Talk:Vajiralongkorn/Archive 1

Two common law wives?
Does the recent edit to this page mean that Maha Vajiralongkorn now has two common law wives? This would seem to be stretching the royal prerogative a bit far, since Thailand banned polygamy precisely to stop the royal family spawning enormous families and complicating the succession. Could the recent editor clarify whether Maha Vajiralongkorn has divorced the first wife before acquiring the second one? Adam 11:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was wondering the same thing...until we figure it out, it might be better to remove it to keep from misinforming the reader in the meantime. Everyking 12:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It has now been made public that the prince married his current (i.e. third) wife, Mhom Sriras (Proper transliteration might be "Sri Rasmi"?) under Royal blessing on Feb 10, 2001. She is now pregnant (likely to be a son) and the news has recently been publicised. As to the circumstance about his first wife, this is not clear. I do not think the monogamous law was enacted by King Rama VI -- a British graduate himself -- with view to ban the royals, it was probably simply to put Thai law in line with western values. The Succession Law, enacted also by Rama VI, established who would be in line for succession in case a king has more than one wife. Jakris 13:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Who will be the heir?
Thanks to Jakris for clarifying the situation. Will Maha Vajiralongkorn's new son be the heir to the throne after him? Adam 23:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. The short answer is I don't know. He (the child) will certainly have some claim to the throne, but whether his claim will be strongest remains to be seen. The current rule stated that anybody whom the king name will be the first in line for succession, but as far as I know, female is still barred from the throne. King Bhumibol named Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn as his successor, so if anything (you know what) happens, the Prince will certainly inherit the throne. It will then be up to him to name his successor, which can technically be anybody who is not specifically prohibited by the Succession Law. Until he names somebody, the Law stated that the first in line for succession would be the first born son to his 'queen'. So the question is really who is going to be his queen? Although it looks like he might have practically separated from his first wife, I think there might be some PR pressure on him to annoites her as his queen, and probably Mhom Sriras (the third wife) as his royal consort. Now, because the queen does not have a son, we need the next sections of the Law, which effectively stated that the first born son of the wife of the next rank (e.g. royal consort) would then be the heir. In this scenario, this child will be his heir. However, another factor to consider is the status of his second wife, as she also have sons. If the prince also makes her his wife of at least equal rank to Mhom Sriras, then the son from this wife would probably have stronger claim. However, I think this scenario is probably unlikely as his second marriage is more dubious than his other marriages. Having said all that, the power to amend the Succession Law remains with the king (this is endorsed by every Thai constitutions), so if he decides to remove the female prohibition, then the situation would also change as well. Jakris 02:19, 4 Mar 2005 UTC


 * According to the current Thai Constitution, if the King names his successor (which he MUST follow the Palace Law on Succession B.E. 2467 which FORBIDS a princess to inherit the throne) then the named prince will inherit the throne. However, if the King does not name his successor, the privy council will submit the name of the successor to the National Assembly and ask for approval. In the latter case the privy council may submit a name of a princess. So under the current Constitution, it is clearly state that Thailand may have a princess to inherit the throne (which bypass the Succession Law) only if the King does not name his successor. The Crown prince and HRH Princess Soamsavali (his first wife) are divorced. However, their daughter, HRH Princess Bajrakitiyabha, remains the highest rank/title among his other children which are only styled HSH (lower rank than HRH), and also highest among other grandchildren of the current King. She has worked on royal duty for quite some time, so it is possible that the princess will inherit the throne after his father (the current Crown Prince). The four sons from his second wife are illegitimate and are not well-accepted by public, so they are unlikely to be legible to inherit the throne. The four sons and their mother remains unheard in Thai media for quite a long time. The discussion about them are strictly prohibited in Thailand.

If the succession is determined by a Palace law, the king is prohibited to name a princess as the successor precisely as long as the selfsame king does not alter that prohibition in the said palace law. It is fully possible that the king, if wants to name a female as the successor, first amends the Succession Law, quashing the prohibition against females, and then, according to the amended law, names the princess as the successor. Or how? 217.140.193.123 19:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Article title
I thought Maha meant "great", so is this a name or a title? Is either of his names a surname? Does the Royal Family have a surname? Adam 08:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The given name is "Maha Vajiralongkorn" and "Mahidol" is his surname.


 * The given name is "Vajiralongkorn" -- "Maha" is a prefix added later to his full name + title. His family name is "Mahidol" -- although the members of royal family who hold title Her/His Royal Highness (HRH) are not required to use the surname by the current Thai law.

So should not this article be called Vajiralongkorn Mahidol? Adam 23:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly not "Vajiralongkorn Mahidol", Adam. Cf. e.g. Charles, Prince of Wales and Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, not "Charles Mountbatten-Windsor" or "Victoria Bernadotte". The Prince does in fact use the name you suggested ("Vajiralongkorn Mahidol") on his uniform, but I don't think that usage will follow Wikipedia's article naming convention. I personally prefer "Vajiralongkorn" alone, or perhaps with ", Crown Prince of Thailand". However, I have a feeling that most non-Thais might know him under the name of "Maha Vajiralongkorn" (I may be wrong), in which case we should leave the title as is. --Jakris 17:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

What about Vajiralongkorn, Crown Prince of Thailand? Adam 23:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Perhaps with redirection from "Maha Vajiralongkorn" as well if we really decide to move? --Jakris 23:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This would be fine; it is in line with what is done for other princes on Wikipedia. -- Emsworth 17:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now New Son Of His Royal Highness Crownprince Maha Vajiralongkorn to baptize by HM.The King of thailand. The New Prince name His Royal Highness Teepangkornrasameechod.

Could one of the anonymous people editing this article clarify what the name of Vajiralongkorn's new son is? It is Teepangkornrasameechod? Adam 02:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am one of the anonymous persons who are editing this page. Since the name of the Crown Prince's son has not been revealed to the public, I see only two solutions : The other anonymous person is related to the Thai Royal household, and knows things we still don't know...Or it is an error.

A google for Teepangkornrasameechod gets no hits. This name can't go in the article until it is confirmed from some other source. Another question: Why has the name of this child not been announced? Is it a Thai custom? Or just a royal thing? Adam 00:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The name will be disclosed today (17 June) during the buddhist equivalent of the christian christening ceremony. It is assumed that the name wasn't disclosed earlier because the sitution of the child's mother needed to be clarified. Since she was, until 15 June, a commoner, her child would not have been able to be elevated to the rank of HRH. It seems that the negociations took some time, and finally HM the King has bestroyed the title of HRH upon Princess Srirasmi, opening the way to the disclosure of the name of the princesse's child with the title of HRH, as Royal Grandchild.

Thanks for that clarification. Adam 07:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So it is, the anonymous person from yesterday was right for the Prince's name...Beeing so right is perhaps the reason why that person stays anonymous...

So the child's name is Teepangkornrasameechod? Adam 04:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is phonetically correct, but due to the official transcription rules from thai to western scripts, the right spelling is the one written in the article....That country is so complicated...:-)

Name of HSH Princess Siriwanwari Mahidol after elavationed is HRH Princess Siriwannawari Nariratana.--Pudtipong Nawasornyuttana 06:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Move?
Why not just move this page to Vajiralongkorn? The inclusion of the ", Crown Prince of Suchandsuchland" is, after all, for the purpose of disambiguating between royals in countries where they often share the same names. NC explicitly excludes East Asian countries. I don't see any reason not to use the shorter title. - Nat Krause 10:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Nat is correct. I agree. 217.140.193.123 19:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I second that. This is the only article among living members of the Thai royal family where english royal title is noted in the article name. Most others just use given name (e.g., Bhumibol Adulyadej). Patiwat 01:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose to move this article back to Maha Vajiralongkorn; note that Maha is part of the given name, as the princess's article is at Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, not Sirindhorn. If unobjected, this should be done without need for a requested move. --Paul C 20:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest to move the title of "HRH Crown Princess" from his royal consort in the right panel under "Thai Royal Family". Her marriage to the Crown Prince doesn't mean that she should also be entitled to "Crown Princess". Crown Princess should only be applied to heiress apparent in countries where male and female are equal in succession line. Therefore, her title should be corrected to only "HRH Princess Srirasmi, the Royal Consort to HRH Crown Prince of Thailand", which also corresponds to her title in Thai as well.

Physical appearance
Vajiralongkorn has a kind of strange appearance. For one, he has rather pale skin. Is this due to cosmetics or some kind of condition? But besides that his facial features seem kind of "strange" for a Thai person. I just can't quite put my finger on it.


 * The ugly, cruel, and baseless rumor that everyone in Thailand has heard is that he has HIV.

I, for one, believe that MOST of the rumors are not true. One of the most widely believed says that he shot at Sirindhorn some 25+ years ago. This HIV rumor is yet another attempt to make him seem as bad as possible. 206.63.251.39 05:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Cliff Sloane


 * Not all people with HIV are ugly or cruel. Only ignorance would support this rumour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.176.69.125 (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't we rather expect royals of any nation to look a bit odd? These are problems with the lack of genetic diversity in royal bloodlines. Vajiralongkorn has, unfortunately, come up snake-eyes on the genetic dice game a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.61.138 (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a very difficult time believing that is the photograph of a 65 year old man. It is either heavily photoshopped, or an old picture. Proscriptus (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm having a very difficult time believing that is the photograph of a 65 year old man. It is either heavily photoshopped, or an old picture. Proscriptus (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Children's titles
"Sons born by Yuvadhida are unlikely to be regarded legitimate to inherit the throne and reportedly have been stripped of their royal title by their father. They now live in the United States." By what authority does he strip people of titles? Surely this is the prerogative of the King? Adam 03:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

POV?
I know I'm stepping on this ice here, but some of the statements in the article on the Crown Prince aren't really neutral point of view or backed up. "Although the subject is never publicly discussed in Thailand, most observers believe that Vajiralongkorn shares none of the enormous popularity of his parents among the Thai public. This is partly because ... of his immoral private life, lack of intelligence, his repeated abuse and mistreatment of subordinates and partly because he is seen as a cold and remote personality."

immoral private life. I have no idea how to edit this, except that the word "immoral" shouldn't be used.

lack of intelligence This doesn't belong here either. Either state it in a verifiable way (e.g., with an anecdote or a reference), or it should be deleted.

his repeated abuse and mistreatment of subordinates This is a rather serious statement. Rumors of this abound in Thailand, but due to the nature of Thai law, none of it is verifiable.

Would somebody (either anonymous, or a non-Thai who has no intention of ever visiting Thailand) please make these edits? I'm Thai, and in Thailand, and am afraid of being hit by lese-majesty. Anonymous 203.147.0.48


 * Lack of intelligence: Paul Handley quotes a classmate at the Australian military academy saying V. had difficulty with the courses, I'll add that when I get the book back. For the rest there'll be sources, we can say 'alleged.' Certainly the rumors are as it were a live fact and worth mentioning because they reflect on his dubious status as heir to the throne. Sartoresartus (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote from The Economist
Was the quote from the 2002 Economist ("Vajiralongkorn is held in much less esteem than the King. Bangkok gossips like to swap tales of his lurid personal life. One of his sisters, another possible heir to the throne, is more popular, but Thailand has never been ruled by a woman.") from the same issue that was censored in Thailand? I've always wondered exactly how they crossed the unmentionable line, but because the issue was banned I never figured it out.

Royal succession
Some recent debate in the King Bhumibol article showed that there is quite a bit of confusion about the rules behind the royal succession. It is thus suggested that the following note be added to this article: "Prince Vajiralongkorn was given the title "Somdej Phra Boroma Orasadhiraj Chao Fah Maha Vajiralongkorn Sayam Makutrajakuman" on 28th December 1972, making him the Crown Prince and Heir Apparent to the throne. In 1977, Princess Sirindhorn was given an equivalent title, "Sayam Makutrajakumari".  The constitution was later ammended to allow for a "daughter of the king" to succeed to the throne, but only in the absence of a male heir apparent.  Although this effectively signalled Princess Sirindhorn as unofficially second in line to the throne., it did not give her equal status in terms of royal succession to the Prince." Patiwat 10:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment
An anonymous comment I removed from the article, in case anyone wants to follow it up: (But the time of 1978 to become a Buddhist monk is contradictory since he was married in 1977, as stated below.) HenryFlower 06:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Death
I have heard a rumor from a source that I trust (on July 26, 2007) that the Crown Prince has died. Since this is such a taboo subject in Thailand, if true, has so far been kept under wraps. It's a well known fact that Vajiralongkorn has been seeking treatment for AIDS abroad. If this is the case, his 4 year-old son is the Heir to the throne. Again, this is just a rumor.

I have also heard from Thailand that the Prince died last week whilst he was in Germany seeing treatment for HIV/AIDs. However it seems that he flew back to Thailand today (27th July). http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=601&Itemid=31 He doesn't look very well in those photos though.


 * Rumour does not belong on Wikipedia. Although interesting I don't think it's appropriate or consistant with Wikipedias policies to post rumours like this on this page. There are plenty of sites available for you to post things like this. Wikipedia isn't one of them unless you can provide a reliable source for your information. For interest, I live in Thailand and I heard the same rumour but the country was changed to Sweden. This kind of unsourced information has no place in Wikipedia. Also, please don't give the Thai government an excuse to block Wikipedia by posting unsourced rumours like this. We've already lost Youtube. Post sourced material if you can. Sean.hoyland 20:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, someone include the rumor in the article. Uh, by not including it, you already DISPEL it. There's no need to include this rumor. I have also never heard of the AIDS thing. It's not a well known fact, at all, as unpopular as he is, I doubt it is true.Suredeath 08:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never included a rumor (e.g., "It became the talk of the town that ... is died...") and I don't think that rumors belong on Wikipedia. But when credible a source of news and analysis dispels the rumor, analyzes how the rumor affected a person's popularity, and then discusses how significantly the rumor could affect that person's political future, I do think this is worthy of mention in the biographical article. Patiwat 17:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Let see how about rumor in George W. Bush article. Did you find any? Many of those are on the news. --Manop - TH 05:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no sense in posting death rumors. If he dies you'll find out soon enough. Jumping the gun and being wrong only makes you an unreliable source. Wikipedia is not a news media, it is an encyclopedia, so it's ok if you wait until confirmed and reliable information is released to report it. There's no reward for beating anyone to the story. It is also inappropriate for you to assume that his 4 year old son is the heir apparent as noone has actually been officially named as his heir. He happens to have 4 other sons and 2 daughters, with the son you mention being younger than all of these, so it is not known who his heir will be until he announces it.

Why were images of his family deleted?
Why were images of the Crown Prince's family deleted? No real criteria was ever given. I think they are useful - his children are all potential heirs to the throne. Patiwat 17:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed images. Copyright unclear. Suredeath 21:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Titles
After the formal titles in the introduction, the correct term for referring to Vajiralongkorn is just that, "Vajiralongkorn", or "the Crown Prince" alone. There is no need to repeat "Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn" all the time. See Manual of Style (biographies), notably the "Subsequent uses of names" bit. Jpatokal (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move: "Maha Vajiralongkorn, Crown Prince of Thailand" --> Vajiralongkorn

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Maha is part of guy's title and means "great". The king and Princess Sirindhorn use "maha" in their titles in the same way as the prince, but the word does not appear in their Wiki article names. The article names for the other Thai royal family members consist of only their personal names. If even if the king doesn't get his title in his article name, it's hard to justify for a mere prince. Kauffner (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you see the past bickering at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles) it would be easy to understand why no-one has moved it yet. I support the move, though you'd find the king-doesn't-get-a-title-so-how-come-the-prince-does argument rather invalid, since it certainly is that way at Naming conventions (names and titles), which however should not apply to Thailand. I don't think a consensus was ever reached back then, but to keep in line with the status quo, this article should be at Vajiralongkorn. You need to file a proper move request, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Birth day and colour
Born on a Monday, Thai solar calendar weekday colour is yellow.

Pilot

 * lead paragraph states: He is a qualified military pilot and helicopter pilot.
 * Adult life states: He is a qualified military pilot and a helicopter pilot.
 * Role and responsibilities states: He has been cited as the pilot of an RTAF F-16 [2], and two Boeing 737s, HS-HRH[3] and HS-CMV.[4]
 * Can this be restated? --Pawyilee (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Party
Public and the Media states: On 12 November 2009, a home video was released to Wikileaks showing Vajiralongkorn, Srirasmi, and others, showing a decadent birthday party for a dog, with the princess naked throughout.[9]
 * Reference now leads to a plea-for-funds video, but even when the cited video was on view, it did not support the allegations that the party celebrated the birthday of a dog, or was particularly decadent; nor was the princess naked, let alone naked through out. I think this needs to go. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There being no objection, I deleted it. --Pawyilee (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The video exists. Referenced on Google รัก-ไทย 02:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it does, as I've seen portions of it, so I guess I went about this wrong. It, as well as the entry in our article, makes non-trivial claims that it portrays a decadent birthday party for a dog, with the princess naked throughout. Nothing I saw supports any of that. [|View by Jimbo Wales]
 * 1. Biographies ought to be of high quality, and one valuable but imperfect tool for improving quality is to make sure that all or most non-trivial claims in a biography are referenced to a quality source. I don't think anyone disagrees with this.

--Pawyilee (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The video exists, is relinked, and without fear of reading too much into it, does contain footage of the prince and a very scantily clad princess both singing happy birthday to his dog.


 * Correct. the video exists, though it can be difficult to locate. I have found it by searching on P2P sites using logical keywords. It does indeed depict a topless Princess Srirasmi singing and clapping as a cake is cut and then fed to a large poodle, which is alleged to be the Crown Prince's favorite canine companion. The leaking of this video from the household of the Crown Prince suggests that he has enemies among his staff. The video certainly casts the Crown Prince in a negative light, particularly among conservative up-country Thai, whose village lives bear no comparison to the existence of his dog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.91.184 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I easily downloaded and watched the video. The princess is naked except for a small g-string throughout the footage sclombulu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.237.160.86 (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Confirmed nude&mdash; but for the sake of the g-string, while he is casually dressed, and they are continuously tended to by formally dressed servants, and they acknowledge the camera person filming them and the photographer(s ?), although they are within an high-walled enclosed garden/pool area, with some trees draped in lights and party balloons. No guests, if any, are otherwise visible.  WurmWoode  T   16:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Public and the media
About the section "Public and the media", a user have translated and put it to Thai Wikipedia. We have found that it certainly has POV problem. We are in the progress of adjusting for NPOV and then it will be translated back here. Please wait about two weeks. --Octra Bond (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Referencing and General Hagiographic nature of Thai Royalty pages
This article has a number of statements that a poorly referenced. The entire section in his military career is unreferenced. An unquestioning reliance on official biographies seems to be evident. This is symptomatic of the general tone of Thai Royalty pages, where the extreme censorship legislated and maintained by political and royalist entities within Thailand of discussion of royalty is extended to Wikipedia. I would argue strongly that all Thai Royalty pages need to placed out of reach of partisan forces and the information given within must indicate sourcing. Brunswicknic (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What's stopping you?--Pawyilee (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

King of Thailand
I thought the Thai succession was automatic. Why don't we have Vajiralongkorn as King? GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It probably is, but some editors would rather have the media feed them the info, rather than rely on positive law or history. The late King is listed as becoming monarch the same day his brother died. --Killuminator (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We go by what reliable sources tell us. WP:Original research is a no no on here. You may well be correct. But until we have some RS sources saying differently, he is the crown prince and heir presumptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, media also provides reliable sources, which Wikipedia depends upon. Yes, we do have laws and history, but we also have what appears to be a special present case. According to CNN, "The question of when Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn will ascend the throne of Thailand will have to wait, after the successor to the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who died Thursday, said he 'needs time to mourn his father'." According to WSJ, "The prime minister told reporters late Thursday that the prince had asked for time to grieve for the king along with other Thais before succeeding him as monarch." And as IBTimes notes "It was noted that Bhumibol was proclaimed King the same day his brother died in 1946" while acknowledging that there may be a delay. These are just a few sources. We're not here to interpret Thailand's succession laws, and this is not a historical case. Morningstar1814 (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Second part of last sentence completely misses my point. Read again. Killuminator (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to my reply, fellow Wikipedian - I do not believe I have missed your point; but if I am indeed wrong, please do enlighten me. Morningstar1814 (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 *  and this is not a historical case.  I never called this a historical case. I used rely on positive law and history. Same law today as back then (positive law part), the late King became King the very day his predecessor died (history part, to point out that succession is automatic). Never called it  a historical case (how grand it sounds, but I never used such phrasing nor do I consider this succession a historical moment).
 * The problem with the historical reference to the late King's succession is that today Thailand is (at least theoretically) a constitutional monarchy. The rules of succession have almost certainly changed since then and indeed Dragons flight has expanded on the subject in his comment below. Historical precedent is not always reliable in these cases. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If I was to aggrandize the rare moment when the Thai throne is vacant, I would have used the term "historic case" - so this appears to be a case of misunderstanding. You mentioned the late King ascended the throne immediately following the death of his brother - which is indisputable as it is supported both by law and historical records. Yet the succession of Vajiralongkorn is not under exactly the same circumstances. Yes, in all probability he might have already become the new king according to the Law of Succession. But it is also stated explicitly by a number of reliable sources that he seeks to delay the succession, and that he would "perform his duty as heir to the throne" - which Bhumibol didn't. This complicates the issue. Morningstar1814 (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To make it more complicating -  heir to the throne is legally the monarch. The first in line, is heir-apparent or heir-presumptive. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Want more complications ? The only changes to the 1924 Palace Law of Succession are those contained in Section II of the 2007 Constitution. The 2014 Constitution naturally repeals the previous one, but it seems this particular section was retained (no sources on the page to back it up). The 2007 Constitution has an unofficial translation (this is also problematic) and Section 23 would be the one that fits this situation. --Killuminator (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not have an issue with him having already ascended the throne on a legal basis, even if he and his government denies the fact, which at this moment seems to be what's happening. Unfortunately the inept media as you've suggested have staunchly refused to refer to him as having ascended. Can we work around that? It appears at this stage simply saying he will be proclaimed at a later day would be the most fitting solution. But the introductory section of the article and the infobox call for a definite, uncomplicated solution. Morningstar1814 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm I'm not sure if I would call it denial, it's probably a soft approach because the late King was highly revered. Phrases such as "perform his duty as heir to the throne" can be interpreted both ways (interpretation based on exact words)( A - he is still the crown prince and heir, B - he is the new King, but still heir to the deceased one), we don't learn much about his status that way. He's the next King for sure, so the intro and infobox should be adjusted to reflect that. I propose merging the first two sentences by ditching the crown prince of Thailand sentence and the dot. The result will be an indisputable fact. Also ditch the Crown prince of Thailand in the Infobox. We won't be very explicit if he is King or not, we can wait for new info, but having the crown prince presented as a fact when the situation isn't exactly clear seems misleading. --Killuminator (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the current situation - which appears quite extraordinary as most mournful heirs have had no problem ascending the throne, but then again not many successions have taken place under a military junta and such political climate - the media seem to be deliberately leaving things vague. Some have referred to Vajiralongkorn as "the Crown Prince", yet without specifying whether he still holds the title; some have used "the new King", again failing to assert whether he has ascended. I will definitely consider leaving the wording in this article intentionally vague for the moment, namely leaving out specific reference to his status as King or Crown Prince - but again, the intro and infobox often do not really have much room for vagueness. Morningstar1814 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thailand is a constitutional monarchy, which means that succession is governed by the law. In this case the laws say that the designated heir doesn't officially become king until offered the position by the government.  It was expected that Vajiralongkorn would be offered the position during a special session of the Legislative Assembly convened a few hours after the King's death.  However, Prince Vajiralongkorn asked the government to delay officially naming him as king for an "appropriate time" so that both he and the nation could properly grieve for the passing of the King.    So, technically, even though there is no ambiguity on the succession, the position of king will stand vacant until the constitutional formalities have been met.  Mostly likely after a short period of mourning for the dead.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * After browsing some Thai royalty articles, I stumbled upon a truly ghastly sight. The page on Srinagarindra has over 30 sections, most of the text is unsourced and is blatant fawning and sycophancy if you bother to read it. Anyone up to the task of trimming that article ? --Killuminator (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my. That is really bad. The last time I ran into an article with similar problems I posted a 30 day warning on the talk page, basically to the effect that if this article is not fixed in 30 days I will stub it. Surprisingly some people actually came in and tuned it up a bit. Anyways, unless someone has access to sources that would be my suggested approach. I'd also suggest dropping a note at WT:ROYAL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Proclaimed king
He's not yet king. According to Dailynews, the parliament still needs to finalise the process by having an audience with him and formally inviting him to the throne, and there needs to be a formal proclamation published in the Govt Gazette, just as these ones which were made when his uncle and father were proclaimed kings: 1, 2.

According to the same report, his proclamation will take retroactive effect to the night of 13 October 2016.

Anyway, the report does not say when he'll be formally invited to the throne. But there's a rumor that it's gonna take place on 1 December.

--YURi (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

To make a long story short, what happened today was just: The cabinet told the parliament to invite him to the throne and the parliament replied 'okay'. --YURi (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Many sources say he became king upon proclamation. PS: I've reversed your revert. If you're going to undo it, then you'll need to revert many other edits concerning this topic, across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there's no "proclamation" yet. Anyway, just do whatever you think fit. I don't have spare time to engage in edit wars. I'm here just to say that all the Thai sources say like this, and this is also upheld on the Thai Wikipedia. Here are some Thai sources not mentioned above: Thairath, Matichon, Khaosod. --YURi (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

According to Matichon, the Thai govt has just announced that he is not king until the whole process is finalised. --YURi (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The same information has just been published by BBC Thailand: Four stages in the process to invite the heir to ascend the throne (in Thai).
 * A relevant page on the main BBC still hasn't been updated: Thailand begins naming Prince Vajiralongkorn as new king, but it says: "Thailand has begun the process of naming Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn as the country's new king. Its parliament approved the sending of a formal invitation, which he has to accept before ascending to the throne."
 * Two hours ago, Reuters published a similar piece of information: Thailand's parliament to invite crown prince to become new king, which says: "Parliament will invite Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn to become the new king following the death of revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej last month, the president of the legislative body said on Tuesday... The prince will have to accept parliament's invitation in order for him to be proclaimed king, according to established procedure."
 * --YURi (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Has he been proclaimed king, yet? GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not yet. It has been reported (in Thai) that the parliament president, the prime minister, and the supreme court president will have an audience with him tonight so as to invite him to the throne. The audience will be televised. Anyway, it's midday now in Thailand. --YURi (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * According to an article in the Bangkok Post, as he has now accepted the invitation to be king (big surprise) he is now considered to be king, although the coronation will not take place until March 2017. Kortoso (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He has not been king since 13 October but since today 1 December, as stipulated by rulers. It is therefore necessary to rectify. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He's actually proclaimed king on 1 December but the proclamation took retroactive effect to 13 October, according to the source provided in the article. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The decision may be retroactive politically and politically but not in historical facts. It is like a Prime Minister of an Asian country, the Supreme Court issued a judgment dismissing him while declaring that he was no longer prime minister for a month. He is therefore king only since yesterday, knowing that he could have refused. And in the same genre Kim il Sung is still president despite his death. Panam2014 (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no constitutional provisions for the circus surrounding his succession (Andrew MacGregor Marshall points this out as well). The succession is automatic legally not politically, hence the retroactive thingy. They had no other way around it even tho the throne was de facto vacant. -- There are no constitutional provisions for the circus surrounding his succession (Andrew MacGregor Marshall points this out as well). The succession is automatic legally not politically, hence the retroactive thingy. They had no other way around it even tho the throne was de facto vacant(talk) 17:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * have you got a source for that ? --Panam2014 (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The Thai constitution is posted in a previous discussion and Andrew posts on social media and several media outlets every day. I'd have to find the exact one. --Killuminator (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Subject sensitive in Thailand
In Chiang Mai, and probably all Thailand, BBC is blanked out as soon as they report about this. So reporting about the subject is very sensitive. If wrong things are written here, Wikipedia (or just the Vajiralongkorn page) could be blocked in Thailand, as are many websites and webpages that give info about Thai royalty. --171.4.234.172 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If anything incorrect has been added, then please mention the specifics here, and others will assess the merits of the case. But do bear in mind WP:NOTCENSORED. Edwardx (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so my thoughts on this. 1) I don't want Wikipeda blocked in Thailand. 2) I want Wikipedia to include relevant and factual information (even if deemed worthy of censorship in Thailand). Therefore, perhaps Wikipedia needs to update WikiMedia to detect location based on IP address and provide a way to restrict access to certain data not fit for display in Thailand. This way the rest of the world can still read everything. Thailand will be limited, but not blocked. Thoughts? --Rebroad (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Until today the pronunciation was given in the intro. It was commented out, but not removed, by User:หมวดซาโต้ and I've asked them about it on their talk page. Is anyone else able to help with the pronunciation, either by ensuring an accurate IPA transcription (Help:IPA for Thai and Lao may be helpful), or even better, recording an audio clip? Wyddgrug (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just hid it because it's incomplete. Anyway, I'll now add the complete IPA. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Now, only the first part of his title is shown because a user found unnecessary to add his full title. I hid the rest of his title in the Thai script, as well as its RTGS transcription and IPA pronunciation. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
Do we really have to show his Crown Prince tenure in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit it then. WP:BOLD --Rebroad (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

um
What's with the infobox picture of the King showing him in bike gear now?-- Sıgehelmus    (Talk) &#124;д=)  22:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

October 13 or December 1, 2016
Which date in the intro should we use for when Vajiralongkorn became King of Thailand? Shall it be December 1, 2016 or the date the government has retroactively declared October 13, 2016? GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course, 13 Oct. The date of legal commencement is usually preferred on Wikipedia, isn't it? Just like the case of Yingluck Shinawatra, who was appointed prime minister on 8 August 2011, with retroactive effect to 5 Aug 2011 (the date her nomination was approved by the House of Representatives), and her Wikipedia article also says her tenure as prime minister started on 5 Aug 2011. The existing note about Vajiralongkorn actually accepting the throne on 1 Dec already suffices. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the recently added addition about the retroactive decision of the government in the intro, is redundant & should be changed to note. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (Summoned by bot) I strongly disagree; in fact, before I read your last comment, I was about to respond to your initial inquiry by suggest that such contextualization is the obvious, more or less standard, and almost obligatory way of handling this issue under policy. You have two different dates of succession here, either one of which may be considered "valid" under a different light--the date of the formalization of the decision to proceed with the succession (or at least the date of the proclamation thereof) and the formal date which will govern in all matters of state.  That requires some minimal parsing and contextualization to explain to the reader, of at least a sentence or so (which is hardly going to overburden that lead, which is presently tiny).   The alternative is to engage in WP:original research as to which is the "legitimate" date of succession, as I doubt a significant number of WP:Reliable sources, if any, have weighed in on this issue--though it should not surprise me, given Thailand's lese-majeste principles, if the government has a solid position here.  Our job here is not to hide important context to the statements we make, but rather to explain such complexities as briefly as we may--this is not the right kind of content for a note.  It may be that as this article and the lead grow and the amount of vital information about Vajiralongkorn's reign will make a case for removing the content related to the succession from the lead, but for the present time, it seems the optimal place.  S n o w  let's rap 17:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding this RfC, I have no preference on how it is worded _as long as_ it is not misleading. Given there is an element of retrospection it would be misleading to omit this as to omit this would re-write history, which I do not think is correct for Wikipedia. But if there is a Wikipedia policy that says that governments can dictate the history of their country and that Wikipedia will abide by these dictions, then please present these policies, otherwise, I think the aim should be to remain factual and correctly portray the order of events as they have transpired so far in a way that does not easily mislead. --Rebroad (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with having a note next to October 13, 2016 explaining that the Thai gov't declared the reign to have begun on that date. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

PM and Regent
The names/functions of the Prime Minister and Regent Prem have appeared, disappeared, reappeared, ... PM's were listed with Bhumibol Adulyadej, Ananda Mahidol and Prajadhipok. So, why not here? --FredTC (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * His regency should be placed in the section of the infobox covering Vajiralongkorn's tenure as king. Since he was regent during the first 7-weeks of Vajiralongkorn's reign. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Misleading order of events
Below moved from my talk page where User:GoodDay started this discussion. --Rebroad (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Howdy. The Thai government declared Vajiralongkorn king retroactive to when his father died. That's what we go with. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Wikipedia is supposed to be factual, and NPOV. Just because someone retroactively declares something does not change history. What if Hitler retroactively denied the holocaust? Would that mean we should delete any mention of it? No government nor person should be able to censor Wikipedia. The fact is that if you were to travel back in time to late November 2016 and ask who is the King of Thailand, the answer would not be what the article implies by saying he became King on the 13th Octomber 2016. --Rebroad (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Get a consensus at that article's talkpage, please & take notice of the note in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If you read through the sources given in that article, you'll see where they mention that the ascension is retroactive to October 13. It's the Thailand government's call, not yours. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. The Thailand government is of course allowed to state when their King became King, but they do not get to dictate re-write history as documented by Wikipedia. The wording saying he is King since 13 October 2016 is misleading unless it's made clear it was done retrospectively. My first edit made this clear. I will restore it back to this edit. Leaving out the retrospective element is misleading as it implies that in November he was King when he, from a chronological perspective, was not. --Rebroad (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification is in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not prominent enough. This is a key piece of information that should not be lost in the small print. --Rebroad (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We'll see what others think at that article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The present intro contains redundant mentions of the retroactive thing and dates tho:

"'Maha Vajiralongkorn (Thai: มหาวชิราลงกรณ; rtgs: Mahawachiralongkon; IPA: [máhǎː wáʨʰíraːloŋkɔːn]; born 28 July 1952) is the King of Thailand, since 13 October 2016 (declared retroactively on 1 December 2016). As the tenth monarch of the Chakri Dynasty, he is also styled as Rama X. At the age of 64, Vajiralongkorn is the oldest Thai monarch to ascend to the throne."

"'He is the only son of King Bhumibol Adulyadej and Queen Sirikit. In 1972, at the age of 20, he was made crown prince by his father."

" After his father's death on 13 October 2016, he was expected to succeed to the throne of Thailand but asked for time to mourn before taking the throne. He accepted the throne on the night of 1 December 2016 but will not be crowned formally until after the cremation of his father. The government retroactively declared his reign to have begun on 13 October 2016, upon his father's death."

--หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you make a good point, the entire part you have underlined is redundant, and therefore we ought to remove it and the dispute is gone. --Rebroad (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Will you please stop adding December 1 and/or removing October 13 in that article's intro & take your concerns to that article's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see Rfc above & join in the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Majesty or Royal Highness
I just found this at a local Chiang Mai website. One sentence is: "... in celebration of the new King, His Royal Highness King Maha Vajiralongkorn Bodindradebayavarangkun". Is His Majesty reserved for after his coronation, or is this a mistake? FredTC (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Likely a mistake. Lost count as to how many times Britain's Queen Elizabeth II has been called HRH, instead of HM. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In a translation of the official proclamation by the Public Relations Department, the style His Majesty is used. In Thai, พระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว is reserved for after a king's coronation; before then they are styled สมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว. But the distinction doesn't seem to be translatable into English. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a closer look at both styles, and found the only difference between them is adding พระบาท in front of สมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว after coronation. The translation of พระบาท I found is: "the foot of a king or of royalty, the Buddha's foot-print". --FredTC (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, "พระบาท", literally "divine feet", refers to the feet of the king. People refer to the king by his feet because it is traditionally believed that directly referring to him is impolite. This practice was originally started by the Khmer, who applied such a reference to gods and later to kings (see the cult of divine monarchy for further info). For example, King Suryavarman I of the Khmer Empire had the title of វ្រះបាទបរមនិវ្វានបទ (literally "The Divine Feet of the Great One Who Has Entered Nirvana"). In the Thai culture, a king who has been formally crowned will get the title "พระบาทสมเด็จ xxx" (literally "The Divine Feet of His Majesty xxx"). Until he's formally crowned, he'll only use the title "สมเด็จ xxx" ("His Majesty xxx"). --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Is here allowed to talk of his tattoos or is this a BLP issue?
His tattoos became a hot topic for the press around the world. But would it violate BLP rules to talk about this? Clipname (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe his crop top as well is a talk of the Town. Raisul-wiki (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Coronation
Recent publications in the Bangkok Post, dec 4 and dec 5, suggest that the coronation will take place (soon?) after election date 26 Februari 2019. --FredTC (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * King in crop top.jpg

Nominated for the main page at ITN
-Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Name in Thai and RTGS
I find two spellings when I Google with วชิราลงกรณ: Both spellings are about the present Thai King. In the article the na is not present in the RTGS version. Is there an explanation? --FredTC (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Thai:  วชิราลงกรณ  is RTGS: wachiralongkonna
 * 2) Thai:  วชิราลงกรณ์  is RTGS: wachiralongkon (the  ์  above the consonant  ณ  makes the sylable silent, but part of the name)


 * The correct spelling is without the thanthakhat (◌์), but the ณ is silent and never pronounced anyway. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @Paul_012: I talked to a Thai friend about this, and he had an very different explanation. The last 3 letters กรณ  do not form 2 syllables kon-(na), but 1 syllable k(r)on, with the r not pronounced as is the case in Wat Saket. My friend also gave me this link. --FredTC (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Thai-language.com depends on an automated system, which is why it gets lots of words wrong. The kron explanation is nonsense. There's no such thing as a silent compound กร (and โ- and -อ are different vowels anyway). If one really wanted to pronounce กรณ Pali/Sanskrit style, it would be karana. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:44, 19 October 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) 03:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * House of Mahidol 1966 (2).jpg

Germany, inheritance tax, three billion Euros, evasion.
Avoided paying the Federal Republic of Germany's inheritance tax by informally and quickly leaving for Switzerland: https://www.focus.de/kultur/royals/zettel-an-der-tuerklingel-wie-der-thai-koenig-den-freistaat-bayern-um-3-milliarden-euro-prellte_id_12108867.html This is about the sum of 3 billion Euros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:DF04:6500:E4C3:99CD:4870:BD9C (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2021
Change {{Infobox royalty To {{Infobox royalty
 * name        = Vajiralongkorn วชิรลงกรณ์
 * name        = Vajiralongkorn วชิราลงกรณ

Superleaw (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

HM The King’s name is written as “วชิราลงกรณ” not “วชิรลงกรณ์” Superleaw (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. DrKay (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021
His wealth is heavily controversial (as most of it is not his but actually government finances) I stongly suggest removing this as it is definitely not accurate. 197.245.197.25 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. If his wealth is subject to controversy, we should agree on how to handle it before changing it, as otherwise any changes will likely be reverted.  A S U K I T E  03:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Such claims were indeed strongly disputed during the reign of his father, but the recent transfer of crown property assets into Vajiralongkorn's personal ownership pretty much renders such disputation untenable. It is the transfer of assets that make his wealth controversial, not whether or not ownership belongs to the government. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggest of adding Business and wealth section
After the controversial asset transfer, he is clearly in control of major businesses such as SCG, SCB, Deves Insurance, Siam Bioscience. Even all the palaces in Thailand are in his control such as Grand Palace. There will be more report of his wealth in near future.

His influence on those company such as changing SCB into SCB X (X is his 10th reign) or selecting the boards in many companies are more in the international spotlight, not to mention he is the weathiest king in the world.

--Wake it up (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Germany
The article has two sections on Vajiralongkorn's residence in Germany; one under Heir apparent and social interest and one under Reign. Both of these cite sources from 2020 and seem to focus on controversy since his accession, but I'm not totally sure about this. Could someone more versed in the topic please rationalise this? Furius (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Mansion, not villa
Villa is a wrong translation from German Villa which means mansion. 77.12.240.38 (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)