Rama III of Rattanakosin Personality Type, MBTI
What is the personality type of Rama III of Rattanakosin? Which MBTI personality type best fits? Personality type for Rama III of Rattanakosin from Historical Figures 1800s and what is the personality traits.
ESTJ (1w9)
Rama III of Rattanakosin personality type is ESTJ, or the Rational, Logical, and Systematizer Judging type. He is a very logical, rational person who is quick to understand and integrate new facts or information into his decision making. The hallmark of his personality is his constant and relentless pursuit of truth and knowledge. He is a man of facts and facts alone.
Rama III has a very strong sense of integrity and honor and is a very traditional Cambodian who is reluctant to deviate from the code of conduct and social norms which he has been raised to believe. Rama III is a very respectful man and at times he is also quite severe, which can set him up for conflict with others who do not follow his very strict moral code.
At times, Rama III can be incredibly superstitious and fearful of the unknown. He has a tough time understanding the irrational and unpredictable nature of emotions and moods; he sees them as something to be feared and avoided, which is not the way he sees the world and his place in it.
Rama III can be overly critical of others and their decisions. He often challenges people’s choices if he does not agree with them.
Thap (Thai: ทับ, 31 March 1788 – 2 April 1851), personal name ), also styled Rama III, was the third monarch of Siam under the House of Chakri, ruling from 21 July 1824 to 2 April 1851. He succeeded his father, Rama II, as the King of Siam. His succession was unusual according to the traditions[1] because Nangklao was a son of a concubine rather than that of a queen. His accession was perceived by foreign observers as having usurped the prior claim of Prince Mongkut, who was a legitimate son of Rama II born to a queen, Srisuriyendra. Under the old concept of Thai monarchy, however, a proper king must emulate Maha Sammata in that he must be "elected by the people."[2] Ironically, Prince Mongkut may have later contributed to this misconception, when he feared that his own accession might be perceived by foreign observers as a usurpation.[3]
