I think people may be misunderstanding what protectorates are. They often come about when a group is unified, strong, not near anything valuable, etc. And while Europeans sometimes traded rights with them around in Africa, they mostly did not sell the land itself. The wording of the OP feels misleading, as it would be classified more as a colony if the British just decide to squash the Hawaiians. If it is a protectorate then there is going to be more of a princely state vibe. Missionaries continue to come and go as they please (though might be a bit less liked. Understandably so, given that apparently some British or American missoinsry I himself carried around, as well as having locals build him a house out of pink coral blocks), British sailors would be able to demand to be able to buy resources, even if the Hawaiian are low on them themselves, any chance of a local parliament is probably squashed due to the British Legate preferring to talk directly to the local King and ministers to get things done, etc. I expect Americans would have a lot of rights, and be generally treated like Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, etc. The Yanks might be a bit annoyed, but so long as they get a few decent islands for themselves for the navy, as well as rights that their commercial craft can land and refuel to head to China, there won't be much of a squabble. I do not see Hawaii ever becoming part of Canada or the other dominions. Too distant, too different ethnically, and the Colonial and Foreign departments would have no reason wish to do so. Not as if the Maldives went to either India or Pakistan. Do you guys think the abritish would try to keep any of the smaller islands or to add their own to Hawaii? The State today is much longer than it seems. The archipelago goes all the way to Midway, the only island in the chain that is not part of the State. Come to think of it, it would be a very convenient location for the British. I see a lot of cartoons showing it as the belt buckle of the British empire.