Collections of the House of Orange and Dutch Royal Family

[Duc_et_Pair]

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/1353955/rapport_herkomstonderzoek_koninklijke_verzamelingen.pdf

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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.

 

[MAfan]

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.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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.

 

[MAfan]

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.

 

[Jacknch]

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.

 

[Lee-Z]

Dutch government bought more pieces of art from the Dutch RF in the past than formerly known
https://www.nu.nl/cultuur-overig/57...inklijke-familie-dan-voorheen-bekend-was.html

google translated

 

[Dalriada]

Collections of the Dutch Royal Family

Dutch government bought more pieces of art from the Dutch RF in the past than formerly known
https://www.nu.nl/cultuur-overig/57...inklijke-familie-dan-voorheen-bekend-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?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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).