Comments by "Lynott Parris" (@DenUitvreter) on "5 European Monarchies Most Likely to be Abolished" video.

  1. This video is entirely wrong on the Dutch monarchy. 1581 was the year of the Dutch declaration of independence, stating that a ruler had to serve his people and king Philip II of Spain had left the throne of the Netherlands by being a tyrant with his religious prosectution (the freedom to believe what you want was already codified in 1579) and denied the absolute rule of kings, the right of kings to determine how to believe in god, and the divine right of kings. This DOI materially was very much like the American DOI from 200 years later which was inspired on it. This led to the Dutch Republic that would feed Europe with new ideas for the coming centuries. The Oranges were often appointed Stadtholder (steward) by the states, it was an office of the Dutch Republic, not a hereditary title, the Oranges were princes but not from the Netherlands, they were princes of . At the height of the Dutch Republic's power, there was no Stadtholder but the son of humble woodstacker was in charge as kind of a prime-minister. The Netherlands only became a kingdom in 1806, when Napoleon made his brother Louis king after conquering the Netherlands. After Napoleon was beaten the then allmighty British Empire decided it needed a buffer state between France, and a buffer monarchy against republicanism. The Dutch, who ironically had given the UK today's constitutional monarchy by invading England in 1688, got an absolute monarchy from the British in return, the family picked was related to the Stadtholders. This of course didn't work with the republican traditions, and the Netherlands became a constitutional monarchy a couple of decades later, also Belgium split off as an seperate country again, as it was seperate during the Dutch Republic. This is of course very important to the historical significance and the possibilities for abolishment of the monarchy. Some say it's still a republic, but so tolerant it even tolerates a monarchy. It's also allows for an inbetween, we could go back to the Dutch Republic, and appoint a member of the now royal family as Stadtholder. We could keep the fun bits like the to be renamed king's day, and it's important bits like a family link with the past, a highly regarded figurehead in trade relations, and an important office that's not marred by day to day politics and political interests. We can also ditch the first born principle, and together with the Orange family select the most fitting and willing candidate. It would also allow for stopping them from being too greedy, and make sure the powers they have and don't have are formalized better. The poor research is really a shame. English sources often get Dutch history wrong, but the Dutch Republic is well documented even in English and the English wikipedia gets most things right.
    12
  2. The research on this one was far from professional. She claims the Dutch monarchy was founded in 1581, but that was the year of the declaration of independence and the beginning of the Dutch Republic. The Dutch monarchy was only established in 1813. Allthoug often wrong on Dutch history, even not so hard to find anglophonic sources like Wikipedia get this one right.
    4
  3. A mistake? It's entirely wrong, denying that The Netherlands has been a republic for longer than it has been a monarchy.
    1
  4. Which was an appointed office. Stadtholders were elected and oppointed by the States, usually it was one of the Orange family but it was not a heriditary job. And the job wasn't always there. At the height of it's power, the Dutch Republic was lead by the son of a humble woodstacker.
    1