houstonguru, The King removed an elected body, defied the constitution, and imposed his rule. Yet, by your own account did nothing new, nothing different. The insurgency as well as "Royal Spending" was getting out of control. Your analogy between king-country and parents-kids is laughable at best. Your arguements in your post are rehashed statements from other sajha posting and can easily be torn apart. Others like ur take on corruption is naive. Where do you think the king got his money for business from? Who do you think payed for the fancy car that he likes to take on a stroll? Let us not forget about the 15 vehicles that are a part of his posse. The security, the petrol that they are using even the uniform. Who is paying for all that? King's Business? Kun business tobacco business or 'desh' business? And all that spending for an incompetent ruler who divided a two fold power struggle to three? or for a leader who did not deliver instead went on a month tour of African nations using one of the two RNAC airline that the country had in midst of insurgency? Tax money that kings bask on can be spent elsewhere. Good for the country, better for people. Lost in the arguement of king vs neta is the system under which these 'rulers' operate. Lets look kingship. Does it have flaws? What are its strength? Look at democratic system. How about its flaws and pluses? If we talk under these paradigms, I am sure we can start building consensus. Or else, we are getting nowhere. King did this..neta did that... Write more along these lines, the better system, Houstonguru. I will reply for sure.Once again, not king or neta but what system do we want?