

Answer 2

Presumably, you are referring to a recent AP newspaper article, "Hawaiian group demands restoration of the monarchy".  While Queen Mahealani Kahau, a descendant of the Hawaiian Royal Family, and approximately 1,000 followers, are asking for Hawaiian Independence, Native Hawaiians number only around 200,000 in a state with a population of 1.3 million.  So far, Hawaiian state officials have treated the group with benign neglect.

More realistically, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has introduced federal legislation that would give Native Hawaiians a degree of autonomy similar to what Native American tribes now possess (as separate political entities within the United States).  The bill has passed the US House and is pending in the Senate.  If this legislation passes,  Native Hawaiians could choose anyone they like to be their official leader.  However, 1000 followers is still a very small percentage out of 200,000 individuals.

Question:  More importantly, if Hawaii declares its independence, what would stop Texas and California from declaring themselves sovereign nations?  All three were technically republics before joining the Union.  Of course, Chicano and Black Power groups have also called for their "independence" from the United States, so taken to its extreme, this trend could send everyone except the Native Americans back from whence they came. For many of us, that could be a big problem.

Answer 3

Absolutely not, Hawaii is just a state like the rest of us.

Answer 4

No.  We founded our country by dominating several civilizations.  Nobody else is recognized, so I don't think she should get any special treatment.  They are about 100 years too late in trying to get back their power.

Answer 5

If Hawaii wants a queen, let Sir Elton rule!

Answer 6

Do you mean should the MONARCHY of Hawaii be REINSTATED? Queen Lili'uokalani died many years ago! Anyone who is of royal blood in Hawaii can call themselves "queen" or "princess" but these are courtesy titles and are not formally recognized;these people have no political powers.

It would be a nice gesture to native Hawaiians,but not a possible one since Hawaii is a state of the union.A monarch would have no powers,politically because Hawaii is a state,part of the republic of the 50 United States.And merely being a figurehead makes the chances even less likely.

visit http://www.iolanipalace.org/

Answer 7

If the Hawaiians want a queen then they should certainly be able to have one.  Hawaii may be officialy a 'state' but it is still Hawaii, a Pacific island, and its case is quite different from that of an ordinary state.

Answer 8

No. The United States government signed the apology on the 100th aniversary of the overthrow of the monarchy. That is sufficient.

-------------------------------

To acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

Whereas, prior to the arrival of the first Europeans in 1778, the Native Hawaiian people lived in a highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistent social system based on communal land tenure with a sophisticated language, culture, and religion;

Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation...

Whereas, on January 14, 1893... the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii;

Whereas, soon thereafter, when informed of the risk of bloodshed with resistance, Queen Liliuokalani issued the following statement yielding her authority to the United States Government rather than to the Provisional Government:

      "I Liliuokalani, by the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom.

      "That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed a Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government.

      "Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do this under protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands."

      - Queen Liliuokalani, Jan 17, 1893

Whereas, without the active support and intervention by the United States diplomatic and military representatives, the insurrection against the Government of Queen Liliuokalani would have failed for lack of popular support and insufficient arms.

Whereas, in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on the illegal acts of the conspirators, described such acts as an "act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress", and acknowledged that by such acts the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown... President Cleveland further concluded that a "substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair" and called for the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy.

Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum.

Whereas, the health and well-being of the Native Hawaiian people is intrinsically tied to their deep feelings and attachment to the land;

Whereas, the long-range economic and social changes in Hawaii over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have been devastating to the population and to the health and well-being of the Hawaiian people;

Whereas, the Native Hawaiian people are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territory, and their cultural identity in accordance with their own spiritual and traditional beliefs, customs, practices, language, and social institutions;

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

The Congress

- apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893... and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;

- expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and

- urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.

"...the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence."

      - Senator Slade Gorton (R-Washington), US Senate Congressional Record

      Wednesday, October 27, 1993, 103rd Cong. 1st Ses

Answer 9

This is a quote from the US Constitution:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

So not only should she NOT be recognized as Queen, but it would be illegal and unconstitutional.

Answer 10

The woman in that report is NOT the most direct descendent of the last queen, Liliuokalani and her relatives.  The Kawananakoa line is the most direct.  There are a number of sovereignty movements in Hawaii, and this bunch is just one of those many.  Another group's leader has appointed himself the Prime Minister of the Kingdom.

I agree, the sovereignty was abolished and would have to be reinstated.  Many countries/states/regions without a formal monarch have figureheads.

Answer 11

I thought the USA had a president not a king or queen.

Barack Obama for President 2008!

Answer 12

Yes I think she should Hawaii was annexed by the u.s. without any input from the native peoples. It was done to control the

production of fruit from Hawaii and only benefited the companies involved. It is a blot on our history. We boast that we never have colonized any country but sure has heck colonized Hawaii!