KATHMANDU: The downfall of Nepal’s monarchy marks the end of the line for a dysfunctional dynasty renowned for insanity and ineptitude, and a new start for one of the world’s poorest nations.

The fortunes of the royal family have gone steadily downhill since Prithvi Narayan Shah, the first in the Shah line and credited with creating modern Nepal out of a patchwork of small Himalayan valley fiefdoms 240 years ago.

According to writer Manjushree Thapa, Nepal has essentially been ruled since Narayan Shah’s death in 1775 by a succession of kings “who were either underage, inept, insane or all three”.

The early kings — viewed by loyal subjects as reincarnations of a Hindu god — were famed for taking numerous wives and producing legions of children, leading to frequent and bloody battles over who should take the crown.

“Many of the Shah kings of this time did not die natural deaths,” said royal expert Sanu Bhai Dangol.

The unending intrigue weakened the dynasty and just a century into their rule, the Shahs found themselves sharing power with another crafty political tribe — the Ranas.

By the early 20th century, the Shahs were “virtual prisoners of the Rana maharajas”, who had declared themselves “hereditary prime ministers”.

The Ranas kept the Shahs under tight control until 1950 when King Tribhuvan told his overlords he planned to leave his palace for a hunting trip, but fled to the Indian embassy and was spirited away to India.

He left behind his toddler grandson, Prince Gyanendra, whom the Ranas promptly enthroned as a puppet monarch.

After negotiations between the Shahs, the political parties and the Ranas, the king returned a year later as a constitutional monarch -- a flirtation with democracy that ended with a royal coup in 1960.

The Shah family was hit by more turmoil in 2001.

Crown Prince Dipendra, who had a passion for firearms and was apparently fuming at being blocked from marrying the woman he loved, went on a drink-and-drug-fuelled rampage at a palace party.

He shot dead nine members of the royal family, including popular King Birendra, and then turned the gun on himself, according to official accounts.

The “palace massacre” vaulted the king’s younger brother, Gyanendra, to the throne.Already disliked due to conspiracy theories linking him to the massacre, his unpopularity deepened when he fired the government and seized control in 2005 -- a move he argued was necessary to fight off an escalating revolt by Maoist rebels.

His authoritarian rule lasted 14 months, until massive protests by political parties and rebel Maoists forced him to climb down in April 2006.

Adding to his woes were the alleged antics of his son and heir, Crown Prince Paras -- who has been accused of nightclub shootings, hit-and-run driving and generally conducting himself as a playboy in a conservative country where most people barely eke out a living from the land.

Paras suffered a heart attack last year at the age of just 36.

Gyanendra and his son now face life as “common” citizens, with the Maoists — who entered Kathmandu after signing a peace deal and swept elections a month ago — threatening them with “strong punishment” if they refuse to bow out gracefully.“In the past, previous kings always had something up their sleeves and made a comeback,” said Tribhuvan University history professor Surendra Khatri Chhetri.

“Times have changed now. The palace is no longer at the centre of politics.”—AFP