Thailand marks king's anniversary

memyselfandnepal, Like you I don’t think King is the sole reason for Nepal’s all ills. I think he has been unfairly demonized by our corrupt politicians because he is the easiest punch bag. All they have to do is blame him no matter how ridiculous the allegations are in order to save their own skin and hide their shortcomings. Easy. They couldn’t ask for a better scapegoat. After all, not too long back they were the ones claiming that the maoists were being run by the King in order to “destabilize democracy.” Now they have collaborated with the same terrorists to oust the king. They have even (no surprise here) blamed the king for the recent spate of crimes/burglaries in Kathmandu. I mean give me a break. I personally think that King was the lesser of the three evils. I am not sure I could say the same about his wanton son though. Oh well, the King is now a history. I don’t exactly mourn the demise of the institution. I mean although I would have liked things happen differently, I guess it was meant to be. It can’t be undone. I can only hope and pray that things do not turn for the ugly in a couple of years. But I do believe that the King did what he did with the best of intentions albeit it has cost him dearly.

I think this should be a lesson to all the Nepalese peole-like the BBC said, King of Thailand is a symbol of peace and national unity for all the Thais. He has intervened to restore order. King G of Nepal tried but the parties and Maoists did not let him do it. Here is my suggestion to King G. Keep a low profile for now. Let the hooligans and Maoists and atheists run the show unitl the PEOPLE become fed up with these jack assess. Then attempt a coup and reassert some authority. People will be very happy again. So,King G don't be sad your days will come back because such is Nepal's history and legacy. The spirit of Nepal will revive and people will need you again like in Thailand. If Thailand went through 15 constitutions then Nepal is still in the baby phase of growing up. who knows we might have hundreds of constiuttions ....

Grow up karmarana. it is because of people like you Nepal is where she is right now. If you cant' talk good about other people, at least don't be immature

Amrit said: “Here is my suggestion to King G. Keep a low profile for now. Let the hooligans and Maoists and atheists run the show unitl the PEOPLE become fed up with these jack assess. Then attempt a coup and reassert some authority. People will be very happy again. So,King G don't be sad your days will come back because such is Nepal's history and legacy.” The chances of that happening are slim to none. The king is pretty much a history now. The king did exactly that (on 2 Feb), his intentions were good, but fate wasn’t too kind to him. In this day and age, it’s very hard to justify a direct rule by a King even if the alternatives to that are far less than appealing. Next time, in the rare event that he tries to assert his authority or play a role in the political landscape of Nepal, even if it is a positive one, that is going to be the final nail in his coffin. His fate will be sealed. He will lose of whatever little sympathy and goodwill he has managed to keep hold of. Its really a no-win situation for him. The tide of tide has changed against him, and permanently so. But I still do believe that he wasn’t nearly as evil as he has been made out to be by the media and our corrupt politicians.

Gyane is an asshole who did nothing but weakened and murdered Nepal and its people. People who think this asshole is the only option Nepal has to have so that it could remain a Hindu Kingdom may have never had to lose a son, daughter, hunsband or beloved one in the battle against Gyane Chor. I am surprised with some people that how come they can have so much regard and respect for Gyane.

Yeah right, I am sure when Paras murdered the singer Gurung and was set free; or when Gyane murdered his brother and his whole family and shed the crocodile tears; when Gyane took over as a dictator and killed hundreds of Nepali people during his terror reign.......... and so on, his intention was purely devine. What a fu**ing thought.

YOU THOUGHT OR YOU KNOW? THERE IS A GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. DOGMATISING DOES NOT MAKE YOUR ARGUEMENTS BELIEVABLE!!!

The Mystique of Monarchy Thailand's King Bhumibol offers powerful proof that royalty is still relevant By PICO IYER This article originally appeared in the June 19, 2006 issue of TIME Asia. "Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings," Shakespeare's poetic (and doomed) Richard II prophetically says in the play named after him. "Some have been depos'd," he goes on, some "haunted by the ghosts they have depos'd ... all murder'd." But were a modern Richard speaking today, he would more likely talk about the death of kingship—the very idea of a useful, functioning monarchy. The last quarter of a century has seen the number of democracies and republics in the world explode from 40 to about 120. Monarchs, as a consequence, have come to seem as obsolete as court jesters or princesses in towers. For nine out of 10 people in the world, royalty is the stuff of fairy tales. Yet in much of Asia, royalty is still a fact of life, a constant and living presence. In Thailand, King Bhumibol Adulyadej is just such a presence. Last week, Thais marked, with genuine joy, the 60th anniversary of the King's coronation—five days of dazzling celebrations attended by crowned heads from 25 nations. The hope of royalty is that it can bring light and a sense of future to its subjects; the reality, far too often, is that it pulls countries back into the dark ages. This year, we have witnessed both sides in Asia, with history made as much by unelected, hereditary rulers as by democratically chosen leaders. Six months ago, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan startled the world by announcing that he will voluntarily dethrone himself to encourage democracy in his country. In nearby Nepal, King Gyanendra moved in the opposite direction, claiming absolute power for himself and reinstating his parliament only after his people rose up to protest his rule by fiat. Similar, though far more peaceful, demonstrations took place in Thailand, against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The country appeared headed toward political chaos until King Bhumibol stepped in this spring and urged the contending parties to settle their differences. Thailand's King possesses the moral authority to do this because he sits above politics, as if belonging to a different realm. He knows that his role as King is to be a symbol, not a personality, precisely because (unlike a politician) he does not have to hustle and promote himself to win the people's favor. King Bhumibol happens to be hugely admired across Thailand, acclaimed as a musician, painter, patent-holding inventor and, most of all, philanthropist, who constantly goes around his kingdom offering development projects to help his people. But what he really seems to have mastered is the art of remaining highly visible, yet at some level out of sight. His thoughts and longings are not chronicled in the daily papers; instead, he remains a figurehead who holds the country together in part by projecting an image of constancy, changeless even as he guides his nation through a series of dramatic, modernizing changes. Many cultures in Asia seem to understand the power of illusion, or at least the value of sometimes suspending disbelief, and acknowledging that (as in a marriage) not knowing everything can be the best key to survival. In Japan, for example, the imperial family stays in place in part thanks to a compliant press, which preserves a veil over its many difficulties, in part through a determination to keep its private lives relatively private. Monarchs can only function if we don't look at them too closely, and quietly consent to the notion that they can bring us all together. It's different in the West. In Scandinavia, royal figures endear themselves to their people by bicycling around just like everyone else; in Britain and Monaco, an omnipresent press spotlights the heir to the British throne murmuring about Tampax to his mistress, and the children of Grace Kelly wading through affairs and public breakdowns. If monarchs are so familiar, however, what function are they serving, and how are they really different from celebrities? Many of the kings of Asia have opened up to the modern, international world—King Bhumibol (born in Cambridge, Massachusetts) saw his oldest child marry an American; King Jigme was educated in Britain; and the Emperor of Japan married a commoner. Yet they have managed not to lose their dignity in the process. It isn't the job of a monarch to be perfect; it's his job to keep his imperfections to himself. Thailand's 78-year-old King, the longest-ruling royal in the world, has done this with particular success. As we watched the old-fashioned titles and costumes assemble in Bangkok last week, it was possible to speak, unlike Richard II, of the life—not death—of kings and kingship.

"Fools, would remain fools". Yeah right and would keep CUTTING AND PASTING other peoples views to prove that how much views they have on their own! LOL