Question:
For most of your Modern history, you were ruled by the Dutch Republic. After the Napoleonic wars, the Kingdom was created. And my question is, why the dutch did not revolted against the King like other states that were made monarchies during that time?
Before the French Revolution there was a de facto monarchy in the Netherlands, only the monarch was called a Stadholder instead of a king. There was a gradual process over the time of centuries were the stadholder accumulated more and more power and since 1747 the function of stadholder was hereditary and thus basically a monarchy. So in the 18th century the 'Dutch republic' was also ruled by abolutism, like many monarchies were.
Basically after the Napoleonic Wars it was more just a change of name, not of nature.
In 1848 the monarchy came, like in many European monarchies, under a lot of pressure and this resulted in a new constitution created by the liberal Thorbecke which improved the power of parliament greatly.
Also, what is your view on monarchy? Do you support it, or you would prefer a Republic?
I'm in favour of a constitutional monarchy, where all the power lies with the parliament and the monarchy has only a symbolic function.
De facto this is already the case in The Netherlands, although technically the monarch is still part of the government and needs to sign every law.
Although I have republican tendencies I don't mind the monarchy actually. It has an important psychological, almost spiritual function in the country. Someone to rally behind.
But it needs to be symbolic, there shouldn't be any real power in the hands of the monarch, I think.