Talk:Sirikit

Old miscellaneous votes
Sirikit Kitiyakara -> Sirikit, Queen of Thailand

I think this would be better than the current article name. CW32 13:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Sirikit Kitiyakara -> Queen Sirikit of Thailand

per Wiki convention on the naming of current royal spouses; this is how she is best known to the world at present and for the last several decades. Mowens35 20:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with the move to rename this article in order to be consistent. Antares911 18:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * not naming her by her royal title is actually disrespectful and an insult.


 * Oppose. Unnecessary. Too much titles in the new proposed heading. Arrigo 22:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. KISS - the country disambiguation is not needed (the name is not duplicate like an "Elizabeth"), and the royal title is not included in western monarchs either. Both EB as well as encarta use the "disrespectfull" titles for King Bhumipol, so why do we have to do it for the lesser Thai royals? andy 11:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Since I created this article I feel somewhat responsible for this. I support the change on two grounds.
 * We should try to comply within reason with cultural norms of the countries we are writing about. Thais certainly regard calling Thai royals by their unadorned personal names as disrespectful, and I don't see what harm is done by acknowledging that.
 * Very few people outside Thailand know Thai royals' personal names and most will search for "Queen Sirikit" if they want to find this article. I am being quite consistent here because I have argued several times that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon should be moved to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother on the same grounds.

PS I am Bangkok for the next few days. If any Thai Wikipedians are about, I would be interested in discussing this and other questions, so feel free to email me (adam@carringbush.net). Adam 13:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

(Not a vote)Please don't vote on moving individual articles. We need a consistent policy. Mark1 04:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The votes above were inconclusive. No consensus. Tags removed. 217.140.193.123 22:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Could the recent Thai editor clarify whether Somdej Phra Nangchao Sirikit Phra Boromarajininat is part of her name, an alternate version of her name, or a title - if it is a title, what does it mean and why is it in italics?

Also, surely the King's service as a monk was longer than 15 days? I thought six months to a year was the usual period.

Adam 04:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is her current title conferred upon by the King on completion of her regency. This is the name by which she should now be called. It effectively replaces her former name and title, in the same way as e.g. 'King George VI' replaced the name of 'Prince Albert of York'. The symantically closest translation of this name is probably "Her Majesty Queen Regent Sirikit" (literal translation in this case would not be exact, as a few praising words were added : "Majestic Lady Sirikit, Great Queen [who has] Ruled"). As this is a long foreign word within English text, I decided to italicised it. Please amend accordingly if this is in conflict with the current preferred style.

I confirm the King's ordained period as 15 days, between October 22 to November 5, 1956. Normal period of monkhood for Thai men is three months, during the lent period, but this is by no mean fixed. Most noble people or people who are in high office who enter a 'token' period of monkhood normally spend between one to two weeks only. Unfortunately, all the information about this I can find on the web at the moment are in Thai. See, for example:

http://www.police.go.th/king11.html

Oops -- Sorry, forgot to sign. --Jakris 11:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could I also add that, as Kitiyakara is her maiden name, this should be removed from the part of her name, now that she had married to the King. If anything, her surname is now Mahidol, although she would never be known by this. My understanding is that only the deceased queen consorts would be referred to by maiden name to avoid confusion due to lack of ordinal. Wikipedia refers to the current queen consorts by titles and first names only. (See e.g. Silvia of Sweden). --Jakris 12:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would not want "Kitiyakara" to be in the heading. Rather, something like Sirikit Rajini would be better, to reflect her truly used name, position. After all, living consorts are something like Queen Sophia of Spain. 217.140.193.123 22:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Somdej Phra Boromarajininat (สมเด็จพระบรมราชินีนาถ -- the Queen Regent) is the highest rank among the royal wives. Holder of this title must have acted as a regent. (The word "nat" at the end of the title means "ruler".) This title is normally used in the form of:


 * "Somdej + [honorific name] + Phra boromarajininat"

or


 * "Somdej Phra Nangchao + [name] + Phra boromarajininat".

As for the current Queen of Thailand, her name has been retained, thus: Somdej Phra Nangchao Sirikit Phra Boromarajininat. 217.140.193.123 22:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

'Ennobled' of the Queen's father
I do not think the word 'ennoble' would be the most appropriate word here: Mom Chao Nakhatra Mongkol was born noble. There are three broad classes of 'princes' in Thai royalty: "Chao Pha" being the most prestigious, followed by "Phra Ong Chao", and then "Mom Chao" being the most junior. ("Mom Rajawongse" and "Mom Luang" who are children and grand-children of "Mom Chao", although retaining these titles to signify they royal ancestry, are considered commoners.) "Mom Chao" Nakhatra Mongkol would therefore still be classified as a prince by birth, albeit a junior one. What the King did was to gave him a feudal title of "Kromma-mhun Chandaburi Suranat" (normally translated as "Prince of Chandaburi" -- literally "Baron Chandaburi, the Brave Ruler") and elevated him one step further to the equivalence of "Phra Ong Chao" class, although this was not made explicit in the name. --Jakris 12:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear oh dear, the more I think I know about Thai titles the less it turns out I actually know. Perhaps we should have an article on Thai royal and noble titles. Anyway I have tried to incorporate your comments in the text. Further down it says She performed her duties so satisfactorily that she was given the title "Somdech Phraboroma Rajininath." This seems to contradict the titles you gave. Adam 13:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not really. "Somdech Phraboroma Rajininath" is actually a rank ("Queen Regent"), whereas her full style is what I've given.

As for the article you propose, I was thinking about that as well, but could not think of an appropriate heading. Now that you've mentioned, I'll try to sort it out. --Jakris 13:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I was not very clear. Although her title in Thai conveys the meaning of queen regent, the word "Regent" itself does not make its way to the official translation of her name, and she is formally known in English as "Her Majesty Queen Sirikit".

I've also added a several links to the 'Title' article. --Jakris 23:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. This article is now much improved. Kopkun krub. Adam 02:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Royal consorts and monarchs
i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free cheers Antares911 23:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please consult Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)

Sirikit Rajini
What is that? I know that Rajini means Queen, but why it is the title of this article? CW32 15:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll second my confusion. The article on King Bhumibol is simply called Bhumibol, not Bhumibol Raja.  Most articles on Thai royalty are named simply after their given names, without royal titles.  Hence Bajrakitiyabha, Chulabhorn Walailak, Galyani Vadhana.  There are some exceptions to this rule, due to a long standing debate on how the article names on royalty should or should not include royal titles.  In any case, Sirikit Rajini is not a correct translation of Queen Sirikit - it should be Rajini Sirikit. No matter how you look at it, this article title just doesn't work. Patiwat 01:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect the theory was to disambiguate her from other Sirikits (Arrigo moved it late last year). Since we don't have articles on any other Sirikits, however, Sirikit would be the better title. HenryFlower 08:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are no other Sirikits. By law, no other person in Thailand can be named Sirikit. Likewise, no other person can be named Bhumibol. Patiwat 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

When I first wrote this article, I called it Sirikit Kitiyakara, since that appeared to be her name. What was wrong with that? Adam 09:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Jakris (above), Kitiyakara was her maiden name. HenryFlower 09:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If we follow the pattern of all other queens consort, this article ought to be called Queen Sirikit of Thailand. See Queen Sofia of Spain, Empress Michiko of Japan, Queen Rania of Jordan, Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Paola of Belgium. Adam 10:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got this terrible feeling of déjà vu... HenryFlower


 * Same here, but no matter what form is chosen, Sirikit Rajini is just plain wrong. Patiwat 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28Thailand-related_articles%29 indicates there was a consensus for 'first name+ additional name' (but not surname); since Sirikit doesn't seem to have an additional name, she should be at Sirikit. Fixing this would also involve killing Sirikit (disambiguation), and moving the material there to a mention in her article. HenryFlower 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is Thailand exempt from the naming pattern for other queens consort demonstrated above? "Queen Sirikit" is her most common name in English, and Queen Sirikit of Thailand is simple, not incorrect and conforms to the Wikipedia pattern. What is the objection to this? Adam 06:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for this discussion- you can re-run the previous discussion if you're sufficiently exercised about it. If you're actually asking for information, the short answer is that the Queen Jane of Essex format is for disambiguation, and here no disambiguation is needed. HenryFlower 09:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course this is the place for this discussion - where else should it be conducted? And you are wrong. This naming pattern is not for disambiguation. Queen Sofia of Spain, Empress Michiko of Japan, Queen Rania of Jordan, Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Sonja of Norway and Queen Paola of Belgium need no disambiguation. This is the standard Wikipedia naming pattern for queens consort (wives of kings). I ask again, why should this article not conform to it? Adam 09:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you participated in the discussion, I find your protestations of ignorance remarkable. Perhaps you could read over the discussion again, and I could answer any questions you still have after that? If (as I suspect) you are not asking for information but are trying to restart the discussion, then that should be done centrally, not on the talk page for only one of the affected pages. HenryFlower

I have no idea what you are talking about. It is agreed that this article needs to be renamed, and I am pointing out that there is an established Wikipedia convention for queens consort, which is Queen X of Y. I am asking, why should this article not be renamed to conform to that convention? Rather than trying to attribute sinister motives to me, why don't you answer the question? Adam 12:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read over the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28Thailand-related_articles%29, and from what I see, Adam never actually supported/opposed anything. There are statements that say Adam Carr apparently supports this, but Adam himself never signed off on anything. If I know anything about Adam, he is not shy about voicing his opinions. I really don't have a position on this, as I am not well informed about the subject, but I can't stand to see one of our contributor's name dragged through the mud. [[image:smiley.png|15px]] Prsgodd e ss187 13:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see why this has become such a contentious matter. The article needs to be renamed. I have suggested an alternative name. I still haven't heard any objection to the alternative name, other than that I have suggested it. Adam 14:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Prsgoddess, Adam's comments are at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28Thailand-related_articles%29 and above (there were several rounds of voting, it was messy, and I'd rather not do it again).  Adam, please read again Naming conventions (names and titles), especially Most of the conventions below are intended for medieval and modern European and Muslim rulers and nobility, since in these civilizations several countries share the same given names, so some disambiguation is often required, and disambiguation by territorial designation is convenient. Elsewhere, territorial designations are usually unnecessary in names and in article titles.  The policy for Thailand is set out at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28Thailand-related_articles%29.   If you want to change the policy, please discuss it there. HenryFlower 15:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Harry, I guess I should have read the entire page, instead of the section where the comments were. Prsgodd e ss187 15:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't know what Henry's objection is to Queen Sirikit of Thailand, other than accusations about what happened in the previous round of debate. I have read over that debate and I see that I didn't in fact vote one way or the other. I did argue that it was disrespectful to style the Queen of Thailand simply Sirikit, and I still think that is a relevant consideration. Adam 00:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm repeating my points from another discussion page here, but 1) There is no need to mention Thailand. Because no other country has Queens named Sirikit. Unlike in Europe where Queens of many countries are named Elizabeth, etc. and there is a need for disambiguation. 2) There is no need to mention Queen.  Because no other person in Thailand is named Sirikit.  Some American publisher got into trouble some time back for a book where one of the characters was named Sirikit.  By law, there can only be one Sirikit - there are no others.  Thus no need to disambiguate Queen Sirikit from Sirikit the som-tam seller.  3) Thais would not not consider it dishonorable to name the article simply "Sirikit".  We have a Sirikit National Convention Center (in Thai, the "Queen" is omitted), a Sirikit Dam, etc. Patiwat 04:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That being said, the Thai wikipedia page for Sirikit is under the fully blown "สมเด็จพระนางเจ้าสิริกิติ์ พระบรมราชินีนาถ" (including title, but exluding nationality). But even then, there was a inconclusive debate about what to name the article.  It was noted that in Thai libraries, she would be filed under "สิริกิติ์", and this was not disrespectful.  The Thai wikipedia royalty conventions are not consistent with the English wikipedia in that they always add the royal title.  But nationality is only noted for non-Thai royalty.  So "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is filed under "สมเด็จพระราชินีนาถ อลิซาเบธที่ 2 แห่งสหราชอาณาจักร". Patiwat 04:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I defer to Patiwat - if Thai editors think Sirikit is acceptable I have no objection. Adam 04:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * While we're on the topic, could I also point out Soamsavali Kitiyakara (which, for consistency, should be Soamsavali; even though she divorced, she is still royalty), Ploypailin (which should be Ploypailin Jensen since she is not royalty), Princess Bejaratana (should be just Bejaratana), and Vajiralongkorn, Crown Prince of Thailand (should be just Vajiralongkorn). Patiwat 04:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost afraid to tell Patiwat that Sirikit is a very common name for Siamese cats in Australia - my mother had one. Adam 04:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

marriage license
Both the king and Sirikit signed their name in their marriage licenses is poor English, and is trivial compared to the fact she was not yet 18 and her parents also signed — line 12 directly under her signature on line 11 − of what should be called certificate of marriage ทะเบียนการสมรส. Reproductions of it are sold as souvenirs, and can be found on-line by searching for it by its common name, ใบสมรส สิริกิติ์ --Pawyilee (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Journalist Publishes the Thailand Expose for Which He Quit His Job
Former Reuters journalist Andrew MacGregor Marshall resigns from his post in Thailand to publish the Thailand Expose, uncovering the actual political situation in Thailand, in which Sirikit seems to play a significant role. The story is also covered in other media such as The Independent and Atlantic Wire among others. The expose seems to be a rich source for this article, as well as for the article "Politics of Thailand". Hence, I posted this also on the Talk:Politics_of_Thailand page. --spitzl (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Queen Consort or Queen Regent?
There seems to be some confusion in this article whether the person is Queen Consort or Queen Regent. Could someone shed light on this please. Mootros (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * She is queen consort by right, being the wife of the king, but retains the title of Queen Regent from her regency when the king took monastic leave. I'm not sure of how royal styles are properly used in English though. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! This is not clear at all from the article article. We should get this changed. Mootros (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Done! removed the misleading part from the box that is meant to be link to succession. Mootros (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Same family
Strangely, there is no mention in this article of the fact that Bhumibol is a first-cousin once removed of his wife, Sirikit, the two being respectively a grandson and a great-granddaughter of Chulalongkorn. It's a bit confusing, especially when we can read such things as "Both Bhumibol and Sirikit found much common ground on their likes and dislikes and thus began a relationship" which make us think that they are not at all related.Sultan Rahi (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not that easy. Bhumibol's grandfather is Sirikit's great-grandfather, but Bhumibol's great-grandmother is not Sirikit's great-grandmother. So, he would be her half-first cousin once removed, but I don't think that this term exists. They are distantly related, though. --RJFF (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The term exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.100.251.67 (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Queen Dowager or Queen Mother
Is she not known as the Queen Mother? RhysHoffman 11:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. new comments go at the end.
 * 2. So far she is not known as Queen Mother. If you can find a reliable source that states the title (or the Thai equivalent) has been conferred on her, you can put it in the article. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 06:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Updating the Article
In certain sections of this article, which seems to have been edited a few days ago, mention is made of 'her husband' meaning the late king Rama IX. However, since her husband died more than two years ago, the whole article needs editing to reflect this reality. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Queen Sirikit in 1962.jpg