Could the Hawaiian Monarchy be restored/preserved?

Could the Hawaiian Monarchy be restored or preserved instead of being governed as a regular state?

For example in Indonesia Yogyakarta is a special region that still retains its Sultan.
 
Not if Hawaii is annexed and governed as a territory/state. Although maybe there would be a route for a later quasi-restoration of the monarchy as a purely ceremonial entity with no connection to government. I’m thinking the monarchy could basically be an ngo/corporation lead by the monarch and would focus on cultural activities, maybe some charity. It wouldn’t get any special privileges not accorded to other cultural organizations though, and any role in actual government would be a major no-no.

Alternatively, if Hawaii is instead taken as a protectorate or administered as an unincorporated territory then the monarchy could absolutely be retained/restored. It still wouldn’t have any real power, but it could have an officially endorsed ceremonial position. Unincorporated territories don’t have to follow the same rules as states, so there’s a lot more flexibility there for involving things like the monarchy. In fact, if Hawaii were in such a position I can see the US authorities wanting to bring back the monarchy, as a way to cement and legitimize American rule over the islands.
 
You are going to need a strong benefactor to keep the US out of Hawaii. Once the US gets a foothold, it's game over. Maybe the UK.
 
No because the Constitution requires a republican form of government.

Firstly, the word is "guarantees" not "requires". The word implies "you can have a republican form government if you want one, and we will support this", rather than "you will have a republican form of government, whether you want one or not".

Also, what is "republican form of government" supposed mean, anyway? IIRC, when the Constitution was written, that is more likely to mean "democratic government", rather than "has an elected head of state".
 
Firstly, the word is "guarantees" not "requires". The word implies "you can have a republican form government if you want one, and we will support this", rather than "you will have a republican form of government, whether you want one or not".

Also, what is "republican form of government" supposed mean, anyway? IIRC, when the Constitution was written, that is more likely to mean "democratic government", rather than "has an elected head of state".

Except that the founders (with the possible exception of Hamilton) and the country as a whole were extremely allergic to even the sniff of monarchy, especially in the discussions about the scope of executive power.

The non-privileged NGO is about the only way it'd work.
 
Could the Hawaiian Monarchy be restored or preserved instead of being governed as a regular state?

For example in Indonesia Yogyakarta is a special region that still retains its Sultan.
It's an apples and oranges comparison. The two have vastly different histories.
Not as a state in the union. If it gains independance it's up to them otherwise not likely.
Correct, but even in independence it's not necessarily likely. Even with secession being illegal, Hawaiian nationalists are divided on the question of monarchy.
No because the Constitution requires a republican form of government.
Indeed.
Not if Hawaii is annexed and governed as a territory/state. Although maybe there would be a route for a later quasi-restoration of the monarchy as a purely ceremonial entity with no connection to government. I’m thinking the monarchy could basically be an ngo/corporation lead by the monarch and would focus on cultural activities, maybe some charity. It wouldn’t get any special privileges not accorded to other cultural organizations though, and any role in actual government would be a major no-no.
It's ASB for Americans to restore the monarchy, especially in the era being discussed. Some kind of charitable NGO with no formal political rle could exist, but arguably this is essentially the case already.
Alternatively, if Hawaii is instead taken as a protectorate or administered as an unincorporated territory then the monarchy could absolutely be retained/restored. It still wouldn’t have any real power, but it could have an officially endorsed ceremonial position. Unincorporated territories don’t have to follow the same rules as states, so there’s a lot more flexibility there for involving things like the monarchy. In fact, if Hawaii were in such a position I can see the US authorities wanting to bring back the monarchy, as a way to cement and legitimize American rule over the islands.
There is no precedent for this with any unincorporated territory. Why would Hawaii be different?
You are going to need a strong benefactor to keep the US out of Hawaii. Once the US gets a foothold, it's game over. Maybe the UK.
Or Japan, Belgium, or Germany
There is claimant, but the heir is not pursuing the claim. Indeed be held political office as a Republican, so he had to swear allegiance to US and State of Hawaii constitutions.

http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/07/pretender-profile-prince-quentin-of.html
As is frequently the case with deposed monarchies, there are actually rival claimants.
Firstly, the word is "guarantees" not "requires". The word implies "you can have a republican form government if you want one, and we will support this", rather than "you will have a republican form of government, whether you want one or not".

Also, what is "republican form of government" supposed mean, anyway? IIRC, when the Constitution was written, that is more likely to mean "democratic government", rather than "has an elected head of state".
While all of the states are now structured on a more or less presidential model, several early on functioned as presidential parliamentary systems (like South Africa). None of them had a head of state after independence who was not chosen by some form of election, whether by the people, by electoral college, or by the legislature. Given that Congress has to approve proposed constitutions for new states, none will get into the union as a monarchy. Given the ability of the federal judiciary to nullify clauses in state constitutions deemed incompatible with federal norms, no monarchy subsequently established in a state will endure.
Except that the founders (with the possible exception of Hamilton) and the country as a whole were extremely allergic to even the sniff of monarchy, especially in the discussions about the scope of executive power.

The non-privileged NGO is about the only way it'd work.
Essentially, this. But it's not really far off from OTL.
 
The closest you could get to this is probably with a similar plan that a number of Pro-Monarchist parties in Germany opted to try (but never got the chance too); the state legislature would vote for the "Governor", with the candidate favored being the claimant to the original throne. While not a King or Queen, they'd still be the Head of State of Hawaii and be elected by democratic means. The problem of course would then be maintaining the popularity of the Party(ies) that would be supportive of the Monarchist candidate as terms would still be an issue.
 
There is no precedent for this with any unincorporated territory. Why would Hawaii be different?

American Samoa? Part of their legislature includes traditional chiefs who are elected according to traditional customs by various districts. Hawaii would need to demote its status to that of an unincorporated territory in order to have anything resembling a monarchy. The Supreme Court held that not all provisions of the Constitution apply to unincorporated territories, so if Hawaii passes a law establishing the Queen/King as Governor of Hawaii (the POTUS is still head of state), then that would probably be legal while not falling afoul of the "republican form government" provision (which appears to mainly have been argued over in the context of Reconstruction).
 
American Samoa? Part of their legislature includes traditional chiefs who are elected according to traditional customs by various districts. Hawaii would need to demote its status to that of an unincorporated territory in order to have anything resembling a monarchy. The Supreme Court held that not all provisions of the Constitution apply to unincorporated territories, so if Hawaii passes a law establishing the Queen/King as Governor of Hawaii (the POTUS is still head of state), then that would probably be legal while not falling afoul of the "republican form government" provision (which appears to mainly have been argued over in the context of Reconstruction).
Unorganized unincorporated territory to have Am Sam's status. Also, elected chiefs are not monarchs.
 
Top