Story here. (Some would say this is always a good idea. 
)
Excerpt: “The CA [Constituent Assembly], constituted through landmark elections held last month, will formally declare the implementation of a federal democratic republic in the country, ending a 240-year-old institution of Monarchy.”
Or at least they’re going to do it. The 11am meeting that was to do the deed has been postponed to 3pm. That’s 09:15 GMT, I believe.
The big question of course: will this make their eventual annexation by China easier or harder?
It’s not like the Royal Family were exactly model citizens.
Being the incorrigible Imperialist/Monarchist that I am, I can’t help but wonder whether or not they could have worked out a compromise whereby the King remained as a powerless figurehead, but the actual decision-making and running of the country was divested to the democratically elected legislature…
Honestly, why bother? If you’re going to be a democracy, be a democracy. And let the last king be strangled with the bowels of the last priest!
You can be a democracy while still having a king or queen. (Ref: Canada, Spain, Sweden, UK, Denmark, Japan…)
I just hope they remember the usefulness of separating the head of government (the politician who rules and takes criticism) from the head of state (the symbolic figurehead of the nation).
You don’t need a king to be your symbolic figurehead.
Other countries have a ceremonial monarch; America has a flag and Britney Spears.
At least they’re not separating the head of government and state from the body of the head of government and state. 
I believe this is the first monarchy to fall since Iran booted the Shah. Monarchies fell like flies during most of the Twentieth Century, but they stabilized after 1980. Perhaps this will set off a new round of depositions . . .
I’m betting (and hoping) we see Bhutan and Thailand ditch their monarchies within the next ten-fifteen years. Last year Bhutan finally lifted their ban on political parties and in March finally had their first-ever elections, which went remarkably smoothly.
I see no redeeming qualities in monarchy, and am definitely a fan of republican governments, so I say hooray Nepal. Let’s hope the transition goes well.
The thing is, in the case of Nepal, it was the idea of the king to do away with the monarchy. From what I’ve read a good number of the citizens were uneasy about the change.
So the monarchy in Nepal didn’t exactly fall, it sort of resigned.
Perhaps you mean Bhutan? (Which hasn’t yet done away with its monarchy, but has introduced elections.) What you wrote doesn’t describe the situation in Nepal at all.
This is true-ish of Bhutan, in that the monarch has basically told the people “We’re joining the 20th century and having democratic elections,” rather than the people demanding it (IMO, it’s an incredibly strange situation). However, as far as I’ve read, they don’t currently have any plans to do away with the monarchy totally, just to democratize the country.
Well, look at England. The Queen is the symbolic figurehead, well-loved and a source of pride of the British people. It’s a good source of patriotism, the healthy kind, not the kind that commonly starts wars.
Plus, she frees up the PM from having to attend any number of ribbon-cutting ceremonies and lets him spend more time governing. That’s worth it in itself, in my mind.
Thailand?! :dubious: The Thai Royal Family are held in very, very high reverence (almost like gods) by Thais. Sure they have military coups every decade, but Rama IX remains firmly on his throne. An as NinjaChick pointed out the only reason Bhutan is modernizing at all is because the king wills it.
Okay, Thailand is more of an “I hope this happens soon” than an “I bet this happens soon”. I’m sure that the King of Thailand (and Bhutan, and most other various monarchs, for that matter) are fine people who do lots of good, but there’s no reason that similar good can’t be done by a more just, equal type of government. (Yes, I believe that even constitutional monarchies are inherently unjust.)
NO COMMENT from me on the king of Thailand. There are very strict lese-majeste laws here, and I’d be looking at 15 years in prison if my own thoughts on the matter were expressed.
**Baker ** above is indeed thinking of Bhutan. The king in Nepal is a real bastard and extremely unpopular. I personally have never been able to shed the idea that he was somehow behind the mass murder of the previous king (his brother) and the entire royal family seven years ago next Sunday by the then-crown prince and his subsequent suicide, and I’m normally no conspiracy theorist.
EDIT: Oh, and the deed’s been done in Nepal. See here.
And one more note. This is also remarkable because Nepal was still an absolute monarchy only 18 years ago. The previous king and crown prince were wildly popular. If not for the tragedy of seven years ago, I’m sure there would still be a constitutional monarchy today.
Which is a good argument right there for abolishing the Thai monarchy, if you ask me.
No comment.