Talk:Prajadhipok

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Thailand High‑importance

	Thailand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Southeast Asia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose move to Rama VII, see above for reason. andy 21:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. Same reason as above. Lerdsuwa 09:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose per Arrigo. Septentrionalis 21:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)

discussions

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)[reply]

Cremation/burial date inconsistencies

The info box suggests he was buried: unlikely, as the Thai royal tradition is for cremation, and the location is given as Golders Green crematorium. Moreover, the date is given as 1950. Such a long gap seems unlikely - there is a long period between the death of a Thai king and his funeral, but not *that* long. Moreover, it is stated that his wife returned to Thailand with his ashes in 1949. Something's not right. The Belgian Ocelot (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ministerboy, you added the infobox date in this edit; please check. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Paul 012, this is the reference https://www.silpa-mag.com/old-photos-tell-the-historical-story/article_12544 and https://lifestyle.campus-star.com/knowledge/88087.html His body kept in his house in London for 4 day then move to Golders Green crematorium and buried in 1950 and the move his ash to Thailand. It is a long gap because the queen decide to kept his body until the situation in Thailand is stable and then move back to Thailand after the buried in 2 month. Ministerboy (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ministerboy, that still doesn't add up. 1950 is BE 2493, which isn't mentioned anywhere. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Paul 012, I has been research from National Archives, Fine Arts Department at Sam Sen Rd. so you can called to the department or go and ask the librarian to help ypu find this information because I can't remember the floor that this information keep. Ministerboy (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the sourcing is unclear and the wording inaccurate, I've removed "burial" from infobox for the time being. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the date for the Queen taking the ashes back in 1949 is wrong? The Belgian Ocelot (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both linked articles (the latter is mostly a copy-paste of the former) mention the cremation taking place on 3 June 1941, and the ashes being brought back in 1949. The 1950 date probably stems from confusion somewhere. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Paul 012 and The Belgian Ocelot, Today I go to King Prajadhipok Museum and I found a evidence about his cremation (this link: https://uppic.cc/d/KpAH and https://uppic.cc/d/KpAp ) it say his cremation is set on 3 June 1941 at Golders Green crematorium. Thank Ministerboy (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I assume the 29 March 1950 date was a mistake then. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

King Ananda Mahidol portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]