The Maori King movement is a small effort today to get a Maori monarch for New Zealand. The idea though of a client, unified Maori monarchy ruling New Zealand )or just the North Island) under British "protection" dates to the first British resident minister to the archipelago James Busby. Something alone these lines was attempted in Fiji, and, arguably, the Hawaiian monarchy was somewhat similar to how this might have worked, but was it viable, and what might the consequences be?
WI: Maori ruled British client kingdom in New Zealand?
- Thread starter Wendell
- Start date
The Hawai'Ian Islands were unified by Kamehameha, the Maori Kingitanga never extended beyond the northern half of the north island our TL. This was home to at least two-thirds of the pre contact Maori population however.
When the earliest European settlers began making treks inland by the early 1800s, they discovered that the Maori had already begun adjusting their economies to export food products, mainly flour, flax and potatoes, to the convict colonies in Australia! They had functional mills they had made from pictures in European books!
An earlier settlement of Australia, or a delayed European settlement of NZ, would likely lead to a Maori-only "musket war" which should see the emergence of a single unified Maori King/State, or at the very least authority extended across the north island (ta ika a Maui) and the top end of the south island, perhaps as far as Aoraki (south island being the precontact place called Aotearoa. It infuriates me when the two islands have Maori names, but the shorter flatter northern island is called "the land of the long white cloud").
Definitely plausible.
Sources: BETWEEN WORLDS Early Exchanges between Maori and Europeans 1773-1815; Anne Salmond.
Penguin History of New Zealand, Michael King.
Nga Waka O Nehera - The First Voyaging Canoes, Jeff Evans.
Tangata Whenua: A History. Aroha Harris, et al.
I physically have copies of all these books. I'm very happy to answer any questions!
Love the idea, but I'm curious to say see what the Prime Minister thinks before I offer more ideas @Julius Vogel
Last edited:
Of course not! Sorry if my response seemed to imply that. I was kind of skating past the biggest difference in OTL situations, which I think is why the Kingitanga wasnt more popular. I think with different timing, the opportunity for a well developed monarchy (or especially interesting maybe an elected monarchy) and state society with European settlers is immense in NZ.
I think it would be hard to be/remain an elective monarchy formally. Here though, the Hawaiian example is relevant because it was sort of a semielectoral monarchy in its last decade(s).
Yes the Hawaiian example is what I had in mind. Kinship in Hawaii is not identical to that in NZ but has the usual polynesian similarities.
There is an old theory that certain types of polynesian islands developed more rigid hierarchies due to greater population density...and that the relatively massive NZ worked against this. But it also has greater opportunities for settlers and agriculture....an outright elective monarchy is, you're right, probably beyond the pale. But succession would rarely be clear cut, at least in the early days.
I dont think that's unrealistic! I have a TL in my notebook where Kamehameha III survives his trip to Britain, although his cousin wife doesnt, and then he married the daughter of King Pomare of Tahiti! The Hawaiian monarchy attempted these kind of marriages.
In fact, I think a Maori Kingitanga is a natural leader of a confederation/alliance/network of Polynesian monarchies....
I don't think Kīngitanga really works here as it only came around in the mid 1850s, when British settlement accelerated massively, arguably it formed specifically in reaction to that settlement - where the need for something new became apparent. So in practice, I do not think this works as it is too late, settlement of colonists had got to the point where their population was about to meet Maori population (British was rapidly growing, Maori was declining) in size.
We need something a fair bit earlier, when British population is far smaller. Even then I would think it would be hard as other Maori tribes or groups are not going to be particularly keen to unite, however loosely under their strongest peer. I guess an early alliance between a powerful military leader of one of the bigger Iwi (guess it has to be Ngapuhi or some on Waikato/BOP), pre 1830s and British colonial authority in Sydney? Something that gives the proto King a lot more military success and mana so he can defeat/force into a proto kingdom that controls *OTL.
We need something a fair bit earlier, when British population is far smaller. Even then I would think it would be hard as other Maori tribes or groups are not going to be particularly keen to unite, however loosely under their strongest peer. I guess an early alliance between a powerful military leader of one of the bigger Iwi (guess it has to be Ngapuhi or some on Waikato/BOP), pre 1830s and British colonial authority in Sydney? Something that gives the proto King a lot more military success and mana so he can defeat/force into a proto kingdom that controls *OTL.
AFAIK, that isn't what the Kingitanga movement exists for. Aside from what Julius has said, it was also an attempt to create a Maori leader who was the 'equal' of the British monarch so any negotiations, treaties, and diplomatic missions could be on a level playing field. It didn't work out that way because the Treaty of Waitangi established Queen Victoria as New Zealand's monarch, for both the settlers and Maori.
I often find threads about a united Maori state to be interesting, because while it is a noble idea and I certainly don't think it's impossible for there to be a similar level of cohesion among the Maori as there historically was for other aboriginal peoples (a Maori Tecumseh, if you will), people often ignore the fact that the Maori were at war with each other pretty much just as frequently as they were at war with the British. Unifying the squabbling Iwi would be no easy task; the British policy of divide and conquer was basically already in effect before the British even got there.
Maybe I worded the OP poorly. I'm not strictly attached to the Maori King Movement for this thread. I am open to any POD after first contact with the British.
There are interesting implications here. Assuming some sort of federation or state occurs, (as previously mentioned the Ngapuhi are the largest Iwi, but a more centrally located one is possible as well) - if they DO become a British client state it could have interesting implications for black birding. Although it is definitely slavery, the British seemed to have turned a blind eye. A Maori state allied with the British may come to see themselves as defenders of the Polynesians, and become the Pacific arm of the British anti-slavery crusade.
Alternatively, it's also possible that the state could become the worst perpetrators or middle men of such a trade...possible seeds of a trans-Pacific Republican revolution against the (completely different than our TL) 'Kingitanga'.
Also apologies. I requested input from the PM. I did not know that we had an @Emperor-of-New-Zealand !
I've been around since 2009 but haven't been as active in the alt-history forums for the past couple of years, so I don't blame you for not knowing I existed.
Julius is probably more knowledgeable than me, though. To be honest NZ history is one of those subjects that was forced upon me for pretty much all of my schooling, so in some way it's as though my brain has rebelled against it and forgotten a lot of the finer details. I probably should re-study it, though, as I'm left with the bare-bones, and it is an interesting history (the Maori Land Wars are particularly fascinating and bloody - the Maori were among the first to use trench warfare).
This would be an interesting scenario, but I agree with the consensus that you would need to somehow accelerate Maori socioeconomic development before the mid-19th century. The OTL Maori arguably did well enough in the short time of their settlement—they were strong enough to actually strike a meaningful deal with the British—that I cannot easily imagine them doing better unless they got some external impetus. An earlier European presence in the South Pacific could do that, but really, anything that plugged New Zealand into global networks would work.
Ok, so this is an idea I've had before: what if Tasman & co didn't land at a location that was in the midst of tribal war, maybe one of them was even playing a song and there was a peaceful first contact in 1642? Based on distance & tech it could lead to a longer 'contact' as opposed to 'settlement' era.
As soon as the Tangata get potatoes (in addition to kumara) population can soar, especially on the south island. A few european books left behind, and muskets especially...the aforementioned "fragmented" nature of Maori society actual probably helps this. It makes groups more competitive and therefore more likely to try out new things.
Also: I will admit it is theory and not fact that Tasman & co were attacked because they landed in an area in conflict.
Last edited:
This is fair question. Presumably, the collapse still happens, but by then the state has endured enough to be sustained with a Pakeha plurality or majority.