It's not me who is saying this.

I just wanted you guys to evaluate the claim below.

हाम्रो देशमा शाह dynasty कुल मन्डन खान (शाह)बाट भएको हो । क बाट सुरु भएको नाम बाट शाह बंस सुरु भएर ज्ञ बाट सुरु हुने नाम भएको ज्ञानेन्द्र सम्म पुगेको ले अब शाह बंस सक्इयो भन्ने धारणा प्रति यहाँ हरुको धारणा के छ ?

Purush

As per Prachanda??

the shah dynasty shall end with the 11th descendant of King Prithvis is what the predictions were for a long time... KG is 11th.. so we never know.. but it would be sad to see the demise of the only hindu monarchy in the world... i would love to return to nepal if there is monarchy.. however CP Paras is not acccepted.. he should act as a regent to NCP Hridayander, if KG were to pass away...

.
Once upon a time there was a king called Gyanendra...
.

.
Manisha is worried...
.

Manish?

Why she would be worried? What is the relevance here?

King G has to do Rajsuya Yanga to get out of the curse delimiting the throne to you only. In this Yanga, he has to open his all dhukuti to common people, Rishi-maharshi etc without any kanchusi. And while the Yanga is going on, he has to give up the military power altogether and be satisfied with constitutional monarchy. Most of all, he should send his son Paras to exile without any conditions.

This should avoid the curse. The curse is actually, the 12th descendant will never be a king while alive. The throne has to be passed onto the 13th descendant. Or to the first President.

If the source of Shah dynasty some Kulmandan Khan, are Shahs originally Muslims?

Shahs are originally Muslims...

हाम्ले नि त्यही सुन्या हो स्कुलमा हुंदा।। दिपेन्द्रे राजा हुन्न रे, बिरेन्द्रे last re and thats the end of Shah dynasty re. :P Sunya kura tyatti ho, bhandiye. Kura ni milya jasto cha. Poonte dai or Nepe might know better. Or somebody call Visnotar please. eh. or Trikaal baa.

Shahs are not Muslim. Shah was the title given by the Mughals to the worrior kings who were also their alliance in the war.

He may be the last King of Nepal unless he can turn things upside down within the next few months.

Does this mean things will get better in Nepal? Probably not. I am worried things wil get even worse without the King.

If Maoists take over, they will try to establish one party gov and try to take on majority of kathmanduties. But they won't last very long..coz there will be plenty of people who will try to kill their leaders. They will never be able to get rid of their 'criminal' image. If Prachanda or Baburam becomes head of state, they will be killed within days. They will never be able to walk around like ordinary people, at least not in Kathmandu.

As far as rest of the parties are concered, we all know them well. They will all fight with each other to get in power. People will suffer yet again.

So my friend, we are in deep shit either way, with or without the king.

So, are/were Shah kings stooges of Mughals that they had to adopt the title given by Musalteys as their gotra/last name? And, if that is the case, what were they, I mean their caste, before they started calling themselves Shah?

I was wondering why so much of the "bani/behura" are like musalteys. An example being the way they greet each other, with a palm up and swaying up and down, just like when Musalteys say "aadaab."

I also heard that they were Muslims initially. Now, who can be a better Hindu than they?
So the conclusion is Gyanu is the last king of Shah dynasty, haina ta??

If Gyane is the last king of Shah dynasty, then either Girija or Puspa is the first king of either Koirala or Dahal dynasty.
Kye garne, nepali haru ko dabi eyera basne bani, affai lay leader kaha channa sakchan kunni.

It is funny Hindu King is actually a katuwa? Do they circumscribe?

Magdadela:

Himani better knows about this. Why don't you e-mail her? If you need a e-mail of here, get it here. himanishah@yahoo.com and momtorhidayandra@hotmail.com

KUlmardan Shaha was the first Shaha kind and GYanendra is the last one. It was started with KAPURI KA and now is going to be end with GATHOPARI GYA.

himani is not quite as interesting as you might think her to be. She is a mom of a few kids so my truck will easily float on the beltway. I prefer to drive my car on a one-way, one lane road.

Shah's were originally Khan (not the muslin khan, but a rajputania chettri of the Chhirttaurgar provinces of northwest India - more likely pronounced खाड with a thoplo on top of खा). anyways, the title of "Shah" was given by Badshah (shah of shahs or Emperor) of New Dehli of the Mugal Dynasty. So, until Prithvi Narayan Shah, they could only write Shah after their name, because they were only King. After King Prithvi, took over many smaller pricipalites and brought kings under him, he did not write BadShah, since BadShaha is written only by Muslim rulers, so he wrote Maharaja (King of Kings) like the hindus do. So, in brief, the Shah rulers of Nepal are really Hindus. Only the shah rulers after Prithvi Narayan are Maharaja, in the history of Nepal. However, The 8 Rana prime minsters (Bom Bahadur is excepted) also enjoyed the titlte of Maharaja, as Lamjung also had a titular Raja when the Rana PMs were the real rulers (Shree 3 Maharaj) of Lamjung and Kaski.

I have also heard of another theory.

Shahs were actually just another "pahadeys" of Nepali hills, just like any other Nepali hill castes. But when they got to be the kings of some principality, such as Lamjung or Gorkha, they figured they can create a myth that they are actually decendents of Rajputs from India. Apparently, among the ruling families, the perception was that Rajputs are of higher stock. Now if Shahs claim that they are actually Rajputs, then they can also claim superiority among the rulers of other prinicipalities, therefore, create a better legitimacy.

Does this make sense?