Quite honestly, I don't think Nepali people really care about the kings anymore. It is true that he is still a key player in Kathmandu, but from what I observed while traveling to various parts of Nepal recently, he has very little influence elsewhere. Whatever "peace" that some people here claim that Nepal is enjoying since the Royal takeover is really a result of a military brute force, and a good deal of sacrifice on the part of the people of their fundamental civil liberties. But now that's already stretched too long and has started being counter-productive. More people than ever are sympathizing with the opposition, even the Maoists. The assertion that the King acted in the interest of people is nothing but a facade... No Nepali king in the recent history has genuinely stood for the people, and this is understandable: "It's good to be king". -[Mel Brook's History of World I]. :-) Perhaps the only reason why the King assumed power is because he sensed the demise of monarchy in Nepal on the horizon. If given a choice, there was no political party, nobody [not even the army] willing to fight to save monarchy. So it was imperative that he did what he did. He has since succeeded (through a handful of his associates) in regrouping some [mainly Panchayat] veterans, who either see the King as the reincarnation of Vishnu or still have a strong desire for retribution towards democracy and its proponents. The end result is that King's grip has since gotten stronger a bit. But the supporters of Monarchy in Nepal need to realize that it's never been about the people. Also those [like Ashu], who can't imagine Nepal without a King need to think out of the box [KTM]. The truth is that the king is not really holding Nepal [not even the army!] together in any sustainable sense... And I do not think that Nepal will see anything worse even if King leaves.