There was a brief post on the BBC news site several weeks ago concerning the "why do we need a King" demonstrations. Nothing further was followed up on as far I've read. King Rama X is not his father. Not only in his many marriages, concubines, his treatment of his former wives and their families, but his drift towards an absolute Monarchy in which he grabs up the Crown properties and the amassing of a vast amt. of money in the process, making him the wealthiest Monarch in the world. I don't think that's generally known.
He's able to do this due to his courting the Military, but I think he's shrewd enough to keep on the good side of the military, he knows the Monarchy can easily be abolished if the military decides it's time. I think the article really was written in a bias toward the King especially when I read the last couple of paragraphs again twice and understood the gist. Thanks John.
« Back to index | View thread »