Q2: What are the ramifications of such a union of political and creative power?

Q2: In these readings (and many others) Thai rulers and their families are cited as leading scholars, enthusiasts, teachers, performers, and innovators of Thai performance. What are the ramifications of such a union of political and creative power?

The fact that many Thai leaders are also a driving force in Thai performance (among other creative fields) is a rather concerning trend. The unification of political and creative power has been since in many countries over periods of history. However, to the extent that Thailand merges these powers is unusual and could create a great amount of ramifications.
As in many dictatorships, or monarchies, or any authoritative form of ruling, the government tries to merge its ties to religion, performance, jobs, etc. And the royal family will get the top pick in who does what and gets what. By merging government with creative aspects of society such as performance, an element of control rises. This control is something to be fearful of, not just in government.
For example, in merging government and performance, the authenticity and creativity of the performance could be pushed aside. The government controls what the audience sees, how characters are portrayed, and what message is sent to the audience. If a government is not pleased with the originality of the performance (which unless it conveys a political message, they probably are not fond of the performance) they can easily change it to suit their desires.
To be blunt, by merging political and creative powers, creativity and authenticity will be at a loss. There is no way that such powers could emerge without political influence taking over creative aspects. Children will learn as the government sees fit, scholars will publish works that benefit the political powers, and performances will suffer and lose authenticity.