Religion and Religious Matters of the Dutch RF


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The Luxembourgian grand ducal family would be another example. Although that was by chance not by design. So, of course, opportunities that arise with a marriage could strategically be used in such case. However, that's still different than a bride coming into a royal family demanding that the family will follow her religion instead of agreeing to raise the children in the religion of the royal family's choosing.


But actually that was the cae in the luxemburgian Family. Had Maria Anna of Braganza agreed to raise all children protestant this would still be the religion of the GDF Family.

Another case is the present and only line of the House of Württemberg but at that time they became catholic it was only one of several junior lines.
 
But actually that was the cae in the luxemburgian Family. Had Maria Anna of Braganza agreed to raise all children protestant this would still be the religion of the GDF Family.

Another case is the present and only line of the House of Württemberg but at that time they became catholic it was only one of several junior lines.

By design they expected the heir (i.e., all sons) being raised protestant... That they ended up with 6 daughters instead had the unexpected result that the family turned Catholic.
 
I am new here and have a question concerning religion in the RF.
why was this so long the dutch royals could jot marry a catholic without loosing their place n succesion though so many catholic do live in the country? did the catholic people never rebel against this odd fact?
thank you, maybe there is already information somewhere but i did not see some yet.
i know maxima is catholic so i think now the rules are different
 
I am new here and have a question concerning religion in the RF.
why was this so long the dutch royals could jot marry a catholic without loosing their place n succesion though so many catholic do live in the country? did the catholic people never rebel against this odd fact?
thank you, maybe there is already information somewhere but i did not see some yet.
i know maxima is catholic so i think now the rules are different


The Dutch royals were never actually barred from marrying Roman Catholics. They just didn't do it because their family has been historically associated with the Protestant church since the 16th century and because, up to the mid-20th century at least, the majority of the Dutch population was still Protestant.


Dutch kings married women of other faiths though in the past. King Willem II for example married Grand Duchess Anna Pavlovna who was originally Russian Orthodox. I don't know if she ever converted to the Dutch Reformed church.


The only country AFAIK where it was explicitly prohibited for a successor to the Crown to marry a Roman Catholic and still remain in the line of succession was the UK, but that is no longer the case.



Many Protestant kingdoms still require the King to be Protestant though (namely Denmark, Norway, Sweden and obviously the UK). Queen Margrethe's late husband was Catholic and converted to the Lutheran church after marrying her although that was not legally required in Denmark.


As an Argentinian, you may remember that there was an expectation that Maxima would convert too and she even said she was considering it, but ultimately she never did it. I don't know if she is particularly religious, but I don't think she ever truly intended to leave the Catholic church.
 
Last edited:
Queen Anna's funeral service was conducted with the devine liturgy of the Russian Orthodox church by 3 Orthodox Priests and her chaplain and was buried at the Protestant Nieuwe Kerk in Delft .The King,Queen and Prince of Orange did not attend the Russian Orthodox Funeral Service at the Hague on March 17th.
 
The Dutch royals were never actually barred from marrying Roman Catholics. They just didn't do it because their family has been historically associated with the Protestant church since the 16th century and because, up to the mid-20th century at least, the majority of the Dutch population was still Protestant.

Yes indeed, they were never barred from marrying Roman Catholics (William the Silent himself had Roman Catholic brides).

In addition, one of the reasons the family was so prominent (even before they officially became king they were stadtholders) was because of their fight against the Catholic Spaniards who fought to keep the Netherlands and to keep it part of the Roman Holy Empire - and, therefore, Catholic. Instead, the eighty years' war, with a leading role for the princes of Orange, resulted in an independent country and offered freedom to practice the protestant (Calvinist) religion - and even allowed the Catholics to practice their religion (which wasn't supported by everyone).

So, from this historical perspective, it made a lot of sense to expect the family of the Prince of Orange to be protestant as they needed to keep the Roman Catholics who previously did not look favorably upon those not being Catholic (to say it mildly) at bay.
 
Last edited:
Catholics were allowed to worship in secret but public Catholic worship was prohibited.All churches in the United Provinces were taken over by the Reformed church,the Dutch hierarchy was not restored until 1853.
 
Catholics were allowed to worship in secret but public Catholic worship was prohibited.All churches in the United Provinces were taken over by the Reformed church,the Dutch hierarchy was not restored until 1853.

Yes, thanks for that important clarification. They would have church services in 'schuilkerken' (hide out churches) that couldn't be seen from the street. They weren't just used by Roman Catholics but also by the Remonstrants, Anabaptists and several other churches (that weren't part of the Dutch Reformed church). We even got married in such a church building :)

So, while their was 'freedom of conviction' there wasn't 'freedom of religion' - with the Dutch Reformed Church being THE church that all Dutch people were supposed to be members of. In addition, Jews were fully free to practice their religion. True to Dutch culture, there was a 'toleration policy' for schuilkerken. After a little while - if they paid and made sure that their church buildings weren't visible (in cities) or were outside of the village and clearly of a lesser prominence than the Dutch Reformed church they could organize their religious services.
 
The Dutch Reformed church had a very privileged position but was never made the State Religion,other faiths were tolerated .Roman Catholics only began to enjoy more religious freedom from the 19th Century onwards.
 
The Netherlands may not be Britain, but Wilhelmina was absolutely adamant in searching for a Protestant bridegroom for Juliana. I always assumed that was law, but I suppose it could have been personal conviction and religious fervor.

Not sure what she would make of Maxima!

When Wilhelmina returned to the Netherlands after the war, one of her first acts on Dutch soil was to attend a High Mass of Thanksgiving in Breda Cathedral, so she obviously had no problem with Catholicism.
 
Mixed religion marriages were frowned upon by most people in the 1930s - not necessarily because they had a problem with other religions, but just from a "stick to your own kind" mindset, and the idea that it was important for future generations to be kept within the religious fold. Times have changed a lot since then. We'd all see things differently if we lived in different times.
 
When Wilhelmina returned to the Netherlands after the war, one of her first acts on Dutch soil was to attend a High Mass of Thanksgiving in Breda Cathedral, so she obviously had no problem with Catholicism.

The Great- or Our Lady's Church in Breda, with 6 centuries old Nassau graves, is a Protestant church.

On 1410 build as Catholic Church - seven years earlier, in 1403, Breda came in hands of the Nassaus as fief to the Duke of Brabant. In 1566 King Philip II of Spain, Duke of Brabant, confiscated all properties of Willem I of Nassau, Prince of Orange.

1577 Protestant - Breda conquered by Willem I van Nassau, Prince d'Orange
1581 Catholic - Breda conquered by Alessandro Farnese e Parma, Duca di Parma
1590 Protestant - Breda conquered by Maurits van Nassau, Prince d'Orange
1625 Catholic - Breda conquered by Ambrogio Spinola Doria e Grimaldi, Marchese di Balbases
1637 Protestant - Breda conquered by Frederik Hendrik van Nassau, Prince d'Orange

All Catholic elements were removed and an empty Protestant interior was the result. Right opposite the pulpit still is the - quite simple- bench for the Prince and Princess of Orange.

Picture:
http://www.lichtendekerk.nl/CMS/uploads/0interieur-Grote-Kerk-Breda.jpg

Picture: usually a bench is decorated with flowery arrangements when the King or Queen uses it. Right after the return of Queen Wilhelmina in Breda, 1945, it was sparse.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Prinsenbank_Grote_Kerk_Breda_DSCF6037.JPG
 
Last edited:
The Great- or Our Lady's Church in Breda, with 6 centuries old Nassau graves, is a Protestant church.

On 1410 build as Catholic Church - seven years earlier, in 1403, Breda came in hands of the Nassaus as fief to the Duke of Brabant. In 1566 King Philip II of Spain, Duke of Brabant, confiscated all properties of Willem I of Nassau, Prince of Orange.

1577 Protestant - Breda conquered by Willem I van Nassau, Prince d'Orange
1581 Catholic - Breda conquered by Alessandro Farnese e Parma, Duca di Parma
1590 Protestant - Breda conquered by Maurits van Nassau, Prince d'Orange
1625 Catholic - Breda conquered by Ambrogio Spinola Doria e Grimaldi, Marchese di Balbases
1637 Protestant - Breda conquered by Frederik Hendrik van Nassau, Prince d'Orange

All Catholic elements were removed and an empty Protestant interior was the result. Right opposite the pulpit still is the - quite simple- bench for the Prince and Princess of Orange.

Picture:
http://www.lichtendekerk.nl/CMS/uploads/0interieur-Grote-Kerk-Breda.jpg

Picture: usually a bench is decorated with flowery arrangements when the King or Queen uses it. Right after the return of Queen Wilhelmina in Breda, 1945, it was sparse.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Prinsenbank_Grote_Kerk_Breda_DSCF6037.JPG

This is not Breda cathedral. The cathedral is St Anthony's on Sint Janstraat and it was here that Queen Wilhelmina attended a Mass of thanksgiving.
 
The Great- or Our Lady's Church in Breda, with 6 centuries old Nassau graves, is a Protestant church.



1577 Protestant - Breda conquered by Willem I van Nassau, Prince d'Orange
1581 Catholic - Breda conquered by Alessandro Farnese e Parma, Duca di Parma
1590 Protestant - Breda conquered by Maurits van Nassau, Prince d'Orange
1625 Catholic - Breda conquered by Ambrogio Spinola Doria e Grimaldi, Marchese di Balbases
1637 Protestant - Breda conquered by Frederik Hendrik van Nassau, Prince d'Orange

Quite a lot of religious alterations I'm sure the Catholics restored the decoration each time only to be removed by the Calvinists and so on.
 
Would it be acceptable to the Dutch people and to the Dutch Royal House if Amalia for example decided to convert to Catholicism? I understand that only around 20 % of the Dutch population is now either Protestant or some form of non-Catholic Christian, so in principle it shouldn't be a big deal, but is it, given the history of the Orange-Nassau family and their connection to Protestantism?

I know it is unlikely that Amalia will convert (despite having a Catholic mother), but I am just asking a hypothetical question.
 
Last edited:
Would it be acceptable to the Dutch people and to the Dutch Royal House if Amalia for example decided to convert to Catholicism? I understand that only around 20 % of the Dutch population is now either Protestant or some form of non-Catholic Christian, so in principle it shouldn't be a big deal, but is it, given the history of the Orange-Nassau family and their connection to Protestantism?

I know it is unlikely that Amalia will convert (despite having a Catholic mother), but I am just asking a hypothetical question.

It won't cause as much uproar as when her great-aunts did so in the 60s (and 90s - not much uproar at all as she wasn't constitutional relevant). A few people (among them the political party SGP) will be unhappy but if she would truly would want to, it won't have serious consequences unlike when princess Irene did the same. But I don't expect her to do so. The family doesn't seem overly religious (although the king stresses at time his personal faith), so my guess would be that she will remain protestant as that is the tradition.
 
Thanks for posting this. It's interesting that she says she was no longer able to receive Communion after her divorce. That is actually not the Church's teaching, unless she remarried.
Interestingly enough, I found this website upon looking into this: Ask Father Leo: Can a divorced Catholic receive Communion? - The North Star Catholic

I truly wonder what he is alluding to with the following sentence:
A final note: Once the process is complete and if the Tribunal finds that the attempted marriage was invalid, any children born of that marriage are not illegitimate. Unless they are in line to the Dutch throne, they are completely unaffected.
 
Interestingly enough, I found this website upon looking into this: Ask Father Leo: Can a divorced Catholic receive Communion? - The North Star Catholic

I truly wonder what he is alluding to with the following sentence:
Wow, what an odd reference. I suspect he was making some random reference to royals who must be born of a valid marriage, but it's weird that he would mention the Dutch royals.

I don't think the Dutch royal house has ever had a restriction on religion, and I can't think of anyone who has lost their place in line to the Dutch throne because of religion in the past 150 years.
 
Wow, what an odd reference. I suspect he was making some random reference to royals who must be born of a valid marriage, but it's weird that he would mention the Dutch royals.

I don't think the Dutch royal house has ever had a restriction on religion, and I can't think of anyone who has lost their place in line to the Dutch throne because of religion in the past 150 years.
While princess Irene officially didn't loose her place in the line of succession because of it (marrying a pretender to the Spanish throne was even more problematic), her becoming roman catholic upon marriage would have been prohibitive to remaining in the line of succession at that time - her parents (and sisters) didn't attend her wedding, which was among other things because it was a Roman-Catholic one at the Vatican. Even Willem-Alexander promised to raise his children as protestants when marrying a Roman Catholic bride.

However, this comment was about an annulment and none of the marriage of those in line to the Dutch throne were Roman-Catholic marriages (Máxima got an exemption and other didn't ask permission or were never or no longer in line to the throne), so any annulment would be irrelevant imho.
 
While princess Irene officially didn't loose her place in the line of succession because of it (marrying a pretender to the Spanish throne was even more problematic), her becoming roman catholic upon marriage would have been prohibitive to remaining in the line of succession at that time - her parents (and sisters) didn't attend her wedding, which was among other things because it was a Roman-Catholic one at the Vatican. Even Willem-Alexander promised to raise his children as protestants when marrying a Roman Catholic bride.

However, this comment was about an annulment and none of the marriage of those in line to the Dutch throne were Roman-Catholic marriages (Máxima got an exemption and other didn't ask permission or were never or no longer in line to the throne), so any annulment would be irrelevant imho.
While there was some opposition to Irene marrying a Catholic, the royal family took pains to point out that they didn't attend the marriage because she had not received her mother's (or the government's) approval and had embarrassed them. They even watched it from the home of Bernhard's mother, who was herself Catholic.

Irene would have needed an annulment only if she wanted to remarry while Carlos Hugo. Since Carlos Hugo died many years ago, she is free to remarry in the Church.

(Christina would have been in a different position, since Jorge outlived her. She would have needed an annulment to remarry after their divorce.)

I've never been able to find a reference to the Catholic church approving Maxima's marriage to Willem Alexander. The only reference I could find was a Christianity Today story that noted the Dutch Cardinal Simonis saying he was "not enthusiastic" about the prospect of her converting. Since a Catholic priest did not perform the marriage, I doubt the church recognizes it officially. "After Much Debate, Dutch Churches Welcome Royal Engagement" - Christianity Today
 
While there was some opposition to Irene marrying a Catholic, the royal family took pains to point out that they didn't attend the marriage because she had not received her mother's (or the government's) approval and had embarrassed them. They even watched it from the home of Bernhard's mother, who was herself Catholic.
Exactly, however, marrying and becoming a Roman Catholic would have been sufficient at the time not to approve the marriage.

Irene would have needed an annulment only if she wanted to remarry while Carlos Hugo. Since Carlos Hugo died many years ago, she is free to remarry in the Church.

(Christina would have been in a different position, since Jorge outlived her. She would have needed an annulment to remarry after their divorce.)
Given that neither of their children were ever in line to the throne, the comment by Father Leo still doesn't make sense.

I've never been able to find a reference to the Catholic church approving Maxima's marriage to Willem Alexander. The only reference I could find was a Christianity Today story that noted the Dutch Cardinal Simonis saying he was "not enthusiastic" about the prospect of her converting. Since a Catholic priest did not perform the marriage, I doubt the church recognizes it officially. "After Much Debate, Dutch Churches Welcome Royal Engagement" - Christianity Today
The bishop of Rotterdam, Ad van Luyn, gave dispensation (for both her marriage and the christening in the protestant church of her eventual children).

At the time there were more sources discussing it but at the moment I can only find this short online source: Maxima blijft katholiek
 
Personally I would think that these days the Dutch RF would be the least religious RF in Europe.
 
By the time it had become more common to attend funerals in other countries (as travel options had increased), Roman Catholicism was quite a contentious issue in the Netherlands (after all, William the Silent fought for religious freedom, which in practice meant freedom from Roman-Catholicism). So, it made sense for the royal family to (visibly) stay far away from the Roman Catholic church (although individual members did not). For instance, the royal family did not attend the wedding of princess Irene at the Vatican with a Roman-Catholic pretender to the Spanish throne.

So, while relations now have normalized, and the Netherlands even has a Roman-Catholic queen (who however had to promise to raise her children protestant), there never was the 'tradition' of Dutch royals attending the funeral of the pope. Of course, that might change at some point, but the funeral taking place on the day that king's day is celebrated, doesn't help.
Thank you for this explanation, but I still do not fully understand. :flowers:

The Netherlands religious civil war in which Willem the Silent fought was three hundred years ago, and by 1831, the mostly-Catholic Kingdom of Belgium was willing to have a Protestant monarch (albeit one who raised his children as Catholics).

Why then was the idea of attending a Roman Catholic wedding or funeral still contentious in the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1964 (when Irene married, though I thought the main issue was the claim to the Spanish throne rather than the Catholicism) or in 2005 (when the Royal Family did not send a representative to Pope John Paul II’s funeral even though other staunchly Protestant royal families like Denmark and the UK sent senior royals)?
 
I am not sure in how far the 2005 absence was a consious choice and not a coincidence/ oversight. At earlier papal funerals most Northern royal families or even republics did not send the head of state either, nor another member of the royal family. By 2005 things changed, but perhaps the court did not forsee this. This was corrected aftrwards: the investure of Pope Francis was for example attended by the Prince and Princess of Orange and pope Benedikt's investure was attended by the Prince and Prime Minister Balkenende.

From the independance until the Napoleonic times the catholic regions -the so-called Generality lands- were run almost as a colony, not represented in the States General and ruled directly from The Hague. These areas were re-conquered from the Spanish but in the interlaying years the population had been subjected to/ benifited from the counter-reformation and for the most part became catholic again. The -admitedly flawed- logic was that as catholics they could not be trusted to be loyal to the state ánd unlike the rest of the country they had allowed themselves to be occupied by the Spanish while the upright protestants did not.

Although there were no religious wars in the 19th century and onwards the relations between the protestants and catholics were not always cordial and marked by a deep protestant distrust coupled with various popes in Rome trying to strengthen their grip on catholic life and Dutch catholics undergoing a process of emancipation. In the North catholics were only allowed to build open (visible) catholic churches after the change of the constitution of 1848 for example. Before that they would have to be more discreet. For a long time catholics (and Jews, lutherans, baptists etc) would be kept out of the upper elechons of society/politics. The first catholic Prime Minister would only be instated in 1918.

King Willem I toyed with the idea to merge the protestant church of the North and the catholic church of the south into one state church. This met with great resistance. The break-up of the United Netherlands was obviously celebrated in Belgium. But apart from the court, it was also a relief to the North, where the protestants were happy to be the majority again. The 'ungrateful Belgians' were blamed for it all and -not entirely without logic- many saw a papist plot at the root of it.

Willem II tried to come to a concordat with the Vatican, but he was hindered from achieving that by protestant groups.

Willem III became a figurehead for the protestants. In the 1850s he forced a government crisis and the resignation of the government when he supported the April-movement, where protestants signed fierce petitions against the reinstatement of the hierarchy of bisshoprics in the country, According to the writer of the petition the reinstatement was meant to 'make the King [and country] a slave of the pope [...] even more so than Philip II, murderer of William the Silent, ever did. What didn't help was a papal bull of 1853 by Pius IX where calvinism was named a heresy. The King refused to follow the advise of the government to decline to receive the anti-Roman petition, instead he praised the writers. Even after 1853 the bisshops of Haarlem and Utrecht were not allowed to take up residence in these cities for some years. The King's motivation may have been more worldy than religious as he always opposed the constitutional change and wanted to test and strech his powers.

Processions were forbidden by the constitution of 1848, which was only changed in 1983.

In 1885 King Willem III still refused to set foot in the national museum in Amsterdam. The architect was a catholic and the building reminded many of a catholic church and was fiercely critisized. His sister Sophie, Grand Duchess of Weimar funded the restauration of a catholic church on one of her Polish estates. When the renovation was finished she visited it. But she did not exit her carriage and sent a lady-in-waiting to inspect the church as 'a member of the house of Orange does not enter a catholic church'.

Queen Wilhelmina was always considered a rock of protestantism and had a certain reserve towards her catholic subjects. The preconception was always that the catholics were not loyal Dutchmen, as they were loyal to the pope. She resisted the installation of a catholic mayor of the city of Delft out of fear it would leave the royal crypt unprotected. She felt a lifelong connection to the Walloon church of the Hague of the Huguenots and to protestantism in France, as a descendant of Gaspard de Coligny via his daughter Louise, last wife of William the Silent.

This belief was apparently only changed later on in WWII. Initially she received reports about the resistance movements from the protestant vicar Visser 't Hooft. She received no reports from the catholic South, which led her to believe that they were indeed not loyal. This was only corrected in 1944 during the visit to London of a resistance leader of the South. The Queen -drastic as ever- then completely revised her opinion, also influenced by the examplary role of cardinal (still archbishop during the war) De Jong, who was leading catholic resistance. After her return she had many discussions with him and already in december 1945 she awarded him the Grand Cross of the Dutch lion. Upon her entry in Breda it was the archbisshop who was seated next to her in the car, while a protestant vicar took the back seat - much to his dismay. The friendship became so visible that the cardinal refused some royal invitations as he feared rumours about a secret catholic baptism of Pss Marijke (Christina) would start floating around and only accepted them after the protestant baptism. The cardinal later was postumously awarded the Yad Vashem in 2022.

Until the late 1960s or even beyond, much of Dutch society functioned in the so-called 'pillars'. In general people would stay in the pillar they were born: the protestant one, the catholic one, the socialist one, the liberal one. Each pillar would have their own associations, their own political parties, labor unions, radio-television stations etc. and cross-pillar marriages were not common, especially between the religions. Traditionally the protestant pillar was the most Orange-minded, promoting the idea of 'God, The Netherlands and Orange'.

The outrage at Irene's conversion was for a large part focussed on her re-baptism which many protestants found offensive. I believe this is not needed any longer, after the second Vatican Counsil. The outrage in protestant Netherlands focussed on the religious part, and it is sometimes claimed that the conversion was at the base of Irene not seeking parlemental approval for her wedding. This is not however not true. The reason why the marriage would not have been approved by parliament had to do with Carlos-Hugo's Spanish pretentions, not Irene's conversion. The pretentions -not the religion- were also the reason why Queen Juliana could not attend her daughter's wedding.

In 1985 Queen Beatrix was the first Oranje who visited the pope. 'Finalmente' she told him.

In 1998 the (by now tiny) orthodox protestant party still voted against the wedding of Prince Maurits and the catholic Marilène van den Broek. In 2002 they abstained IIRC. The wedding of Maurits and Marilene was oecumenic and Princess Juliana took the communion. Something that was criticised by the more orthodox protestants and catholics alike, as was the case when Bill Clinton too the hosti in South-Africa in 1998.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure in how far the 2005 absence was a consious choice and not a coincidence/ oversight. At earlier papal funerals most Northern royal families or even republics did not send the head of state either. By 2005 things changed, but perhaps the court did not forsee this. The investure of Pope Francis was for example attended by the Prince and Princess of Orange and pope Benedikt's investure was attended by the Prince and Prime Minister Balkenende.

From the independance until the Napoleonic times the catholic regions -the so-called Generality lands- were run almost as a colony, not represented in the States General and ruled directly from The Hague. These areas were re-conquered from the Spanish but in the interlaying years the population had been subjected to/ benifited from the counter-reformation and for the most part became catholic again. The -admitedly flawed- logic was that as catholics they could not be trusted to be loyal to the state ánd unlike the rest of the country they had allowed themselves to be occupied by the Spanish while the upright protestants did not.

Although there were no religious wars in the 19th century and onwards the relations between the protestants and catholics were not always cordial and marked by a deep protestant distrust coupled with various popes in Rome trying to strengthen their grip on catholic life. In the North catholics were only allowed to build open (visible) catholic churches after the change of the constitution of 1848 for example. Before that they would have to be more discreet. For a long time catholics (and Jews, lutherans, baptists etc) would be kept out of the upper elechons of society/politics. The first catholic Prime Minister would only be instated in 1918.

King Willem I toyed with the idea to merge the protestant church of the North and the catholic church of the south into one state church. This met with great resistance. The break-up of the United Netherlands was obviously celebrated in Belgium. But apart from the court, it was also a relief to the North, where the protestants were happy to be the majority again. The 'ungrateful Belgians' were blamed for it all and many saw a papist plot at the root of it all.

Willem III became a figurehead for the protestants. In the 1850s he forced a government crisis and the resignation of the government when he supported the April-movement, where protestants signed fierce petitions against the reinstatement of the hierarchy of bisshoprics in the country, According to the writer of the petition the reinstatement was meant to 'make the King [and country] a slave of the pope [...] even more so than Philip II, murderer of William the Silent, ever did. What didn't help was a papal bull of 1853 by Pius IX where calvinism was named a heresy. The King refused to follow the advise of the government to decline to receive the anti-Roman petition, instead he praised the writers. Even after 1853 the bisshops of Haarlem and Utrecht were not allowed to take up residence in these cities for some years.

Processions were forbidden by the constitution of 1848, which was only changed in 1983.

In 1885 King Willem III still refused to set foot in the national museum in Amsterdam. The architect was a catholic and the building reminded many of a catholic church and was fiercely critisized. His sister Sophie, Grand Duchess of Weimar funded the restauration of a catholic church on one of her Polish estates. When the renovation was finished she visited it. But she did not exit her carriage and sent a lady-in-waiting to inspect the church as 'a member of the house of Orange does not enter a catholic church'.

Queen Wilhelmina was always considered a rock of protestantism and had a certain reserve towards her catholic subjects. The preconception was always that the catholics were not loyal Dutchmen, as they were loyal to the pope. This belief was apparently only shaken later on in WWII. Initially she received reports about the resistance movements from the protestant vicar Visser 't Hooft. She received no reports from the south, which led her to believe that they were indeed not loyal. This was only corrected in 1944 during the visit to London of a resistance leader of the South. The Queen then completely revised her opinion, also influenced by the example of cardinal De Jong, who was leading catholic resistance and after her return she had many discussions with him and already in december 1945 she awarded him the Grand Cross of the Dutch lion. The friendship became so visible that the cardinal refused some invitations as he feared rumours about a secret catholic baptism of Pss Marijke (Christina) would start floating around and only acepted them after the protestant baptism.

Until the late 1960s or even beyond, Dutch society functioned in the so-called 'pillars'. Everybody would stay in the pillar they were born: the protestant one, the catholic one, the socialist one, the liberal one. Each pillar would have their own associations, their own political parties and cross-pillar marriages were rare, especially between the religions.

The distrust among some was still substantial. In the 1950s, during the Greet Hofmans affair, baron van Heeckeren van Molecaten still blamed a 'papist plot', headed by the converted Pss Armgard of Lippe, as the base for the controversy,

The outrage at Irene's conversion was for a large part focussed on her re-baptism which many protestants found offensive. I believe this is not needed any longer, after the second Vatican Counsil. The outrage in protestant parts focussed on the religious part, and it is sometimes claimed that the conversion was at the base of Irene not seeking parlemental approval for her wedding. This is not however not true. The reason why the marriage would not have been approved by parliament had to do with Carlos-Hugo's Spanish pretentions, not Irene's conversion. The pretentions -not the religion- were also the reason why Queen Juliana could not attend her daughter's wedding.

In 1998 the (by now tiny) orthodox protestant party still voted against the wedding of Prince Maurits and the catholic Marilène van den Broek. In 2002 they abstained IIRC. The wedding of Maurits and Marilene was oecomenic and Princess Juliana took the communion. Something that was criticised by the more orthodox protestants and catholics alike, as was the case when Bill Clinton too the hosti in South-Africa in 1998.
Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk, who is seen as a potential candidate of the conservative wing of the Roman Catholic Church to be the next Pope, has been incidentally a vocal opponent of allowing Protestants to take communion at Catholic services (which is something that Pope Francis is said to have considered during his reign).
 
Last edited:
:previous:

It was his predecessor, the very amiable Cardinal Simonis himself, who critisized Pss Juliana at the time. Later suggesting that she must have been confused (hinting to her dementia). But this was denied by father G. Oostvleugel. In the early 80ties he led the communion of three of the children of Pss Irene. He revealed in 2004 that the entire royal family except Queen Beatrix and Prince Claus took the communion. In her conversations with him it became clear Juliana was a big believer in the ecumenism and she told him she found the situation of having seperated churches in the Netherlands 'very bad' and she thought that religion was not about building walls. In a way -and with a very different motivation- echoing the belief of her anscestor King Willem I.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure in how far the 2005 absence was a consious choice and not a coincidence/ oversight. At earlier papal funerals most Northern royal families or even republics did not send the head of state either, nor another member of the royal family. By 2005 things changed, but perhaps the court did not forsee this. This was corrected aftrwards: the investure of Pope Francis was for example attended by the Prince and Princess of Orange and pope Benedikt's investure was attended by the Prince and Prime Minister Balkenende.

From the independance until the Napoleonic times the catholic regions -the so-called Generality lands- were run almost as a colony, not represented in the States General and ruled directly from The Hague. These areas were re-conquered from the Spanish but in the interlaying years the population had been subjected to/ benifited from the counter-reformation and for the most part became catholic again. The -admitedly flawed- logic was that as catholics they could not be trusted to be loyal to the state ánd unlike the rest of the country they had allowed themselves to be occupied by the Spanish while the upright protestants did not.

Although there were no religious wars in the 19th century and onwards the relations between the protestants and catholics were not always cordial and marked by a deep protestant distrust coupled with various popes in Rome trying to strengthen their grip on catholic life and Dutch catholics undergoing a process of emancipation. In the North catholics were only allowed to build open (visible) catholic churches after the change of the constitution of 1848 for example. Before that they would have to be more discreet. For a long time catholics (and Jews, lutherans, baptists etc) would be kept out of the upper elechons of society/politics. The first catholic Prime Minister would only be instated in 1918.

King Willem I toyed with the idea to merge the protestant church of the North and the catholic church of the south into one state church. This met with great resistance. The break-up of the United Netherlands was obviously celebrated in Belgium. But apart from the court, it was also a relief to the North, where the protestants were happy to be the majority again. The 'ungrateful Belgians' were blamed for it all and -not entirely without logic- many saw a papist plot at the root of it.

Willem II tried to come to a concordat with the Vatican, but he was hindered from achieving that by protestant groups.

Willem III became a figurehead for the protestants. In the 1850s he forced a government crisis and the resignation of the government when he supported the April-movement, where protestants signed fierce petitions against the reinstatement of the hierarchy of bisshoprics in the country, According to the writer of the petition the reinstatement was meant to 'make the King [and country] a slave of the pope [...] even more so than Philip II, murderer of William the Silent, ever did. What didn't help was a papal bull of 1853 by Pius IX where calvinism was named a heresy. The King refused to follow the advise of the government to decline to receive the anti-Roman petition, instead he praised the writers. Even after 1853 the bisshops of Haarlem and Utrecht were not allowed to take up residence in these cities for some years. The King's motivation may have been more worldy than religious as he always opposed the constitutional change and wanted to test and strech his powers.

Processions were forbidden by the constitution of 1848, which was only changed in 1983.

In 1885 King Willem III still refused to set foot in the national museum in Amsterdam. The architect was a catholic and the building reminded many of a catholic church and was fiercely critisized. His sister Sophie, Grand Duchess of Weimar funded the restauration of a catholic church on one of her Polish estates. When the renovation was finished she visited it. But she did not exit her carriage and sent a lady-in-waiting to inspect the church as 'a member of the house of Orange does not enter a catholic church'.

Queen Wilhelmina was always considered a rock of protestantism and had a certain reserve towards her catholic subjects. The preconception was always that the catholics were not loyal Dutchmen, as they were loyal to the pope. She resisted the installation of a catholic mayor of the city of Delft out of fear it would leave the royal crypt unprotected. She felt a lifelong connection to the Walloon church of the Hague of the Huguenots and to protestantism in France, as a descendant of Gaspard de Coligny via his daughter Louise, last wife of William the Silent.

This belief was apparently only changed later on in WWII. Initially she received reports about the resistance movements from the protestant vicar Visser 't Hooft. She received no reports from the catholic South, which led her to believe that they were indeed not loyal. This was only corrected in 1944 during the visit to London of a resistance leader of the South. The Queen -drastic as ever- then completely revised her opinion, also influenced by the examplary role of cardinal (still archbishop during the war) De Jong, who was leading catholic resistance. After her return she had many discussions with him and already in december 1945 she awarded him the Grand Cross of the Dutch lion. Upon her entry in Breda it was the archbisshop who was seated next to her in the car, while a protestant vicar took the back seat - much to his dismay. The friendship became so visible that the cardinal refused some royal invitations as he feared rumours about a secret catholic baptism of Pss Marijke (Christina) would start floating around and only accepted them after the protestant baptism. The cardinal later was postumously awarded the Yad Vashem in 2022.

Until the late 1960s or even beyond, much of Dutch society functioned in the so-called 'pillars'. In general people would stay in the pillar they were born: the protestant one, the catholic one, the socialist one, the liberal one. Each pillar would have their own associations, their own political parties and cross-pillar marriages were rare, especially between the religions. Traditionally the protestant pillar was the most Orange-minded, promoting the idea of 'God, The Netherlands and Orange'.

The outrage at Irene's conversion was for a large part focussed on her re-baptism which many protestants found offensive. I believe this is not needed any longer, after the second Vatican Counsil. The outrage in protestant Netherlands focussed on the religious part, and it is sometimes claimed that the conversion was at the base of Irene not seeking parlemental approval for her wedding. This is not however not true. The reason why the marriage would not have been approved by parliament had to do with Carlos-Hugo's Spanish pretentions, not Irene's conversion. The pretentions -not the religion- were also the reason why Queen Juliana could not attend her daughter's wedding.

In 1985 Queen Beatrix was the first Oranje who visited the pope. 'Finalmente' she told him.

In 1998 the (by now tiny) orthodox protestant party still voted against the wedding of Prince Maurits and the catholic Marilène van den Broek. In 2002 they abstained IIRC. The wedding of Maurits and Marilene was oecumenic and Princess Juliana took the communion. Something that was criticised by the more orthodox protestants and catholics alike, as was the case when Bill Clinton too the hosti in South-Africa in 1998.

Thank you very much for this detailed, fascinating and illustrative history of the religious conflicts in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Marengo. Reading this is very illuminating of how sectarian suspicion and contentiousness remained deeply rooted even after open warfare faded into the distant past.
 
Yes, thank you - that was fascinating. Probably because of the Anglo-Dutch links in the Eighty Years' War and the Glorious Revolution, we think of the Netherlands as being a very Protestant country. Orange is still the "Protestant" colour in Britain and even more so in both parts of Ireland. I think we get this simplistic view that all the mainly Catholic areas remained part of the Spanish Netherlands/Austrian Netherlands/Belgium. I honestly didn't realise that there were so many Catholics in the south of the Netherlands until Louis van Gaal - Aloysius Paulus Maria van Gaal - became manager of United (in 2014)!

The events of the 16th and 17th centuries cast a long shadow.

Thanks again for taking the time to write all that :) .
 
Back
Top Bottom