The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Dutch Royal History (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f160/)
-   -   Hooghiemstra and Hermans about Kings Willem I, II and III (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f160/hooghiemstra-and-hermans-about-kings-willem-i-ii-and-iii-14929.html)

susan alicia 11-14-2007 06:25 AM

Hooghiemstra and Hermans about Kings Willem I, II and III
 
According to the newspaper NRC of today:

the book Voor de troon wordt men niet ongestraft geboren by the historians Hermans and Hooghiemstra that wil be published tomorrow could have been forbidden by Beatrix because the authors could not have managed to write it without studying in the royal archieves. They have collected eyewitnessreports about the 19th century kings Willem I, Willem II and Willem III.

some details from the newpaper:

Willem I left a empoverished country to his son Willem II. During his reign he built up a fortune of 30 million guldens by participating in statecontrolled enterprises. The debt of the state was just about just as big as his fortune, not a coincidence according to the historians.

Willem II was most probably gay if not bi sexual, the minister of justice Van Maanen writes about the shamefull en onnatural feelings of the prins and in a blackmailletter 63.000 guldens was demanded te prevent the secret becoming publicknowledge. According to the russian ambassador the prins had a relationship with a man called pereira with whom he made long walks around brussels and picked up his bills for clothing.

Wiilm III had a mental desease, he ordered all ministers to be executed on the Binnenhof and minister weitzel discribded how the prins on a balcony in montreux opened his dressing gown and showed his privates to passangers that passed by on boats. Thorbecke who had been minister for 3 times always brought 2 pens along, one for the prins to throw through the room and one to write with. Lady in waiting henriette van de Poll asked in a letter to her mother: do you not find him excactly like a lunatic? ( the same historians have published a book about letters of lady in waiting henriette van der poll: .van Stockum - Vertel dit toch aan niemand, Hermans, D.

susan alicia 11-22-2007 05:23 AM

nrc.nl - Binnenland - Beatrix boos over boek

the rvd made public that beatrix is not happy with the book, it is selective in a way that could give a negative picture of the kings describded.




Quote:

Originally Posted by susan alicia (Post 692875)
According to the newspaper NRC of today:

the book Voor de troon wordt men niet ongestraft geboren by the historians Hermans and Hooghiemstra that wil be published tomorrow could have been forbidden by Beatrix because the authors could not have managed to write it without studying in the royal archieves. They have collected eyewitnessreports about the 19th century kings Willem I, Willem II and Willem III.

some details from the newpaper:

Willem I left a empoverished country to his son Willem II. During his reign he built up a fortune of 30 million guldens by participating in statecontrolled enterprises. The debt of the state was just about just as big as his fortune, not a coincidence according to the historians.

Willem II was most probably gay if not bi sexual, the minister of justice Van Maanen writes about the shamefull en onnatural feelings of the prins and in a blackmailletter 63.000 guldens was demanded te prevent the secret becoming publicknowledge. According to the russian ambassador the prins had a relationship with a man called pereira with whom he made long walks around brussels and picked up his bills for clothing.

Wiilm III had a mental desease, he ordered all ministers to be executed on the Binnenhof and minister weitzel discribded how the prins on a balcony in montreux opened his dressing gown and showed his privates to passangers that passed by on boats. Thorbecke who had been minister for 3 times always brought 2 pens along, one for the prins to throw through the room and one to write with. Lady in waiting henriette van de Poll asked in a letter to her mother: do you not find him excactly like a lunatic? ( the same historians have published a book about letters of lady in waiting henriette van der poll: .van Stockum - Vertel dit toch aan niemand, Hermans, D.


Marengo 11-23-2007 06:59 AM

Well, i can understand that HM is not happy with it. Although some in the press like to stress now that HM is probably not happy with negative stories IMHO the Queen is right in her objection that the book is almost exclusively made up with scandalous stories or worse, rumours. I assume the two authors wanted their book to sell so including a rumour that Willem III murdered his father Willem II is more juicy than the more obvious reason of his death (heart failure). So the objection was the unbalanced use of sources in this book, the authors only used the ones that would give a juicy story and left out the rest. Note that it is exceptional that HM is making comments about these kind of books, it must be the first time she did. I was actually surprised that she allowed the authors to dig in the archives of the RF in the first place, considering the book Dorine Hermans wrote about Pieter van Vollenhoven.

Marengo 11-26-2007 08:08 PM

Article from Dutchnews.nl:

Quote:

Queen Beatrix unhappy about new book

Wednesday 21 November 2007
Queen Beatrix is unhappy about a new book on her ancestors Willem I, II and III. The authors make ‘very selective’ use of documents from royal archives which could result in a ‘less positive’ image of the main players, said the state information service
Read the entire article here.

The Prime Minister agrees with the Queen, Mr. Balkenende also said that the authors could have painted a more balanced picture of the Kings.

Helena 11-26-2007 08:10 PM

I bought the book dispite everything but I regret that I did, it is bloody annoying and it shows that the authors aren´t historians but more suited to write for glossy magazines.

Marengo 11-26-2007 08:14 PM

I just saw RTL boulevard and they showed Frenk (Frederik-Hendrik) der Nederlanden there, on Dam square and in front of the Royal Palace. Apparently he descends from an illegitemate son of King Willem II. The childs name was ´Willem der Nederlanden´ and he and his sister Marianne were ´dumped´ in a ´veen kolonie´ (don´t know how to translate this, some help would be appreciated) in the east of the country by a certain ´P. Nederlander´. He had the documents to show this btw. He claims that the mother of Willem and Marianne was a lady from a Patrician family from Rotterdam.

Note that Frenk der Nederlanden is now a journalist for either the NRC Handelsblad or the Volkskrant (forgot which one) and he was presented the first copy of the book by Hooghiemstra and Hermans.

Marengo 11-26-2007 08:19 PM

Here an article in Dutch about the book, Jannetje Koelewijn and Merel Thie are saying in NRC Handelsblad that it is good that the Kings were forgotten. At least, that is what Hermans and Hooghiemstra are saying: the RF is happy that these Kings are mostly forgotten as ´Willem I got rich at the expense of the Dutch, Willem II was bisexual and Willem III was half crazy´.

So it is better for the Dutch to think of Willem of Orange, Maurits, Frederik-Hendrik and Stadholder Willem III who beated the Spanish and who were champions of the protestant cause in Europe, much better for the national identity.

Marengo 11-26-2007 08:40 PM

Irene Diependaal wrote an long article in the opinion section of NRC Handelsblad today about this book and she is basically agreeing with the Queen, and she is actually quite passionate in her disapproval of the way this book was written and she accuses the authors even of falsifying hiostory and also that the lack the sources to back up their claims.

Apparently even Hooghiemstra and Hermans themselves aknowledged that they were´very selective in the use of their sources. Irene Diependaal is especially critical about the supposed half madness of Willem III. The authors couldn´t come up with any evidence that Willem III suffered from a genetic madness, as they claim in their book. They only use a quote of lady-in-waiting Jvr. Henriette van der Poll, whose letters they ´plundered´ before in a book about the Dutch court.Apparently Henriette wrote in one of her letters about the King ´Don´t you think he is positively crazy?´.

Mrs. Diependaal goes on about the supposed´references to the Russian blood of the Oranges and that that was used as an explanation of the tantrums of the King. The authors are basically saying that the Queen is ´erfelijk belast´, so do they think it is strange that she turns against them?

She furthermore explains that the madness of Willem III wasn´t that strange either. He had a horrible, horrible marriage and his wife openly belittled him and showed her disdain for his intelligence. He never got any training to be a King either and not much love from his parents.

She continues about the claims of Edwin de Roy van Z. that Willem III didn´t father Wilhelmina and she reminds us that at the moment when Willem III married Emma he told people that he had the intention to do the heavy task himself ;). She also reminds us that by that time Willem III still had two sons alive (and I am not sure, but maybe Prince Hendrik was still alive too?), so there was NO need to get somebody else to father a child yet.

Apparently during his second marriage the Kings health did decline and some called the King a madman, but Diependaal blames 19th century medicine for that. The King had a condition of the kidneys and the medicine that the King had to use for this. Those were responsible for the King being unable to do his daily duties and for his intellectual capabilities declining. The odd thing is that Hooghiemstra and Hermans publish a record of the Kings health in their book but they never made the obvious connection....

Anyway, Diependaal spoke to a couple of doctors two years ago and they suspect that the King suffered from ´chronic pyelefritis´, an infection of the kidney´s. If it isn´t treated (which wasn´t possible in the 1880´s) it would lead to dillusional sights,etc.

Irene Diependaal finishes the article saying that the authors failed several times in the most important task of any journalist or historian: ´bronnenkritiek´(having critical look at your sources).

Marengo 11-27-2007 05:41 PM

Well, I decided to buy the book anyway and I must say it isn´t as bad as I thought. It has some new information for me (as far as I could see in a first glance), but in from the short passages that I read it is rather obvious that they do their best to make it as sensational as possible. In almost each sentense on Willem II they are stressing that he loved pump and circumstance or that he made debts etc. A bit of an overkill.

I haven´t read it completely yet but the book is certainly not so serious that it deserves the attention it is getting, it is more suitable to join the ranks of books by pseudo historians like Kikkert and such. And I do think that that is exactly what the authors wanted to do, they weren´t interested in writing a historically accurate book but they were interested in writing something that would sell. That they used a quote by Peter van der Vorst (RTL Boulevard reporter), who is utterly overrated as a royalty watcher, is rather telling, they obviously included his praise of the book to get more copies sold.

lucien 11-28-2007 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo (Post 698369)
Well, I decided to buy the book anyway and I must say it isn´t as bad as I thought. It has some new information for me (as far as I could see in a first glance), but in from the short passages that I read it is rather obvious that they do their best to make it as sensational as possible. In almost each sentense on Willem II they are stressing that he loved pump and circumstance or that he made debts etc. A bit of an overkill.

I haven´t read it completely yet but the book is certainly not so serious that it deserves the attention it is getting, it is more suitable to join the ranks of books by pseudo historians like Kikkert and such. And I do think that that is exactly what the authors wanted to do, they weren´t interested in writing a historically accurate book but they were interested in writing something that would sell. That they used a quote by Peter van der Vorst (RTL Boulevard reporter), who is utterly overrated as a royalty watcher, is rather telling, they obviously included his praise of the book to get more copies sold.

That raglike piece of paper by those two histerical nobodies is an affront for the paper it is printed on and the tree that was cut for it.Unless one gets into rubbish,gossip and pure nonsens only,do not buy this crap.

susan alicia 11-28-2007 05:46 AM

marengo, they are not pseudo historians, they have a masters degree from a dutch university, perhaps even a phd. You just do not like their work.

I have not read the book but it seems to me that they can not endlessly mention letters, documents written by sycophants, that is too boring.

The critics of their books must show with documents that they skipped specific ones they must have found in the royal archives that were essential to the picture of a character and chose to ignore.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo (Post 698369)
Well, I decided to buy the book anyway and I must say it isn´t as bad as I thought. It has some new information for me (as far as I could see in a first glance), but in from the short passages that I read it is rather obvious that they do their best to make it as sensational as possible. In almost each sentense on Willem II they are stressing that he loved pump and circumstance or that he made debts etc. A bit of an overkill.

I haven´t read it completely yet but the book is certainly not so serious that it deserves the attention it is getting, it is more suitable to join the ranks of books
Quote:

by pseudo historians
like Kikkert and such. And I do think that that is exactly what the authors wanted to do, they weren´t interested in writing a historically accurate book but they were interested in writing something that would sell. That they used a quote by Peter van der Vorst (RTL Boulevard reporter), who is utterly overrated as a royalty watcher, is rather telling, they obviously included his praise of the book to get more copies sold.


Marengo 11-28-2007 06:37 AM

Actually they do use a lot of letters etc, that is actually the thing I like best and why I bought the book. At the end of each chapter they show around 20 letters of royals etc, many of which I haven´t read before. I enjoyed the letters of Charlotte of Wales about Willem II for example.

Well, I called them pseudo historians due to their style of writing, they don´t leave much room for readers to judge for themselves and as I said they are repeating and repeating things like ´the overspending Willem II´, ´the pump-loving Willem II´ etc etc. all the time, that for me is the weakest thing about the book.

susan alicia 11-28-2007 07:16 AM

yes, I understand that they made use of letters and documents, that is partly what makes it an academic book. I meant they probably skipped the letter, documents of sycophants

Marengo 11-28-2007 07:26 AM

I meant to say, they actually publish these letters in the book. Something which usually isn´t done.

This book is far too one-sided to call it ´academic´. But I think it shows that there is a gap in the Dutch history, we do not have any good modern biographies of any of our Kings or of Queen Emma. There are enough small books of course, but ´real´ biographies, like the one of Fasseur on Wilhelmina are sadly missing. Maybe that would be a nice project to finance, with the present revival of history and interest in the national past.

I have no idea what sycophants are though.

susan alicia 11-28-2007 07:33 AM

dictionary Marengo ;) ?

you can not know that is one sided until documents have been produced from the royal archives that prove that another side could have been included.

A sycophant ( Gr.συκοφάντης) is a servile person who, acting in their own self interest, attempts to win favor by flattering one or more influential people, with an undertone that this is at the cost of their own personal pride, principles, and peer respect. (wikipedea)

Marengo 11-28-2007 07:42 AM

Well, the authors said it themselves, that they weren´t interested in writing a balanced book but were looking for the more ´juicy´ things, and they also agreed that they have been very selective in the use of sources.

Mind you, from what I have read it isn´t all that shocking. I mean, bisexuality is that really such a scandal these days for example? And most stories were already known to the public too, though as this is the first time it has been written down in a easy readable book. I have to say that Hermans and Hooghiesmtra have ´marketed´their book rather well, usually a book about our Kings and such wouldn´t get more than one or two reviews in a newspaper and that´s it.

No dictionairy close by btw ;)

susan alicia 11-28-2007 07:47 AM

juicy things can be positive too and according to the queen the book is one sided. perhaps nothing juicy positive could be found in the archives. that is my point, let Bea find an historian who can produce letters that they ommitted though valuable and could show a more balanced picture of the kings.

Bisexuality in those days was a big scandal, illegal even I think

Marengo 11-28-2007 08:03 AM

Yes, it was a huge scandal in the 19th century, but the letters are published now, so.... And I don´t think there are many Dutchmen now who give a hoot if Willem II would have been bisexual or heterosexual.

I think Hoghiemstra and Hermans could have found letters that are more positive about the Kings too, but that didn´t within the concept of their book. From what I read in it now it seems they pretty much had the idea in advance that

- Willem I was money hungry
- Willem II had an active sexlife and loved pump and circumstance
- Willem III was almost insane

And from those opinions they were looking for things that would support those claims and that would support their concept that is basically giving juicy details about our Kings. I don´t think the effect is that bad btw, it is the first time in years that these Kings are actually discussed on a broad scale so who knows, maybe somebody will stand up who will write a more extensive biography about any of them.

susan alicia 11-28-2007 08:08 AM

you perhaps :flowers:, I see when I click on TRF-author that you are a history student. I will go out and buy YOUR book

Marengo 11-28-2007 08:15 AM

hmz...so all I have to do now is finish my studies and find somebody to finanCe the project.... :whistling:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises