dear wxy, i am replying to:'the lifestyle of the royals that King birendra protected and nurtured ultimately finished off his family' the so-called Fact from your side is in my views a mere interpretation of hearsay. perhaps you are more knowledgeable when it comes to inner royal facts, and maybe i am wrong to assume that king Birendra was trying to reform/rehabilitate the wayward son, But would it be wrong to give the late king the benefit of doubt that as a father, he might have done his best to bring his son in line with his expectations? would any father revel with joy when his son becomes an alcoholic, an addict? Of course, the Fact is, He's No More, but, THE ACTION OF ONE PERSON IS HIS ALONE, AND IN THIS CASE, ALLEGEDLY, DIPENDRA'S. WHY TARNISH THE IMAGE OF A MONARCH WHO WAS REVERED UNTIL HIS UNTIMELY DEMISE? i may be wrong, and immature too, to think along that line. But while i applaud your view of tackling every adversity with optimism, when people suddenly start denouncing a man who was unbeknown to us - common citizens who looked upto him- personally as far as his mannerisms, insights,expectations were , in trying to ward off hurling accusations at a dead man, albeit him being the late king, is no glorification! there is a ring of truth in paschim's mention of the demystification of monarchs after the royal massacre. i am not denying that FACT. then again, some self-proclaiming, self-glorifying intellectuals in these forums think you and i are discussing trivial issues while ignoring the need to counter the real issues on hand, so let's put this issue to rest, what say you?