Unfortunately, I have to deplore the fact that some people who are not used to deal with Cambodia and Cambodian rules and traditions are willing to interfere.

Cambodia has gone through years of war and grief, and now, you find these people arguing about some secondary facts...

To answer M. Sjostrom, who obviously does not speak Khmer, I must clarify some details and this will be my last participation to this forum:

1* The Royal Khmer Language and the legal terms to call the King are grammatically identified as the correct ones towards the princes and NOT the princesses. I will not go further into this matter as M.Sjostrom would probably answer back...

2* Her Late Majesty Queen Sisowath Kossamak, when King Suramarit died in 1960, even though She was given the highest title a Princess could have in our Family, was not allowed to be Queen in title, but only "Supreme Guardian of the Throne".

3* The Constitution of 1993 is clearer than any.

For further information, you can address a direct mail to the Royal Palace, enquiring about the laws of the Khmer Royal Dynasty.


--Previous Message--
:
: Firstly, I observe that this explanation
: given by Mr Ravi..., -again- uses NOT the
: original-language text of the constitution,
: but its English translation.
: So, we actually remain again dependent on
: how a term in Cambodian text was translated
: by someones into English.
:
: Secondly,
: assuming that the Cambodian word used has as
: much a male connotation as 'king' in English
: (although, in European history, there have
: been a few females who were titled as 'king'
: of their country)
: the opinion
: "It is said 'The King', which means a
: MALE member of the Royal Family."
: is of course an interpretation favored by
: those who want it to mean a male.
:
: In legal texts, quite often there are words
: which strictly interpreted, mean a male, but
: still are accepted to mean all human beings.
: And, in english, there is "things
: unknown to man" and suchlike, which
: actually do not limit to the male portion of
: the mankind.
:
: So, the text of the constitution appears to
: be somewhat vague.
: I have now understood that no passage in the
: constitution, is there any explicit
: definition to males.
: It seems not to say 'the male king', or 'a
: male member'.....
:
:
: I foresee that this is a thing which can be
: used as interpretation in favor of females,
: if there one day is that much support for a
: female dynast to be chosen as the king of
: Cambodia.
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia
:
: Article 14-
: The King of Cambodia shall be a member of t
: he Royal family, of at least 30 years,
: descending from the blood line of King Ang
: Duong, King Norodom or King Sisowath.
: Upon enthronement, the King shall take the
: oath of allegiance as stipulated in Annex IV
:
: It is said "The King" , which
: means a MALE member of the Royal Family.
:
: --Previous Message--
:
: The monarch of Cambodia is chosen by the
: crown council, from among descendants of the
: late kings Anga Duang, Naradharma or Sri
: Suvatta. (which actually is a redundancy,
: since as Anga Duang's sons, all descent from
: Sri Suvatta and Naradharma would be anyway
: descendants of Anga Duang....)
:
: The Cambodian constitution's most
: translations appear to define eligibility as
: 'descendant', or 'dynasty member'.
: I have not come across with any text which
: would define that as solely male.
:
: What is the precise, authentic content of
: the Cambodian constitution about this: are
: female descendants of that dynasty eligible
: ? would Cambodia potentially have one day
: a regning queen, under this constitution ?
:
: Does the 'prevalent' view to interpret the
: constitution differ in any way (such as, any
: constitutional grounds to limit it to males)
: from the possibly vague text of the
: authentic constitution in this regard, if
: the actual text of the constitution does not
: preclude females ?
:
:
:
:
:
:
: