|
The Palace Law of Succession, Buddhist Era 2467 (1924) ((タイ語:กฎมณเฑียรบาลว่าด้วยการสืบราชสันตติวงศ์ พระพุทธศักราช ๒๔๖๗); ) governs succession to the Throne of the Kingdom of Thailand, under the ruling House of Chakri. Succession matters prior to the end of absolute monarchy in 1932 could be contentious, especially during the Ayutthaya period from the 14th to 18th centuries. In 1924, King Vajiravudh (Rama VI) attempted to clarify the succession process by laying down the Palace Law of Succession. It was promulgated and came into effect in November 1924 as, in part, an attempt to eliminate the vagueness relating to succession within the Thai monarchical regime and to systematically resolve previous controversies. In 1932, after Siam became a constitutional monarchy, various amendments relating to succession were introduced. The 1997 Constitution of Thailand relied on the law with regards to succession, but the 2006 Interim Constitution made no mention of succession, leaving it to "constitutional practice." The 2007 Constitution again relied on the Palace Law. == Background == The original Palace Law of A.D. 1360 relating to succession since Ayutthaya Kingdom period (1351–1767) did not lay out a clear system for determining a successor upon the death of a king. Rather, it provided a frame of reference from which the next king could be chosen. Typically, the new king would be either the late king's son born of a major queen or consort ((タイ語:หน่อพระพุทธเจ้า); ), or one of his brothers.〔Voraporn Pupongpunt (2005) ''"Phap Luk Sataban Kasat Nai Kot Monthien Ban"'' (The Image pf the Monarchical Institution Through Palace Law), Bangkok: Thailand Research Fund p. 211.〕 The Law also provided rules by which someone who was neither a son nor a brother of the deceased king could accede to the throne, should the situation or circumstances require it.〔This could occur, for instance, when the god Indra provided such person with "the quintet of royal objects", or when someone sought out came from a rich Brahman family or possessed high abilities in warfare, Voraporn, p. 212.〕 However, the Palace Law was not always followed and did not ensure smooth successions. At least one third of Ayutthaya's royal successions involved bloodshed. Indeed, the history of the kingdom at that time is a chronicle of frequent usurpations and of ambitious men thwarting the final wishes of recently departed kings. Historian David K. Wyatt observed that "virtually all successions to the throne of Ayutthaya in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were, at the least, irregular, and in many cases either disguised or real usurpations."〔David Wyatt (1984) ''"Thailand: A Short History"'', New Haven and London: Yale University Press.〕 King Taksin (reigned 1767–1782) established himself as King of Siam by right of conquest. He, however, alienated the ecclesiastical support to secure the legitimacy of his reign, and was overthrown in a palace coup. His chief military commander, then on an expedition to enforce recognition of his friend and king by the current ruler of Cambodia, hastened to the rescue. When apprised of the full seriousness of situation, however, he concurred in the overthrow and founded the Royal House of Chakri as King Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke (later styled Rama I, reigned 1782–1809.) He next established the office of the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand. Then, following the precedent of the newly crowned King Wareru of the 13th century, the newly crowned king of Siam commissioned scholars to collect and revise laws from the Ayutthaya era. The Code of Wareru is reflected in successive codes, but the Siamese went beyond it to establish a true code of laws. The Palace Law was a constituent part of this new legal compendium called ''The Three Seals Code'', which was needed, Rama I said, because old laws were often misinterpreted and this led to injustice. Succession under the ''Three Seals Code'' took into account the potential of the next king to be, as prescribed by ancient Buddhist texts, a ''dhammaraja'' (righteous king). This was manifested in his upholding of the Ten Virtues (pāramī)of Kingship: Dāna (giving), Śīla (self conduct), Paricaga (giving up), Ajava (straightness), Maddava (gentleness), Tapa (perseverance), Akkodha (non-anger), Avihimsa (not causing harm), Khanti (endurance or patience), and Avirodhana (not going wrong). Linage, however, still played a very important role. All of the transfers of power in the Royal House of Chakri that followed the introduction of the ''Three Seals Code'' were accomplished with almost no bloodshed – although they were not without some complications.〔At the time of Rama I's death, a succession plot was uncovered that led to the execution of 40 people, including the contender for the throne, a son of King Taksin, and all of his male offspring. B.J. Terwiel (2011) ''"Thailand's Political History"'', Bangkok: River Books, p. 101.〕 In part, greater adherence to the idea that the wisest and most capable possible successor should be chosen has tempered the eight successions of the Royal House of Chakri during the Rattanakosin (Bangkok) era. At a special council of senior members of royalty and officials, it was agreed that King Buddha Loetla Nabhalai or Rama II (reigned 1809–1824) should succeed his father.〔Terwiel, p. 101.〕 After the death of Rama II in 1824, a grand assembly of the royal family, high officers of state and members of the Buddhist monkhood led by the supreme patriarch was convened. The assembly chose a son born of Rama II and a royal consort, a prince who had a proven record, over the king's much younger and less experienced half-brother, Prince Mongkut, who had recently been ordained as a monk. Although as the son of a full queen, Prince Mongkut might have had a superior claim to the throne in terms of lineage, he remained in the temple. This averted a potential succession crisis and any conflict with King Nangklao or Rama III (reigned 1824–1851).〔Wyatt, pp. 166–167.〕 The nuances of all this were beyond the understanding of many European observers raised in the presumably less complicated tradition of primogeniture, in which the oldest male heir always succeeds by right of lineage. In the eyes of some Westerners, it appeared that new king had usurped the throne. Later, Rama III's own succession nearly became a crisis. As his health continued to deteriorate in 1851 following months of fruitless discussions about possible successors, the heir to the throne remained unnamed. A foreign observer of the time recounted that: "All parties concerning the question of the succession were preparing themselves with arms and troops for self-defence and resistance." Before they could come to blows, "there was convened at the king's palace ... a meeting of all the princes, nobles, and chief rulers of the land to confer on the all engrossing question of who shall become the successor to the present king."〔Letter by D.B. Bradley, dated 28 March 1851, to the Singapore Strait Times, as quoted in Terwiel, p. 147.〕 One of the possible successors to the throne was Prince Mongkut again. Over the 27 years of Rama III's reign, the royal monk had become the leader of a Buddhist reform order. When considering his heir, Rama III had reportedly expressed reservations about the princes who might succeed him. If Prince Mongkut became king, Rama III feared he might order the Sangha (community of monks) to dress in the style of the () Mons.〔Terwiel, p. 143.〕 To assuage such doubts, Prince Mongkut wrote a letter to the assembly to make his own case for succeeding to the throne. He also ordered monks in his order to discontinue any practices considered unorthodox or foreign. According to historian David K. Wyatt, who cites an account given by Prince Mongkut to American missionary Dan Beach Bradley about two weeks before Rama III died, the assembly resolved to protect the claims to the throne of Prince Mongkut and his talented younger brother, Prince Chudamani. As it came to pass, when Rama III passes away, Prince Mongkut becomes king Rama IV, reigned 1851–1868, and Prince Chudamani was elevated to the office and residence of Front Palace as Phra Pinklao (or Pin Klao) with equal honor to the King (as was the case with Naresuan and Ekatotsarot.) In English, the office is called " Uparaja, "Vice King" or "Second King", with Mongkut preferring the latter. In the Chakri dynasty, there were three previous holders of the office – Maha Sakdi Polsep, Maha Senanurak and Isarasundhorn. The latter was the only Chakri Front Palace to succeed as king, as Rama II. King Mongkut left the position of second king open after Phra Pinklao died in 1865.〔Terwiel, p. 167.〕 If King Mongkut had named a replacement second king, the throne could have passed to that person rather than one of his sons.〔 When King Mongkut died in 1868, the Great Council was assembled again. It selected 15-year-old Prince Chulalongkorn, the oldest son of King Mongkut, and Chao Phraya Sri Suriyawongse, a leading member of the powerful Bunnag family, was appointed regent. The council also named the son of the former second king, Prince Yodyingyot (1838–1885, later known as Prince Bovorn Vichaichan), as the ''uparat''〔Terwiel, p. 180.〕 (ancient title for "vice king.") As ''uparat'', Prince Yodyingyot, who resided in the Front Palace previously occupied by his father, Phra Pinklao, had 2,000 of his own troops and modern military equipment. In the Front Palace crisis of 1875, the troops of King Chulalongkorn (Rama V, reigned 1868–1910) and Prince Yodyingyot nearly clashed when it appeared that the latter was challenging the throne. Prince Yodyingyot sought refuge in the British consulate and, after lengthy negotiations, his troops were disarmed and the prince allowed to return to the Front Palace.〔Terwiel, p. 193.〕 When Prince Yodyingyout died in 1885, King Chulalongkorn discontinued the Front Palace and ''uparat'' system entirely.〔''Nuer glao chao Thai'' (2006) (book from the Exhibition to Commemorate the 60th Anniversary Celebrations of Bhumibol Adulyadej's Accession), Bangkok: Reed Tradex, p. 49.〕 A year later, King Chulalongkorn elevated the oldest, full-blooded prince among his sons, Prince Vajirunhis (1878–1895) to the position of ''Crown Prince'' ((タイ語:สมเด็จพระบรมโอรสาธิราช สยามมกุฎราชกุมาร); ). The investiture came well ahead of any expected succession. It was not surprising that the king at this time should choose a modified system of primogeniture to designate his heir apparent. A succession crisis might have left Siam vulnerable to interference from predatory, encroaching Western colonial powers.〔JSS Vol. 82.0 1994: Dean Meyers. ("Siam under siege (1893–1902): modern Thailand's decisive decade, from the Paknam incident to the first flowering of the Chakri reformation" ). Martin Stuart-Fox. ("Conflicting conceptions of the state: Siam, France and Vietnam in the late nineteenth century" )〕 As Wyatt noted: "By 1910 (year of King Chulalongkorn's death ) the Siamese had abandoned the old rules of succession to the throne and had adopted the Western pattern of designating the heir to the throne long in advance."〔Wyatt, p. 224.〕 The accession of King Vajiravudh (Rama VI, reigned 1910–1925) was the least problematic succession in the history of the Royal House of Chakri up to that point. After the premature death of Crown Prince Maha Vajirunhis, his younger half brother, Prince Vajiravudh was invested as crown prince in 1895 and, upon the death of his father King Chulalongkorn, acceded to the throne. Based on his own experience as heir, King Vajiravudh knew that his father had wanted to institute a more ordered system of succession on the basis of primogeniture which unequivocally designated a crown prince. During his reign, he set the precedent for numbering Kings of Thailand as "Rama" by styling himself as ''Phra Ram thi Hok'' (.) Rama VI, however, was unable to produce a male heir and, as a result, succession became an issue again. Of the 77 children fathered by King Chulalongkorn, only seven sons born of queens survived beyond 1910, In the early 1920s, two of King Vajiravudh's three full brothers died. By the end of 1925, only the youngest brother, Prince Prajadhipok, was still alive. As a result, Wyatt writes that, "the problem of succession to the throne came to prominence rather suddenly in the last few years of the reign". This situation provided important impetus for drafting the Palace Law of Succession or ''kot monthienban wa duai kansubsantatiwong'' in 1924. This law which continues to provide the framework for succession today, confirmed the primacy of the lineage of King Chulalongkorn and Queen Saovabha, as well as the king's sole and authentic right to choose his successor. It also made the determination of succession as legally precise and binding as possible.〔Wyatt, pp. 233–234.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「1924 Palace Law of Succession」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|