Thaksin divorced!

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra is reported to have divorced his wife Khunying Potjaman, in a move that has shocked many of the couple's friends and colleagues. Thaksin told People Power party (PPP) MPs at a dinner in Hong Kong last night that his 32-year marriage had ended. "We divorced in order to make everybody feel comfortable," a PPP MP, who was at the dinner, quoted Thaksin as saying. The divorce was sealed at 11.00am yesterday at the Thai consulate in Hong Kong, the source said.

Thaksin's announcement shocked everyone at the table which became suddenly silent, said the MP, who declined to be named. Khunying Potjaman was not at the dinner, he added. A high-ranking government source confirmed the couple had signed the divorce papers at the Thai consulate in Hong Kong. http://www.bangkokpost.net/151108_News/ ... news02.php (http://www.bangkokpost.net/151108_News/15Nov2008_news02.php)

If I know Thaksin and his evil consort, there is a financial and or other benefit to be had by doing so.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

certainly divorced from reality !. But isn't that the way of so many in and from Thailand ?

certainly divorced from reality !. But isn't that the way of so many in and from Thailand ?Chao Na in particular!

Divorced at the THAI consulate in HK?
That IS Thai soil isn't it?
Isn't there a Thai arrest warrant pending for him?

Thailand is amazing.......not only in Thailand

certainly divorced from reality !. But isn't that the way of so many in and from Thailand ?Chao Na in particular!

So you don't think they're doing it for financial or legal benefit???

Divorced at the THAI consulate in HK?
That IS Thai soil isn't it?
Isn't there a Thai arrest warrant pending for him?

Thailand is amazing.......not only in Thailand

My first thought also, Joseph. Amazing indeed!

isnt it obvious? next there will be an announcement of an engagement for both of them to British citizens.

[joe552]

As far as I know, only embassies have the status of being 'Thai soil'. Consulates do not enjoy diplomatic immunity in the same way. Of course, I could be totally wrong and we'll soon be told if I am. I too suspect a 'cunning plan' somewhere.

Just think of their poor children in England, all alone knowing that mummy and daddy no longer love each other....It makes you want to reach for a bucket :(

May be he has become a gay?

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

isnt it obvious? next there will be an announcement of an engagement for both of them to British citizens.

Oh my God !..I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm available..where are they both now ?...they'll get dual citizenship with me..spread the message I'm available...either will do..I don't mind becoming a celesbian !

As far as I know, only embassies have the status of being 'Thai soil'. Consulates do not enjoy diplomatic immunity in the same way. Of course, I could be totally wrong and we'll soon be told if I am.

Sorry to be the one to tell you, but as I seem to be the only one with a working Google link it seems inevitable.

Yes, you are totally wrong.

Diplomatic immunity is a different issue to sovereignty/extra-territoriality, and depends largely on the diplomatic status of the individual. Embassies or Consulates come under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, giving both premises similar (but not identical) status. Further protection is usually afforded (or, in the case of the US, rejected!) by national laws such as the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

For Homi's benefit, this has nothing to do with "Sovereign" immunity (Rex regnant sed non gubernat - The king reigns but does not govern)

[joe552]

Thanks GF you've made that so much clearer. I do have Google, but don't have the inclination to use it for trivial conversations such as this, nor do I feel the need to be right all the time.

[Marsilius]

...For Homi's benefit, this has nothing to do with "Sovereign" immunity (Rex regnant sed non gubernat - The king reigns but does not govern)

And for Gone Fishing's benefit, the Latin for "the king reigns" is "rex regit". "Regnant" is an [i]English[i] word!

...For Homi's benefit, this has nothing to do with "Sovereign" immunity (Rex regnant sed non gubernat - The king reigns but does not govern)

And for Gone Fishing's benefit, the Latin for "the king reigns" is "rex regit". "Regnant" is an English word!

And for your benefit, Marsilius, the quote is from English law, which often uses or adapts Latin phraseology." Regnant" is the present participle of the Latin verb regnare - to reign. "Regit", on the other hand, is from the verb regare - to rule*, so what you have said is that "the king rules", which is precisely what he does not do.

As I said on the Krazy Dragon Sunee thread on 15 November: "I have made it clear, for example, that my Latin is far from fluent (Revera linguam latinam vix cognovi - I don't really know all that much Latin), but that does not mean that I am totally ignorant of the subject."


And joe552, I don't actually "need to be right all the time", but I just prefer it to being wrong. Is that such a sin?


(* as distinct from regare in old Latin, which means to make wet or dampen)

[Marsilius]

The "present participle" would be "regnans". See http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/language ... l#makepres (http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/grammar/whprax/w23ppl-f.html#makepres)

"Regnant" could only be third person plural of a verb regnare: (i.e. one that declines regno, regnas, regnat, regnamus, regnatis, regnant). It could not be used with a singular subject ("the king") as you are suggesting.

Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the brightest of them all?

[cottmann]

Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the brightest of them all?

A quick Google search shows that the quotation is always in the form: "Rex regnant sed non gubernat." 'Regnant' is here the present participle of 'regnare,' to reign,

May be he has become a gay?

(Oh my god this guy is CLEARLY looned.)

Why would ANYONE gay move to Dubai?

It's a sacrifice and she gets to keep the dough she's already got.

Maybe the spouse can testify against him if divorced? How did that go on "Perry Mason". In Thailand?

Cottman,

You are clearly (and verifiably) correct, as anyone who knew or wanted to check either the original quotation or the English translation would know/ see. It is enshrined in English law, as it stands, and is not open for re-translation - except, apparently, by Marsilius who has managed to give it the totally opposite meaning (and who appears to have belatedly discovered that regnant is, after all a Latin word).

Anyone still interested could either conduct such a search (of the phrase or the word regnant) for a definitive answer (such as in any of the dictionaries at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regnant) rather than try to teach themselves Latin from the internet.

Literal translations, word by individual word, are seldom correct and only rarely render a good translation, however such a translation would be "the king is reigning but does not govern".

Marsilius appears to have gone to the same school of translation as the staff of a notable American President, leading him to describe himself as a small doughnut ("Ich bin ein Berliner").

Me taedet Marsilii.

Absum!