>owww.. First of all, we have a had parlementarian monarchy long beofre Wilhelmina, which essentially means that her power is limited. The responsiblity lies on the shoulders of the minsters. It is not a dictatorship. And even your ancestors had to follow the laws that were forced upon them by your government. You're implying a huge difference between the two while it in fact does not exist.
>
>I'd really advise you to deepen yourself into the political history of europe before making the assumptions you make above. Things are very complex, certainly not as straight and simple as you imply. Remember that europe still exists out of many different countries with their own political systems. It is far more complex than that of the US.
>
>
>
>Walter,

I'm not clear on the Dutch system, but isn't there not really a true separation of powers? Don't the queen and the cabinet share legislative powers? Doesn't the queen have to cosign every law to make it valid? Wasn't it not until 1848 that the Constitution provided for direct elections of the second chamber and then the right to vote was only to men who could pay a level of tax that was required to vote?

Perhaps you've heard of the Flushing Remonstrance?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/simon_jenkins/article3056758.ece

The Dutch West India Company had their part in asserting that there would be full liberty of conscience in its American territories (from the article) back around 1657...