From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Alii)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hawaii (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.


I don't remember exactly what characterizes feudalism, but I have heard Hawaiian scholars, most recently Kekuni Blaisdell, assert that Hawaii was not a feudal society. It would be good to be clear on that - or maybe even remove this part to another article. Makana Chai (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I heard the same thing from Haunani K. Trask but Dr. Keanu Sai explained why it is and explained what a feudal lord & feudal system really is. Mamoahina (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Question re new changes[edit]

Mahalo Kavebear for your contributions! I learned something new about po'e lo ali'i. Kamakau in People of Old says there are 11 degrees of chiefs, with the lo ali'i at number 5. It would be good if this article tracked Kamakau. Sorry I don't have time to write it myself. Mahalo! Makana Chai (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Lo-Alii's are mentioned, but I only added on information when I stumble upon it. I trying to complete the list of Alii Aimoku of Oahu, so I can began on an article of Kingdom of Oahu. I don't have time either, so sorry and I don't know much about the author Kamakau. I mostly read Account of Polynesian Race by Abraham Fornander. KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Also sometimes it says Naha chiefs are father and daughter. And sometimes some unions are classified as different Aliis. So it is really confusing. KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I think if you read Kamakau you would find it less confusing. With all due respect, Fornander's Account is not the best source for anything (though his collection of mythology is wonderful). I understand you don't have time but then it's important to make sure what you do put up is right. How about un-doing the lo ali'i until you, I or someone can make it right? Mahalo. Makana Chai (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Is that what you want? Just ask me to remove it. It is no big deal. I put it in the talk page. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
So you, like Zora have appointed yourself as the official keeper of these pages because you created them? And if I created something very similar to it how can I guarantee that it won't be altered based on whatever ideas or concepts you feel is appropriate for the average American to understand? I know all of this since earlier today an admin explained to me what and why behind edits of wikipedia. If you claim that all one needed to do was to ask to remove it, that isn't always the case as in the example of your habitual use of titles, yet in a response to someone else back in May 2010 you told that person what I was telling you about titles. I can understand the egotistical drive to find a forum where you can exercise some type of limited acquired knowledge but at least start citing sources and, as in the case of ali'i 'aimoku, provide the true definition. Mamoahina (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems like you and I have gotten off on the wrong foot. First of all I didn't create this page and secondly I don't claim any article as my own or a keeper of any article. No one can own an article. As for the title, be my guest, change it if you like. There is alot.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


The Lo-aliʻi (Chiefs of Royal Blood), similar to the French title of Prince of the Blood, were the one of the most precious of all. Though not of the highest caste, in their intermarriages within the family, but they were valued for consorts due to their uncorrupt lineage. The Lo-Alii live in the mountains of Oahu, apart from society, thereby allowing their blood to remain pure. Lo-alii had access to the Kukaniloko Birthstone; famous Lo-Aliis include the chiefs of Oahu and Lo Lale, hence his name, and his descendants and it isn't know why his full-blooded-brother, Piliwale, was not consider a Lo-Alii. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You habitually make comparisons to anything European in order to comprehend Hawaiian terms. You really need to understand and grasp the Hawaiian words for what they really are, sometimes you can't get an exact translation. You would know this if you spoke more than one language. Mamoahina (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No need to be scornful. This is English Wikipedia last I checked and translating foreign words into English terms is something that many scholars do and it's interesting and nice to know for someone who doesn't understand Hawaiian. And for you're info I speak Mandarin, Cantonese, Teochew, English, and a little bit of German.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


I am so confused. What is the difference between a piʻo chief and a niʻaupiʻo? And why is Keopuolani be often called a niʻaupiʻo of a naha union? This article really needs seriously rewriting someday.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Ali'iAliʻi

  • No point in using apostrophe. Okinas are okay to use now like in ʻIolani Palace when not using the version without any glottal stop.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Why put a non-typeable character in the title when the vast majority of readers won't even notice the difference? Titles are for navigation, but I certainly don't object to the okina being used inside the article. Kauffner (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Kawaihae, Hawai'i - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 00:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Article could use some serious research and copy editing[edit]

I have made a few changes based on discussions on a few other articles, where it was pointed out that Wikipedia had district chiefs and supreme island rulers mixed up. Fornander explains what a district chief is called and Moi has been determined to be a relatively new title. The article is desperately in need of reliable sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Instead of a move...[edit]

I plan to create a separate article for the Hawaiian word Aliʻi and reduce the Hawaiian content on this page to an overview of the main article and expand on the other uses here. Since the last discussion to move this page a consensus has been determined to allow special characters in article titles that do not effect the wiki-markup coding. In particular the MOS of Hawaii related articles states that article title should use the Hawaiian orthography even in the title (and should also be in italics). However, since this article is not about the single use of the word in Hawaii (and therefore does not use the okina) but seems to be almost entirely about the Hawaiian use, I am going to make the change with a bold edit.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the page history is very clear. This topic is about the Hawaiian word, and it should be singularly moved to allow for the special character. Please do not continue to claim that this article is not about the single use of the word in Hawaii as it always has been until you removed the content and copy and pasted it to a new article, removing the history of edits. We don't have two different topics here, only one. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not believe the page history supports that assertion. The article was created on June 10, 2004 with this version that was inaccurate at best as it describes the term to mean the "killing of chiefs". This was corrected with this edit. In 2005, on September 3rd, the article had this adding the Samoan information. On April 17, 2006 this edit added additional information about three additional locations and usages. The broad scope of the article has remained intact since that time.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: for the time being, move the article per the discussion below. I am under the impression that a split may be warranted and hope that discussion will continue, but the content dispute is outside the scope of the close of a move request. Dekimasuよ! 06:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

AliiAliʻi – Fixing recent copy and paste move. Previously, special characters would not allow us to use the okina in the title without problems. Since that is no longer case, the page can now be located at Aliʻi. For some reason, a user has claimed that we have two different topics, Alii and Aliʻi, but there is no evidence that this has ever been true. This is one singular topic. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is that this is an article about multiple languages. I do not know why Viridiats has chosen to ignore that on several occasions. He is requesting a move to change the article title and in that case I would object as it reduces the scope of this article and would mean removing content not related directly to the Hawaiian Language usage. There may be a consensus that exists on this article to keep the name without the okina as that would change the scope of this article.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
There's really no evidence that is true. You've merely altered the scope (with no discussion or consensus) to create a new scope and a new article. This article has been about the primary topic of Hawaiian nobility since it was created. The page history reflects this fact. It is no about other uses of the term, nor are there any links or any sources that are used to establish this currency. You've been asked several times to stop copying and pasting articles. Please respect the fact that your unilateral decision to split this subject into two topics is disputed. This requested move discussion was opened to allow you to present evidence for your proposal so that you convince others of your position. So far, I have seen zero evidence supporting your idea. Please present it so myself and others can review it. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The article was split and some content was moved over a redirect to expand on just the Hawaiian content there and to expand on the non Hawaiian usage here. It seems Viriditas has actually removed all of the non-Hawaiian language content and is asking for this move request as a way to stop the split itself and reduce and delete encyclopedic content just to now have the article become a different topic by narrowing its scope to a specific usage best handled by creating a new article, not be deleting long standing content and scope of this article.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Not true. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Alright. I trust your good faith that I was incorrect about something above, but I did indeed make a bold split that you objected to and reverted, which is fine and is our process and accepted as opposing the split. But the requested move in the manner you are suggesting does reduce scope and remove content and work of others while a split only reduced the Hawaiian language section to a smaller summary with the "Main Article" link in the section to the new article created over a redirect that had proper attribution. I believe Viriditas has concerns about my having copy pasted the content from one article to another when I made the split, but that is the process per Wikipedia:Splitting. Viriditas is asking for the burden of proof that the non Hawaiian language content can be verified and has not yet seen me attempt to do so. At this point I am simly arguing that if we are reverting the split that was a bold edit and then asking for a consensus discussion here, why begin preparing the article by boldly deleting content? That has been corrected by Viriditas himself by reverting to the last stable version before the dispute but I have to ask what is Viriditas' concerns here, his opposing view of a split, or objecting to my having copy pasted the content from one article to another? I ask this with all due respect as Viriditas may simply have the wrong idea about copying within Wikipedia. I'm not sure.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Would creating a "Nobility of Ancient Polynesia" article and a "Aliʻi in the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi" satisfy both sides, with a hatnote redirecting to the other side? (Or a disambig page.) SnowFire (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
That would work for me (in spirit but the suggested article title for the Hawaiian Language usage is not limited to the kingdom. It has a longer history. Perhaps something like Aliʻi of the Hawiian islands). Aliʻi would then be redirected to that page and Alii redirected to the Polynesia article.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment why can't we just substitute a standard ASCII character instead? Ali'i would prevent any problems with various different computers/OSes/browsers that people run in the real world. -- (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The MOS Page on Hawaiian related articles states a clear consensus that the ʻokina should never be substituted on Wikipedia with an apostrophe. The diacritic can be copy edited into the article and there is still the okina template: {{okina}}. A discussion on the possible issues caused by the diacritic's use on the MOS Hawaii related articles talk page demonstrated little to no effect.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That is for in article text, not pagenames. Many articles use different formations in-article than found in their pagenames (indeed all lowercase first letters are that way, since Wikipedia pagenames do not allow lowercase first letters) In-article text using the okina is fine, the problem is usability of the pagename on various computer systems. -- (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually the page needs to be updated. There actually is a consensus but has yet to be changed on the page. The okina is allowed in article titles through discussions on many levels from the MOS to notice boards do to both the fact that key boards do not have the character is no longer an issue because it can be...guess what...copy pasted. Viriditas took part in the discussion on the MOS talk page. The issue of special characters in page name has never actually excluded the use of diacritics. As for the page title, I prefer to use the native language title spelled per the MOS for each region as each culture writes it.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


The clear consensus from what I see is that there should be an article titled Aliʻi and that it should be about the Hawaiian usage, as the Okina is a specific Hawaiian diacritic that, when used, gives the word a Hawaiian usage. The issue seems to be that one editor feels this is strictly about the Hawaiian usage and that there is no evidence that there is a Polynesian usage worth mentioning or that the article itself is not about those words in other languages that do not use the diacritic. The editor does not challenge that it is not possible, just that he has seen no effort made to prove such. However, there is already one reference to the Polynesian usages and I think the issue comes down to how to get where we all seem to want to be. I believe that Aliʻi needs to be deleted in order to avoid a cut and paste - partial content merge into an existing redirect with summary and template attribution to the original article. Viriditas strongly objects to that. I, myself, just want a separate article, strictly on the Hawaiian usage. The answer seems simple. I accept the move proposal if others can agree for a consensus and we have an admin delete the target page: Aliʻi so that this move can be made either through this request or with the move function etc.. Then, I will create the Polynesian article under the name suggested by SnowFire, (but without the "ancient" wording as the Maori still have a King) Nobility of Polynesia as a split, if Viriditas agrees for me to cut and paste merge the content with summary and template attribution so the work of the editors on that portion is not lost. I found all the original editors who contributed that content. In the past I have even added individual attribution to a new page as a summary, dummy edit attribution like (using myself as a demonstration): "Content edited into Alii on 21:54, 24 November 2014 by User:Mark Miller (oldid=635273579) has been merged into Nobility of Polynesia". So I know proper attribution can be given to those editors and there are far fewer to attribute, which may also be a concern of the requesting editor. What do you think, Snowfire and Viriditas? Do we have a path for the request to move forward?--Mark Miller (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I will agree that according to the current content of the article, it is primarily focused on Hawaiian. So probably it would be best to split off the Samoan use to some master article that covers all Polynesian variants of the term. As to what concept occupies the pagename, we'd have to determine the primary topic in English. I suspect it would be Hawaiian, since Hawaii is a U.S. State and Samoa is only a territory, so has much less visibility in the English speaking world. -- (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kaukau Alii - a rank not a line[edit]

Kaukau Alii "were the aliʻI nui of the old Liloa/Umi line who ruled the island of Hawaii until Keaweʻopala, when he was overthrown by Kalaniʻōpuʻu." I added David Malo's definition of a Kaukau Alii instead. David Malo himself was a kaukau alii (Osorio 15). The term refers to a rank not a line or family with common ancestry. Jonah Piikoi, George Luther Kapeau and Bennet Namakeha are all examples of Kaukau Alii with no relation to Keaweʻopala. No family were exclusively of any rank because ranks changed in term of marriage. Keaweʻopala and his father Alapainui of the powerful Mahi family of Kohala were high ranking chiefs, in their own right, at least above the wohi rank, because their mothers were exalted chiefess, ie. Kalanikauleleiaiwi's Alapai's mother for example. It is true that some of Keaweʻopala's later descendants such as the Moana family became Kaukau Alii but that didn't mean he himself was a Kaukau Alii. Children of chiefs can drop in rank or rise in rank depending on the rank of the mother, which is why the Kaukau Alii rank of Kapaakea, Kekuanaoa and Kanaina didn't make their children Kaukau Alii since they had really high ranking mothers. Also Kalaniʻōpuʻu was as much part of the Liloa/Umi line as Keaweʻopala (whose grandmother Kalanikauleleiaiwi was a part of Liloa/Umi line). From Umi to Kamehameha, Keaweʻopala and Alapainui are the only rulers not paternally from the Liloa/Umi line since they were part of the Mahi family of Kohala who usurped the throne from the sons of Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is true that Kalaniʻōpuʻu was also descended from Liloa I believe (not entirely sure). The malo source you provided did not define the rank/line (yes line because they continue with each family) at the page listed or the link it went to. I will look into this further but for now I have simplified the prose.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
in a general sense, it is not a line because it all depends on marriage and either elevation or lowering in rank. Kamehameha, an alii wohi could have fathered an kaukau alii. Maybe this is what you're getting at, Kaukau alii family or family lines of service chiefs did exist: the Moana family, David Malo, John Papa Ii were descendants of such as a line, but that only existed because these Kaukau alii continually intermarried with other kaukau alii instead of marrying above their rank and elevating their children's rank like in the case of many 19th century male kaukau alii who married alii nui wahines. Kalaniʻōpuʻu was a direct descendant of Umi and Liloa; he was part of the legitimate line overthrown by Alapainui and the upstart Kohala Mahi's who were also part of the Umi/Liloa line since of Kalanikauleleiaiwi. I appreciate the change you made because their is no emphasis now made that it was one distinct family line descended from Umi/Liloa. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it is a confusion in prose but the word "A line" implies one Kaukau alii family. There were many different families of kaukau alii who served the Kamehameha family.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but I think the confusion is in the point not being fully addressed. Let me add something.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Reliable sources do refer to specific Kaukau alii families as "service lines", so I do disagree with saying "in a general sense, it is not a line because.." But thanks for the Malo source that was important to establish how the caste level was established or created with a source. As you state above: "[They] existed because these Kaukau alii continually intermarried with other kaukau alii instead of marrying above their rank..." Yes...and that is how the line of a certain rank or caste would continue. But, and this is important, Kaukau alii only served aliʻi nui and the caste system was pretty much abolished during the kingdom when the Kamehamehas became supreme rulers of all the islands. The Kaukau alii for the Kamehameha's represent the end of the Kaukau alii. Kanaina I and his surviving cousin were the last of that line only because the caste was done away with. I also believe that under the Kingdom the traditions changed somewhat and even new terms created for the responsibilities of the attendants to the royal family.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes many service lines existed. My main problem with that originally was that I thought you were implying Alapainui and Keaweʻopala were kaukau alii just because their descendants became kaukau alii. I see now that now was not the case.
My issue is not the word "line" now because as I stated already many chiefly service line existed. My problem is your statement that there was only one who served the Kamehameha and one that survive into the kingdom? I never heard of anything being abolished after the Kamehamehas became rulers. The kapu system may have been abolished bit alii rank and protocol were followed throughout the kingdom's period although probably not as strictly as in the pre-Conquest age but never abolished. There is a notable case on April 2, 1845, Kamehameha III elevated by royal order a group of kaukau alii including Namakeha, Kapena, Namanuu, Kapaakea to alii nui status so they could replace dying Alii nui in the legislature and privy councils showing consideration of these difference in rank still existed in the kingdom period. Osorio's book explains this in detail.
Your comment "The Kaukau alii for the Kamehameha's represent the end of the Kaukau alii. Kanaina I and his surviving cousin were the last of that line only because the caste was done away with" — This is highly untrue. Kaukau alii served other high ranking families as well not solely the Kamehameha. And the Moana family were not the only kaukau alii families which served the Kamehamehas. Young's source states Moana's descendants started "a new service line" not that they were exclusive retainer families allowed to serve the Kamehameha family. Many other service lines which served the Kamehamehas existed as I already stated with David Malo and John Papa Ii's families being just a few examples and many other kaukau alii served other high ranking alii families; Princess Poomaikelani, her sisters, and her husband Hiram Kahanawai were retainers of Queen Emma's family until Kalakaua came to the throne.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The Alapainui and Keaweʻopala thing was a brain fart on my part. I meant to put Kalaniʻōpuʻu and I actually do think I was trying to state the wrong thing. You are correct that the Kaukau aliʻi were many lines and I didn't fully realize they were not. Yes, it is true. Kam I became supreme ruler and the alʻi system of old was abolished as Kamehameha now owned all of the island lands. Only he could choose who owned the land or was passed the land. This is basically the end of the system and is mentioned in reliable sources. What you say above is incorrect in that the aliʻi nui was now the supreme monarch and whether if they were Kaukau aliʻi then they were already aliʻi. but that does not mean the aliʻi system still recognized them as separate castes. They didn't. Now with a kingdom the nobility was chosen and appointed from the old aliʻ families by the king. Eventually a privy counsel and a house of lords and even a royal order created later. I don't think that actually demonstrates that the aliʻi caste system was still in place.
I don't know if I suggested that Moana's line was exclusive (but I did misunderstand that so probably). The way it is written now is to make clear as the source does, that the Moana line of Kaukaua Aliʻi ended with Kanaina I and his cousin. However that line became a seconday line in that the Royal family intermarried with the line many times.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes alii after the conquest didnt rule individual districts but they did hold on to their rank in terms of their genealogy and how they were seen by fellow alii. Similar to Europe which had a higher nobility and a lower nobility, Hawaii continued to view chiefs as differing in rank. The rank and position of kauakau alii still remain as a designation of a person lineage and genealogy. Certain kaukau alii moved outside of their old service roles and became politicians or scholars but many dozen of lesser known families continued as just retainers for example Duke Kahanamoku's grandparents. The institutions such as the hereditary moku system may not have continued but the mindset, stigma and values on rank still existed into the kingdom, so that is why you have debates or scandal relating to alii marriages and succession even after the conquest. Kamehameha III only started appointing kaukau alii to the legislature because the chiefs who possessed higher ranks and dominated the old Council of Chiefs were dying out (people like Liliha, Boki, Hoapili, Kuakini, Keeaumoku, Kahalaia, etc.), so even then the mindset of varying rank still existed when he elevated those fourteen kaukau alii to high chief status in 1845.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with the clarification of the article now. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Here we disagree. You see, it wasn't even just a matter of land. It was power, influence etc. The regular crap that makes up politics. Why do you think there was such a brew at the elections with Queen Ema and Kalakaua? The Kamehameha were the Aliʻi and the old line were appointed by the king at his will and Aliʻi became a thing of the past that many simply held onto as socially important but all of the trappings were done away with except that most retained land until the Mahele (except for those killed in battle or whose land was taken is such). When the Kingdom was fully united the Aliʻi no longer existed in anything but genealogy. And yes, even to this day Hawaiians hold on to their history but there are no aliʻi today. But after the Kingdom the royal attendants, retainers and guardians were all chosen from the aliʻi families with the closet family ties, such as Bishop, Kaʻahumanu, Kamehameha III and really all of the rulers and members of the Royal Family. The debates and scandals were because of the bloodlines not because the caste system. It was still important to have the best blood marriages. That is why Lunalilo was hated by Kam IV and V. he was of higher blood. Lunalilo had the highest bloodline of the Kingdom of his day. Hawaiians still hold bloodlines in genealogy very important. Its spiritual and personal.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Clearly this is just a difference of words here. Again I state again: the political institutions of the alii system no longer existed outside the monarchy but the mindset of rank still existed in terms of bloodline and genealogy. Bloodline or genealogy whatever you may call it - this aspect of being an alii matter greatly to the Hawaiians even after the Conquest even if the position came with no political power. It symbolized the mana of possessed by the chiefs of old Hawaii Nei. Lower ranking chiefly families continued to respect the families of higher ranking lines up till the Overthrow. Socially these rank mattered to the Hawaiians who still remember the old system when the mana of the alii also denote spiritual and political power. Old Hawaiians in the territorial days still believed former alii of the kingdom like Princess Kawananakoa could stop the lava flow of Kilauea...Kamehameha IV and V were equal in rank to Lunalilo; the two brothers' worries stem from the possible children of a marriage between Lunalilo and their sister Victoria Kamamalu, which would outrank them because both parents would be alii of the first rank unlike either of these four who were the children of kaukau alii fathers [1].--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Mana and aliʻi ranking or caste was not the same thing. Kamehameha I's bloodline/genealogy/mana was less than his own children by Keōpūolani who was just about the highest ranking aliʻi of her time. Kamehameha I's children from her had a higher ranking than him in many reliable sources and the story says that Kamehameha would let the children play on his chest while he laid on the ground to symbolize their higher mana from mother who was of higher ranking than Kamehameha. I believe sources refer to Lunalilo as being the highest ranking aliʻi of his time but...of course, he lived past Kam IV and V to have a short rule. Maybe "..of his day" was that year.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)