Newuser dude "Constitutional monarch" as described in the Constitution of Nepal 1990 already means monarch and the commoner shall adhere to the same legal framework of laws written under the Consititution Nepal 1990. In theory monarch was already under the same legal framework as commoner do but see what happened. Monarch didnt feel compelled to live with the same legal framework because he had loyal support of his military. He knew when he had loyal support of the Army he can scare the hell out of civillian authority and everyone else in between and trample with any kind of provisions limiting his powers that existed in the Constitution. Monarchy system has proved over and over angain that any words written in any any legal document is not a diterrent for the monarch to comply with those words. Only until either the monarch or his army is dismantled, the marriage between the Nepali monarch and the Nepali Army will not end. As long as one of the two is gone for good, even the general consesus between all the parties that exists in Nepal will not be able to put the monarch under the same legal framework IN PRACTICE. Bringing Nepal Army under tight control of taxpayers (who pay for maintaining the Army) is more important than any need to keep the monarchy system alive. If the monarchy has to be sacrificed in order to bring Nepal Army under the tight control of taxpayer, the sacrifice is well worth it.