That a peasant may become king does not render the kingdom democratic.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Kings will be tyrants from policy, when subjects are rebels from principle.
A king without power is an absurdity.
Kings govern by popular assemblies only when they cannot do without them.
Western people ask me whether it is a paradox that I am King but support democracy. I have to tell them that in Thailand, the King is the guarantor of democracy.
It is foolishly thought by some that democratical constitutions will not, cannot, last; that the States will quarrel with each other; that a king, or at least a nobility, are indispensable for the prosperity of a nation.
Why is it that the king can do no wrong? This shows they do not regard the king as being a human. But the king can do wrong.
There is little less trouble in governing a private family than a whole kingdom.
Section 7 of the Constitution doesn't grant a power for the king to do whatever he wishes.
The king must die so that the country can live.
In an election, there are no kings.