Comments by "Lynott Parris" (@DenUitvreter) on "When Britain Abolished its Monarchy" video.

  1. No, the Dutch Republic already had shown that denying the devine right of kings, getting rid of your king because he had become a tyrant who didn't serve the people and did not respect their inalienable rights was not punished by god, but got extremely prosperous. The American DOI is almost a copy of the the Dutch DOI of 1581. They had over 2 centuries of republic to study, and they did.
    1
  2.  @freneticness6927  The stadtholder was not heriditary, but appointed by the Staten, the Dutch parliaments. A monarchy back then was with the divine right of kings and the absolutism Britain had returned to when the Dutch Republic invaded in 1688 to give you your current constitiutional parliamentary monarchy and bill of rights, becoming a monarchy as close to the Dutch Republic as possible for a monarchy. Effectively pulling Britain out of the Dark Ages once and for all so it would stop allying with France and parts of Germany to attack the Dutch Republic. The Dutch Republic had freedom of religion for over century, that was it's founding principle. It had a seperate judicial branche for much longer, it was also far more democratic because the Dutch parliaments were not controlled by nobles and had ultimate power. It also had freedom of thought and print, that's why John Locke lived their and wrote is important works. He accompanied appointed stadtholder William III his wife to by then occupied London were William took the throne. The only reason for the Americans to look at Britain was and still is their language skills. Ignorance about everything non English does not make England the centre and beginning of it all. And no, he wasn't invited, he asked 7 powerless lords to be invited while preparing the impressive fleet and army for the invasion for propaganda reasons.
    1
  3.  @freneticness6927  You simply have no clue about history and you own ignorance. Elizabeth's personal favourite the Earl of Leicester, Robert Dudley, was indeed supposed to help, but was incompetent, made a mess and sold Dutch cities to the Spaniards. It was not exactly returning the favour of blocking a huge part of the Armada by the Dutch to prevent the invasion of Britain. You don't understand what monarchy in Europe was and therefore you're own monarchy. They were supposed to be put there by god, as your theocratic practices of your king being the head to the Church of England (protestants in name only) should have reminded you of. It was not just a position of power and not necessarily a position of power. As you also might have noticed as most likely a monolingual, people in different parts of the world speak different languages. The fact that the Dutch didn't name their parliament parliament or parlement, the Netherlands had and still has the Staten and the Staten-Generaal. Staten Island is named after that. The head of state was elected by those parliaments. Sometimes the appointed stadtholder could be considered the head of state, sometimes the raadspensionaris. Sometimes no stadtholder was appointed. Before Willem III there was the first stadtholderless era for example, and there was to be another one. A republic does not require democracy just like democracy doesn't require a republic. Unless everybody can vote equally there is not really a democracy, there wasn't in Britain, the USA or the Netherlands or anywhere else before the late 1800's. The Magna Charta was very limited and soon surpassed by far more extensive civil rights in the Low Lands and freedom of religion was in the de facto constitution of the Dutch Republic that was signed in 1579. With the Bill of Rights, the English finally got similar civil rights to the Dutch. Stadtholder Willem III nor his wife was in line to the English throne, but the Staten-generaal had commissioned a fleet twice the size of the Armada and increased the Staatse leger (yes, the Dutch army was named after the parliemant too) for William to invade England, and so he did. The legitimate king got a nosebleed and ran off to France before there was the big battle, and the English army fell into chaos with lots of deserters and defectors. The Dutch reached London and had it occupied for several years without an English soldier allowed near it. English parliament had no power over him whatsoever, but he wanted to make Britain into a stable ally against the catholic enemies of the Dutch Republic. He was used to dealing with parlement as a stadtholder, he was not stuck in the Dark Ages like the English, he was a modern leader from a country so modern it was richer than Britain with only 1.5 million inhabitants. If he wanted to rule like some medieval alpha male he wouldn't have brought John Locke but just killed all the nobles that made up parliament. It was mostly Germans who stopped Napoleon. Wellington managed to make it all by himself for an ignorant British audience. The Dutch Republic never cared much for the imperialistic habits of monarchies like Britain and France, and actually turned Britain into a country, a nation state like it had been itself for over a century. But because of English aggression prior to 1688, it had to invade and conquer Britain and a few years before it also had to sail up the Thames to take out the English navy. The English only managed to burn down a village on a Dutch coastal island. After 1688, with the English economy modernized and the foundation of the Bank of England by the Dutch stadtholder, a lot of Dutch many that was laying around in heaps anyway was going to take it's ROI from English entreprises while the Dutch Republic got a bit out of the heat of international war and let the English do their dirty work. Without the medieval mindset, the feudalism, but from the Dutch capitalist angle, it was a huge win.
    1