The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 03-17-2015, 01:49 PM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,878
Indeed, very elegant!! I hope they will use it sometime soon, i can really see the little princesses in this :)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-17-2015, 02:08 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 8,935
Yesterday the King stated that the Glass State Carriage is the stand-in for the Golden State Carriage, when that last one is not available. The Glass State Carriage was restored for real usage. This requires other conditions than "just" be a museum piece.

I think we can expect the Golden State Carriage to go into restoration now. Since 1897 (the year of construction) nothing has happened to the carriage, in terms of renovations or restorations.

On pictures you can see that the lustre of the gold has gone and that here and there a new fresh layer is needed. The coachman's seat needs a new bright red overcloth with fresh embroidered Arms and guirlandes. Inside the silk seats embroidered with motifs and coats-of-arms need a freshen-up. The fastening of the Four Graces (carrying the crown on top) seem not waterproof: during rainy rides it has leaked some water, which caused circles on the silk "heaven" (the inner rooftop of the carriage).

Picture (click on the picture itself to enlarge it to mega-XXL). The cherubins and seraphims on the rooftop, holding the King's monogram and the fencing with the coats-of-arms show that new gold is needed.

__________________

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-31-2015, 09:36 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,128
Quote:
THE HAGUE, Netherlands -- An investigation into the Dutch royal family's extensive art collection has uncovered one painting that was likely looted during Nazi Germany's World War II occupation of the Netherlands.
More: Dutch royal family's art collection contains 1 apparently looted painting, investigation reveals | Entertainment & Showbiz from CTV News
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-31-2015, 10:10 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 20,432


The painting:
Koninklijke familie bezit roofkunstwerk - nrc.nl

The king has returned the painting to the family. Apparently there may be one more painting which will need to be returned. A mountain landscape with the sacred Hubertus by Paul Bril.

Apparently 1300 paintings and objects have been researched.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-31-2015, 02:54 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,128
Quote:
The Dutch royal family has said it will return a painting from its collection thought to have been looted by the Nazis during World War Two.

The painting, by Joris van der Haagen, had been bought by Queen Juliana from a Dutch art dealer in 1960.

The palace said an investigation looked at tens of thousands of art works in the House of Orange's collection.

Officials have contacted the heirs of the original owner, who was not named, to arrange its return.
More: Dutch royal family to return Nazi looted art - BBC News
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-31-2015, 04:43 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 8,935
Some sensational conspirationists insinuated that the palaces of the Oranges were studded with Nazi-looted jewish art. Especially specialists like Gerard Aalders, a stauch anti-Prince Bernhard historian and Ronny Naftaniel - a staunch pro-Israel/Jewish campaigner made the impression that in the years 1944/1945, when Prince Bernhard was Commander in Chief, he made use of that position to confisquate numerous artworks which were looted during the Nazi occupation.

After extensive investigation only one, repeat: one, painting which was purchased in 1960 seemed to have been looted once. The King immediately cleared the unlucky problem by reacting pro-actively and already settle the case with the heirs before the report was made public.

So, the fantasy stories of the Orange-Nassaus having numerous looted artefacts are now proven untrue. The commission concluded that the bulk of the Orange-Nassau collections predate waaaay before 1933-1945 and the purchases in that period and after were limited.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-01-2015, 08:26 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 8,935
What I do not understand: in 1960 Queen Juliana purchased "The Hague Forest with view on Huis ten Bosch Palace" by Joris Abrahamszoon van der Haagen (1615-1669). A centuries old painting, depicting an Orange-Nassau residence: no wonder Queen Juliana purchased it. Apparently in 1942 it was "bought" (read: looted, because bought by an enforced absurd low estimation) by the bank Lippman, Rosenthal & Co in Amsterdam from a Jewish collectioner. The commission confirmed that Queen Juliana had no idea about the tragic events, earlier in 1942, when she bought the painting in 1960. Now I understand her grandson, the King, has ordered the painting to be handed over to the heirs of the owner who "sold" it in 1942.

But what about the King himself? He feels forced to abandon a centuries-old painting which depicts his very own residence, to the heirs, possibly somewhere in the USA, whom have no any attachment to the building on that painting. His grandmother paid an (undoubtedly formidable) sum for the painting, all in good trust. Isn't it weird that the King now has to hand over property which was simply bought from an arts & antiquities shop in Amsterdam, while he is completely without any blame? He was not even born when his grandmother purchased that painting.

Of course the Orange-Nassaus have thousands and thousands of artworks but it is about the principle. Imagine that the King purchases an antique parure of diamonds and Pearls and gives it to Queen Máxima. Suddenly it becomes clear that the cassette once belonged to a Jewish family and was looted during the occupation. How could the King know? So, he will feel enforced to hand over that glittering parure to the heirs of a lady 70-80 years ago, while he has done nothing wrong.

I applaud the King's swift action but I tried to imagine myself (not so affluent with cash as His Majesty) in the same situation. Suddenly I have to hand over that painting which my grandfather once, in all honesty, purchased in Antwerp or Brussels. Hellooooo! That is my painting! Am I the only one who sees some unlogic in the situation? It implies that the King (or you and me) have to investigate way back what the origins are from artefacts offered for sale...

No idea who was the seller of the painting by Joris Abrahamszoon van der Haagen. If he still has a shop, maybe I would sue him for selling looted stuff, even when it is about a sale more than half a century ago...


This is the painting "The Hague Forest with view on Huis ten Bosch Palace" by Joris Abrahamszoon van der Haagen (1615-1669):
http://www.nltimes.nl/wp-content/upl...n-1024x670.jpg
Click on the picture to expand.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-01-2015, 12:03 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 20,432
If it is 'the principle that counts' as you say, I think other principles are more important. The painting was stolen ('forced to sell') from a Dutch-Jewish family. I assume that much of the family was murdered during the war. Their possessions were most likely never returned. This happened in many cases when Jewish survivors came back: other people took over their houses, their material possessions were looted etc. In Amsterdam Jewish survivors even had to pay tax when they returned from the camps as they were unable to do so while they were held. It is shameful. Returning the painting was the only right thing to do and I am happy that the king realized this.

The family can decide what to do with the painting next. Maybe they want to keep it, maybe they want to sell it, maybe they want to lend it. Who knows? But it can only be their decision. It is a pity for the royal collection indeed, Queen Juliana bought it in good faith indeed, but that does not take away that the king did the only right thing.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-01-2015, 12:13 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 8,935
Yes of course the King did the right thing, but imagine in 1962 or so, your grandmother bought a nice set of porcelain tableware. Your grandmother, your mother and finally you yourself have been absolutely careful with the fantastic tableware, which has decorated so many of your family's best dinners.

Then suddenly it figured out that your grandmother -with the best intentions- seems to have bought items which were once looted. This means that YOU, suddenly are requested to hand over everything to heirs somewhere. Yes, justice is done to the heirs. But new injustice is done: to you, to your mother and to your grandmother, if you understand the point I try to make.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-01-2015, 12:22 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 20,432
Somehow that injustice pales in comparison IMHO, so I think many would be glad to correct such a thing.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-01-2015, 12:46 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 8,935
There is another painting purchased by (then) Princess Juliana in 1948, called Saint Hubertus in a landscape, by the Flemish master Paul Bril (1554-1626). It was claimed that this was looted from a Jewish owner too.

The commission has investigated this claim as well:
- Professor Dr. R.E.O. Ekkart, former director of the State Agency for Art-historic documentation
- Mrs J.C.E. Belinfante LL.M., director of the Museum of Jewish History in Amsterdam
- Professor Dr. J.P. Sigmond, former director collections of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam

The commission concluded that the painting was bought by Princess Juliana from the Netherlands Art Property Foundation, in 1948. Various sources were investigated but no information or insights were found which might lead to a looting, enforced sale or confisquation. Possibly the painting has once been owned by the Jewish Dutch art painter Joseph Henri Gosschalk. The archives give no indication whom owned the painting before the end of 1939 / the begin of 1940. It has become clear that before May 1940 (the start of the Nazi occupation) the painting was owned by a Dutch art trader whom declared that the sale was fully voluntarily. The heirs of Joseph Henri Gosschalk have not laid a claim on the painting.

The bulk of the royal collections predate 1933. Helpful to this was an inventory made by an insurance company which has written in exhausting long lists and into detail every single item in the collection. Thanks to this inventory, the commission could easily rule out all items before 1933 and concentrate on all artworks collectioned after 1933. By the way, the commission wrote that many, many artworks and valuables from the royal family have been looted from the various royal residences in the years 1940-1945. After the Nazi occupation new inventory lists were made of all what was left in the palaces, so that the royal family was able to see what has been stolen during the war years. Understandably between May 1940 and May 1945 (the Nazi occupation) no new items were added to the royal collections.

After ruling out all what has been purchased before 1933 (thanks to the Insurance inventories and the after-WWII inventory) and by ruling out purchases with a clear proof of non-Jewish origin, some 1.300 artworks remained open for furtherer investigation. Every single item has been investigated. By almost everything the Royal House Archives could provide documentation of name, date, price, and details of every purchase (contract, etc).

This is the report (in Dutch): http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/media/1...zamelingen.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-01-2015, 12:52 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 8,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
Somehow that injustice pales in comparison IMHO, so I think many would be glad to correct such a thing.
Sure, when my name is Willem-Alexander. But when I am not Willem-Alexander and I suddenly have to hand over valuables which have been in my family -simply bought at a respected art dealer, more than half a century ago-, I would not feel too happy. "Hey hello, here are the two silver candelabras my great-grandmother once bought at an auction in the 1960's. Apparently your great-great-grandfather seems to have been enforced to sell it to Lippmann, Rosenthal & Co".

No, I would not be happy. It feels as letting someone paying damages for someone else. (The Nazis looted it but I have to pay for it). There is something not correct here but okay. The King grinds his teeth and hands over the artwork. He can do that. He has tens of thousands of artefacts.

Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-01-2015, 04:42 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 5,985
As far as I can understood, nobody forced His Majesty to return the painting to the heirs of its previous owner; it was instead a decision taken by the King.
I can't see any problem if he choses to give away, for a very specific reason, one of the many paintings of the royal collections.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-01-2015, 05:28 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 8,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAfan View Post
As far as I can understood, nobody forced His Majesty to return the painting to the heirs of its previous owner; it was instead a decision taken by the King.
I can't see any problem if he choses to give away, for a very specific reason, one of the many paintings of the royal collections.
The King was so wise to act pro-actively. There was no any chance for a media storm: "The Oranges have looted art!". Only one has been discovered and even before it was made public the case has already been settled. Very wise.

At the other hand, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of Dutch families owning artworks and valuables which were once looted from the Jewish fellow citizens. There are countless stories of Jewish survivors whom came back from the camps and found their homes looted. Then they knocked at the neighbour's door to discover that granny's Persian carpet and uncle's piano are suddenly in that living room...

Around 110.000 Dutch Jews were murdered (from a Jewish community with 140.000 people in total). All these poor souls have left their homes, their officies, their shops, their companies. Where are all these properties? All Dutch museums have investigated their collections. Now also the royal family. In the newspapers and on online forums there were sensationalist stories about the royal family living in palaces, surrounded by looted stuff. Easy to comment on. Luckily only one painting was found.

But not one from all those countless Dutch families dares to investigate the own family properties. They are not in the public eye, so they do not suffer "public justice". What the King was "forced" to do (to end the rumours) was not requested from rich Dutch families as Philips, Heineken, Brenninkmeijer, etc. Most likely they have purchased art as well, in the 70 years since WWII and most likely there will be artworks from Jewish origin as well. No attention for that. These families live a discreet life and their doors remain shut. So there is some inbalance in that as well, in comparison with the royal family.

Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-01-2015, 05:59 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 5,985
Well, it is up to their choice, whether to act in one way or another; just like it was the King's choice to act wisely and proactively and to settle the matter with the heirs of the previous owners. Besides, it isn't publicly known how the issue has been settled between them.

Again, I can't see any problem. The decision of the King to settle the matter with the heirs has been a wise and correct one IMHO and that's all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-01-2015, 06:02 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,018
I should imagine that King Willem-Alexander was more than happy to assist in this matter and feels no loss or regret in having the painting returned, given the circumstances. I am sure most people would see it the same way or be thankful they are not in the same position. To my mind, he has set a good example of how these things should be dealt with.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-25-2019, 01:11 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,878
Dutch government bought more pieces of art from the Dutch RF in the past than formerly known
https://www.nu.nl/cultuur-overig/570...ekend-was.html

google translated
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-25-2019, 02:44 AM
Dalriada's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 170
Collections of the Dutch Royal Family

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee-Z View Post
Dutch government bought more pieces of art from the Dutch RF in the past than formerly known
https://www.nu.nl/cultuur-overig/570...ekend-was.html

google translated


I am a bit confused. I realise that certain palaces such as Het Loo were transfered into state hands with compensation to the DRF. Now we hear that some contents of palaces have been sold off piece by piece to the state but the pieces remaining in situ for the pleasure of all especially the DRF who still have these palaces at their disposal with their contents (in situ)as agreed in the final settlement but have been financially profitting from their virtual change of hands?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-25-2019, 03:29 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 8,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalriada View Post
I am a bit confused. I realise that certain palaces such as Het Loo were transfered into state hands with compensation to the DRF. Now we hear that some contents of palaces have been sold off piece by piece to the state but the pieces remaining in situ for the pleasure of all especially the DRF who still have these palaces at their disposal with their contents (in situ)as agreed in the final settlement but have been financially profitting from their virtual change of hands?

The State bought Soestdijk Palace and is owner of Het Loo Palace and Huis ten Bosch. Artworks and furniture which were part of original rooms of these palaces were owned by the royal family. To keep the palaces and some original rooms intact, the State bought items from the royal family. Amongst these expensive Japanese lacquer cabinets a very valuable mirror.

The ownership of a building is not the same as the ownership of the inventory, the ameublement and the artworks inside that building. The mass of it is owned by the royal family.

There is a sort of "over-complete" in the royal inventories since the royal family no longer uses the residences Soestdijk (in the 2010's), Het Loo (in the 1980's), Lange Voorhout (in the 1990's) and the Stadtholderly Court (in the 1970's).


Remains in use: Huis ten Bosch, Noordeinde, Royal Palace, Het Oude Loo and Noordeinde 66 (pied à terre of Princess Beatrix, connected with Noordeinde Palace).
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
art, art works, collections, painting, royal collection


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BBC History and Pathe News have both released Royal Weddings Collections Jason87 Historical Royal Weddings 3 01-24-2013 04:59 PM
Royal jewllery collections - the lists Josefine Royal Jewels General Discussion 4 01-16-2012 12:17 AM




Popular Tags
aif bracelets british royal family clothes crown current events de belgique denmark discussão documentary duchess of sussex duchessofsussex duke of edinburgh duke of sussex earl of wessex england fashion forum french revolution genealogy general news gordon hamdan bin mohammed harry and meghan headship interesting facts interests jacobite juan carlos lady louise mountbatten-windsor letter lineage meghan markle member mohammed vi nelson mandela bay patron prince aymeric prince harry prince harry of wales princenapoleon prince nicholas prince peter princess princess beatrice princesses princess eugenie princess louise princess of belgium princess royal prince william public image queen elisabeth relationship remarriage royal royal ancestry; oscar and sophia royal family royal wedding sarah ferguson state visit swedish royal registry tradition van belgië wedding wedding of prince harry windsor castle windy city wivies ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:36 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises