Since we live under a military dictatorship that wants to kill Thai freedom of speech, let me take a stand for it right here.
If that old shithead Sittichai wants to go after me, let him.
Thailand without a crown prince? What does the future have in store for us? Good omen. Bad Omen.
Does the Crown Princess Srindhorn take over the spot or does the Crown Prince's son?
Who will be the Regent when the King passes on?
With all being said and done, if the rumor is true, I feel bad for HM the King. It is never good to see your children and grandchildren go before.
Apparently, the Crown Prince is alive and well according to The Nation:
Culture Ministry's Religious Affairs Department hosted on Friday a ceremony at Wat Bovornnivet to receive the royal-granted robes for the ordination, hosted by the department, the Office of National Buddhism and related agencies.
Permanent Secretary for Culture Veera Rojanapojanarat said the 7,476 candidates comprised of 89 individuals from each of 75 provinces plus 89 at each of nine central temples being Wat Bonornnivet, Wat Saket, Wat Chanasongkhram, Wat Pak Nam, Wat Trimitwittayaram, Wat Suthatthepvararam, Wat Phrachetupon Wimolmangklaram, Wat Yannawa and Wat Rama 9.
The head-shaving rite is schedule for July 26 and the ordination ceremony (Upasampada) would be held the following day.
The royal-granted robes would be presented to the Preceptor (Upajjhaya), who would be responsible for the newly ordained monks throughout their monastic life, at each province and at each of the nine central temples, Veera said.
Those wanting to make donations to support the activity should contact the Religious Affairs Department, according to Veera.
19 comments:
He lives.
Currently in Canada, training on flight sim.
There are so many version for cause of death that I heard. Some are plain ridicule.
Heard it from good authority that he's alive and well. There's been conspicuous media release on his activities overseas, apparently to quash the rumours.
Volatile as our relations are, Fonzi, I suggest you remove this entry, before the powers-that-be begin a clampdown. You have the right to post anything and I respect that. Just my sincere warning. Cheers.
I am glad he is alive.
I don't have a irrational hatred towards the Crown Prince like most people.
Do I want him to become the next king?
Well, I wish we had the right to discuss succession, which would be the appropriate thing to do in a real democracy where people have the right to determine, at least question, who should or shouldn't be the monarch.
What's the point of spreading rumours?
Has Fonzi jumped the shark?
I don't understand how posting rumours that you don't personally believe is some demonstration of free speech. What next, a trip to the cinema to yell "Fire?"
"I wish we had the right to discuss succession, which would be the appropriate thing to do in a real democracy where people have the right to determine, at least question, who should or shouldn't be the monarch." is what you said Fonzi.
Educate me Fonzi how do they do it in U.K.? Do the British VOTE who will or should succeed the Queen should she suddenly die tomorrow?
(I am always under the impression that in monarchies, the succession is based on the principle of male primogeniture, whereby male heirs take precedence and the right of succession belongs to the eldest son . . . . And, isn't that the foremost duty of the Privy Council - - to help settle ticklish issues of succession should they occur?)
Fonzi are you on substance abuse again?
I am always under the impression that in monarchies, the succession is based on the principle of male primogeniture, whereby male heirs take precedence and the right of succession belongs to the eldest son
Norodom Sihamoni or Mizan Zainal Abidin would probably be the obvious counterexamples (though neither was named to the throne by popular referenda).
1. I am not spreading rumours. I am asking my small but informed audience if the Crown Prince is dead or not.
Why not discuss it out in the open, instead of talking about it in hushed conspiratorial whispers.
And, if the Crown Prince was dead, Thai people have the right to know, considering he is the one who is supposed to ascend the throne, which will affect all Thai people.
2. As far as succession goes, at least when it comes to Thai history, it was not always the case the first born son of a king became king.
For example, (listen up Matty), and every Thai child who paid attention in history class should know this, that King Ananda and King Bhumibol were descended from the Mahidol line. Prince Mahidol, their majesties(Ramas 8 and 9) father, was not a direct descendent of King Prajadhipok (Rama 7), but was his brother.
And when you consider that the late Princess Mother was a commoner, and not a royal, King Ananda and King Bhumibol should have never been considered for the throne at all--according to the law. But Pridi and Plaek, who needed puppets on the throne, chose the young Mahidol sons because they were young and had no power or factions of their own.
And then there was King Thaksin( of the short-lived Thonburi dynasty), who was not of royal at all, but of Chinese stock, who did us the favor of ridding the country of the Burmese.
And then you have the Chakri brothers(Rama 1 and his brothers), the founders of the current Rattanakosin dynasty, who murdered King Thaksin and took over the country for themselves.
The Chakri brothers were not of pure royal stock, but were generals who descended from Ayutthayan bureaucratic clans.
Now Matty, I could go way back in Thai history, way back into the Ayutthaya era, and give you many examples of where kings came to power through politics rather than primogeniture.
If you are too lazy to read a book, go watch Suriyothai again.
As for King Bhumibol, he said in an interview that he is a "democratic king" and that the "people could throw him out" anytime.
But, in a sense, you are right Matty, Thai people don't have much say in who will be next king, because if most had a choice, it would be for Crown Princess Srindhorn.
In the end, the privy council and the generals will choose, but that doesn't mean the topic shouldn't be open to discussion.
And the topic should be discussed!!
Fonzi, I don't have any problem with a discussion on succession, but IMO spreading (repeating) rumours is stupid at best, and malicious at worse.
Fonzi I will confess I failed my Thai history lessons frequently during my school days and I prefer Bruce Willis action vs. Thai history epic movies.
But you were saying that the people should "have the right to determine, at least question, who should or shouldn't be the monarch . . ."
Now it is my turn to give you Fonzi some history lessons. Even using your examples . . it is easy to see that "when people get involved in choosing their King" usually happens during rebellion or monarch assassinations, right? Unless of course Fonzi you are suggesting that the Thais should VOTE who should or should not be Thai King.
...I prefer Bruce Willis action vs. Thai history epic movies
Amen to that. Although I would prefer a certain choice word than epic.
Unless of course Fonzi you are suggesting that the Thais should VOTE who should or should not be Thai King.
That's exactly the point. Although it is not like the people will actually be able to VOTE on this, but we should be able to discuss it. Could this constitute as one aspect of modern monarchy in democracy? Why or why not? Explain.
Oh, right. That was one of the exam question that got slam as lese majere.
Fall you make it sound like in Bangkok nobody ever dare talk about the monarchy except in whispers and hush hush shhhhhhhh . . . .
Ridiculous. Attend any party in Bangkok and you'd hear non-stop commentary about prince, current and former consorts, princesses, small princesses, the queen occassionally and even more rarely also the King.
People will talk period. And people will talk even more once a subject is perceived as 'delicate' or 'verbotten'. Whether in Stalin's Russia or the junta's Myanmar, or, yellow-loving Thailand. And gossips . . . both favorable and malicious, and also educated political commentaries and debates about succession keep on flowing . . .
Yet I have not seen any one ARRESTED . . . Fall, just for talkiing or gossiping.
Jeeeeeeez!
Thai lecturer sued for lèse majesté
When people discuss thing concerning monarchy in the open, it's lese majeste.When they discuss it in private, it's private matter.
When people written concerning monarchy in the open, it's lese majeste. When they written it in private, it's lese majeste.
See the different?
Fall thank you for the link and yes I see your point clearly. I have always thought that Thailand's lese majeste was a paper tiger law meant to intimidate the malicious but never to be so indiscriminately and stupidly enforced . . . as in the case of that Silpakorn professor.
Yes the lese majeste law if allowed to be accessible to anyone to sue anyone for any perceived slight on the institution and members of the monarchy does NOT make any sense! Personally I believe only the Privy Council should be allowed to sue for 'lese majeste' infractions.
TIME TO AMEND OR REPEAL this lese majeste law if it will be used to stifle the Thais freedom to think and freedom to debate crucial country issues.
(That was just a college exam question for chrisssssake!)
Unless of course Fonzi you are suggesting that the Thais should VOTE who should or should not be Thai King.
This is exactly the point though, the decision as o succession, in all probability, will be made by vote. A better question would be "whose vote(s)?".'
Matty, In theory it is the same procedure in the UK and Thailand for choosing a successor: it goes to the privy council. However in Thailand it is well acknowledged that The King has first say and the PC only decide of The King does not make an express choice.
As for discussion of the royals in public, well let's just say private and public discussions can be different.
I want to say more in response to fonzi's comments but it would not be a good idea unless we did it in on a more private forum.
Fonzi, I was going to correct you on "Phibun" instead of "Pleak" but then I realised they were the same. Was Phibun his cheu len?
We could also expand on the family tree and point out some - what is the best way to put this? - "crossovers" but I'd rather not. Fonzi seems braver than me!
You should allow anonymous comments, for this post at least.
Not everyone can take the "I'm a foreigner and therefore I'll be pardoned if they convict me of lese majeste"-route.
Fonzi, what are you playing at? Are you trying to make a scene again? Have you not anything else to talk about?
I know that you are too eager to promote yourself as a wiseman, but this rumour is purely a cheap tactic to attract people's attention.
As much as I like to wind you up, for this topic, I would like to pass.
Post a Comment