Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T11:58:58.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Politics in Nineteenth Century Thailand*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

David K. Wyatt
Get access

Extract

One of the most arresting periods in modern Thai history is the latter half of the nineteenth century, when a process of social and political development begun in the previous century reached its fruition when a single bureaucratic family obtained a virtual monopoly on high state office in the reign of King Mongkut (1851–68) and the first half of the reign of King Chulalongkorn (1868–1910). This situation had profound effects on the course of modern Thai history; and its study enlightens our understanding of Thailand's foreign relations and of the course of reform and modernization in a period when the successful conduct of these was crucially vital to the survival of the kingdom.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian History , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , September 1968 , pp. 208 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Phraya Rattanakun, et al. (comps.) Lamdap sakun kao bang sakun (Genealogies of Some Old Families) (4 vols.; Bangkok, 1920–1937).Google Scholar

2. Panthayangkun, Vim (comp.), Ratchasahunwong (Royal Genealogy) (7th rev. ed.; Bangkok, 1964).Google Scholar

3. Thailand, Fine Arts Dept. (comps.), Lamdap rachinikun bang chang (Genealogy of the Royal Maternal Line ‘Bang Chang’) (new ed.; Bangkok, 1958)Google Scholar; Sawangwong, Prince Phanurangsi (comp.), Rachinikun ratchakan thi 3 (The Royal Maternal Line of King Rama III) (Bangkok, 1928)Google Scholar, and Rachinikun ratchakan thi 5 (The Royal Maternal Line of King Rama V) (Bangkok, 1933).Google Scholar

4. Amoraphan, Prince Sommot and Rajanubhab, Prince Damrong, Ruang tang caophraya krung rattanakosin (On Appointments to the Rank of Caophraya in the Bangkok Period) (2nd ed.; Bangkok, 1931).Google Scholar

5. On this general subject, see Wales, H. G. Quaritch, Ancient Siamese Government and Administration (London, 1934; New York, 1965), pp. 14–134.Google Scholar

6. See Haas, Mary R., ‘The Declining Descent Rule for Rank in Thailand: A Correction,’ American Anthropologist, LIII (1951), pp. 585–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Extremely useful on this subject is Rabibhadana, M. R. W. Akin, ‘Stratification and Mobility in Thailand: The Early Bangkok Period 1782–1873,’ mimeograph, Ithaca, New York, 1965; and the same author's M.A. thesis at Cornell University, soon to be completed.Google Scholar

8. Note in the accompanying appendix those individuals in these three ministries which were later promoted to the other three ministries.

9. The ruling family of Nakhon Si Thammarat was very closely connected with the royal family (see Lamdap sakun kao, I, 1–12Google Scholar, and IV, 1–10) and that of Nakhon Ratchasima with the Singhaseni family (see Lamdap sakun kao, I, s.v. Singhaseni), and these relationships certainly contributed to their prominence.

10. See Hanks, Lucien M. Jr., ‘Merit and Power in the Thai Social Order,’ American Anthropologist, LXIV:6 (1962), 1247–61.Google Scholar

11. This chart is based on Lamdap sakun kao, I, 28–29Google Scholar; and on Thailand, Fine Arts Dept. (comps.), Phongsawadan muang songkhla lae phatthalung (Chronicles of Phatthalung and Songkhla) (Bangkok, 1962), charts.Google Scholar

12. The main source on the early history of the Bunnag family is Caophraya Thiphakorawong, (Kham Bunnag), ‘Sakun chek ahamat,’ Lamdap sakun kao, III (Bangkok, 1930), esp. pp. 21–23.Google Scholar

13. Many of the individuals who held the titles of Phraya Cularatchamontri and Luang Ratchasethi (director and deputy director) in that department were Bunnags. See Lamdap sakun kao, III.Google Scholar

14. See Phraya Komarakunmontri, , Prawat caophraya mahasena (bunnak) (The Life of Caophraya Mahasena, Bunnag) (Bangkok, 1961), pp. 1–6Google Scholar, for an account of the boyhood friendship of Taksin, Rama I, and Bunnag.

15. Sommot, and Damrong, , Ruang tang caophraya, pp. 1–19Google Scholar, give short biographies of all the caophraya of the First Reign.

16. Caophraya Thiphakorawong, (Kham), Phraratchaphongsawadan krung rattanakosin ratchakan thi 1 (Royal Chronicles of the First Reign of the Bangkok Period (combined ed.; Bangkok, 1962), p. 21.Google Scholar

17. For a full explanation of the term rachinikun, see Rajanubhab, Prince Damrong's introductory essay in Lamdap rachinikun bang chang pp. (3)–(8).Google Scholar There are obvious sociological and psychological reasons why maternal descent should be stressed in the royal family: among the fifty to eighty children of a single king, it was natural that individuals should be distinguished one from another by their maternity, as their paternity was common to all.

18. Damrong, 's essay in Lamdap rachinikun bang chang, pp. (3)–(6).Google Scholar

19. See Chulalongkorn, King, Phraborommarachawat nai ratchakan thi 5 (Royal Advices of the Fifth Reign) (Bangkok, 1960), p. 20.Google Scholar

20. Not including another member of the family who served as the ‘prime minister’ of the uparaja in the Reign of King Mongkut, Caophraya Mukkhamontri (Ket Singhaseni).

21. See the accompanying Appendix.

22. See Akin, M. R. W., ‘Stratification and Mobility.’Google Scholar

23. See, for example, Phraya Komarakun, Caophraya mahasena, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

24. Surin, Prince (1790–1830)Google Scholar, was the 29th child of King Rama I. On him, see The Burney Papers, I (Bangkok, 1910), p. 25.Google Scholar

25. The Burney Papers, I, p. 65.Google Scholar

26. Data from Lamdap rachinikun bang chang, pp. 11–22.Google Scholar Parallel-cousin marriage was quite common in the Bunnag and Singhaseni families by the latter half of the nineteenth century: see also Lamdap sakun kao, I.Google Scholar

27. This is an inference from a great number of scattered sources, notably references to close relations between them in the Bowling journal; and from the structural probabilities stemming from the position of the two brothers in the phrakhlang. Most of the new taxes which they introduced in the Third and Fourth Reigns depended on the participation of Chinese lax fanners; and, in addition, in order to make their official control over the Chinese community effective, they would have had to work through the Chinese secret societies. I am sure that they did so, but I am equally certain the concrete evidence on this point will not be found.

28. Sutthisongkhram, Natthawutthi, Somdet caophraya borommaha si suriyawong, vol. I (Bangkok, 1961), pp. 189–90.Google Scholar

29. Again, this is a tendentious point, but one which emerges strongly from a careful reading of the closing portions of the Third Reign Chronicle and the opening portion of the Fourth Reign Chronicle, both written by Caophraya Thiphakorawong (Kham Bunnag), a participant in these events.

30. Caophraya Thiphakorawong, , The Dynastic Chronicles, Bangkok Era, The Fourth Reign, B.E. 2394–2411, tr. Flood, Chadin, Vol. I (Tokyo, 1965), pp. 62–69.Google Scholar

31. Chulalongkorn, King, Phraratchahatlekha phrabat somdet phra cunlacomklao caoyuhua song mi paima kap somdet phra mahasamanacao kromphraya wachirayan warorot (Bangkok, 1929), pp. 211–24.Google Scholar

32. See Wyatt, David K., ‘The Beginnings of Modern Education in Thailand, 1868–1910,’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1966, Chapter II.Google Scholar

33. ‘Prakat hai but kharatchakan khao rap ratchakan tam opfit tangtang (Decree Urging the Sons of Government Officials to Enter the Government Service),’ Ratchakitcanubeksa (Government Gazette), VII, 1890, pp. 195 ff.Google Scholar

34. As with those princes appointed to superintend the affairs of various government departments from the Second Reign. See, e.g., The Burney Papers, I, pp. 55, 61Google Scholar; and Rajanubhab, Prince Damrong, Phraratchaphongsawadan krung rattanakosin ratchakan thi 2 (combined ed.; Bangkok, 1962), pp. 432–36Google Scholar

35. See Wyatt, , ‘Modern Education,’ Chs. II, IV.Google Scholar