King Taksin the Great

Chapter 1 Biography of King Taksin the Great

The Royal Portrait of King Taksin the Great
(Image from the book: King Taksin, the Supreme Ruler)
Note: For more information on the royal portrait, see the appendix.

1.1 When was King Taksin the Great born?

The birthday of King Taksin  It is believed that King Taksin the Great was born on Sunday, the 15th day of the waxing moon in the 5th month of the Year of the Tiger, Chula Sakarat 1096, at 5:00 a.m., corresponding to 17 April 1734, the 3rd year of the reign of King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Borommakosop. Pol. Lt. Phisan Senawes (1972: 2, 6) wrote a poem as follows

“On the 15th night of the waxing moon, under a divine sign,

Seventeenth of April, a Sunday in the morning,

At the fifth hour before noon, the star aligned,

The Tiger year marked a complete and destined birth.”

Astrological Chart of His Majesty’s Birth
(Image from the book: King Taksin the Great)
Astrological Chart of His Majesty’s Birth
(Image from the National Library)

According to Thuan Boonyaniyom (1970: 4), “In the Buddhist year 2277, at dawn on Sunday, the 15th waxing moon of the sixth month in the Year of the Tiger, Lady Nok Iang gave birth to a son.” Similarly, a commemorative publication marking the inauguration of the Royal Monument of King Taksin the Great in Chanthaburi Province (2001: 13) records that His Majesty was born at approximately 5:00 a.m. Nevertheless, there remains no scholarly consensus regarding the precise date of his birth. For instance, Sathian Supasopon (1984: 31) contends that the King of Thonburi was born in Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya on Sunday, the 15th waxing moon of the fifth month in the Year of the Tiger, corresponding to April 7, 1734. In contrast, several other sources—including King Taksin the Great (published by the Foundation for the Preservation of the Old Palace Historic Sites, 2000: 13), the Commemorative Book for the Inauguration of the Royal Monument of King Taksin the Great, Chanthaburi Province (1981: 13), and Sanan Silakorn (1988: 3)—assert that his birth date was April 17, 1734. Despite these varied accounts, two historians offer divergent interpretations on this issue.

Veena Rojanarata (1997: 86) offers the following perspective:

“In the case of the birthdate, Nithi Eawsriwong proposes in Thai Politics during the Reign of King Taksin the Great a retroactive calculation based on the date of death recorded in astrological chronicles, which state that the king passed away at the age of 48 years and 15 days. According to French records, he was executed on April 7, 1782 (B.E. 2325), which places his birthdate on March 23, 1734 (B.E. 2277). However, if one relies on Thai sources that record his death on April 6, 1813 (B.E. 2356), then the birthdate would correspond to March 22, 1734 (B.E. 2277). This aligns with the information King Mongkut (Rama IV) provided to Dr. Smith for the purpose of writing Thai history, indicating that King Taksin was born in March 1734 (B.E. 2277).”

Suchit Wongthes (1985: 64), citing from the writings of Luang Phitsanulok Phanitchalak (Mom Luang Permyot Itsrasena), reports that The Book on King Taksin the Great by Prayoon Phisanakha states that King Taksin was born at approximately 5:00 a.m. on a Tuesday in the seventh lunar month of the Year of the Tiger, Chula Sakarat 1096 (Buddhist Era 2277). However, the text does not specify whether this corresponded to a waxing or waning moon day. Notably, there were four Tuesdays in the seventh month of that year—namely, the 7th waxing, 14th waxing, 6th waning, and 13th waning days—corresponding to the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th of June, B.E. 2277 (1734 CE), respectively. Should this source be accurate, King Taksin’s birthdate would have to fall on one of these four dates; nevertheless, this evidence is insufficient for a definitive conclusion. For further clarification, reference should be made to The Chronicle of Astrologers, Volume 8.

According to the chronicle, in the Year of the Tiger, Chula Sakarat 1144, on Wednesday, the 13th waning day of the fifth lunar month, King Taksin passed away at the age of 48 years and 15 days. Counting backward from Wednesday, the 13th waning day of the fifth month by 15 days brings us to the 13th waxing day of the fifth month. Further counting back by 48 years places the birthdate on Friday, the 13th waxing day of the fifth month in the Year of the Tiger, Chula Sakarat 1096, which corresponds to April 16, 1734 (B.E. 2277). The chronicle also records that on Friday, the 8th waning day of the fifth month (April 5, 1782), King Phutthayotfa Chulalok ascended the throne, and on Wednesday, the 13th waning day of the fifth month (April 10, 1782), King Taksin died. According to the Royal Chronicles, Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek returned to Thonburi on Saturday, the 9th waning day of the fifth month (April 6, 1782), the same day King Taksin was executed.

In Somdet Phra Chao Taksin by Prayoon Phisanakha, it is noted in Volume 1, page 40, that King Taksin was born on a Tuesday in the seventh lunar month. However, in Volume 2, page 436, the text states that Phra Ya Borirak Vetthakarn compared significant dates in King Taksin’s life to the solar calendar. He calculated that the date of birth was Sunday, the 15th waxing moon of the fifth lunar month in Chula Sakarat 1096, the Year of the Tiger (Yot), which corresponds to April 7, 1734 (B.E. 2277).

According to the Thai lunar calendar, the 15th waxing day of the fifth month in that year did indeed fall on a Sunday. However, this does not align with the Western calendar, which indicates that April 7, 1734, was a Wednesday. On the Thai calendar, that date corresponds to Wednesday, the 4th waxing day of the fifth month—thus not the 15th waxing day, as previously claimed.

As for Phra Ya Borirak’s assertion that King Taksin was born on the 15th waxing moon of the fifth lunar month, it remains unclear what specific evidence he relied upon to support this claim. However, this notion appears to be loosely grounded in the astrological chronicle, which records that King Taksin passed away on the 13th waning moon of the fifth month at the age of 48 years and 15 days. By calculating backward from that date, one would arrive at the 13th waxing moon of the same month—exactly 15 days prior. Nevertheless, this date fell on a Friday, a day traditionally regarded as inauspicious or relatively weak, and thus seemingly inconsistent with the powerful and formidable character of King Taksin, as portrayed in historical accounts. It is possible, then, that Phra Ya Borirak adjusted the date to the 15th waxing moon, which coincided with a Sunday, a day more symbolically aligned with strength and royal virtue. This, however, remains speculative. Given that Phra Ya Borirak has long since passed away, it is no longer possible to consult him directly for clarification.

Police Major General Suchart Phueaksakon (http://www.dabos.or.th, 28/11/2001) wrote the following regarding the horoscope of King Taksin the Great:

“However, various documents offer differing claims regarding the date of birth of King Taksin the Great. Some sources, such as the book Aphinihan Boranbun Phraputthasatsada, state that His Majesty was born on the 15th waning moon of the fifth lunar month. Others, including Ratchakachakriwong lae Ratchasakun Phra Chao Taksin Maharaj, assert the date as April 17. Another work, SOMDEJ PHRA CHAO TAK SIN MAHARAT by Jacqueline de Fels, proposes April 7. These latter claims, however, may be dismissed based on my own calculations. According to my examination, the 15th waning moon of the fifth month in B.E. 2277 corresponds to April 4 of that year. If one calculates His Majesty’s age up to the date of his death, it does not amount to 48 years and 15 days, as recorded in the Chotmaihet Hon (Astrological Chronicles), which is one of the most reliable sources available.

Therefore, when considering historically reliable sources that suggest three possible dates of death—April 6, April 7, or April 10—which correspond to the 13th waning moon of the fifth month, and when calculating backwards based on the lifespan of 48 years and 15 days as stated in the Chotmaihet Hon, the resulting dates of birth would be as follows: if King Taksin died on April 6, his birth would fall on March 22, B.E. 2277; if he died on April 7, his birth would fall on March 23; and if he died on April 10, his birth would fall on March 26. Of these, the March 26 hypothesis is the weakest and can likely be disregarded. Thus, the most probable dates of birth are narrowed to March 22 and March 23.

I therefore eliminate the hypothesis of March 22, leaving March 23 as the most credible date. This is consistent with the Chronicle of the French Missionaries (Prachum Phongsawadan, Volume 39). Based on astrological calculations of planetary positions on March 23, B.E. 2277, and after careful consideration of King Taksin’s biography and extraordinary qualities—compiled from available historical and royal chronicles—I have determined that the most appropriate birth time is 05:45 a.m. on Tuesday, March 23. However, in Thai astrology, this still counts as Monday, March 22, since the time does not yet reach the official dawn threshold of 06:20 a.m.

The ascendant (lagna) at this time falls in Pisces (Meena Rasi), first Drekkana, and first Navamsa. Subsequent calculations of the positions and strengths of various planets indicate a high degree of consistency with the known characteristics and royal accomplishments of King Taksin. Thus, it is highly plausible that this is the correct date and time of His Majesty’s birth.”

“It can thus be predicted that the native would possess a small physique and a light yellowish complexion… Historical records clearly indicate that His Majesty was of mixed Thai-Chinese descent, which would account for his fair, yellow-tinted skin. As for whether his stature was indeed small, in accordance with this prediction, there is corroborative evidence from a Danish naturalist who had the opportunity to meet the monarch. He wrote: ‘We have now followed the life of this small-statured man from his birth to the time he was about to make history—not only of Thai society but of himself as well—resulting in a tale that has been told and retold due to the greatness of both the man and his deeds…’ (A History of Modern Thailand, by B.J. Terwiel) Moreover, the placement of the royal ascendant in the sign of Pisces, which is also where the sun is located in his natal chart, allows astrologers to infer further traits. In Thai astrology, when the sun is in Pisces—a water sign—it is referred to as ‘the sun sinking into water,’ symbolizing a person whose good deeds are not easily acknowledged or repaid by others.”

The Royal Portrait of King Taksin The Great
(Image from the book Somdet Phra Chao Taksin Chom Badin Mahara)

Due to the planetary exchange between the Sun and Venus in His Majesty’s natal chart, the astrological influence remained potent—manifesting one of the key attributes associated with His character: exceptional leadership. In conclusion, based on astrological calculations, King Taksin the Great was born on 23 March, 2277 B.E. (Eastern astrology still considers this as 22 March), corresponding to the Chula Sakarat year 1096, on a Tuesday (which, in Eastern astrology, is still interpreted as Monday), the 4th waning moon of the 5th lunar month, in the Year of the Tiger, at 5:45 a.m., in Ayutthaya.”
(Compiled on 2 February 1998)

Dr. Suree Phumiphomon (1996: 76) stated that “… King Taksin the Great was born on March 23, 1734 (B.E. 2277) …,” which corresponds with the view expressed by Police Major General Suchart Phueaksakon.

1.2 Are there any documented accounts or narratives concerning the supernatural feats or accumulated spiritual merit (bunyatikan) of King Taksin the Great?”

ภาพแสดงองค์ประกอบส่วนต่างๆ ของเรือนไทย

  1. It is said that at the time of his birth, the weather was exceptionally clear, with no sign of clouds or mist. However, a bolt of lightning struck the main structural pillar of the house (specifically the “dang” post that supports the gable apex), yet the infant—Sinth—remained completely unharmed.

  2. It has been reported that King Taksin was born with an unusually deep navel—so deep, in fact, that a whole areca nut (still in its husk) could be placed inside. This was considered highly unusual compared to other infants. Additionally, the bodily proportions of the newborn exhibited characteristics of what was traditionally described as a “Chaturasakaya” or square body form (Thuan Bunyaniyom, 1970: 5). That is, the measurement from his navel to the soles of his feet equaled the measurement from the navel to the crown of his forehead. His forehead was broad, and when his arms were fully extended, the span from fingertip to fingertip was equivalent to the distance from the top of his head to the soles of his feet. According to ancient Thai and Chinese physiognomic traditions, such bodily traits are the defining marks of a Mahapurusha—a “Great Man” destined for greatness (Sanan Silakorn, 1988: 3).

  3. On the third day after his birth, a large python was said to have coiled itself around the winnowing basket in which the infant lay (Pol. Sub-Lt. Phisan Senawet, 1972: 2). This event caused his parents to fear for his safety, interpreting it as an omen of future misfortune. Following traditional Chinese beliefs, it was customary in such cases to bury the child alive in an attempt to ward off ill fate. However, this practice was impermissible in Siam due to legal constraints. As a result, the child’s parents resolved to abandon him outside their home. Upon learning of this, Chao Phraya Chakri (a high-ranking noble) was moved with compassion and requested custody of the child from his father, a Chinese man named Hai Hong. The father agreed, and the child was then entrusted to Chao Phraya Chakri’s care.

Note: Pol. Lt. Col. Phisan Senawes (1972: 328–329) explained:
“In several Chinese chronicles, such as Sai Han, Liu Bang (also known as the Prince of Han), who later ascended the throne of the great Chinese empire, experienced an omen involving a snake. When he encountered a white snake blocking his path, he struck and killed it with his sword. A forest spirit then declared, ‘You, the purple serpent, have slain the white serpent.’ The Chinese interpreted the white serpent as representing Xiang Yu (also known as the Prince of Chu). Later, when Liu Yu seized the throne from Emperor Guangdi of the Sima Yan dynasty, he entered a forest and encountered children pounding medicinal herbs. One child explained that the medicine was for their master, a giant snake. When Liu Yu shouted at them, the children vanished in fear—interpreted as symbolic of Liu Yu being a dragon, a creature even more fearsome than the great snake. Liu Yu subsequently became emperor of the Southern Song dynasty. In another account, Meng Qiao (or Ming Chao), Zhu Yuanzhang, the founding emperor of the Ming dynasty, was said to have the sound of a serpent around his head—an omen interpreted as marking him for greatness. Lord Haihong (the father of King Taksin) may have been unaware of these Chinese historical references, and thus reacted with fear.”

The river pavilion of Wat Kosawad has two piers, but it is unclear at which one the young boy Sin was tied and publicly humiliated at the foot of the stairs. As of the present day (1988), the canal has become so shallow that the stairway now stands entirely on dry land.
(Photo from the book “King Taksin the Great: The Sovereign and the Warrior”)

 

  • 4. As he grew older, he studied at Wat Kosawad. On one occasion, he acted as the banker in a game of “Mak-Fue” (a traditional Thai gambling game involving beans). The other boys joined in and created a commotion. The teacher ordered all the students involved to be punished by caning. As for Somdet Phra Chao Taksin, he was not only caned but also tied across the steps of the pier stairway as a public display of his wrongdoing, to discourage others from imitating his actions. The teacher then forgot to untie him, leaving him there until around 8 PM, when he suddenly remembered and, fearing the boy might have drowned due to the rising tide, rushed to the pier. Upon arrival, he discovered that the staircase had detached from the pier and was floating on the water, with the child (Sin) still tied to it. Remarkably, he survived—an event regarded as miraculous.
    (Pol. Sub-Lt. Phisan Senawes, 1972: 12–14)
Giant honeybee (Apis dorsata Fabricius)
(Image sources: http://kanchanapisek.or.th/kp6/BOOK15/graphics/question/b15-m4.jpg ; http://plantpro.doae.go.th/plantclinic/clinic/other/bee/bee29.htm)

  • 5. During the hair-cutting ceremony, a swarm of giant honeybees (Apis dorsata) settled on the ceiling above the area designated for the water-pouring ritual. They remained there for exactly seven days and nights before flying away. This was regarded as a remarkable omen. (Pol. Sub-Lt. Phisan Senawes, 1972: 15)

    6. At the age of 21, Taksin was ordained as a Buddhist monk. One day, while the monks Phra Phiksu Sin (Taksin) and Phra Phiksu Thongduang (later King Rama I of the Chakri Dynasty) were waiting to receive alms, a Chinese fortune-teller stopped, stared at both monks intently, then suddenly laughed and walked away. Upon inquiry, he explained that both monks possessed such extraordinary features that each was destined to become a ruler. (Prayoon Pisanaka, 1984: 7–8)

King Taksin The Great
(Image from the book “Somdet Phra Chao Taksin Maharaj”)
King Rama I (Phra Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke the Great)
(Image from the book “Royal Regalia of the City”)

  • The royal grace manifested miraculous powers.

Woramai Kabilsingh (1997: 41-42, 48-49) wrote about the manifestation of royal grace and miraculous powers as follows:

“When King Taksin the Great was about to lead an expedition to conquer Nakhon Si Thammarat by boat, a severe storm with strong winds and waves arose. Many warships of the royal fleet and the rear guard either sank, were damaged, or had to hide in the bay. King Buddha (King Taksin) then ordered a high pavilion to be erected on the shore and set up offerings to worship the guardian deities of the sea. Incense and candles were arranged for the ceremony. He made a solemn vow, invoking the Triple Gem (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) and his accumulated royal merit from past and present lives, to calm the storm immediately. By the miraculous power of his royal decree, the waves and winds subsided instantly. This was clearly evident as he made the vow, and all the royal warships, though small, could safely continue their voyage without harm.” (From the Royal Chronicles, Vol. 2 Part 2, p. 18)

“… During the campaign to conquer Chiang Mai, when his army reached Lum Luang village, the King stopped and camped in a pavilion there. It was the dry season during the summer festival, and there was a drought. The King then said, ‘Do not sound the evening gong tonight. Set the clock for 11 p.m. I will cause the rain to fall.’ He ordered Phraya Ratchaprasit to erect a pavilion and conduct a ceremony to worship the heavenly deities on a mountain. The King made a solemn vow, invoking his supreme royal merit, cultivated from ancient past lives until the present, to be the refuge for his troops and requested the divine powers to cause heavy rain to fall that night visibly and surely. At that time, the sky was clear without any clouds. By the power of his vow and divine grace, at 10:48 p.m., a heavy rainstorm fell, flooding the forest and carrying floating logs downstream miraculously. By morning, he rode his royal elephant to lead his troops to cross the mountain and proceeded to Lamphun city…” (From the Royal Chronicles, Vol. 2 Part 2, p. 40)

1.3 Who was the father of King Taksin the Great?

  • 1. King Taksin’s father had several names.

According to the book “The Miraculous Ancestors” — a traditional Thai manuscript written on mulberry paper (owned by Mom Chao Piyapakkadi Nat Supradit) — the father of King Taksin was named Hai Hong with the noble title Khun Phat (tax officer in the gambling tax department) during the reign of King Borommatrailokkanat (King Boromkosa). He was a wealthy merchant with abundant assets and owned many male and female slaves. He sought protection under Chao Phraya Chakri Samuhanayok, who lived near the city walls of Ayutthaya. The word “Hong” or “Heng” is from the Teochew dialect, while in the Beijing dialect it is pronounced “Feng.” Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn explained in her book “Return to the Land of the Tai Yai” (1998: 6) that:

“…The term ‘Hai Hong’ in Mandarin is pronounced ‘Haifeng,’ which is a district located south of Guangdong province, halfway to Tenghai and Shenzhen. The reference that King Taksin was from Tenghai originates from G. William Skinner’s book Chinese Society in Thailand (New York: Cornell University Press, 1975), which corresponds with the Chinese royal chronicles of the Qing dynasty under Emperor Qianlong. The Chinese historian recorded King Taksin’s biography stating: ‘Zheng Zhao’s father was from Guangdong province, who went to trade in Siam Loke Kok (Ayutthaya) where Zheng Zhao was born. As Zheng Zhao grew up, he became capable and entered official service in Siam Loke Kok. After Zheng Zhao defeated the Burmese, the people throughout the country raised him as ruler.’”

Note: “Zheng Zhao” is the Chinese name of King Taksin the Great according to the Beijing dialect. In Teochew dialect, it would be pronounced “Tai Jiao.” Pol. Lt. Col. Phisan Senawes (1972: 328) explained that “Hai Hong” was definitely a Hainanese Chinese name — as evidenced by the word “Hai,” which is a Hainanese surname. According to interviews with Chinese informants, surnames such as Han, Hu, and Hai exist only among Hainanese Chinese and not among other groups such as Teochew, Cantonese, or Hokkien. Furthermore, the term “Hainan” is believed to be a corrupted form of “Hainam,” which separates into “Hai” meaning ‘sea’ and “Nam” meaning ‘south,’ collectively meaning ‘South Sea.’ Geographically, it implies ‘an island in the South Sea.’”

  • 2. In “The Royal Chronicle of Cambodia,” translated by Pol. Capt. Luang Rueang Det Anan (Thongdee Thanarat — father of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat), there is a passage that mentions King Taksin as follows: “In the year 1131 of the Chula Sakkarat era (corresponding to 1770 CE), the Year of the Ox, King Tak (Sin), the son of a Chinese man named Hai Hong, residing in Ayutthaya, gathered forces to wage war against the Burmese and achieved victory. He drove the Burmese out of Siam and then proclaimed himself ruler in Ayutthaya. He sent royal envoys bearing a letter of proclamation to His Majesty King Narai the Ruler of Cambodia, together with royal gifts (including offerings of silver, gold, and flowers), to present to King Tak as a gesture of royal friendship, in continuation of the diplomatic relations from times past.” (Setuean Supasopon, 1984: p. 33)

  • 3. The Souvenir Book for the Inauguration of the King Taksin the Great Monument in Chanthaburi Province (1981: p.1) and the book King Taksin the Great, published by the Foundation for the Conservation of Historic Sites in the Old Palace (2000: p.164), state that the father of King Taksin the Great was a Chinese man with the surname Tae (Zheng) who had immigrated to Thailand. His name was Hai Hong. Later researchers discovered that Hai Hong is actually the name of a district in Teochew (Chaozhou) Province. The name of King Taksin’s father that appears in books written after the fall of the Manchu dynasty is Shen Yong (or Shen Yong, written with the same pronunciation). The name “Yong” appears in some sources, such as in the Thai Journal Vol. 19, Issue 71 (July–September 1999), in an article titled “The Reign of King Taksin the Great” by Praphat Trinarong (1999: p.17). However, other sources claim that “Yong” was the birth name of King Taksin himself, before he became the adopted son of Chao Phraya Chakri.
    This is mentioned in The Royal Biographies of the Nine Great Kings, written by M.R. Chonsawat Chompunut (1971: p.241), as well as in the Souvenir Book for the Inauguration of the King Taksin the Great Monument in Ratchaburi Province (1998: p.1).

  • 4. Phimpraphai Phisanakun (1998: p.94) wrote: “… In the year 1734 A.D. (2277 B.E.), a hero was born among the Teochew (Tae Chiew) community in Ayutthaya during the reign of King Borommakot. That hero was King Taksin the Great. His royal father bore the surname Tae and was named Yong. He came from Teng Hai District…”

  • 5. Mr. Sang Phathanothai (n.d.: pp. 23, 139), in “Visiting Teochew”, wrote: “… The ‘Haihong’ mentioned in the book is actually the name of a district in Teochew, not a person’s name. ‘Haihong’, ‘Hai Hong’, or ‘Haihŏng’—they’re all the same word. Today, it is the southernmost and smallest district of Shantou Province. In ancient times, it was likely very impoverished, which is why the father of King Taksin migrated to live in Ayutthaya…”

  • 6. Chusiri Jamroman (1984: p. 65) stated: “… The reason why the biographer used a district name as a person’s name might have been the idea of King Taksin’s father himself,
    because providing a place of origin would allow future generations to trace their ancestry if they wished.
    Just giving a name and surname alone might not be helpful,
    as many people share the same surname.
    King Taksin’s father bore the surname Tae (Teochew),
    which is pronounced Zheng in Mandarin Chinese.
    There are countless people with the surname Tae in Teochew…”

  • 7. Dr. Suree Phumiphomon (1996: 76) wrote, “…The father of King Taksin was named Mr. Yong, with the surname Tae. He was a Teochew Chinese, originally from Haihong, a small district in Shantou. He later settled in Khlong Suan Phlu and was recognized for his merit and service by being appointed as the tax collector of gambling operations in the town of Tak…”

  • 8. However, in the book “Vietnam Su Ky” or “The Annals of Annam”, translated over 80 years ago by a Vietnamese artillery officer named Mr. Yong (first published in 1900), it is stated that King Taksin’s father was a Teochew (Chaozhou) Chinese named Kok Huai, with the surname Tin: “One account says that the King of Thonburi, known as Chao Taksin, was of Teochew Chinese descent. His father, bearing the surname Tin, was named Kok Huai, and had established his household in the Ayutthaya region. When the ancient capital of Ayutthaya fell to the Burmese invaders, Phaya Taksin declared himself king and established a new capital at Bangkok Yai, which became known as Thonburi.”
    (Setuean Supasophon, 1984: 33)

  • 9. However, in the book “Who Killed King Taksin?” by Woramai Kabinsingh (1997: 6–7), it is stated that the father of King Taksin the Great was named Jian Lo (เจียนโล้ว), with the surname Lim (แซ่ลิ้ม). Jian Lo was the son of Jian Sun and Chuan Zhu. His wife was a Thai woman named Nang Nok Iang (นางนกเอี้ยง).

In conclusion, the father of King Taksin the Great has been referred to by several names, such as Hai Hong, Shen Yang (or Shen Yong), Yong, Kok Huai, and Jian Lo. His surname has also been identified in various sources as Saetae (แซ่แต้), Tin (แซ่ติ้น), or Lim (แซ่ลิ้ม). Some accounts describe him as a Teochew Chinese or of Cantonese descent, while Pol. Lt. Col. Phisan Senawet believed he was Hainanese.

It is evident that historians have yet to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the name and surname of King Taksin’s father. One historian, Weena Rojanarata (1997: 86), even proposed a perspective on this matter.

  1.  Regarding King Taksin’s father, after further investigation, it was found that the name “Hai Hong” refers to a district in Chaozhou Province, known in Mandarin as “Hai Feng” and in Teochew as “Hai Hong.” The book “Shi Shi Er Mei Zhu Xi” written in the People’s Republic of China after the fall of the Manchu dynasty states that King Taksin’s father’s original name was Shen Yong (or Shen Yong). He was from Guangdong Province, known for living a frivolous life and squandering his wealth, which led him to migrate to Siam (Thailand). By fortune, he became wealthy again through gambling. Nidhi Eoseewong, a prominent Thai historian, noted that based on older documents, K.S.R. Kulap was likely the first person to refer to the king’s father as “Yong with the surname Saetae (แซ่แต้)“, and that this may have served as a source for later Chinese writings. Moreover, Duan Li Sheng discovered a tomb containing King Taksin’s royal robes in Huafu Subdistrict, Chenghai District, Chaozhou, in eastern Guangdong Province, China (now known as Shantou). There is also a family ancestral shrine built in 1921 (B.E. 2464), which suggests that it may have been constructed by descendants of King Taksin’s royal line. They likely followed Chinese custom by burying the robes instead of the royal remains. This evidence points to the father’s family lineage residing in that area, which was known to be arid and harsh, prompting migration to Ayutthaya.
สุสานเสื้อผ้า สมเด็จพระเจ้าตากสินมหาราช เท่งไฮ่
(เซี่ยมล้อแต้อ๊วงตากสินไต้ตี่)
(ภาพจากดุจนาวากลางมหาสมุทร)

  1. Regarding the surname and original name of King Taksin, the available evidence is fairly consistent. According to the Thonburi Chronicle, Pan Chanthanuwat Edition (Cherm), Document No. 2/Khai, it is stated that King Taksin’s original name was “Jin Jaeng”, a cart merchant. The name “Jaeng” (แจ้ง), when pronounced in Mandarin, sounds like “Zheng,” and in Teochew, it matches the pronunciation “Saetae” (แต้). This aligns with the Qing Dynasty Chronicles, which, based on royal correspondence from Thonburi, recorded the king’s name as “Zheng Zhao.” Similarly, Duan Li Sheng, a Chinese scholar, referred to him as “Saetae-Sin” (แต้สิน).

3. As for the Chinese ancestry of King Taksin, most historical evidence indicates that he was of Teochew origin. However, the Qing chronicles present a differing view, suggesting that he was of Cantonese descent. Additionally, the Northern Chronicle No. 1 / Khai provides another perspective, asserting that he descended from King Makathok, a Mon monarch (Wina Rojanaratha, 1997: 86). Evidence of King Taksin the Great’s Chinese heritage is found in Thai royal chronicles. During the fall of the Ayutthaya Kingdom, thousands of Chinese joined the army under Phraya Kamphaeng Phet (later known as King Taksin) and fought fiercely against the Burmese invaders. When the resistance could no longer hold, Phraya Kamphaeng Phet led the combined Thai-Chinese forces through the enemy’s encirclement to regroup and continue the fight to save the nation. Upon reaching Rayong, Chinese-Thai communities living in nearby villages and forests, upon hearing of his arrival, came forward to pledge allegiance and offered to join the effort. This shows clearly that only someone like Phraya Kamphaeng Phet (King Taksin) could have successfully united the Thai and Chinese in such a way. King Taksin employed a commendable integration policy: he granted noble Thai titles and ranks to the Chinese who came to aid the nation. Names recorded in the chronicles include Luang Phiphit, Luang Phichai, Luang Phrom, Khun Cha Mueang Suea Rai, and Muen Thong, all of whom were appointed to command Chinese military divisions, particularly those armed with halberds. While stationed at Rayong, King Taksin was surrounded by enemy forces. The Chinese troops engaged the enemy in close combat, eventually causing them to flee. The Chinese pursued them for sixty to seventy sen (approximately 2.8 kilometers), after which King Taksin sounded the victory gong and recalled the troops. During the assault on Chanthaburi, a strategically important city, Thai chronicles record that Chinese soldiers participated in the attack and contributed to the victory. Once forces were consolidated at Chanthaburi, King Taksin led the unified Thai-Chinese army to strike at the Burmese encampments along the Chao Phraya River, focusing especially on the main camp at Pho Sam Ton. The Chinese troops were placed at the vanguard, engaging in combat from morning until noon before successfully capturing the Burmese stronghold. Afterward, King Taksin continued to lead his combined army to suppress rebel factions across the kingdom, ultimately restoring unity throughout the land (Sangk Pathanothai, n.d.: 143).

1.4 Who was the mother of King Taksin the Great?

King Taksin’s mother was a Thai woman named Nang Nok Iang. It is speculated that she might have been the daughter of a nobleman during the reign of King Borommakot or possibly the daughter of the governor of Phetchaburi.
(King Taksin the Great, Foundation for the Conservation of Ancient Monuments in the Old Palace, 2000: 13)

Dr. Suree Phumipamon (1996: 76) stated that the mother of King Taksin the Great was a noblewoman from Ban Laem, Phetchaburi Province.

Thuan Boonyaniyom (1970: 4) recounted that “Lady Nok-iang was the daughter of a high-ranking noble who served in the royal court of King Boromkoth. Her father presented her to serve closely as a lady-in-waiting to the king. Lady Nok-iang was a noblewoman of royal court beauty.”

Chusiri Jamraman (1984: 65) mentioned about King Taksin’s mother that “… it is often said that she was a Thai noblewoman from Ayutthaya (and some modern writers have described her as being young during the time when Prince Thammathibet was still alive, and that she once lived in the palace of that royal prince)….”

Woramai Kabilsingh (1997: 7) wrote that Nang Nok Yiang was the daughter of Phluuk and Thong Jeep. However, the Thai history of Ayutthaya, the Turpang edition printed in Paris in 1771, early in the Thonburi period, mentions King Taksin’s mother as follows: “The people rallied behind Phraya Tak, a Siamese noble whose mother was Chinese. He was both a politician and a warrior, paving the way for his greatness…” (Setuean Supasophon, 1984: 34). Meanwhile, Wina Rojanaratha (1997: 86) wrote that King Taksin’s father married a Thai woman named Luay Yang or Nang Nok Yang. Nithi Eawsriwong suggested that this name might have been a distorted form of the Thai name Nang Nok Yi

After King Taksin the Great ascended the throne, he bestowed upon his mother the royal title of Krom Phra Thephamat. She later fell ill with yo akkanesan (an old term possibly referring to a type of severe fever or infection) and passed away in B.E. 2317 (1774). (Sang Pathanothai, n.d.: 315)

 

1.5 Names and Titles of King Taksin the Great

The names used to refer to King Taksin the Great are numerous, and each name reflects a relationship and conveys the sentiment of the person addressing him.
(King Taksin the Great, by the Foundation for the Conservation of Historical Monuments in the Old Palace, 2000: pp. 18–22) Some of the most significant names include:

1. Kan-En Sue – Appeared in the Qing Dynasty archives up to the 8th month of the 37th year of Emperor Qianlong’s reign (1772 CE). This likely referred to Phraya Kamphaeng Phet.

2. Khun Luang Taksin – A name used by people during the Rattanakosin period.

3. Jeen Jang (Clear Chinese) – Found in Thai records written by people who lived during the Thonburi period.

4. Zheng Guo Eng – Appeared in the Danang Chronicles (Vietnamese records). It is pronounced in Mandarin, but Suree Phumiphonmon (1996: 78) said that the Vietnamese called him Jin Kok Huai, while Cantonese speakers called him Zheng Guo Ying.

5. Zheng Guo Ying – Found in Chinese sources in Mandarin pronunciation, meaning “Zheng, the Hero of the Nation.” This name appears in a letter from Phra Ya Rachasetthi (a Chinese man appointed as governor of Phutthaimat) to the governor of Guangdong, reporting on Siam after Ayutthaya’s fall.

6. Zheng Zhao or Zhen Zhao – Appeared in Qing dynasty official records. “Zheng Zhao” means “King Zheng.” Chinese people in Thailand have long used this name.

7. Chao Krung Thon (Lord of Thonburi) – Used by King Chulalongkorn (Rama V).

8. Chao Taksin – Used by King Mongkut (Rama IV).

9. Chao Mueang Tak (Lord of Tak) – A title from when he served as the governor of Tak.

10. Chao Mueang Rahaeng (Lord of Rahaeng) – Tak and Rahaeng were twin cities.

11. Taksin – Mentioned in the “Testimonies of the Inhabitants of the Old Capital,” referring to him either as the governor of Tak or Rahaeng.

12. Tae Chiew – Appears in royal correspondence sent to the Chinese emperor.

13. Tae Sin – Found in the writings of Duan Li Sheng, a Chinese scholar, referring to the king’s father.

14. Tae Sin Tak – King Mongkut (Rama IV) used this version among Chinese communities; it’s a Thai-styled name.

15. Tia Sin Tat or Tia Sin Tuat – Found in information given by King Mongkut to Dr. Smith about Chinese naming customs. Tia is the Chinese surname “Tae,” Sin is the personal name, and Tat/Tuat refers to Tak.

16. Pi Iia Sin – Appears in Qing dynasty records. A transliteration of the Thai title “Phra Ya Tak.”

17. Phaendin Ton (The First Reign) – Found in the memoirs of Princess Narintorn Thewi.

18. Phra Ya Tak – Early records referred to him by this title during the fight to reclaim Ayutthaya.

19. Phra Ya Taksin – Appears in testimony from prisoners of the fallen capital. Possibly used to distinguish him from any other officials named “Phra Ya Tak.”

20. Phra Si Sanphet Somdet Phra Boromma Thammikarat – Found in Thai-black-script manuscripts and in royal correspondence between Thonburi and the Kingdom of Luang Prabang (Laos), 1778 CE.

21. Father (Pho) – The king referred to himself with this term.

22. Somdet Phra Chao Krung Thonburi Maharaj – Mentioned in the writings of Natthawut Sutthisongkhram.

23. Somdet Phra Chao Taksin Krung Thonburi – Appears in Cabinet Secretariat documents dated April 12, 1954, regarding the unveiling of his royal statue.

24. Somdet Phra Boromma No Phutthangkun – Mentioned in the royal chronicles of the Thonburi era.

25. Somdet Phra Boromma Rajathi IV, Lord of Thonburi – Appears in the Royal Autograph Chronicle edition.

26. Sin – The name “Sin” was likely his personal name, used or known during the late Ayutthaya and Thonburi periods.

27. Leader of the Siamese Tribal Kingdom – The Qing court used this title before formally recognizing his status as king. From the 4th month of the 37th year of Emperor Qianlong’s reign, they began referring to him as Zheng Zhao.

1.6 Did King Taksin the Great have any siblings?

Woramai Kapilsingh (1997: 8) wrote that Mr. Jianlou, whose surname was Lim, and Madam Nok-Iang had their first son, who had fair skin and delicate features like his mother. His facial features and overall appearance were unusually beautiful for a boy of that age group. He was named Jian Sin according to auspicious timing. Later, they had two more sons, named Jian Si and Jian Jin, as well as three daughters, whom Madam Nok-Iang named Prayong, Prayat, and Prayom (or Phayom). All three daughters were described as beautiful, with delicate skin and well-proportioned figures, resembling their mother.

1.7 Where was King Taksin the Great’s original residence or birthplace?

The original residence of King Taksin the Great is said to have been located in front of the residence of Chaophraya Chakri, near the city wall of Ayutthaya (Prapat Trinarong, 1999: 18). However, another account by Voramai Kabilsingh (1997: 6–7) offers a different perspective, stating: “In the town of Sam Khok (present-day Pathum Thani), an area known for its fertile plains and abundant rivers, there stood a large house by the riverside. The owner was a Chinese-Thai man named Jian Lo, bearing the Lim (Lin) surname. His wife was a Thai woman named Nok Iang. The couple were industrious and built their livelihood using the inheritance received from their parents. They began by trading in milled rice and gradually expanded their enterprise into a rice milling operation. They purchased unhusked rice, milled it, and sold the polished product. Eventually, they acquired boats to transport rice for sale to Ayutthaya and Suphanburi, gaining a reputation among merchants and officials in those towns and in the capital city of Ayutthaya.”

1.8 สมเด็จพระเจ้าตากสินฯ ทรงมีบิดาบุญธรรมจริงหรือ ?

ChatGPT said:

There is a story that “Chaophraya Chakri adopted him and gave him the name Nai Sin” (Phuea Phaendin Thai, n.d.: 41). In the book Salutations to Distinguished Figures, Volume 3, Praphat Trinarong (1991: 1) wrote that “His Majesty received kind patronage from Chaophraya Samuhanaayok during the reign of King Borommarachathirat I (King Borommakot).” Sanan Silakorn (1988: 3–4) wrote, “Later, Chaophraya Chakri expressed his wish to adopt the boy named Sin and raise him as his adopted son.” In the book Miraculous Ancestors, it is stated that in his early years, according to the chronicle of Phra Achan Thongdee of Wat Kosawad, “…From the time that Chaophraya Chakri adopted the son of a Chinese man from Haiphong and raised him as his adopted son until he matured, he received fortune and great wealth. Chaophraya Chakri then named the boy ‘Nai Sin’…”

Thuan Boonyaniyom (1970: 5) wrote in detail about why the father and mother of King Taksin the Great decided to give him up for adoption to Chaophraya Chakri as follows: “Khun Phat was deeply fearful for various reasons (based on the miraculous signs or auspicious omens surrounding King Taksin the Great, Nos. 1–3), so he consulted with Lady Nok Iang. In the end, they decided not to raise the child themselves. Khun Phat was a man who strongly believed in omens, and since the child had been born amidst two misfortunes within three days, he feared that keeping the boy might bring repeated calamities. Part of him believed that the child had a great destiny, but he could not raise him himself. Khun Phat ultimately decided not to keep the boy in his care.”

The story that Khun Phat would not raise the child himself eventually reached Chaophraya Chakri Sri Samuha Nayok (a position equivalent to the Minister of the Interior for the northern region, paired with the Samuha Kalahom who oversaw the southern region in that era). Chaophraya, upon learning of the two miraculous events—first, a bolt of lightning struck directly at the roof beam in front of the delivery room without harming the newborn; second, a large python coiled peacefully around the birthing tray before calmly uncoiling and slithering away—regarded these signs as auspicious omens for the infant’s future. He believed that if the child indeed possessed such destiny and virtue, he should be raised and nurtured by someone of great merit. Being a naturally compassionate man with a fondness for children, Chaophraya Chakri, upon hearing that Khun Phat would not raise his own son, immediately offered to adopt and care for the boy. Though Lady Nok Iang was deeply saddened at the thought of giving up her beloved son, she eventually agreed in deference to her husband’s wishes. It took time and gentle persuasion for her to accept this difficult decision. Moreover, Chaophraya Chakri was a highly respected benefactor, and the child would remain within the household compound, allowing her to still see him each morning and evening. With both parents finally consenting, Chaophraya Chakri was overjoyed and took the child in, raising him with great honor and affection as his adopted son.

“… Chaophraya Chakri Sri Samuha Nayok, after taking the adopted son into his care, experienced great fortune and wealth that flowed abundantly, surpassing his previous prosperity. Because Chaophraya’s wealth and assets increased significantly after taking the young boy as his adopted son, he bestowed upon the child the name “Sin.” He also had his hair braided in a queue (a traditional Chinese hairstyle) instead of a topknot to preserve the boy’s Chinese lineage. Chaophraya held deep affection and care for the young Sin, nurturing and raising him as if he were his very own biological son.”

Regarding the father of King Taksin the Great, some writers have questioned whether he was truly the son of Nai Hao Hong. They also wonder why Chaophraya Chakri requested to adopt him as a foster son and honored him without any disdain despite his Chinese heritage. Various hypotheses and differing opinions have been proposed, such as

    1. Thuan Boonyaniyom (1970: 16-17), in an additional critique section, wrote: “It has been mentioned earlier that there is no clear evidence regarding the reason for the marriage between Lady Nok Yiang and Khun Phat. However, the author found in two to three chronicles that it can be summarized that the Viceroy (Maha Uparat) during the reign of King Boromkhol (Boromkhot) was named Prince Thammathibet (Kung). He was a distinguished poet but was notorious for his romantic affairs even within the palace, to the extent that he was nicknamed ‘The Madly in Love Prince.’ He had affairs with Princess Sangwan and Princess Nim, wives of the king’s father. When King Boromkhol learned of this, he investigated and confirmed the truth, which led to the prince’s execution. It is possible that Lady Nok Yiang was a secret consort of the Maha Uparat and became pregnant, after which she was sent away to marry Khun Phat, a wealthy tax official. Both Khun Phat and Lady Nok Yiang likely understood and accepted this situation. Likewise, Chaophraya Chakri Srisamunaiyak probably knew the truth as well. One chronicle mentions that when Nai Sin was still a young boy, if his hair braid was not kept, he resembled someone with great merit and noble status, but Chaophraya did not reveal this to anyone.”

    1. Sanan Silakorn (1988: 104-106) cited the opinion of archaeologist Ajarn Kongdej Prapatthong from the Archaeology Division, Fine Arts Department, who wrote about the mystery surrounding the origins of King Taksin in the article “Prisana Khun Luang Taksin,” published in the journal Silpa Watthanatham, Vol. 6, No. 8, June 1985, pp. 85–93. He proposed that King Taksin might have been a royal illegitimate son of King Boromkhol, supporting this hypothesis with the following reasoning:

      “Late Ayutthaya society was strictly hierarchical and status-conscious. It is highly unlikely that Chaophraya Chakri (of Wat Rongkhong), a high-ranking official, would willingly accept and fully support a Chinese child as his adopted son, providing him with complete education and advancing him rapidly through government ranks to become governor of Tak at only 33 years old, unless that child was of noble blood. The social scrutiny over lineage and status was even more stringent than today. Without noble birth, it would have been impossible to reach a rank as high as Chaophraya or city governor. Therefore, the idea that he was merely the adopted son of Chaophraya Chakri, who himself was formerly of Wat Rongkhong, and originally of Chinese descent or mixed blood, is almost impossible. High-ranking officials, even former ones, lived within social environments that imposed strict controls on lineage recognition. Acceptance as an adopted son with full status would have been difficult; at best, the child might be considered a servant or retainer, not a true family member. Observations of Khun Luang Taksin’s concern for the royal family of Ayutthaya in its final days, as recorded in the memoirs of Krom Luang Narintara Devi (see notes at the end of the chapter), indicate his strong loyalty to the Ayutthaya royal lineage. This suggests that he respected the royal family, possibly indicating that he himself was related to the Ayutthaya royal bloodline. It is possible that the mystery about his origin is like ‘water seeping beneath the sand’—a hidden secret of his royal lineage. If he had foreign or mixed blood, he would have been unlikely to uphold the original Ayutthaya royal family or strive to restore the nation during its collapse. A person of foreign descent would prioritize personal safety rather than endure hardship for the people. If Khun Luang Taksin was not the son of the Chinese man named Nai Hai Hong, a wealthy tax official, then the fact that Chaophraya Chakri, after retiring, took him in as an adopted son must conceal a profound and secret background. Perhaps his mother was a lady-in-waiting or consort of King Boromkhol before he was crowned king.”

During the time when King Boromkhol was still the Front Palace (heir apparent) and the elder brother King Chsethathirat was nearing the end of his reign, a turbulent power struggle erupted between the Front Palace and the Royal Palace. As these events unfolded, or even before any major actions were taken, the King likely contemplated ways to safeguard his loyal courtiers—both from his own court and the Front Palace faction—from the impending dangers. If things went wrong, their futures would be doomed, and even their families and servants might be completely wiped out.

Because of this uncertain and dangerous situation, the King found it necessary to quietly relocate his lesser-known concubines and their children—those who were not widely recognized—to safe and secret places where no one could find them. However, the sons, daughters, and principal wives who were already publicly acknowledged had no choice but to face the dangers alongside him. After the threat passed and he ascended fully to the throne as King, some of those relocated courtiers returned, while others may have been lost or prevented from regaining their rightful status. It is possible that the King secretly maintained communication with trusted close courtiers, entrusting them to protect and nurture these hidden family members discreetly. In this context, Chaophraya Chakri, a retired high official of Wat Rongkhong, acted as the foster father to Khun Luang Tak (later King Taksin), effectively protecting a royal bloodline from the deadly rivalries that plagued the royal family at the time. This hidden protection was a crucial safeguard against the destruction brought on by jealousy and hatred within the royal house. Considering this hypothesis makes one pause, especially when noting the rapid rise of Khun Luang Tak’s career in government service. His birth year is firmly recorded as 2277 BE (1734 CE), just one year after King Boromkhol ascended the throne. When King Boromkhol’s reign ended in 2301 BE (1758 CE), Khun Luang Tak was only 24 years old. From then until 2310 BE (1767 CE), the final year of Ayutthaya’s existence under King Suriyamarin (King Ekathat), Khun Luang Tak had risen to the position of Phraya Wachiraprakarn or Phraya Kamphaeng Phet, a strategically important frontier city north of Ayutthaya. Although Kamphaeng Phet was ranked just below Phitsanulok in importance, Khun Luang Tak likely never returned to govern the city properly because he was called to serve in Ayutthaya during the Burmese invasions. He may have been the last governor of Kamphaeng Phet. After Ayutthaya fell in 2310 BE, Khun Luang Tak reclaimed the kingdom’s independence within less than a year, establishing Thonburi as the new capital at age 33.

  • Veena Rojanaratha (1997: 85-86) critiqued the claim that King Taksin was the adopted son of Chaophraya Chakri Samuhanayok. She cited historian Nithi Eawsriwong, who interpreted that this adoption story was likely invented later to make King Taksin appear more culturally “Thai” to Thai people. When examining historical evidence, it turns out that the Chaophraya Chakri who could have adopted Nai Sin (King Taksin’s birth name) died very early. This makes it unlikely he could have been the patron who supported King Taksin’s education and entry into royal service as a page. Furthermore, there’s no solid historical record proving that this particular Chaophraya Chakri really existed. Prapat Trinarong wrote in The Reign of King Taksin the Great (Part 1) in Thai Journal (Vol. 19, No. 7, July–September 1999: 18-20), referencing Lieutenant Commander Yot Khajornyot of the Navy’s Historical Division, author of The Royal Biography of King Taksin of Thonburi. Lt. Cmdr. Yot provided a footnote clarifying the history of Chaophraya Chakri as follows:

    Chaophraya Chakri appears in the Ayutthaya Royal Chronicles (compiled by Somdet Krom Phra Borommanuchit Chinoros) during King Boromkhol’s reign. In year 1096 of the Chula Sakarat calendar (2276 BE), Luang Cha Saenya Korn was appointed Chaophraya Chakri. However, the Royal Chronicle, Royal Letters edition, volume 2 part 1, states that Luang Cha Saenya Korn was appointed Chaophraya Aphai Montri as acting Samuhanayok (Prime Minister of the Northern Department). This person died in the year of the Dog, Chula Sakarat 1104 (2285 BE), when King Taksin was 8 years old. After that, Phraya Ratchaphakdi was appointed Chaophraya Ratchaphakdi as the new Samuhanayok. The term “Chaophraya Chakri” is actually the official title of the Samuhanayok position. Whoever holds the Samuhanayok office is called Chaophraya Chakri regardless of their personal name. So, by this logic, King Taksin must have been under the patronage of at least two successive Samuhanayok officials during his early life, up until he was about 24 years old.

According to a later royal biography, Chao Phraya Chakri (originally Luang Ja Saenyakorn, who was later promoted to Chao Phraya Aphai Montri, the Samuhanayok or Prime Minister of Civil Affairs) adopted Sin (King Taksin) as his adoptive son and gave him the name Sin.

When Sin was five years old (some sources say nine), he was sent to study Thai and Khmer scripts as well as the Tripitaka (Buddhist scriptures) with Phra Achan Thongdee Maha Thera at Wat Kosawat.

He studied at Wat Kosawat until he reached the age of 13, when he underwent the traditional topknot-cutting ceremony (Sokkan). After that, Chao Phraya Chakri brought him to the royal court to serve as a royal page (Maha Lek) under King Borommakot, who assigned him to serve under Luang Nai Sak, the son of Chao Phraya Chakri.

This Chao Phraya Chakri was likely Chao Phraya Ratchapakdi, since Chao Phraya Chakri (Chao Phraya Aphai Montri) had already passed away in the Year of the Dog, Chula Sakarat 1104 (B.E. 2285), as previously mentioned.

1.9 How did King Taksin the Great receive his education?

When he was around 8–9 years old, Chao Phraya Chakri brought the boy Sin to study under Phra Ajahn Thongdee at Wat Kosawat (also known as Wat Khlang or Wat Choeng Tha), a temple built by Chao Phraya Chakri himself during his tenure as Minister of Finance (Kosa Thibodi) (Praphat Trinarong, 1991: p.1). Phra Ajahn Thongdee was entrusted with teaching him various disciplines. Young Sin learned the Thai language, becoming literate in reading and writing, as well as Khmer script, and studied the Tripitaka (Buddhist scriptures) until he reached the age of 13 (Thuan Boonyaniyom, 1970: 6–7).

Woramai Kabilsingh (1997: pp. 8–9) wrote: “When he grew older, he became a disciple of Phra Ajahn Suk of Wat Phraya Mueang, who was himself a student from the monastic school of Wat Phanthai in the district of Wiset Chai Chan. He was ordained and studied under him. As for the Chinese language, he studied with a Chinese teacher (Sin Sae).

When he was about to enter royal service, his father personally brought him to be introduced to a senior official he knew — Phraya Ratchasuphawadi (the elder) of Ban Pratu Jeen (Chinese Gate Village), who was also of Chinese descent.”

… “Chao Phraya Sin (later King Taksin the Great) was an intelligent man, fluent in both Thai and Chinese, diligent and committed to his duties.”

Thuan Boonyaniyom (1970: p. 11) wrote: “Ever since Nai Sin (later King Taksin) entered royal service in the Grand Palace, he was constantly eager to acquire knowledge. He studied at the Royal Academy, which included Thai, Chinese, and Persian scholars. In Thai language, he studied literature, poetics, classical verse forms such as khlong, chan, krap and klon poetry.

In the field of military science, he studied the Art of War, military strategy, and weaponry. He trained in the use of all types of weapons available at the time—on elephant back, on horseback, and as infantry—until he gained such skill and agility that he was unmatched.”

Chusiri Jamroeman (1984 [2527 B.E.]: pp. 83–85) summarized in Historical Report: Archaeological Documents, Year 18, Volume 1 (January–December 1984) as follows:

In another aspect of education that King Taksin the Great is believed to have taken an interest in from a young age—and continued to pursue even after ascending the throne—was the study of vipassanā meditation. He likely studied this both through personal practice and under the guidance of various teachers he encountered, particularly Phra Achan Suk, who had once been his preceptor. Additionally, he is thought to have shown interest in astrology, as evidenced by the fact that during times of both personal and national crisis, he would often engage in meditation and would occasionally predict the future of court officials and royal attendants using astrological calculations based on traditional manuals. One area of study that is not commonly recorded in his royal biography is his education in Thai language and literature, including composition. From the results of this early education, it is believed he attained a profound understanding of Thai literary arts and composition. As proof of this, his own literary work—a dramatic version of the Ramakien (the Thai Ramayana)—stands as a testament. Moreover, the King was also proficient in Chinese and Vietnamese, which he used fluently when conversing with monks from those countries.

Veena Rojanarat (1997: p. 87) cited Nidhi Eoseewong, stating that upon analyzing and examining the available primary sources, many aspects remain ambiguous and lack credibility. For example, the account of King Taksin’s education prior to entering royal service as a royal page—which is said to have been derived from the Chronicle of Phra Achan Thongdee Maha Thera as referenced in “The Miraculous Ancestors”—is considered unreliable. It is highly unlikely that a monk would have documented the life of an ordinary child, not knowing he would one day become a great king. However, when considering King Taksin’s dramatic composition of the Ramakien, it becomes more plausible that he possessed substantial knowledge of Buddhism, Thai customs and traditions, as well as an education befitting a noble Thai upbringing. This education may have come from his mother, who was Thai. As for his fluent command of the Chinese language and his affinity for certain Chinese customs, this might be attributed to responsibilities he inherited from his father, perhaps involving trade—common among the Chinese at the time. There is no evidence, however, that he ever served as a tax farmer like his father had.

This aligns with what Dr. Suree Phumipamon (1996: 77) stated—that before receiving royal favor and being appointed governor of Tak, King Taksin was involved in wagon trading in Tak, transporting forest products and goods from the north to Ayutthaya. According to the Thonburi Chronicle by Phan Chanthanumat (Choem), prior to his appointment as Phraya Tak, he worked as a wagon trader. If this is accurate, the profession likely helped preserve his Chinese cultural identity and shaped experiences that later proved crucial in reclaiming national sovereignty. These included military skills, familiarity with the northern territories of Ayutthaya, proficiency in Chinese, Vietnamese, and Lao languages, and close connections with local people who became important allies in the fight for independence.

1.10 When did King Taksin enter the monkhood?

At the age of 13, he was ordained as a novice monk at Sam Wihan Temple (also called Sam Pihan), outside Ayutthaya, to receive further education.

When he reached the age for full ordination, Nai Sin was ordained as a monk at Wat Kosawas, where Phra Ajarn Thongdee was the abbot. He stayed in the monkhood for 3 Rains Retreats (vassa) before disrobing to return to government service, and he did not wear the topknot hairstyle again. (Tuang Boonyayom, 1970: 9, 15-16)

Wat Kosawas is an important temple located on the left bank of the Lopburi River, directly opposite the Tai Sanom Fort and the Pak Tho Canal, to the north of the city island near Koo Mai Rong, where the royal barges were kept. It is situated in Tha Wasukri Subdistrict, Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya District, Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Province. This is an ancient temple built during the Ayutthaya period. Originally, it was called Wat Koi Tha. According to legend, a beautiful daughter of a wealthy man ran away with her lover. Her father waited with love and sorrow for her return and built a pavilion in hopes that if she came back to apologize, he would forgive her and give her the pavilion. After waiting many years without seeing his daughter return, he built a temple and dedicated the pavilion to the temple.

Later, the temple became known as Wat Teen Tha or Wat Choeng Tha because it was a gathering place for grass used to feed elephants and horses in the palace. When Chaophraya Kosathibodi (Pan) renovated the temple during the reign of King Narai the Great, its name was changed to Wat Kosawas. The temple was considered important because it was a major educational center for monks. Additionally, there were monks skilled in various crafts such as painting, carving, and inscribing on palm leaves, who were able to pass on their knowledge to their disciples very well.

Wat Choeng Tha

However, some people say that this temple was also called Wat Khlang, but Chalerm Sukkasem disagreed, stating that this name was never used. He explained in the book “Archaeology,” Volume 2, Issue 2 that Wat Khlang was actually the former name of Wat Samnakot, located in Phai Ling subdistrict, Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya district. Chaophraya Kosathibodi (Lek) and Chaophraya Kosathibodi (Pan) were responsible for renovating that temple. Originally, Wat Khlang’s full name was Wat Phra Ya Khlang, named after the official position called “Phra Ya Khlang” (general term for the officer in charge of the treasury or stores). When the temple was renovated, it took that name.

Currently, Wat Kosawas—the temple where King Taksin the Great studied with Phra Ajarn Thongdee Maha Thera—is known as Wat Choeng Tha. It is said that King Rama IV ordered the temple’s name to be changed to Wat Kosawas, similar to Wat Choeng Tha in Lopburi province, which is located by the river near Phra Narai Ratchaniwet Palace that the king renovated. (Reference: Prapat Trinarong, 2000: 20)

1.11 How was the royal service of King Taksin the Great during the reign of King Boromkhoja and during the reign of King Ekatat (Phra Thinang Suriyamarin)?

At about the age of 13, young Sin entered royal service as a page to King Boromkhoja, alongside Luang Nai Sak, the son of Chao Phraya Chakri. Later, when he reached the age of ordination (around 21 years old), he respectfully asked for permission to leave and ordain as a monk. He stayed in the monastic life for three years at Wat Kosawas. After disrobing, he returned to royal service as before (Chusiri Chamran, 1984: 82).

Upon disrobing, he resumed his duties in the royal court of King Boromkhoja. The king, recognizing Sin’s deep knowledge of customs and traditions, assigned him the role of a page responsible for reporting all official matters in the Ministry of Interior and the Royal Court Office (Commemoration of the Opening of the King Taksin Monument, Chanthaburi Province, 1981: 18). Furthermore, due to the king’s confidence in Sin’s other abilities, he was appointed as the supervisor of the court’s judicial affairs within the Royal Court Office as well.

Sample image of the Royal Lion Emblem
(Image from the book 100 Years of the Ministry of Interior and Thai Journal)

Later, His Majesty graciously appointed him as the royal envoy carrying the Lion Seal to adjudicate cases in the northern cities, because he possessed legal knowledge. He judged with decisiveness, honesty, and fairness, showing no fear of any influence.

Note
From the book 100 Years of the Ministry of Interior (1992: 85-92; http://www.moi.go.th/sign.htm, accessed August 30, 2004), it is stated that the emblem and colors of the Ministry of Interior have evolved from official seals used for government positions. In ancient times, position seals were considered extremely important because official documents since the Ayutthaya period were stamped with these position seals rather than being signed by hand. Somdet Chao Fa, Krom Phra Naritsaranuwattiwong, explained that “In the past, people did not use signatures but instead used personal or position seals to stamp in place of signatures. Therefore, both the monarch and commoners involved in official documents had their own seals for identification.”

Personal and official seals originally followed the tradition of being granted as royal honors or ranks. The royal seal granted could be either a seal previously used by the monarch or a newly made one as commanded by the king. Once granted, it was no longer called a royal seal but referred specifically to the seal used for stamping. Those who received the granted seal, if it was a personal seal, had to return it upon death; if it was an official seal, it had to be returned after leaving the position. No one was allowed to keep or continue using it otherwise. This was considered a form of rank or honor. For important positions, His Majesty the King would personally grant the seal.

Prince Krom Phraya Naritsaranuwattiwong also offered an hypothesis concerning the origin of ministerial emblems:

“The ‘Lion Emblem’ likely appeared first because, originally, there was only one senabodi (minister) position—second in authority only to the king in all governmental affairs. However, this office was especially associated with military command, hence the term ‘senabodi’ implied leadership in the army. To honor their courage, the emblem of the royal lion (‘narasingha’) was adopted, since ‘nara’ (man) combined with ‘singha’ (lion) denotes a brave warrior.Later, as governmental duties expanded, one person could no longer manage both civil and military affairs, so a second senabodi was created to share the burden. For this new office, an emblem was chosen to complement the lion: the ‘Elephant-Lion Emblem’ (‘kachasinha’). In fact, ‘kachasinha’ likely derives from an earlier honorific ‘narasingha,’ meant to praise a valiant elephant as akin to a royal lion. Eventually even two senabodis proved insufficient, leading to the establishment of four additional ministerial posts—collectively called ‘Chatusadomphat’—to assist in administrative duties.

The royal lion emblem, as it appears on the seals of the “Three Seals Law” from the reign of King Rama I, differs from the royal lion emblem currently in use. Prince Krom Phraya Naritsaranuwattiwong hypothesized that this was likely because the original seals had been used so extensively that their carvings had worn shallow, necessitating a re-engraving. However, the re-engraving was only partial, and thus a completely new seal had to be made. (Re-engraving means deepening the carved grooves so the design stands out more clearly. The ritual of re-engraving a seal follows the same ceremonial procedures as engraving a new seal, including selecting an auspicious time, monks chanting Buddhist prayers, and a consecration ceremony at a mandala, similar to the inscription ceremony of the Suphanabat royal decree—except the re-engraving ritual does not include a Brahmin priest.)

The craftsman who created the new seal may not have copied the old design exactly or perhaps never even saw the original seal, resulting in differing designs. However, an observation regarding the use of the royal lion emblem as the official emblem of the Minister of Interior and the Ministry itself is that since the time when Somdet Krom Phraya Damrong Rajanubhab served as Minister of Interior until the present, the appearance of the royal lion emblem symbolizing the Ministry of Interior—as seen on buildings, materials, and equipment—varies widely. There is no single standardized form of the royal lion emblem. For example, the royal lion on the seven official seals differs in posture, accompanying patterns, and even the direction the lion faces.

The stucco royal lion decoration on the pediment of the Ministry of Interior building (constructed during the reign of King Rama V) looks different, surrounded by a pattern resembling a lotus bud rather than the circular pattern seen on the official seals. During King Rama VI’s reign, when the Ministry of Interior’s naval flag was established, the royal lion emblem decorating the corners of the flag showed the lion standing on a pedestal without a surrounding circle.

From this, it can be inferred that since the monarch granted the royal lion emblem as the official seal for the position of Samuhanayok (Prime Minister) and later it became the official emblem for the Minister of Interior, regardless of the artistic variations made for aesthetic suitability in different usages, the royal lion emblem has always symbolized “Interior Ministry” as a whole. This is because no legal statute specifies any strict design to be followed.

Nevertheless, if there were to be a consensus on a standard design, it might be worthwhile to consider the writings of Phya Anuman Rajadhon, who stated: “… When the government changed to a democratic system, the official seal for the ministerial position ceased to be used (signatures became the primary means of authorization), except as the official emblem of the ministry…”

The fact that King Borommakot entrusted such duties to a relatively young royal official suggests that he was aware that Nai Sin had a keen interest in studying and possessed substantial knowledge in law and government administration. During the three years Nai Sin spent as a novice monk, it is likely he did not study only Buddhist doctrine but also sought secular knowledge—possibly reading, writing, and learning from senior monks who had previously served in government.

His legal work first became recognized during the reign of King Ekathat, when the king appointed Nai Sin to go settle disputes in the northern cities. Upon his return and report, the king was pleased and appointed him as Luang Yok Krabat in the city of Tak to assist Phra Ya Tak in royal duties.

Somphop Chantraprapa mentioned in the story of “Luang Yuk Krabat Ratchaburi” about the official duties of the king (referring to King Rama I, who once held the title Luang Yuk Krabat Ratchaburi) that when he served as a royal page, he performed good deeds and was promoted to Right Assistant to Nai Ritthipakdi. He was later elevated to the noble rank of Luang with the royal title Luang Yuk Krabat. This position was an ancient official post under the Ministry of the Palace, responsible for overseeing legal matters in the provinces. It was akin to a modern-day prosecutor or head of court administration, and the role also included managing military supplies, which was a relatively minor task. According to Mom Ratchawong Kukrit Pramoj’s writing in “Japanese Scene,” the Yuk Krabat was charged with supervising nobles in the provinces to ensure they fulfilled their duties honestly and loyally.

Map showing the location of Tak Province
(Image from the book “Map of Thailand”)

King Taksin the Great performed his duties as Luang Yuk Krabat (District Officer) or Governor of Tak Province successfully, and was subsequently promoted in both rank and title to Phraya Tak, replacing the former Phraya Tak who had passed away. At that time, Tak Province was extremely important as a frontier between Siam and Burma in the north. The person appointed to this position had to be intelligent and earn the royal trust. After the former governor and the city’s chief official had passed away, His Majesty graciously appointed him as Governor of Tak, despite him being not yet 30 years old.

Map showing the locations of various temples in Ayutthaya
(Image from the book “Ayutthaya”)

When the reign of King Boromkot ended in 1758 (B.E. 2301), Krom Khun Phonphinit, his son, ascended the throne with the royal title King Boromratchathirat IV. He was also commonly known by other names such as Khun Luang Ha Wat and King Uthumphon. This king of Ayutthaya was praised as “the best of the Suan Phlu dynasty.” However, he reigned for only about two months (some sources say just over three months) before he was forced to abdicate in favor of his elder brother, Krom Khun Anurakmontri, to avoid a potential civil war, which he did not wish to see. After abdicating, he ordained as a monk at Wat Ayothaya (Wat Ayodhya or the Old Temple), later residing at Wat Pradu Songtham. When Krom Khun Anurakmontri ascended the throne as King Boromratchathirat III—also known by other titles such as King Ekathat and King Suriyasamarin—he became the last monarch of Ayutthaya. Later, King Taksin the Great held the position of Phraya Tak (sometimes called Phraya Taksin) and governed Tak Province, gaining widespread respect and popularity. He also had the royal patronage to establish a temple called Wat Khoi Khao Kaew, commonly known by locals as Wat Phraya Taksin, located by the Ping River and the Mae Tho stream in Pa Mamuang Subdistrict, Mueang Tak District. (Reference: Praphat Trinarong, 2000 : 21)

King Taksin the Great, when he held the position of governor of Tak, led his officials to swear the oath of loyalty (holding the sacred water oath) at Wat Khoi Khao Kaew or Wat Doi Khao Kaew in Tak Province. (Image from the book King Taksin the Great)

Wat Khoi Khao Kaew, also known as Wat Doi Khao Kaew or Wat Phra Chao Taksin, is located in Mae Tho Subdistrict, about 250 meters from the Ping River. The historical site consists of an ordination hall (bot) with paired boundary stones (bai sema), a pagoda (chedi), and a replica of the Buddha’s footprint inside the bot. In front, there are two pagodas which enshrine the ashes of King Taksin’s mother and father. (Image from http://www.thai.net/MAESOT_MET/tourist.htm)

The church wall at Wat Khoi Khao Kaew in Mae Tho Subdistrict, Mueang Tak District, is damaged. Wat Khoi Khao Kaew, also known as Wat Khoi Don Kaew, is situated on a hill about 30 wa above the plain. There is a broken pagoda on the site. Legend has it that King Taksin the Great, when he held the title Phraya Wachiraprakarn, prayed and sought omens before leading the defense against the Burmese invasion. During this time, he threw the top of the pagoda, which broke and fell into the temple courtyard in the middle of Suan Dok Garden. The pagoda remains broken to this day at Wat Khoi Khao Kaew. About 300 meters down the hill, on the plain below, lies Wat Klang Suan Dok (also called Wat Khao Kaew), where another pagoda was built by King Taksin at the spot where the broken pagoda top fell. It is said that he achieved victory by the power of his prayers and omens from this place.
(Image and text from the book King Taksin the Great Conqueror)

Later, in 1760 (B.E. 2303), while serving in the city of Tak, he went to make merit at Wat Khoi Khao Kaew and Wat Doi Klang, which are neighboring temples in Ban Rahaeng Subdistrict, Tak city district. There is a famous story recorded in the book Miracles of the Ancestors, citing the chronicles of the abbot of Wat Khoi Khao Kaew. It tells that he prayed and cast a wooden stick, which precisely struck the middle of a narrow-necked glass cup, breaking it. The unbroken parts of the glass cup were then used to build a pagoda that enshrined sacred relics of the Buddha. When he became the governor of Tak, he improved the city until it prospered. (At that time, Tak was an important frontier city guarding the central region of Thailand.)

In 1764 B.E. (1764 A.D.), King Ekathat appointed Phraya Tak Sin as Phraya Wachiraprakarn (some records refer to him as Phraya Wichianprakarn), the governor of Kamphaeng Phet, which was then a major frontier city. He had to come to Ayutthaya to receive his official commission. Before he could return to Kamphaeng Phet, the Burmese army invaded the kingdom and laid siege to Ayutthaya. The new governor was ordered to stay and assist in the war effort in Ayutthaya, which led to his reputation growing widely as a skilled warrior. (Source: King Taksin the Great by the Foundation for the Preservation of the Ancient Monuments in the Old Palace, 2000:16) When the Burmese frontline troops advanced into the city, Phraya Wachiraprakarn led his forces fiercely to resist the invaders. The Burmese siege of Ayutthaya lasted for nearly three years.

Note:
The Chronicles of Memories is a Thai historical chronicle that briefly records events starting from the fall of Ayutthaya to the Burmese in 1767 (B.E. 2310) onward. The Vajiranana Library  obtained this document from the Front Palace in 1908 (B.E. 2451). King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) rendered a royal judgment that this chronicle was peculiar compared to other books due to its unique style and

King Taksin the Great
(Image from the book King Taksin the Great; http://www.tungsong.com/Modify-Lifetsgcity/LifeTsgCity/DigitalLibrary/Importantdays/SDay/Data/Taksinday.html)

The tone and style of the writing reflect a feminine manner of speech, and the story reveals close knowledge of internal affairs, suggesting it was likely authored by a princess or noblewoman in the royal family. It is believed that Krom Luang Narindrathewi, the younger sister of King Rama I, was the recorder. When King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) passed away, another copy of the same chronicle was obtained, with the text continuing uninterrupted until the end of the reign of King Rama III in 1838 (B.E. 2381). Since Krom Luang Narindrathewi passed away in 1827 (B.E. 2370), the chronicle’s content thus extends 11 years beyond her lifetime.

The National Library is therefore confident that Krom Luang Narindrathewi was not the author of this chronicle. As for who actually wrote it, the author remains unknown. In later editions, the National Library has simply titled it “Chronicle of Memories” (Sang Phatthnothai, n.d.: 153-154).