SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Thailand's popular and long-reigning king has died:
Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the world's longest-reigning monarch, has died after 70 years as head of state. The 88-year-old king was widely revered but had been in poor health in recent years, making few public appearances. He was seen as a stabilising figure in a country hit by cycles of political turmoil and multiple coups. Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn will be the new monarch, the prime minister has said.
[...] In a televised address to the nation, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha said Thailand would hold a one-year mourning period, that flags would fly half-mast and all entertainment functions must be "toned down" for a month. In a later statement he urged vigilance, saying national security was a top priority. "Everyone will need to be alert in every region and throughout the country to ensure safety", he said. The king's death comes as Thailand remains under military rule following a coup in 2014. [...] King Bhumibol was widely respected across Thailand, and thought of by many as semi-divine. [...] King Bhumibol, who was born in Cambridge in the US state of Massachusetts, acceded to the throne on 9 June 1946 after his brother, King Ananda Mahidol, died.
Though a constitutional monarch with limited official powers, many Thais looked to King Bhumibol to him to intervene in times of high tension. He was seen as a unifying and calming influence through numerous coups and 20 constitutions. However, his critics argued he had endorsed military takeovers and at times had failed to speak out against human rights abuses.
Also at NPR, CNN, and the Bangkok Post, which appears to have turned its website grayscale with a CSS filter (also note: "The discussion board on this article has been turned off, because commenting on the above issue may cause legal dispute.").
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 15 2016, @06:01PM
Not bad - but you've left out part of the story. The military government often punished people for supposedly insulting the king - against that kind's wishes. The old bastard may or may not have been good, or evil, or somewhere in between, but we don't really know. He was held up as a figurehead by the military government, to legitimize that government. Just as the next king will be a figurehead.
As I said, the concept of royalty sickens me. That doesn't necessarily mean that every monarch is an evil bastard. You can't know, nor can I, because the king wasn't free to be himself. Old Bum Boy might be considered a prisoner of his office, if we were to be charitable.
THen again, fuck charity.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Saturday October 15 2016, @07:35PM
The same was pretty much true of Japan's Emperor Hirohito before and during WWII, but we still vilified him. Afterwards MacArthur made a deal with him and he "became" a good guy.
So the comments about "you can't know" is sometimes true. OTOH, Britain had a few doozies, including one who appears to have been actually mad, and several who wouldn't learn to speak English. The king ignoring what his government was doing is what made Parliament so powerful. So was that good or bad? It was certainly difficult to live through.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:53AM
What made England's Parliament so powerful was a combination of things, but mostly rights. The King had to have Parliaments agreement to raise taxes as the people had the right not to be taxed just because the King wanted to. This allowed trade offs, you get the tax, we get this. Then the King always had a responsibility to his subjects and when a couple of arseholes thought that they had a divine right, the people in Parliament reacted by first cutting of one Kings head, and then firing another and making sure the replacements would be better (from Parliaments view) and we ended up with some German Kings who didn't care much about Great Briton.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday October 16 2016, @07:19AM
Rights only exist when there is a balance of power. England's Parliament became powerful by the default of the British monarchs. (This may have been a net benefit to all parties, but that wasn't the reason it happened. It happened because the Kings didn't want to bother running the government.)
FWIW the Magna Charta didn't give much power to Parliament. Read some political works printed in the 1700's in Britain. The Kings ceded power by not running the government. Even today the monarch officially must agree to every law passed, but it has become so traditional that they always agree that if they didn't there would be a strong amount of turmoil, which might end up with the monarchy disbanded.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @10:14AM
We sha'n't forget the nastiness that befell our dear Charles I.
(Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:01AM
While I agree that the Magna Carta didn't do much for the common person, the Kings council was a real thing back then, even if it was aristocrats and high clergy. There were also other charters in those times, usually forced on the King and nullified as soon as possible. The Kings council did grow and start including representatives of the common free man and split into 2 houses. The King always had to give an oaf at coronation that he would rule justly etc as well.
As for when Parliament really became strong, it was during the reigns of some of the Stuarts. First Charles I tried to rule without Parliament but eventually had to call one because he needed money. It ended with him being tried for treason and beheaded by Parliament. So at that point Parliament considered the King could commit treason, unlike Henry VII who had to back date his coronation to accuse the followers of Richard of treason (it isn't treason if you believe you're following the rightful government/King).
Then James II tried the same thing, ran out of money, and had to call a Parliament to raise taxes (he also begat a son who appeared that he would do the same BS including being a Catholic). In that case Parliament took the first opportunity to declare that he had abandoned the throne (he was out of town) and invited his daughter and her husband to take the throne. They also used the opportunity to change the coronation oaf in Parliaments favour, pass a Bill of Rights and basically cement that Great Britain was ruled by the King and Parliament with Parliament the senior partner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution [wikipedia.org] Also that if the daughters of James II didn't leave heirs, those disinterested Germans would get the throne.
You're probably right that if the first couple of Georges had tried for more power they may have got it, but then maybe not.
The last time a monarch vetoed a bill (on the advice of her government) was around 1703 (the Scottish Militia Act) and now the Monarch is actually a check against tyranny. The only time she can get away with refusing royal assent is if the law was very unpopular.
Note also that even in France, where the King had a long tradition of absolute power, still had to call the 3 estates when he was broke and needed to raise taxes. That also ended up in a beheading, actually a lot of beheadings.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @07:48PM
Yeah. Now, let's move on to USA and its dynasties.
We dodged the bullet this time with Jeb! (mustn't forget the exclamation point).
The thought of Bush41, Bush43, Bush45 makes me sad.
A (Neoliberal AND Neoconservative) Clinton is still in the running.
Again, sadness.
I sometimes wonder what the country would be like today had Bobby Kennedy not been murdered in 1968.
Pretty sure he would have beaten Nixon easily[1].
...then what?
No implementation of "The Southern Strategy" for sure, so no "War on Drugs".
An immediate end to the USA's Imperialist occupation of Vietnam?
...rather than waiting to get beaten by guys in pajamas.
Not at all sure that one would have gone that way.
[1] One also wonders if the 1968 Democrat Convention would have been so contentious, inside and outside the hall.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15 2016, @10:33PM
" The military government often punished people for supposedly insulting the king - against that kind's wishes. "
Faux outrage does not cut it.
He could have campaigned and pressured. In fact, to NOT do so when you are the object of the law makes you a BAD guy.
But he didn't. He does not get to have all this bullshit AND be called a nice guy because he felt bad about it.
Fuck him.