No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Abdication and Regency: The Siamese monarchy 1935–46
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 January 2020
Abstract
The abdication of Prajadhipok, King of Siam, in 1935 marked the end of the reign of the country's last absolute ruler and brought a young prince, Ananda Mahidol, to the throne in his place. Over the next decade, Ananda would rule in absentia as he grew up in Switzerland, leaving the regime considerable latitude to consolidate its authority over the monarchy and royal affairs. This article looks at three aspects of this period: the abdication as triumph of the authority of the Constitution over that of the king; the succession to the throne of a branch of the royal family that would otherwise have been bypassed; and the extended regency, which sanctioned rather than resisted the strengthening of government control over the monarchy.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Footnotes
I am grateful to Eiji Murashima, Michael Montesano, James Ockey, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on a draft of this article.
References
1 See Nora, P. (ed.), Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past, Kritzman, Lawrence D. (ed.) and Goldhammer, Arthur (tr.), Columbia University Press, New York, 1996Google Scholar. Although this English translation of Nora's work translates the French term ‘lieux’ as ‘realms’, ‘sites’ is a more correct equivalent and is also used by some authors in English.
2 For an overview of these events, see Batson, B., The End of the Absolute Monarchy in Siam, Oxford University Press, Singapore, 1984Google Scholar; Wright, J., The Balancing Act, Asia Books, Bangkok, 1991Google Scholar; and Suwannathat-Pian, Kobkua, Kings, Country, and Constitutions: Thailand's Political Development, 1932–2000, RoutledgeCurzon, Richmond, 2003Google Scholar.
3 See Ferrara, F., ‘The Legend of King Prajadhipok: Tall Tales and Stubborn Facts on the Seventh Reign in Siam’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, vol. 43, issue 1, February 2012, pp. 4–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chaiching, Nattapoll, ‘The Monarchy and the Royalist Movement in Modern Thai Politics, 1932–1957’, in Saying the Unsayable: Monarchy and Democracy in Thailand, Ivarsson, S. and Isager, L. (eds.), NIAS Press, Copenhagen, 2010, pp. 147–78Google Scholar; and Čhaičhing, Natthaphǫn, Khǫ Fanfai nai Fan an Lu´a Chu´a: Khwamkhlưanwai khǫng Khabuankan Patipak Patiwat Sayam Phǫ. Sǫ. 2475–2500 [Dream the Impossible Dream: The Activities of the Movement Hostile to the Siamese Revolution 1932–1957], Fa Diewkan, Nonthaburi, 2013Google Scholar.
4 ‘Notes on Sir R. Holland's Audience with H.M. the King of Siam’, 26 December 1933, in British Foreign Office [henceforth FO] 371/18206, F 1194/21/40; reproduced in Nayana Hongthongkham, ‘Phrabat Somdet Phrapokklao Čhaoyuhua lae Khana Rat’ [King Prajadhipok and the People's Party], Chulalongkorn University master's thesis, 1977, pp. 300–10. Prajadhipok's reference to ‘the King can do no wrong’ refers to the attribute of sovereign immunity that came to characterize the British monarchy.
5 Correspondence regarding his travel plans is in Thai National Archives [henceforth TNA], KT [Foreign Ministry], 7.3.3/11.
6 Raingan Kanprachum Sapha Phuthaen Ratsadon [Proceedings of the National Assembly, henceforth Raingan], Second Term, Ordinary Session 4/2476 (8 January 1934), pp. 166–7.
7 Raingan, Extraordinary Session 2/2477 (4 August 1934).
8 The debates over these drafts stretched over several sessions: Raingan, Extraordinary Sessions 9/2477 (20 August 1934), 10/2477 (22 August 1934), 19/2477 (19 September 1934), 28/2477 (28 September 1934), and 29/2477 (29 September 1934).
9 The report (dated 21 January 1934) and other related documents are in TNA, SR [Prime Minister's Office] (2), 0201.35.2, folder 1.
10 ‘Phraratchabanthưk’ [His Majesty's report] dated December 1934, in Thalaengkan rưang Phrabat Somdet Phraparaminthara Mahaprachathipok Phrapokklao Čhaoyuhua song Sala Ratchasombat [Report on the Abdication of His Majesty King Prajadhipok, henceforth Thalaengkan], Songtham Printers, Bangkok, 1935, pp. 99–113.
11 Document dated 14 October 1934 in ibid., pp. 1–2.
12 The government's telegram of 23 October 1934 is in ibid., pp. 5–6. The original English text of the king's response is in Raingan, Ordinary Session 16/2477 (31 January 1935), pp. 890–2.
13 Relevant documents are in Thalaengkan, pp. 16–23. On the king's fears, see FO 371/18208, F6349/115/40, 26 October 1934. The terms ‘Čhao Phraya’ and ‘Phraya’ that appear in this article are ranks within the system of official nobility.
14 The proceedings of this closed session (Ordinary Session 16/2477) are reproduced in Thalaengkan, pp. 88–347.
15 See documents dated 2 February 1935, 17 February 1935, and 1 March 1935 in ibid., pp. 348–9, 354–6, and 359–61, respectively.
16 The Thai version is in ibid., pp. 380–4; an English translation is in Batson, B., Siam's Political Future: Documents from the End of the Absolute Monarchy, Cornell Southeast Asia Program Data Paper, Ithaca, 1984, pp. 101–2Google Scholar.
17 S. Čhiamthirasakun [Jeamteerasakul], ‘Phraratchaahatthalekha Sala Rat Rǫ. 7: Chiwaprawat khǫng Ekasan Chabap Nưng’ [Rama VII's Abdication Letter: The Biography of a Document], in Prawatsat phoeng Sang: Ruam Botkhwam kiawkap 14 Tula lae 6 Tula [History Just Made: A Collection of Articles about Oct. 14 and Oct. 6], S. Čhiamthirasakun (ed.), Samnakphim 6 Tula Ramlưk, Bangkok, 2001, pp. 20–30; see also the discussion in Mektrainat, N., Kǫrani Rǫ. 7 song Sala Ratchasombat [The Case of Rama VII's Abdication], Khop Fai, Bangkok, 2006Google Scholar; and Kongkirati, P., Lae laew Kankhlưanwai kǫ Prakot [And then the Movement Appeared], Thammasat University Press, Bangkok, 2005Google Scholar.
18 Raingan, Extraordinary Session 2/2477 (4 August 1934), pp. 40–50.
19 Ibid.
20 Although three separate decrees were under consideration, they can be treated as a single issue.
21 Raingan, Extraordinary Session 9/2477 (20 August 1934), pp. 546–612.
22 Telegram dated 7 September 1934 in TNA, SR 0201.41.4/1, folder 1. In fact, the regime had yet to execute any political prisoners, even after the Bovaradej rebellion.
23 Document dated 24 September 1934 in ibid., folder 2.
24 Raingan, Extraordinary Session 28/2477 (28 September 1934), pp. 2190–200.
25 Comments to this effect are found in Thalaengkan, pp. 43, 118; a similar observation from the British Minister Sir Josiah Crosby, who was generally sympathetic to Prajadhipok, is in FO 371/19376, F1935/1442/40, 13 February 1935.
26 Raingan, Extraordinary Session 29/2477 (29 September 1934), reproduced in Thalaengkan, p. 235.
27 See, for example, French Foreign Ministry Archives (MAE), Direction des Affaires Politiques et Commerciales, Série E Asie 1930-1940 (Siam), vol. 56, 20 October 1934; and FO 371/18208, F 7145/115/40, 25 October 1934; official censorship of the topic is mentioned in FO 371/18208, F 6427/115/40, 29 October 1934 and FO 371/19376, F 1697/142/40, 6 March 1935.
28 See Sir Josiah Crosby's ‘Annual Report for 1935’, dated 24 February 1936, in FO 371/20302, F 1909/1909/40, and MAE, Série E Asie 1930–1940 (Siam) vol. 71, 9 February 1935. The texts of the government's announcements are in Somdet Phrasinakharinthara Borommaratchachonni [Her Royal Highness the Princess Mother], Thonthawat, Bangkok, 1984, p. 110Google Scholar.
29 The decision is in Raingan, Ordinary Session 62/2477 (29 March 1935), pp. 4363–6; the Thalaengkan was published within a few months.
30 Discussion of this decision is found in S. Sivaraksa, Siamese Resurgence, Asian Cultural Forum on Development, Bangkok, p. 196; it is alluded to by a contemporary foreign observer in Norman, H., The Peoples and Politics of the Far East, T. Fisher Unwin, London, 1901, p. 598Google Scholar. One of Saovabha's grandsons noted that her older brother and sister (Savang Vatthana) consistently deferred to her even in private; Čhulačhakraphong, Koet Wang Parut Samai Sombunranayasitthirat [Born in Paruskavan Palace during the Absolute Monarchy], 13th edn, River Books, Bangkok, p. 53Google Scholar. Decades later, veteran British diplomat Crosby referred to the change in succession rights and suggested that the choice of Ananda ‘might easily wear the appearance of the tardy righting of a wrong done in the past’ (FO 371/18208, F 7145/115/40, 25 October 1934). His point was that Ananda's father, Mahidol, a son of Savang Vatthana, would likely have eventually become heir to the throne if not for the switch to Saovabha's line.
31 See Kot Monthianban waduai Kansưp Ratchasombat [Palace Law on Succession], Section 4 (downloaded from www.krisdika.go.th) [accessed 10 June 2015]. This law is discussed briefly in Handley, P., The King Never Smiles, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2006, p. 38Google Scholar. Handley notes correctly that the law was meant to establish succession through primogeniture rather than through a ruler's brothers; the peculiar composition of the royal family in the 1920s, however, would make this impossible. The British Legation saw the new law as Vajiravudh's formal attempt to consolidate the power of his own branch of the family against those of his half-brothers; FO 371/10973, F181/181/40, 11 December 1924.
32 Newspaper clippings filed in TNA, Seventh Reign, M [Ministry of Interior], 26.5/243. The successive promotions in queenly rank are listed in Finestone, J., The Royal Family of Thailand: The Descendants of King Chulalongkorn, Phitsanulok Publishing Co., Bangkok, 1989, pp. 77–9Google Scholar; see also the article ‘Phrayot Čhaonai Thai’ [Ranks of Thai Female Royal Family Members], from th.wikipedia.org [accessed 10 June 2015].
33 Finestone, Royal Family, p. 239, says that Mahidol was ‘heir presumptive’ from Vajiravudh's death until his own; although Finestone is an extremely authoritative writer, this claim does not seem to be confirmed by contemporary sources. Mahidol is referred to as both ‘Heir Apparent’ and ‘Heir Presumptive’ in Stevenson, W., The Revolutionary King: The True-Life Sequel to The King and I, Constable, London, 2000, pp. 19, 21Google Scholar. However, Stevenson's understanding of Thai history leaves a lot to be desired; in particular, his statement that Mahidol's title of ‘Prince of Songkhla’ ‘was traditionally given to future kings’ (p. 41) is completely fanciful. The British-style habit of giving princes titles based on Siamese toponyms was an innovation of Chulalongkorn's reign; Mahidol was the first and last to hold that title.
34 Biographical information on Paribatra from Finestone, Royal Family, p. 430.
35 A French diplomat reported that Mahidol had no desire to become Rama VIII and would not accept the crown if Prajadhipok died before him; MAE, Asie 1928-1939, Siam, vol. 23, 13 April 1929. The French diplomats were particularly concerned about the prospects of Paribatra's succession because he had studied in imperial Berlin and was viewed as pro-German; their reports are in MAE, Asie 1928-1939, Siam, vol. 28.
36 Sayre, F. B., Glad Adventure, Macmillan, New York, 1957, p. 99Google Scholar; Sayre, who served as a royal adviser in Siam for many years, was the recipient of Mahidol's statement. Prajadhipok honoured the letter, though not the spirit, of this request by indicating his support for Ananda's succession without formally designating him as heir.
37 His widow held the title of Princess Mother during her sons’ reigns. The prince who was bypassed is discussed in FO 371/18208, F 7145/115/40, 25 October 1934, and Somsak Čhiamthirasakun, ‘Nailuang Anan Khưn Krǫngrat tam Lamdap Khan khǫng Kot Monthianban rư phro Pridi Sanapsanun?’ [Did King Ananda Take the Throne Based on the Order of Succession in the Palace Law or because of Pridi's Support], non-published article dated 17 June 2006, downloaded from http://somsakj.blogspot.sg [accessed 15 June 2008].
38 The text of the decree raising the young princes’ rank, dated 8 November 1927, is in Ratchasakun Wong Chabap Kaekhai Phoemtoem [Royal Genealogy, revised and expanded edition] (cremation volume for Phinitchachonkhadi, M. R. Bunrap), Channawanit, Bangkok, 1982, p. 139Google Scholar.
39 Pace Stevenson, Revolutionary King, p. 25, who gives the impression that the royal family in Switzerland only found out about it from a newspaper headline.
40 Excerpts from a report of this 30 June 1932 audience are in Thalaengkan, pp. 3–4.
41 See, for example, ibid., pp. 62, 148–9; royal-family members confirmed this to Crosby at least as early as October 1934 (FO 371/18208, F 7145/115/40).
42 See Dantrakun, Suphot, ‘Kansưp Ratchasantatiwong’ [Dynastic Succession], Fa Diewkan [Same Sky], vol. 3, number 4, 2006, pp. 95–111Google Scholar; and Somsak, ‘Nailuang Anan’.
43 Čhulačhakraphong, Koet Wang Parut, pp. 60, 275; Prajadhipok's comments on Chula are in Thalaengkan, pp. 148–9. Somsak, ‘Nailuang Anan’ provides a thorough discussion of why Chula was considered ineligible. There is no exact equivalent for ‘morganatic’ in Thai, but Western-educated Siamese in the Foreign Ministry would certainly have understood the implications of the French term.
44 Chula is mentioned in FO 371/18208, F 7145/115/40; FO 371/19376, F 1440/142/40 (1 March 1935), and F 1935/142/40 (13 March 1935); and MAE, Série E Asie 1930–1940 (Siam), vol. 56, 10 April 1933 and 7 March 1936. Article 11(4) of the Succession Law specifies that any prince who had a ‘foreign wife’ was excluded from consideration, and thus his sons were as well (see Kot Monthianban waduai Kansưp Ratchasombat). The law defines ‘foreign’ in this context as ‘a woman whose original nationality was other than that of a real Thai’ (nang thi mi sanchat doem pen chao prathet ưn nǫkčhak chao Thai doi thae). This somewhat convoluted phrasing would seem to exclude any foreign-born wife while allowing for the fact that the royal family had ancestors who were locally born Chinese. I am grateful to one of the anonymous reviewers for raising this query.
45 Raingan, First Term, Ordinary Session 36/2475 (25 November 1932), pp. 396–401.
46 The list is reproduced in Raingan, Second Term, Ordinary Session 33/2477 (6–7 March 1935), pp. 2430–3. Princes like Mahidol who were already deceased were indicated as such on the list.
47 The session's proceedings are in ibid., pp. 2332–429; the transcript made public in Thalaengkan ends before the succession issue is discussed. Pridi's original account is in Phanomyong, P., ‘Khwampenpai nai Khana Phusamret Ratchakan Thaen Phra'ong’ [Events Inside the Council of Regents], in Phungsunthǫn, P. and Siriphat, P. (eds.), Bang Rưang kiewkap Phrabǫrommawongsanuwong nai rawang Songkhram Lok Khrang Thisǫng [Some Stories about the Royal Family during World War Two], Nitthiwet, Thonburi, 1972, pp. 38–78Google Scholar; an English translation is in Baker, Chris and Phongpaichit, Pasuk (tr. and eds.), Pridi by Pridi, Silkwork Books, Chiang Mai, 2000, pp. 210–30Google Scholar. Pridi emphasizes the Cabinet's reliance on his own expertise in interpreting the Palace Law, when in fact the Ministry of the Palace had already done so. He does, however, provide credible and interesting information about the Cabinet discussion (and elimination) of other candidates like Paribatra and Chula.
48 Raingan, 33/2477, pp. 2332–44.
49 Ibid., pp. 2332–64. The main points of the debate can be found in Suwit Loetkraimethi, ‘Ratsapha kap Kanplian Ratchakan chak Rǫ. 7 su Rǫ. 8 lae Rǫ. 8 su Rǫ. 9’ [Parliament and the Succession of Rama VIII to Rama VII and of Rama VIII to Rama IX], 14 April 2013, downloaded from https://prachatai.com/journal/2013/04/46139 [accessed 10 January 2020].
50 Raingan, 33/2477, pp. 2334–9.
51 Ibid., pp. 2359 (‘not important’) and 2362–3 (‘the King can do no wrong’).
52 Letter from the Princess Mother to the Dowager Queen, dated February 1935, in Watthana, Kalyani, Čhaonai Leklek, Yuwakasat [Little Princes, Young Kings], Dansuttha, Bangkok, 1988, p. 140Google Scholar. For Luang Thamrong's visit, see Raingan, 33/2477, pp. 2348–9.
53 Ibid. and Kalyani, Čhaonai Leklek, p. 140. Damrong's comments are reported in Chanthaprapha, Somphop, Somdetphrasisawarinthira Phraborommaratchathewi Phraphanwatsalaiyikachao [Her Majesty Queen Savang Vatthana], Phadung Suksa, Bangkok, 1971. p. 312Google Scholar. Prajadhipok had reportedly contacted the dowager queen himself to urge her not to oppose Ananda's candidature (FO 371/19376, F 924/142/40, 4 Janyary 1935). A purported account of these events is Stevenson, Revolutionary King, ch. 3, which evokes an atmosphere of government coercion and fear and intimidation on the part of the royal family. Stevenson's book, however, often reads more like a novel than a biography. In this instance, he places excessive emphasis on the role and influence of future Prime Minister Phibun, but Phibun, though a rising star, was a peripheral figure in these events.
54 Raingan, 33/2477, p. 2364. The report does not indicate the identity of the two dissenters.
55 Kot Monthianban, Section 6; Siam had a Cabinet for several decades before acquiring a Constitution.
56 Dec. 1932 Constitution (downloaded from www.krisdika.go.th) [accessed 12 July 2008].
57 The discussion of these issues is in Raingan, 33/2477, pp. 2465–70.
58 A conversation with Naris is summarized in Thalaengkan, pp. 366–71.
59 The debate is in Raingan, 33/2477, pp. 2364–406.
60 Ibid., pp. 2373–4.
61 Pridi, ‘Khwampenpai’, pp. 57–9.
62 Aditya's speech is published in Lak Mưang newspaper, 5 and 6 July 1932; the prime minister's letter is in TNA, SR 0201.8/22.
63 TNA, SR 0201.1.1.3.13.
64 Somphop, Somdet Phrasisawarinthira, p. 314. Official documents relating to the case are in TNA, SR 0201.8.1/14 and 16; the police report of 19 August 1935 is in the latter file. On Svasti's pension, see letter dated 15 March 1935 and telegram of 27 July 1935, reproduced in Raingan, Ordinary Session 4/2478 (20 August 1935), pp. 311–26.
65 FO 371/19377, F 5566/296/40 (21 August 1935); ‘Annual Report for 1935’, FO 371/20302, F 1909/1909/40. For a discussion of the charges, see Raingan, 4/2478, pp. 320–2.
66 ‘Nai Honhuai’ (Čhanchaloem, Sinlapachai), Čhao Fa Prachathipok [Prince Prajadhipok], the author, Bangkok, 1987, p. 651Google Scholar; on the 1933 change of status (which aimed at bringing all Palace offices and military units under direct Cabinet control), see Čhiamthirasakun, Thipphawan, Pathommathat Thang Kanmưang khǫng Pridi Phanomyong [The Original Political Views of Pridi Banomyong], Sathaban Santiprachatham, Bangkok, 1988, pp. 239–41Google Scholar.
67 See, for example, correspondence from 1937 in TNA, SR (2) 0201.14/2, folder 1.
68 Minutes for several such meetings from 1937 and 1938 are in TNA, SR 0201.41.2/2.
69 FO 377/21054, F 10778/1494/40, 29 November 1937.
70 Phibunsongkhram, Anan, Čhomphon Phǫ. Phibunsongkhram [Field Marshal P. Phibunsongkhram], Montri, Bangkok, 1975, vol. 2, pp. 346–50Google Scholar. See Vichitvong na Pombhejara, Pridi Banomyong and the Making of Thailand's Modern History, s.n., s.l., 1982, pp. 181–2; and Thawi's account in Samakhom Nakkhao haeng Thai, Prathet (ed.), Bưangraek Prachathipatai [Beginnings of Democracy], Thai Rat, Bangkok, 1973, pp. 315–16Google Scholar.
71 Raingan, 33/2477, pp. 2407–16.
72 Khamhaikan tǫ San Atchayakǫn Songkhram khǫng Phrawǫrawongthoe Phra'ongčhao Athitthip'apha [His Royal Highness Prince Aditya's Deposition to the War Crimes Court], Chirawannusǫn, Bangkok, 1983, p. iiGoogle Scholar.
73 The undated document is in TNA, SR (2) 0201.14/2, folder 1; it seems to have been written in 1937 in the context of preparations for the establishment of the Royal Court Committee, to be discussed below.
74 See correspondence from December 1937 through May 1938 in TNA, SR 0201.41.6/7.
75 The first involved a draft Revised Palace Law on Royal Marriage submitted in August 1932; a few MPs argued unsuccessfully that the law should stipulate that such marriages were legally valid even though penalized by Palace Law (see Raingan, First Term, Ordinary Session 12/2475 (1 August 1932), pp. 76–8). In 1935, an MP attempted to introduce a new version of the law that would eliminate this penalty on the grounds that it was a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equality for all under the law. His draft was not accepted for debate, however, as most other MPs refused to tamper with Palace Law; Raingan, 31/2477 (5 March 1935), pp. 2173–82.
76 Documents relating to the Committee's development are in TNA, SR (2) 0201.14/1-2.
77 TNA, SR (2) 0201.97.6/1, folder 1.
78 Documents from September 1934 in ibid., folders 2 and 3.
79 TNA, ibid., folder 4, and 0201.97.6/5, folder 1 respectively.
80 TNA, SR 0201.1.3/25-28.
81 The Cabinet meeting minutes and other documents from the Phraya Phahol regime are in TNA, SR (2) 0201.46.3/1; the 1939 example is in TNA, SR (2) 0201.46.3/31, folder 1.
82 See Thalaengkan, p. 187, and Phǫphan Uiyanon [Porphant Ouyyanont], ‘Samnakngan Sapsin Suan Phramahakasat kap Botbat Kanlongthun thang Thurakit’ [The Crown Property Bureau and Its Role in Business Investment], unpublished paper, 2006, pp. 14–15.
83 Numanon, Thaemsuk, Lakhǫn Kanmưang 24 Mithunayon 2475 [Political Theatre of 24 June 1932], Samakhom Prawatsat, Bangkok, 1992, p. 55Google Scholar fn.; and Mektrairat, Nakharin, Kanpatiwat Sayam Phǫ. Sǫ. 2475 [The Siamese Revolution of 1932], Social Sciences & Humanities Fund, Bangkok, 1992, p. 44Google Scholar.
84 Raingan, Ordinary Session 64/2477 (30 March 1935), pp. 4456–66.
85 Nakharin, Kanpatiwat, pp. 29–34, 44–5, has a helpful discussion of royal finances before and after the coup; see also Thaemsuk, Lakhǫn, pp. 51–2.
86 Raingan, Extraordinary Session 21/2479 (29 March 1937), pp. 1011–28.
87 ‘Nai Hon Huay’, Čhao Fa, pp. 653–5. The present-day Crown Property Bureau was created a few years later; see Phǫphan, ‘Samnakngan’, pp. 15–16.
88 Minutes of 13 September 1938 meeting and 19 September 1938 report by Prince Varnvidaya, in TNA, SR 0201.41.2/2.
89 This account is based on diplomatic reports: FO 371/21053, F 4920/1494/40 (31 July 1937); FO 371/21054, F 5040/1494/40 (4 August 1937); and MAE, Série E, Asie 1930-1940, vol. 72, 31 July 1937. A summary of the affair is in Stowe, J., Siam Becomes Thailand: A Story of Intrigue, University of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu, 1991, pp. 95–7Google Scholar.
90 Raingan, Extraordinary Session, 12/2480 (27 July 1937), pp. 301–47.
91 Raingan, Extraordinary Session, 15/2480 (31 July 1937), pp. 405–6; the regents’ 30 July letter of retraction is reproduced on pp. 366–7. For diplomatic reports on the military's actions see MAE, Série E, Asie 1930-1940, vol. 72, 7 August 1937; and FO 371/21054, F 5040/1494/40 (4 August 1937).
92 See the two reports cited in the previous footnote.
93 See, for example, the correspondence from 1936 regarding the Ministry of Education's plan to build a series of rural schools with royal funds, in TNA, SR 0201.11/4.
94 Document dated 30 November 1943 in TNA, SR (2) 0201.43/1. For an example of funds advanced by the Ministry of Finance, see the minutes of Cabinet meeting 13/2481 (15 July 1938) in the same file. The advisory committee's formation is documented in TNA, SR (2) 0201.43/2. The government had created the Crown Property Bureau around the time of the scandal; Phǫphan, ‘Samnakngan’, p. 15.
95 TNA, SR 0201.11/21.
96 Stowe, Siam Becomes Thailand, p. 280.
97 Kobkua, Kings, Country and Constitutions, ch. 4.
98 Documentation on plans for the visit is in TNA, SR, 0201.41.3/1 and 41.3/3.
99 See Kobkua, Kings, Country, Constitutions; Handley, King Never Smiles; and Natthaphǫn, Khǫ Fanfai.
100 This process of reversal is summarized in Ockey, J., ‘Monarch, Monarchy, Succession and Stability in Thailand’, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, vol. 46, issue 2, August 2005, pp. 119–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Handley, King Never Smiles provides a detailed narrative.
101 The most recent development related to the matters discussed in this article is the decision of the ruling King Maha Vajiralongkorn Bodindradebayavarangkun to change the constitutional stipulations regarding the appointment of a regent when the monarch is incapacitated or overseas. The king, who frequently travels abroad for extended periods of time, required that the nomination of a regent or regents be optional rather than mandatory and that, if this nomination is made by the Privy Council rather than by the ruler himself, the National Assembly's approval be no longer required. See ‘Before and After: Read the 5 Articles Rewritten after Thai Constitution Was Approved’, http://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2017/04/06/read-5-articles-rewritten-since-thai-constitution-approved/ [accessed 31 March 2018].