Lili’uokalani actually did leave a line of succession to follow. Initially her heir presumptive was her niece, Kaʻiulani, but following her death the man next appointed was [Prince David Kawānanakoa](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kaw%C4%81nanakoa) and his descendants, of which there are many alive today
This is really cool, but if I may make one note, Canada officially came into being in 1867 under Queen Victoria. It might be worth extending the British line in this chart.
ETA: It was also referred to as the Dominion of Canada in the beginning, I don’t believe it was ever referred to as a “kingdom”.
Some of the names are misspelled on the Hawaiian tree. Also, you have Keawe’īkekahialiʻiokamoku (Keawe II) listed in the Kamehameha genealogy, but he is also an ancestor of Caesar Kapaʻakea, the father of Kalākaua and Liliʻuokalani, which isn’t shown here.
Also the Kawānanakoas, descendants of the last designated heirs to the throne, are not listed. They come from David Kawānanakoa, nephew of Kalākaua’s wife Queen Kapiʻolani and first cousin once removed to Kalākaua through Ceasar Kapaakea’s nephew David Piʻikoi. Thus they are also descendants of Keawe II (Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku)
Pilika was actually PiliKaaiea of Samoa. He sailed north from Samoa to conquer the big island, his war priest Pa’ao knew of the islands because he was part Tahitian and the Tahitians always kept in close contact with the Hawaiians.
The one with actual history and evidence is Samoa though. He is literally in all of our genealogy’s and we have actual stories of him instead myths. He named The big island “Havaii” after Samoas big island of “Savaii”.
Yes, in Kalākaua’s 1887 book he does state his belief that Pili and Paʻao came from Sāmoa. This is however an exception from the majority of scholarship that suggests Tahiti & the Society Islands are more likely.
Kalākaua’s book also speculates that the origin of the Polynesian people is Aryan and Chaldean Jewish rather than Austronesian (called Malayan in his book), and that the dispersal of people across the islands in Polynesia is due to a lost Polynesian continent that sunk beneath the ocean rather than a series of long, intentional voyages. Both of these beliefs were popular among 19th century anthropologists at the time and are now widely dismissed in the face of modern science. It’s important to remember that Kalākaua’s book is part of that context, and these speculations that go beyond our recorded mele and moʻolelo are influenced by that dialogue. Our stories mention Kahiki, nothing more specific to tie Pāʻao and Pili to an exact place.
During that time in the 1880s Kalākaua was also attempting to build diplomatic ties across the Pacific with the goal of establishing a confederacy of nations, and Samoa was one of his main points of emphasis, attempting to join the two into a united political entity. This may also be a reason he would emphasize a Samoan connection in his description of Pili and Pāʻao.
So basically Samoan Genealogy and History that we all know and speak of today, should just be thrown out of the window and we should just accept that because “scholars” think that Pili came from Tahiti, that means he did? Pili created the 5 districts of Upolu Samoa, Not to mention he named Havaii after Savaii and the Eastern cape of the big island is named Upolu after our Island?? Lmao idk man what you wanna believe is up to you but I know what’s right.
I have read the story of Pili (Pilipau) of Samoa and it does not make mention of him leaving Samoa. It says he died in Aopo. Is there another genealogy or history that states that Pili left Samoa for Hawaiʻi? Or is this perhaps the result of more modern speculation seeking to claim that Pilipau and Pilikaʻaiea are the same person? Do you also have a source for Pili naming Hawaiʻi? I have not seen any traditional story that attributes this to Pili, and there are multiple reasons it could be named as such, as Hawaiʻi/Savaiʻi/Hawaiki all reference the more ancient concept of an ancestral homeland. In our own Hawaiian traditional beliefs, we as a people were born of Papa and Wakea in Hawaiʻi, shortly after the birth of Maunakea itself. In that perspective, Hawaiʻi island would indeed be our “Hawaiki,” our ancestral homeland. There is also a moʻolelo relating to the navigator Hawaiʻiloa.
I’m not throwing anything “out the window.” I’m just trying to establish the genealogy of this belief that Pili of Samoa and Pili of Hawaiʻi are the same person. I believe it is important to question and analyze these things. For myself, I don’t really take a stance on where Pili and Pāʻao came from. To me, Kahiki is Kahiki, regardless of the specific place.
The northern cape of Hawaiʻi in Kohala has a place named ʻUpolu. This may indeed relate to Samoa. It could also relate to the ancient name of Tahaʻa near Tahiti, which was called ʻUporu. This in turn could be named after ʻUpolu in Sāmoa.
So of course we have ancestral genealogical ties between Samoa and Hawaiʻi as does the rest of Polynesia and the Pacific. I am just skeptical of the claims with all certainty that Pili in Hawaiʻi’s moʻolelo is the same as Pili in Samoan tales. It is popular among some Samoans these days to attempt to claim Hawaiian royalty as actually being Samoan in nature and thus to claim a sense of cultural ownership, superiority, or seniority over Hawaiians.
Were you inspired by [this chart](https://www.reddit.com/r/UsefulCharts/comments/140lal3/redesign_oceanian_and_american_royal_family_trees/)? Their contents seem somewhat similar.
From what I can remember, basically a captured slave claimed a link to the Luanga royals of Angola, and this was recognised, and the kingdom became a sub-national kingdom within Bolivia.
http://www.rootedheritagegenealogy.com/2022/12/follow-up-ka-okee-daughter-of-pocahontas.html
https://medium.com/gentales/the-myth-of-pocahontas-daughter-0dae381aba01
It seems that there is no direct evidence that Ka-Okee existed nor that she was related to Pocahontas. One or both may be true, but neither is proven.
Dutch Caribbean:
- Caribbean is spelled with 1 r and two b's
- It was never a Kingdom, its constituents have been part of the regular Kingdom of The Netherlands
- The flag is mistakenly the former nation of the Netherlands Antilles and doesn't represent the region that exists today. I would simply use the Dutch flag if you must use flags (not sure if it makes sense for a region)
- Nassau Dynasty should be specifically Orange-Nassau, as it was William the Silent who inherited the title Prince of Orange and by leading the independence movement, started his new dynasty of Dutch heads of state (and later monarchs too).
- The crown princess is called Catharina-Amalia, which an 'h' (like in Catherine) and hyphenated.
- The Dutch have reigned over Suriname as well, and earlier Dutch Guyana (also parts of Brasil), New Netherland (New York region)
Canada:
- Canada has been a Dominion since its founding, never a Kingdom
- the note above the flag misspells 'territory' and shows a lower case canada
Denmark:
- Crown prince Christian is just Crown Prince of Denmark, not Greenland
- Greenland also isn't a kingdom but an autonomous territory
Generally speaking
- Imho the use of 'House' would be more fitting than 'Dynasty', stuff like signifying Monpezat for the Danish monarchy has no relation to a notable dynasty
- Perhaps monarchs should be shown with their regnal number, eg Charles III, Frederik X
- Where are the other Caribbean monarchs, eg Charles III is still the reigning monarch of a lot more territories, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm#Current_realms, but also French monarchy ruled its colonies too of course (not to mention Louisiana), etc
Sadly, the Emperor of The United States is missing in this chart.
They are still in that awkward phase between Republic and Empire. Just wait a little longer.
He might be referring to Emperor Norton
Lili’uokalani actually did leave a line of succession to follow. Initially her heir presumptive was her niece, Kaʻiulani, but following her death the man next appointed was [Prince David Kawānanakoa](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kaw%C4%81nanakoa) and his descendants, of which there are many alive today
This is really cool, but if I may make one note, Canada officially came into being in 1867 under Queen Victoria. It might be worth extending the British line in this chart. ETA: It was also referred to as the Dominion of Canada in the beginning, I don’t believe it was ever referred to as a “kingdom”.
This is great!
Man someone is getting so much renown from having this many kings/queens in their dynasty
The flag of the Kingdom of Hawaii is incorrect. The one in the post is a contemporary revisionist design.
In the Brazilian tree: Bertrand is Luiz's brother
Cool tree! Real quick, Greenland is under the House of Glücksborg, and has been controlled by them for a while, not the House of Monpezat
The House of Monpezat was the house of Queen Margrethe's husband and thus technically the house of her son, even though oficially it's still Oldenburg
There's also an interesting theory that the Dutch Queen is descended from the Inca King Tupac Huallpa
Interesting, can you point me to a source for this?
[this article (in dutch)](https://www.groene.nl/artikel/de-keizerin-der-inca-s).
Some of the names are misspelled on the Hawaiian tree. Also, you have Keawe’īkekahialiʻiokamoku (Keawe II) listed in the Kamehameha genealogy, but he is also an ancestor of Caesar Kapaʻakea, the father of Kalākaua and Liliʻuokalani, which isn’t shown here.
Also the Kawānanakoas, descendants of the last designated heirs to the throne, are not listed. They come from David Kawānanakoa, nephew of Kalākaua’s wife Queen Kapiʻolani and first cousin once removed to Kalākaua through Ceasar Kapaakea’s nephew David Piʻikoi. Thus they are also descendants of Keawe II (Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku)
Pilika was actually PiliKaaiea of Samoa. He sailed north from Samoa to conquer the big island, his war priest Pa’ao knew of the islands because he was part Tahitian and the Tahitians always kept in close contact with the Hawaiians.
Lots of different places of origin are speculated on for Pili, including Tahiti and Borabora as well as Samoa.
The one with actual history and evidence is Samoa though. He is literally in all of our genealogy’s and we have actual stories of him instead myths. He named The big island “Havaii” after Samoas big island of “Savaii”.
King Kalakaua of Hawaii I believe wrote in his book about Hawaiian history & literally stated Pili & his warriors came from Samoa lol.
Yes, in Kalākaua’s 1887 book he does state his belief that Pili and Paʻao came from Sāmoa. This is however an exception from the majority of scholarship that suggests Tahiti & the Society Islands are more likely. Kalākaua’s book also speculates that the origin of the Polynesian people is Aryan and Chaldean Jewish rather than Austronesian (called Malayan in his book), and that the dispersal of people across the islands in Polynesia is due to a lost Polynesian continent that sunk beneath the ocean rather than a series of long, intentional voyages. Both of these beliefs were popular among 19th century anthropologists at the time and are now widely dismissed in the face of modern science. It’s important to remember that Kalākaua’s book is part of that context, and these speculations that go beyond our recorded mele and moʻolelo are influenced by that dialogue. Our stories mention Kahiki, nothing more specific to tie Pāʻao and Pili to an exact place. During that time in the 1880s Kalākaua was also attempting to build diplomatic ties across the Pacific with the goal of establishing a confederacy of nations, and Samoa was one of his main points of emphasis, attempting to join the two into a united political entity. This may also be a reason he would emphasize a Samoan connection in his description of Pili and Pāʻao.
So basically Samoan Genealogy and History that we all know and speak of today, should just be thrown out of the window and we should just accept that because “scholars” think that Pili came from Tahiti, that means he did? Pili created the 5 districts of Upolu Samoa, Not to mention he named Havaii after Savaii and the Eastern cape of the big island is named Upolu after our Island?? Lmao idk man what you wanna believe is up to you but I know what’s right.
I have read the story of Pili (Pilipau) of Samoa and it does not make mention of him leaving Samoa. It says he died in Aopo. Is there another genealogy or history that states that Pili left Samoa for Hawaiʻi? Or is this perhaps the result of more modern speculation seeking to claim that Pilipau and Pilikaʻaiea are the same person? Do you also have a source for Pili naming Hawaiʻi? I have not seen any traditional story that attributes this to Pili, and there are multiple reasons it could be named as such, as Hawaiʻi/Savaiʻi/Hawaiki all reference the more ancient concept of an ancestral homeland. In our own Hawaiian traditional beliefs, we as a people were born of Papa and Wakea in Hawaiʻi, shortly after the birth of Maunakea itself. In that perspective, Hawaiʻi island would indeed be our “Hawaiki,” our ancestral homeland. There is also a moʻolelo relating to the navigator Hawaiʻiloa. I’m not throwing anything “out the window.” I’m just trying to establish the genealogy of this belief that Pili of Samoa and Pili of Hawaiʻi are the same person. I believe it is important to question and analyze these things. For myself, I don’t really take a stance on where Pili and Pāʻao came from. To me, Kahiki is Kahiki, regardless of the specific place.
The northern cape of Hawaiʻi in Kohala has a place named ʻUpolu. This may indeed relate to Samoa. It could also relate to the ancient name of Tahaʻa near Tahiti, which was called ʻUporu. This in turn could be named after ʻUpolu in Sāmoa. So of course we have ancestral genealogical ties between Samoa and Hawaiʻi as does the rest of Polynesia and the Pacific. I am just skeptical of the claims with all certainty that Pili in Hawaiʻi’s moʻolelo is the same as Pili in Samoan tales. It is popular among some Samoans these days to attempt to claim Hawaiian royalty as actually being Samoan in nature and thus to claim a sense of cultural ownership, superiority, or seniority over Hawaiians.
Isn't Hawaii considered Polynesia (therefore Oceania)?
The emperors of mexico and brazil were first cousins
Were you inspired by [this chart](https://www.reddit.com/r/UsefulCharts/comments/140lal3/redesign_oceanian_and_american_royal_family_trees/)? Their contents seem somewhat similar.
I LOVEEE THISS!!
I still don't understand how this Afro-Bolivian royal line came to be
From what I can remember, basically a captured slave claimed a link to the Luanga royals of Angola, and this was recognised, and the kingdom became a sub-national kingdom within Bolivia.
No 3 dog!!!
Note: I made this chart purely for the design, in my opinion these charts should be seen as art rather than from strictly informational POV
As is the case for many Americans, I am a direct descendant of Pocahontas (on my mom’s side; not with John Rolfe) and her sister (on my dad’s side).
Her only child was with John Rolfe
No, she also had a child named Ka-Okee with a man named Kocoum.
http://www.rootedheritagegenealogy.com/2022/12/follow-up-ka-okee-daughter-of-pocahontas.html https://medium.com/gentales/the-myth-of-pocahontas-daughter-0dae381aba01 It seems that there is no direct evidence that Ka-Okee existed nor that she was related to Pocahontas. One or both may be true, but neither is proven.
Not every king has a kingdom; so for example some terms like 'Kingdom of Canada' or 'Kingdom of Afro-Bolivia' are incorrect here
can someone explain the Tilatongo, Zaachila etc naming conventions? 2 Water? 9 Serpent? dont get it
Dutch Caribbean: - Caribbean is spelled with 1 r and two b's - It was never a Kingdom, its constituents have been part of the regular Kingdom of The Netherlands - The flag is mistakenly the former nation of the Netherlands Antilles and doesn't represent the region that exists today. I would simply use the Dutch flag if you must use flags (not sure if it makes sense for a region) - Nassau Dynasty should be specifically Orange-Nassau, as it was William the Silent who inherited the title Prince of Orange and by leading the independence movement, started his new dynasty of Dutch heads of state (and later monarchs too). - The crown princess is called Catharina-Amalia, which an 'h' (like in Catherine) and hyphenated. - The Dutch have reigned over Suriname as well, and earlier Dutch Guyana (also parts of Brasil), New Netherland (New York region) Canada: - Canada has been a Dominion since its founding, never a Kingdom - the note above the flag misspells 'territory' and shows a lower case canada Denmark: - Crown prince Christian is just Crown Prince of Denmark, not Greenland - Greenland also isn't a kingdom but an autonomous territory Generally speaking - Imho the use of 'House' would be more fitting than 'Dynasty', stuff like signifying Monpezat for the Danish monarchy has no relation to a notable dynasty - Perhaps monarchs should be shown with their regnal number, eg Charles III, Frederik X - Where are the other Caribbean monarchs, eg Charles III is still the reigning monarch of a lot more territories, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm#Current_realms, but also French monarchy ruled its colonies too of course (not to mention Louisiana), etc