Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,054
Reply with quote  #31 
His Majesty the King of Thailand has changed his full name, he is henceforth to be referred to as His Majesty King Maha Vajiralongkorn Bodinradebayavarangkun.  Quite a mouthful, so I think I'll stick to calling him King Rama X.


http://www.ibtimes.com/thai-crown-prince-becomes-king-changes-name-maha-vajiralongkorn-2453512

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Elizabelo_II

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 415
Reply with quote  #32 
Wasn't it BodinDradebayavarangkun ?

It supposedly means "Descended by Flesh and Blood of God Indra, Overlord of all Angels"
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #33 
I apologise if I caused you any offence by my comments on the prostrations, Ethiomonarchist, that was certainly not my intention. As you know prostration has never, or at least only to a very limited extent, been part of Western European tradition, so the posture appears alien to our eyes. But I suppose that correspondingly the practices we are comfortable with, varying degrees of bowing and curtseying, appear shockingly disrespectful to Easterners.

The additional names certainly do make quite a mouthful. I was fine with Vajiralongkorn, but I too think Rama X will do from now on. I was curious as to the origin of the Rama naming convention; it turns out that it was introduced by Vajiravudh, the sixth Chakri monarch, precisely as a convenience for Westerners who find the characteristically long Thai names difficult to remember and pronounce. His five predecessors were then retrospectively numbered Ramas I through V, he himself being Rama VI of course. 'Chakri' in contrast was the name of the dynasty from the beginning, chosen by Rama I, and derives from the high office he held before ascending to the throne, corresponding to 'chancellor'. So kind of like Stewart/Stuart.
Elizabelo_II

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 415
Reply with quote  #34 
I rather remember these names then do with a shorthand, but that's just a matter of respect for me, but eh : P
Elizabelo_II

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 415
Reply with quote  #35 
I do believe this is really excessive and unnecessary though

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38196136

He just shared the profile that is on the freely available website, apparently, nothing else. What's so insulting about this ?
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #36 
Since use of the 'shorthand' is authorised, I regard it as perfectly respectful. And it is not that much different to actual Thai practice, as I understand things. As is common in Asian monarchies, monarchs past and present are not usually referred to by their personal names, but by some kind of circumlocution. In Thailand's case it is a reign number, so that the present King would be spoken of as 'the tenth reign'. Rama X, the tenth reign, not too much difference there. On the activist, he must have realised the risk and chose to do it anyway, so I haven't much sympathy. If he had been arrested for some other form of peaceful protest then that would be another question.
Elizabelo_II

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 415
Reply with quote  #37 
But he just shared a publically available profile that exists ! How is that in any way something deplorable or jail worthy ?
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #38 
He drew attention to it. People have many times before been punished in similar circumstances. Therefore, he knew what would most likely happen and probably actually wanted it to for the publicity, hence my limited sympathy. We would regard what he did as not culpable, but it is no secret that in Thailand things are otherwise. You flout the well-known and rigorously enforced laws, you take the consequences.
Elizabelo_II

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 415
Reply with quote  #39 
I'm not seeing any disrespect on display here. If anything the King should not have a public Facebook profile if the Goverment doesn't want people to find it.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #40 
Well, I would certainly agree that no one should be punished for linking to the King's own publicly available profile. But the article you linked doesn't say that this individual did, it says he linked his own Facebook page to the King's BBC Thai profile. Since my acquaintance with Thai is nil I couldn't say what might have been objectionable on that profile, but evidently something was.
Elizabelo_II

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 415
Reply with quote  #41 
Oh, I thought that's what happened.

Huh, I guess I could "kinda" see why that would happen, seeing as I think they might not like the BBC very much.

Still excessive but I at least get why it happened now.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,054
Reply with quote  #42 
I haven't seen the BBC's profile on Rama X, but I can imaging that it would include some information that the BBC has included in articles about him, namely the gossip surrounding his marriages, his relationship with his sons, allegations about his personal conduct, the allegations that he is not popular, and that some preferred that he be passed over in the succession etc. that could very well be seen as insulting under Thai law.  As Peter pointed out, this young activist knew what he was doing when he linked this story on his Facebook page.  I'm sure he was looking to get arrested to draw attention both to the law and to the King.
__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Elizabelo_II

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 415
Reply with quote  #43 
So I was wondering, in the event that his likely heir would somehow be disqualified and his sister would not get chosen, who'de be next in line ? I see that cadet branches of the royal family descended from the generation(s) before the late king Bhumibol Adulyadej (it ain't that hard : P) exist but they....aren't treated as members of the royal family ?
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #44 
I too can spell Rama IX's full name from memory. However, it has seven syllables altogether; the last element alone of Rama X's full formal name has more than that, which I think is too much to ask. The authorised and, I repeat, fully respectful usage Rama X will do for me. The succession law is complicated to say the least. The relevant Wikipedia article seems detailed, scholarly and as clear as a disquisition on such a confusing subject replete with ambiguities and contradictions could be, and I invite you to peruse it.

To summarise as briefly as I can, the law dates from 1924 and was first promulgated by Rama VI, he who introduced the Rama naming convention. It has several times been amended since, but remains recognisable. Currently, the amendment procedure is that the King can change it as he wishes and at his sole discretion, which introduces one element of uncertainty. Another is that while the basic pattern is male primogeniture, the King also has absolute power to name any male of the royal family that he pleases as Crown Prince, or (since 1974) a female dynast, so long as she is a King's daughter, as Crown Princess.

The complications do not stop there. The order of male primogeniture is modified by the birth rank of mothers, also by their royally proclaimed rank. Anyone including someone previously proclaimed as Crown Prince can be removed from the succession at, once again, the monarch's sole discretion, and all descendants of such persons are thereby perpetually excluded too. No one whose mother was foreign or common-born (inconsistently observed, the mother of Ramas VIII and IX was in fact common-born) can succeed. And so on, and so on.

So basically it's anyone's guess who gets the nod from the available field, though the present King's youngest son is technically first in line even if not yet proclaimed heir, which I expect he will be and hopefully soon, to bring some clarity. Not, however, finality; as already indicated, the King's decision on the matter can still be changed at his sole wish. Finality you only get when the previous King dies and the heir succeeds, and then it starts all over again ....
bator

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #45 
thanks peter, very interesting. i have wondered why the new king didnt succeed at the death of his father, as all the previous kings of the dynasty sued on the day or the day after his predecessors death. so why was it different with the present king?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: