From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


  • per Wikipedia´s rules on naming monarchs, this needs to be changed [1] Antares911 11:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please see the result of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)#Article names for Thai royals/Thai with honorary titles first. andy 11:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thai names are indeed a swamp of confusion for ignorant farangs. The problem here is that "Rama" is not a name, it is a description. As I understand it is a contraction of "Raja Maha," which means "great king" in Sanscrit. Thus, the current king's name is Bhumipol Adulyadej, and he is the ninth Great King (Rama) of the Chakri dynasty. Thus although he is conventionally called "King Rama IX" this is not cognate with "King Louis IX." My prefered article title would be Bhumipol Adulyadej, King of Thailand. Adam 11:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The word "Rama" dosen't refere to "RaJaMaha" but refere to the heroic king Rama of Hindu epic, Ramayana.User:Jeans_4484--Jeans 03:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes I have had that pointed out to me already. I can only plead that the Raja Maha explanation was given to me by a well-educated Thai. Adam 04:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose move to Rama VII, see above for reason. andy 21:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. Same reason as above. Lerdsuwa 09:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose the move. This article should remain at Prajadhipok, which is the clearest and simplest heading for the article, and shows the highest respect to the deceased monarch. Arrigo 10:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Arrigo. Septentrionalis 21:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 02:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


One of the highest forms of respect is to name a person using only the pure reign name of that monarch. Such as Bhumibol Adulyadej, or Chulalongkorn. Using such simple name implies that the person in question is well-known without any additions. Very rarely any person is well-known by only one name (surnames are often needed), but several however are, such as Napoleon. To accord the same to Thai monarchs signifies the high respect of recognizing the person in question just by his one name. All additions are basically cluttering the respect. Purity is respect, clutter is disrespect. Therefore all additions (be it territorial designation such as "of Thailand" or "of Siam", titulary such as king or queen, a surname, or whatever) are clutter, and should be avoided if not necessary for disambiguation. I oppose all the clutter alternatives. Arrigo 10:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)