When Tupou I finally died in 1893 — in his 10th or, some even say, his 11th decade — the matter of succession was far from settled. All his heirs save one, a son’s daughter’s son named George Tāufa‘āhau, had already died,^[24] and by traditional standards this descendant was not the only possible successor. Others had strong claims: Tungī, Tuku‘aho, and the Tu‘i Pelehake (see Figure 5), for example. Though another title was created to substitute for the Tu‘i Tonga title, the Tu‘i Pelehake had and still has the strongest symbolic associations with the Tu‘i Tonga title. This particular Tu‘i Pelehake, moreover, had married Tupou I’s son’s daughter and was the father of Tupou II (Ellem 1987:213; see Figure 5). Tungī was now quite old and was not eager to press his claim; but Tungī’s son, Tuku‘aho, son of ‘Ana Seini, the great granddaughter of the Tamahā Lātūfuipeka who Tupou I had bestowed upon Tungī Halatuituia, was a viable contender.^[25] Siaosi Tuku‘aho grew up “feeling that he had higher rank and a better claim to the throne than Tupou I’s descendants” (Fusitu‘a 1976:18); and he married a woman of such exceptional rank that she was fahu at the funeral of the Tu‘i Pelehake in 1912 (Ellem 1981:100, n.36). So manifest were Tuku‘aho’s ambitions that Tupou II suspected Tuku‘aho of trying to supplant him (Ellem 1981:95). Moreover, his wife, according to Ellem, was the highest ranking Old Wesleyan in the first decade of this century (Ellem 1981:111); and Tuku‘aho himself was Old Wesleyan rather than Free Church in his sympathies (Fusitu‘a 1976:46, 95).

To mollify Tungī Halatuituia still further, Tupou I had a “tacit” understanding with him (Fusitu‘a 1976:99) that his successor would marry ‘Ofaki-Vava‘u, Tungī’s sister’s daughter’s daughter and his fahu (Ellem 1981:96; see also Ellem 1987:213; Fusitu‘a 1976:99; see also Seddon 1900:21). Through both her mother and her father, ‘Ofa’s blood rank was “exceedingly high” (Ellem 1981:96). Along with Tungī, she was supported by her father, Mā‘atu, chief of the northern island Niuatoputapu, and ‘Ulukālala Siaosi Fīnau Misini, her classificatory uncle (ibid.; see Figure 4). Since Mā‘atu is a chief of the Kauhala‘uta, this faction replicated the ‘Ulukālala-Mulikiha‘amea (Hahake Dynasty)-Tu‘i Tonga faction of the end of the eighteenth century.

Misini’s father’s mother had been a daughter of Mā‘atu (Bott 1982:151, Figure 28), and Misini carried into the twentieth century the same grudge that had set ‘Ulukālala against Tupou Tu‘i Kanokupolus throughout much of the nineteenth century and that had played a role in the assassination of Tuku‘aho in 1799. Misini’s father’s father, ‘Ulukālala Tuapasi (Figure 4), had opposed Tāufa‘āhau’s father, Tupouto’a, because Tupouto’a had failed to bestow the title of Tu‘i Vava‘u upon him (Figure 4). Tuapasi had eventually won that title himself; but he had failed to retain it for his line. He had combined forces with Tāufa‘āhau, then Tu‘i Ha‘apai, with the expectation that Tāufa‘āhau would name him Tu‘i Vava‘u once he attained the Tu‘i Kanokupolu title. On his deathbed, ‘Ulukālala Tuapasi is alleged to have granted Tāufa‘āhau the Tu‘i Vava‘u title (Cummins 1980:41; Lātūkefu 1974:66, 93), presumably with the understanding that the title would revert to his heir once his heir was of age to hold it.^[26] But when his son later requested the title, Tāufa‘āhau, now King George Tupou I, refused to bestow it upon him. Instead he appointed as governor ‘Osaiasi Veikune, one of the leading chiefs of Vava‘u. According to Lātūkefu, Tāufa‘āhau “deliberately side-stepped Fīnau ‘Ulukālala’s son, Matekitonga, who was now of age, anticipating that he would try to restore himself as ruler of Vava‘u if he were placed in such a position. Thus he forestalled a potential rival” (Lātūkefu 1974:94) — or at least tried to. According to Ellem, “The ‘Ulukālala chiefs claimed that Tāufa‘āhau … had usurped their title of Tu‘i Vava‘u in 1833; and they had never ceased in their attempts to reclaim that title” (Ellem 1987:216). So it was that Matekitonga fought alongside the rebels at Pea in 1852 against Tupou I (Lātūkefu 1974:97) and was exiled for it to ‘Eua (“Discussions” 1:181).

Had Tupou II married ‘Ofa, he would have appeased Matekitonga’s son, Misini, as well as the entire Tungī line. The alternative was Lavinia, the great granddaughter of Laufilitonga, the last Tu‘i Tonga (ibid.; see Figure 5). Her father’s mother’s mother had been Halaevalu Mata‘aho, the sister Tāufa‘āhau had refused to give as moheofo to Laufilitonga. Her father’s father’s father was ‘Osaiasi Veikune, Tupou I’s appointee as Tu‘i Vava‘u. Though Tu‘i Tonga blood flowed in her veins (Marcus 1977:286), neither parent was “of truly aristocratic descent” (Fusitu‘a 1976:98).^[27]

To decide between these two women, Tupou II convened his chiefs. They hotly debated whom the King should marry. At night “the supporters of the two factions fought in the streets and burned down each other’s houses”, Ellem reports (1981:98). In the end they voted 17 to 7 in favour of ‘Ofa. However, Tupou II chose to marry Lavinia. Visiting Tonga at the time of the decision, the then premier of New Zealand accounted for the King’s choice in terms of his fear of being outranked by his wife. Though ‘Ofa was “prepossessing” enough (Seddon 1900:21),

it happened that when negotiations were proceeding the unfortunate remark was made to the King that he would strengthen his position by marrying Ofa, because she was of better blood than himself. The pride of the monarch was aroused. “There is no one in Tonga who would not be honoured in being raised to share the throne of Tonga”, he said, and conceived strong animus against the marriage. For a year the struggle went on, as to whether Ofa or the King’s new choice, Lavinia, should be Queen. It ended in the King calling for the advice of his chiefs, and when they counselled his marriage with Ofa he did what it is said he had made up his mind a year before to do — viz., reject both the advice and the girl. He married Lavinia, the present Queen (ibid.:18-21; see also Ellem 1981:97).

In the wake of the King’s decision to marry Lavinia, the situation continued to be volatile.

On the day of the King’s wedding, the supporters of ‘Ofa carried her through the streets dressed as a bride, and they shouted the tuē of marriage processions. For nearly a year afterwards the King and his new Queen dared not leave the grounds of the Palace for fear of personal attack. Public demonstrations occurred whenever the two factions met. The funeral of ‘Ofa in 1901 was marked by rioting in the streets (Ellem 1987:214).

Opposition remained vehement. The hostility toward the King and the Queen was so strong that the King placed guards around the Palace, and the couple rarely left the Palace grounds. The houses of supporters on either side were burned. “When Lavinia died in the following year, the King buried her in the royal cemetery. Her grave was marked by a costly and ostentatious monument” (ibid.).

After Lavinia died, Tupou II erratically married ‘Ofa’s matrilateral half-sister Takipō, thereby binding to himself the opposition faction, soon to be known as the King’s Party. Since Sālote was Lavinia’s child, once she ascended the throne her father’s supporters became her enemies; and her father’s daughter by this second wife, ‘Elisiva Fusipala Tauki‘onetuku (known as Fusipala or Fusi [Ellem 1987:215]) became her rival.

These alignments were very much intact when it came time to choosing a husband for Sālote. The person she would marry was the son’s son of Tungī Halatuituia and the son of Tuku‘aho: Tungī Mailefihi, who was also related to Takipō. Tungī Mailefihi’s mother was Melesiu‘ilikutapu, son’s son’s daughter of Aleamotu‘a, the eighteenth Tu‘i Kanokupolu. The name mailefihi — literally “tangled myrtle” (Gifford 1929:232) or “entwined myrtle” (Ellem 1981:129; Churchward glosses fihi as “tangled; figuratively, intricate, complicated, or problematical” [1959:188]) — refers to Tungī’s complex genealogy (Gifford 1929:232; see Figure 5). In his person he combined the blood of the Tupou Dynasty, the Hahake Dynasty, and the Tu‘i Ha‘atakalaua. The marriage was arranged, some say at Sālote’s birth, to compensate Tungī Halatuituia for Tupou II’s not having married ‘Ofa (see Ellem 1981:131; Fusitu‘a 1976:99). “On hearing the 13-gun salute … that announced Sālote’s birth on 13 March 1900, old Tungī had claimed her as the future bride of his twelve-year-old grandson Mailefihi” (Ellem 1981:101; see also ibid.:131).

The fact that Tungī Mailefihi had been Governor of Vava‘u since 1912 (Ellem 1987:216) was perhaps a stumbling block to his acceptance by the ‘Ulukālala Dynasty, which continued to covet that title. The King’s Party had supported ‘Ofa and therefore Fusipala over Sālote; and now it favoured Tungī’s rival, Ha‘amea, the son of ‘Ulukālala Misini. ‘Ulukālala Misini’s supporters included those petty chiefs and matāpule who had been dispossessed of their customary rights by the Tupou-Baker reforms (Gunson 1979:48-49), and in this the issue of whether Sālote would marry Tungī or Ha‘amea revived the contestations of the 1880s. To choose Ha‘amea over Tungī would mend some fences (Ellem 1987:216). Yet this would strengthen a rival without necessarily pacifying him. And this the King did not want to do, even though he had enjoyed ‘Ulukālala’s support ever since having married Takipō.

When Sālote married Tungī, she strove to rejoin what had been historically rent asunder. The rift between the Hahake and Tupou dynasties had dominated much of the politics of the nineteenth century. A gesture in the direction of healing that rift had been made in 1853, when Tupou I bestowed his sister’s daughter upon Tungī Halatuituia. At the time this had “placated” Tungī (Ellem 1981:68), though it did not in the long run quell his opposition to the King, as I have shown. Like his father, Tuku‘aho, Tungī Mailefihi had strong claims to the throne. (Ellem reckons that he was third in line at the time of his marriage [ibid.].) In choosing Lavinia over ‘Ofa, Tupou II had chosen against uniting the Hahake and the Tupou dynasties, perhaps out of fear of empowering a Hahake-based opposition. The marriage of Sālote and Tungī Mailefihi was designed to effect this reconciliation. Since Tungī represented the Tu‘i Ha‘atakalaua while Sālote’s mother carried the Tu‘i Tonga blood (Figure 5), the fractures of the eighteenth century that had deepened in the nineteenth century would finally be healed (see Ellem 1981:59). In the 1880s, the north-south rift had been exacerbated by the controversy over Tupou I’s establishment of an independent Wesleyan Church. As of 1921, Ha‘apai and Vava‘u were overwhelmingly Free Wesleyan Church while Tongatapu contained most of the Old Wesleyans (Ellem 1983:166, n.10). At the time of their marriage, Sālote “was the temporal head of one church [the Free Church], and [Tungī] the highest ranking chief in another [the Wesleyan Church]” (Ellem 1983:166). In her speech to Parliament in 1925, the year following reunion, she said: “let us give our best to unite Tonga into one happy and contented people. It is my earnest wish …” (Ellem 1987:182).

Yet unification remained elusive. An opposition crystallized around issues of church and (state) marriage and included those who had supported ‘Ofa, Fusipala, and Sālote’s marriage to Ha‘amea. ‘Ulukālala Misini was its leader (Figure 4). As in the Mu‘a Parliament affair, the antiroyal party included minor chiefs and matāpule whose customary land rights were denied by the Tupou-Baker reforms (Ellem 1983; 1987:217). Sālote and Tungī’s attempt to merge the two churches in 1924 was opposed by Misini, who “demonstrated his continued alliance with the dispossessed chiefs by heading the dissident Free Church …” (Gunson 1979:49). A way of dispensing with this opposition was to dispense with the title. Accordingly, the ‘Ulukālala title was vacant from 1960 to 1989, when the King appointed his second-born son to the title.