Talk:Bhumibol Adulyadej

Template:Move

Contents

1 Page location 2 Political issue, Military regimes, etc. 3 Example of proposed romanisation in thai style guide 4 Early life 5 Suggestion 6 Requested move 6.1 Discussion

Page location

This question is probably going to show my knowledge of Thai royalty up, but why isn't this page at Rama IX of Thailand rather than Bhumibol Adulyadej? That's the standard used everywhere else for monarchs (c.f. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Rainier III of Monaco, Wilhelm II of Germany, Albert II of Belgium, &c.)...
James F. (talk) 18:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, the page from the Ministry of Forign Affairs, Kingdom of Thailand, describing the Thai Monarchy (http://www.mfa.go.th/web/19.php) uses King Bhumibol Adulyadej or King Bhumibol five times, and Rama zero times (naught for my british freinds). If His Magesty's Royal Government calls His Magesty the King Bhumibol in english, who is wikipedia to disagree. I think Rama is used more as a title than as a name in english. Gentgeen 11:38, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note, I support moving the article back. -gent

I also think the article should be moved back, and will do so - I've always heared King Bhumibol... john k 04:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some information from a 29 y.o. Thai - your information on this page is incorrect in many part.

When a primeminister was formerly an army officer, it does not necessary reflect that he must have tied to military regime. Though I'm not really sure what "regime" really meant, I have a sense that it's not entirely controled by military, like in Myanmar. Though I was too young to remember any regime in the past, but I'm sure that the telecast in 1992 was not a confrontation. (The way you put your sentense, it seems like H.M. the King had confronted Gen. Suchinda, where in fact, he provide a peaceful resolution for both Gen. Suchinda and Gen. Chamlong to end their stand-off.)

On the other side of the story, King Bhumiphol had initiate vast array of developmental project aimed at the back bone of the country, the agricultural sector.His Royal Initiative Project help the hill tribes in the north of Thailand to stop growing opium, and change to better-valued vegetable, coffee, etc. Also, His Royal Initiative project include many land reforms, irrgation systems, flood relieved, and emergency provision.

These are just a few things regarding H.M. The King, apart from political issued that came to me at the moment

Anupong T.

Back to the question re Rama IX again. Although all the nine kings in the current dynasty are often referred to as 'Rama nth'; the truth is, apart from Rama VI, none of them has ever been known in Thai as 'Rama'. The names 'Rama nth' are used to loosely (and technically speaking quite mistakenly) translate the word 'Ratchakal ti nth' -- literally 'the nth reign (of the dynasty)'. King Mongkutklao, the sixth king in the dynasty, did style himself as 'Phra Ram ti hok' (lit: 'King Rama VI'), and signed his name as 'Ramraj' (lit: 'Rama Rex'); this implies that he intended the previous kings to be called Rama I - Rama V. This has never been popular. Hardly anybody call any of the king 'Phra Ram ti nth'; even for Rama VI himself, he is referred to these days as 'Ratchakal ti hok' (lit: the sixth reign) or 'Phra Mongkutklao' (lit: 'King Mongkutklao'). Jakris 01:31, 4 Mar 2005 UTC.

If you use the same standard as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, we have to title this article Bhumibol Adulyadej. Although 'Rama nth' is used very often, it's very informal. H.M. King Bhumibol Adulyadej has never been officially named as Rama IX. Rama IX of Thailand is just the easy way to call him. As Jakris said, Thais use 'Ratchakal ti nth' to refer to their king in Chakri Dynasty UNOFFICIALLY. Thais informally call H.M. King Bhumibol Adulyadej as 'Ratchakal ti Kao (lit: The ninth reign). And I disagree that "Hardly anybody call any of the king 'Phra Ram ti nth'", it's not hardly, it's NOBODY. Nobody in Thailand call their kings 'Phra Ram ti nth' , except for the road's name. So I agree that we should title this article as Bhumibol Adulyadej, or even Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, but not Rama IX of Thailand.

I agree that Rama IX is not a good place for the article. Yet Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand (to have it same as for Elizabeth II) would be nonsense, as there is no other King named Bhumibol Adulyadej - but there are several monarchs named Elisabeth, thus it needs the disambiguation. King Bhumibol Adulyadej would be a possiblity, but that'd be inconstistant. Bhumibol Adulyadej, King of Thailand again is unnecessary long. I've started a general discussion on Thai royal names at the Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles), to have a consistant naming policy. andy 16:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Here, somebody might be able to use this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1256718.htm?&

Political issue, Military regimes, etc.

I'd say I do not agree with the view expressed about the king and the military regimes here.

Firstly, can I just say that I do not consider Prem Tinasulanont's and Chatchai Choonhavan's governments as military regimes. Yes, they both have been soldiers, but Chatchai left the army to be a politician long before he became Prime Minister and he took his PM office by means of a proper general election (ironically, he was removed from the office by a coup). As for Gen. Prem, he was invited to be the head of government by leaders of the government parties, as was commonly practice in those days. Most of the ministers in the cabinets of both Prem and Chatchai were civilians. The rest were retired/resigned soldiers. I do not think their governments would be more like a military regime than, say, the British government under the first Duke of Wellington; or more recently, the inclusion of Collin Powell into the US government.

That said, it is probably not relevant anyway. I do not think the king would be in a position to endorse or disapprove of any government. This would be particularly true in the time of military dictatorship following a coup (e.g. at the time of Kriangsak Chamanand). I do not think by saying to the coup leader 'No, I will not endorse you. Please step down and hold a general election', the bloke will oblige.

Another issue was about the televised event involving the king and Suchinda Kraprayul. As somebody else has previously raised, the confrontation was not between the king and the general. Rather, the televised picture was that of Gen. Suchinda Kraprayul ("military regime") on one side, confronting Maj. Gen. Chamlong Srimuang (also a retired soldier, but this time leading the pro-democracy demonstration) on the other, with the king arbitrating between them. This resulted in resigning of Suchinda.

I propose the sentence referring to the "military regimes" of both Prem and Chatchai be removed. As for Kriangsak's government, this was effectively a military regime, although I am not sure how much the king could do about this -- perhaps leave it as is for the moment. And perhaps the sentence about Gen Suchinda should also be revised. /Jakris 19:40 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Example of proposed romanisation in thai style guide

(สว่างวัฒน, Sàwà:ng Wáttháná)

Thanks. Your fix looks nice. Interestingly, the Queen's name was written as "Savang Vadhana" on many official sites like that of the Prince Mahidol Award Foundation eventhough this spelling follows neither the sound nor the Thai spelling! I had to presume that this might be the way she actually spelled her name. (My presumption only :) ) --Jakris 01:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Early life

In fact, were he born just a few years earlier, before his uncle King Prajadhipok passed a law allowing children of a prince and a commoner to be called Phra Ong Chao (a prince of a lesser status than Chao Fa), he would even have been called Mom Chao (the most junior class of the Thai 'princes'), similar to his older brother and sister.

I don't think we should include the the above paragraph in his early life section since it is unrelated. The discussion on Phra Ong Chao or Mom Chao is included in the article on Thai royal and noble titles. If there is no comments, I will remove this paragraph in a few day. -dhanakorn May 03 2005

Suggestion

• I'd like someone to write an article about the Law on Succession. I can provide/translate the related article if needed. For example,

• The current Thai Constitution

  http://www.parliament.go.th/files/library/b05-b.htm

  Section 20 to 22 in Chapter 2 (The King) provide some guideline on the heir to the throne.

• Law on Succession B.E. 2647 (in Thai)

  http://www.kodmhai.com/m4/m4-1/H117/H-117.html

  This law forbids a princess to inherit the throne.

• According to the above Thai Constitution, if the King names his successor (which he MUST follow the Law on Succession B.E. 2647 which forbids a princess to inherit the throne) then the named prince will inherit the throne. However, if the King does not name his successor, the privy council will submit the name of the successor to the National Assembly and ask for approval. In this case (when the King does not name his successor) the privy council may submit a name of a princess.

Interesting... Has the King named a successor? — KayEss | talk 08:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes -- HRH Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn. --Jakris 17:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Bhumibol Adulyadej → King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand – the naming of the article needs to be consistent for monarchs and properly reflect their status. Antares911 18:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose Wood Thrush 03:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Historical names and titles. The new name would not be consistent it should be "Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand" or "Bhumibol number Adulyadej of Thailand" Philip Baird Shearer 17:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

None of the recent kings of Thailand "have" a number, except with the informal name Rama. "of Thailand" is not necessary - while there are many monarchs with the western names like Edward, the names of the King of Thailand are unique, thus the disambiguation with the country name is not necessary. andy 18:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose of course - Wikipedia does not use 'king' or 'queen' with names. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 23:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• yes it does look up Qianlong Emperor and Meiji Emperor, as well Empress Michiko of Japan. we need new rules to reflect non-european names and titles and move away from this eurocentric viewpoint. i´ve posted a discussion on this current mess, anyone feel free to join in [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29#Royal_consorts_and_monarchs) Antares911 23:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Japanese pages and Chinese pages were changed, initially unilaterally, by one user a year ago. It all went hideously wrong. He broke links all over the place and ended up regretting the renaming. A specific convention was worked out for Japanese names. However it is the general rule that as this wikipedia is the English language wikipedia, then unless there are solid reasons to do otherwise, the version used is the version recognised by English speakers, not the version used in the native language. The correct location of the page should be Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 23:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  having the country added to the title can be done. it certainly helps with the search function. look up Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. she is not listed as Elizabeth II, even though she could too.

• Oppose The Japanese and Chinese emperors are named in a different way - the Qianlong Emperor was not named "Qianlong," so the comparison is a false one. As to "of Thailand," this would not be against policy, but nevertheless, it seems rather unnecessary - even for western monarchs like Elizabeth II who don't have anybody else with the same name and ordinal to compete with them, it makes sense to disambiguate because the name "Elizabeth" is one might find in many western countries, and one doesn't necessarily know that there has only been one. For "Bhumibol Adulyadej" there is no real potential confusion. I don't feel terribly strongly about it one way or the other, though. King should definitely not be in the title, though. john k 23:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Fair point. The of Thailand would only be of use in terms of making it clear that one is discussing a monarch. But King should definitely not be in the title. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 23:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Also, Antares's argument is self-contradictory. Any argument for including "King" would have to say that conventions should be adapted to deal with non-European monarchs. Any argument for including "of Thailand" would be that we should follow conventions to the letter for non-European monarchs. You can't have it both ways. john k 23:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Stupid question, perhaps, but I've never quite understood why we don't call him "Rama IX of Thailand", or whatever... James F. (talk) 10:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a long discussion of why we don't do that in the first section of this page. Gentgeen 21:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)