Pomares Of Tahiti And

Heraldic Law

Letter to the Editor FOR the sake of historical accuracy, I seek space to further elucidate the article you kindly published on the Pomares of Tahiti.

The Pomare family and the Pomare surname must not be confused. Queen Pomare’s three grand-daughters (there were five, but two died in childhood, as well as a brother) married as follows: Vaetua married a Brander, whose mother was a Salmon; Navahoroa mar ried two Salmons; Maevarua married her cousin, Hinoi Pomare. Hence, the children of the first two named lost the surname but, of course, were members of the Royal Family, as are their child ren in turn to-day. The tacking on of a family surname to that of the father is an anomaly unheard of anywhere, to the writer’s knowledge, and gives an unfortunate sense of affectation.

The titles “Prince” and “Princess”, borrowed from Europe, are of necessity governed by the laws of heraldry, and, if used elsewhere in place of native names, such as Arii, must needs conform thereto. A leading law is that the above titles cannot descend through a woman unless she is a sovereign reign ing in her own right, not a consort to a king. Queen Victoria, and Tahiti’s Queen, Pomare IV., were sovereigns in their own right. The latter’s son, To ma toa, was therefore a prince, and his five daughters were princesses. But the three daughters already named were unable to pass on the titles to their children. We see the matter clearly por trayed in Britain. The Princess Royal’s sons have never borne the title of prince.

Queen Marau, the last queen, had two daughters. The title, they bear does not come through her. a consort, but through the king. Divorce ended the transmission of the title to her son, born later. These daughters have the right to the surname Pomare; the son has not, nor has ever claimed it. Neither daughter has issue; but if thev had. the title would lapse. So is it with the Brander and the Salmon issue, allied by marriage with the Pomares: but one must again insist that they are mem bers of the Royal Family. They have only lost the right to title, and the use of the surname.

The marriage of the cousins, Hinoi Pomare and Maevarua Pomare, being dissolved, no issue surviving, Hinoi yet had three children fully recognised as his by law (two sons and a daughter),

and all three entitled through him both to bear his title of prince and his sur name. The princess’s daughter bears her white husband’s surname to-day. The eldest son, Prince Hinoi 11., is dead, leav ing no issue. His brother, Prince Arii paea, survives and is entitled fully and unquestionably to bear both title and surname. There cannot possibly be any other adult prince to-day upon Tahiti.

The other few adults are either Salmons or Branders.

The headship of the Pomare family is very clear, when the facts are known.

On the day of the last King Pomare V.’s accession to the throne, he—backed by Chesse, the French Commandant — announced that the succession, and, of course, with it the headship of the fam ily, was to go first to his niece, Vaetua, and her issue; but, if she died or failed in issue, it was to go secondly, to his nephew. Hinoi. Thai was in 1877. But in 1880 he decided to give over his sov ereignity to France. Hence, there was no succession in existence. The Order lapsed; and Vatua, having married into Pomare’s wife’s family, to his annoyance and disgust, he adopted as his son and heir his nephew. The headship thus naturally passed from a niece to his re cognised son and heir. The elder branches of the Pomare family were thus eliminated, both by their marriages and the choice of the one-time king, from any special prior claim by birth.

Hinoi was heir to title as well as pro perty, and was always recognised by the Tahitians of his day as the head of the Pomare family, even as is Ariipaea to day.

Of course, it may seem hard on those elder branches to have both titles and position denied them by heraldic law. and the arbitrary choice of their one-time head, but one must face facts, and also be sure of the ground before putting pen to paper. So also must one be ready to bow to facts, however unpleasing. Some here have willingly done so. There seem to be others who are unwilling, misled by imperfect knowledge.

The Pomare family is no mere fam ily affair, which gentle breeding would forbid enquiring into, but the family of a line of sovereigns which calls for research and careful record on behalf of an interested public.

I am, etc.,

W. W. Bolton.

Papeete, 12/10/1938.