King of Thailand has died

[Tiriol]

King of Thailand Bhumibol Adulyadej has died. As reported by BBC.

Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej dies at 88

Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the world's longest-reigning monarch, has died after 70 years on the throne, the palace says.

The king, 88, was widely revered in Thailand. He was seen as a stabilising figure in a country hit by cycles of political turmoil and multiple coups.

He had been in poor health in recent years, making few public appearances.

Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn will be the new monarch, the prime minister has said.

In a televised address to the nation, Prayut Chan-ocha said Thailand would hold a one-year mourning period and that all entertainment functions must be "toned down" for a month.

"He is now in heaven and may be looking over Thai citizens from there," he said of King Bhumibol.

The king's death comes as Thailand remains under military rule following a coup in 2014.

The palace had warned on Sunday that the king's health was "not stable".

Many Thais had been wearing pink to try to bring good luck to the ailing monarch. Hundreds of people had gathered outside the hospital where he was being treated.

"His Majesty has passed away at Siriraj Hospital peacefully," the palace statement said, adding he had died at 15:52 (08:52 GMT).

Parliament is to hold a special session at 21:00 local time (14:00 GMT).

Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, who is 63, is much less well known to Thais and has yet to attain his father's widespread popularity. He spends much of his time overseas, especially in Germany

Strict lese-majeste laws mean public discussion of the succession are punishable by lengthy jail terms.

Unifying monarch

Given the pivotal role the king has played in maintaining the balance of power in Thailand's volatile political environment, the succession will be a formidable challenge for the government, says the BBC's Jonathan Head in Bangkok.

King Bhumibol, who was born in Cambridge in the US state of Massachusetts, acceded to the throne on 9 June 1946 after his brother, King Ananda Mahidol, died.

Though a constitutional monarch with limited powers, King Bhumibol was regarded by many Thais as semi-divine. They looked to him to intervene in times of high tension.

He was seen as a unifying and calming influence through numerous coups and 20 constitutions.

However, his critics argued he had endorsed military takeovers and at times had failed to speak out against human rights abuses.

[Vendetta]

Interesting times ahead for Thailand, as the crown prince makes our jugears look like a popular and restrained successor.

[ray245]

Monarchies in modern times tend to last as long as the people wants them around. If the monarch has little charisma, their position will very uncertain.

[Elheru Aran]

Monarchies in modern times tend to last as long as the people wants them around. If the monarch has little charisma, their position will very uncertain.

I dunno, the Brits have made it a while, and they've had some real winners...

[ray245]

Monarchies in modern times tend to last as long as the people wants them around. If the monarch has little charisma, their position will very uncertain.

I dunno, the Brits have made it a while, and they've had some real winners...

Hence the big part of modern times. The British monarchy in the 20th century has projected a fairly strong image to its people that they were able to care for the people.

[Simon_Jester]

If the monarch has little power, then they last longer because no one really cares. King Charles III (or whatever regnal name he picks) is probably going to be safe on the throne simply because nobody cares that much about ousting him. You can pretend he doesn't exist and it'll be fine.

The King of Thailand occupies a position of tremendous prestige and influence, to the point where you can get in major legal trouble by insulting him. Correspondingly, this power means that his character and actions are constantly in the minds of all citizens all the time. If the newly crowned king should abuse this power, he may well find his standing falling apart in short order.

[Elheru Aran]

To be fair, King Bhumbiphol (or however you spell that) rarely used his influence during his reign. Reading his Wiki page a few months ago, apparently the only time he really outright stepped into public affairs (apart from symbolic stuff) was during an abortive coup; he literally appeared on television, asked the leaders to join him, and more or less asked them to be reasonable and don't stir the pot. They immediately acquiesced, even literally bowing on their knees in front of him.

So it's not that he has actual clout... I don't know how much power the Thai constitution (if they have one) actually gives him... but he has a LOT of *perceived* power, which in its own way is real enough.

From said Wiki article (which was actually quite comprehensive as far as I could tell, probably written/edited by some people in the know), it does sound like the Thai people were mildly concerned about when his son inherits the throne. Apparently Prince whatshisface's wife is unpopular, and the Prince himself isn't thought very highly of by the population (not that they can say anything about it) thanks to some bad dealing in the past and other scandals. So the Thai people are in for a fairly interesting time as far as their government goes.

[Simon_Jester]

Informal power is still power.

A monarch who the population believes to be unworthy of the kind of deep reverence that is given to the Thai monarchy may well result in the Thai monarchy losing that reverence.

[Elheru Aran]

Informal power is still power.

A monarch who the population believes to be unworthy of the kind of deep reverence that is given to the Thai monarchy may well result in the Thai monarchy losing that reverence.

No argument. I'm expecting a certain amount of regrettable turmoil from Thailand over the next few years, and potentially a monarchy-shuffle. Nothing pleasant.

[K. A. Pital]

If the Thai monarchy collapses as a result, history would do its job.

So fingers crossed.

[ray245]

If the Thai monarchy collapses as a result, history would do its job.

So fingers crossed.

The Thai people might want a head of state that could act as a stabilizing force to deal with the sheer amount of political coup.

[K. A. Pital]

The coups already prove there is no stability. What's stabilizing? The king just legitimizes each new coup, and this helps how exactly?

[ray245]

The coups already prove there is no stability. What's stabilizing? The king just legitimizes each new coup, and this helps how exactly?

Prevent the situation from deteriorating further? Failed coup could be put down with a relative small amount of bloodshed.

[K. A. Pital]

The coups already prove there is no stability. What's stabilizing? The king just legitimizes each new coup, and this helps how exactly?

Prevent the situation from deteriorating further? Failed coup could be put down with a relative small amount of bloodshed.

I haven't yet seen much evidence that the king actually helped to prevent bloodshed like e.g. happened during the redshirt protests. And there's certainly been a fair share of uprisings as well.

[Zaune]

I haven't yet seen much evidence that the king actually helped to prevent bloodshed like e.g. happened during the redshirt protests. And there's certainly been a fair share of uprisings as well.

That doesn't mean that abolishing the monarchy doesn't carry a non-negligible risk of whatever it's replaced by being even worse.

[K. A. Pital]

I haven't yet seen much evidence that the king actually helped to prevent bloodshed like e.g. happened during the redshirt protests. And there's certainly been a fair share of uprisings as well.

That doesn't mean that abolishing the monarchy doesn't carry a non-negligible risk of whatever it's replaced by being even worse.

This has been the argument against social change since time immemorial, though. It can't be generally valid.

[Zaune]

It can't be generally invalid either, though, can it? Not all social change is for the better.

[K. A. Pital]

It can't be generally invalid either, though, can it? Not all social change is for the better.

Social change is generally favorable because it moves history forward, and it is especially to be favored when it removes clearly atavistic, outdated social structures.

[Omeros]

From said Wiki article (which was actually quite comprehensive as far as I could tell, probably written/edited by some people in the know), it does sound like the Thai people were mildly concerned about when his son inherits the throne. Apparently Prince whatshisface's wife is unpopular, and the Prince himself isn't thought very highly of by the population (not that they can say anything about it) thanks to some bad dealing in the past and other scandals. So the Thai people are in for a fairly interesting time as far as their government goes.

The Crown Prince is apparently pretty unpopular as he has never shown any real interest in being King, and has acted pretty erratically. He appointed his pet poodle Foo Foo an Air Chief Marshal, and when it died it was awarded a four-day funeral complete with Buddhist funeral rites. He is reportedly prone to violence mood swings and is also rumoured to suffer from a blood infection of some sort, maybe HIV or Hepatitis, although there's no definite information I can find.

His third wife, Princess Srirasmi, also scandalised the nation when she appeared naked, apart from a G-string, feeding cake to Foo Foo during a birthday party in a leaked video.

Because of the Thai lèse majesté laws it's very difficult to find out just how unpopular any members of the Royal family are. However it's safe to say that the Crown Prince is nowhere near as popular as the King was.