1 Siam's political future: Documents from the end of the absolute monarchy, ed. Batson, Benjamin A. (Ithaca, NY: Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University, 1974), pp. 101–2Google Scholar.

2 One of the most visible products of this state-sponsored campaign of historical revisionism has been the King Prajadhipok's Institute (KPI), created in the 1990s to promote ‘democratic development’ through education and research (for a brief discussion, see Connors, Michael K., Democracy and national identity in Thailand [Copenhagen: NIAS Press, rev. and updated 2007; orig. pub. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003], pp. 95, 208)Google Scholar. While beyond the scope of this article, the historical genesis of the ‘legend’ of King Prajadhipok is discussed in some detail in Jeamteerasakul, Somsak, พระราชหัตถเลขาสละราชย์ ร.7: ชีวประวัติของเอกสารฉบับหนึ่ง [‘King Rama 7's abdication statement: A document's life history’], in ประวัติศาสตร์ที่เพิ่งสร้าง: รวมบทความ เกี่ยวกับ 14 ตุลาและ 6 ตุลา [Recently made history: Collected articles on 14 October and 6 October] (Bangkok: Samnak pim 6 tula ram leuk, 2001), pp. 20–30Google Scholar. An overview of the scholarly debates about the role of the monarchy after the 1932 Revolution appears in Chaiching, Nattapoll, ‘The monarchy and the royalist movement in modern Thai politics, 1932–1957’, in Saying the unsayable: Monarchy and democracy in Thailand, ed. Ivarsson, Søren and Isager, Lotte (Copenhagen: NIAS Press, 2010), pp. 148–51Google Scholar.

3 ‘The Constitution of the Kingdom of Siam, B.E. 2475’, in Thai politics 1932–1957: Extracts and documents, ed. Chaloemtiarana, Thak (Bangkok: Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978), pp. 96–108Google Scholar.

4 แถลงการณ์เรื่องพระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทรมหาประชาธิปกพระปกเกล้าเจ้าอยู่หัวทรงสละ ราชสมบัติ [Official report on the abdication of King Prajadhipok] (Bangkok: Rong pim prajant, 1935)Google Scholar.

5 For an example, see Batson, Benjamin A., The end of the absolute monarchy in Siam (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1984)Google Scholar. A wealth of books and dissertations in Thai (perhaps most prominently, several writings by Chai-Anan Samudavanija) make similar revisionist arguments. For a recent work arguing this line, see Nakarin Mektrairat, พระผู้ทรงปกเกล้าฯ ประชาธิปไตย: ๖๐ ปีสิริราชสมบัติกับการเมืองการปกครองไทยิ [The protector of democracy: The 60th anniversary of King Prajadhipok's reign and Thai politics] (Bangkok: Thammasat University, 2006)Google Scholar.

6 For example, see Handley, Paul M., The King never smiles: A biography of Thailand's Bhumibol Adulyadej (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), pp. 44–53Google Scholar. See also Nattapoll, ‘The monarchy and the royalist movement in modern Thai politics’.

7 See Streckfuss, David, Truth on trial in Thailand: Defamation, treason, and lèse-majesté (London: Routledge, 2010)Google Scholar.

8 ‘First announcement of the People’s Party, 24 Jun. 1932', in Thak, Thai politics 1932–1957, pp. 4–7.

9 Queen Rambhai's recollections of the day's events are reproduced in Thak, Thai politics 1932–1957, pp. 8–11. A more dispassionate account of the deliberations at Hua Hin appears in Stowe, Judith A., Siam becomes Thailand: A story of intrigue (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1991), pp. 19–20Google Scholar.

10 As translated in: ‘The new Siam: The King and the constitution’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 27 June 1932Google Scholar.

11 The full range of reforms that King Prajadhipok considered in the run-up to the Revolution is described in considerable detail in Mektrairat, Nakarin, การปฏิวัติสยาม พ.ศ. 2475 [The 1932 revolution in Siam] (Bangkok: Khrongkan 60 pi prachathippatai, 1992), pp. 169–203Google Scholar.

12 Both documents (originally written in English) are reprinted in full in Batson, Siam's political future, pp. 34–6; 86–9.

13 Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, ‘Memorandum, 1 Aug. 1926’, in Batson, Siam's political future, pp. 37–41.

14 Phya Sriwisarn Waja, ‘Memorandum, 9 Mar. 1932’, ibid., pp. 90–3.

15 King Prajadhipok, ‘Memorandum, 23 July 1926’, ibid., p. 18.

16 King Prajadhipok, ‘Democracy in Siam’, ibid., p. 48.

17 Ibid., p. 50.

18 King Prajadhipok, ‘Memorandum, 23 July 1926’, p. 18.

19 A detailed discussion can be found in Banomyong, Pridi, ‘Some aspects of the establishment of the People's Party and democracy’, in Pridi by Pridi: Selected writings on life, politics, and economy, ed. Baker, Chris and Phongpaichit, Pasuk (Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 2000), pp. 139–42Google Scholar.

20 Thompson, Virginia McLean, Thailand: The new Siam (Reprint, New York: Paragon, 1967; New York: Macmillan, 1941), p. 63Google Scholar.

21 ‘The New Siam: The King signs the new constitution’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 28 June 1932Google Scholar.

22 The apology was formalised in a self-abasing letter that the Promoters submitted to the King months later. In the message, the Promoters not only begged the King for his blessing and forgiveness, but also entirely walked back their initial proclamation by lauding the Chakri dynasty for having ‘brought progress to Siam’. Before attributing to Prajadhipok the success of the change in the form of government, the Promoters thanked the King for ‘the opportunity to assist Your Majesty in national administration’. Reproduced in Thak, Thai politics 1932–1957, p. 11.

23 See Mokarapong, Thawatt, History of the Thai revolution: A study in political behaviour (Bangkok: Chalermnit, 1972), pp. 120–1Google Scholar. For a description of the composition of the committee, the background of its members, and implications for the document it generated, see Nakarin, The 1932 revolution in Siam, pp. 222–4.

24 Riggs, Fred, Thailand: The modernization of a bureaucratic polity (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1966), p. 161Google Scholar.

25 See Landon, Kenneth Perry, Siam in transition: A brief survey of cultural trends in the five years since the revolution of 1932 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939), pp. 32–3Google Scholar. See also Sivaram, M., The new Siam in the making: A survey of the political transition in Siam 1932–1936 (Bangkok: Stationers Printing Press, 1936), pp. 39–40Google Scholar.

26 Riggs, Thailand, p. 161. The manoeuvres of the old regime officials included in the new government (before and after the Permanent Constitution's promulgation) are discussed at some length in Nakarin, The 1932 revolution in Siam, pp. 232–6.

27 Reprinted in ‘The new regime in Siam: The princes' fall from power’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 29 Aug. 1932Google Scholar.

28 Thawatt, History of the Thai revolution, p. 130.

29 Pridi Banomyong, ‘The People’s Party and the revolution of 24 June', in Pridi by Pridi, p. 169.

30 See Batson, The end of the absolute monarchy in Siam, pp. 237–9.

31 Stowe, Siam becomes Thailand, p. 18.

32 Landon, Siam in transition, p. 33.

33 Cited in Barmé, Scot, Luang Wichit Wathakan and the creation of a Thai identity (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1993), pp. 67–8Google Scholar.

34 M. Sivaram (The new Siam in the making, p. 55) describes it as follows: ‘[The government] suppressed a number of cheap Siamese language newspapers while the more popular journals, English and Siamese, were dexterously persuaded to appreciate and propagate the Government’s view of matters.'

35 Reprinted in ‘The new regime in Siam: The princes' fall from power’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 29 Aug. 1932Google Scholar.

36 From the ‘Second royal note’ (พระราชบันทึก ๒) transmitted to the government on 26 Sep. 1934. See รายงานการประชุมสภาพู้แทนราษฎร ครั้งที่ ๑๖/๒๔๗๗ ๓๑ มกราคม ๒๔๗๗ [‘Minutes of the secret meeting of the National Assembly on 31 Jan. 1935’], in Official report on the abdication of King Prajadhipok, p. 140.

37 Barmé, Luang Wichit Wathakan, pp. 76–8.

38 Barmé, Luang Wichit Wathakan, p. 72.

39 A description of the strikes appears in Skinner, G. William, Chinese society in Thailand: An analytical history (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1957), p. 219Google Scholar.

40 For an overview, see Thompson, Thailand, p. 67.

41 Barmé, Luang Wichit Wathakan, pp. 72, 96. More detail about the royalists' underground activities appears in Nattapoll, ‘The monarchy and the royalist movement’, pp. 156–7.

42 The responses Pridi gave to a parliamentary inquiry conducted in early 1934 are especially illustrative in this sense, not to mention consistent with his statements and behaviour before and after the fact. See ‘Luang Pradit: Clear of communist stigma’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 12 Mar. 1934Google Scholar.

43 ‘A new association’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 9 Jan. 1933Google Scholar.

44 ‘The People's Association’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 30 Aug. 1932Google Scholar.

45 These activities are reported in a series of articles entitled ‘The People's Association’, which appeared in the pages of Bangkok Times Weekly Mail on 26, 28 and 30 Sept. 1932, and on 12 Oct. 1932Google Scholar.

46 ‘Bangkok's first trade union’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 25 Oct. 1932Google Scholar.

47 First-hand accounts of these meetings were provided by Luang Wichit and Pridi, respectively, in the secret meeting of the National Assembly that took place on 31 Jan. 1935. In Official report on the abdication of King Prajadhipok, pp. 203–4 and p. 285. See also Nakarin, The 1932 revolution in Siam, p. 237.

48 ‘Letter from the King to Phya Mano, 31 Jan. 1933’. Entered into evidence in the ‘Minutes of the secret meeting of the National Assembly held on 31 Jan. 1935’, in Official report on the abdication of King Prajadhipok, pp. 176–8.

49 ‘The Assembly: A long letter from Luang Pradit’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 2 Aug. 1933Google Scholar.

50 Luang Wichit maintains to have responded to Mano that this was neither his problem nor his intention (Official report on the abdication of King Prajadhipok, p. 204). Virginia Thompson (Thailand, p. 71), however, argues that at the time ‘it was generally accepted that such an eclipse of the People’s Party was precisely what the sponsors of the Nationalist Party were aiming at'.

51 ‘The People's Association’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 22 Apr. 1933Google Scholar.

52 Of course, it is impossible to say what would have happened if the National Party had been granted registration and had been allowed to compete against the People's Association for National Assembly seats. At the very least, however, it might be ventured that this constituted a missed opportunity for Siam and later Thailand. At the time, Pridi and Luang Wichit were not only young, but were genuinely towering figures on account of their unparalleled knowledge, intellect and charisma. After the elections of Oct.–Nov. 1933, when both served as ‘second category’ members of the National Assembly, the two men frequently dominated parliamentary debates — both elected and appointed legislators were generally keen to defer to their positions and legal interpretations. Once again, whether or not Pridi and Luang Wichit could have played the same role that Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson played in the emergence of a two-party system in the United States is hard to tell (see Aldrich, John H., Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995]CrossRefGoogle Scholar). However, it is fitting that it was the palace that deprived Siam of the best chance to develop, early on, the kind of institutions that might have helped consolidate a functioning democracy. During the Ninth Reign, keeping political parties weak, fragmented and territorialised is a policy that palace associates and self-described palace guardians would turn to consistently and to great effect.

53 Reprinted in ‘Luang Pradit in Singapore’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 24 Apr. 1933Google Scholar.

54 The full English text is reproduced in Thak, Thai politics 1932–1957, pp. 193–234.

55 The minutes of the committee's proceedings are reproduced in Landon, Siam in transition, pp. 303–23.

56 ‘Luang Pradit's scheme: An official statement’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 13 Apr. 1933Google Scholar.

57 ‘People's Assembly dissolved: Appointment of new State Council’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 3 Apr. 1933Google Scholar.

58 Cited in Sivaram, The new Siam in the making, p. 62.

59 Cited in Stowe, Siam becomes Thailand, p. 50. Months later, in correspondence, the King would question the wisdom of dissolving the National Assembly, characterising Mano's actions as heedless and rash.

60 ‘The new revolution in Siam: The men concerned’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 21 June 1933Google Scholar.

61 See Nakarin, The 1932 revolution in Siam, pp. 257–8.

62 ‘Luang Pradit on his way back’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 1 Sept. 1933Google Scholar.

63 ‘Luang Pradit to plan Siam's economic recovery’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 2 Oct. 1933Google Scholar.

64 ‘The new order: The King to the Assembly’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 6 July 1933Google Scholar.

65 Cited in Barmé, Luang Wichit Wathakan, pp. 82–3 and p. 99.

66 ‘The situation: Translations of official communiques’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 17 Oct. 1933Google Scholar.

67 Cited in Barmé, Luang Wichit Wathakan, p. 101.

68 For an account of the Court's politicisation and subservience to Phibun's interests, see Stowe, Siam becomes Thailand, pp. 133–5.

69 For a summary, see Nattapoll, ‘The monarchy and the royalist movement’, pp. 158–60.

70 ‘The Assembly: The Inheritance Tax Act’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 6 Aug. 1934Google Scholar.

71 ‘The Assembly: An important meeting’, Bangkok Times Weekly Mail, 29 Sept. 1934Google Scholar.

72 The ‘First royal note’ (พระราชบันทึก ๑) was entered into evidence in the ‘Minutes of the secret meeting of the National Assembly held on 31 Jan. 1935’, in Official report on the abdication of King Prajadhipok, pp. 133–5.

73 See ‘Second royal note’, Ibid., pp. 136–50.

74 ‘Letter from Prince Narit to the Prime Minister, 14 Oct. 1934’, ibid., pp. 1–2.

75 ‘Letter from the Prime Minister to Prince Narit, 23 Oct. 1934’, ibid., pp. 5–6.

76 The ‘Letter from the State Council to the Minister of the Royal Household, 26 Oct. 1934’ was entered into evidence in the ‘Minutes of the secret meeting of the National Assembly held on 31 Jan. 1935’. Ibid., pp. 183–4.

77 ‘Letter from the King to the Royal Secretary in Bangkok, 27 Oct. 1934’, ibid., pp. 9–14.

78 บันทึกย่อการไปเฝ้าพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว ครั้งที่๑ เมื่อวันที่ ๑๒ ธันวาคม พ.ศ. ๒๔๗๗ [‘Brief notes on the first audience with the King on 12 Dec. 1934’], in ibid., pp. 24–30.

79 The ‘Third royal note’ was entered into evidence in the ‘Minutes of the secret meeting of the National Assembly held on 31 Jan. 1935’, ibid., pp. 99–113.

80 With regard to the Bowaradet Rebellion, the King demanded that the government declare an amnesty for ‘political crimes’, commute the sentences of those found guilty, restore the pensions of officials dismissed on suspicion of disloyalty, and drop all ongoing prosecutions. Finally, the King returned to the issue of the Palace Guard, whose budget, independence and ability to carry weapons was to be protected.

81 See, for instance, Petchlertanand, Thamrongsak, 2475 และหนึ่งปีหลังการปฏิวัติ [1932 and the year after the revolution] (Bangkok: Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 2000), p. 118Google Scholar.

82 บันทึกย่อการไปเฝ้าพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว ครั้งที่๒ เมื่อวันที่ ๒๓ ธันวาคม พ.ศ. ๒๔๗๗ [‘Brief notes on the second audience with the King on 23 Dec. 1934’], in Official report on the abdication of King Prajadhipok, pp. 33–7.

83 บันทึกย่อการไปเฝ้าพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว ครั้งที่๓ เมื่อวันที่ ๒๐ มกราคม พ.ศ. ๒๔๗๗ [‘Brief notes on the third audience with the King on 20 Jan. 1935’], Ibid., pp. 52–6.

84 บันทึกย่อการไปเฝ้าพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว ครั้งที่๔ เมื่อวันที่ ๒๔ มกราคม พ.ศ. ๒๔๗๗ [‘Brief notes on the fourth audience with the King on 24 Jan. 1935’], Ibid., pp. 60–4.

85 Pridi, ‘The People’s Party and the revolution of 24 June', p. 169.

86 See Phongpaichit, Pasuk, ‘Developing social alternatives: Walking backwards into a khlong’, in Thailand beyond the crisis, ed. Warr, Peter (London: Routledge, 2005), pp. 161–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 For a summary of the political activities undertaken by royalists between King Prajadhipok's abdication and Sarit's coup, see Nattapoll, ‘The monarchy and the royalist movement’, pp. 162–72. See also Handley, The King never smiles, pp. 64–99.

88 See Ferrara, Federico, Thailand unhinged: The death of Thai-style democracy (Singapore: Equinox, 2011)Google Scholar.

89 See, for instance, Ruchanaseri, Pramuan, พระราชอำนาจ [Royal powers] (Bangkok: Sumet Ruchanaseri, 2005)Google Scholar. For a summary in English, see Phongpaichit, Pasuk and Baker, Chris, Thaksin (Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 2009), pp. 255–6Google Scholar.

90 Cited in Handley, The King never smiles, p. 337.