Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "Thailand's King dumps junior wife in royal family feud | DW News" video.

  1. going peacefully A King having multiple wives is for offspring purposes. Not because one is a "cheater" or "disloyal".
    12
  2.  @sisthatsthetea1229  "well this a modern world with medicine, so offspring should have no problem, not to mention they should adopt" We are not talking about offspring with "problems". We are talking about offsprings suitable to rule. Like the previous King, he didnt have enough suitable male offsprings so Thailand is stuck with this unworthy King... And you dont "adopt" Kings. You need Royal bloodline to even be considered...
    11
  3. OsoMarie9300 A king having multiple wives is for offspring purposes. Not because one lacks loyalty.
    10
  4.  @AloutkaKazawa  Its not that I dont understand what is a "myth". YOU were the one that brought up "myth" in the first place when literally NO ONE is talking about it. Remember, the context here is adoption, how an adopted child cannot be King. You entered into this conversation talking about a COMPLETELY different thing.
    6
  5.  @andrinabinogwal1135  Thats what they like you to think. They gave away Laos for them to colonise instead. Laos was part of Thailand before.
    6
  6.  @AloutkaKazawa  No it seems like youre confused. The context here is "adopted child". By "royal bloodline" I obviously mean by royal descent. An adopted child has no royal blood.
    5
  7.  @AloutkaKazawa  DNA is a myth?
    4
  8.  @AloutkaKazawa  Your perception of "royal blood" is obviously different to those of mine. By royal blood I mean by legitimate DESCENT - from a KING. Not an adopted child. You are the ones thats confused. You think what royal blood means YOUR country or region of the world applies to other countries/regions. Which is FALSE.
    4
  9. There is nothing "mythical" about being a birth-child of a royal King - ie a child with literal "royal blood" ie literal DNA connection to the royal crown.
    4
  10.  @AloutkaKazawa  "but a myth of royal blood who would be any different to the blood of other people. But maybe you are a true royalist, hence this inability to understand that it's a myth of a saint royal bloodline that gives royals their priviledge, not a biological superiority. I never suggested that. It is YOU that has the inability to understand that for any King of a country, no one other than their own offspring can be crowned as the next King. Why? Because theyre not descendants of that particular King or its ancestors. Its DNA based. Its also literally called a "royal bloodline" - lineage from a King. The "myth" you speak of about "royal bloodline" has a different definition than from the East. Dont use your own countrys laws/definitions/myths on other countrys. They have own set of laws and definition of words. "Blood" in the East means genetic lineage. Royal bloodline means those descended from the first King of that Dynasty. Got nothing to do with "saints".
    4
  11.  @AloutkaKazawa  For example, if your last name is XYZ, then you are of the XYZ bloodline. Get it? If you are descendent of a King, King being the one that conquered and ruled their Kingdom, then you have "royal" bloodline - because a King is by definition "royal". Theres no myth to this. Its basic genealogy.
    4
  12. equality farall Ever hear of utmost respect? Every culture has their form of respect. This is theirs. Also, a king having more than 1 wife is for offspring purposes. Nothing to do with loyalty.
    4
  13.  @pomegranate10017  "the citizens can be racist against others, do drugs with loose enforcement, etc., but are not allowed to talk about the government, unless they want to be arrested/imprisoned" You just described the countries he listed, including Thailand itself...
    2
  14.  @ayonticabanerjee8326  Why would a royal do such a thing? Theres no such thing as a "surrogate" mother in the royal family. If you give birth to a royal, then you are part of the royal family.
    2
  15.  @ayonticabanerjee8326  "because they need heirs...Also your reasoning is a very primitive concept." And my point is that if you give birth to a royal, then you are part of the royal family. Hence why "surrogate" mothers dont work. How could a potential king have a mother that doesnt end up have any status? Imagine if that child ended up being king, what now of the surrogate mother? Still living as a "commoner"? Your naive thinking is "primitive". "Although blood doesn't make you a good ruler. Democracy proves that. All major superpowers are Democratic" Did I say blood makes you a good ruler? If that is the system, then that is the system. Its called a Monarchy for a reason. You are turning this topic of culture/DNA into politics. Stay on topic will you?
    2
  16.  @ayonticabanerjee8326  " And the surrogate mom would take the money and live her life freely instead of serving someone as second (or third or whatever the no.)" Ever heard of "responsibilities"? Its a thing in Asian culture. You cant just pop a baby and leave your child "for money". Thats just terrible parenting...especially in a royal family... "the child would be under empress's care" Also, how is a 1 mother meant to take care of over a dozen kids? There have been kings out there with much more than that. "Why don't you read some history before talking" Tell me. Which Asian Kingdom had such customs?
    2
  17.  @ayonticabanerjee8326  Also, you didnt address this issue: "How could a potential king have a mother that doesnt end up have any status? Imagine if that child ended up being king, what now of the surrogate mother? Still living as a "commoner"?"
    2
  18.  @ayonticabanerjee8326  "didn't I just say empress legally becomes mother" No you didnt. Where did you say that? Quote yourself. You said "And the surrogate mom would take the money and live her life freely instead of serving someone as second (or third or whatever the no.) wife and compete for affection for lifetime without any freedom" "so you mean the king can have as many wives as he can and the women can't have freedom? " That is exactly how Thai Monachy works. "And who asked the king to have that many kids because it breeds nothing but trouble." That is none of your business. If they can, then they can. "You just proved why you know nothing of history." I keep debunking you and you say I just "proved" i know nothing of "history"? What is "history"? You think you know "history"? Let me tell you something. I know something you dont know in "history", and you probably know something I dont know in "history". If you want to make a point, then state your point. Dont beat around the bush and talk all this "you dont know nothing" BS.
    2
  19.  @ayonticabanerjee8326  ​"Well that's the problem" Whats a problem in Thailand or not, is again, none of your business. "And yes its not my business but not yours either unless you are Thai" Who said its my business how many Children a Thai King wants to have? YOURE the one that has an opinion on how many children a King shouldnt have, not me. "Its better if you would have argued with someone from medieval asia" You do realise that a significant portion of the current worlds population still practise/support polygamy right?
    2
  20.  @ayonticabanerjee8326  "BTW I'm curious how you proved me wrong and what you know of history?" Since you were the one that claimed I "proved I know nothing of history", the onus is on YOU to show me why that statement is true. Not there other way around. Otherwise I could claim that you a murderer, and you need to prove that youre not. The onus is on the accuser to "prove" it. Not the defender. So state why you claimed I "proved I know nothing of history". Which Asian Kingdom uses surrogate mothers to give birth to royals? As for how I debunked your claims, you seem to have a short memory span. Allow me to remind you one by one again: 1) "he can hire an egg donor and a surrogate mother" Theres no such thing as a "surrogate" mother in the royal family. If you give birth to a royal, then you are part of the royal family. 2) "because they need heirs...Also your reasoning is a very primitive concept." And my point is that if you give birth to a royal, then you are part of the royal family. Hence why "surrogate" mothers dont work. How could a potential king have a mother that doesnt end up have any status? Imagine if that child ended up being king, what now of the surrogate mother? Still living as a "commoner"? Your naive thinking is "primitive". 3) "And the surrogate mom would take the money and live her life freely instead of serving someone as second (or third or whatever the no.)" Ever heard of "responsibilities"? Its a thing in Asian culture. You cant just pop a baby and leave your child "for money". Thats just terrible parenting...especially in a royal family... 4) "the child would be under empress's care" Also, how is a 1 mother meant to take care of over a dozen kids? There have been kings out there with much more than that. 5) "didn't I just say empress legally becomes mother" No you didnt. Where did you say that? Quote yourself. 6) "You just proved why you know nothing of history." I keep debunking you and you say I just "proved" i know nothing of "history"?
    2
  21. Lianty Yauri Even the Generals with more titles and achievements than her knelt down to the King. Who are you to call their culture is "pathetic"?
    1
  22.  @ayonticabanerjee8326  "you are rambling on and on and on" Lies. My response to you was succinct. Whats long was the history of our previous conversation of me debunking you you were "curious" about. "Surrogacy is just an alternative to actually taking mistresses for heirs" So what are you trying to do? Trying to change Thai politics from your computer/phone? With English? On a German news channel? "I never mentioned asian kingdoms do surrogacy because it's a new thing" HUH? Then WHY did you say: "Why don't you read some history before talking"? And "you just proved why you know nothing of history" hey? What "history" are you even talking about then? "Also surrogate moms are genetically not the mom so no they have no responsibility. If you know a bit of science you will know" Youve been debunked so many times yet still so arrognt. Here, let me debunk you again. Surrogacy, by definition, DOES NOT automatically mean she uses a donors egg. She could be using her own egg. "If you know a bit of English you will know".
    1
  23.  @ayonticabanerjee8326  "I think you are an underling of Thai royal family" You are entitled to your opinion. But like other times. You are wrong again. Nice try trying to make things personal instead of addressing the points I raised.
    1
  24. S1NB4D "Women groveling at the feet of a man is just so wrong in this modern world." Why did you turn a blind eye to the men?
    1