I was thinking this as I was reading online. I'll post the thing in question that I saw, at least it was to the author, then I'll reply with my comment.
1) BPB was not the last of the Kamehamehas as claimed by the Haole; as a matter of fact, our family oral history includes the claims that she was hapa-haole and was NOT a Kamehameha.
Not sure if it was the Haole only that perpetuated this, but although she wasn't the only & last Kamehameha descendant, they say this only in the sense that she was considered to be Royal which was established during the time of Kauikeaouli & when the royal school was started. I've never, ever heard of such ridiculous claim that she was hapa-haole thefore her not being a Kamehameha.
There may be a possible reason for the author making such a claim. Is it possible they mistook, perhaps, another person with the same name that actually was hapa haole? Not sure since the author never cites sources.
2) Claims made by some includes the fact (recorded in a aged book) that the true Bernice Pauahi died at a young age and was replaced by a neighbor's child who was half white.
Again, no citation, but at least an acknowledgement that it did come from some aged book? So, just as people get crazy today & go the cheap route due to the internet & publish these so called "books" like on lulu.com, that these books are quoted & therefore supposedly valid as far as its contents go?
Seriously, if this was the case, why all this charade & thorough history on our beloved Princess Pauahi?
3) the true Bernice Pauahi's mother was Konia, who had siblings: Pauahi - Ruth Keelikolani's mother; Keola (k) whose child was Alenoho (k); and Hanuna (k) whose children were Kapule (k); Kini (w); Hookahe (w); and Poohina (w).
The "true" mother was Konia, versus the "un-true" mother? And were all these full-siblings? I know that Pauahi & Konia were paternal half-sisters, not sure about the others but again the author fails to provide that info.
3) Although an election was made and King William Lunalilo became the head, the Kamehameha descendants did not step forward because William Lunalilo was the elder, the oldest living child from one of Kamehameha I, and Kamehameha II's surviving wives - Kekauluohi/Auhea who was also married to Kaheakulani and then Charles Kanaina.
Hold on! The election was made according to the articles in the Constitution. Not to mention King Kamehameha III chose the alii children who would one day become rulers to attend the royal school for their education & prepare them for their future role. This does not mean that each & every tom-dick-&-harry had the right to rule or "step-up" as the other was hinting that they did not. That's not how it works, nor did it work like that in the olden days.
That would be like saying why did Kamehameha become ruler in the first place when it should've been his older brother, or better yet why did Keoua's son Kamehameha ruled when it should've been Keoua's older sibling's sons who should've rule. It just doesn't work the way the author is making it out to be.
4) Kekauluohi/Auhea was Kamehameha's stepdaughter and
became his young wife.
"step-daughter"? Where does it say that? In our Hawaiian culture, there is no such word.
5) William Lunalilo was uncle to many of Kamehameha's descendants, as well as Kaumualii's descendants.
"Anakala" was a recent introduction into the Hawaiian language. It's obvious that the author is trying to establish some sort of older/younger generation situation here in order to justify something, not sure what exactly, but as always the author never makes it clear.
6) Lunalilo's oldest brother whom he had never met was Kaoleioku (k). Other sibling's were Kanekapolei (w); Kekauonohi (w); Mauli (k); and Keliikanakaole (k). His older stepsibling's included Kalaniopuu's children: Keoua Ahuula (k); Keoua Peeale (k); Kaoleioku (k) - claimed to have been a 'pio' child; Puali Nui (w). There are others.
Why the author believes that Kaoleioku, Kanekapolei, Kekauonohi, etc. were older siblings is beyond me. In our culture, here are important words to know. You'll have to look them up to understand what they mean.
a) kaikuaana
b) kaikaina
c) kaikunane
d) kaikuahine
Then you have makua and kupuna. Not uncle, not aunt, not great-aunty or great-uncle. That's a Haole concept.
Now Kanekapolei was a wife of Kalaniopuu, a half-brother to Keoua, the father of Kamehameha while Kaoleioku was the father of the chiefess Pauahi (mother of Princess Ruth) and also Konia (mother of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop). King Lunalilo was born in 1835, while Lunalilo's parents Charles Kanaina Kekauluohi were married in July 1821. Kekauluohi was born on July 16, 1794 and she was married to Kamehameha in 1809 in Waikiki.
So the author stated the other things previously in order to get you believe how Lunalilo is this "uncle" to others, because his mother was married to Kamehameha who was Kekauluohi's uncle. Lunalilo was born way after Kaoleioku died (Feb 19, 1818) and did state that Lunalilo didn't get to meet this older sibling, but that's the deception right there. That because Kamehameha was previously married to Kekauluohi, therefore Lunalilo is sibling to the other children?
The tricky part is understanding how the generational difference, younger & older branches worked in the olden days. Obviously the author is creating their own system in order to justify why they believe money is owed them.
7) Other heirs existed which includes Kamehameha's brother Keliimaikai's descendants who were a mixed breed of John Young and Isaac Davis his early English advisors/counselors.
The use of "heirs" is misleading, obviously trying to gain sympathy from readers in order to deceive to them that money is owed.
8) Charles Reed Bishop and Friends, including the help of the American military stopped the crowds from opposing Kalakaua, he was not a Kamehameha descendant, did not have the bloodlines, but he was the son of Keohokalole who was a hanai child of Kamehameha descendant named Nahuina (w). Nahuina (w) was the descendant of Kaoleioku (k) through his children Kapule (k) and Kini (w). Nahuina (w), Meleana (w), and Kaapiipii (w) were pio children - brother and sister married and had children.
This is starting to get ridiculous. So now the author focuses on Kalakaua and how he had no claim and confuses the audience by spewing out names of others not really relavant.
So now the author is using nearly the same analogy with Lunalilo by mentioning Kalakaua's mother being hanai'd by a grandchild (via Kaoleioku) of Kamehameha, but mentions the whole pio union.
Keohokalole and her husband (father of the last King & Queen of Hawai'i) Kapaakea were members of the aha alii (aha olelo alii?) and from the way I understood it, were members of Kauikeaouli's aha olelo alii or House of Nobles due to the fact they were descendants of the aliis who were instrumental in Kamehameha's unification. In the case of Keohokalole & Kapaakea, they were both grandchildren of Kepoolani, the son of one of the twins (Kona chief?) who helped Kamehameha. His name was Kameeiamoku.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8ed1efce-4dd3-477c-b50d-8517d2cf08c4)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5fdcc4d5-34bd-4a80-9d19-30340b2e10cf)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0555cb95-72e6-4585-8ef2-cf74a8ace830)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0663e44b-2b22-441d-b58d-8939edadda99)
