I can only give reason for the Netherlands. In 1795 the french march into the netherlands towards amsterdam with the idea to liberate the people of monarchistic tyrants. You can call Napoleon a dictator all you want, but your a dickfaced twat who rapes history because a) you are incapable of creating context and b) be nuanced c) your so blind for the perspective of time you stick present day terms on things of 200 ywars ago. It is ahistoric.
Now, the Netherlands never had a real monarchy since the start of 80 year war in 1568, after which it was a republic (united provinces). It had a monarchistic tendancy with the influence of the orange family, but they where chief of the army and had little executive power. Holland and the cities within the region was the most prosperous and dominatant region in the constellation. Thats why holland has become the same as the netherlands nowadays (which dutch people hate).
So, the united provinces were still a republic in 1795 when the french entered and were sure to not let a french biatch rule their land. So just before the french arrived in amsterdam, the dutch proclaimed revolution themselves and the batavian republic was proclaimed. As i came from the 'people' (read smart upperclass scheme), the french couldn't do shit about their indepence. It became a vasalstate though as they couldn't fight the french. So influence was set. In 1806, Napoleon wanted more control over the region and installed his brother Louis Napoleon as king of the netherlands. (So the first monarch of the netherlands was in fact french). But it remained independent! Louis was the king not Napoleon ( although his absolutistic tendencies which 'controled' louis were noticable). In spite of expectation the dutch loved louis. He learned dutch, pushed positive reform, was concerned with his subjects and indeed quit a fair ruler. He was a peoples king as well. In 1807 a ship with gunpowder exploded in Leiden and Louis Napoleon (1/2)