A Reappraisal of the Architectural Legacy of King-Stadholder William III and Queen Mary II: Taste, Passion and Frenzy

Abstract

This article reappraises the architectural legacy of King William III and Queen Mary II on the basis of an examination of all of the building projects relating to castles and palaces in Great Britain and the Low Countries during their reign. In both countries William and Mary were continuously renovating and adding additions to already existing castles and palaces as well as creating new ones, always simultaneously combining various projects. The authors propose that the extent of William and Mary’s architectural endeavours has so far been underestimated, primarily because these have not been assessed as an ensemble. Similarly, the monarchs’ great interest in the interior of their residences, and especially in their painting collections, has not been sufficiently acknowledged. This article brings together two academic traditions at both sides of the North Sea: on the basis of primary sources such as the diaries of Constantijn Huygens Jr, travel accounts and probate inventories, both the motivation for their frantic building can be discerned, as well as the quality, scope and cultural agency of the architectural and art programmes of William and Mary.

Notes

1 We would like to express our gratitude to Erik de Jong.

2 J.H. Siccama (ed.), Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, 1673–1696, 4 vols. (Utrecht, 1876–88), here cited vol. II (1877), p. 353: William III ‘al lacchende wijsende een nieuw bedt in sijn slaepcamer, daer een … [baldakijn?] over was, reyckende schier aen̅ solder, die vrij hoogh was, soo dat men het sonder lachen niet wel konde aensien’. ‘William III pointed laughingly to a new bed in his bedroom, with a … [missing word: canopy?] that almost reached the ceiling, which was quite high, so that one could almost not look at it without laughing’.

3 See H. Becker, Art Worlds (Berkeley, 1982); P. Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production (New York, 1993).

4 J. Israel, The Dutch Republic, Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477–1806 (Oxford, 1995), pp. 852-3.

5 Israel, The Dutch Republic, p. 861.

6 R.N. Wornum (ed.), Anecdotes of Painting in England with Some Account of the Principal Artists (1765–1780) by Horace Walpole (London, 1888), vol. II, p. 201.

7 English travel accounts such as that by Joseph Marshall from 1768 are often outright contemptuous: ‘I took a walk to the wood near the Hague, belonging to the Prince of Orange, which is famous in Holland; but nothing in it will in the least strike a person used to the gardens in England.’ In: J. Marshall, Travels through Holland, Flanders, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Lapland, Russia, the Ukraine, and Poland, in the Years 1768, 1769, and 1770 (London 1772), vol. II, p. 32.

8 See H. Ronnes, ‘The Quiet Authors of an Early Modern Palatial Landscape: Transformation without Reconstruction at King William’s Het Loo’, in Jan Kolen, Hans Renes and Rita Hermans (eds), Landscape Biographies: Geographical, Historical and Archaeological Perspectives on the Production and Transmission of Landscapes (Amsterdam, 2015), pp. 205–33.

9 S. Thurley, ‘Kensington Palace: An Incident in Anglo-Dutch Collaboration?’, The Georgian Group Journal 17 (2009), pp. 1-18, p. 1; A. Tinniswood, Visions of Power: Ambition and Architecture from Ancient Times to the Present (London, 1998), p. 88; J.R. Jones, ‘The Building Works and Court Style of William and Mary’, The Journal of Garden History 8 (1988), pp. 1-13, p. 10.

10 R.O. Bucholz, The Augustan Court: Queen Anne and the Decline of Court Culture (Stanford, 1993), p. 34.

11 See J. Harris, ‘The Architecture of the Williamite Court’, in Robert P. Maccubin and Martha Hamilton-Phillips (eds), The Age of William III & Mary II: Power, Politics, and Patronage, 1688–1702 (Williamsburg, 1989), p. 233; K.H.D. Haley, ‘William III’, in A.G.H. Bachrach, J.P. Sigmond and A.J. Veenendaal, Jr (eds), Willem III, de stadhouder-koning en zijn tijd (Amsterdam, 1988), pp. 31-50, p. 38; Tinniswood, Visions of Power, p. 88.

12 Harris, ‘The Architecture of the Williamite Court’, p. 233; Thurley, ‘Kensington Palace’, p. 6.

13 Thurley, ‘Kensington Palace’, pp. 15-16.

14 John Dixon Hunt, ‘Reckoning with Dutch Gardens’, in John Dixon Hunt and Erik de Jong (eds), The Anglo-Dutch Garden in the Age of William and Mary (Amsterdam, 1988), pp. 41-60.

15 Stefan van Raaij and Paul Spies, The Royal Progress of William and Mary (Amsterdam, 1988), pp. 167-8.

16 See also Uta Janssens-Knorsch, ‘From Het Loo to Hampton Court: William and Mary’s Dutch Gardens and Their Influence on English Gardening’, in Paul Hoftijzer and C.C. Barfoot (eds), Fabrics and Fabrications: The Myth and Making of William and Mary (Amsterdam, 1990), pp. 277-96; Erik de Jong, Nature and Art. Dutch Garden and Landscape Architecture, 1650–1740 (Philadelphia, 2001), p. 42.

17 This acknowledges a seemingly simple fact that it is William who is the first to acquire various new residences beyond The Hague, in provinces such as Utrecht and Guelders. See O. Mörke, ‘William’s III Stadholderly Court in the Dutch Republic’, in Esther Mijers and David Onnekink (eds), Redefining William III. The Impact of the King-Stadholder in International Context (Aldershot, 2007), p. 234.

18 Barclay, ‘William’s Court as King’, in Meijers and Onnekink (eds), Redefning William III, p. 251. Barclay points to William’s ‘desire for conspicuous display’.

19 N.M. Japikse, Prins Willem III: de stadhouder-koning (Amsterdam, 1930), vol. I, pp. 11, 22.

20 D. F. Slothouwer, De paleizen van Frederik Hendrik (Leiden, 1945), p. 183; M. Loonstra, Het húijs int bosch: Ket Koninklijk Paleis Huis ten Bosch historisch gezien (Zutphen, 1985), p. 23. 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’ [that she may alter both the garden and panelling to suit her recreation, use and exercise, as she finds convenient for her amusement], italics ours, for emphasis.

21 M. Vonk, Huis ten Bosch, de Oranjezaal: Pracht en praal van de Oranjedynastie (Zwolle, 2015).

22 Mörke, ‘Stadtholder’ oder ‘Staetholder’? Die Funktion des Hauses Oranien und seines Hofes in der politischen Kultur der Republik der Vereinigten Niederlanden im 17. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1997), pp. 230-7; J.I. Israel, ‘The Courts of the House of Orange c. 1580–1795. The United Provinces of the Netherlands’, in John Adamson (ed.), The Princely Courts of Europe: Ritual, Politics and Culture in the Ancien Régime, 1500–1750 (London, 1999), p. 129.

23 See G. Upmark, ‘Ein Besuch in Holland 1687, aus den Reiseschilderungen des schwedischen Architekten Nicodemus Tessin’, Oud-Holland 18-2 (1900), pp. 117-28; J. Shaw, Letters to a Nobleman from a Gentleman Travelling thro’ Holland, Flanders and France (London, 1709); J. Taylor, A Relation of a Voyage to the Army. In Several Letters From a Gentleman to his Friend in the Year 1707 (Leiden, 1997).

24 K. Ottenheym, ‘“van Bouw-lust soo beseten”. Frederik Hendrik en de bouwkunst’, in Marika Keblusek and Jori Zijlmans (eds), Vorstelijk vertoon: aan het hof van Frederik Hendrik en Amalia (The Hague 1997), p. 106.

25 Slothouwer, De paleizen van Frederik Hendrik, pp. 25-6; Ottenheym, ‘“van Bouw-lust soo beseten”’, pp. 105-07; R. Tucker, ‘“His Excellency at Home”, Frederik Hendrik and the Noble Life at Huis Honselaarsdijk’, Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 51-1 (2000), pp. 90-96. In recent years, more research has concentrated on the art patronage and displaying strategies of Amalia: C.W. Fock, ‘Interieuropvattingen van Amalia van Solms. Een Frans getint hof in de Republiek’, Gentse Bijdragen tot de Interieurgeschiedenis 34 (2005), pp. 25-45; S. Broomhall and J. van Gent, Dynastic Colonialism: Gender, Materiality and the Early Modern House of Orange-Nassau (London, 2016); S. Beranek, ‘Strategies of Display in the Galleries of Amalia van Solms’, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 9-2 (2017), pp. 1-30. When it comes to Frederik Hendrik’s 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.

26 R. Baarsen and N. Aakre (eds), Courts and Colonies: The William and Mary Style in Holland, England, and America (Pittsburgh, 1988), p. 12; Ottenheym, ‘“van Bouw-lust soo beseten”’, p. 105; Tucker; ‘“His Excellency at Home”’, pp. 90, 96. 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 du Luxembourg in Paris. French influences are also visible in the design of Huis Ter Nieuburgh at Rijswijk, consisting of two remote pavilions linked by exceptionally long galleries to a central block. The adoption of the French styles can, at least to some degree, be explained by the fact that Frederik Hendrik was partly raised at the French court.

27 Japikse, Prins Willem III, vol. II, p. 123; L. van Everdingen, Het Loo, De Oranjes en de Jacht (Haarlem, 1984), pp. 48, 51-53. Coldenhove burned down during its re-construction.

28 Thurley, ‘Kensington Palace’, p. 1. In 1685, Mary became King James’ heir, then her sister, Anne, and William followed, as the son of James’ sister Princess Mary.

29 Jones, ‘The building works’, p. 2. He notes that during the years of 1685–88, William spent heavily on ‘new’ buildings, by completing the sixteenth-century palace at Breda, remodelling Honselaarsdijk and Het Loo, and acquiring ‘a new country house built for him at Soestdijk’.

30 Based on the timeline, the death of Charles II certainly could have impacted the design of Het Loo and the decision to complete work at Breda. However, it can be argued that William was motivated to build or renovate these houses regardless of the death of the British king, as William had already ordered drawings for work at Honselaarsdijk, and had purchased Het Loo before 1685.

31 Heimerick Tromp, instead, regarded Soestdijk as ‘a good opportunity arising at the right moment’: the natural environment was suitable for hunting and it was situated close to various members of the Nassau family and (other) allies. See H. Tromp, Het húijs te Soestdijck: het Koninklijk Paleis Soestdijk historisch gezien (Zutphen, 1987), pp. 19-21.

32 Utrecht surrendered so as to prevent further damage to the province’s cities and castles, yet this was not appreciated by the other provinces or by William III.

33 De Jong, Nature and Art, p. 41.

34 Tromp, Het húijs te Soestdijck, p. 35.

35 Thurley, ‘Kensington Palace’, p. 4. Others state that changes made to Honselaarsdijk probably occurred after his marriage to Mary in 1677 and were executed according to ‘his taste and the wishes of his spouse’. See for example, T. Morren, Het Huis Honselaarsdijk (Leiden, 1905), pp. 46-47; Slothouwer, De paleizen van Frederik Hendrik, p. 82.

36 G. Brom, ‘Reisbeschrijving — een Italiaanse — der Nederlanden (1677–1678)’, Bijdragen en mededeelingen van het Historisch Genootschap 36 (1915), pp. 101-02.

37 ‘Registers van ordonnanties voor de thesaurier en rentmeester-generaal en rentmeesters van de prinsen van Oranje en de Domeinraad 1684–1692’, National Archives, The Hague, 1.08.11, inv.nr. 998, p. 7.

38 Thurley, ‘Kensington Palace’, p. 1.

39 Thurley, ‘Kensington Palace’, p. 2.

40 Israel, ‘The Courts of the House of Orange’, pp. 119-20; G.W.C. Wezel, Het paleis van Hendrik III, graaf van Nassau te Breda (Zeist, 1999), pp. 57-61, 95. The castle of Breda came into the House of Nassau’s possession when Engelbert I of Nassau (c. 1370–1442) married Johanna of Polanen (1392–1445) in 1403. According to Gerard van Wezel, Henry made these plans around 1528, based on his correspondence about the ongoing renovations and reports of dilapidation. The complex was unfinished at Henry’s death in 1538, with only half of Vincidor’s design completed.

41 J.A. Worp, De Briefwisseling van Constantijn Huygens (The Hague, 1917), vol. VI, letter 7089. Constantijn Huygens Sr did try to work on William’s sympathies by connecting Buren with William’s ancestors and making the castle there into an Orange Stammschloss: ‘Many come to see the beautiful castle daily, but one hardly dares to push a wheelbarrow 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’.

42 Everdingen, Het Loo, p. 49.

43 S.W.A. Drossaers and Th. Lunsingh Scheurleer (eds), Inventarissen van de Inboedels in de Verblijven van de Oranjes, 3 vols (The Hague, 1974–76), vol. I, p. 637. Although little is known about this particular place, tradition has it that this was the house where William held his ‘secret’ meetings that eventually led up to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The fact that one of the rooms there was for his English secretary Henry Sidney probably has contributed to this fact.

44 M. Bentink, Lettres et Mémoires de Marie Reine d’Angleterre, Épouse de Guillaume III (The Hague, 1880), p. 116. It was probably in March 1689 that she wrote: ‘que je n’oublieray jamais ny la Holland ny ceux qui y sont, et quell bonher que je puysse avoir icy (par la grâce de Dieu), je ne laisseray pas de regretter à un païs qui m’est si cher. Je suis présentement à la campagne, à un lieu qui a esté fort négligé, il est à environ quatre lieues de Londres et l’air y est fort bon ; mais comme il y manque beaucoup des commodités de Dieren (quoique la maison a quatre ou cinq cent chamres) il y manque aussi une aussi [sic] bonne voisine que Mad. de Rosendalle.’

45 Hunt and De Jong, The Anglo-Dutch garden, p. 141; Drossaers and Lunsingh Scheurleer, Inventarissen, vol. I, p. 25.

46 For example in Spies and Raaij, The Royal Progress, pp. 120-22. Compare: Groninger Archieven [hereafter GA], Groningen, 623, inv.nr. 425, p. 167: ‘out gebouw’ (1683); K. Fremantle, ‘A Visit to the United Provinces and Cleves in the Time of William III: Described in Edward Southwell’s Journal’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 21 (1970), pp. 53-4: ‘small and very old’ (1696); C.D. Strien, Touring the Low Countries: Accounts of British Travellers, 1660–1720 (Amsterdam, 1998), p. 150, 166, note 59: ‘house is large and brick … after the Italian mode’ (1698); GA, 493, inv.nr. 53: pp. 35-6: ‘nieuw Italiaens gebouw gehegt’ (1705); Drossaers and Lunsingh Scheurleer, Inventarissen, vol. I, pp. 385-402 and pp. 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’.

47 Fremantle, ‘A Visit to the United Provinces and Cleves’, p. 54.

48 H. Lemonnier, Proces-Verbaux de l’Académie Royale d’Architecture 1671–1793 (Paris, 1912), vol. II, p. 69.

49 Hunt and De Jong, The Anglo-Dutch Garden, p. 146; Spies and Raaij, A Royal Progress, p. 123; De Jong, Nature and Art, pp. 59-60.

50 K.H.D. Haley, ‘William III as Builder of Het Loo’, in John Dixon Hunt (ed.), The Dutch Garden in the Seventeenth Century (Washington, 1990), p. 7. Soon after the purchase of Het Loo, the ambassador Van Wassenaer van Sterrenburgh submitted a request for a design to the Académie Royale d’Architecture in Paris. Between 1682 and 1686 the Académie consisted of six members: François Blondel (director), André Félibien (secretary), Libéral Bruant, Daniel Gittard, François d’Orbay and Jules Hardouin-Mansart. The members met weekly. From the published proceedings by the Académie we know that Blondel, Bruand, Girard, d’Orbay and Félibien were present when the project of Het Loo was discussed. Already by 15 December 1684 the layout of the corps de logis had been largely determined. The following week, a draft by Gittard was discussed at the meeting. When it became clear to the architects that the design was intended for a highly placed person, it prompted them to take a closer look at the design. Van Wassenaer van Sterrenburgh received the drawings on 5 April 1685 (Lemonnier, Proces-Verbaux, vol. II, pp. 66-7, 69, 86; J.F. Dröge, Paleis Het Loo, Bouwhistorisch Onderzoek, Deel 1. Algemeen (Leiden, 2015), pp. 16-21).

51 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 407: ‘praete daernae van ’t Loo en̅ van̅ wercken, die daer gemaeckt waeren, specialijck de beelden.’

52 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. II, p. 134: ‘Wandelde smergens omtrent de vijver en̅ daeromtrent. De Con. liet mij roepen, om een teeckening van Marot tot de sael boven hier op ’t Loo te sien.’ [I was walking around and near the pond in the morning. The King had me summoned to look at the drawing by Marot of the hall here at Het Loo’]; p. 50: ‘Laste mij de teeckeningh van Marot te sien, die hij voor de groote trap hier op ’t Loo gemaeckt hadde.’ [He ordered me to look at Marot’s drawing, that he had drawn of the great staircase here at Het Loo.]

53 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 496: ‘Vraegde hoe St Annelt de dingen van ’t Loo al aenstonden.’ [Asked if St Annelt liked matters at Het Loo.]

54 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. II, p. 39: ‘Seyde, dat het nieuwe gebouw, dat ter zijde aen het huys van ’t Loo gemaeckt wierd, veel gemack daeraen, maer geen welstandt soude geven.’

55 See for example Strien, Touring the Low Countries, pp. 259-60; Shaw, Letters to a Nobleman, pp. 9-10; J. Farrington, An Account of a Journey through Holland, Frizeland, etc. in Severall Letters to a Friend (Leiden, 1994), pp. 72-6; Hunt and De Jong, The Anglo-Dutch Garden; Uta Janssens-Knorsch, ‘From Het Loo to Hampton Court’.

56 N.M. Japikse, Correspondentie van Willem III en van Hans Willem Bentinck, Eerste gedeelte, Deel 1, KS 23 (The Hague, 1927), p. 226: letter from William to Bentinck, Kensington, 13 February 1698: ‘ … chasse et voir des jardinages que vous saves estre deus de mes passions.’

57 N. Wijsbek, B. Kooij and R. van Immerseel (eds), Kassen in Nederland 1650–1950. Studie over de geschiedenis, de ontwikkeling en het behoud van plantenkassen (Amersfoort, 2019), p. 259; L. Berkhout, Hoveniers van Oranje: Functie, Werk en Positie 1621–1732 (Hilversum, 2020), passim.

58 A. Picon, Architectes et Ingenieurs. Au siècle des Lumières (Marseille, 1988); C. Steenbergen, ‘De Stap over de horizon: de ontleding van het formele ontwerp in de landschapsarchitectuur’ (PhD dissertation, Delft University, 1990), p. 161; J. Buridant, ‘Chasse, Sylviculture et Ornament. Le bois dans les parcs’, André le Nôtre: Fragments d’un paysage culturel (Château de Sceaux, 2000), pp. 62-73; H. Wassenaar, ‘Stadhouder Willem III als opperjagermeester van de Veluwe: een vriend van de adel?’, Virtus 3-1 (1995), pp. 11-24.

59 Buridant, ‘Chasse, Sylviculture et Ornament’, p. 64.

60 Ibid., p. 62.

61 Japikse, Correspondentie van Willem III en van Hans Willem Bentinck, pp. 702-705.

62 P. Bijster, ‘Snelwegen voor de Koning: Een onderzoek naar koningswegen op de Veluwe aangelegd tussen 1675 en 1702 ten behoeve van (Koning-)Stadhouder Willem III’ (MA dissertation, University of Groningen, 2019), p. 125.

63 Bijster, Snelwegen voor de Koning, p. 156.

64 Everdingen, Het Loo, p. 54.

65 J.C. Bierens de Haan, Rosendael, Groen Hemeltjes op Aerd: Kasteel, tuinen en bewoners sedert 1579 (Zutphen, 1994), pp. 62-3. Citation from the Dutch preacher Johannes d’Outrein who visited Rosendael and the belvedere in 1713 and noticed the statue of ‘Koning William’ in front of the fireplace.

66 Bierens de Haan, Rosendael, pp. 69-70.

67 K. Ottenheym. ‘De herbouw van kasteel Middachten, 1685–1698’, in T.J. Hoekstra et al. (eds), Middachten. Huis en heerlijkheid (Utrecht, 2002), pp. 21-47, p. 21.

68 J. van der Linden, E. Mijnheer, A. van der Werf, ‘Verslag Onderzoek Werkweek Middachten’ (MA student research report, University of Groningen, 2019); Ottenheym, ‘De herbouw van kasteel Middachten’, p. 47.

69 H.M.W. van der Wijck, ‘De Voorst’, Bulletin KNOB 16, 3 (1963), pp. 149-61; Ottenheym, ‘De herbouw van kasteel Middachten’, p. 39.

70 H. Ronnes, ‘The Architecture of William of Orange and the Culture of Friendship’, Archaeological Dialogues 11-1 (2004), pp. 57-72.

71 C.L. van Groningen. ‘Het Slot te Zeist en zijn bewoners vanaf 1745 tot 1924’, Bulletin KNOB 101-3/4 (2002), pp. 81-120.

72 Thurley, ‘Kensington Palace’, p. 6.

73 H.M. Colvin (ed.), The History of the King’s Works, Vol. 5. 1660–1782 (London, 1976), p. 155.

74 Barclay, ‘William’s Court as King’, p. 27.

75 Thurley, ‘Kensington Palace’, p. 7. Mary did, however, often stay at Whitehall when William was on the Continent; M. Bowen, The Third Mary Stuart. Mary of York, Orange & England (London, 1929), p. 159: ‘The King had bought Lord Nottingham’s house […], but that not being ready, he resolved to borrow Hollandhouse the mean while.’

76 Colvin, The History of the King’s Works, p. 185.

77 Ibid., p. 184.

78 Ibid., pp. 183-5.

79 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. II, pp. 452-4; Colvin, The History of the King’s Works, p. 281.

80 S. Thurley, Hampton Court: A Social and Architectural History (London, 2003), p. 234.

81 Thurley, Hampton Court, pp. 234-5.

82 Ibid., p. 229.

83 Barclay, ‘William’s Court as King’, pp. 252-3.

84 T. Claydon, William III: Profiles in Power (London, 2002), p. 17.

85 A rare exception is Dunthorpe’s remark that William possessed ‘a discriminating taste in pictures’, see H. Dunthorne, ‘William in Contemporary Portraits and Prints’, Meijers and Onnekink (eds), Redefining William III, p. 270.

86 Thurley, ‘Kensington Palace’, p. 1.

87 M. Hall, Art, Passion & Power: The Story of the Royal Collection (London, 2017), p. 167.

88 B. Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij and E. de Heer, ‘William III and the Royal Collections’, in B. Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij (ed.), Paintings from England: William III and the Royal Collection (The Hague, 1988), pp. 21, 39.

89 Ibid., p. 41.

90 R. Dekker, Family, Culture and Society in the Diary of Constantijn Huygens Jr, Secretary to Stadholder-King William of Orange (Leiden, 2013); R. Dekker, The Diary of Constantijn Huygens Jr: Secretary to Stadholder-King William of Orange (Amsterdam, 2015); S. Jenkins, ‘A Sense of History: The Artistic Taste of William III’, Apollo 140 (1994), p. 6; Hall, Art, Passion & Power; Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij and De Heer, ‘William and the Royal Collections’; S. Edwards, ‘“Very noble, tho’ not greate”: The Making of a New Court for William, Mary and Anne’, in Tracy Borman (ed.), Kensington Palace: Art, Architecture and Society (New Haven/London, 2018).

91 Ottenheym, ‘“van Bouw-lust soo beseten”’, pp. 105-25; R. Tucker, ‘“His Excellency at Home”’, pp. 83-102; I. Broekman, ‘Constantijn Huygens, de kunst en het hof’(PhD. dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 2010), pp. 125-39.

92 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 86: ‘admirabele fraeye dingen’.

93 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 118: ‘Naermiddagh was bij de Coningh, die mij praette van schilderijen, en particulierlijck van̅ de Con. te peerd van van Dijck, die hij uyt de galerije hadde laten weghnemen, en meende geset was in̅ camer, die achter sijn cabinet komt, hier te Hamptoncourt; maer willende mij die daer laeten sien, was daer niet.’ [I was with the King this afternoon, who spoke to me about paintings and particularly of the King on a horse by Van Dijck, which he had ordered to be removed from the gallery, and believed to have been put in the chamber, which lies behind his cabinet, here at Hamptoncourt, but wanting to show me that [painting] there, it was not there]

94 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 517: ‘Seyde, dat ten eersten naer sijn cabinet toe geloopen was, om naer̅ schilderijen te sien; dat gevreest hadde die in ’t afrucken gequetst geweest souden hebben, maer geconserveert waeren.’ [Saying, that [he] first went to his cabinet, to see the paintings which he feared had been damaged by being torn off, but which had been preserved]

95 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 175: ‘[…] en̅ viel voorts op het discours van̅ schilderijen en figuren, die daer waeren, mijn opinie over die vraghende.’

96 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 187: ‘De Coning mij hebbende doen haelen, gaff mij de lijst van all de schilderijen, die in Whitehall, te Winsor en Hamptoncourt waeren, willende hebben dat ick die eens soude oversien.’ [The King, who had sent for me, gave me the list of all the paintings, which were in Whitehall, Winsor [sic] and Hamptoncourt, wanting me to take a look at them]

97 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 226: ‘ … te praeten van eenighe schilderijen, die in sijn cabinet had laten boven de deuren hangen. Hij liet Berghesteyn mede binnen komen en̅ gingh met ons in̅ beneden logementen, daer schilderijen stonden, en̅ wij waren daer een tijdt langh.’ [… to talk about various paintings, which he had hung above the doors in his cabinet. He also let Berghesteyn enter and went with us to the apartments downstairs, where pictures were put, and we spent some time there]

98 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 520: ‘De Con. liet mij eenighe schilderijen sien, die hij op de achtertrap aen sijn cabinet doen ophangen had, en daer mijn opinie van vraegde. Daer waeren twee vrij goede Julio Romano’s bij.’ [The King showed a few paintings, which he had hung in the backstairs by his cabinet, and asked for my opinion. Among them were two pretty good Julio Romano’s.; Ibid., p. 193: ‘De Con. vraeghde mij savonts; wat ick te Londen al gedaen hadde, en̅ of de lijst van sijn schilderijen al hadde naergesien.’ [The King asked me in the evening what I had done in London, and if I had had a chance to look at the list of his painting frames.]

99 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 175: ‘praete weder van schilderijen.’

100 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 356: ‘Aten met der haest, en gongh bij de Con. in sijn cabinet, daer hij praete, en̅ vraegde van sijn schilderijen, antique cachetten en̅ medalien, wel een uer langh.’

101 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. II, p. 551: ‘Sprack met hem van̅ schilderijen, en seyde hij mij dat de Coningh wilde aen touwtjes gehangen hebben, om se te konnen schicken en wederom verschicken.’ [Talked with him about paintings, and he told me that the King wants [the paintings] to hang from cords, so as to be able to arrange and rearrange them.]

102 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. II, p. 365: ‘Ten half dryen liet de Con. mij halen, sittende en kijckende uyt de vensters van sijn Cabinet. Seyde mij, dat eens in ’t huys van Myl. Montagu soude gaen, om de schilderijen te sien, die daer van̅ Fransche schilder Rousseau zijn.’

103 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. II, p. 320: ‘Savonts was bij de Con., die mij seyde tot m. Newport voorbij rijdende gesien te hebben, en dat gestaen hadden om mij aen te roepen en mij de schilderijen van̅selve te thoonen. Dat goede dingen van van Dijck hadde en een virtuose was.’

104 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. II, p. 97: ‘De Con., die teeckende, was vriendelijck en̅ sprack van̅ schilderije.’

105 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. II, p. 151: ‘Was vriendelijck, praete van̅ schilderijen in sijn cabinet, en̅ vraeghde naer nieuws uyt den Haegh.’

106 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. II, p. 195: ‘De Con. was vrundel. en̅ liet mij de nieuwe schilderijen in de boven-sale en op de trappen sien.’

107 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 517: He did not have someone he felt he could send to Italy, where the collection was auctioned. ‘dat hij groote lust hadde om de collective van̅ Coninginne Christina van Zweden te koopen, die te Roomen noch te krijgen was, maer dat men daer een bequaem man most naer toesenden, daertoe ick iets in passant seyde in faveur van Sonnius.’ [that he had a great desire to buy the collection of Queen Christina of Sweden, which was still available in Rome, but that one had to send a competent man there, to which I replied in passing to be in favour of Sonnius]

108 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. II, p. 28: ‘Sprack de Con. van̅ schilderijen, die tot de Coningin douariere waeren en sijne collectie stonden te vermeerderen, naer haer vertreck.’ [Talked to the King about paintings, which belonged to the Queen Dowager and with which to expand his collection, after her departure.] This refers to Catherine of Braganza, who returned to Portugal in March 1692.

109 H. van Nierop, The Life of Romeyn de Hooghe (1645–1708), Prints, Pamphlets and Politics in the Dutch Golden Age (Amsterdam, 2018), see Chapter 13; H. Dunthorne, ‘William in Contemporary Portraits and Prints’, Meijers and Onnekink (eds), Redefining William III, pp. 272-5.

110 Van Nierop, The Life of Romeyn de Hooghe, Chapter 13; Dunthorne, ‘William in Contemporary Portraits and Prints’, p. 273.

111 Hall, Art, Passion & Power, p. 160: ‘nothing on this scale had ever been seen in Britain before’.

112 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. III, p. 69: ‘In haer galerije daernaer komende, thoonde my de Porceleynen die te Amsterdam gekocht hadde.’

113 L.G. Schwoerer, ‘The Queen as Regent and Patron’, in Maccubbin and Hamilton-Phillips (eds), The Age of William III & Mary II, pp. 217-24; Broomhall and Van Gent, Dynastic Colonialism, pp. 109-13, 119; J.C. Bierens de Haan, ‘Een bezoek aan Willem III en Mary in Londen in 1692’, Jaarboek Oranje-Nassau Museum (1995), pp. 75-93.

114 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 199: ‘Op̅ bordes van̅ trap quam de Coningin mij tegen, en vraeghde mij met vriendelijckheit in ’t voorbijgaen mr Zeelhem: how doe you like this house.’ [I encountered the Queen on the landing of the stairs and [she] kindly asked me in passing: mr. Zeelhem: how do you like this house]. This name refers to Huygens’ title, Lord of Zuilichem, in Gelderland.

115 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, pp. 154, 218: ‘Aen̅ inganck van het Green quam de Coningin tegen, die mij medenam om des Coninx Cabinet te sien, en gaff mij daernae Briennes wijff mede, om mij te leyden.’ [At the entrance of the Green I encountered the Queen, who took me with her to see the King’s Cabinet, and after that sent Brienne’s wife to me to guide me]

116 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. II, p. 439: ‘. De Coningin was naer Hamptoncourt om te meubleren etc.’ [The Queen was away furnishing Hamptoncourt]

117 Literature usually focuses on Mary’s porcelain collection as her sole contribution to the arts, though sometimes her commission of the ‘Hampton Court Beauties’ by Godfrey Kneller is mentioned. See for example, Broomhall and Van Gent, Dynastic Colonialism; Hall, Art, Passion & Power, pp. 153-4, 159-61; Schwoerer, ‘The Queen as Regent and Patron’, pp. 218-19, 223.

118 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 428: ‘Smergens had Sylvius, de Hr van̅ Lier, Leyenbergh en̅ mr Walton, die mij seyde dat last hadde van̅ Coningin om de patroonen van tapijten van Rafel te doen approprieren om in een galerye te Hamptoncourt opgehangen te werden, met armoisyne gordijnen daervoor, die men ophaelen en̅ nederlaten soude konnen.’ [This morning I had [a visit from] Sylvius, the Lord van Lier, Leyenbergh and mr Walton, who told me that the Queen had ordered to appropriate the patterns of the tapestries of Rafael, so as to be hung in a gallery at Hamptoncourt, with taffeta drapes hanging in front of them, which one can raise and drop.]

119 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. II, p. 332: ‘Naermiddach was bij haer [de koningin], latende sij mij terstondt binnen komen. Versocht mij naer goede printen voor haer om te sien, om in lijsten te setten, en te Hamptoncourt op te hangen.’ [This afternoon I was with her [the Queen], who asked me to come in immediately. [She] requested me to acquire good prints for her, to frame, and hang at Hamptoncourt.]

120 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. I, p. 153: ‘Soo uyt het Parck quamen, sprack de Coningin hem eerst aen uyt de venster, en seyde mij daernae, dat schilderijen gekregen had, die mij wilde thoonen; dat ick sanderen daeghs te Londen soude komen, welck lest ick niet en verstondt.’ [Coming out of the Park, the Queen spoke to him [a walking companion] from the window, and told me that [she] had received paintings, that she wanted to show to me; that I should come to London the next day; I could not understand the last part]

121 Narcissus Luttrell, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs from September 1678 to April 1714 (Oxford, 1857), vol. IV, pp. 343-4.

122 See D. Onnekink, The Anglo-Dutch Favourite: The Career of Hans Willem Bentinck, 1^st Earl of Portland (1649–1709) (Aldershot, 2007).

123 Vanessa Bezemer-Sellers, ‘The Bentinck Garden at Sorgvliet’, in Hunt (ed.), The Dutch Garden in the Seventeenth Century, vol. XII, p. 114.

124 Bezemer-Sellers, ‘The Bentinck Garden at Sorgvliet’, p. 120.

125 Bezemer-Sellers, ‘The Bentinck Garden at Sorgvliet’, p. 120; De Jong, Nature and Art, pp. 69-76.

126 Bezemer-Sellers, ‘The Bentinck Garden at Sorgvliet’, p. 103.

127 Hunt and De Jong, The Anglo-Dutch Garden, p. 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].

128 G. Burnet, An Essay on the Memory of the Late Queen by Gilbert, Bishop of Sarum (London, 1695), pp. 81-2.

129 Japikse, Correspondentie van Willem III en van Hans Willem Bentinck, letter of William III to Bentinck, 29 April 1688, p. 36: ‘La Princesse a ordonné a Ysack de vous répondre touschent sa volière qu’elle approuve vostre dessin.’

130 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. II, p. 475: ‘Myl. Essex te Kinsington seyde, dat de Coningh hem verweten had, dat hij niet als vodden van schilderijen had, en geseght dat hij ’t mij vrij vragen konde. [Myl. Essex at Kensington said that the King had blamed him, that he had nothing but rags of paintings, and told him that he could ask me.]

131 O. Mörke, ‘Stadtholder’ oder ‘Staetholder’, p. 233; De Jong, Nature and Art, pp. 59-97; Barclay, ‘William’s Court as King’, pp. 241-61: Thurley, ‘Kensington Palace’, p. 1; Tinniswood, Visions of Power, p. 88; Jones, ‘The Building Works’, p. 10. In line with these views, William III himself is seen as either sensitive to propaganda or not, see: Robert P. Maccubin and Martha Hamilton-Phillips, ‘Introduction’, in Maccubbin and Hamilton-Phillips (eds), The Age of William III & Mary II, pp. 3-18; H. van Nierop, ‘Profijt en propaganda. Nieuwsprenten en de verbeelding in het nieuws’, in Henk van Nierop, Ellen Gravowsky and Anouk Janssen (eds.), Romeyn de Hooghe: de verbeelding van de late Gouden Eeuw (Zwolle, 2008), pp. 66-84; Thurley, ‘Kensington Palace’, p. 1.

132 Siccama, Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, vol. II, p. 555: ‘of de nieuws gekomene schilderijen hadde gesien, van jae, maer dat die meest alle slechter waeren, als die wij opgehangen hadden. Hij seyde: jae, maer dat men se elders soude konnen employeren, en̅ dat se wat schicken soude.’ [if [I] had seen the newly arrived paintings, said yes, but that most of them were worse than the ones we had hung up. He said: yes, but that one could use them elsewhere, and that they should be sorted]

133 The notion of Kunstwollen, translated as ‘artistic volition’, ‘will to art’ or ‘artistic intent’, was coined by the Austrian art-historian Alois Riegl in Problems of Style (Princeton, 1993).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Hanneke Ronnes

Hanneke Ronnes

Professor Hanneke Ronnes studied history, anthropology and archaeology in Amsterdam and Dublin, Ireland. She currently lectures at the University of Amsterdam and Groningen University.

Merel Haverman

Merel Haverman

Merel Haverman studied art history and heritage and memory studies at the University of Amsterdam and currently works for Stichting In Arcadië, a design studio and research centre for landscape history.