William III

The practical author of the palatial landscape in The

Netherlands and England 1672-1702

William III The practical author of the palatial landscape in The Netherlands and England 1672-1702

Merel Haverman 10359427

Supervisor: mw. dr. Hanneke Ronnes Second reader: Prof. dr. Rob van der Laarse

Master thesis Heritage and Memory Studies University of Amsterdam Faculty of Humanities February 2018

Content

Introduction ...... 2 William III: soldier, hunter and cultural patron ...... 4 Research, outline and method ...... 6 Chapter I ...... 9 ‘First we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us’- Winston Churchill ...... 10 Norbert Elias and Versailles as model of power ...... 11 Architecture, ceremony and the ‘Politics of intimacy’ ...... 12 Architecture and privacy ...... 13 Conclusion ...... 16 Chapter II ...... 18 The development of the Orange-Nassau Court ...... 19 Frederik Hendrik and the new standard of court architecture in The Netherlands ...... 25 Conclusion ...... 34 Chapter III ...... 36 William’s building activities in the Republic 1674-1688 ...... 37 The organisation of William’s court ...... 47 Form follows function ...... 53 Conclusion ...... 56 Chapter IV ...... 58 William’s movements and building activities between 1689 and 1702 ...... 59 Combining courts ...... 67 Your place or mine? ...... 73 Balancing power, ceremony and privacy at the Anglo-Dutch court ...... 75 Conclusion ...... 83 Conclusion ...... 85 References ...... 89 Appendix A ...... 94 Appendix B ...... 102

Fig. 0.1. William III by Sir Godfried Kneller, 1690. (Courtesy Royal Collections)

1

Introduction

‘…and [we] went even before the afternoon to satisfy our curiosity to a certain extent, by witnessing the palace of this famous excellent royal seat, built by order of the great William, King of Great-Britain and Stadholder of these United Netherlands, to be a memorial… 1’ - Theodorus Beckeringh (1712-1790) on his visit to Het Loo in 1740

The Stadholder-King William III (1650-1702) was brought up during the Golden Age, a time celebrated for its wealth, innovation and cultural development. Together with his wife Mary Stuart II (1662-1694), whom he married in 1677, William oversaw significant political and cultural change throughout his reign as Stadholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland and Overijssel in The Netherlands from 1672 onwards, and as King of England, Ireland and Scotland from 1689 until his death in 1702.2 The most tangible reminders of his reign are the many buildings he either built, rebuilt or decorated with lavish gardens and interiors. At the end of his life, he had around seventeen palaces, country retreats and hunting lodges scattered across the two countries at his disposal.3 Some of which are destroyed, to a certain amount preserved or either, as in the case of Het Loo, restored to its ‘former’ glory. It is on these buildings that I will be focusing in this thesis.

Over the centuries, royal structures have been appreciated and admired in different ways: as examples of a certain architectural style, but also as symbols of the monarchs that had lived there. Two of William’s creations in The Netherlands -Soestdijk and Het Loo- are currently open to the public, of which only Het Loo, open to the public since 1984, claims to display the domestic lifestyle of William and his wife Mary.4 It is questionable to what extent Het

1 Beckeringh 1895: 364. 2 Haley 1988: 39-49, Maccubbin & Hamilton-Philips 1989: 3-4. The political consequences of the Glorious Revolution, including the move towards a parliamentary democracy, is generally considered as the most significant legacy of the reign of William. 3 William had inherited the castle at Breda and Buren and the seats at Dieren, Rijswijk, Honselaarsdijk, the Binnenhof and the Old Court from his father. The houses of Soestdijk, Het Loo, Kruidberg and Huis ten Bosch were bought by William between 1674 and 1684. After his coronation, the houses of Richmond, New Market, Windsor Castle, Whitehall, St. James’s palace and Hampton Court came into his possession. He purchased the house at Kensington in 1689. 4 In 2017, it was announced that both palaces will be undergoing major renovations in the coming years and will be closed to the public in the course of 2018. The plans for Het Loo consist of much-needed maintenance work, an expansion to provide more space for temporary exhibitions and public facilities, and the improvement of the interior layout of the forty royal rooms in the corps-the-logis to have a more ‘logical arrangement’. The palace will open to the public again in 2021. The plans of Soestdijk are more controversial. In June of 2017, it was announced by the government that the palace was to be sold to the MeyerBergman Erfgoed Groep and, according to their plans, Soestdijk will be partly converted into a hotel and into a ‘forum for innovation and entrepreneurship’ with exhibition spaces dedicated to highlight ‘the innovative strength and outstanding

2

Loo properly replicates the couple’s domestic lifestyle, as William and Mary share the space with other former occupants.5 The presentation at Het Loo leads visitors through several furnished period rooms, each representing the function and style of one of the many occupants of Het Loo. It does, however, lack the overall coherence of style and lifestyle; as well as a deeper understanding of the principles and motivations lying behind the interior planning of palaces. In Great Britain, William and Mary face similar competition by sharing the musealized spaces at Hampton Court and Kensington Palace with previous and future occupants.6 Even collectively, as tourist heritage sites, the palaces evoke only a fragmentary image of the domestic lifestyle of its past occupants. One wonders if William and Mary would recognize it as their former residences at all.

Rob van der Laarse, professor of Heritage Studies at the University of Amsterdam, has pointed out that palaces are complex places with a cultural biography that reflects the dynamics of material change as well as the dynamics of our memory.7 The palatial landscape carries traces of past life, but it is human activity that ultimately gives meaning to those traces. The biographical approach can be used as a tool to bring insight into these dynamics and its actors.8 For a proper understanding of William’s domestic lifestyle, the past rather than the present must be investigated, stripping away the layers of history and appropriation of present-day authorship by starting on a blank page. With this thesis, I strive to further achievements of the Kingdom of the Netherlands’. Although according to its buyers the estate will be developed with full respect for its context, it will not be opened as another museum celebrating the (architectural) legacy of the House of Orange-Nassau. (See plans on the renovation of Het Loo https://archief.paleishetloo.nl/en/renewed-and-renovated/ and for Soestdijk http://www.madebyholland.nl/en/our-promise/) 5 In the current display each room in the palace has its own ‘occupant’, which determines the style and function of the room and accordingly the narrative. The routing is not always chronological and some of the rooms are reconstructed at different places. For example, Queen Wilhelmina’s (1880-1962) office and salon were allocated to other locations in the palace. For further discussion on the reconstruction and musealization of Het Loo see Ronnes, H. ‘Authenticiteit en authenticiteitsbeleving: de presentatie en receptie van museum Paleis Het Loo.’ KNOB Bulletin, vol. 109, nr. 5 (2010): 190-199. 6 Despite being responsible for major undertakings in the rebuilding of Hampton Court and Kensington, William and Mary, when it comes to the presentation and popularity of the palaces, ‘live’ in the shadows of the people who lived there either before or after their reign. For instance, Hampton Court is more often associated with king Henry VIII (1509 – 1547) than William and Mary, whilst Kensington nowadays is most famous as the beloved home of princess Diana (1961-1997). 7 Laarse 2010: 158. 8 Kolen & Renes 2015: 21- 48. Jan Kolen and Hans Renes present in their chapter the history of landscape biography in academic writing and an overview of key issues and approaches within landscape research. A key publication within the landscape research was the essay ‘The Biography of Landscape’ (1979) by Marwyn Samuels, in which he used the term ‘biography’ to refer to the particular role of individuals in the shaping of landscape. By ‘reading’ the landscape as biography its main goal is, according to the authors, to ‘explore how landscapes have been transmitted and reshaped form prehistory to present, viewing landscape at each point in time as the interim outcome of a long-standing and complex interplay between agency, structure and process’ (p. 28).

3

deepen an understanding of the mechanisms behind William’s houses. Therefore, the main research objective is the negotiation of social space at the court of William III in relation to his life’s history.

William III: soldier, hunter and cultural patron William proves to be an interesting subject due to his dual position as both King of England, Ireland and Scotland and as stadholder of the Dutch Republic. This meant that William was, besides serving both countries, in charge of two households, two courts and two court entourages.9 Although extensive accounts have been written on the courts of William’s predecessors and successors, both in England as well as the Netherlands, little is written about life and etiquette at the court of William.10 Publications and biographies on William foremost centre on his military and political accomplishments, where especially the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688 can count on quite some literary and academic exposure.11 In 1988-89, three hundred years after the Glorious Revolution, more reflection and perspective was offered on William and Mary’s architectural legacy; research and publications followed on the ‘Anglo-Dutch’ gardens (Hunt & De Jong 1988), the cultural and historical background of the buildings of the king-stadholder and his courtiers (Spies & Raaij 1988), the decorative arts (Baarssen et al. 1988) and power and patronage (Maccubbin & Hamilton-Phillips 1989). These publications all contributed to studies of William and Mary’s court in connection to their architecture and art patronage, but most of them mainly presented the different palaces

9 The precise definition of the word court and what it entails is still part of modern debate. The various meanings of the word can all be traced back to the primary meaning of ‘an open space enclosed wholly or partially by buildings, walls or fences’. Scholars have argued that the meaning of the court surpasses its architectural connotation and could include in the largest sense the government or current ministry. Historian John Adamson sums this up in his introduction on the ancient-régime court, stating that in the period between 1500 and 1750 the court was much more than its buildings and occupants and entailed ‘a far larger matrix of relations, political and economic, religious and artistic, that converged in the ruler’s household’. See for a discussion on the subject: Asch 1993, Duindam 1994, Adamson 1999. 10 See for example the following publications: England: Barclay, A. The Impact of King James II on the departments of the royal household (1994), Bucholz, R. The Augustan Court. (1993), Aylmer, G. The King’s servants: the civil service of Charles I (1974), Aylmer, G. The Crown’s servants: Government and Civil Service under Charles II (2002). Netherlands: Delen, M. Het hof van Willem van Oranje. (2002), Keblusek, M. & Zijlmans, J. Princely Display: the Court of Frederik Hendrik of Orange and Amalia van Solms in the Hague. (1997). Bruggeman, M. Nassau en de macht van Oranje: De strijd van de Friese Nassaus voor erkenning van hun rechten, 1702-1747. (2006). 11 A quick look at the recent published publications and biographies on William III demonstrate this focus on his political and military ambitions over his architectural ambitions (or legacy). In the beginning of this century two biographies were published under the titles by Troost, W. William III, the Stadholder-King. A political biography. (First published in Dutch in 2001), Claydon, T. William III. Profiles in power. (2002). Last year, two books were published on William’s invasion of England (Bosman, M. De roofkoning. Prins Willem III en de invasie van Engeland. (2016)) and his life-long rivalry with King Louis XVI (Panhuysen, L. Oranje tegen de Zonnekoning. De strijd van Willem III en Lodewijk XIV om Europa. (2016)).

4

as centres in their own right, looking only at the English or Dutch palaces, without providing a decent comparative study.

William’s grandfather, Frederik Hendrik (1584-1647), from who William inherited a fair amount of buildings in The Netherlands, was well-known for his love of building and architecture.12 He reportedly stated ‘let us talk of war no longer, let us talk of building and planting’.13 Although William, like his grandfather, invested large amounts into his architectural enterprises, architectural historian Simon Thurley argues in one of the few Anglo-Dutch comparative studies of William and Mary’s palaces that for William ‘architecture was a servant not a master’, furthermore stressing that he was ‘first a soldier, second a huntsman and only third a husband and cultural patron’.14 The latter would arguably also apply to Louis XIV (1638-1715), King of France and William’s lifelong rival, although it would most probably be presented in a different order.

Thurley is not the only one unimpressed with William’s art patronage. The English art historian Horace Walpole (1717 – 1797) went so far as to write that William III:

‘contributed nothing to the advancement of arts. He was born in a country where taste never flourished, and nature had not given it to him as an embellishment to his great qualities. He courted Fame, but none of her ministers.’15

Others too argue that William’s Dutch background, being ‘bred in a domesticated and small- scale environment’, was one of the reasons why he never flourished as patron in the arts and architecture.16 Moreover, they argue that William preferred creating private, comfortable and ‘homely’ and ‘pleasant domestic’ houses rather than contemplating ‘baroque dream palaces’.17 Historians Stefan van Raaij and Paul Spies attribute the weak role of William and Mary as patrons of the art to their disinterest in absolute power in England and the Republic.18 They state that the belief that William took no interest in the arts is based on a ‘wilful misunderstanding’. According to Raaij and Spies, ‘arts was not his only passion, for his major purpose in life was to achieve a balance of power in Europe’ and William showed a similar

12 Ronnes 2006: 22, Thurley 2009: 1. 13 Ronnes 2006: 22. Translation by Hanneke Ronnes. 14 Thurley 2009: 1. 15 Walpole 1888: 201. 16 Haley 1988: 38, Harris 1989: 233, Tinniswood 1998: 88. Historian Adrian Tinniswood argues that the royal building projects in the Republic tended to be ‘small-scale and restrained’ as the political situation of the Republic would oppose princely displays of power. 17 Harris 1989: 233, Janssen-Knorsch 1990: 289, Thurley 2009: 6. 18 Raaij & Spies 1988: 167-168.

5

passion for hunting and Mary was keen on collecting porcelain.19 Historian J.R. Jones concluded in his essay on ‘The Building Works and Court Style of William and Mary’ that William’s greatness lies not in his building activities, but his personal –military- actions.20 Interestingly, this focus on their hobbies and achievements is reflected in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. In the introductory text of the room dedicated to William and Mary, William is praised for his military and political successes and Mary is mentioned as being ‘partial to delftware’. The only remark on their architectural ventures is that they mirrored Louis XIV’s court style with the help of the French designer Daniël Marot (1661-1752).

Fig.0.2. The display of porcelain, paintings and furniture in room 2.22 'William and Mary' at the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. (Courtesy Rijksmuseum)

Research, outline and method From the above discussion and a further exploration of literature it becomes apparent that when it comes to a study of the architectural and historic legacy of William and Mary, their role as cultural patrons is often defined and marginalized by their hobbies, political legacy and the influence of Louis XIV’s Versailles.21 Although William’s palaces and gardens have received a considerable amount of attention, this attention has predominantly been of a descriptive nature and especially directed towards his gardens.

19 Raaij & Spies 1988: 167. 20 Jones 1988: 10. 21 Especially Het Loo and Hampton Court are considered as William’s answer to Versailles. See for example: Tinniswood 1998 : 88, Jenkins 1994 : 9, Baarsen 1988 : 12, Jackson-Stops 1988: 36, 40.

6

Following the archaeological, anthropological and social studies, material culture as evidence of social processes is now increasingly attracting the interest of (art) historians.22 More and more scholars nowadays look beyond the discussion of architecture in relationship to art history and rather think of them as social objects. Thomas Markus states in Buildings and Power that ‘everything [i.e. form, function and spatial structure] about a building has social meaning’.23 Archaeologists Stefan Larsson and Tom Saunders argue that architecture is a powerful tool for the ‘deliberate projection and display of social conventions and ideas’.24 According to them, architecture and space are therefore meaningfully constituted, ‘being actively empowered with a multiplicity of messages’.25 In his dissertation on the palaces of the 17th and 18th century, Historian Samuel John Klingensmith argues that life at court could be distinguished in three spheres: the public, the private and the social, each of them represented in the architectural planning of royal residence, and, therefore, by focusing on this physical backdrop insight could be provided into the lifestyle of nobles.26

With this research, I review William III as the author and shaper of the palatial landscape during his reign in The Netherlands and England by researching how he negotiated social space in relation to his life’s history. The point of departure of this research is the hypothesis that buildings embody the social and cultural meanings of those who constructed and/or inhabited them and that it is, therefore, possible, by studying his architectural activities and the designs and layouts of the buildings, to obtain insight in William’s life. What was his motivation to (re)built houses? Did he have a preference for certain houses? What exactly were the characteristics of his court and how did it change over time? And last, but not least, is there a difference visible between the structure of the houses during his years as stadholder (1672-1689) and his years as Stadholder-king (1689-1702)?

These questions will be answered in four chapters. The first chapter will provide a theoretical framework on the relationship between architecture and (court) life through a discussion of the concept of social space and notions of power, ceremony and privacy. The second chapter examines the building activities of William’s predecessors in The Netherlands between 1530 and 1650. The third and fourth chapter deals with the organisation of the court and the

22 For example, the work of Klingensmith 1994, Thurley 2004 & 2009 and the research network PALATIUM [see: http://www.courtresidences.eu/index.php/home/]. 23 Markus 1993: XX. 24 Larsson & Saunders 1997: 81. 25 Ibid. 26 Klingensmith 1994: 7.

7

building activities during William’s life as stadholder and as Stadholder-king. Finally, the conclusion of this thesis will offer the findings pertaining to the research question and will further reflect on the potential meaning of these results regarding the status of William as a builder.

For this research, extensive use was made of the available primary documentation besides the existing literature on the subject. Luckily, of most of William and Mary’s houses, especially the ones in The Netherlands, furniture inventories survived, which proved to be helpful in clarifying room designations of courtiers and family members and in understanding the principles behind the planning (and building) of palaces. Architectural plans helped to form a picture of the layout of his palaces, even though no detailed plans from during his reign survive.

Other sources, such as diaries, travel accounts, memories and letters, which helped to deepen the understanding of past lives, were of major importance to this thesis. Specifically, the diaries of William’s secretary Constantijn Huygens Jr. (1628-1697), written during the first nine years of William’s reign as King of England, has proved useful into gaining insight of William’s movements, his dealings in art and political tensions. Also of value are the remnants of ‘Anglo-Dutch’ life at the court of William presented in the memoirs of Queen Mary, Bishop Burnet, John Evelyn’s diary and William’s correspondence with Hans Willem Bentinck. To enable a further recounting with this past, this thesis introduces the voices of contemporary visitors to the houses of William to retrieve an idea of how their palaces were perceived during their lives. Not only do they often point out the details that impress them in their diaries and travel journals, but their writings also tell us whether the court architecture and interior décor produced the intended effect.

Historian Hugh Murray Baillie concluded in his essay on the etiquette and planning of Baroque palaces that ‘by treating palaces not as empty architectural shells but as machines for living in […] some light may be thrown on to specific problems of architecture’.27 Knowing that only the use of plans and inventories did not provide enough insight, the last words of his essay ‘it may be possible, in the words of Marc Bloch, out of anecdotes to write history’ denote the challenges in the pursuit of insight of social architecture.28

27 Baillie 1967: 199. 28 Ibid.

8

Chapter I

Meaningful architecture

‘The average person, dependent on his senses and unable to reason, is incapable of comprehending the majesty of the king. But through the things that meet the eye and in turn activate the other senses, he receives a clear, if imprecise, idea of this majesty, or power and authority. We see, then, that an impressive court with its ceremonies is not something superfluous, much less reprehensible.29 – Christian Wolff, 1721

In this excerpt from Vernünftige Gedanken von dem gesellschaftlichen Leben der Menschen, the German philosopher Christian Wolff (1679-1754) touches upon the importance of the visual representation of the court. Louis XIV, the famous Sun King, had expressed a similar attitude in his memoirs from 1666.30 Even William’s court architect Christopher Wren (1632- 1723) had observed that ‘architecture has its political use’.31 Thus, the outward appearance of the court, be it through clothes, ceremonies or architecture, was not just about its splendour and magnificence, but also its ability to convey a message of power and hierarchy. The tricky thing about such a claim is that rulers rarely left explicit statements on what their exact intentions were for building and designing their houses and gardens. Thus, in the end, it often comes down to a matter of judgement from others, past or present, on what that message might have been. For example, the houses of William III were often criticized by foreign travellers for their modest appearance. In their eyes, his houses were more suited for a stadholder or prince than for a king.32 ‘Go big or go home’ seems to have been set as the standard for rulers in the age of absolutism.

In an age that carried such opinions on what court architecture should entail, it should be expected that form and function have a special connection. When it comes to an

29 As cited in Klingensmith 1994: XVI. 30 ‘The people are gravely mistaken who imagine that all this is mere ceremony. The people over whom we rule, unable to see to the bottom of things, usually judge by what they see from outside, and most often it is by precedence and rank that they measure their respect and obedience. As it is important to the public to be governed only by a single one, it also matters to it that the person performing this function should be so elevated above the others, that no-one can be confused or compared with him; and one cannot, without doing harm to the whole body of state, deprive its head of the least mark of superiority distinguishing it from the limbs.’ As cited in Elias l983: 116-117. 31 As cited in Tinniswood 1998: 7. 32 See for example the travel accounts and diaries of the brothers Bovio (Brom 1915:123), John Evelyn (Bohn 1862: 354), Farrington (Farrington 1994:81), John Locke (Strien 1989: 224-225), Joseph Shaw (Shaw 1709:10), Henry Sidney (Blencowe 1843: 43), John Talman (Strien 1989: 259).

9

understanding of the relationship between architecture and (court) life, elite structures (such as castles, palaces and country houses) become complex pieces of landscape and material culture. This chapter explores the relationship between architecture and (court) life through a discussion of the concept of social space and notions of power, ceremony and privacy. As considerable research pertaining to this has been done concerning Versailles, the palace of William’s rival Louis XIV, this structure will be used to demonstrate some of the notions mentioned above.

33 ‘First we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us’- Winston Churchill Space is a loaded and complex term and in social theory a crucial concept. For example, a room or hall refers to a fixed physical location within a structure, but space can include larger or smaller areas within or without a fixed physical entity. Furthermore, space does not have to be observable or physical and can exist temporally.34 The French social theorist Henri Lefèbvre had an extended theory on the concept of space and looked at space both as the locus and the outcome of social action. He stated that (social) space is a (social) product, not a ‘mere collection of things’.35 His theory altered the conception of space as a mere container and emptiness between objects to something that could be studied on a social scale: space is to be understood in an active sense as an intricate web of relations that are continuously produced and reproduced.36

Space is perceived as a medium for action and is both the producer and product of social relations.37 Social actors, individuals and groups, use space to establish, confirm and strengthen their own positions in society. Space, therefore, reflects power structures.38 These social relations are often materialized in the form of specific spatial structures, but also through values and meanings assigned to and actions performed in specific places.39

Spatial structures, such as buildings, houses etc., are the setting, the medium and the outcome of social agency.40 They materialize the social relations that take place in them and are

33 As cited in Parker Pearson & Richards 1994: 2. 34 Clifford 2013: 19. 35 Schmid 2008: 27-29. Lefebvre’s book The Production of Space was first published in 1974. 36 Schmid 2008: 41, Predovnik 2014: 13-14. 37 Larsson & Saunders 1997: 80-81. 38 Tilley 1994: 11, Hansson 2009: 435, Predovnik 2014: 14. 39 Predovnik 2014:14. 40 Giddens 1984.

10

modified continually as the actions that constitute them change.41 According to Amos Rapoport, the built environment embodies the social values and cultural conventions of a society that develops it and it is thus culturally constituted.42

The relation between the spatial form and social agency is mediated by meaning: ‘people actively give their physical environment meaning, and then act upon those meanings’.43 A further discussion then often centres on the question which one of the two has primacy over the other: does form follow function or function follow form?

Norbert Elias and Versailles as model of power A court in the sixteenth and seventeenth century was not only a luxury but also a necessity. It fulfilled several functions; as means of protection, confirmation of power and rank, but also as an instrument to enhance the prestige of one’s court.44 With the monarch, noblemen and personnel of the household all living together under one roof, life at court had to be organised. Ceremony, etiquette and protocol were introduced to bring order out of this chaos.45

Sociologist Norbert Elias has paved the way for many researchers looking into the subject of life and ceremony at the early modern court with his pioneering work Hofische Gesellschaft or The Court Society that was published in 1969.46 He wondered how it was possible for monarchs to ‘domesticate’ the nobility and he looked at the court as an instrument of social control with a focus on the court of Louis XIV at Versailles and French society.47 For Elias, ceremony provided the context in which this could be explained, where from morning to evening the processions, rituals and elaborate ceremonies, such as the lever and coucher, signified power and rank between the ruler and its courtiers.48 Defending once status and standing asked for constant effort to abide by society’s standard and had to be reinforced on a daily basis through ‘outward appearance’:

41 Parker Pearson & Richards 1994: 3. 42 Rapoport 1990. 43 Parker Pearson & Richards 1994: 5. 44 Adamson 1999: 7-8, Delen 2002: 16. 45 Adamson 1999: 8-9, Delen 2002: 16-17. 46 Asch 1991: 2-3, Bucholz 1993: 1, Duindam 2009: 539. Although his work was later criticized, it still remains the foundation for many scholars researching life and ceremony at the court. 47 Asch 1991: 3 [footnote 7]. As Asch noted in his introduction on the court and household ‘it must be emphasized at this point that Elias himself never claimed that the history of the French court was a model for all early modern European courts’. 48 Elias 1983: 84.

11

‘An elaborate cultivation of outward appearances as an instrument of social differentiation, the display of rank through outward form, is characteristic not only of the houses but of the 49 whole shaping of court life’.

Social relations between the King and courtiers and the representational character of the architecture were closely related to one another. Comparing the houses of the nobility of Versailles, Elias points out that their status is not only manifested in their particular role during ceremonies but also in the different ways their houses were built. Courtiers were expected to build according to their status and position on the social scale and not in any way surpass the pinnacle of this hierarchy: the palace of Versailles.50

Historian Adrian Tinniswood stated that Versailles, build between 1669 and 1684, with its baroque architectural structure and gardens used to symbolize and glorify the Sun King’s absolute power, became the standard by which all other royal building projects were judged.51 According to him, Versailles evolved as the popular court style of the 17th century as it clearly portrayed the power of the absolute monarch. This was true for not only the decorative idiom of Versailles but also its mode of life with strict etiquette and ceremony.52 The connection between power and architecture becomes apparent when other courts start to adopt and borrow the style of the ‘Versailles model’ for the sake of its associations and as a means to legitimize their own power.53 Power is therefore embedded in architecture through associations with power, in this case, Versailles, which determined style.

Architecture, ceremony and the ‘Politics of intimacy’ Architecture can be understood as an instrument of power through its external appearance and constructed landscapes, but the power relations can also occur within the palaces. Historian David Starkey argues that the planning of palace buildings produced a ‘more binding framework for behaviour than any ordinance’.54 Proximity to the ruler was crucial for ambitious courtiers and to gain and control access to the monarch became, in the words of Starkey, ‘politics of intimacy’.55

49 Elias 1983: 62-63. 50 Elias 1983: 43, 55, 80, 114. 51 Tinniswood 1998: 106. 52 Baarsen 1988: 12. 53 Tinniswood 1998: 7. 54 Starkey 1987: 2. 55 Starkey 1987: 13.

12

The idea of ceremony and etiquette in relation to architecture was first developed in Baillie’s essay ‘Etiquette and the Planning of the State Apartments in Baroque Palaces’ in 1967. The origins of this essay resulted from a remark made by one of his colleagues, stating that a German eighteenth-century palace was ‘built in imitation of Versailles’. The plan of the palace appeared to bear no relation to Versailles and Baillie noted that ‘very few, if any’ of the palaces he had visited conformed to the patterns of Versailles.56 Versailles might have been copied in style, but not necessarily in architectural planning. In his essay, Baillie compared the room planning of the courts of Spain, Germany, France and England to see how it gave expression to and both helped to define its underlying (political) structures.

Depending on the court, access to the king was dictated according to a temporal or spatial scale. In France, one’s status (or the monarch’s favour) determined how long they could spend time with the ruler. The elaborate court rituals such as the ‘Lever’ and ‘Coucher’, in which during the proceedings entitled courtiers each played a particular part, were the focal point of the court.57 The state bedchamber functioned more as an audience room and therefore became the focal point and centre of the architectural plan. To reach the bedchamber one only had to traverse the ‘Salle des Gardes’ and one ‘antichambre’.58 At the same time in England, the access to the king was measured to what extent one was permitted to pass through the enfilade of rooms with at the end the most exclusive and intimate spaces of the ruler (the bedchamber and closet). Architecture could thus represent power in spatial terms, by controlling the movements of visitors through permitting or denying them access in the sequence of rooms.

Architecture and privacy Elias stated that for royals there was no such thing as the ‘private life’, since their status, which nobility obtained by birth, was, in fact, a public function.59 The concept of privacy was according to Elias a late and essentially bourgeois invention. This is certainly interesting considering William and Mary’s situation, where scholars often refer to their preference for a ‘private’ way of living and William’s longing for privacy.60

56 Baillie 1967: 2. 57 Baillie 1967: 190. 58 Baillie 1967: 199. 59 Elias 1983: 52. 60 For example: Spies & Raaij 1988: 108, Claydon 2002: 80, Thurley 2009: 6.

13

The concept of ‘privacy’ in architecture is a complicated matter. Archaeologist Matthew H. Johnson argues that privacy is a ‘social idea and thus variable’ and a desire for privacy should therefore not be seen as a normal, consistent or natural attribute of human life, as it can differ from person to person, culture, location and time.61 Ronnes provides in her book Architecture and Elite Culture a helpful overview of the wide variation of views on privacy, of which a few of the main points will be discussed below.62

Most of the debate focuses on the origins of privacy and if it is a modern concept or not. To uncover a sense and ‘desire’ for privacy is not that easy. According to various scholars, a linear perception of privacy is manifested in the material layout and enclosure of social spaces.63 The broad shifts occurring in the development of the spatial closure of the house are presented as evidence for a growing need of privacy, which entails the move away from multipurpose rooms as the large open hall towards closed off architectural features, such as separate bedrooms, corridors, servant quarters.64

Ronnes argues that in elite architecture one room in particular appears to have had a quintessentially private nature: the closet. The first indication of the closet as a private space is demonstrated by its position within the apartments. The royal apartments consisted of multiple rooms ranging from the more public spaces at the beginning towards the more private spaces at the end. Jib-doors and private staircases could be used by the sovereign and the courtiers close to him to avoid the public rooms and go directly into the more private spaces of the palace. The closet was in this sequence of rooms regularly the one room that lay furthest away from the entrance, hence being part of the inner, most private, realm of the king’s apartment.65 The fact that they frequently had no windows also contributes to the idea of the closet as a private space.66 Her analysis of ego-documents further supports her claim. From a range of anecdotes in journals and memoirs, Ronnes noticed that the closet was used by individuals to isolate and distance themselves from their company for activities that required a ‘private environment’. These activities vary from ‘our’ William III locking himself

61 Johnson 2010: 102. 62 Ronnes 2006: 121-143. 63 Ronnes 2006: 123, 131. 64 Ronnes 2006: 122-123, 131, Johnson 2010 : 100. 65 Ronnes does state that a remote or isolated position not always determines the private nature of the room as some might have been used for public events (Ronnes 2006: 142). 66 Ronnes 2006: 134, 143. Although houses in the second half of the seventeenth century later contained a number of closets, this did not take away the fact that some of them were still used for private purposes.

14

up to be alone and cry, to others using it as a place to read and write or for ‘personal business’ and ‘religious reflections’.67

The regulation of access thus relates to both power and privacy issues. Rapoport defines privacy as ‘[t]he ability to control interaction, to have options, devices and mechanisms to prevent unwanted interaction, and to achieve desired interaction’.68 Controlling the access to certain rooms was a way to regulate the boundaries between the sovereigns’ public and private life. Within palaces, the conduct of the public and private sphere became increasingly directed by written instructions. The ‘Bedchamber Orders’ from James II, and to some extent those of William III, is one example of this conduct as these included elaborate instructions about ‘keeping the door to his room locked and as to who was to be allowed a key’.69 These regulations varied from court to court as etiquette and the boundaries between the public and private lives of the ruler dictated the function and use of the room.70 This also explains the variance in plans between the French and English court. For the English king, the bedroom was at the end of the enfilade and part of the more private spheres, while for the French king it was the centre of court ceremony and thus in the centre of the sequence of rooms.71

Not only can a distinction between the public and private be made within the palace, but also between the different types of palaces. As Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough remarked ‘I used to run from court and shut myself up […] in one of my country houses, quite alone’.72 Country houses, hunting lodges and banqueting houses especially, became ‘refuges of privacy’.73 Not just the owners but also travellers would dwell on the function of country houses as a retreat and as a private space. The Huis ten Bosch, one of William’s houses near The Hague, was often noted for its seclusion and function as a retreat. Banker Francis Child (1642-1713) wrote in 1697 that it ‘was only designed for a pleasure house for the Princes of Orange to retire to when they had a mind to be more private and free from buzzing of courtiers or rather a place to please nature in; if so, it is a heavenly place for it’ and physician John Northleigh (1657-1705) stated a few years later that ‘The Seat and Situation seems calculated for a place of the sweetest Retirement, and the most pleasant sort of Solitude’.74

67 Ronnes 2006: 134. 68 Rapoport 1972. 69 Baillie 1967: 175, 180-181. 70 Baillie 1967: 176. 71 Baillie 1967: 199. 72 As cited in Ronnes 2006: 136. 73 Ronnes 2006: 136. 74 Strien 1998: 196, Northleigh 1702: 27.

15

Controlling access, the use of closets and country houses all represent the different levels that aimed to separate the private from the public. Depending on the court, a system of more or less public and private spaces was in place. This did not, however, follow a binary opposition between the two, but rather shows that there were ‘various shades of privacy’ that could be distinguished and maintained on different levels.75

Conclusion Space is perceived as a medium for action. The underlying premise is that space, or more precisely spatial structures, are simultaneously the outcome and medium of human action. Thus, it is both a producer and product of social relations. Our social actions define and redefine the meaning and value of space. In conceptualizing the relationship between architecture and society, architecture must not only be seen as a means of expression and representation, but also as a tool for communication. Spatial organization, or the layout of (elite) structures, enables architecture to shape space in ways that reflect and often structures social action.

There are several features that are central to the study of space in relation to court architecture: power, privacy and control and access. Elite structures, such as palaces and castles, became places of exchange where interactions were regulated by etiquette, protocol and ceremonial, which reinforced the status of the ruler and hierarchy at the court. Consequently, the space and form of the palace served as the structure and composition of the court.

An important connection between social life and architectural space was the movement of the courtier in relation to the ruler. In this, access and control are two essential notions as the regulation of movement and access (to the ruler) are both an expression of power and privacy. What concerns us is the spatial component to express these notions. Elite structures, as the sites of socially defined interactions and relations, determine where and how these notions are articulated.

75 Ronnes 2006: 144.

16

6

1 5 2 3

4

Fig. 2.1. Detail of the NOVUS XVII INFERIORIS GERMANIAE PROVINCIARUM TYPUS [The Seventeen Provinces of the Netherlands]. Printed by the House of Blaeu in 1642, dated 1608. 1. The Hague [including New court, Old Court, Huis ten Bosch], 2. Rijswijk, 3. Honselaarsdijk. 4. Castle at Breda, 5. Castle at Buren, 6. Hunting lodge at Dieren.

17

Chapter II

House(s) of Orange-Nassau Court and palaces before 1650

Before ascending the English throne in 1689, the court of William III is characterized by most scholars as modest and unique.76 This can be ascribed to the diminutive size of the court, but also to the unique position of the House of Orange-Nassau in early modern Europe. In contrast to other countries where monarchy was the norm, the House of Orange-Nassau was a princely court within a republic.77 It was not defined by a unity of court and state administration and the sphere of the private court was separated from the political sphere.78 Thus, in a political sense, the position of the House of Nassau-Orange did not rival that of other European rulers. The head of the House was a prince, not a king, with the exception of William III, and obtained an atypical position as stadholder over regional states in The Netherlands. A stadholder was traditionally a representative of the Spanish Crown in the Burgundian Netherlands, but by the seventeenth century, the holder of the position was the head of the military and a servant of the sovereign states. Over the centuries, the position of the House of Orange-Nassau in The Netherlands could be described as ambiguous with the lack of a clearly defined rule.79 Some members of the House came as stadholder close to a monarchical position, whilst others disappeared in the background.

Despite their relatively limited position in the politics, the House of Orange-Nassau had already gained quite some royal prestige before William III ascended the English throne. Although the story of the rise of the House of Orange-Nassau has predominantly been told through their military actions, these actions were enhanced by an active and crucial engagement with material culture that fully asserted the status and right of the House to predominance in The Netherlands.80 To gain a better understanding of William’s court and palaces, this chapter explores the development of the court and palaces under his predecessors of the House of Orange-Nassau before 1650.

76 Jones 1988: 2, Israel 1999: 119, Duindam 2009: 547, Panhuysen 2016: 124. 77 Israel 1999: 199. 78 Mörke 2007: 231. 79 See for more on the position and politics of the House of Orange-Nassau in The Netherlands and Europe: Schilling 1991, Frijhoff 1997, Mörke 1997, Israel 1999 and Duindam 2009. 80 See for a full exploration of this topic: Broomhall & Van Gent 2016.

18

The development of the Orange-Nassau Court After the death of William III, an English biographer wrote 'I will not take upon me to extend the antiquity of the House of Nassau so far back as the time of Julius Caesar'.81 The biographer referred to the mentioned name of Nassau in Caesar's first book of Commentaries but thought it was rather ‘presumption than truth’.82 Like the English biographer, I shall not go into the remote origins of his ancestry, but it can be said that the House of Nassau had been established for quite a few centuries before the birth of William III. The intricate story of how the House of (Orange-)Nassau rose to power usually starts with William I (1533-1544), also known as William the Silent, the nobleman who led the Dutch revolt against Spain and has often been credited as the ‘founding father’ of the Dutch nation and the House of Orange- Nassau. The title and possessions of Orange were bequeathed to him by his paternal cousin René de Châlon (1519-1544), who had acquired the title and status of Prince of Orange in 1538 on the condition that he would take the name of Châlon-Orange.83

However, in terms of land and revenues, the House of Nassau had from the fifteenth century onwards already slowly moved ahead of other aristocratic families and had surpassed other rival lineages, like Egmond, by the early sixteenth century, according to historian Jonathan Israel.84 As an example of the early splendour and power of the Nassau Court, Israel refers to Henry III of Nassau (1483-1538), father of René de Châlon. Henry held as Chamberlain and as close confidant of Charles V (1500-1558) an important position at the Spanish Habsburg court and was married to the rich well-connected heiress Mencia de Mendoza (1508-1544), his third wife, in 1524.85 The court of Charles V was not very sedentary as he continuously travelled between the different residences of his empire. With a court constantly on the move, the spatial arrangement of the court was rather flexible. Power and status at court were measured by the distance of one’s lodgings to that of the Charles II. The importance of Henry at the Spanish-Habsburg court is reflected in the instructions of the Marshall of the Household that Henry should get lodgings near Charles whenever he was present at court.86

With his return to The Netherlands in 1530, art and architecture had to emphasize his important status. Henry commissioned a series of eight valuable tapestries to celebrate nine

81 Anonymous 1705: A 4. 82 Ibid. 83 Israel 1999: 120. 84 Israel 1999: 119. 85 Wezel 1999: 57-61. 86 Delen 1997: 22.

19

generations of Nassau nobles, which he took with him on his travels to impress other nobles.87 The series, known as ‘Genealogy of the House of Nassau’, did not begin in Roman times or with the first recorded ancestor, but with Adolf of Nassau (ca. 1255-1298), who was elected King of Germany in 1292, and ended with Henry himself.88 Historian Paul Rijkens has argued that by showing off his (royal) ancestors in this particular way, the series can be seen as a positioning statement by Henry that suggested a princely standing and hereditary dynastic continuity.89

Fig. 2.2. One of the sketches for the tapestry series 'Genealogy of the House of Nassau' by Bernard van Orley, ca. 1530. Depicted Otto II of Nassau (ca. 1305 - ca. 1351) and his wife Adelheid of Vianen (?-1376). (Photo Sotheby's New York)

Furthermore, Henry made plans to turn the castle of Nassau at Breda into a Renaissance palace with two courtyards and open galleries after years of contemplating several renovations.90 This new building project started around 1536 under the supervision of Italian architect Thomas Vincidor de Bologna.91 The choice to build a classic Italian Renaissance palace was not an odd one as this ‘new style’ had already been embraced by Charles V and

87 Israel 1999: 199. 88 Wezel 1999: 74, Delen 2002: 489. Frederik Hendrik had copies made of this wall-covering series of tapestries in 1632 and expanded the series to include the current members of the House of Orange-Nassau. 89 Rijkens 2015: 65. 90 Wezel 1999: 95. According to Gerard van Wezel, Henry made these plans around 1528 based on his correspondence about the ongoing renovations and reports of dilapidation. 91 Schellart 1965: 17. The castle of Breda came into the House of Nassau’s possessions when Engelbert I of Nassau (c. 1370-1442) married Johanna of Polanen (1392-1445) in 1403.

20

other European courts during the construction of their palaces. Therefore, some scholars argue that the style was in general rather chosen for its associations with power and status than for aesthetics and artistic reasons.92 The complex was unfinished at Henry’s death in 1538, with only half of Bologna’s design completed.93 Although no inventories or plans survive from that period, Gerard van Wezel has reconstructed the palace based on later inventories and a number of other sources. The lodgings of the court were situated on the first three floors of the north wing and part of the east wing. Each suite consisted of three main rooms: a hall, chamber and wardrobe. The most important lodgings were located in the north wing, these were not only larger but also encompassed another smaller wardrobe and a communal closet. Henry’s lodgings, consisting of a sequence of three rooms, were situated on the first floor of the north wing next to the great hall. From the great hall, one entered the first room of his apartment, which therefore had probably a more open character, followed by another room, probably the bedchamber, a closet and a small wardrobe.94 Unfortunately, due to a lack of written or visual sources from before his death, it is hard to establish, except for its layout, how these spaces regulated human interaction.

Fig. 2.3. Detail of the castle of Breda as depicted on the inside of a lid by Elias Marcus, c. 1600. (Photo Rijksmuseum)

From a fugitive to a fixed and stable court According to scholar John Adamson, Louis XIV’s famous ‘Versailles model’ of the court, where Versailles became an independent and autonomous structure removed from the capital,

92 See discussion in Wezel 1999: 95-107. 93 Delen 2002: 67. 94 Wezel 1999: 276-277.

21

and accommodating both the royal household and administration, was rather ‘the exception than rule’ as most courts usually had their principal residence in an established urban environment, generally the major city of the realm.95 Whilst The Hague is now known as the court city of The Netherlands, this had not always been the case. Prior to The Hague, members of the House of (Orange-)Nassau took up residence in Breda, Brussels and Dillenburg. Nevertheless, the start of a ‘stable’ or ‘established’ court, which according to Israel entailed a ‘fixed centre of influence and patronage, as a complex of buildings and collections, and as a focus of protocol and ceremonial’, is often linked with the official move of the House of Orange-Nassau to The Hague in the early 1590s.96

William the Silent also followed a semi-nomadic lifestyle. For a large part of his life, he had no fixed residence and his itinerary took him and his court mostly to his main residences in Breda, Brussels and, later on, in Antwerp and less frequently to more distant ones.97 Although they might differ in size and grandeur, in use and purpose they were roughly equivalent in status. Historian Marie-Ange Delen emphasizes tradition and a certain level of continuity in her dissertation on the court and court culture of William the Silent, but she also acknowledges the turmoil and restlessness of his court, which next to the peripatetic nature of his household was mainly caused by his political and financial situation.98 During his exile between 1567 and 1574, when the provincial states of Holland, Utrecht and Zeeland appointed William as their stadholder as an act of revolt, several cities, including Delft, Leiden and Middelburg, felt responsible for the housing of William.99 These cities had set up so-called, often temporary, ‘Prinsenhoven’ (Prince’s Courts) for the stadholder. The Prinsenhof at Delft was one of these houses were William took up residence and became memorable as the place where William was assassinated in 1584.100

95 Adamson 1999: 11. 96 Israel 1999: 121. 97 Schellart 1965: 31-37, Delen 2002: 66, 11-117. William married the richest heiress of the country, Anna of Egmont (1533-1558), Countess of Buren, Lingen, Leerdam etc. in 1551. Through this marriage, William obtained, alongside the title of Lord of Egmont and Count of Buren, many domains and estates, including the residences and castles at IJsselstein, Buren, Leerdam, Maarheeze (Cranendonck), Sint Maartensdijk, Grave and Vredestein. Later on, William I bought land, including the neglected castle of Sandenburgh, and acquired in 1581 the marquisate of Veere and Vlissingen. 98 Delen 2002: 62-118, 486-491. 99 Delen 2002: 64, 111-114. 100 Delen 2002: 113. The city of Delft had converted a former monastery into a residence and gave the furnished Prinsenhof to the stadholder as a present on the occasion of the christening of his youngest son. Here he lived the last eighteen months of his life,

22

Despite his many inherited and acquired possessions scattered across The Netherlands, the architectural activity of William himself was in comparison with his predecessors very limited and unpretentious. According to Delen, William did not necessarily lack interest, but rather ‘time and quiet’ to let his court develop into a ‘cultural point of orientation’.101 Together with the high costs of the Revolt, it comes as no surprise that William did not commission a series of tapestries like Henry III or initiated a complex or decorative building programme. From what we know, William made some adjustments to the castle at Breda by closing off the open galleries, rearranging some of the rooms and adding a wooden gallery to the structure between 1552 and 1555.102 The magnificence of his household was proclaimed rather by his hospitality and lavish banquets than through any architectural activity.103

After the assassination of William in 1584, his son Prince Maurits (1567-1625) succeeded his father as stadholder of Holland and Zeeland in 1585 and later on, he also became the stadholder of Utrecht, Gelderland and Overijssel in 1590 and Groningen in 1620, despite the fact that the title was not inheritable. Together with his step-mother Louise de Coligny (1555- 1620) and his younger half-brother Frederik Hendrik, Maurits moved to The Hague in the early 1590s. He settled in the very modest living quarters at Het Binnenhof, which were traditionally placed at the disposal of the stadholder of Holland, while Louise and Frederik Hendrik took up residence at the Old Court, also known as Noordeinde.104 Het Binnenhof was distinct from the other spaces inhabited by the House of Orange-Nassau as the building itself was the property of the States General, and therefore not only entailed the living quarters of the stadholder, but was part of a larger complex of buildings that housed the meeting hall of the States General and that of the States of Holland.105 Although Maurits remains one of the lesser-documented patrons of the Orange-Nassau court as more attention has been paid to the military and masculine aspects of his court, he also showed a keen interest in maps, architecture and fortifications.106 Maurits improved the gardens and the living quarters of Het Binnenhof with the addition of a five-storey tower at the corner and had plans made to build a whole new palace there in the Italian style. These were, however, never executed.107

101 Delen 2002: 489. 102 Wezel 1999: 13, Delen 2002: 67-68. 103 Israel 1999: 120, Delen 2002: 488-489. 104 Schellart 1965: 83, Delen 1997: 22. Noordeinde was first leased and in 1595 purchased by the States of Holland for Louise and her court. In recognition of William’s service to the nation, Noordeinde was gifted to the family in 1609. 105 Israel 1999: 121. 106 Israel 1999: 125, Broomhall & Van Gent 2016: 85, 89. 107 Ottenheym 1997: 110.

23

Fig. 2.4. The Princes of Orange and their families riding out from the Binnenhof by Hendrik Ambrosius Pacx, c. 1623-25 (Courtesy Mauritshuis, The Hague)

In addition to the commission of artworks and the rebuilding and renovations of the existing buildings, ceremonial aspects and display of courtly life that reflected the representation of the House of Orange-Nassau as a ruling dynasty were not neglected. Where at other courts in Europe the difference between dynastic ceremonies such as baptisms, marriages and funerals, and state ceremonies were barely relevant, these ceremonies revealed the two separate roles of the House in Dutch society: as prince or count and as stadholder. Dynastic ceremonies provided myriad opportunities to manifest the House itself as a powerful dynasty separate from the republican system.108 Scholars predominantly argue that the structure and traditions of the Orange-Nassau court were a reflection of the Burgundian court, whilst only a few point to the influence of the Habsburg court in their public ceremonies. Especially the use of departments such as cuisine, chambre, and écurie, (table, chamber and stable), as well as the emphasis on the dining ceremonies in court ordinances by the House of Orange-Nassau, are seen as typical features of a Burgundian court.109 Historian Jeroen Duindam disagrees, stating that structure of the Orange-Nassau court followed the main European court standard with these departments rather than labelling it as a Habsburg or Burgundian influence.110 By and

108 Mörke 1997, Duindam 2009: 552-553, Janssen 2009: 300-301. 109 Mörke 1997: 60, Frijhoff 1997: 15-16, Delen 1997 & 2002, Janssen 2009. 110 Baillie 1967: 170-171, Duindam 2009: 547.

24

large, the Orange-Nassau repeatedly seemed to keep up with broader international trends in court culture, although no system was fully copied. Differences remained because of strict personal taste and different political and economic situations.

The court of the House of Orange-Nassau at The Hague was initially still quite modest, the court, especially under the rule of stadholder Frederik Hendrik between 1624 and 1647, grew steadily in physical terms as well as in its international standing.111 Despite the fact that both Maurits and Frederik Hendrik were for the most part not actually controlling policy, both historian Olaf Mörke and Israel point out that the House of Orange-Nassau became a true and needed asset to the States General in the business of interaction with foreign diplomats and other powers.112 For the States General, the grandeur and ceremonial prominence of the Orange-Nassau court not only asserted their own status but also that of the Dutch Republic, which they regularly supported financially.113

Frederik Hendrik and the new standard of court architecture in The Netherlands Under Frederik Hendrik and his wife Amalia von Solms (1602-1675), some major architectural changes began to be introduced in The Netherlands. After a long period of neglect due to decades of war, Frederik and Amalia were able to invest enormous amounts of time, attention and of money on building, rebuilding and extending the court in and outside The Hague. Israel argues that this architectural activity was a reaction to the increased international status and prestige of the House of Orange and a general expansion of Frederik 114 Hendrik’s and Amalia’s court. Not only was more Fig. 2.5. Detail of portrait of Frederik Hendrik, Amalia of Solms, and their three youngest accommodation needed, but money was especially daughters by Gerard van Honthorst, c. 1647 . (Courtesy Rijksmuseum)

111 The move to a higher international position was due in part to the high-profile strategic marriage alliances to ruling houses of England and Brandenburg planned by Frederik Hendrik and his wife for their children. (Israel 1999: 129, Broomhall & Van Gent 2016: 40-43). 112 Israel 1999: 122, Mörke 2007: 233. 113 Tucker 2000: 96. 114 Israel 1999: 128-129. A seating plan from Maurits’ days as stadholder suggests that he had a permanent household of at least 135 to 140 people, whilst under Frederik Hendrik and Amalia the household had counted at least 250 people (Mörke 2007: 230).

25

put towards the construction of larger, grander houses with more impressive interior decoration to reflect the new status and prosperity of the Orange’s court as well as its ‘refined taste’.115

Between 1621 till his death in 1647, he would build the palaces of Honselaarsdijk and Huis ter Nieuburch, rebuild the Binnenhof and Noordeinde in The Hague and renovate the castles at Breda and Buren.116 According to Israel and Mörke, the grandeur and triumph of Frederik Hendrik and Amalia’s court reached its zenith in terms of architecture and style in the decoration programme of Huis ten Bosch.117 This summer retreat was commissioned by Amalia von Solms ‘for her recreation’ and construction started in 1645.118 After her husband’s death in 1647, Amalia decided to dedicate the palace to him, filling the ‘Oranjezaal’ from top to bottom with paintings depicting the glorification of the late Prince and the House of Orange-Nassau dynasty more broadly. In this way, Amalia demonstrated not only the cultural but also the political importance of the Orange-Nassau’s building scheme.

Fig. 2.6. Cross-section Oranjezaal at Huis ten Bosch by Jan Matthysz., 1655. (Courtesy Koninklijke Verzamelingen The Hague)

115 Israel 1999: 129. 116 Slothouwer 1945. 117 Mörke 1997: 230-237, Israel 1999: 129. 118 Slothouwer 1945: 183. The document that granted Amalia permission to build Huis ten Bosch clearly expresses its function as a summer retreat: ‘tot hare recreatie, exercitie ende oeffeninge te veranderen soo in plantagie als betimmeringe, soo sy t selve t 'haerder vermaeck dienstich soude vinden’.

26

As Frederik Hendrik was the first stadholder to build on such a scale, much scholarship has been devoted to his architectural activity, including the influence of his buildings on the development of Dutch classicism, his involvement and interest in art and architecture.119 When it comes to his interest and knowledge of architecture, historians also refer to his education in mathematics, which included subjects such as architecture and fortification, his collection of literature and documentation on architectural theory, and his secretary Constantijn Huygens Sr. (1596-1687), who had knowledge of the theory and principles of classical architecture.120 It is clear from Frederik Hendrik’s correspondence with Huygens Sr. that he was closely monitoring the progress of his palaces and gardens, while giving directions and making changes to the design, and that he was also interested in other building activities, as Huygens noted on the 4th of June 1639: ‘[a]fter dinner, he spends time by looking at the designs for my house in The Hague, and other matters relating to architecture, one of his favourite pastimes’.121

Inspiration and influences of French, English and German courts were integrated into the design of the interiors, exteriors and gardens for the old and new residences of the stadholder.122 This is evident from the use of concepts such as symmetry, proportionality, rationalism and decorum.123 The adoption of ‘foreign’ styles and influences is not strange considering the fact that Frederik Hendrik was partly raised at the French court and had visited the German and English court multiple times. Furthermore, he had hired French architects to work at the palace of Honselaarsdijk and Huis ter Nieuburgh and the French- Swedish architect Simon de la Vallée (1590-1642), who had previously worked at Palais du Luxembourg, was the first to be appointed official court architect to the stadholder in 1633.124 The influence of the French classicist style and theory was particularly strong but was after 1635 forged by the court architects Jacob van Campen (1596-1657) and Pieter Post (1608- 1669) into a ‘quieter’ classicism.125

119 Slothouwer 1945, Ottenheym 1997, Tucker 2000.In recent years, more research has concentrated on the art patronage & displaying strategies of Amalia: Fock 2005, Broomhall & Van Gent 2016, Beranek 2017. 120 Slothouwer 1945: 25 -26, Ottenheym 1997: 105-107, Tucker 2000: 90, 96-96. 121 Ottenheym 1997: 106. 122 Israel 1999: 129-130. 123 Tucker 2000: 86. 124Baarsen 1988: 12, Ottenheym 1997: 105, Tucker 2000: 90, 96. 125 Baarsen 1988: 12, Ottenheym 1997: 108, Israel 1999: 128. According to Ottenheym, this change of style took place around 1635, when Jacob van Campen started to work on Honselaarsdijk. Van Campen was initially only involved with the interior design of Frederik’s palaces, but later worked as an architect on the renewal of Noordeinde. Pieter Post took over his work in 1640 and held an appointment as official court architect to the stadholder from 1645 onwards.

27

The impact of French and Italian architectural theory is particularly noticeable at the newly constructed palaces at Honselaarsdijk and Rijswijk. The classical details, monumental staircases, symmetrical interior layouts and the ‘axis of ceremony’ as core principles of the design of the new palaces were entirely in line with the theoretical models of palaces and country houses as shown in the influential publications and treaties on architecture by Jacques Androuet I Du Cerceau (1510-1584), Sebastian Serlio (1475-c. 1554) and Andrea Palladio (1508-1580).126 For example, parts of these palaces appear to have been directly copied from designs published by Du Cerceau and Honselaarsdijk was very similar in plan to the Palais de Luxembourg in Paris.127 The main block of Honselaarsdijk was connected to two pavilions by galleries that made up three sides of a courtyard. A colonnade and gallery closed the fourth side. French influences are also visible in the design of Huis Ter Nieuburgh at Rijswijk, but instead of a courtyard, it consisted of two remote pavilions linked by galleries to a central block that contained the principal rooms. The compact, centrally planned, Huis ten Bosch with the octagonal central hall with to either side lodgings for Frederik and Amalia was inspired by designs of Palladio and Serlio for the suburban princely residence.128

Furthermore, a new apartment system, made up of the traditional French sequence of antechambre, chambre, cabinet, and garderobbe, was introduced at the Dutch court. Although we had already seen a sequence of four rooms at Breda, now the interrelationship of the various rooms had developed into a fixed pattern, in which the sequence of rooms served a number of fixed purposes in the reception ritual.129 This French arrangement of rooms was already incorporated in the plans for the new buildings, but in the 1630s, both the castle at Buren and the living quarters of the couple at Het Binnenhof were also renovated and redecorated to include this new standard of living. A new gallery and two new apartments were created at Buren, while at Het Binnenhof another extension was built to enlarge the living quarters with new, private, apartments.130

126 Ottenheym 1997: 106, 121-123, Tucker 2000: 86-88. These publications were part of the Orange-Nassau library collection in 1686, although the exact date of their acquisition cannot be ascertained. 127 Tucker calls in her article attention to other possible sources for the building; including the Italian influences in the classical details, the use of a dominant pediment in the centre of the building, segmental and triangular windows and the building’s reversed orientation. Moreover, according to Tucker, the features such as the octagonal towers, consistent classical details, brick building materials and moat can be seen as an architectural nod to the stammschloss of the Nassaus in Breda. (Tucker 2000: 88) 128 Loonstra 1985: 23, Ottenheym 1997: 121-123. 129 Fock 2005: 25-27. 130 Ottenheym 1997: 105, 110. The renovation at Het Binnenhof also included the addition of a new monumental staircase to enter the improved living quarters in a stately manner

28

Fig. 2.7. Plan of Palais du Luxembourg by Salomon de Fig. 2.8. Model VIII from Livre d'architecture by Jacques Du Brosse, 1615. (Courtesy Bibliothèque National de France) Cerceau, 1559. (Courtesy Bibliothèque National de France)

Fig. 2.9. & 2.10. Survey of Honselaarsdijk before the renovations (L) and proposed renovations of 1644-1646 (R) by Pieter Post, 1646. (Courtesy National Archives The Hague)

Fig.2.11. Detail of bird's-eye view of Honselaarsdijk by Balthasar Florisz. van Berckenrode, c. 1635- 1645. (Courtesy Rijksmuseum)

29

Fig. 2.12. Detail from Huis ter Nieuburgh at Rijswijk by J. Abraham Rietkessler, 1697. (Courtesy Rijksmuseum)

←HUIS TEN BOSCH A. Great hall or Oranjezaal B. Entrance hall C. Antechamber D. Bedroom E. Grand closet F. Small closet G. Wardrobe

Fig. 2.13. Plan of principal floor of Huis ten Bosch by Jan Matthysz. after Pieter Post, 1655. (Courtesy Rijksmuseum)

HET BINNENHOF → 1. Assembly Hall States of Holland (1652) 2. Extension 1677-78 A. Extension 1632 (layout uncertain) B. Mauritstoren (council chamber, later dining room) C. Salle de garde D. Antechamber E. Presence chamber Fig.2.14. First floor of the Stadtholder’s Quarter at Het Binnenhof. (Copy of F. Chamber reconstructed plan by Koen Ottenheym 1997) G. Gallery

30

In historian Rebecca Tucker’s analysis of Honselaarsdijk, Tucker argues that Honselaarsdijk set the new standard for the noble lifestyle in The Netherlands. In her comparison of the old castle of Honsholredijk of 1615 to the remodelled palace of Honselaarsdijk of around 1638, Tucker points out the significant changes that had taken place after almost two decades of renovations. Not only its appearance, but also its function has altered from a castle to ‘a suburban villa, a home intended for pleasure and recreation’, where the defensive structure of the castle made room for a palace with a more open character and a new emphasis on ceremony and physical magnificence, which according to Tucker were indicators of the new attitude of its owner.131

Not only was the royal couple’s overall building campaign a demonstration of the House of Orange-Nassau’s (inter)national status and image as a noble family, it also brought new ideas concerning the appropriate decorum, comfort and privacy to the table.132 A new divide between the public and private spaces was established on different levels. The first distinction can be made between the Binnenhof as the official and public residence of the stadholder and the more private palaces and retreats of the House of Orange-Nassau outside the inner city of The Hague.133 Mörke argues that this functional separation resulted from the dual position of the House of Orange-Nassau within the political and social climate of the Republic; as the family of a public official and as a noble family with their own political aspirations.134 While the official residences at The Hague were now used for official events related to Frederik’s stadholdership, including dinners, balls and ceremonies, the palaces outside The Hague functioned as places of (private) amusement, where leisure, games and other sports made up the social calendar.135

Another distinction between the public and private is made by architectural historian Koen Ottenheym, as he measures the levels of privacy between the different palaces by analysing floorplans and the available lodgings for courtiers. According to him, Honselaarsdijk was intended to be a hunting lodge and summer residence for the entire court, while the Huis ter Nieuburgh was to be a more private palace where only a limited retinue could be accommodated.136

131 Tucker 2000: 85-86. 132 Tucker 2000: 95. 133 Mörke 1992: 64, 70. 134 Mörke 1997: 219. 135 Mörke 1992: 70, Mörke 1997: 218-219, Tucker 2000: 94. 136 Ottenheym 1997: 117.

31

On a micro level, the distinction between public and private space was carefully drawn into the plans of the apartments and palaces of Frederik Hendrik and Amalia. Public rooms were differentiated from those designated for residents; with the public rooms centred around the hall and monumental staircase and flanked by the apartments in the wings and corner pavilions. The incorporation of formal state apartments and private apartments, for example at Het Binnenhof, can also be seen as a way to distinguish the public from the more private areas. According to Tucker, it was possible that the growing importance of Honselaarsdijk as a social centre motivated the ‘protectionism’ in later renovations.137 In the original plan, access to the galleries would have been only possible through the apartments. After 1633, visitors would only have to pass through the outer antechamber to get to the gallery. With the addition of two new pavilions and a reorganisation of the rooms, a total separation between the public rooms and the apartments was established: visitors could now enter the gallery without setting foot in the apartments.138 Swedish architect Nicodemus Tessin (1654-1728) even remarked on this pleasant arrangement in his diary after his visit in 1687.139

HONSELAARSDIJK

1. Great Hall 2. Antechamber 3. Presence chamber 4. Private dining room 5. Woman’s chamber 6. Gallery 7. Princesses bed chamber 8. Closet/Cabinet 9. Wardrobe 10. Prince’s Bed Chamber

Fig. 2.15. Sketch of the principal floor of the palace of Honselaarsdijk by Nicodemus Tessin, 1687.

137 Tucker 2000: 90-91. 138 Ibid. 139 Upmark 1900b: 145. ‘Die vertheilung wahr artig genug in dem fall, dass man die vornembsten zimber kunte durchgehen, undt die alcove, cabinet undt guarderobbe doch auf beijden seiten nicht zu passiren.’

32

The apartments were hierarchically arranged. The access and functionality of each room also reflected the relative social standings of resident and visitor: rooms became more private the further one penetrated into the suite of rooms.140 As the antechamber and chamber preceded the wardrobe and closet, the latter was regarded as the most private rooms of the resident. This is illustrated by passages from the diaries of the Frisian stadholder Willem Frederik (1613-1664) who was eagerly trying to get invited to Amalia’s closet, where he could engage with her on more familiar terms.141 Furthermore, spaces were decorated in accordance with an ever-narrowing audience, with a contrast in decoration scheme between the public and private spaces.142 For example, in the newly built palaces, the accessible galleries became tools of state diplomacy by displaying portraits of Frederik and Amalia amongst a large number of other portraits of significant and influential European nobles, whereas the more restricted galleries of Frederik Hendrik and Amalia at Het Binnenhof showed a more personal taste.143

Noordeinde was primarily used to accommodate distinguished guests and serve as a venue for festive occasions once Louise de Coligny had died and Frederik Hendrik and Amalia had moved to the Het Binnenhof in 1626. Following the announcement of the engagement between his son William II (1626-1650) and the English Mary Stuart I (1631-1660), Frederik Hendrik decided to radically alter and update the complex to create a stately city home for the royal couple in 1639. Likely inspired by contemporary Parisian hötels, the new city palace consisted of a new banquet hall, two apartments with galleries, and a cour d’honneur on the street.144 After his father’s death in 1647, William succeeded his father as stadholder and moved with Mary to Het Binnenhof. Although his father had plans to add a cour d’honneur to Honselaarsdijk, William turned his back on these monumental plans and showed more

140 However, in none of these newly built and renovated palaces were the apartments linked by one continuous enfilade (see featured floorplans of Honselaarsdijk, Huis ter Nieuburch, Huis ten Bosch). 141 Fock 2005: 27. 142 Beranek 2017: 3. 143 Tucker 2000: 91-92, Beranek 2017: 9-12, 15. In Het Binnenhof, more than half of the total paintings in Amalia’s gallery were portraits, whilst Frederik’s gallery was dominated with landscapes and allegorical scenes. At Honselaarsdijk, the galleries were hung with portraits of European rulers and the French nobility. Moreover, an entire room was filled with portraits of ancestors, relatives, colleagues, and historical and intellectual figures. The galleries of Huis ter Nieuburgh were also hung with portraits of European elite, carefully laid out by Frederik Hendrik himself. The gallery leading to Frederik’s apartment was hung with only male portraits, while the portraits of women were located in the gallery next to Amalia’s apartment. 120 portraits were displayed at Noordeinde around 1632, including a ‘gallery of beauties’ with 23 portraits of noble women. At Huis ten Bosch, Amalia’s closet was also referred to as the ‘family closet’, since it only contained portraits of her immediate family. 144 Ottenheym 1997: 119-120.

33

interest the house at Dieren, which he had bought from the Teutonic Order in 1647.145 A move motivated by recreation rather than representation. There he converted the house into a hunting lodge and had a game preserve made on the adjoining lands.146 This was, unfortunately, his only architectural activity as he died of smallpox in 1650 at the age of 24.

Conclusion Duindam argues that the Orange-Nassau court reflected the ambivalent and dual position of the stadholders: too small for a sovereign who wanted to count as a full member on a European level, but at the same time notable and influential throughout The Netherlands.147 Whereas their political power as stadholders was rather limited, the status and power of the House of Orange-Nassau had to be demonstrated through other forms that carried high political significance: such as political alliances through marriages and through strategic and costly self-representation in palaces and court culture.148 Henry III and Frederik Hendrik both imitated the style and symbols of foreign courts in their building projects to stress the status of their own House. This also included the introduction of certain foreign concepts concerning appropriate decorum, privacy and modern comfort at the Orange-Nassau court. Especially the influences from the French and Italian court were integrated into the palaces, with classical details, monumental staircases, symmetrical interior layouts and the French apartment sequence as core principles of the design of the new palaces.

The dual role of members of the House as stadholders, but also noblemen was represented in the distribution and use of space in their building projects. In the 1590s, the court moved away from the ‘ancient’ Nassau seats at Breda, Brussels and Dillenburg to the political and administrative centre Het Binnenhof in The Hague. Het Binnenhof became their official seat as servants of the Republic, whilst the renewal and redevelopment of other residential structures in- and outside The Hague addressed very specific needs regarding recreation, privacy, and their status and position as a dynasty.

145 Ottenheym 1997: 116. Willem Frederik wrote that William sold a lot of Honselaarsdijk land to pay off his debt and needed a million guilders to (re)build the house and game preserve. (Visser 1955: 468). 146 Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer I 1974: 385, Hunt & De Jong 1988: 141. 147 Duindam 2009: 555. 148 Broomhall & Van Gent 2016: 170. Scholars Susan Broomhall and Jacqueline Van Gent explain this by using Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital, whom saw power and status increase through the accumulation of culture as capital: symbolic elements ranging from mannerisms to material belongings. According to them, the House used a form of cultural power that had the ‘ability to shape the preferences of others that rests on the power of attraction. The model of this power explains not only why cultural capital increases status and influence, but also why others try to imitate those who are successful.’

34

1 3 4 2

Fig. 3.1. Detail of ‘Kaart van de Zeven Provinciën’ by Justus Danckerts, ca. 1690 (Courtesy Rijksmuseum). The red blocks refer to the houses acquired/built by William between 1672-1689: 1. Huis ten Kruidberg, 2. Soestdijk, 3. Hoog Soeren, 4. Het Loo. The blue blocks refer to the houses inherited by William III.

35

Chapter III

William’s Stadholderly Court in the Dutch Republic and the Utility of Splendour

With the death of William’s grandfather in 1647 and his father in 1650, the entire court plunged into the depths of despair. ‘Born in misfortune and brought up in misfortune’ was a sentence William later used in a letter to describe his childhood.149 The death of William II marked the beginning of the ‘stadholderless period’ from 1650 till 1672, as Holland and other provinces decided not to appoint a new stadholder by passing the Act of Exclusion in 1654. 150 Now, the role of the House of Orange-Nassau was unclear and undefined. As Israel puts it ‘the boyhood of William III was passed in an atmosphere that had no real parallel either in the courtly world of the rest of Europe or in the Dutch past’.151 This slowly changed when William became stadholder after his military successes during the ‘year of disaster’ in 1672, when the Republic faced a joint attack by France and England, supported by Cologne and Münster. Although on paper his powers were rather limited, in practice his offices provided many opportunities to exercise considerable influence.152 William could appoint urban magistrates, members to the Council of State as well as the command of the army and navy and therefore he was able to place close followers, supporters and courtiers into positions of power, thus bringing his private court into government.153 With his new role as stadholder, William’s court became an important instrument of political practice and patron- client relationships and William reached ‘a more dominant position in politics than any stadholder had had’.154 However, William’s political career did not end with his appointment as stadholder and commander of the army as he continued to battle against the might of Louis XIV and he and his wife Mary became second in line to the throne of England after the death of Charles II in 1685. From 1672 to William’s ascension to England’s throne in 1689, William’s court was, according to Israel, a ‘hive of intrigue and propaganda’.155

149 Troost 2005: 23. 150 Israel 1992: 130-132. With this act the provinces tried to formally block the House of Orange-Nassau from ever again holding any major position within state politics. 151 Israel 1992: 132. 152 Groenveld 2007: 19. 153 Groenveld 2007: 22-23, Mörke 2007: 233. 154 J.L. Price (1994) cited in Mörke 2007: 233. 155 Israel 1999: 135.

36

The English ambassador William Temple (1628-1699), who worked at The Hague from 1667 to 1671 and 1674 to 1679, had first published the widely read Observations upon the United Provinces of the Netherlands in 1672. In the chapter ‘On their Government’ Temple provided insight into the complexity of the Dutch Republic by stating that the most important factors behind the mechanism of the State were the ‘Freedom of the Cities, the Soveraignty of the Provinces, the Agreements or Constitutions of the Union, and the Authority of the Princes of Orange’, where William III represented ‘the Dignity of this State, by Publick Guards, and the Attendance of all Military Officers; By the Splendor of his Court, and Magnificence of his Expence’.156 According to Mörke, this statement by Temple shows that the House of Orange and its court were indispensable for the structural coherence of the Dutch Republic and for its society to function.157 Mörke argues that the ‘Splendor of his Court’ and ‘Magnificence of his Expence’ were instruments, not objectives, to maintain the position of the House of Orange as representatives of the State during the political developments in the Republic and in addition strengthen that position in relation to the European court circles.158 This meant that the outward appearances of William and Mary’s court played an important part in their ambition for and display of power. This chapter explores to what extent this was the case, and, more importantly, I will review the motivations of William’s architectural activity between 1672 and 1688 by reviewing the organisation and structure of his houses and his court.

William’s building activities in the Republic 1674-1688 William was born at Het Binnenhof where he lived with his mother Mary Stuart I, and after her death lived with his grandmother Amalia von Solms at Noordeinde.159 Up until 1674 William had to make do with the buildings he had inherited from his predecessors. Most of these buildings stood in and around The Hague, which was still the administrative centre of government, except for the hunting lodge at Dieren in Overijssel, the castle of Breda in Brabant and the castle of Buren in Gelderland. The mainly ‘The Hague based infrastructure’ of residences of the House of Orange-Nassau had been enlarged by William by purchasing the properties of Soestdijk in 1674 and Het Loo in 1684. He furthermore received the property and hunting rights of Hoog Soeren by the State of Gelderland in 1677, acquired Kruidberg in 1682 and bought the Huis ten Bosch from his aunt in 1686.160 Mörke argues that William

156 Temple 1705: 92-93, 133. 157 Mörke 1992: 41. 158 Mörke 1992: 43. 159 Japikse 1930 I: 11, 22. 160 Japikse 1930 II: 123, Everdingen 1984: 48, 51.

37

tried to strengthen his own political position in the Republic with these acquisitions, especially in the provinces of Utrecht and Gelderland, where he had previously only played a minor role.161

Het Binnenhof functioned also during the reign of William as the official residence of the stadholder in The Hague, but William hardly ever lived there. He did not enjoy living amongst the constant stream of petitioners, statesmen and civil servants and spent whenever was possible his days at one of his country homes outside of The Hague.162 This was also because of his poor health. William had suffered from asthma since his childhood and it was important for him to live as much as possible in an area where the air was clean and comparatively dry.163

Fig. 3.2. Binnenhof at The Hague by Pieter Schenk, after Jan van Call, 1695-1705. (Courtesy Rijksmuseum)

Thurley argues that William turned his attention to architecture during two periods: ‘immediately’ after his marriage to Princess Mary in 1677, for whom he enlarged the already existing structures with rooms and suites for Mary, and the second after the death of Charles

161 Mörke 2007: 234. 162 Spies & Raaij 1988: 83. 163 Janssens-Knorsch 1990: 277.

38

II in 1685, when William, together with his wife Mary, became next in line to the English throne, and consequently enlarged his palaces and gardens to make them ‘more magnificent’ and to reflect his increased status.164 He states that these two building phases were initiated by the practical requirements of the prince, rather than being a result ‘of a love of building and architectural display’ like his grandfather Frederik Hendrik.165 Jones also argues that William changed his ways of living in 1685 as a result of his possible reign as King of England. According to Jones, this led to a ‘sudden flowering’ of William and Mary’s court by welcoming streams of British visitors and investing in (re)building his residences.166 He notes that during the years of 1685-1688 William spent heavily on ‘new’ buildings, by completing the 16th-century palace at Breda, remodelling Honselaarsdijk and Het Loo and had ‘a new country house built for him at Soestdijk’. Although these new prospects have indeed influenced William’s (re)building activities to some extent, Thurley and Jones’ timeline regarding this activity is a little off. While both scholars write about William’s acquisition and rebuilding of Soestdijk between 1674 and 1677, they, for some odd reason, do not fully acknowledge the fact that William’s first architectural experience started in 1674 with the acquisition of Soestdijk, not with his marriage to Mary in 1677 or after 1685. In fact, when we look at the timeline of his architectural activities, there is no real demarcation of one or two periods, but rather a continuous stream of acquisitions, renovations and construction work. [fig. 3.3].

Fig. 3.3. Architectural activity of William III in The Netherlands between 1674 and 1689.

164 Thurley 2009: 1. 165 Ibid. 166 Jones 1988: 2.

39

Construction work at Soestdijk and Hoog Soeren both occurred prior to his marriage, and although the living quarters at Het Binnenhof were indeed immediately extended to make room for the new bride, it is questionable to what extent his marriage influenced the decision to renovate Dieren or to purchase Kruidberg. Based on the timeline, the death of Charles II certainly could have impacted the design of Het Loo and decision to complete work at Breda. However, it can be argued that the fact that William was motivated to build or renovate these houses despite the death of Charles as William had ordered drawings for work at Honselaarsdijk and had purchased Het Loo before 1685. Thus, although the events discussed by Thurley and Jones could have triggered William to renovate or change the design some of the buildings, the use of specific periods by both scholars does not cover nor account for all of William’s architectural activity. A closer look at the buildings and possible motivations might provide some further insights.

There is limited information on the whereabouts of William and his court to make definite conclusions on specific preferences and on how he divided his time between the different residences before 1688. The stays that are documented prior to 1688 place William and his court, besides The Hague, frequently at the castle of Breda, Honselaarsdijk, Soestdijk, Het Loo, Hoog Soeren and Dieren.167 Although William had refurnished the residences of Kruidberg, Noordeinde and Huis ten Bosch and to some extent the gardens at Rijswijk, he rarely made use of them. Honselaarsdijk was only after his marriage to Mary regularly visited and in the castle of Buren, he showed no interest at all.168 That the castle of Buren was not properly looked after is evident from a letter Constantijn Huygens Sr. who wrote to William in August 1678:

‘Many come see the beautiful castle daily, but one hardly dares to ride with a barrow over the bridges, so fragile are they, and collapsed walls fill the canals. I cannot resist requesting Your Highness to not let the castle fall into decay, which your grandfather had decorated with so much care and cost’.169

The construction of the hunting lodge Soestdijk was the first sizable project which William undertook in the field of architecture. According to landscape historian Heimerick Tromp, Soestdijk was ‘a good opportunity arising at the right moment’ with surroundings suitable for

167 Huygens 1881, Jones 1988: 2. 168 Slothouwer 1945: 62-63. The poor state of the castle of Buren is also revealed by its inventory from 1675, which mentions ‘very old’ and ‘shabby’ furniture (Drossaers & Lunsing Scheurleer 1974: 553-545). 169 Worp 1917: letter 7089.

40

hunting and a location close to various members of the Nassau family and his ‘‘allies’’.170 Historian Erik de Jong stresses the political significance of this purchase. The province of Utrecht had surrendered rather quickly to the troops of Louis XIV in 1672 to prevent further damage to its cities and castles and this was not appreciated by the other provinces. After William had driven out the Sun King’s troops, he imposed as a ‘punishment’ a government regulation on the States of Utrecht, which caused them to lose much of their power and jurisdiction to William. De Jong states that William’s architectural activity at Soestdijk had to symbolize his political presence in Utrecht and therefore became the first example of the political use of architecture in his career.171

Fig. 3.4. Bird’s eye view of Soestdijk by Bastiaen Stopendael, after Bartholomeus Stuyvenburgh, c. 1700. (Courtesy Rijksmuseum)

While the choice for the location might have been politically charged, politics did not determine the design for the house and gardens. William had asked architect Maurits Post (1645-1677) to redesign the existing structure and lay out the gardens, according to the latest fashion, between 1674 and 1678.172 Work on the building went very smoothly as William’s

170 Tromp 1987: 21. The prince often paid a number of visits in the neighbourhood, visiting Admiral Cornelis Tromp at Syllisburg, his cousin at Zeist Castle or Godard Adriaan van Reede and Margaretha Turnor at the Castle of Amerongen. 171 De Jong 1993: 41. 172 Tromp 1987: 35. Maurits Post was the son of the former court architect Pieter Post and was appointed as court architect to William III in 1670.

41

secretary Constantijn Huygens Jr. was shown already furnished apartments on the 18th of October 1675.173 The house comprised of a centrally-placed entrance hall with the Mary’s and William’s apartments on either side and located on the first floor.174 The function of the house as a hunting lodge was reflected in the wall- and ceiling paintings by Melchior d’Hondecoeter, Gerard de Lairesse and Johan Glauber with depictions of (mythological) hunting scenes and game trophies.175 Besides the principal theme of hunting, the recent marriage of William and Mary also became part of the iconographic scheme. The carefully selected mythological themes in both William and Mary’s apartments conveyed a message of virtue, but through its presentation and execution, it rather alluded to feelings of lust and love.176 Although it was his first sizable project, William and Mary showed little interest in Soestdijk and hardly visited the hunting lodge after the purchase of the medieval castle of Het Loo in 1684.

Fig.3.5. Detail of the five-part ceiling decoration for the Great Hall of Soestdijk by Geraird de Lairesse, c. 1676-1682. (Courtesy Rijksmuseum)

Before his purchase of Het Loo, William had turned his attention to four other properties. At Hoog Soeren, which he had received as a gift, he transformed between 1677 and 1678 the old farm into a small hunting lodge with new kitchen buildings, stables and a dog house.177 In 1678, he commissioned to extend the court with a new wing to accommodate himself and his new wife Mary.178 William purchased Kruidberg in 1683, which appears to have also been

173 Huygens 1881: 76. 174 Tromp 1987: 43. The location of their apartments is quite exceptional, as in their other houses these were located on the second floor. 175 Tromp 1987: 43, Spies & Raaij 1988: 31. 176 Spies & Raaij 1988: 31. 177 Everdingen 1984: 49. 178 Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer I 1974: 426, Spies & Raaij 1988: 83.

42

used as a hunting lodge.179 In the meanwhile, William had started to renovate the house and gardens of his inherited hunting lodge at Dieren.180 With no surviving plans, inventories prior to 1689, or drawings, relatively little is known about the exterior and/or interior design of these houses and gardens. Het Binnenhof and Dieren are to some extent an exception to this rule. From a map of 1648 and a drawing by Huygens Jr. from 1679, it can be established that the house at Dieren was a complex of buildings centred around a tall and narrow house with high top gables. William remodelled the complete layout of the garden, which he embellished with many terraces, lakes, grottos and fountains.181 However, without surviving floorplans or inventories prior to 1679, it is hard to establish his exact changes to the house. Some argue that the house was renovated to make it possible for the princess and his court to accompany William during his hunting trips.182 Although most scholars note that the house had received a classical addition and a proper courtyard during this period, based on the inventory of 1683 and notes by travellers this was done during the second round of renovations in the 1690s.183 The English politician Henry Sidney (1641-1704) wrote in 1679 that he found the Prince in an ‘ill house but in a fine country’.184 John Locke (1632-1704) too thought that Dieren was ‘more considerable for the pleasant country about it than for its largeness or beauty’ after his visit in 1684.185

Fig. 3.7. Detail of drawing Hunting lodge at Dieren, by Fig. 3.6. Detail from map of William II's game reserve in 1648, by Nicolaas van Geelkerken, 1672. (Courtesy Constantijn Huygens jr, 1679. (Courtesy Rijksmuseum)

Rijksmuseum)

179 Bax 1909: 183-185, Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer I 1974: 637. Although little is known about this particular place, tradition has it that this was the house where William held his ‘secret’ meetings, which eventually led up to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The fact that one of the rooms there was for the English secretary Sidney probably has contributed to this fact. 180 Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer I 1974: 25. 181 Hunt & De Jong 1988: 141. 182 Hamilton 1972: 79, Spies & Raaij 1988: 118-119. 183 For example in Spies & Raaij 1988: 120, 122. Compare: GA, 623, inv.nr. 425: 167 ‘out gebouw’ (1683), Fremantle 1970: 53-54 ‘small and very old’ (1696), Strien 1993: 150, 166 [note 59] ‘house is large and brick […] after the Italian mode’ (1698), GA, 493, inv.nr. 53: 35, 36, ‘nieuw Italiaens gebouw gehegt’ (1705), and Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer 1974 I: 385-402 and 597-620 (difference in number of rooms and descriptions, for example in the inventory of 1699, William’s lodgings are referred to as either new ‘Nieuw quartier’or old ‘Sijn Majts. oude anti-chambre’. 184 Blencowe 1843: 43. 185 Strien 1989: 224-225.

43

Fig. 3.8. Equestrian portrait of William III, in the background Het Loo by Dirk Maas, before 1692. (Courtesy National Museum Het Loo)

Ten years after his purchase of Soestdijk, William made arrangements to build a ‘palais ou un maison du chasse’ at Het Loo in 1684.186 Edward Southwell (1671-1730), who had joined William on one of his hunting trips in 1696, noted in his diary that William ‘bought it for the sake of the Game thereabout’, and added that the Veluwe was ‘one of the best hunting Countrys in ye World, but good for Little else’.187 The place was beside its ideal location for hunting, particularly attractive due to the low-lying grounds that made it possible to have the large spraying fountains William wanted for his garden.188 Indeed, William had much more ambitious plans for this place than for the ‘simple’ Soestdijk or Dieren, and many scholars state that it was his intention to create a new palace with gardens appropriate to his status as the country’s sovereign, especially after the death of Charles II.189 It was the first structure that William built from scratch as he had before only enlarged and remodelled existing structures. Drawings for the new structure were provided by L’Académie Royale d’Architecture in Paris, but it is unknown to what extent the drawings were incorporated into

186 De Jong 1993: 56. 187 Fremantle 1970: 51. 188 Hunt & De Jong 1988: 146, Spies & Raaij 1988: 123, Ronnes 2004: 59. 189 Janssens-Knorsch 1990: 277, De Jong 1993: 66, Thurley 2009: 1, 4-5.

44

the plans for Het Loo.190 Whilst the palace and gardens were being constructed, William and Mary would often stay at the old castle of Het Loo, which was positioned just behind the new house.191 Tessin was able to comment on the process of the building during his visit in 1687. He noted that the palace then consisted of a corps-de-logis with two wings both connected to the building by colonnades consisting of thirteen Ionian pilasters on each side.192 From his account, it becomes clear that the palace, as well as the gardens of Het Loo, were already in an advanced stage of construction.193 Not only does he mention where William’s courtiers are lodged in the building, but he also comments on the furnishings of the house and layout of the gardens.194

Not just his work at Soestdijk and Het Loo, but his undertakings at Honselaarsdijk and the castle of Breda are also closely associated with William’s political career. It seems to Thurley as no coincidence that William had chosen to refurnish Honselaarsdijk and renovate the castle at Breda as these were the only residences of the stadholder that had, besides those in The Hague, a throne room.195 He states that Honselaarsdijk got a complete suite of royal apartments in the English style after 1685 to properly entertain and impress (foreign) guests and travellers and that around the same time, the palace was densely hung with paintings of William and Mary’s ancestors to strengthen their position in European court circles but also their claim to the throne, a trend which is also noticeable in other palaces.196

Thurley supports his statement on the rebuilding of Honselaarsdijk after 1685 on two travel accounts: one by Lord Fitzwilliam in 1663 who noted ‘an infinite number of little chambers, which were, at our being there, all ungarnished’ and one of an anonymous visitor in 1700 who saw ‘a fine gallery’.197 Although little is known about the alterations of Honselaarsdijk during William’s reign, a few authors state that these changes probably occurred after his marriage to Mary in 1677 and were executed according to‘ his taste and the wishes of his spouse’.198 The account of the brothers Bovio from Bologna, who visited the palace just a month after William and Mary’s marriage in December 1677, affirms that there were already two galleries

190 Haley 1990: 7. 191 Spies & Raaij 1988: 122-123. 192 Upmark 1900a: 122. 193 Hunt & De Jong 1988: 146. 194 Upmark 1900a: 123-124. 195 Thurley 2009: 2-4. 196 Thurley 2009: 2-4. 197 Thurley 2009: 17 [as cited in note 9]. 198 Morren 1905: 46-47, Slothouwer 1945: 82, Dunk 2006: 39.

45

both very well decorated and filled with portraits of nobility.199 Thus, alterations to these galleries and Honselaarsdijk could have taken place prior to their marriage. Some of the work at Honselaarsdijk did take place after 1677. One document of 1684 mentions payment for bowers and ‘drawings for other works’ by court architect Jacob Roman (1640-1716).200 Not just the rebuilding work but also the specific use of galleries to demonstrate their lineage and standing occurred prior to 1685. This means that Thurley’s argument that William’s architectural activity concerning Honselaarsdijk was politically charged does not necessarily hold water.

According to Thurley, William was eager to complete the castle of Breda to ‘create the only building that the contemporary English might call a palace’.201 Between 1686 and 1695, William gave orders to finally finish the castle of Breda. The construction work was to some extent based on the original plans as commissioned by Henry III with now one of the two courtyards completed.202 No documents are available to give us any insight into the different stages of construction. As we are only acquainted with the end result, it is difficult to establish if or to what extent changes were made to the design during the construction. Despite the fact that the castle at Breda had the appearance and representational rooms that one expected of a ‘royal’ castle, it was for William nothing more than a convenient stop before he went off to fight the French during the summer.203

Fig. 3.9. Castle of Breda by B.F. Immink after Pieter de Swart, 1743. (Courtesy Rijksmuseum)

199 Brom 1913: 101-102. 200 NA, ND, 1.08.11, inv.nr. 998: 7. 201 Thurley 2009: 2. 202 Wezel 1999: 11. 203 Wezel 1999: 13, and as apparent from excerpts from the journals of Huygens 1876, vol. I & II.

46

The organisation of William’s court William’s court before 1689 is characterized as modest, private and informal.204 In 1672, an old German count wrote that William’s biggest shortcoming was that he did not know how to live and act due to his upbringing amongst civilians ‘where one does not learn what is required for a prince’, but added that his intentions were good.205 Due to a lack of written resources, it is hard to establish William’s day to day life at court prior to 1689.

From the two entries in Huygens Jr.’s journal, we know that William did hold levers at his court.206 A book with a small collection of court ordinances and instructions of William’s court survived the passing of time. It includes primarily appointments of officeholders and instructions stipulating the seating plans and rules during the dinner ceremony.207 As pointed out by historian Jasper van der Steen, something that does seem to be in line with the characterization of his court are the ordinances and regulations of the household. These ordinances are often very vague or did not even exist in a written example.208 For example, the lord chamberlain’s task ought to be ‘faithfully executed, in line with the appropriate instructions and orders that have been made or that are still to be made’.209 Another document suggests that William made sure not everyone at court had access to him.210 In a document from 1677, William granted a select group of his court unlimited access to him.211

What can be established through the study of these ordinances is the size of William’s court and the hierarchy and relations within this court. The royal household was organised in the following departments: ‘Reecken Camer’ (Court of Audits), Camer (Chamber), Keucken (Kitchen), Stall (Stable) and Jacht (Hunting). Noblemen were associated with the court through appointments in one of these apartments, where the leading offices of these apartments, namely the Hofmeester (Lord Chamberlain), Stalmeester (Master of the Horses) and kamerheer or gentilshommes (Chamberlain) were held by the most important dignitaries at court.212 The organisation of the court further included a secretary and the Domeinraad (Nassau’s Estate Council), who were responsible for the correspondence and for the

204 Jones 1988: 2, Panhuysen 2016: 124, Duindam 2009: 547, Israel 1999: 119 and Mörke 2007: 231. 205 Japikse 1930 II: 128. 206 Huygens 1888: 16, 55. 207 NA, ND, inv.nr. 565. 208 Steen 2009:123, 133 [note 17]. 209 NA, ND, inv.nr. 565, f. 222. 210 Japikse 1930 I: 152, Mörke 1997: 100-102. 211 Japikse 1930 II: 118. 212 Duindam 2016: 192.

47

maintenance of the estates of the House of Orange. According to research, William and Mary’s household in The Netherlands consisted of between 150 and at least 250 persons.213 This was not more than around 10 percent of the size of the grand European courts around 1700 and therefore corresponded more with the proportions of a small-sized German princely court.214

Throughout William’s younger years, his mother Mary and his grandmother Amalia, who both held guardianship over the young prince and frequently quarrelled about his guardianship, upbringing and education, regulated his household and the appointment of his courtiers.215 His first ‘personal court’ between 1653 and 1654 existed of around twenty people with ‘Mrs Dijck’ as head of the court. The list of names suggests an element of continuity with the years before 1650. Some of the courtiers who had previously worked at the court of his father and grandfather continued to work in the court of the young prince. These men were Constantijn Huygens Sr., the former secretary to William’s father and grandfather, Antoine Descamps as Master of the Horse and a few chamberlains, such as Baron Schomberg.216 William’s court consisted furthermore of Petrus Augustinus Rumpf, a ‘doctor medicinae’, and two page boys, Johan Boreel and Frederik van Reede.217 His court was reorganised when William went to study in Leiden at the age of nine. Professors were introduced to his court, whilst Mrs Dijck returned to England and William’s uncle, Frederik van Nassau, became William’s governor and head of his household.218 Zuylenstein had been given instructions by Huygens Sr. on how the prince should spend his time: William was to rise between seven and eight, eat a light breakfast and then join the morning prayers. The rest of the morning was dedicated to his studies, which had to be varied, and after lunch, the young prince was free to enjoy his leisure but had to be cautious in taking physical exercise.219 Charles Henri van Kerckhoven, Baron Wotton and the Lord of Blydestein became the first gentlemen of the

213 Duindam 2009: 546, Panhuysen 2016, Mörke 2007: 230. This included courtiers, court officials, footmen, chambermaids, halberds, pages and people who worked in the kitchens. 214 Duindam 2009: 546. 215 Japikse 1930: 31-37. 216 Japikse 1930: 54-56. Antoine Descamps was appointed Master of the Horse under the reign of Frederik Hendrik. Both were discharged in 1654 due to budget cuts, where it was decided to leave the high court positions temporarily vacant. Instead a governess filled a permanent position at the royal court. 217 Japikse 1930: 55. 218 Troost 2005: 37-38. He was not the first choice of Mary and Amalia, who had initially sought a Frenchman. Furthermore, Amalia preferred not to have her husband’s illegitimate son as her grandson’s governor and also Mary had her doubts about his appointment. 219 Troost 2005: 38.

48

bedchamber, whilst William’s former page boys Boreel and Van Reede now held the offices of Lord Chamberlain and Master of the Horses.220

Fig. 3.10. Portrait of Hendrik van Nassau-Ouwerkerk Fig. 3.11. Hans Willem Bentinck by Jacob by John Smith, after Godfried Kneller, 1662-1743. Houbraken, after Simon Dubois, 1749- (Courtesy Rijksmuseum) 1759. (Courtesy Rijksmuseum) When war once again broke out with England in 1665, William had to discharge his court by order of the States of Holland in 1666, to get rid of all his connections with enemies of the state, including members of the court who were pro-English. Despite these orders, William and his court maintained correspondence with England.221 His ‘own’ circle of courtiers included members of the regional elites and his own family, of which Hans Willem Bentinck (1649-1709) had become one of the most important courtiers and William’s best friend. Bentinck was one of the boys who came to live at the court in The Hague where William grew up, became William’s page-boy at the age of fifteen and studied together with William in Leiden.222 He was allowed to remain at court after 1666 because his family abstained from politics.223 Bentinck had since risen to become William’s chamberlain. Another childhood friend, and also his relative, was Hendrik van Nassau-Ouwerkerk (1640-1708), a bastard son of stadholder Maurice, who succeeded Frederik van Reede as Master of the Horse in 1666.224 Jan de Bye became Lord Chamberlain and Philips de Zoete de Lake van Villers was named

220 Japikse 1930: 70-71. 221 Japikse 1930: 127-128. 222 Ronnes 2004: 63, Mörke 2007: 238, Barclay 2007: 243-244. 223 Troost 2005: 50. 224 Mörke 2007: 238.

49

gentleman of the chamber.225 By choosing predominantly courtiers from the Dutch nobility and elite, a ‘netherlandisation’ of the court around William III had taken place, which according to Mörke, demonstrated the growth of links between the House of Orange-Nassau and the Republican elite. Although a social connection between the court and the elite had existed during the stadholderates of Maurits and Frederik Hendrik, the connection was comparatively weak as their court had mainly been dominated by the international nobility.226

The composition of the court changed once again after William’s marriage to Mary Stuart II in 1677. Mary brought part of her own household from England with her to the stadholder’s court, which was quite unusual at the time.227 This included dame d’honneur Lady Inchiquin (Margaret Boyle), the sisters Betty and Anne Villiers, Anne Trelawny, Jane Wroth, her own chaplain Dr Hooper and her own English servants and dressers.228

Mary also had some changes within her own court over the years. Around 1682, Anne Villiers, Mrs Bentinck since 1678, became dame d’honneur and replaced Lady Inchiquin who returned to England in 1683. Seven other English courtiers, including Anne Trelawney and Miss Franklin, were forced to leave the court in 1685 after a conspiracy against William and Mary, plotted by the courtiers, was discovered.229

Three seating plans from 1665, 1667 and 1679 show the changes and dynamics of William and Mary’s court.230 As the royal household gathered for their meals together in the afternoon and evening, protocols were established to determine order and hierarchy. These protocols not only dictated the seating arrangements of the various courtiers and guests, but also the amount and quality of the food. The seating plans reflected those who stood closest to William, but also the overall social hierarchy at court as the position of a courtier on the social scale was decided by how far one sat from the stadholder.231 In the first two seating plans, William is generally joined at his table by the governor, the master of the horse, the lord chamberlain and the first gentlemen of the chamber.232 At the second table the page boys, chamberlains and

225 Japikse 1930 I: 131. 226 Japikse 1930 I: 131, Mörke 2007: 236-237. 227 Bowen 1929: 61. 228 Ibid. 229 Bowen 1929: 100-101. According to Bowen a party of seven courtiers had two hours to leave the United Provinces. 230 NA, ND, inv.nr. 565: 9-11, 67-71 and 193-198. 231 Delen 2002: 19, Mörke 1992: 45. 232 NA, ND, inv.nr. 565: 9-11, 67-71.

50

sommelier were seated, whilst the lackeys and servants were to be fed at the third table.233 The seating plan from 1679 shows that Bentinck and Ouwerkerk were placed at the table of William with some other covers for possible guests, whilst at Mary’s table Lady Inchiquin together with eight other ladies-in-waiting, a chaplain and lord chamberlain were seated.234 Not far from the stadholder, but at a different table, the lord chamberlain Adolf van Voorst (Bentinck’s nephew) and other noblemen were seated.235 From these seating arrangements, it is clear that William favoured the company of Bentinck and Ouwerkerk over his other courtiers.

Fig. 3.22. Banquet for the English King Charles II in the Mauritshuis in The Hague by Pieter Philippe after Jacob Toorenvliet, 1660. (Courtesy Rijksmuseum) This favouritism and hierarchy are also apparent from the allocation and size of the apartments of courtiers at William’s palaces. The arrangement of apartments for courtiers was for the most part ceremonial, as courtiers, in general, had their own houses.236 In The Hague, Het Binnenhof provided primarily accommodation for William and Mary. Their courtiers

233 Ibid. 234 Japikse 1930 II: 116-117. 235 NA, ND, inv.nr. 565: 193-198. 236 Delen 2002: 17, Ronnes 2004: 65.

51

lived in the vicinity of the Binnenhof at The Hague Plein, Het Lange and Korte Voorhout, Korte Vijverberg and Kneuterdijk.237 At his residences outside The Hague, enough room could be provided to accommodate his closest courtiers. Ronnes argues that even more than rank and power, friendships determined the size and apartment allocation of the courtiers, with the favourites receiving lodgings closest to king.238 By analysing the floorplans and inventories of Hampton Court and Het Loo, Ronnes was able to establish those who stood closest to William III when he was Stadholder-King. This included Hans Willem Bentinck, Hendrik van Nassau Ouwerkerk, Henry Sidney, Vaudemont and Arnold Joost van Keppel, with Bentinck, who had the largest lodgings at the top of the list.239

The close bond between William and Bentinck as expressed through the medium of architecture is also found in earlier instances. The blueprints of Hoog Soeren from 1677 and 1678 mention besides the lodgings of William a room for Bentinck and the secretary.240 During the same period, Huygens Jr. wrote in his diary that someone at court had spoken to William about his trip to England and the lodgings there, William stated that ‘provided that I have a room for Bentinck and one for Zeelhem [Huygens Jr.], the rest can go where he can’.241 The architect Tessin names the whereabouts of his lodgings at Het Loo and Honselaarsdijk during his visits in 1687.242

The sole inventory from this period, the inventory of the house at Dieren from 1683, mentions the rooms of the following courtiers above the lodgings of William and Mary: Constantijn Huygens Jr., Edward Villiers, Hendrik Casimir II van Nassau Dietz, Johan van Baersenburgh, Gabriel Feron, Elisabeth Boetselaer, Miss Goltstein, Miss Walsingham, Ann Trelawney, Miss Jesson and Mrs Langford.243 Only Lady Inchiquin had a room on the same floor as William’s and Mary’s lodgings.244 A closer look at the size and number of rooms reveals that Bentinck was the only courtier whose lodgings consisted of a chamber, closet and wardrobe. Based on other and later inventories of William and Mary’s houses in The Netherlands it is clear that during this period Bentinck could count himself as one of William’s favourites or even the

237 Zijlmans 1997: 32. 238 Ronnes 2006: 113. 239 Ronnes 2006: 65-66. 240 Everdingen 1984: 48-49. 241 Huygens 1881: 223. ‘que S.A. auoit parlé nagueres de son voyage d'Angleterre, et que parlant du logement il auoit dit: pourveu que j'aye une chambre pour Benting et une pour Zeelhem, le reste se mettra ou il pourra.’ 242 Upmark 1900a: 122, Upmark 1900b: 146. 243 Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer 1974: 385 – 394. 244 Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer 1974: 389.

52

favourite. He was the only courtier during that time provided with apartments consisting of three or more rooms, whilst other courtiers often had only one room [Appendix A].

Form follows function Thurley argues that William’s elite structures:

‘were far more private and domestic [than those of King Charles II in England]. He quite simply did not need, or want, so much space: he had no fawning nobility; no hungry heir; no demanding mistresses; no pensioned off royal family; not even a royal council’.245

William used the official living quarters of the Stadholder at Het Binnenhof and the palace of Honselaarsdijk as his ‘official’ residences. Both houses were equipped to officially accommodate the functions or events related to government. The remodelled living quarters of William at Het Binnenhof, which had a sequence of reception rooms, a dining room, bedroom and closets, were in accordance with the requirements of an official residence.246 Also Honselaarsdijk, where William’s apartment consisted of an antechamber, presence chamber, a chamber, closet and two wardrobes, offered enough options to properly receive and entertain guests.247 Although it was initially built as a more private country retreat for Amalia and Frederik Hendrik, the demarcations of public and private space were not set in stone and shifted continuously. The new, more public function as official residence is apparent from a visit by the Swedish architect Nicodemus Tessin (1654-1728) in 1687. In his journal, he describes the rooms, which are accompanied by a floor plan of his own hand, and notes under the letter c on his floor plan ‘speisset der Printz zu mittag publiquement’.248 Other visitors to the castle reimburse this fact. German clergyman Jakob von Melle (1659-1743) and lawyer Christian Postel (1650-1705) wrote in 1683 that ‘wel es aber Mittag war, hatten wir das Glück die Princessin (in Abwesenheit des Hertzogs) speisen zu sehen, und wurden hernach in den Zimmern des Scholees herumgeführet’.249

The houses at Dieren and Soestdijk provided only the necessary rooms for William, Mary, their closest courtiers and necessary staff. As far as we are aware of, no public ceremonies took place at these houses and without presence chambers, neither Dieren nor Soestdijk were equipped to officially accommodate the functions or events related to government. With a

245 Thurley 2009: 6. 246 Thurley 2009: 2, Spies & Raaij 1988: 83. 247 Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer 1974 I: 468-470. 248 Upmark 1900b: 146. 249 Curtius 1891: 24.

53

more relaxed protocol in the countryside, it was unnecessary for William to maintain a large sequence of reception rooms. Therefore, the apartments at his country houses usually consisted of an antechamber, bedroom, closet and wardrobe.250

The floorplan of Soestdijk was a variation of that of Het Huis ten Bosch. At both houses, the first floor consisted of a great hall and on either side two apartments after the French fashion, but instead of a cruciform plan as at Huis ten Bosch, the floorplan of Soestdijk had a sort of T-shape and the layout of rooms was not like Huis ten Bosch entirely symmetrical. The great halls were placed in or near the centre of the plan, not integrated into the apartments, and were mainly used for balls, banquets and other festivities.251

SOESTDIJK A = Great Hall B = Antechamber C = Bedroom D = Gallery E = Wardrobe F = Closet G= Closet H = Wardrobe I = Gallery J = Bedroom K = Dining room L = ‘Yellow’ room

Fig. 3. 13. Reconstruction of first-floor plan of Soestdijk based on previous reconstructions by the Rijksgebouwendienst and inventory of 1696/1702

At Soestdijk, William’s apartment was at the left and Mary’s apartment was on the right. Above their apartments were the rooms for Nassau Ouwerkerk, Bentinck and Huygens Jr. and seven rooms for Mary’s ladies-in-waiting.252 A rather unusual feature in Mary’s apartment was the long gallery as it is considered more characteristic of English rather than Dutch

250 Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer I 1974: inventories Dieren 1683 and Soestdijk 1699-1712. 251 Similar to the function and plan of Bavarian Lustschlösser as presented in Klingensmith 1994: 5. A central hall or ‘saloon’, at least two stories high and flanked by two similar apartments was as ‘Maison de Plaisance’ popularized by Vaux-le-Vicomte according to Baillie 1967: 196. Mary was the first to held a grand ball in the Oranjezaal in Huis ten Bosch for William’s birthday in the year of its purchase. Although William himself did not attend the ball, he is depicted in the famous engraving of the event by Daniel Marot. (Loonstra 1985: 53.) 252 Upmark 1900a: 124.

54

architecture.253 In this gallery, Mary displayed her collection of porcelain. In 1662, the princess showed Huygens, who was known for his expertise in art, her recently bought porcelain from Amsterdam.254 Tessin, who visited many of the houses of William in 1686, found that, apart from the great hall, the other rooms of Soestdijk had an almost similar sequence of rooms as in Het Loo, which he had visited earlier that week.255

At Dieren, both William and Mary had an apartment consisting of an antechamber, a bedroom, a closet and wardrobe. According to Jones, William ‘relaxed privately, most often at Dieren, a hunting lodge in the Veluwe, with a small circle of intimates […], even after his marriage to Mary in 1677 he continued to follow these bachelor ways and lived in his grandfather’s old-fashioned houses’.256 Yes, William had a small circle of courtiers, and yes, he lived in his (grand)father’s ‘old-fashioned’ houses, but William and Mary both spent a considerable amount of time together at Dieren. In fact, they had more courtiers at Dieren then at Soestdijk. Over the years, the hunting lodge even became a much-loved retreat of both William and Mary, although its looks were not appreciated by everyone.257 Rather the smaller hunting lodges, for example, the houses of Kruidberg and Hoog Soeren, than the one at Dieren seemed like the ideal ‘bachelor pad’ with only room for William (his apartment only consisting of a bedroom, closet and wardrobe) and four of his closest courtiers.258

That William’s hunting lodges represented a more quiet and private court life is apparent from the few excerpts from Huygens’ journals. His notes reflect William’s nomadic lifestyle as he was constantly travelling between The Hague and his houses in Utrecht and the Veluwe, and it underlines the fact that his residences were a literal move away from the politics of The Hague and the burden of public duties and ceremony. Life at Soestdijk and at the Veluwe was about hunting, enjoying the gardens and each other’s company in an intimate and informal

253 Spies & Raaij 1988: 110. 254 Huygens 1888: 69. ‘wandelde daernaer met de Princes daer oock by was de Hr van Leck en syn vrouw: de Princes my dickwils aensprekende. In haer galerije daernaer komende, thoonde my de Porceleynen die te Amsterdam gekocht hadde en gaende sitten naeyen met hare juffrouwen seyde my: I am here as a schoolmistriss amongst this people’. As a proud collector of porcelain, Mary had set up several rooms or galleries in most of their palaces to display her collections. 255 Upmark 1900a: 124-125. 256 Jones 1988: 2. 257 Mary would often comment in letters and memoirs after their move to England how much she missed the comfortable lodgings of Dieren and the strolls around the garden. (Broomhall & Van Gent 2016: 110). 258 Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer I 1974: 637-645. Other sources, like Huygens’ diary only has a couple of mentions of William’s short stays at Kruidberg.

55

setting.259 The structure and spatial organization, apparent from the inventories of his houses at Dieren and Soestdijk, were aimed to accommodate this lifestyle.260

Conclusion In comparison to other European courts, William’s court was a relatively modest affair in terms of size, power, courtly behaviour, and ceremony. His court changed several times over the years and signified a new direction in appointments, choosing members of the Dutch nobility and elite over members of the international nobility. The close bond he developed with Bentinck is demonstrated by the table arrangements as well as architectural space.

When reviewing William’s architectural activity between 1674 and 1689, scholars often point to four aspects: politics, his marriage, his health and hunting. According to some, William was able to strengthen and prove his ‘rightful’ position within and outside the Republic as stadholder by the ‘Splendor of his Court’ through these acquisitions. Although politics could have indeed influenced the design of the building or motivated a renovation project at one of his buildings, this is often hard to establish because of the lack of exact information on the building processes.

But besides his political motivations and health, these properties have one thing in common: their location next to hunting grounds. These grounds were most likely particularly attractive investments for William as hunting was not only a status symbol of the elite, it was above all his favourite pastime. As William once noted: ‘hunting and seeing gardens are two of my greatest passions’.261 Therefore, it is no surprise that in the early years of his reign as stadholder a lot of time and money was invested into building projects at his hunting lodges Soestdijk and Dieren and his pièce de résistance: Het Loo.

When we look at the organisation of his houses, we see that William mainly created houses that would serve as an escape from the politics and ceremony of The Hague. As one of his courtiers later noted: ‘[…] he hated business of all sorts […] this put him on a perpetual course of hunting […] but I looked on that always, as a flying from company and business.’262

259 Huygens 1888: 60, 68, 69, 76-79 (Soestdijk), 63, 83-86 (Dieren). Huygens mentions invitations by William and Mary and other courtiers to play the gambling card game ‘bassette’, drinking and dining with William and William’s hunting experiences 260 Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer 1974 I: 386, 621. Inventories mention a ‘truktafel’, a kind of billiard table, as part of the furniture of the great hall of Soestdijk and the lobby of Dieren. These are the only instances that the ‘truktafel’ is mentioned in the inventories of William and Mary’s houses in the Republic. 261 Japikse 1927: 226, letter from William to Bentinck from Kensington, 13 February 1698 : ‘[…] chasse et voir des jardinages que vous saves estre deus de mes passions’. 262 Burnet 1734: 689.

56

1. Windsor, Windsor, 1. ca. 1710. 1710. ca.

6

5

4

3

2 . Detail from 'Accurater grundriss u. Gegend der Koenigl Großbritannischen Haupt und Residenz Stadt London' by Johann Homan, Homan, Johann by London' Stadt Residenz und Haupt Großbritannischen Koenigl der Gegend u. grundriss 'Accurater from Detail .

1 4.1 Fig. Whitehall. and 6. James St. 5. Kensington, 4. Richmond, 3. Court, Hampton 2.

57

Chapter IV

Restructuring the palatial landscape in England and The Netherlands 1689 - 1702

‘He [William III] could not restrain as soon as we were alone we both shed tears of joy to meet, and of sorrow for meeting in England, both wishing it might have been in Holland, both bewailing the loss of the liberty we had left behind and were sensible we should never enjoy here; and in that moment we found a beginning of the constraint we were to endure here after, for we durst not let owr selves go on with those reflections, but dryed up owr tears lest it should be perceived when we went out.’ 263 - Mary Stuart II

Mary wrote the above citation in her memoirs of 1689 about her arrival at court in England after the Glorious Revolution, describing a certain loss of freedom, which she and her husband William felt facing their new future as king and queen of England. This quote gives us a glimpse of a rare ‘private’ moment, shared between only Mary and William, reminding the reader of the difference between the private and public person when tears were dried and appearances were kept up for the outer world. The Glorious Revolution refers to the events of 1688-1689, when William III and his army, supported by a union of English parliamentarians, invaded England and he and Mary replaced the reigning Catholic king of England, James II, with a joint monarchy. The deal struck between parliament and the royal couple, was that William and Mary would accept limitations on their authority and power, while parliament would financially support William’s war against France.264 Mary and William would witness many changes in their personal lives; leading a double life as queen and king of England, Scotland and Ireland and as stadholder to the Republic dealing with both countries’ rituals, authorities and responsibilities. This chapter explores the changes that occurred in his courts and to what extent his new status as King and Queen influenced his building activities and the structure of his buildings in England and The Netherlands.

263 Doebner 1886: 10. 264 The limitations on their powers were enshrined in law with the Bill of Rights in 1689, which made monarchy clearly conditional on the will of Parliament. For further historiography on this subject see Troost 2005, Claydon 2002.

58

William’s movements and building activities between 1689 and 1702 During his reign as Stadholder-king, William continued to purchase, renovate and rebuild houses. But this time, these changes did not only occur in The Netherlands but also in England [see fig. 4.2.] Being crowned King of England, William inherited the houses of Richmond, New Market, Windsor Castle, Whitehall, St. James’s Palace and Hampton Court. William could not wait to put his own stamp on the palatial landscape. As early as April 1689, William ordered to knock down portions of Hampton Court. Kensington House was only bought a month later.265 In the Netherlands, his coronation was followed by a second round of renovations at Het Loo, Dieren and Het Binnenhof. Another two new structures at the Veluwe were added to his collection. The first was the property of Meerveld, which he received as a gift from the States of Gelderland in 1698. The second was the castle of Coldenhove, which he purchased in 1700 with the intention of turning it into another grand country house.266 The latter unfortunately burned down during construction.

Fig. 4.2. The architectural activity of William during his reign as stadholder-king between 1689 and 1702 with in red the construction work in The Netherlands and in blue the construction work in England.

A rather clear picture can be painted of William’s movements during his reign as Stadholder- king [Appendix B]. The first two years of his reign he spent solely in England. From 1691 to 1697, William spent his time between England, The Netherlands and abroad with the army. Based on the available data, I can roughly say that William spent the first three to four months in England, then one or two months during the spring in the Netherlands, joined the army in the summer season (starting in May or June till August or September), went back to the Netherlands in Autumn, and sailed to England at the end of October or beginning of November.

265 Barclay 2007: 27. 266 Everdingen 1984: 51-53.

59

In the first year, William had settled at Hampton Court but moved rather quickly to Kensington after the first round of construction work had finished in December 1689. The following years, William was primarily found at Kensington. The occasional visits to Windsor, Newmarket and after 1695, Richmond, are mentioned, often on Saturday which according to Bishop Gilbert Burnet (1643-1715) was ‘his usual day of hunting’.267 In the Netherlands, William stayed for the most part at Het Loo but frequently visited his house at Dieren in the meanwhile. He usually stayed a few days in The Hague at the beginning and end of each trip and the castle at Breda provided useful when he needed lodgings on his way to war in Flanders and France. On very rare occasions, he visited one of his other houses in The Netherlands, but never for more than one or two days.

Fig. 4.3. The Royal Palace of Kensington by H. Overton & J. Hoole, c. 1720-40. (Courtesy British Museum)

William’s movements changed after he made peace with Louis XIV by signing the Treaty of Rijswijk in September 1697. Now he no longer had to go to war during the summer, William would stay at England from January till June or July and in The Netherlands from June or July until the end of October, after which he returned to England. In 1698 and the first half of 1699, William would travel often between Windsor, Kensington and Newmarket. By the end of 1699, William frequently swapped Kensington for Hampton Court. This was also noticed by the court, Burnet wrote in 1701 that William was ‘so much pleased with the place, that he

267 Burnet 1734: 293, 295.

60

went thither once a week, and rode often about the park’.268 Across the sea, William still mainly lived in his houses at the Veluwe.

In England, Whitehall had functioned as the official residence of the English king for several centuries, bringing together personal and state space in one block of accommodation, but for William, bothered by his asthma because of the pollution in the city, Whitehall could not serve as his year-round residence.269 A newsletter in March 1689 reported that 'the bed of state’ was moved to Hampton Court and that ‘Sir Christopher Wren hath received orders to beautify and add some new buildings to that fabric’.270 On paper, Whitehall would still serve as the ‘official’ residence of the monarchy, while William and Mary found at Kensington House and Hampton Court Palace accommodations which suited their needs and requirements.271 William never moved into Whitehall and stayed in the early years of his reign at Hampton Court or the rented Holland House while builders worked on the new palace at Kensington.272 As Mary wrote in her memoirs ‘the misfortune of the kings health which hinderd him living at White Hall, put people out of humour being here naturally lazy’.273 Burnet noted that William:

‘found the air of Hampton Court agreed so well with him, that he resolved to live the greatest part of the year there; but that Palace was so very old built and so irregular, that a design was formed of raising new buildings there for the King and Queen's apartments. […] This shewed a resolution to live at a distance from London: and the entering so soon on so expensive a building, afforded matter of censure to those who were disposed enough to entertain it. And this spread a universal discontent in the city of London.’274

That not everyone was happy with this decision is also apparent from Huygens’ journal. Huygens notes in 1689 that there were complaints amongst the English that not everything was done to make him stay ‘with the affairs’ in London instead of Hampton Court.275

268 Burnet 1734: 548. 269 Thurley 2009: 6. 270 Colvin 1976: 155. 271 Raaij & Spies 1986: 3/2. 272 Thurley 2009: 7. Mary did, however, often stay at Whitehall when William was on the Continent. Bowen 1929: 159. ‘The King had bought Lord Nottingham’s house […], but that not being ready, he resolved to borrow Hollandhouse in the mean while.’ 273 Bowen 1929: 159. 274 Burnet 1734: 2. 275 Huygens 1876 I: 98. ‘Gastigny daernae met mij op mijn camer pratende, seyde, dat er vrij quade praet onder de Engelschen omgingh, dat klaeghden dat er niet met alle gedaen wierd; dat hij te Hamptoncourt en̅ niet te Londen bij de affairen bleef, en̅ dat de meeste haet of nijdt op de Favorit viel.’

61

According to architectural historian Howard Colvin, Hampton Court was to be a ‘country palace’ and ‘expensive and lavish’, whilst Kensington was built as a ‘suburban retreat’ and ‘utilitarian and cheap’.276 Thurley makes a similar statement in which Hampton Court became the ‘fully equipped English-style royal palace for the great occasions of State’, Whitehall was to be the ‘business palace’ and Kensington was their ‘private residence’.277 A road between Kensington and Whitehall was created to be lit at night by street lamps to ensure that William and Mary could commute easily between the two palaces.278

Fig. 4.4. Plans showing the development of Kensington Palace (Courtesy Colvin 1974)

In June 1689, William had purchased the house and estate Kensington of the Earl of Nottingham.279 There was already talk about this purchase at court, as Miss Goltsteyn, one of Mary’s courtiers told Huygens ‘that it was almost certain that the King would have the house of Milord Notthingham at Kensington, as she had seen a drawing of that [house] in the hands of the queen’.280 A series of building projects to enlarge the outdated house for royal use were carried out between the late 1680s and the 1690s by court architect Wren with ‘plainness, utility and speed of construction’ as primary objects.281 This included significant alterations to the building. He had pavilions constructed to the four corners of the old Jacobean house that would become the core and centre of the new palace. A set of wings connected two of the pavilions to the outer buildings. With the growing importance of Kensington, the royal apartments in the new pavilions were regarded too small. The enlargement of Mary’s apartments took place in 1690, and an extension to the main house for William’s apartments

276 Colvin 1976: 183. 277 Thurley 2009: 6-7. 278 Thurley 2009: 7. 279 Colvin 1976: 185. 280 Huygens 1876 I: 140. ‘Daeghs te voren seyde joff. Golsteyn, dat het genoeghsaem seker was dat de Con. het huys van Mylord Nottingham te Kinsinghton soude hebben, hebbende sij een teekening daervan in handen van̅ Coningin gesien.’ 281 Colvin 1974: 184

62

in 1695.282 It is therefore not surprising that the writer John Evelyn (1620-1706) commented upon seeing the work in 1690 that it was a ‘patched building’.283 He thought Kensington was ‘very noble, though not great’, the gardens ‘very delicious’.284

At his new principal seat at Hampton Court, the architects Wren and William Talman (1650- 1719) created the new baroque court that complemented the Tudor palace of the times of Cardinal Wolsey and Henry VIII in two phases between 1689 and 1702.285 Wren’s original plan was to demolish the entire palace, but due to a lack of time and money, he had to be content with the rebuilding of the royal apartments.286 Work stopped after Mary’s death in 1694, work at the palace stopped, leaving Hampton Court with ‘just the shell up and some of the Roomes of State ceil’d but nothing finished’.287 When Whitehall went up in flames in 1698, William decided to step up to complete the palace. By the end of 1699, Talman finished the rest of the King's State Apartment, although decoration and furnishing continued over the next two years.288

Fig. 4.5. A view of Hampton Court by Leonard Knyff, c. 1702-1714. (Courtesy Royal Collections)

282 Colvin 1974 : 183-185. 283 Bohn 1862: 25 February 1690. 284 Bohn 1862: 354. 285 Ronnes 2015: 78-79. 286 Mary wrote to William about the financial situation ‘I hear of so much use for money, and find so little, that I cannot tell whether that of Hampton Court will not be the worst of it.’ (Dutton 1963: 165) 287 As noted by the contemporary observant Celia Fiennes, as cited in Dutton 1963: 172. 288 Colvin 1974: 157-170.

63

The months following Mary’s death, William would often go to Richmond. He had no interest in the remains of the old palace, but was very pleased with its surroundings and decided in January 1695 to turn the house in the old park into a hunting lodge for personal use.289

In the Netherlands, remodelling campaigns and building projects started right after William and Mary were crowned in 1689.290 As William’s superintendent on gardens and buildings, Bentinck was often sent out to report on the building, layout and maintenance of William’s various buildings and gardens, and their correspondence includes some remarks on this subject. For example, after discussing political matters in a letter from the 27th of January 1690, William asks Bentinck not to forget about Het Loo, which was rebuild from 1692 onwards: ‘I beg you among your many more important duties not to forget Het Loo nor to go there, and organize what still has to be done; you know how fond I am of the place’.291 William spent heavily on renovating Het Loo after their coronation.292 The colonnades between the corps-de-logis and the stables were demolished and replaced by ‘two little square pavilions’, ensuring lodgings for a larger entourage and a new sequence of rooms for himself, which happened between 1692 and 1694.293

Fig. 4.6. Views of the buildings and gardens of Het Loo by Romeyn de Hooghe, c. 1700. (Courtesy Rijksmuseum)

289 Huygens 1876 II: 452-454, Colvin 1974: 281. 290 Jones 1988: 2, Ronnes 2004: 61. 291 Hunt & De Jong 1988: 148. ‘je vous prie que parmis vos affaires de plus d’importance n’oblies pas Loo n’y d’y aller et ordonner ce qui y reste à faire ; vous saves comme ce lieu me tient au coeur’ [Translation from French to English by Veronica Shäfer] 292 Ronnes 2006: 95. 293 Hunt & De Jong 1988: 145. Strien 1998: 260.

64

British travellers thought Het Loo was ‘rather neat than magnificent’.294 British antiquary and art collector John Talman (1677-1726) noted in 1697 that ‘the entrance into the court is but indifferent, the two sides of the court being joined by a silly sort of ironwork instead of a portico of marble pillars or some other ornament suitable to the majesty and dignity of a King or great Prince’.295 Shaw commented in 1700: ‘but by the Size, Magnificence and Pride, it seems design’d more for the Prince of Orange than a King of England, and inferior to the Grandeur of that Great Prince’, while the gardens were according to his taste ‘surprizingly fine’.296

Fig. 4.7. Detail of 'Caerte van Dieren' by Barent Fig. 4.8. Dieren by Pieter Schenk, c. 1700. (Courtesy Elshoff, 1728. (Photo Stichting Historisch Onderzoek) Collectie Gelderland)

Dieren was also altered after William’s crowning. Between 1692 and 1700 large amounts of money were made available for reparations and alterations at Dieren.297 During his short stay at Dieren, Southwell wrote during his stay about the ‘severall Pretty Inventions for wetting Gentleman & Ladies’ and the pleasant surroundings.298 He concluded his entry remarking that ‘[t]he King is very fond of this seat, & talks of building an Apartment on the Garden side for himselfe’.299 A new classical extension was designed by Jacob Roman in 1696 and added to ‘the old and small’ house between 1696 and 1699.300 Once a private retreat of William and Mary, his house was now fit for more a ceremonial lifestyle. English guests were received at

294 Strien 1989: 117. 295 Strien 1998: 259. 296 Shaw 1709: 10. 297 Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer 1974: 597. 298 Fremantle 1970: 54. Southwell joined a privileged royal hunting party of King William at the Veluwe in 1696. Also known as ‘bedriegertjes’; fountains designed to amuse visitors by unexpectedly splurging on them. 299 Fremantle 1970: 54. 300 Mention of the added classical buildings occurs only in travel accounts from 1699 and later (see previous chapter).

65

Dieren to attend court there. Shaw had at Dieren the ‘Honour of being at the King’s Levee, and (most of his Retinue being at the Camp) there were not present above 11 or 12 Persons, and among them, the Prince of Friezland, newly come to pay his Duty to His Majesty’.301 Nevertheless, Huygens Jr.’s diary shows that it was foremost a retreat for William and a few of his closest courtiers.302

These two renovation projects cannot be seen in isolation. Over the course of time, William had started to ‘collect’ and renovate properties across the Veluwe. Most of them were turned into small hunting lodges providing room for only two to three people, such as Meerveld and Hoog Soeren, while others, Dieren, Het Loo and the burned down Coldenhove, were transformed into grand country homes with luscious gardens. In 1700, William commissioned his architect Daniël Marot to create a turret on top of a hill (later referred to as the King’s Hill), as a place of rest and for its splendid views.303 William further changed the landscape by constructing so-called King’s roads (Koningswegen) between his houses.304 The Veluwe thus became itself a project, where William turned part of this large, rich area into one concentrated area for hunting with Het Loo as the centre point.

4. 2. 3. 5.

1. Hunting lodge at Ede

2. Hunting lodge 6. at Putten 3. Meerveld

4. Hoog Soeren 7. 5. Het Loo 6. Coldenhove

1. 8. 7. Rouwenberg 8. Dieren Fig. 4.9. Survey of royal properties at the Veluwe 1650-1702. (Courtesy Eugenie van Heijgen 2015)

301 Shaw 1709: 11. 302 Huygens 1876 II: 37, 196, 197, 198, 349, 424, 533, 536, 538. As Dieren only provided lodgings for his closest courtiers, the rest of the court had to either remain at Het Loo or return to the house when the hunting activities were over. 303 Everdingen 1984: 54. 304 Everdingen 1984: 103.

66

Combining courts When Mary joined William at the English court in 1689, she wrote in her diary:

‘I found a great change in my life, from a strickt retirement when I led the life of a nun, I was come into a noisy world full of vanity; from having publick prayers four times a day, to have hardly leisure to go twice, and that in such a crowd, with so much formality and little devotion, that I was surprised; yet, alas, I did not mend in private what I saw I had so much reason to complain of in the publick service’.305

Not only did their lives change, but as new King and Queen, they would also have a long- lasting impact on the English court culture. According to Jones, nothing in William’s former education or life as stadholder had prepared him to properly rule as the English sovereign. William was accustomed to a much smaller court at home and, as stadholder in the Republic, he did not have to undertake as many roles as those that were expected of an English sovereign.306 Moreover, Jones argues that William did not possess the regal qualities or the easy charm and extrovert personality of his uncle Charles II.307

Despite his somewhat ‘incompetence’ of character and his confrontation with English court etiquette, rituals and ceremony, which were different from his Dutch court life, he continued a lot of traditions at the English court.308 William abolished the rules and ceremonial for the court as proclaimed under the reign of James II as he revived the ordinances made by Charles II and reinforced rules from earlier periods as regulations for his own court and household. Until Mary’s death on the 28th of December 1694, William would during his absences delegate his social responsibilities to Mary, who stayed behind at the English court.309 John

305 Bowen 1929: 156. 306 Jones 1988: 4. 307 Jones 1988: 6. This is reflected in historiography, in which William is portrayed as an ‘unattractive’, ‘uncomfortable’ and ‘unsociable’ king in contrast to the ‘tall and handsome’, ‘outgoing’ and ‘popular’ Mary (Steen 2009: 122, Bucholz 1993: 31, Dutton 1963: 159). 308 Barclay 2007: 259, Steen 2009: 128-132. According to Steen’s research, the only thing he refused to do was to perform the ‘King’s touch’, the practice that supposed that the king could cure victims of diseases by laying his hands on them. 309 Barclay 2007: 255. It was not novel for a queen consort to rule as regent during her husband’s absences abroad, as historian Andrew Barclay points out that previous English queens such as Catherine of Aragon and Catherine Parr had also done this in the past. Mary was, despite her own feelings and doubt, according to many cut out for the job. ‘My heart is not made for a kingdom and my inclination leads me to a retired quiet life.’ 166: […] the king told me, he would put it to my choice, whether in his absence all should be governd in my name, or if it should be left to the Privy Council with order to hem to acquaint me with all things. I only desired he would take care I should not make a foolish figure in the world. I told him that the thing in effect was the same, for I being wholy a stranger to business, it must be the Privy Council must do all things. I did not say this as mistrusting him in the matter (for I really left the thing to him and would make no choice) but because I was in real fear of it; for I am sensible, a person in my station can not make an indifferent one, for if one does not make a very good, I am sure one must make a very bad figure. And my opinion having ever been that women should

67

Evelyn noted after the coronation in 1689 in his diary that she quickly continued the ‘Stuart court routine’:

‘[Mary] lay in the same bed & apartment where the late Queene lay: & within a night or two, sate downe to play at Basset, as the Q. her predecessor us’d to do: smiled upon & talked to every body; so as no manner of change seem’d in Court, since his Majesties last going away’.310

Whilst William was away, which usually entailed around five to seven months each year, Mary supervised the work done at Hampton Court and Kensington and held balls, drawing rooms and plays at court, according to court historian Robert Bucholz these were all invaluable elements to them as it displayed an image of continuity at court.311 This was all part of the political agenda to present an image of continuity and to strengthen the legitimacy of William and Mary to the throne.312 As his status was something he could and did not take for granted, ‘the Splendour of the Court’ and ‘Magnificence of expense’ became once again important instruments for him to be taken seriously as a monarch, both at home and abroad.313

Fig. 4.10. King William III and Queen Mary II by Romeyn de Hooghe, ca. 1689. (Courtesy National Portrait Gallery London)

not medle in government, I have never given my self to be inquisitive into those kind of matters. (Bowen 1929: 156). 310 Evelyn 2004: 320. Basset = bassette, the popular gambling card game. 311 Bucholz 1993: 31. 312 Steen 2009: 128. 313 Barclay 2007: 251-252.

68

While his household in The Netherlands had reached the size of at least 200-250 people, the English court of William and Mary counted almost as many as one thousand officeholders during the first months of their reign as King and Queen.314 At the time of Mary’s death the number of officeholders approached 1300, making it almost twice as large as the court of their predecessor, Mary’s father, James II.315 As historian Andrew Barclay notes ‘a large court was an impressive one’ and William and Mary were keen to legitimise themselves in any way possible as the rightful heirs to the throne.316

A large part of their household and court from the Republic had moved with Mary and William to England, leaving a mark on the organisation of the new court in social, political and architectural terms. Expanding the size of the court was also of benefit to himself and others as these were ‘jobs for the boys’.317 Yet after the success of the Glorious revolution courtiers had to wait for their verdict: were they allowed to stay at court and which office would they get? Huygens’ journal shows some of the distress of the courtiers, including Huygens himself, on the uncertainty of their lodgings and position at the English court. For example, one of the courtiers told Huygens about the lodgings at Whitehall on the 8th of February 1689 that he heard indirectly that William still had to make up his mind about who to keep with him in England, whilst we read about the struggles Huygens faces in finding a room or bed at Hampton Court on the 6th of April 1689, resulting in him having to sleep in the room of the registrar who luckily happened to have a very wide bed.318 William indeed had an opinion and hand in this, as is demonstrated by an entry of August 19th:

‘The King had, as De Wilde told me, brought some order to the lodgings at Hampton Court, showing some displeasure with Mil. Dorset, who was so slow in arranging these. [King William] had demanded the list of all the lodgings and had changed it to his liking. Not wanting the Gentlemen-Ushers in the Court’.319

Although the Dutch courtiers were keen on getting lodges at the Royal residences in England, they were against being appointed a position that had anything to do with British politics.320

314 Steen 2009: 122. 315 Bucholz 1993: 26. 316 Barclay 2007: 251. 317 Ibid. 318 Huygens 1876 I: 76, 90. 319 Huygens 1876 I: 165. Original citation: ‘De Con. had, soo de Wilde mij seyde, eenige ordre gestelt op de logementen te Hamptoncourt, thoonende niet seer wel tevreden te zijn op Mil. Dorset, dat soo talmde met die te reguleren. Had de lijst van al de logementen geëyscht, en daer veranderinghe naer sijn sin in gemaeckt, hebbende de Gentlemen-Ushers niet willen hebben in 't Hoff.’ 320 Huygens 1876 I: 70-71.

69

Willem Hendrik van Nassau-Zuylenstein said to Huygens that it ‘was common in England to accuse and punish the favourites and counsellors for the King’s wrongdoings’.321

This was not only felt by the ‘Dutch’ courtiers, but also by many English courtiers who complained about the numbers of Dutchmen were taking over the key court positions close to William.322 Apart from those serving in the army, which was something of a special case and based on merit, most of the Dutchmen appointed by William were restricted to positions within the royal household. In number they filled, contrary to gossip, not that many offices, but William did appoint some of his (closest) courtiers from his Dutch court to a few, and sometimes high, strategic positions within his household.323 Van Nassau-Ouwerkerk became Master of the Horse, the position had previously held at the Dutch court.324 His other Nassau relative, Nassau-Zuylenstein, became Master of the Robes. William’s closest friend and courtier Bentinck, soon to be created Earl of Portland, became Groom of the Stole and Keeper of Privy Purse, while his secretary Caspar Henning was appointed as Deputy Keeper.325 He was also named superintendent of William’s palaces and gardens in England as well as the Netherlands that same year.326 Bucholz points out that these were strategic and significant offices for the Dutchmen. They maybe did not have any direct political power in government, but their position at William and Mary’s court gave them the power to regulate access to William, an arrangement that was strengthened by new bedchamber ordinances in 1689.327 It should be noted that most of these Dutchmen already had strong English connections themselves with either their families and/or their marriages.328

321 Ibid. ‘Zuylestein en Ouwerkerck waeren smergens in mijn camer. De eerste seyde, dat hij geen part pretendeerde te hebben in de groote deliberatien. Dat het in Engelandt de manier was dat de Favoriten en Counsellours wierden geaccuseert en̅ gestraft als de koningen qualijck gedaen hadden. Dat hij der niet om geven soude of de Prins hem wilde een Lord maecken, ofte het moste wesen om hem in de parlementen dienst te doen. Dat hij evenwel S.H. soude segghen, dat het nu aen deselve stondt om iets voor hem te doen. Ouwerkerck seyde mede, dat voor soo veel als aengongh part te hebben in̅ affaires, hij noch well een wist, die van Zuylestns sentiment was.’ 322 Barclay 2007: 243. 323 Bucholz 1993: 27, Barclay 2007: 243. 324 Barclay 2007: 244. 325 Bucholz 1993: 27, Barclay 2007: 243-244. As keeper of the privy purse, Bentinck was responsible for an enormous amount of money mainly meant to cover the needs of the Royal Household. 326 Jong 1993: 67. 327 Bucholz 1993: 28. According to these ordinances, access to the bedchamber and closet was limited to the Master of the Robes, Keeper of our Privy-Purse and the Barbers, physicians and surgeons, the Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlaine, Secretaries of State and members of the Privy Council. Most importantly, these ordinances state ‘& such other persons as Our Groome of the Stole shall, with Our leave, mention in a List under his hand, left with the Pages, or appoint to be hung up in any of the Roomes belonging to Our Bedchamber’. (cited in Bucholz 2000: 209) This meant that in the end these courtiers, especially Bentinck, were the ones who could act as the ‘virtual gatekeepers’ to the monarch. 328 Barclay 2006: 244-245. Bentinck’s first wife was Anne Villiers, her family, especially her father Sir Edward Villiers, had been a member of one of the major court families. Nassau-Ouwerkerk’s sisters included the

70

Barclay, on the other hand, argues that the role of the Dutch courtiers at the English court was mainly to provide William with companionship as none of them, with the exception of Bentinck, were involved in policy-making.329 The most important court offices in the English court were those with a direct control over policy and hundreds of lesser offices, such as Lord Steward and Lord Chamberlain. Almost all of these positions were in the hands of Englishmen.330 They were not random courtiers, but men who had supported William both politically as well as financially before, during and after the Glorious Revolution of 1688.331 The job of Lord Steward was given to the William Cavendish, Earl of Devonshire, whilst the position of Lord Chamberlain was first given to Charles Sackville, Earl of Dorset.332 The list of Gentlemen of the Bedchamber included the names of Marlborough, Ormond, Lumley, Drumlanrig, Selkirk and Sidney.333 Similar considerations governed the allocations of senior offices in Queen Mary’s Household.334

One of the most controversial appointments was that of Arnold Joost van Keppel (1670- 1718), who later acquired the earldom of Albemarle. From 1689 onwards, the court witnessed the rapid rise of Van Keppel from Page of Honour (a position granted to him by Nassau- Ouwerkerk) to a Groom of the Bedchamber to Master of the Robes and Gentleman of the Bedchamber.335 Van Nassau-Odijk remarked in 1691 that Keppel ‘got in favour’ and might get in the way of certain courtiers and in 1695 diplomat Gabriel Sylvius told Huygens Jr. that Keppel was ‘starting to get favoured over Portland’.336 That Bentinck became jealous of

Dowager Countess of Arlington and another sister, the late Countess of Ossory. In the case of Nassau- Zuylenstein, his mother, Mary, who was a maid of honour to William’s mother, had belonged to another notable English court family, the Killigrews, his wife Mary Wroth, whom he had married in 1681, was also English. 329 Barclay 2006: 246. 330 Barclay 2007: 247. With the exception of Nassau-Ouwerkerk, who was appointed Master of the Horse and hence had the right to oversee around 100 places within this department. This was why the Stables became the one court department to which a significant number of Dutchmen were appointed. 331 Barclay 2007: 246, Bucholz 1993: 28. These men, a total of seven notable Englishmen, also later named the ‘Immortal Seven’ were responsible for ‘the invitation to William’. This was a letter, in which they informed William that if he were to plan a military intervention to overthrow James II, the ‘Immortal Seven’ and their allies would rise up and support this mission to have him and Mary be crowned King and Queen of England. The letter was signed by William Cavendish, the Earl of Devonshire; Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby; Charles Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury; Viscount Richard Lumley; Henry Compton, Bishop of London; Edward Russell and Henry Sidney (who wrote the invitation). 332 Barclay 2007: 246. Later in the reign this position would be held by other key figures of the rebellion: Dorset (1689-1697), Sunderland (1697), Shrewsbury (1699-1700) and Jersey (1700-1704). 333 Ibid. 334 Barclay 2007: 247. 335 Barclay 2007: 245. 336 Huygens 1876 I: 477, Huygens 1876 II: 467. ‘Sylvius seyde, dat Keppel noch al boven Myl. Portland in faveur toenam’.

71

Keppel was no secret at court, as he expressed himself openly about the situation.337 All these factors contributed to Bentinck’s decision to file for resignation in March of 1697, the year that Keppel was elevated to Earl of Albemarle. Because of Keppel’s good looks and his rapid rise at court, rumours quickly started to spread about the nature of their relationship.338 On the 30th of May, Bentinck described his concerns about their relationship in a letter to the King:

‘Sire, it is your honour that I have at heart, and the kindnesses which Your Majesty holds for a young man and the manner in which you appear to authorize these liberties and impertinences, make the world say things that make me ashamed to hear them, and of which I also believe that any man of the world would have distanced himself from’.339

William was disappointed and saddened by Bentinck’s lack of trust, but pleaded him to stay at court, which Bentinck did.340

Keppel’s influence at court continued to grow, evident from the multiple entries in Huygens Jr.’s diary, where he began to function as some sort of ‘unofficial’ secretary.341 Courtiers would go to Keppel to pass messages to the King and vice versa. Keppel would see to it that William signed his documents as he was often present in William’s room during these activities. These were, however, actually the responsibilities of the secretary Huygens Jr. and this further diminished Huygens’ access to William.342 Especially after Mary’s Fig.4.11. Portrait of Arnold Joost van Keppel death, it was Keppel who was closest to the King.343 In by Godfried Kneller by Godfrey Kneller, c. 1700. (Courtesy National Portrait Gallery)

337 Huygens 1876 II: 176, 337. ‘Smerg. was Golstein bij mij, en noode mij buyten bij sijn moey tegen sanderen daeghs. Vertelde mij van̅ groote jalousie, (die) daer was tusschen Myl. Portland en̅ Keppel, en seyde, dat men daer haest meer van hooren soude. Dat P. deser daghe gestaen hadde aen tafel achter de Con., en̅ dat een deur achter hem zijnde, daer hij tegen stondt, ymant van buyten daer door willende, die hard tegen sijn lijff gestooten had, en̅ dat de Conin dat siende seyde: ‘siet daer stooten se Myl. Portland’, en de Con. seyde: ‘wel wat doet hij daer te staen? hij weet altijt soo weynigh het respect, dat hij mij schuldigh is’, en meende hij dat de faveur aen 't afgaen was, daer aen en̅ aen andere dingen seyde, dat hij eenige dingen door Portlandt hebbende doen voordragen, daer geen van geluckt was, en̅ dat het door Keppel gesuccedeert was.’ 338 Ronnes 2004: 63, Barclay 2007: 245. 339 Japikse 1923; 199. ‘Sire, c'est vostre honneur qui me tient au coeur, et les bontez que V.M. té a pour un jeune homme et la maniere dont il semble qu'elle autorise ces libertés et ses hauteurs, font dire au monde des choses qui me font honte a les entendre, et dont je la croy aussi esoigné q'homme du monde.’ 340 Ronnes 2004: 63, Raaij & Spies 1986: 1/8. 341 Barclay 2007: 245, 342 Huygens 1876 II: for example see his entries at 350, 363, 372, 373, 381, 413, 416, 440, 443, 444, 445, 447, 453, 463. 343 Raaij & Spies 1986: 1/9.

72

1699, Bentinck would again offer his resignation and this time he was not persuaded to stay.344 He was succeeded as Groom of the Stool by William’s favourite of English descent Henry Sidney, Earl of Romney. Nevertheless, despite their differences, in the end, he was still William’s dear friend, as he was next to Keppel at his bedside at Kensington Palace when William died in 1702.345

Your place or mine? As pointed out in the previous chapter, acquiring a room in one of William’s palaces was largely ceremonial in character, it was more than just a statement of rank or power: it was an architectural expression of one’s relation to the King. One that cannot be solely viewed through the framework of power. This is shown by the fact that William himself had a definite say in who should or should not obtain a physical place at court.

It was particularly important for the Dutch courtiers to get accommodation in William’s palaces. Especially in the first years of his reign as King, they lived almost exclusively in the apartments and quarters of the Royal Palaces. Most were concentrated in and around Whitehall, which had accommodated courtiers for centuries, but most of them also had lodgings at Hampton Court and Kensington. According to Spies and Raaij, the fact that they had not started building their own houses in England was partly due to an aversion from the established noble families, who made it impossible for them to purchase an estate, but also because they already had their own houses and estates in The Netherlands.346

William’s decisions not only influenced their accommodations but also determined their moving patterns, when William set out to the Continent his (Dutch) courtiers would follow, ‘since the King left Kensington the Town empties a-pace’ observed writer Abel Boyer (?- 1729) in 1699.347 Whilst William made room for his Dutch courtiers in England, his new English court could not count on a similar treatment across the sea. Despite alterations at Het Loo and Dieren, only three of his English Courtiers, Henry Sidney, Charles Douglas and William Blathwayt, had accommodations in the Republic.348

344 Ibid. 345 Ronnes 2004: 64. 346 Raaij & Spies 1986: 12/2 – 12/3. It was mainly the second generation that would permanently settle in England. 347 Barrell 1992: 148. 348 Drossaers & Lunsingh Scheurleer 1974: see the inventories of Het Loo 1713, Dieren 1699-1712 and Huis ten Kruidberg.

73

Evidently, those who were closest to the King could count on getting lodges in one of the palaces. At Het Loo, William had reserved the ground floor for his closest courtiers, while others, including Huygens and the ladies-in-waiting, occupied rooms at the third floor. Hampton Court shows a similar approach towards lodging its inhabitants. As expected, those part of the Bedchamber staff who attended the king most closely, had rooms above the King’s Apartments, while the courtiers with less important positions were scattered across the new buildings, on ground floors, intermediate floors and in the attic.349 Secretaries of state and other government officials, who did not necessarily take part in the ceremonial life at court, were lodged in the old Tudor court.350

Fig. 4.12. Plan of the first floor of Het Loo (based on inventory 1713, Spies & Raaij 1988, Ronnes 2004)

1. Entrance hall 9. Bentinck’s bedchamber 2. Antechamber 10. Bentinck’s closet 3. Lord Sidney’s room 11. Bentinck’s dressingroom 4. Van Nassau-Ouwerkerk’s room 12. Vaudemont’s bedchamber 5. Van Nassau-Ouwerkerk’s closet 13. Vaudemont’s closet 6. Van Nassau-Ouwerkerk’s dressingroom 14. Van Keppel’s bedchamber 7. Old dining room 15. Van Keppel’s closet 8. Bentinck’s antechamber 16. New dining room

In the previous chapter, it was Bentinck, as William’s friend and favourite, who obtained the largest apartments beside William and Mary at their palaces. This was to a large degree also the case after William’s coronation. However, with the rise of Keppel, he faced not only ‘competition’ in court but also in terms of architectural space. Whilst Bentinck, like most people at court, had to pay for the decoration and maintenance of his own apartments, those of

349 Thurley 2003: 323, Raaij & Spies 1986: 10/17-10/20. 350 Thurley 2003: 323.

74

Keppel were paid, as ordered by the King, by the Great Wardrobe.351 Between 1695 and 1700, William paid for the building of the house De Voorst at the Veluwe and a new quarter at Het Binnenhof to accommodate Keppel. When Bentinck resigned in 1699 and emptied all of his lodgings at William’s palaces, these were subsequently given to William’s new favourite Keppel.352 Not only did Keppel now have the biggest apartments, his close relationship with the King was also reflected in the place of his apartments at the English court, which were located within the wing of William’s apartments. Moreover, access to Keppel’s apartment was via a staircase that led to the most private room of the state apartments, down into William’s private apartments. The same was in a sense also the case at Kensington, where the apartment of (Bentinck and later) Keppel and the private apartment of William had connecting doors.353

Balancing power, ceremony and privacy at the Anglo-Dutch court Mary wrote several times about Hampton Court in her letters and memoirs. In 1689, she wrote to the Baroness of Wassenaer-Obdam in a letter that ‘the air ther is very good, but lacks many of the conveniences of Dieren (although the house has 4 or 500 rooms), it lacks also as good a neighbour as Madame de Rosendalle’.354 From remarks in her own memoirs it is clear that Hampton Court provided an escape from the noisy and busy Whitehall, but also how much she missed her happy, quiet, life in The Netherlands:

‘When I came to Hamptoncourt, I got leisure for a little serious reflection & writ my mind down. My happy condition in Holland could not be forgot, that stuck still close and made me often ready to murmer, but by the grace of God I stifled those thoughts, chid my self for them and returned to my duty’.355

Although enormous efforts were made to accommodate the couple’s public and private needs and comforts in every way possible, it did not change the fact that their lives as King and Queen of England were impacted by the proceedings of a much stricter court protocol, something they could not escape as easily as in The Netherlands.

William had reached a first step on having more control in his life at the English court by moving away from the administrative centre of power in London and taking up residence at

351 Raaij & Spies 1986: 9/34-9/38. This is also mentioned in Huygens 1876 II: 561, ‘dat de Con. een appartement, seer rijck gemeubleert, aen K. gegeven had’. 352 Ronnes 2004: 65. 353 Ronnes 2004: 66. 354 Raaij & Spies 1986: 5/1. 355 Bowen 1929: 156.

75

Kensington and Hampton Court. Thereby separating in some way the political sphere from the ‘private’ court sphere. This was a situation he was already very familiar with prior to the Glorious Revolution. In the Netherlands, he had delegated his time between his ‘work’ as stadholder at Het Binnenhof, his status as stadholder and prince at Honselaarsdijk and as a passionate hunter in the countryside.

But despite removing himself physically from the political centre, he still needed to attend to matters concerning the court etiquette and ceremony during the renovations of his houses at Kensington and Hampton Court. William and his ancestors had quite a track record when it comes to integrating French model in the design and layout of their Dutch palaces. Some might expect that therefore his palaces across the sea would also be developed towards this model. However, this did not entirely happen as the English court etiquette was different from that in The Netherlands (and France) and thus had different requirements.356 In England, a collection of rules was established for every space within the household, from the great chamber to bedchamber to wardrobe. The rules furthermore dictated the rights of access relating to these spaces and how the members of the court should behave in them.357 It was therefore vital in the planning of the palaces to arrange the rooms in such a manner to ensure that it could accommodate both suitable spaces for ceremony and private rooms for retirement.358

During the reign of William and Mary, this was reached by extending the sequence of State Rooms into an elaborate apartment linked by one continuous enfilade. This was sometimes more easily said than done. Although the enfilade with linearity as its ‘key principle’ was successfully integrated into the apartments at Hampton Court, this was difficult to achieve in the pavilions of Kensington.359 Therefore in April 1692, a new account was opened for ‘Expenses of ye Alterations of ye Queen’s Apartment’ to fix the problem of the sequence of Mary’s State Apartments at Kensington House after building the Queen’s gallery.360 As it happened, the Queen’s gallery, which most visitors were allowed to enter according to court etiquette, was placed behind her more ‘private’ rooms of the apartment consisting of a bedchamber, wardrobe and closet.361 The Queen’s gallery was thus inaccessible for most

356 Baillie 1967: 180, 182, Thurley 2003: 153. 357 Baillie 1967: 172-181, Steen 2009: 123-124, Thurley 2009: 6. 358 Ibid. 359 Thurley 2009: 10. 360 Raaij & Spies 1986: 4/12, Colvin 1976: 187. 361 Ibid.

76

visitors and plans were ordered to enlarge the apartments and reorganize the sequence of rooms to fix this problem. After changes were made to the inner and outer structure with the addition of the ‘Stone Portico’ and a new bedroom to Mary’s lodgings, the Queen’s gallery could now be reached by walking through the drawing room, the old bedchamber, supping room and dressing room. The Queen’s private lodgings were placed on the left side of the old bedchamber.362 William had a set of State as well as private apartments at Kensington, the latter located on the ground floor.363

After Mary’s death, William focused solely on new building work at Richmond and Kensington, continuously tweaking, altering and adjusting the rooms of the latter to his taste, his privacy and the requirements of court etiquette. After 1695, his State Apartment at Kensington consisted of a presence chamber, privy chamber (in use also a presence chamber, but had a higher status than the previous presence chamber), drawing room, dining room, council room, great bedchamber, little (also King’s new or cloth) bedchamber, great closet, little closet (or picture closet), followed by the largest room: the King’s gallery. His private apartment, under the rooms between the great bedchamber and the gallery, entailed of a bedroom, antechamber, four closets, a private dining room and a library.364 At Hampton Court, his State Apartment consisted of a presence chamber, eating room, privy chamber, withdrawing room, great bedchamber, dressing room or small bedchamber and a closet, and his private apartment of an orangery, drawing room, dining room and closet.365 The cartoon gallery was located next to his State Apartment.

Although Charles II and James II both had developed a more private way of living over time, William took it to the next level as Thurley concludes that it was ‘domestic considerations that drove the great building activities rather than a desire for a magnificent public life’.366 Barclay further states that there is a growing suspicion that the elaborate, (almost) overdesigned, State Apartments of William existed ‘entirely for show’. He notes that conform protocol, the ceremonies and court etiquette were performed by William and his staff at the state apartments, but in the end, William was ‘almost certainly actually living in the private apartments on the ground floor below’.367

362 Raaij & Spies 1986: 4/13. 363 Raaij & Spies 1986: 9/1. 364 Raaij & Spies 1986: 9/7 - 9/34 365 Raaij & Spies 1986: 10/3 – 10/14, Thurley 2003, Ronnes 2004: 67. 366 Thurley 2003: 209. 367 Barclay 2007: 252.

77

Fig. 4.13. Plan of William's State Apartments at Kensington, 1696-1699. (Based on plan of Spies & Raaij 1984)

A. King’s staircase E. Drawing room I. Council room M. Picture closet B. Guard chamber F. Eating room J. State bedchamber N. King’s gallery C. Presence chamber G. ? K. Little bedchamber D. Privy chamber H. Clerk of the L. Great closet Council’s room (?)

Fig.4.14. Plan of William's State Apartment at Hampton Court, c. 1700. (Based on plans and information by Baillie 1967, Thurley 2003) A. Great Staircase F. Privy chamber K. Closet P. Cartoon Gallery B. Guard Chamber G. Withdrawing room L. Wardrobe C. Court H. Great bedchamber M. Backstairs D. Presence Chamber I. Little bedchamber N. Private Gallery (former Queen’s Gallery) E. Eating room J. Closet O. Antechamber

78

It is difficult to prove the latter, but from contemporary accounts, we can draw some conclusions on the accessibility to the King. Although William seemed to have covered the basics of the English court ceremony with the continued emergence of the levee, the day-to- day restrictions and ceremonies of life at the English court seemed to have weighed heavy upon him as he supposedly frequently hid away in his closet, often with Bentinck, leading the poet Fleetwood Sheppard to comment:

‘Benting uplocks His King in a box And you seem him no more till supper’.368

Burnet also noted that William in his first year was ‘much in his closet’.369 Further stating that instead of being more visible as his friends had advised, he instead retired even more.370 Events such as balls were rare, drawing rooms infrequent and it was difficult to get an audience with the King.371 One of the courtiers told Huygens that William did himself more harm than good by being so difficult in granting audiences and that it was much easier to speak to the previous King.372 This is not one single instance, Huygens’ diary shows a lot of examples in which people complain they were not granted an audience or were eager to speak to the King in the more private rooms of his apartment: the bedroom and the closet.

Located at the end of the enfilade, one first had to traverse the public rooms and, secondly, had to be granted access by one of William’s select group of courtiers with the highest positions at court: for example, Bentinck, the groom of the stool, who had ‘the golden key’.373 As groom of the stool, Bentinck had the:

sole & absolute Charge, Command & Government under us of our old & new Bed- Chambers, the Great Withdrawing Room [...], the lesser Withdrawing Room, on the other side of our said Bed-Chamber […], our Cabinets or Closets, our new Withdrawing Room to our new Bed-Chamber, & all other Rooms belonging to our old & new private lodgings & the Back Stairs & back galleries at our Pallace of Whitehall374

368 As cited in Ronnes 2004: 64. 369 Burnet 1734: 2. 370 Burnet 1734: 2-3. 371 Bucholz 1993: 33. Huygens 1876 I & II: In his diaries of the years 1689 till 1696 there are only five mentions of the King (and Queen) giving a ball. 372 Huygens 1876 I: 124. 373 The golden key is mentioned by Huygens 1876 I: 87. See also note 327. 374 As cited in Steen 2009: 124.

79

Bentinck had considerable powers to grant the access to the inner –more intimate- rooms of the King. Notwithstanding, the backstairs and the pages who attended them were also of great importance. Huygens writes about a dispute between the page of the backstairs and the alter groom of the bedchamber on the admittance of lieutenant colonel Balfour.375

According to Ronnes, Huygens spent a lot of time waiting in William’s antechamber and was allowed in his bedroom after being summoned, but William’s closet was one of the rooms he could not enter. This entrance was only granted to his closest courtiers.376 However, as reported in his diary, Huygens did enter William’s closet on several occasions.377 William had several closets in his palaces and although Huygens does not always specify in which closet he was invited to, we can deduce that he paid most of these visits to William’s picture closet at Kensington. There the King and Huygens, quite the art connoisseur himself, spent their time discussing and supervising the picture hang and art collections.378

Although William did not contribute much to the English collection, from Huygens’ diary it is clear that William was personally involved in the selection of paintings for his palaces, often consulting Huygens and other courtiers, and liked to rearrange the hangings.379 For example, in 1695 William had asked for his paintings to be hung from ropes so that he could reorganize them without damaging the hangings.380 That he cared about his paintings is also apparent when he tells Huygens that after a small fire at Kensington in 1691, he first visited his cabinet as he was afraid that paintings might have been damaged, but found them unharmed.381 Art was not only present in his palaces because of his personal interest and taste, but also to establish a programme with political significance. In his State Apartments at Hampton Court dynastic portraits emphasized the continuity of an illustrious line, and paintings with political and military significance, such as The Triumphs of Caesar, were hung in his gallery.382 Furthermore, William embraced the image of Hercules, associated with virtue and as saviour 383 and defender of Protestantism and Freedom, for the interior decoration at Hampton Court.

375 Huygens 1876 I: 206. 376 Ronnes 2006: 144. 377 Huygens 1876 I: 86, 165, 174-175, 216, 221, 331, 356, 357, 365, 454, 517, 522. Huygens 1876 II: 26, 156, 454. 378 See for example: Huygens 1876 I: 221, 357. 379 Leeuwen 1988: 24, 41, Jenkins 1994: 4-6. He mostly commissioned decorative wall paintings and a few (life- sized) portraits. 380 Huygens 1876 II: 550. 381 Huygens 1876 I: 517. 382 Leeuwen 1988: 33, Jenkins 1994: 5-9. 383 De Jong 1993: 59-66.

80

As soon as the session of Parliament was over, William went back to The Netherlands where he would stay primarily at Het Loo. In a letter to his ‘neighbour’ at castle Rosendael, he wrote: ‘I cannot tell you enough how much I long for the Veluwe, more than it should’.384 The House of Commons in London was not particularly happy about this, as they stated that ‘this was not to look after the affairs of the States, which had been more excusable, but that he went thither to enjoy a lazy privacy at Loo; where, with a few favourites, he hunted and passed away the summer’.385

Although the first building phase at Het Loo had just finished, William decided to demolish the colonnades and had four pavilions build instead. Huygens noted in April 1692 that William told him ‘that the new building on the side of the house Het Loo would make for convenience but not aesthetics’.386 This seemed necessary as Huygens often remarked during this period that Het Loo is very crowded.387

With these alterations, William was able to enlarge his former apartment with a new antechamber, which served as presence chamber, bedchamber and four closets. The pavilions housed also a new dining room, a chapel and Mary’s apartments, the latter included a long gallery (like Soestdijk). According to a plan of 1695 and a travel account from 1705, the gallery also served as a dance hall.388 After the renovations, Het Loo offered more lodgings than in its previous situation. The number of available lodgings would stay limited, as Southwell wrote in 1696 that William had ‘hinderd any increase of building, that soe the Company may have noe Accommodation or inclination to stay’.389

Dieren was not immediately renovated. In fact, when Bentinck, as superintendent of palaces and gardens, visited the estate in 1690, he found the gardens dilapidated.390 In 1696, Southwell found the house ‘small and very old’, but in his conversation with the King he was told that William was ‘very fond of this seat, & talks of building an Apartment on the Garden

384 Akkermans-Praagman 1988: 7. 385 Burnet 1734: 392. 386 Huygens 1876 II: 39. ‘Seyde dat het nieuwe gebouw, dat terzijde van het huys van ’t Loo gemaecktwierd, veel gemack daeraen, maar geen welstandt soude geven.’ 387 For example, Huygens II: 39. ‘smiddachs was er soo veel volck om aen̅ 2e tafel te eten, dat er wel 12 of meer overschoten.’ 388 GA, 493, inv.nr. 53: 18. ‘ een lange Gallerie of dans Caemer rontom van deftige Schilderien beset’ 389 Freemantle 1970: 53. 390 Broomhall & Van Gent 2016: 110. ‘I left for Dieren where I found I was needed more, given the damage that the overflow of water had made to the new dam and to the little labyrinth that was almost completely ruined, and then the terrible state that the garden was in, because of the drunkenness of the gardener who has not yet put his hand to anything, I sent him away and will start another tomorrow to fill his place.’

81

Fig.4.15..Plan of Het Loo, 1695. (Information Raaij & Spies 1988, inventory 1713, plan 1695)

A. Staircase hall H. William’s new bedchamber O. Mary’s wardrobe B. Great chamber I. Closet P. Mary’s bedchamber C. William’s closet J. Closet Q. Mary’s antechamber D. William’s wardrobe K. Closet R. Mary’s new bedchamber E. William’s bedchamber L. Picture closet S. Mary’s new closet F. William’s antechamber M. Guardroom* T. Library G. William’s new antechamber N. Mary’s closet U. Gallery or ballroom* or presence chamber *According to plan of Het Loo drawn up in 1695

side for himselfe’.391 Construction work took place the followings years, although a nobleman remarked that ‘Its greatest Beauties are its Avenues, and what they call the Berceau; in its Buildings, Gardens, and all other Respects, inferior much to Loo’.392 In the old part of the house, a presence chamber was added to the sequence of William’s old apartment, which had previously only contained an antechamber, bedroom, closet and wardrobe, and also to Mary’s former lodgings. The new apartment consisted of an antechamber, presence chamber, bedroom and closet. Similar to Het Loo, Keppel’s apartment was located under that of William.

Despite the fact that William’s houses both got a new sequence of rooms, the houses primarily functioned as hunting lodges, albeit designed with his new status in mind. Most of the business relating to his role at Stadholder was still dealt with at The Hague, although he spent compared to his houses at the Veluwe relatively little time there.

391 Fremantle 1970: 53-54. 392 Shaw 1709: 11.

82

Conclusion In the Republic, William and Mary had alternated between their houses in the city and in the country throughout the year, making sure William got enough fresh air and simultaneously to get away from the hustle and bustle of The Hague. After the Glorious Revolution, William brought his Dutch courtiers as well as his preference for more small-scaled, private, living conditions, with him to England. Escaping the noise, dirt and bustle of Whitehall for the sake of his health, William created living accommodations based on his own terms and requirements.

The small, more private, way of living in The Netherlands influenced his decision-making during the construction of his court in England. Not disregarding the traditions and etiquette of the English court, William tried to find a balance between power and privacy during the construction of his houses in England. The first was his arrangement to physically separate court life from the daily government, which would have an enormous and long-lasting impact on the living conditions of the English monarchy.393 Secondly, two sets of apartments were created in his palaces at Kensington and Hampton Court: State Apartments for the court etiquette and ceremony and private apartments to retire. The usual suite of rooms was lengthened and increased the importance of those at the far end: the closets that were William’s private inner sanctum.

In the meanwhile, changes were also felt across the sea. Prior to 1688, only a few of his houses had the proper arrangements to receive royalty in. With his ascension to the throne, his houses in The Netherlands not only got a more ‘king-worthy’ appearance but also a more ‘king-worthy’ layout. This was especially true for two of his favourite getaways in The Netherlands, namely Het Loo and Dieren. The surrounding areas at the Veluwe were further developed by William into one concentrated area for hunting with Het Loo as the centre point.

Surprisingly, the personal union between England and The Netherlands with William as Stadholder-king did not spur any great architectural exchanges between the two countries. Even after renovation campaigns in both countries, the layouts of the houses and arrangement of rooms are distinct. This can be attributed to their different purposes and origins. Some

393 Thurley 2009: 16.

83

aspects are to some degree comparable, such as the private character of the closets, but not identical. With few exceptions, the two architectural worlds remained mostly separate.

There is, however, one constant factor in his architecture, although played out on different scales: the (architectural) relationship between William and his courtiers. Even when the size of his court had quadrupled after the Glorious Revolution, William still kept a close inner circle of primarily Dutch courtiers. This small circle with first Bentinck and later Keppel on top enjoyed various privileges at court, from (the power to control) access to the King’s rooms to the location and size of their lodgings, which, in comparison to other courtiers, were often closer to William’s rooms and bigger in size. This is further characterized by the fact that all or at least a significant part of them had lodgings in the King’s more private houses in The Netherlands. William’s architecture must thus not only be seen as a means of expression and representation, but also as a tool for communication.

84

Conclusion

‘[Louis XIV’s] house at Versailles is something the foolishest in the world; he is strutting in every panel and galloping over one's head in every ceiling […] The monuments of my master’s actions are seen everywhere but in his own house.’ – Matthew Prior, 1698394

The story of the life and career of Stadholder-King William III is a unique and rare one. William grew up in a court with no perspective and no real parallel to the rest of the courtly world. As for someone who has been described throughout history as aloof, silent and reserved, his actions seem to have spoken louder than words. His rise to power, first as stadholder in The Netherlands, and later as King of England, defied all the odds. While literature has predominantly focussed on his military actions, his architectural activities have been paid less attention to. With this research, I wanted to review William as the author and shaper of the palatial landscape during his reign in The Netherlands and England by researching how he negotiated social space in relation to his life’s history.

The study started from the assertion that buildings embody the social and cultural meanings of those who constructed and/or inhabited them and that it is therefore possible, by studying his architectural activities and the designs and layouts of the buildings, to obtain insight in William’s life. The key to obtain this knowledge was the study of (social) space. I have used the concept of social space as a medium that frames and shapes behaviour to understand the relationship between William and the buildings he constructed and/or renovated. Particular issues, such as power, privacy, access and control, were central to this study.

To gain more insight on the subject, the first chapter looked into the development of the court and buildings of his predecessors in The Netherlands. In contrast to other countries, the House of Orange-Nassau was a princely court within a republic. As both stadholder and noblemen, they held an ambivalent and unique position in The Netherlands, in which the political sphere was separated from that of the private court. In the exploration of their buildings, it became evident that for the House of Orange-Nassau architecture was used as a tool to express the status and power of their dynasty. This was realized by employing French, Italian and

394 Jenkins 1994: 9.

85

classical models, which included the introduction of new concepts concerning decorum, privacy and modern comfort, in the renewal and redevelopment of their residences.

In the following two chapters, William’s architectural activities, movements, court structure and use of space during his reign as stadholder and stadholder-king were reviewed. As William’s architectural legacy has almost completely become unreadable in the current landscape, I had to look past the (reconstructed) remains and turn to ego documents, visual sources and literature in order to reconstruct the original coherence of his houses and meaning of space. A study of William as author and shaper of the palatial landscape seemed to be quite a task, especially because of the lack of evidence. It became as much a study of interpretations as about social space.

Most of the studies on William’s architectural activities seem to be stuck in a framework that focused solely on his (rise to) power and his failure to accomplish a single grand design. Providing an overview that did not only focus on the larger, more famous, structures such as Hampton Court, Kensington and Het Loo, but also his smaller houses and acquisitions, gave more insight into what he was trying to create. It simultaneously offered a chance to move away from the narrow perceptions of former scholars. We see that it was not just power, his health or a need for more space after his marriage to Mary that triggered him to (re)build houses, but foremost his passion for hunting that decided location and form: all the structures he had built or renovated in The Netherlands, except for Het Binnenhof, functioned as hunting lodges. Especially during his reign as stadholder, he did not need to create enormous palaces as these had already been constructed by his ancestors in The Hague. His new hunting lodges served as an escape from the politics and ceremony, providing only the necessary space for him, Mary and their close circle of courtiers.

When he ascended the English throne in 1689, he was confronted with different, stricter, court etiquette, ritual and ceremony and his court quickly quadrupled in size. As his life changed, so did the buildings he inhabited. His houses in The Netherlands were enlarged. The basic unit of quarters was no longer suitable, befitting to his new status as King, and presence chambers were added to his houses at Het Loo and Dieren. Still, the structures did not need to become a flashy social centre like Versailles, as they did not held ministers and a bureaucracy, and kept primarily space for a limited amount of close courtiers. Similar to The Netherlands, William moved also in England away from the centre of power. In the ‘nearby’ houses at Kensington

86

and Hampton Court, he created living accommodations that echoed his former life at court and balanced between his inclination towards privacy and his status as King.

When we look at how he negotiated space throughout his life: it is clear that William moved away from the image of the all-mighty ruler. He was no all-mighty ruler like Louis XIV, as he had no total control and little power over legislature, and this was reflected in his movements and structures. He was rarely seen at the ‘centres of power’ in London and Whitehall and tried to separate the political sphere from the private one. From the diaries of Huygens and Southwell, we know that William was certainly involved in the negotiation of space: from the process to allocating the courtiers at Hampton Court to his comment on building for ‘convenience rather than aesthetics’ at Het Loo and hindering further building at Het Loo to avoid more company. William created living accommodations based on his own terms and requirements. He built what was required of his status as stadholder-king: an official palace at Hampton Court, state apartments, presence chambers in his Dutch apartments, but rather focussed in architecture on what he really treasured: hunting, his privacy and his small group of friends. Yet, his untimely death leaves us wondering if that truly was to be his architectural legacy.

This conscious choice for a more intimate and private approach not only explains the more small-scale architecture of his houses and its location, but furthermore stresses the importance of space in his houses. The whole organisation was aimed to structure spaces important to him and the route towards these spaces. For William, known as a more reserved person, these were the more private spaces of his houses: the bedroom, his closets and, in England, his private apartments. These private spaces were physically the most remote and isolated and the boundaries between these private spaces and the (more) public spaces were regulated by court regulations. Access to these spaces was granted to and to some degree by his closest, primarily Dutch, courtiers. Space was thus negotiated based on status and personal relations to William. This was further expressed by the physical designation of space. One’s personal bond with the stadholder-king determined the size and location of one’s lodgings: the closer the bond, the bigger the lodgings and located more near those of the stadholder-king. This was first noted by Hanneke Ronnes who used the term ‘architecture of friendship’ to describe this articulation of space. Based on the positions, location and size of their rooms in all of William’s houses, it is evident that Bentinck and later Keppel were William’s most favoured courtiers.

87

In my family, William has been given a new nickname: Goldilocks. Just as Goldilocks in the children’s story of The Three Bears tasted three different bowls of porridge, after which she finds that she prefers porridge which is neither too hot nor too cold, William also tried to find a balance in his architecture, albeit on quite a different scale than that of Goldilocks and the three bears. In shape, almost every structure William (re)built was different from the other. There are differences in function and use: we have the hunting lodges, the official residences and the private ones. This might make him a practical author of the palatial landscape, but also a smart and resourceful one: he built what was wanted and needed of him, but also what he needed and wanted of his houses.

Albeit elite architecture always can and will be viewed as the articulation of power and class identity, it seems apparent to me that this study has moved well beyond this point. Reviewing William as the author of the palatial landscape, we see that architecture was a language signifying power, privacy and social relations. Like any other language, it was a means both to make known and to modify those relations. The framework that focusses solely on his (rise to) power is not per se wrong, but only part of his story. The problem is if we are to only view it through this framework. If we really want to understand William’s houses or elite structures in general, we have to review the structures, explain the differences and employ alternative readings that might challenge the accepted narratives of power.

88

References

Archives

Groninger Archieven (GA), Groningen • 493 FA Van Bolhuis, inv.nr. 53: Journaal van de reizen van Abel Eppo van Bolhuis, 1693 - 1705. • 623 Menkemaborg en Dijksterhuis, inv.nr. 425 : Korte Reijs-beschrijvinge, bevattende in forme van journael de remarcabelste saeken, Gesien en voorgevallen op de Reijse door de Nederlanden, Vranckrijck, Italien, Duitslant en Engelant, gedaen door de HoochEdele, Welgebooren Heer Gerhard Horenken, Heer tot Dijcksterhuis etc. opgestelt door C.C. Neander, j.u.d., Sijn Hooch Ed. gewesene Ephorus, anno 1685.

Nationaal Archief (NA), The Hague • 1.08.11 Nassause Domeinraad (ND), inv.nr. 565: 'Gemengd domestiquen', registers van stukken betreffende aanstellingen, instructies en beloning van leden van de hofhouding en leveranciers van diensten en goederen, alsmede inkomsten, uitgaven en schulden (financiële transacties) ten laste van het huis van Oranje, 1664-1682. • 1.08.11, ND, inv.nr. 998: Registers van ordonnanties voor de thesaurier en rentmeester-generaal en rentmeesters van de prinsen van Oranje en de Domeinraad, 1684-1692.

Literature

• Adamson, J. ‘Introduction. The making of the Ancien-Régime Court 1500-1700.’ In: Adamson, J. (red.) The princely courts of Europe: ritual, politics and culture in the Ancien Régime, 1500- 1750. (Londen 2000), pp. 7-42. • Anonymous. Blijde inkomst van sijne Doorlugtigste Groot-magtigste Majesteyt, William de III. (Leiden 1691) • Anonymous. The Life of William III. Late King of England and Prince of Orange. (London 1705) • Akkermans-Praagman, A.J.M. ‘Vorstelijke nagebuuren.’ In: Ambt en Heerlijkheid, no. 91, (1988), pp. 3-10. • Asch, R.G. ‘Introduction: Court and Household from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries’. In: Asch, R.G, Birke, A.M. Princes, patronage, and the nobility (London 1991), pp. 1-40. • Baggerman, A., Dekker, R. ‘De gevaarlijkste van alle bronnen; Egodocumenten: nieuwe wegen en perspectieven.’ Tijdschrift voor sociale en economische geschiedenis I, no. 4, (2004), pp. 3-22. • Bailie, H.M. ‘Etiquette and the Planning of the State Apartments in Baroque Palaces.’ In: Archaeologia, vol. 101, (1967), pp. 169-199. • Barclay, A. ‘William’s Court as King.’ In: Mijers, E., Onnekink, D. Redefining William III. The Impact of the King-Stadholder in International Context (Politics and Culture in North-Western Europe 1650-1720). (Aldershot 2007), pp. 241 – 262. • Bax, W. ‘De Kruidberg.’ In: Oud Holland, vol. 26, no. 3, (1909), pp. 176-188. • Beckeringh, T. ‘Journal of dagverhaal van een Plaisir reisje, van Groningen na Kleef. In 1740 by P.Muntinghe J.U.D., A.H.W. de Vriese J.U.D., M. van Bolhuis advocaat en mij Theodorus Beckeringh.’ In: De Navorscher, XLV (1895), pp. 349-372. • Beranek, S. ‘Strategies of Display in the Galleries of Amalia van Solms.’ In: Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art, vol. 9, no. 2, (2017), pp. 1-30. • Blencowe, R.W. Henry Sidney; Diary of the times of Charles the second by-, including his correspondence with the Countess of Sunderland and other distinguished persons at the English

89

court; to which are added, letters illustrative of the times James II. and William III. (London 1843) • Bruggeman, M. Nassau en de macht van Oranje. De strijd van de Friese nassau’s voor de erkenning van hun rechten, 1702-1747. (Hilversum 2006) • Boer, P. den. Het huijs int noorteynde: Het Koninklijk Paleis Noordeinde historisch gezien. (Amsterdam 1986) • Bohn, H.G. Diary and Correspondence of John Evelyn, F.R.S. Vol. 2. (London 1862) • Bowen, M. The third Mary Stuart. Mary of York, Orange & England. (London 1929) • Bucholz, R. O. The Augustan Court: Queen Anne and the Decline of Court Culture. (Stanford 1993) • Bucholz, R. O. ‘Going to Court in 1700: a Visitor’s Guide.’ In: The Court Historian, vol. 5, nr. 3 (2000), pp. 181-215. • Burnet, G. History of His Own Time. (Dublin 1734 [1725]) • Broomhall, S., Van Gent, J. Dynastic colonialism : gender, materiality and the early modern House of Orange-Nassau. (London 2016) • Brom. G. ‘Reisbeschrijving – een Italiaanse – der Nederlanden (1677-1678)’ [door Guido en Giulio de Bovio] Bijdragen en mededeelingen van het Historisch Genootschap, vol. 36 (1915), pp. 81-230. • Claydon, T. William III; profiles in power. (London 2002) • Clifford, C. Performance spaces in English Royal Palaces, 1509-1642. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Birmingham. (Birmingham 2013) • Colvin, H.M. (ed.) The History of the King’s Works, Vol. 5. 1660-1782. (London 1976) • Curtius, C. (ed) Beschreibung einer Reise durch das nordwestliche Deutsland nach den Niederlanden und England im Jahre 1683. (Lübeck 1891) • Delen, M. ‘Ontstaansgeschiedenis van het hof in Den Haag’. In: Keblusek, M., Zijlmans, J., eds. Vorstelijk vertoon: aan het hof van Frederik Hendrik en Amalia. (The Hague 1997), pp. 18-29. • Delen, M. Het hof van Willem van Oranje. (Amsterdam 2002) • Drossaers, S.W.A., Lunsingh Scheurleer, T. H. Inventarissen van de Inboedels in de Verblijven van de Oranjes en Daarmede Gelijk te Stellen Stukken 1567-1795). (’s-Gravenhage 1974-1976) • Duindam, J. Myths of power: Norbert Elias and the early-modern European court. (Amsterdam 1995) • Duindam, J. ‘Tussen tafellaken en servet. Het stadhouderlijk hof in dynastiek Europa.’ BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review, 124, 4, (2009), pp. 536–558. • Dunk, ,T. von der. 'Oranjepaleizen rond Den Haag als toeristische trekpleisters' In: Jaarboek Die Haghe, (2006), pp. 22-68. • Dutton, R. English court life: from Henry VII to George II. (London 1963) • Elias, N. The Court Society. Translated by Edmund Jephcott. (New York 1983) • Evelyn, J. The Diary of John Evelyn. Edited by Guy de la Bédoyère. (Woodbridge 2004) • Everdingen, L. van. Het Loo, De Oranjes en de Jacht. (Haarlem 1984) • Farrington, J. An Account of a Journey through Holland, Frizeland, Westphalia, etc. (Leiden 1994) • Fremantle, K. ‘A visit to the United Provinces and Cleves in the time of William III: described in Edward Southwell’s Journal’ In: Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek , Vol. 21 (1970), pp. 39- 68. • Frijhoff, W. ‘Het Haagse hof in national en Europees perspectief’. In: Keblusek, M., Zijlmans, J., eds. Vorstelijk vertoon: aan het hof van Frederik Hendrik en Amalia. (The Hague 1997), pp. 10- 17.

90

• Fock, C.W. ‘Interieuropvattingen van Amalia van Solms. Een Frans getint hof in de Republiek.’ In: Gentse Bijdragen tot de Interieurgeschiedenis, 34, (2005): 25-45. • Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. (London 1984) • Groenveld, S. ‘William III as Stadholder: Prince or Minister?’ In: Mijers, E., Onnekink, D. Redefining William III. The Impact of the King-Stadholder in International Context (Politics and Culture in North-Western Europe 1650-1720). (Aldershot 2007), pp. 17-38. • Haley, K.H.D. ‘William III’ in: Willem III de stadhouder-koning en zijn tijd (Amsterdam 1988), pp. 31-50. • Haley, K.H.D. ‘William III as Builder of Het Loo.’ In: Hunt, J.D., ed. The Dutch garden in the seventeenth century. (Washington 1990) • Hamilton, E. William’s Mary: a Biography of Mary II. (New York 1972) • Hansson, M. ‘The medieval aristocracy and the social use of space.’ In: Gilchirst, R., Reynolds, A., eds. Reflections: 50 Years of Medieval Archaeohology 1957-2007. (Leeds 2009), pp. 435-452. • Harris, J. ‘The architecture of the Williamite Court’ In: Maccubin, R.P., Hamilton-Phillips, M, eds. The age of William III & Mary II : power, politics, and patronage, 1688-1702. (Williamsburg 1989) • Hunt, J.D., Jong, E. de, eds. The Anglo-Dutch garden in the age of William and Mary. (London 1988) • Huygens Jr., C. Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, Den Zoon, van 21 October tot 2 sept. 1696. Vol I & II. J.H. Siccama (ed.) (Utrecht 1876) • Huygens Jr., C. Journaal gedurende de veldtochten der jaren 1673, 1675, 1676, 1677 en 1678. J.H. Siccama (Utrecht 1881) • Huygens Jr., C. Journalen. Derde deel. (Utrecht 1888) • Israel, J.I. ‘The courts of the house of Orange c. 1580-1795. The united provinces of the Netherlands..’ In: Adamson, J. (red.) The princely courts of Europe: ritual, politics and culture in the Ancien Régime, 1500-1750. (Londen 2000), pp. 119-140. • Janssen, G. ‘Political Ambiguity and Confessional Diversity in the Funeral Processions of Stadholders in the Dutch Republic’. In: Sixteenth Century Journal, XL/2 (2009): 283-301. • Janssens-Knorsch, ‘From Het Loo to Hampton Court: William and Mary’s Dutch gardens and their influence on English gardening.’ In: Hoftijzer, P.G., Barfoot, C.C., eds. Fabrics and fabrications: the myth and making of William and Mary. (Amsterdam 1990) • Japikse, N.M. Prins Willem III: de stadhouder-koning. (Amsterdam 1930) • Japikse, N.M. Correspondentie van Willem III en van Hans Willem Bentinck. Vol I. (The Hague 1927) • Jenkins, S. 'The Artistic Taste of William III', in The Kings Apartments: Hampton Court Palace. In: Apollo Magazines, (1994), 4–9. • Johnson, M. English Houses 1300-1800: Vernacular Architecture, Social Life. (London 2010) • Jones, J.R. ‘The building works and court style of William and Mary.’ The Journal of Garden History, 8, no. 2-3, (London 1988), pp. 1-13. • Jong, E. de. Natuur en kunst: Nederlandse tuin- en landschapsarchitectuur 1650-1740. (Bussum 1993) • Klingensmith, S.J. The Utility of Splendor: Ceremony, Social Life, and Architecture at the Court of Bavaria, 1600-1700. (Chicago 1994) • Kurpershoek, E. ‘Jagen en tuinieren, schilderkunst en porselein: Willem III en Mary II Stuart op Soestdijk (1674-1702).’ In: Paleis Soestdijk. Drie eeuwen Huis van Oranje. (Zwolle 2009), pp. 142-147. • Laarse, R. van der. ‘Ten geleide: Twee eeuwen Koninklijke paleizen.’ KNOB Bulletin, vol. 109, nr. 5, (2010), pp. 157-158.

91

• Leeuwen, R. van. Paintings from England: William III and the royal collections. (The Hague 1988) • Loonstra, M. Het húijs int bosch: Ket Koninklijk Paleis Huis ten Bosch historisch gezien. (Zutphen 1985) • Maccubin, R.P., Hamilton-Phillips, M, eds. The age of William III & Mary II : power, politics, and patronage, 1688-1702. (Williamsburg 1989) • Markus, T. A. Buildings and Power: Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types. (London 1993) • Mörke, O. 'Stadtholder' oder 'Staetholder'?: die Funktion des Hauses Oranien und seines Hofes in der politischen Kultur der Republik der Vereinigten Niederlanden im 17. Jahrhundert. (München 1997) • Mörke, O. ‘De hofcultuur van het huis Oranje-Nassau in de zeventiende eeuw’ in: P. te Boekhorst, P. Burke, W.M.T. Frijhoff (red.), Cultuur en maatschappij in Nederland 1500-1850: een historisch-antropologisch perspectief. (Meppel 1992), pp. 39-77. • Mörke, O. ‘William’s III Stadholderly Court in the Dutch Republic.’ In: Mijers, E., Onnekink, D. Redefining William III. The Impact of the King-Stadholder in International Context (Politics and Culture in North-Western Europe 1650-1720). (Aldershot 2007), pp. 227-240. • Morren, T. Het Huis Honselaarsdijk. (Leiden 1905) • Mountague, W. The Delights of Holland: or, a three months travel about that and the other provinces. With observations and reflections on their trade, wealth, strength, beauty, policy, etc. (London 1696) • Northleigh, J. Topographical descriptions: with historico-political, and medico –physical observations: made in two several voyages, through most parts of Europe. (London 1702) • Ottenheym, K. ‘″van Bouw-lust soo beseten″. Frederik Hendrik en de bouwkunst’. In: Keblusek, M., Zijlmans, J., eds. Vorstelijk vertoon: aan het hof van Frederik Hendrik en Amalia. (The Hague 1997), pp. 105-125. • Panhuysen, L. Oranje tegen de Zonnekoning. De strijd van Willem III en Lodewijk XIV om Europa. (Amsterdam 2016) • Predovnik, K. ‘The Castle as Social Space: an Introduction.’ In: Castrum Bene, no. 12, (2014), pp. 13-23. • Raaij, S. van, Spies, P. A royal progress : wooncultuur van de koning-stadhouder Willem III en zijn kring in Engeland. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. (Amsterdam 1986) • Raaij, S. van, Spies, P. The Royal Progress of William and Mary. (Amsterdam 1988) • Rapoport, A. ‘Some Perspectives on Human Use and Organization of Space’, Paper presented at Australian Association of Social Anthropologists in Melbourne, Australia. (1972) • Rapoport, A. The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. (Tuscan 1990) • Rijkens, P. Nassau on horseback: Meaning, form and function of Nassau equestrian imagery in the Netherlands since the 16th century. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam (Amsterdam 2015) • Ronnes, H. ‘The architecture of William of Orange and the culture of friendship.’ Archaeological Dialogues, 11, no. 1, (2004), pp. 57–72. • Ronnes, H. Architecture and Élite Culture in the United Provinces, England and Ireland, 1500- 1700. (Amsterdam 2006) • Schellart, A.I.J.M. Huizen van Oranje: Verblijven van de Oranjes en de Nassaus in Nederland. (Delft 1965)

92

• Schilling, H. ‘The Orange Court: The Configuration of the Court in an old European Republic’ in: Asch, R. and Birke, A., eds., Princes, Patronage and the Nobility. (Oxford 1991), pp. 441- 454. • Schmid, C. ‘Henri Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space: towards a three-dimensional dialectic.’ In: Goonewardena e.a., eds. Space, difference, everyday life: reading Henri Lefebvre. (New York 2008) • Shaw, J. Letters to a nobleman from a gentleman travelling thro’ Holland, Flanders and France. with a description of Ghent, Lisle, etc. And of the courts of Versailles and St. Germains. (London 1709) • Slothouwer, D.F. De paleizen van Frederik Hendrik. (Leiden 1945) • Starkey, D. The English Court from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War. (London 1987) • Steen, J. van der. ‘'This Nation was not Made for Me': William III's Introduction to Etiquette, Ritual and Ceremony at the English Court, 1688–1691.’ Dutch Crossing, vol. 33, no. 2, (2009), pp. 121-134. • Strien, C.D. van. Touring the Low Countries: Accounts of British travellers, 1660-1720. (Amsterdam 1998) • Strien, C.D. van. British travellers in Holland during the Stuart period: Edward Browne and John Locke as Tourists in the United Provinces. Ph.D. dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. (Amsterdam 1989). • Sudjic, D. The Edifice Complex: the architecture of power. (London 2005) • Taylor, J. A Relation of a Voyage to the Army. In Several Letters From a Gentleman to his Friend in the Year 1707. (Leiden 1997) • Tilley, C. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. (Oxford 1994) • Tinniswood, A. Visions of Power: Ambition and Architecture from Ancient Times to the Present. (London 1998) • Thurley, S. Hampton Court: a Social and Architectural History. (London 2003) • Thurley, S. ‘Kensington Palace: an incident in Anglo-Dutch architectural collaboration?’ The Georgian Group Journal , 27, (2009), pp.1-18. • Tromp, H. Het húijs te Soestdijck: het Koninklijk Paleis Soestdijk historisch gezien. (Zutphen 1987) • Troost, W. William III, the Stadholder-King. A political biography. (Aldershot 2005) • Tucker, R. ‘'His excellency at home' Frederik Hendrik and the noble life at Huis Honselaarsdijk.’ Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art / Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, 51, 1, (2000), pp. 83-102. • Upmark, G. ‘Ein Besuch in Holland 1687, aus den Reiseschilderungen des schwedischen Architekten Nicodemus Tessin.‘ Oud-Holland, 18, no.2. (1900a) pp. 117-128. • Upmark, G. ‘Ein Besuch in Holland 1687, aus den Reiseschilderungen des schwedischen Architekten Nicodemus Tessin.‘ Oud-Holland, 18, no.3. (1900b) pp. 144-152. • Visser, J., Plaat, G. van der, eds. Gloria parendi. Dagboeken van Willem Frederik, stadhouder van Friesland, Groningen en Drenthe, 1643-1649, 1651-1654. (Den Haag 1995) • Walpole, H. Anecdotes of Painting in England with Some Account of the Principal Artists (1765- 1780), ed. Ralph N. Wornum, vol. II. (London 1888) • Wezel, G.W.C. Het paleis van Hendrik III, graaf van Nassau te Breda. (Zeist 1999) • Worp, J.A. De Briefwisseling van Constantijn Huygens. Zesde Deel. (The Hague 1917) • Zijlmans, J. ‘Aan het Haagse Hof.’ In: Keblusek, M., Zijlmans, J., eds. Vorstelijk vertoon: aan het hof van Frederik Hendrik en Amalia. (The Hague 1997) pp. 30-46.

93

Appendix A

Courtiers at the Dutch palaces and country homes in the Republic

William’s Courtiers

Hans Willem Bentinck, 1649-1709 Became gentleman of the chamber of William III in 1672, troop captain, and after several promotions he became lieutenant general. In England, he was declared groom of the stole, gentleman of the bedchamber, privy purse, etc. In 1689 he was ranked Duke Portland. He resigned all his offices in the royal household in 1699. He married Ann Villiers in 1678, the daughter of sir Edward and lady Frances Howard. He got married a second time in 1700 with Jane Marthe Temple. He died in 1709 and was buried in Westminster Abbey. • Hoog Soeren 1677-78: chamber • Dieren 1683: chamber, cabinet & wardrobe • Dieren 1699: antechamber, cabinet, bedroom & cabinet [his servant was provided with a room in the attic] • Soestdijk 1699-1712: antechamber, bedroom, cabinet & wardrobe • Breda 1696-1712: ‘Quarter of milord Portlandt’ consisting of a wardrobe, cabinet, bedroom & antechamber • Honselaarsdijk 1694-1702: antechamber, bedroom, cabinet & wardrobe • Het Loo 1713: bedroom, wardrobe, cabinet [his servant was provided with a room in the attic]

Duchess of Portland o Huis ten Bosch 1703: bedroom and cabinet o Het Loo 1713: cabinet and wardrobe

Caspar Frederik Henning/Hennin Secretary to the Duke of Portland o Dieren 1699: chamber o Het Loo 1713: antechamber

Algernon Capel 2nd Earl of Essex, Portland’s son in law o Breda 1696-1712: chamber

Aernout [Arnold] Joost van Keppel 1699-1712 Son of Oswald van Keppel and his wife Anna Geertruid van Lintelo. Keppel became successively page of honour in his mid-teens, groom, chamberlain and master of the robes of William’s household. In 1697 he was made Earl of Albemarle. In 1699, he was awarded the command of the First Life Guards. • Dieren 1699: [downstairs in the new quarter] antechamber, wardrobe, cabinet, bedroom, cabinet • Breda 1696-1712: ‘old quarter’ = chamber & wardrobe, plus in the ‘Kings Quarter’ a chamber, cabinet and wardrobe • Binnenhof 1700: ‘Albemarle’s quarter’ = bedroom, cabinet, antechamber • Het Loo 1713: ‘below his Majesties quarter’, bedroom, cabinet, wardrobe • Oude Loo 1713: chamber • Huis ten Kruidberg 1700-1712: chamber

94

Hendrik van Nassau Ouwerkerk, 1640-1708 Youngest son of Lodewijk van Nassau Beverweerd and Isabella, countess of Horne. He married Françoise van Aerssen van Sommelsdijk in 1667. Hendrik became master of the horses in England in 1689 and General under the command of the Duke of Marlborough in 1701. • Dieren 1683: chamber • Dieren 1699: chamber • Soestdijk 1699-1712: chamber • Het Loo 1713: chamber, cabinet, wardrobe

Willem Adriaan, Count of Nassau, Lord of Odijk, 1632-1705 Second son of Lodewijk van Nassau Beverweerd and Elisabeth, countess of Horne. He was in favour with William, who made him a representative of the province Zeeland. Married Elisabeth van der Nisse. Became deputy of the States-General and was regularly send as William’s ambassador to peace negotiations. • Dieren 1699: chamber in the new quarter • Breda 1696-1712: ‘Quarter of the lord of Odijk’ • Huis ten Kruidberg 1700-1712: chamber

Karel Hendrik van Lotharingen, Prince of Vaudemont, 1642-1723 Son of Karel IV, count of Lotharingen, and Beatrix de Cusance. Karel married Anna Elisabeth van Lotharingen-Elboeuf (1649-1714) in 1669. He was appointed as general des armes dans les Pays-Bas, but traded William’s army for the French army in 1700. • Noordeinde [old court] 1702: antechamber, passage next to the bedroom, bedroom, cabinet, wardrobe, small cabinet • Het Loo 1713: antechamber, bedroom

Hendrik Casimer II, Count of Nassau, 1657-1696 Son of Willem Frederik van Nassau-Dietz and Albertine Agnes van Nassau. Hendrik was sovereign of Nassau-Dietz, count of Katzenelnbogen, Vianden and Spiegelberg, Duke of Liesveld and stadholder of Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe (1664-1696). Like his predecessors, he became officer in the army of the Republic, but he did not get along with his nephew and commander-in-chief William III. In 1674 he defected to the enemy. He returned in 1688 and became the third field marshal in the army in 1689, but left the army once again in 1693. • Dieren 1683: chamber • Dieren 1699: chamber • Het Loo 1713: chamber, cabinet

Henriette Amalia, wife of Hendrik Casimir II o Dieren 1683: chamber

Adolf Transisulanus of Voorst, Lord of Jaarsveld, 1651-1707 Son of Hidde, Lord of Voorst, and Johanna van Haersolte. He Started as page and became ‘ordinaris edelman’ in 1672, lord chamberlain in 1681 and became a member of the States of Holland and Council of State. Adolf married Arnoldina de Graeff in 1681. • Dieren 1683: chamber • Dieren 1699: chamber • Soestdijk 1699-1712: chamber

95

Charles Douglas, Earl of Selkirk, 1663-1739 Third son of the Duke of Hamilton, Charles was clerk of the registers and rolls of the Council and of the Exchequer of Scotland. Selkirk was also chamberlain to William III in the Republic, according to the Resolutions of the State-General 1691/93. • Dieren 1699: chamber • Het Loo 1713: cabinet

Henry Sidney, Earl of Romney, 1641-1704. He was employed by Sunderland to negotiate with William in 1688, and the author and one of the signatories to send the cipher to William calling for the Glorious Revolution. He was present at the Battle of Boyne (1690). In 1689, he became gentleman of the bedchamber and was named Earl of Romeny in 1694. In 1700 he succeeded Bentinck as groom of the stole. • Het Loo 1713: chamber, cabinet • Huis ten Kruidberg 1700-1712: chamber

Constantijn Huygens junior, 1628-1697 Became William’s secretary in 1672. Well-known for his journals. • Hoog Soeren 1677-78: chamber • Dieren 1683: chamber • Soestdijk 1699-1712: chamber • Het Loo 1713: bedroom, cabinet

Armand de Caumont, Marquis of Montpouillan Son of Henri Nompar, 2nd Duke of La Force. He was one of the officers close to William in 1672. He was subsequently named gentleman of the chamber. He acquired the British citizenship in 1692 and subsequently became lord of the bedchamber. • Dieren 1683: chamber [above the gate] • Dieren 1699: chamber [above the gate] • Het Loo 1713: cabinet

Mary’s Courtiers

Margaret Boyle Wife of William O'Brien, Duke of Inchiquin. She accompanied Mary as dame d'honneur to Holland in 1677 instead of lady Frances Howard, wife of Sir Edward Villiers. She returned to England in 1683. Her husband had a chamber at Honselaarsdijk [inventory 1694-1702]. • Dieren 1683: chamber

Ann Trelawney Lady-in-waiting. She was send back to England in 1685 by William on account of slander. • Dieren 1683: chamber of Trelany and Jesson

Mrs. Langford Former wet nurse of Mary. She was send back to England with Ann Trelawney in 1685. • Dieren 1683: cabinet

Miss Walsingham Presumably the daughter of Thomas and Ann Howard, maid of honour to princess Mary in 1685. • Dieren 1683: chamber

96

Elisabeth Philippine van Boetselaer Daughter of Karel, Lord of Nieuwveen and Anna Catharina Musch van Waalsdorp, and was Mary’s lady-in-waiting since 1681. She married George Albert van Limburg Stirum in 1684 and accompanied Mary to England, where she became lady of the bedchamber. • Dieren 1683: shared chamber with miss Goltstein • Het Loo 1713: bedroom, cabinet, wardrobe

Anna Geertruyt van Goltsteyn/Goltstein Daughter of Reynier and Geertruit van der Capellen, closet-keeper of queen Mary. • Dieren 1683: shared chamber with miss Boetselaer • Dieren 1699: chamber • Honselaarsdijk 1694-1702: chamber • Het Loo 1713: shared chamber with miss Vijgh [+ cabinet ?]

Miss Dijckvelt, presumably mrs. Elizabeth Dixwell Lady-in-waiting, married Oxenden in 1689. • Dieren 1699: shared chamber with miss Windham • Honselaarsdijk 1694-1702: shared chamber with miss Windham • Het Loo 1713: shared chamber with miss Windham + her own cabinet

Miss Jesson/Jessen/Gesson Lady-in-waiting, presumably Penelope Villiers, married to sir William Jesson of Newhouse. • Dieren 1683: shared chamber with miss Trewlany • Dieren 1699: chamber • Het Loo 1713: [cabinet and chamber?]

Mrs. Windham/Windem Lady-in-waiting. • Dieren 1699: shared chamber with miss Dijckvelt • Honselaarsdijk 1694-1702: shared chamber with miss Dijckvelt • Het Loo 1713: shared chamber with miss Dijckvelt + her own cabinet

Miss Howard/Houward/Sturt Daughter of Thomas Howard, Master of the Horses at Honselaarsdijk. • Honselaarsdijk 1694-1702: chamber with miss Frankelee • Het Loo 1713: shared chamber with miss Franklin + her own cabinet

Eleonora Franklin/Frankelee/Frenklé Daughter of Sir Richard Franklyn of Moorpark, lady-in-waiting, married to Charles May. • Honselaarsdijk 1694-1702: shared chamber with miss Howard • Het Loo 1713: shared chamber with miss Howard + her own cabinet

Agnes Vijgh Daughter of Nicolaas, Lord of Ubbergen, and probably his second wife Odilia van Raesfeldt. She married Johan Teding van Berkhout, Lord of Sliedrecht, in 1694 and was lady- in waiting. • Dieren 1699: cabinet • Honselaarsdijk 1694-1702: chamber • Het Loo 1713: miss Golsteyn and Vijgh [+ cabinet?]

97

Miss Kaisson/Kessem • Honselaarsdijk 1694-1702: chamber Kessem • Het Loo 1713: miss Jesson and Kaisson [cabinet and chamber?]

Jane Wroth of Durrants Wife of Willem Frederik van Nassau-Zuylenstein, Count of Rockford, lady-in-waiting. • Binnenhof 1700: ‘Quarter of Md Rochefort’ = ‘kleercamer’, bedchamber, cabinet, ‘juffrouws kamer’

Edward Villiers, 1st Earl of Jersey, 1656-1711 Son of Edward and Frances Howard, became in 1689 Master of the Horses. In 1691 he was elevated to„viscount Villiers of Dartford and baron Villiers of Hoo". In 1697 he was at the peace negotiations at Rijswijk and ambassador in The Hague and Paris. He became lord chamberlain in England in 1700. Bentinck was his brother-in-law. • Dieren 1683: chamber • Honselaarsdijk 1694-1702: chamber

Other courtiers and members of the household

Johan van Baersenburgh In 1674 chamberlain, in 1693 gentleman of the wardrobe, in England yeoman of the robes till 1700 • Dieren 1683: chamber • Soestdijk 1699/1712: chamber • Het Loo 1713: chamber

Rudolf Kien/Kühne/Quien Chamberlain • Dieren 1683: wardrobe • Breda 1696-1712: chamber

Abel Tassin d’Alonne, 1646-1723 French officer, Mary’s secretary at her arrival in the Republic in 1677. After the Glorious Revolution he became ‘principal secretary and master of the request to the queen’. In 1698 he succeeds Huygens Jr. as William’s secretary. He was presumably a bastard son of William II. • Honselaarsdijk 1694-1702: chamber

Carel Willem van Hulst Carel Willem took up office in January 1694 as William’s ‘Dutch’ secretary. In 1697 he became ‘Court lettercarrier’. • Dieren 1699: chamber • Breda 1696-1712: chamber • Het Loo 1713: chamber

William Blathwayt Secretary of War till William’s death. • Stadhouderlijk kwartier op het Binnenhof 1700: office • Het Loo 1713: chamber, cabinet

Abraham Cardonel Secretary of Blathwait • Het Loo 1713: chamber

98

Pieter Issac, Isaacq, ? - 1692 Bailiff of Herstal, he became ‘inspector of the court’ in 1672 and followed William to England. • Dieren 1699: chamber in the new quarter • Soestdijk 1699-1712: chamber • Honselaarsdijk 1694-1702: chamber

Daniel des Marets, 1634 -? Clergyman, became house steward of William’s country houses in 1685, librarian in 1689, in 1692 ‘inspector of the court in the Dutch Republic’ . • Honselaarsdijk 1694-1702: ‘quarter of Des Marets’, bedroom, chamber and chamber for mrs. Des Marets • Noordeinde [old court] 1702: ‘quarter of manager Des Marets’, cabinet, dining room, bedroom, cabinet • Het Oude Loo: dining room, bedroom

Jacques de Gatigny Chief huntsman and equerry • Dieren 1683: chamber • Noordeinde 1702: chamber • Het Oude Loo 1713: chamber

Gabriel Feron Chamberlain from 1678-1688 • Dieren 1683: chamber • Het Loo 1713: chamber

Willem Fremin/Fremijn Chamberlain • Dieren 1696/1712 • Breda 1696/1712 • Soestdijk 1699/1712 • Binnenhof [new court] 1700 • Het Loo 1713

Dr. Covell Succeeded dr. Thomas Kenn as court chaplain to princes Mary in 1681. He was send back to England in 1685, together with Ann Trelawney and Mrs. Langford, due to slander. • Dieren 1683: chamber

John Sayer/Sairs ‘Ordinaris edelman’, alter groom of the bedchamber, troop captain. • Dieren 1699: chamber

Reinout Vincent, Count of Hompesch, lord of Stevensweerd, 1660-1733 ‘Ordinaris edelman’ • Dieren 1699: chamber [+antechamber?] • Noordeinde [old court] 1702: bedroom

99

Aernout van Dorp ‘Ordinaris edelman’ • Breda 1696-1712: chamber

Johan Bruynesteyn Surgeon of the prince from 1675-1686 • Dieren 1683: chamber

Willem van Loon Succeeded Bruynesteyn in 1686 as surgeon • Dieren 1699: chamber

Doctor Gardener Surgeon • Het Loo 1713

Ronjat Surgeon • Het Loo 1713: chamber

Comte Cornelis Corneille • Het Loo 1713: chamber De Mabonne • Het Loo 1713: chamber

Aerle Secretary • Dieren 1699/1712: chamber • Het Loo 1713

Lettice Egerton/Eyerton Page • Dieren 1699/1712 • Het Loo 1713

Jan Verhaest Quartermaster of the court in 1695 • Het Loo 1713: ‘in the attic’

Pieter van der Stichel ‘Wapenbewaarder’ in 1678 • Dieren 1683: ‘stables’ • Soestdijk 1699/1712: chamber

P. Beaubuisson ‘Wapenbewaarder’ in 1694 • Dieren 1699/1712: space in the stables

Joan Dervoe/Derveau/Desveau Equerry • Dieren 1683: ‘stables’

100

Johan Wolfraet Second equerry, piquer of the horses at Soestdijk and the Veluwe • Dieren 1683: ‘stables’ • Het Loo 1713

Laurens Schaft/Schauft/Schacht Second equerry, at a later age he became inspector of the stables • Dieren 1683: ‘stables’ • Soestdijk 1699/1712: chamber above the stables • Het Loo 1713

Luder Spiesmaker Dispensier • Breda 1696/1712: chamber

Loomans • Dieren 1699/1712: chamber • Loo 1713: chamber

Storck, Sturck Coachman • Dieren 1699/1712 • Het Loo 1713

101

Appendix B William’s movements 1688-1702

Sources: . (B) Japikse, N. Correspondentie van Willem III en van Hans Willem Bentinck.(’s-Gravenhage 1927-1935)  http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/correspondentiewillemiiibentinck . (CON) Groen van Prinsterer, G. Archives ou correspondance inédite de la maison d'Orange- Nassau. Vijf series, 26 delen. (Leiden 1835 – 1915)  http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/correspondancemaisonorangenassau . (H) Huygens Jr., C. Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, Den Zoon, van 21 October tot 2 sept. 1696. Vol I & II. J.H. Siccama (ed.) (Utrecht 1876) . (RCN) Inventory made of William’s correspondence (inv.nr. A16) at the Royal Collections of the Netherlands, which include the archives of the House of Orange-Nassau, in The Hague

1688 (B, CON) Het Loo: Apr. 1, 26, 29; May 3; Aug. 25, 29 The Hague: May 22, 26, 27, 31 Honselaarsdijk: June 3, 4, 7, 11 The Hague: June 12, 15 Honselaarsdijk: July 15 The Hague: Aug. 25 Het Loo: Aug. 26, 27, 29, 31; Sept. 2, 4, 14 Dieren: Sept. 26 Nijmegen: Sept. 28, 29 The Hague: Oct. 2 Hellevoetsluis [Departure]: Nov. 2

 England

1689 (H, CON) William was in England the whole year.

Feb. 5. ‘The king and Bentinck were at Whitehall to take a look at the apartments there, which were being cleaned, saying that the prince would be able to live there within 8 or 10 days.

William and Mary frequently travelled between London, Holland House, Whitehall and Hampton Court the following months. They seemed to prefer Hampton Court as they resided there most of the time. When they would go to London, they would usually return to Hampton Court on the same day.

Hamptoncourt: Mar. 29; Apr. 2, 8, 19, 23, 26; May 3, 7, 8, 20, 23; June 7, 17, 28; July 6, 12, 16, 30; Aug. 9, 13, 20; Sept 3. 13. 17, 20, 23, 27, 30; Oct. 4, 11/21 Newmarket: Oct. 8/18 Holland House: Oct. 18/28; Nov. 1/11, 8/18, 15/25, 19/29, 22, 26; Dec. 3/13, 10/20, 13/23 Kensington: Dec. 30

1690 (H, CON) Kensington: Jan. 7/17, 17, 21/31, 28; Feb. 14/24; Mar. 18/28, 21/31, 25; Apr. 4/14, 8/18, 15/25, May 2/12, 6/12, 20/30, 27, 30; June 3/13

Army: Departure to Ireland on June 14. En route William stayed at Northampton, Litchfield, Whitchurch, Chester and several other places before joining the army at Boyne. William remained in Ireland until late August.

102

Kensington: Sept. 19 - 25 Windsor: Sept. 26 Kensington: Sept. 27 - 29 Windsor: Sept. 30 - Oct. 4 Kensington: Oct. 4 - 14 Parliament/Windsor: Oct. 15-16 Kensington: Oct. 17- 27, 31; Nov. 3, 7, 10, 17,21, 24, 28; Dec. 1, 5, 8, 12, 19, 22, 26, 29

1691 (H, CON) Kensington: Jan. 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15 Marygate: Jan. 16 Kensington: Jan. 23, 24

Hoek van Holland [arrival]: Feb. 1 The Hague: Feb. 3 – Mar. 15 Huis ten Bosch: Feb. 13 Spend his day there with the Keurvorst van Brandenburgh, went back to Het Binnenhof in the evening [they were apparently quite intoxicated] Het Loo: Mar. 17 – 21 The Hague: Mar. 23 - 26 Breda: Mar. 26 - 31

William is with the army in Antwerp, Brussels, and Mons the following weeks.

Breda: Apr. 15 – 16 The Hague: Apr. 16 – 20

Marygate [Arrival]: Apr. 23 Hamptoncourt: Apr. 27 Kensington: Apr. 27; May 1, 5, 8, 9

The Hague: May 14 – 17 Travelling to Het Loo: May 18 Het Loo: May 19 – 21 Dieren: May 21 – 22 Het Loo: May 22 – 31; June 1

Army: June 5 – mid Sept.

Het Loo: ± Sept. 23 - ± Oct. 8 The Hague: Oct. 12 – 27

Marygate [Arrival]: Oct. 29 Kensington: Nov. 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 16, 20, 21, 27, 30; Dec. 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 24, 28

1692 (H), (RCN) Kensington: Jan. 1/11, 5/15, 12/22, 15/25, 19/29; Feb. 1, 8, 2/12, 5/15, 16/26, 23, 26; Mar. 3, 6

The Hague: Mar. 19 – ± 28

Het Loo: Mar. 31 – Apr. 4 Dieren: Apr. 5 Het Loo: Apr. 6 – May 5 The Hague: May 7 - ± 10 Breda: May 11 - 16

103

Army: May 22 – Sept. 25

Het Loo: ±Oct. 6 - 11 [a short stop at Breda before that] Soestdijk: Oct. 12 The Hague: Oct. 14 - ±17, ±21 - 25

Kensington: Oct. 21, 25, 28; Nov. 1, 4, 7 Whitehall: Nov. 11 Kensington: Nov. 4/14, 8/18, 11/21, 15/25, 18/28, 22, 26, 29; Dec. 1, 3/13, 6/16, 13/23, 16/26, 21/31

1693 (H), (RCN) Kensington: Jan. 2, 3/13, 10/20, 13/23, 17/27, 24; Feb. 4/14, 7,17, 11/21, 14/24, 21, 24, 28; Mar. 3, 6, 10/20, 14/24, 21/31.

The Hague: Apr. 13-18 Het Loo: Apr. 18-25 Dieren: Apr. 25 ‘King spend a day at Dieren, then returned at het Loo before dark’ Het Loo: Apr. 25 -29 Dieren: Apr. 29 – May 1 Het Loo: May 1- 11 The Hague: May 13-15. Breda: May 15-22. House of Count Taxis at Dyghem: May 22-25

Army: May 25 – Sept/Oct.

Het Loo: Oct. 10 ‘King left the army for Het Loo, came this day from there to The Hague’ The Hague: Nov. 1-5.

Harwich [Arrival]: Nov. 8 Kensington: Nov. 10/20, 14/24, 28; Dec. 1/11, 4/14, 8/18, 12/22

1694 (H, RCN) Kensington: Jan. 2/12, 27; Feb. 6/16, 16/26, 24, 27; Mar. 2/12, 6/16, 8/18, 20/30, 23, 30; Apr. 3/13, 6/16, 13/23, 17/27, 20/30.

The Hague: May 19-21 Het Loo: May 21 – 31 Breda: May 31 - June 3

Army: June – end of September.

Huygens arrives at Het Loo on Oct. 11, when William is already there. Dieren: Oct. 11-13

Oct. 22 The King left to visit Het Loo The Hague: Oct. 23-27

Oct. 28 – Nov. 5 No entries in Huygens diary on the whereabouts of the King. Although it seems like he stayed at The Hague till the 8th or 9th of November. Nov. 17 King leaves for England

Kensington: Nov. 20/30, 23, 27, 30; Dec. 4/14, 7/17, 10/20, 14/24, 18/28, 21/31

104

1695 (H), (RCN) Kensington: Jan. 2/12, 22 Richmond: Jan. 25 Kensington: Jan. 30; Feb. 5/15, 6/16, 15/25, 16/25, Richmond: Feb. 23 Kensington: Feb. 27 Richmond: Mar. 1 Kensington: Mar. 2/12, 5/15, 6/16, 8/18, 20/30, 23, 30; Apr. 3/13, 6/16, 13/23, 17/27, 20/30; May 3, 6, 10, 13, 14

The Hague: May 24-30 Zuylestein; May 30 May 31 ‘ King went from Zuylestein to Het Loo’

Army: June – Sept.

Breda: Sept.15 Dieren: Sept. 17 Het Loo: Sept. 18 – 26 Dieren: Sept. 26 – 27 Het Loo: Sept. 27 - 29 Dieren:29 Sept. - Oct. 1 Het Loo: Oct. 1-7 The Hague: Oct. 7-15

William's Royal Progress through England: Oct. 17 – Nov. 11.395 William visited Newmarket (Oct. 17-21), Althrop (Oct. 21-28), Castle-Ashby (Oct. 24), Boughton (Oct. 25), Stamford (Oct. 25-28), Burghly House (Oct. 26-27) , Bilton and Lincoln (Oct. 29), Welbeck (Oct. 30-Nov. 3), at the Earl of Kingston’s (Nov. 1), Warwick Castle (Nov. 4-5), Shrewsbury (Nov. 5), Burford (Nov. 5-8), Cornbury-House, Woodstock (Nov. 8), Oxford (Nov. 9), Windsor (Nov. 9-10), Cranborn-House (Nov. 10), Chiswick (Nov. 11) and returned in the evening after his dinner at Chiswick to Kensington.

Kensington: Nov. 12/22, 15/25, 19/29 Windsor: Nov. 19 Kensington: Nov. 26, 29; Dec. 3/13, 6/16, 10/20, 17/27, 13/23, 20/30, 24, 27, 31

1696 (H, CON, B, RCN) Kensington: Jan. 7/17, 21/31, 28, 31; Feb. 4/14, 7/17, 11/21, 14/24, 24, 28; Mar. 3/13, 6/16, 10/20, 13/23, 17/27; Apr. 7/17, 10/20, 14/24, 17/27, 21, 24, 28

The Hague: 19 May - 23 Het Loo: 23 May - June 2

Army: June – Aug. Aug. 26 William left to go to Het Loo

395 Anonymous. The Royal Progress; or, a Diary of the King's Journey, From His Majesty's setting out from Kensington, till His return. London 1695. Huygens noted in his diary that William was at Kensington 25 till 27th of October. He noted that William had signed a letter for him and had left Kensington on the morning of the 27th. However, a book written by an anonymous 'Person of Quality' states that William left Kensington on Thursday the Seventeenth of October 1695. This is also more in line with the inventory of his correspondence (RCN), which mentions a letter from Kensington on October 15/25 and two other letters from Altrop on Oct. 25/Nov. 1 and Oct. 25/Nov. 4.

105

Het Loo: Sept. 6, 18, 19, 26, 27; Oct. 1 Kensington: Oct. 9/19, 20/30, 23; Nov. 3/13, 6/16, 10/20, 13/23, 17/27, 24, 27; Dec. 1/11, 4/14, 8/18, 11/21, 15/25, 18/28, 24, 29

1697 (CON, B, RCN) Kensington: Jan. 1, 5/15, 8/18, 12/22, 15/25, 19/29, 22, 26, 29; Feb. 5/15, 9/19, 12/22, 16/26, 19, 23; Mar. 2/12, 12/22, 19/29, 23, 30; Apr. 2/12, 13/23

Breda: May 21, 23

Army: May 25 – Aug. 1

Het Loo: Aug. 9, 17, 19, 25 Dieren: Aug. 28, 29, 30 Het Loo: Sept. 1,2, 14, 22; Oct. 15, 18, 27, 31; Nov. 4 The Hague: Nov. 8, 12

Kensington: Nov. 16/26, 19/29, 23; Dec. 3/13, 7/17, 10/20, 14/24, 17/27, 21/31, 24, 31

1698 (CON, B, RCN) Kensington: Jan. 7/17, 8, 10, 11/21, 18/28, 31; Feb. 1/11, 8/18, 11/21, 15/25, 18, 22, 23, 25; Mar. 1/11, 3, 4/14 Windsor: Mar. 8 Kensington: Mar. 12, 15/25, Windsor: Mar. 19, 21, 28 Kensington: Mar. 29; Apr. 1/11 Newmarket: Apr. 6/16, 13/23, 15/25 Kensington: Apr. 19/29, 22, 26 Windsor: Apr. 29; May 3 Kensington: May 6/16, 8, 10/20, 17/27, 24, 27, 31; June 3/13, 14/24, 21, 24, 28; July 1/11, 5/15, 8/18

Het Loo: Aug. 10, 14/24; Sept. 4, 14; Oct. 14/24; Nov. 7, 16

Kensington: Dec. 4, 6/16, 9/19, 13/23, 16/26, 20/30

1699 (CON, RCN) Kensington: Jan. 3/13, 6/16, 13/23, 17/27, 20/30, 24, 31; Feb. 3/13, 7/17, 14/24, 17/27, 21, 24, 28; Mar. 7/17, 10/20, 14/24, 21/31, 24, 31; Apr. 4/14, 7/17, 10/20 Newmarket: Apr. 10 Kensington: Apr. 25, 28; May 5/15 Windsor: May 12 Kensington: May 16/26, 19/29, 22, 31

Het Loo; June 26 Dieren: June 28 Het Loo: July 4/14, 6 Dieren: July 7/17, 8/18 Het Loo: July 14/24, 17/27 Dieren: Aug. 6, 8 Het Loo: Aug. 16 Dieren: Aug. 21 Het Loo: Aug. 28; Sept. 12/22, 13, 15, 19 Dieren; Sept. 26 Het Loo: Sept. 29; Oct. 3, 5 Dieren: Oct. 8

106

Het Loo: Oct. 12

Kensington: Oct. 20/30, 23, 31 Hamptoncourt: Nov. 7/17 Kensington: Nov. 10/20, 14/24 Hamptoncourt: Nov. 17 Kensington: Nov. 24, 28; Dec. 5/15, 10, 11/22, 12, 19/29, 22 Hamptoncourt: Dec. 24, 29

1700 (CON, RCN) Hamptoncourt: Jan. 2/12 Kensington: Jan. 5/15, 9/19, 12/22, 16/26 Hamptoncourt: Jan. 19/29 Kensington: Jan. 26, 30; Feb. 2/12, 6/16, 9/19, 13/23, 27; Mar. 12/23, 15/26, 19/30, 26; Apr. 2/13, 9/20 Hamptoncourt: Apr. 12/23 Kensington: Apr. 16/27 Hamptoncourt: Apr. 19/29, 26; May 7/18, 10/21, 14/25, 17/28, 21, 25 Windsor: May 31 Hamptoncourt: June 7/17, 11/22, 14/25, 16, 18/29, 22, 26, 28; July 2/13 July 4 [Departure]

Het Loo: July 30; Aug. 3, 6 Dieren: Aug. 10 Het Loo: Aug. 13 Dieren: Aug. 18 Het Loo: Aug. 21, 24, 26 Breda: Sept. 7 Dieren: Sept. 12 Het Loo: Sept. 21, 27; Oct. 11, 15

Hamptoncourt: Nov. 2, 5, 8/19, 12, 15/26, 16, 18/29, 23; Dec. 3/14, 7, 10, 17, 21, 24, 28, 31

1701 (CON, RCN) Kensington: Jan. 7 Hamptoncourt: Jan. 11, 14, 18, 21, 25 Kensington: Jan. 27 Hamptoncourt: Jan. 28; Feb. 1, 4, 8 Kensington: Feb. 11, 18, 20, 22; Mar. 1, 4 Hamptoncourt: Mar. 11 Kensington: Mar. 15 Hamptoncourt: Mar. 18 Kensington: Mar. 22 Hamptoncourt: Mar. 25 Kensington: Mar. 29 Hamptoncourt: Apr. 1 Kensington: Apr. 6 Hamptoncourt: Apr. 8 Kensington: Apr. 12 Hamptoncourt: Apr. 15 Kensington: Apr. 19 Hamptoncourt: Apr. 22, 26 Kensington: Apr. 29; May 3 Hamptoncourt: May 6 Kensington: May 10

107

Hamptoncourt: May 13 Kensington: May 20 Hamptoncourt: May 24, 27, 31; June 3, 7, 10, 14 Kensington: June 17, 21, 24, 28; July 1 Hamptoncourt: July 4, 8

The Hague: July ? Het Loo: Aug. 8 Dieren: Aug. 12 Het Loo: Aug. 16, 18, 21 Dieren: Aug. 26, 29 Het Loo: Aug. 4, 6; Sept. 18 Dieren: Sept. 23 Het Loo: Oct. 10 The Hague [stop before departure to England]

Hamptoncourt: Nov. 11/22, 16, 18/29; Dec. 3/14, 6, 12/23, 14, 16 Windsor: Dec. 20 Hamptoncourt: Dec. 23, 27

1702 (RCN) Kensington: Jan. 6, 10 Hamptoncourt: Jan. 13, 17, 20 Kensington: Jan. 24, 31; Feb. 7, 14, 16, 21, 28; Mar. 3

108