Fathers as chiefs

If your dad is a chief, does that make you like princess?


  • Nope, they are Chief's daughters. Kings produce Princesses.
  • isn't Moana from that disney movie a princess but her father was a chief? It all depend on the perspective. Western consider kings royals while Oceanian people consider cheifs to be royalty.
  • Kaselehlie BrunetteNgang,

    Firstly, I should apologize. I initially misread your post title, and believed you wrote "fathers as chefs." I was going to suggest that every father I have met, a number greater than zero, can cook approximately between 1-4 distinct meals and that's about it.

    This certainly applies to myself, at least. When I was a bachelor I would typically prepare a large pot of chili, consisting of potatoes, carrots, cabbage, onions, red and white beans, and beef, which I would eat for virtually every evening meal. Breakfasts typically consisted of scrambled eggs and toast, or cereal. Lunches were typically ramen augmented with canned tuna, or simply more black coffee. I had a reputation amongst my male friends as "the one who can cook," which, while not entirely inaccurate, feels somewhat disingenuous.

    All that said, allow me to now address your actual question. "If your dad is a chief, does that make you a princess?"

    I was born a boy, and a princess is a girl, so I would humbly suggest I was not a princess--unless, of course, I am less familiar with human anatomy and biology than I should be. It's also possible that I am not up to date on gender identity issues.

    Supposing that I were born a girl, and my father was a chief, would that make me a princess? My understanding of the English language, which is rather limited to be frank, is that the word princess most closely means the daughter of a monarch.

    I was once advised that some societies with chiefs ascribe upon them the same qualities a monarch, or king, has. These qualities can include the capacity to make unilateral decisions and otherwise act as the sovereign head of state. A monarch historically held all political authority in their kingdom.

    Let's relate this to Pohnpeian chiefs, i.e. Nahnmwarkis. Does a Nahnmwarki hold all political authority in a Pohnpeian municipality? I would suggest they do not, as while I believe a Nahnmwarki has broad municipal-wide powers that any given Nahnmwarki is equivalent in power to the chief of any particular kousapw. Therefore, I would suggest that a Nahnmwarki's daughter is not a princess, on the premise that a Nahnmwarki's daughter is not the female offspring of a monarch.

    Now, you may take umbrage with my definition of a monarch. You may suggest, as via this Wikipedia article, that a Nahnmwarki is in fact a monarch. Why, in the Ponapean-English Dictionary developed by Kenneth Rehg and Damnian Sohl, the word Nahnmwarki is translated into monarch! If a Nahnmwarki is in fact a monarch prima facie, then I would suppose a Nahnmwarki's daughter is indeed a princess. But is a Nahnmwarki a monarch?

    It is as this point, BrunetteNgang, that we may find ourselves in a conundrum. How can we ever come to know the truth if we cannot agree on what words mean? While I am excited to inform you that semantics--the study of the meaning of words--is a real thing, I am not sufficiently qualified (in, uh, anything at all) to argue over which definition is correct. I find myself reduced.

    This is further complicated because I am sincerely not sufficiently aware of leadership structures in many other Pacific Islands, such as those in Rapanui or Vanuatu, to demonstrate persuasive examples of how various chiefs' daughters are, or are not, princesses. I'm afraid the limited knowledge I do have would necessarily have me refer back to the issue on semantics.

    In short: I don't know the answer to your question. What do you think? If you are a girl, and your dad is a chief, are you a princess?

    Ni wahu oh karakarak,

    -Richard Clark
  • @Richard Clark, I think it makes you LIKE a princess
  • The ancient chiefdoms in Pohnpei and Kosrae were absolute Monarchs along with that of RMI. Life and control of what goes on in their domain was what they said. Now with the constitution of FSM these chiefdoms have been weakened. The RMI on the other hand their chiefly system power is still intact. The lands there in RMI are all owned by the chiefs and they can do with it as they please along with the people on those lands. The RMI government just found out that an outer island on Aelonlhaplahp has been leased to a australian millionaire without the governments knowledge. And when asked the people of this island who made the deal the chief of that island one of the 2 branches of the Kabua chiefdoms on the west said the island in question is a chiefly MO land and the government has no business to this matter.
  • Damn you are well informed there Rasta. Just the other day this issue you are talking about was brought up in the RMI parliament.
  • Who owns Beran island? The government or the chief? And which chief is that?
  • edited September 2018
    The government own no lands in the RMI. All lands are owned by the Chiefs of one of the 6 kingdoms or MO'JEN (4 in the Ralik/West and 2 in the Ratak/East) in the RMI. The MO'JENs predates the TTPI or RMI. Even the land that the RMI goverment facilities are on belong to one of the 6 domains. The government may rule but at the end of the day the chiefs still have final says on anything regarding those lands.

    as for Beran island, it belong to the Senior branch of the Kabua Family. That's the Laelang Kabua branch, the eldest son of the first Kabua. The ruling Chief of that branch is Nelu Watak whom i believe if im not mistaken rules both the Lealang MO'JEN and the Litakwa MO'JEN of the Erroja chiefly clan from the Rakinmeto (Southern Seas) in the Ralik.
  • My great grandfather knew someone named kabua kabua. Is this the same one from the kabua vs kabua case during the TTPI day? What branch he belonged to? Didn't he lose the case? What was that all about?
  • In regarding beran island who have the ultimate say? Doesn't your islands constitution limit the powers of the chiefs?
  • Yes that's the same one. He belonged to the Laelang branch, he is known as Kabua II, he was named in honor of his grandfather the first Kabua who signed the friendship treaty with the German empire. That case is still sensitive to talk about amongst Marshallese. The Kabua vs Kabua case was basically about who should have hold the Kabualaplap title and the lands that goes with it. The Kabualaplap title by far has the biggest portion of lands in the Ralik or western chain.

    Kabua vs Kabua was The Lealang or senior branch vs the Jeimata branch or the Junior branch of the Kabua chiefdom. Kabua Kabua vs Mike Kabua, Imata Kabua, Seagull Kabua.

    Kabua II had more rights to the title since he was the son of the eldest born of Kabua I, who was Lealang. But what Kabua II didn't know was that the President of the RMI at that time who was Amata Kabua was making moves behind the scene against him. From what i heard Amata forced the judges to rule in his favor.

    When the the case was announced all the people from the Ralik chose side. Imata had his house and Kabua II had his house and all the alaps from the ralik and people went majority to the house of Kabua II to show their support and allegiance. Kabua II came out and one of his aunties put a wreath of flower on his head and said "Ñe bulak, Bulak" in English that translate to if it means death then its death. Thats what women said to their men in the olden days before battle.

    When Amata found out that all the alaps supported Kabua II, even some of his own he called a postponement to the case. He knew that if it was war his side would lose. So he pulled some strings and got the case postponed and waited till the passing away of Kabua II. When Kabua II passed the judge passed judgement in favor of the Junior branch. In the eyes of many people in the Marshalls, especially the Ralik people the Junior branch usurped the brith right of the senior Kabua branch.
  • That is why everything is "boktak" (going wrong) in the Ralik Chain.

    Beran does not belong to the Nitijela. They know it. The constitution in the RMI recognizes the 4 MO'JEN in the ralik and with that recognition the constitution also acknowledged the MO'JEN right to dictate what goes around on the lands and islands within them.
Sign In or Register to comment.