That’s a whole list:
Louis Napoleon (well-intentioned eccentric, who always moved and built palaces (at the expense of the state finance.
William I (who caused the Belgian revolt by his stubbornness)
Willem II, (slender Billy).Who had great difficulty with a constitutional amendment, but was chantable by his bisexuality and went through the knees. Well an excellent strategist.
William III (King Gorilla) also had problems with that constitution, led a life full of (sexual) spousal, his wife Sophie asked twice to be able to leave him, for example, because of abuse and his liederous sexual demands, making herself as a woman Felt humiliated.Financial scandal after scandal was worked under the table. In Geneva He turned out to have exhibitionist tendencies. (Practically naked on his balcony when there are boats with tourists passing by. With the climb of the years he got more and more anger attacks. For example, he wanted to The Hague mayor let Fusilleren. Rumors go, that he had suffered syphilis, which is badly entertained with the birth of a daughter.
Juliana, not the greatest light, had increasingly floated ideas, with which she collapsed the country in a constitutional crisis.The worst of these was the Greet Hofman affair.
I believe that this question is completely wrong.No king or Queen is suitable to lead a country. Education and hereditary descent offer no guarantee of good intelligence and managerial qualities. Willem van Oranje did not even speak Dutch, but had good managerial qualities. Our first real king, Louis Napoleon, was a fine frost but was dropped by his own brother. The stadholder William IV, who was then taken out of England and William I was crowned, did his best. Fortunately, his successor in 1848 has given the absolute power, and now no more frost has so much power that he can with his inability to ruin our entire land. Wilhelmina actually wanted to join the emperor in 1914, with the Boer War still in mind. Willem-Alexander is not really a skilled public speaker, I’d rather have seen Constantine as king. Juliana let Greet Hofman lay himself in the fooled. The only positive thing about our royal house is the fact that they have no power and are not to be elected. This provides stability. It is a symbol of national unity and as such it is still useful. I am not waiting for Thierry Baudet as President to give an example to AAR. In practice I can see advantages of the Royal house, but in theory it is a very bad idea and completely undemocratic.
All.Our current royal couple are the most expensive paid assistance customers in the Netherlands.
I am a Republican and for the abolition of the monarchy irrespective of the futarguments which are then often put to the roadside.It does not need to be an American president, or French, I would choose the German model
This country deserves a president, not a hereditary head of state who continually celebrates holidays and is talking to his mouth,
Only on the basis of meritus can someone elevate themselves, not because they are yet another descendant of the tribal head with the biggest bat
So much we haven’t had yet.And most have never led the Netherlands.
Only King William I and II have had real power.After 1848, the Netherlands became a parliamentary monarchy, forcing Willem II to power.
Willem III, Emma, Wilhelmina, Juliana, Beatrix and Willem Alexander had no power to lead the country.Only Wilhelmina had a decisive interest in the Dutch people during the war years, but she officially served to the government in exile.