Kingdom of Hawaii Uniforms

Here are various uniforms from the Kingdom of Hawaii
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Honolulu Rifles

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Honolulu Rifles Full Dress Uniforms

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
"John Keone Likikine Richardson (December 15, 1853 - June 25, 1917) was a Hawaiian politician who served as a legislator on the House of Representative and House of Nobles. Member of the Royal Guard as a Colonel on the Queen's Staff, Privy Councilor and Private Attorney for Liliuokalani"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
"Queen Liliuokalani's Household Guard being disarmed by Col. John H. Soper, following the overthrow of the monarchy in January, 1893. "

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
"Royal Hawaiian Band" 1889 (Not sure if they were strictly military or not)

More to follow...

From the Iolani Palace Collection

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Helmet with King Kalakaua's Monogram

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Honolulu Rifle's Helmet

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Royal Guard Helmet

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Epaulette's with King Kalakaua's monogram, and rank insignia (Crown and two stars/pips)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Detail of a cap/hat

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Dress Belt

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Cuff Insignia (I've seen pictures of individuals wearing uniforms with this insignia, will try to find)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Patch

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Epauletters, crown and one star/pip

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Helmet plate

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Belt Buckle (Royal Guard?)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Honolulu Rifles belt buckle

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Detail of Sword

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
John Dominis, Queen Liliouakalani's Consort, wearing a uniform with the cuff patches shown previously

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Royal Guard

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Colonel David Leleo Kinimaka, some time colonel of the Royal Guards

It's an interesting state of affairs regarding Hawaii.

Anything later than 1893 are technically not Hawaiian, since the legal government was overthrown and a puppet state installed.  The Royal Family and the Hawaiian people lost any real authority after 1893.
 
In 1893 a small group of American businessmen along with diplomats and the military conspired to overthrow the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
I believe one of the excuses used was that of them being unable to defend themselves, although Britain, France and Japan, among others supported their sovereignty.  In reality it was money land and a nice deep harbour for all that trade.  
Apparently Hawaii was technically invaded, troops were landed without request from an elected government, so under international law the an extended occupation was illegal.
The American-Spanish war was used as a back door to finally take possession of the islands in 1898

The Royal Family have petitioned the UN but that was received with in the best possible taste and then ignored.

This could have something to do with the fact that if their claim was upheld, the resulting compensation would bankrupt not only the American economy but also many multinationals.

Also since the Hawaiians are now an ethnic minority within their own nation it appears that the United Nations Security Council have washed their hands of the problem. It just may go away giver time so why bother.

Bottom line, human nature hasn't changed over last hundred and ten years, it's still never safe to have a large greedy bully next door...

Nice pictures...

The issue is considerably more complicated than that. First of all native Hawaiians had been a minority since the 1880s, over a decade before the overthrow of the monarchy. Secondly the Hawaiian islands exercised their right to self determination in 1959 and became the 50th state of the United States with 93% of the votes in favor, fewer than 8,000 votes went against statehood and virtually all of those were from big business types who opposed statehood because then they would have to pay Federal income taxes.

The Hawaiians have a nation, it's called the United States of America ... and one of their own is currently the President of the United States.

Sorry Criss but is quite simple.
Under international treaties and law Hawaii should not have being occupied at all.
The only reason for doing so was greed.

Hawaii, under Article 73, was a part of the UN system, and was placed under the administering authority of the United States which agreed to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions. Did they really do this?

As for the vote, many of the original Hawaiians were so out numbered by the 1950s that any vote was just window dressing and superfluous. Since a greater part of the population were Americans then it was a fore gone conclusion.

Any U.S. citizen who had resided in the islands for a year was allowed to vote, which included large numbers of American military servicemen and their families, who were essentially the occupation force that had illegally held Hawaii since the admittedly unlawful annexation in 1898.
The island of Ni'ihau, which was almost totally Native Hawaiian, and was relatively free from the propoganda of statehood, voted overwhelmingly against statehood, as did the island of Lana'i..
The indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum.
The statehood vote, both in terms of the question asked and the people who were allowed to vote, was in no way a valid act of self-determination, and did not legitimize the occupation. Hawaii has never legally been a state of the United States.

How to steal a nation ;
Get the UN to give you administering authority.
Ignore responsibilities under said authority.
Break or ignore former treaties under international law.
Then flood it with you own nationals and ask them to vote.

If the whites and Asians have to leave Hawaii, do the whites have to leave New Zealand too? Or is there some factor that makes New Zealand different?

New Zealand is a little different, it was an occupation followed by a war and which ended with formal treaties.  More in line with the early expansion of  the European settlers into the Indian and Spanish territories of North and Central America.  
Although I would make guess that in America far more treaties were broken than in New Zealand.

Also New Zealand is now an independent country founded on formal treaties.

As for sending anyone home, unlike New Zealand it's debatable as to the legality any of the America Congressional legislations regarding Hawaii.  If there's is no legal treaties to confirm the status of the non indigenous peoples of Hawaii, then I suppose they would have to resort too claiming squatters rights.

This is all academic, there's more chance of the Mohicans claiming back New York, than the Hawaiian Royal Family forming an elected government.

There's not many European nations that history has a nasty habit of hitting below the belt.... .