Posted by JohnW on August 1, 2020, 5:32 am, in reply to "Re: Thai King"
The importance of the "money grab" has been both misunderstood and, I believe, understated. As king, he was already fabulously rich. What the new king did was take direct control of a portfolio of the Monarch's assets which had been managed previously at arms length. |
Doing so meant that, whatever his motivation might have been, he secured vast financial resources which he could deploy to secure political compliance. The consequence of the grab were political rather than personal.
I fear that the issue that the military are mulling over is less whether or not to coup, than whether to replace him with his much-loved sister or to declare a republic.
The unknown factor in this is the extent to which the Thai public genuinely regard the monarchy as essential to their life. We became accustomed during the last reign to reading that the King was central to their being. Whether King Bhumibol had succeeded in institutionalising his place in Thai life is unknown. Let us not forget, however, that the Thai monarchy was so essential to Thai life that following the abdication of the the then King in 1935, the King Ananda Mahidol and his younger brother, Bhumibol, lived in Europe.