Double Portrait of Willem II (1626-1650), Prince of Orange, and Princess Mary Stuart (1631-1660), later Princess Royal

…; collection Amalia van Solms, Princess of Orange (1602-75), widow of Frederik Hendrik, in the antechamber to a suite of rooms, originally allocated to Willem II, on the west side of Huis ten Bosch, near The Hague (‘1188 Een schilderije van sijn hoogheyt prince Willem hooglofl. memorie met princesse royale bij Van Dijck gemaeckt’), estate inventories, 1654, 1658 and 1664;¹¹See S.W.A. Drossaers and T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Inventarissen van de inboedels in de verblijven van de Oranjes en daarmee gelijk te stellen stukken 1567-1795, 3 vols., The Hague 1974-76, I, 1974, pp. 281-82. her grandson, Willem III; moved to his hunting lodge, Het Loo, Apeldoorn, c. 1693;²²Noted there by lawyer Beckeringh and Redger Bolhuis in 1705: ‘boven de schoorsteen zagh men prins Willem de tweede uitgebeeld met de princesse royale met haar beyde op de trouwdagh 27 [sic] jaeren oudt’. See S.W.A. Drossaers and T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Inventarissen van de inboedels in de verblijven van de Oranjes en daarmee gelijk te stellen stukken 1567-1795, 3 vols., The Hague 1974-76, I, 1974, p. 282 under note 1188. his heir, Johan Willem Friso; his son, Willem IV, recorded at Het Loo, Apeldoorn (‘832 Het pourtrait van prins Willem de Tweede en de princesse royal door Van Dijk’), 1713;³³Estate inventory 1713, see S.W.A. Drossaers and T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Inventarissen van de inboedels in de verblijven van de Oranjes en daarmee gelijk te stellen stukken 1567-1795, 3 vols., The Hague 1974-76, I, 1974, p. 677, the documents signed in his behalf by the prince’s grandfather Karl, Landgraf of Hesse-Kassel (1654-1730), and his mother Marie Louise. his son Willem V, as in the Cabinet near the Ballroom, Apeldoorn (‘20. Prins Willem van Orange de 2e met princesse dogter van Carel den 1e door Van Dijk’ 7 v. 1 d. 5 v. 7 d.’ [approx. 222.4 x 175.3 cm] and noted as ‘Vast aen de schoorsteen’), estate inventory, 1757;⁴⁴See S.W.A. Drossaers and T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Inventarissen van de inboedels in de verblijven van de Oranjes en daarmee gelijk te stellen stukken 1567-1795, 3 vols., The Hague 1974-76, II, 1974, pp. 639-40. The size given is approx. 42.4 cm higher and approx. 43.3 cm wider, which indicates that the measurements include that of the frame or moulded surround, approx. 20 cm wide at each edge. following his flight to England in 1795, transferred to the museum, 1808;⁵⁵No. 165 in the third room (‘Kinderen van Karel de Eerste door A. van Dyck’), see P.J.J. van Thiel, ‘De inrichting van de Nationale Konst-Gallery in het openingsjaar 1800’, Oud Holland 95 (1981), pp. 170-227, p. 207. Moes and Biema summarize references to it 1798-1808, see E.W. Moes and E. van Biema, De Nationale Konst-Gallery en Het Koninklijk Museum, Amsterdam 1909, p. 202; Waldorp (1801 and 1804), described the work as by Honthorst, see J.G. Waldorp’s ‘Lijst’, transcribed in E.W. Moes and E. van Biema, De Nationale Konst-Gallery en Het Koninklijk Museum, Amsterdam 1909, pp. 39-43, 67-74. on loan to the Haags Historisch Museum, 2005-08

ObjectNumber: SK-A-102

There can be no doubt about the identity of the sitters in the present double portrait: they are Princess Mary (1631-1660), the eldest surviving daughter of King Charles I of Great Britain (1600-1649) and Queen Henrietta Maria (Henriette Marie de Bourbon; 1609-1669), and Willem (1626-1650), Prince of Orange, Count of Nassau, the eldest and only surviving son of Frederik Hendrik (1584-1647), Prince of Orange, Stadholder and Captain General of six (at the time) of the United Provinces and Amalia van Solms-Braunfels (1602-1675).

The double portrait commemorates the wedding of the sitters on 12 May 1641. The bridegroom holds the left hand of his bride and draws attention to the wedding ring on her third finger. The Prince stands on the sinister side (on her left) in recognition of his bride’s superior royal status; she is in the place of honour, on the dexter side (on his right).⁹⁹Rosenau (H. Rosenau, ‘Some Portraits of Princess Mary’, The Burlington Magazine 83 (1943), p. 207) described the interaction of the two sitters as the Dextrarum junctio with ‘a concession to the gallantry of the age’, which was accepted by Waterhouse (E.K. Waterhouse, ‘Van Dyck and the Amsterdam Double Portrait’, The Burlington Magazine 86 (1945), pp. 50-51, esp. p. 50), who emphasized the political significance conveyed by the painting; Z.Z. Filipczak, ‘Van Dyck’s Men and Women in Humoral Perspective’, Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen (1999), pp. 50-69, pp. 63-65. During the ceremony, after the bestowal of the ring, the couple knelt at the communion table with the ‘Bride upon the Right Hand’, see Joannis Lelandi Antiquarii de Rebus Britannicis Collectanea cum Thomae Haernii Appendicis ad Johannis Lelandi Antiquarii Collectanea, 6 vols., London 1774, ed. Farnborough 1970 (ed. princ. 1715), V, p. 346; reference to The Ceremonial of the Marriage between William … and Mary etc., edited in 1733 from an original manuscript and published as an appendix in Thomas Hearne’s 1774 edition of John Leland’s De Rebus Britannicis Collectanea; the reference is from Marieke de Winkel, whose great help is gratefully acknowledged. See further below. But he is given the greater prominence, as he is placed slightly before her, to emphasize the dynastic significance of the wedding for the princely house to which he was heir. The disposition of the protagonists was unusual and was thus probably carefully worked out, most likely it was dictated by an adviser or advisers of the prince and princess of Orange.

For Prince Frederik Hendrik, the marriage of his heir into the royal house of Stuart and to the eldest daughter of the king of Great Britain was a triumph for the house of Orange-Nassau because it would add greatly to its prestige and standing.¹⁰¹⁰For instance, the view of the Venetian ambassador in London, in a despatch of 16 May 1641, A.B. Hinds (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, 1640-1642. Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, London 1924, p. 147. He had been accorded the title of Altesse or Highness, reserved for princes of the blood, by King Louis XIII of France (1601-1643) in 1637, a form of address which was soon adopted by the States General;¹¹¹¹I. Groeneweg in M. Keblusek and J. Zijlmans (eds.), Princely Display: The Court of Frederik Hendrik of Orange and Amalia van Solms, The Hague (Haags Historisch Museum) 1997, p. 36. its extended use to Prince Willem was confirmed by Charles I as the bridegroom made his way to London.¹²¹²A.J. Loomie (ed.), Ceremonies of Charles I: The Notebooks of John Finet, (1628-1641), New York 1987, p. 308. The special ambassadors, sent by the prince of Orange to negotiate the marriage in London, quickly let their jubilation be known once the king had agreed to it.¹³¹³Despatch of the Venetian ambassador in London, 11 February 1641, A.B. Hinds (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, 1640-1642. Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, London 1924, p. 120.

An anonymous, contemporary print, with verses by J. Soet in English and Dutch and published by Frans van Beusekom (active Amsterdam and London 1642-65), illustrated the disparity in the social hierarchy between the parents of the young couple.¹⁴¹⁴Illustrated in P. van der Ploeg and C. Vermeeren (eds.), Princely Patrons: The Collection of Frederick Henry of Orange and Amalia of Solms in The Hague, The Hague (Mauritshuis) 1997-98, p. 32, fig. 4. And from the point of view of the house of Stuart the marriage was a mésalliance following as it did earlier aspirations for a double wedding with the children of King Philip IV of Spain (1605-1665), of the house of Habsburg.¹⁵¹⁵Despatch of the Venetian ambassador in London, 13 June 1640, A.B. Hinds (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, 1640-1642. Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, London 1924, p. 5. In fact, Charles I was under increasing domestic pressure; he may have hoped to influence the Calvinist Scots, whose army had occupied the north-east of England from the late summer of 1640, through the offices of the Calvinist prince of Orange.¹⁶¹⁶Despatch of the Venetian ambassador in London, 28 December 1640, A.B. Hinds (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, 1640-1642. Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, London 1924, p. 107.

The marriage was quickly arranged: the ambassadors extraordinary, sent to negotiate it, arrived in London early in 1641; and in a letter of 21 February, Charles I wrote to Frederik Hendrik agreeing to it.¹⁷¹⁷G. Groen van Prinsterer, Archives ou correspondance inédite de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, 14 vols., Utrecht 1841-61, III, 1859, p. 357; W.D. Hamilton (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic Series of the Reign of Charles I. 1641-43, Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, London 1887, p. 499. The marriage contract was signed on 25 March, and Prince Willem arrived at Gravesend on the Thames estuary on 29 April with a retinue of 150 followers, and was received at court the following day.¹⁸¹⁸Prince Willem to his father, 2 May 1641, G. Groen van Prinsterer, Archives ou correspondance inédite de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, 14 vols., Utrecht 1841-61, III, 1859, p. 437. The master of ceremonies recorded that the date of the wedding was ‘suddenly designed’ to take place on 12 May in the household chapel in Whitehall Palace.¹⁹¹⁹A.J. Loomie (ed.), Ceremonies of Charles I: The Notebooks of John Finet, (1628-1641), New York 1987, p. 310. The king and the Dutch ambassadors had agreed that the solemnities should be ‘courte et sans rien d’extérieure’ – that there was not to be ‘so much as a show of a public feast’²⁰²⁰Despatch of the Dutch ambassadors extraordinary in London, 9 May 1641, G. Groen van Prinsterer, Archives ou correspondance inédite de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, 14 vols., Utrecht 1841-61, III, 1859, p. 447; A.J. Loomie (ed.), Ceremonies of Charles I: The Notebooks of John Finet, (1628-1641), New York 1987, p. 312. – no doubt because of the political turmoil in London. The prince did not take leave of his parents-in-law until 2 June.²¹²¹F.J.L. Krämer, ‘Journalen van der Stadhouder Willem II uit de Jaren 1641-1650’, Bijdragen en Mededelingen van het Historisch Genootschap 19 (1906), pp. 413-535, esp. p. 420. In the intervening days, the king’s most powerful councillor, the Earl of Strafford, was beheaded for high treason. As the Venetian ambassador reported, ‘The disturbances continue in this Court with increasing peril to the royal house …’.²²²²Despatch of the Venetian ambassador in London, 24 May 1641, A.B. Hinds (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, 1640-1642. Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, London 1924, p. 150.

The prince is recorded as having made gifts of jewellery to the princess among others before, during and after the ceremony;²³²³Despatches of the Venetian ambassador in London 10 and 16 May 1641, A.B. Hinds (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, 1640-1642. Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, London 1924, pp. 145, 147. these are recorded in a list headed ‘Presents to be given in England by Prince Willem of Orange.’²⁴²⁴S.I. van Nooten, Prins Willem II, The Hague 1915, p. 175. ‘Présents qui se feront en Angleterre de la part du Prince Guillaume d’Orange’, in the French original. At her bosom in the Rijksmuseum picture the princess wears a jewel described at the time as a casket of four stones and a pendant of cut diamonds;²⁵²⁵The French original reads: ‘Une Boëtte de 4 Peirres et une Pendelocque tous diamans à facettes’. it had been bought by the prince’s father from the renown Antwerp jeweller Gaspar Duarte (1548-1653) for 48,000 guilders and was given to her on the day after her wedding.²⁶²⁶See most recently T. de Paepe, ‘Networking in high society. The Duarte family in seventeenth century Antwerp’, 2010 online, pp. 6-8. Gaspar had described the jewels thus: ‘les quartres diamants joints ensemble font une parade d’un seul diamant’, and had originally priced it at 1 million florins. She received at the same time ‘the one hundred and twenty pearls which had belonged to the Infanta [Isabella Clara Eugenia, Infanta of Spain and Governor of the Netherlands]’²⁷²⁷The French original reads: ‘Les cent et vingt Perles qui ont eté a l’Infante’. and which Prince Frederik Hendrik had bought from Elias Voet (1586/88-1653) also of Antwerp for fl. 40,000.²⁸²⁸S.I. van Nooten, Prins Willem II, The Hague 1915, Appendix C, Declaration of Expenses for the wedding, p. 178; R. van Luttervelt, ‘Het portret van Willem II en Maria Stuart in het Rijksmuseum’, Oud Holland 68 (1953), pp. 159-69, esp. pp. 159ff; C. Ryskamp et al., William & Mary and their House, exh. cat. New York (Pierpont Morgan Library) 1979-80, under no. 34. However, on her wedding finger is the ‘ring … not the diamond ring but a simple gold ring’²⁹²⁹The French original reads : ‘bague … c’ettoit point la bague de diamant, mais une bague tout d’or simple’. which, as the prince reported to his father, in a letter of 27 May, he had given to the princess during the ceremony after the marriage vows had been made: ‘The bridegroom laid a little Ring of Gold upon the Common Prayer Book, which he put upon the Bride’s Finger’.³⁰³⁰G. Groen van Prinsterer, Archives ou correspondance inédite de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, 14 vols., Utrecht 1841-61, III, 1859, p. 461; Joannis Lelandi Antiquarii de Rebus Britannicis Collectanea cum Thomae Haernii Appendicis ad Johannis Lelandi Antiquarii Collectanea, 6 vols., London 1774, ed. Farnborough 1970 (ed. princ. 1715), V, p. 346.

No archival information has been published concerning the dress worn by the princess at her wedding; that shown in the portrait is described by Ribeiro as a silver tissue court dress and ‘one of the grandest and exquisitely painted dresses in Van Dyck’s work’.³¹³¹A. Ribeiro, Fashion and Fiction: Dress in Art and Literature in Stuart England, New Haven (Conn.)/London 2005, p. 112. For De Winkel it is a wedding gown of cloth of ‘silver’, which followed the tradition of France, Holland, Scandinavia and German-speaking countries.³²³²Marieke de Winkel’s private communication of February 2008, the comments on the prince’s costume that follow are also due to her. The princess’s appearance, she points out, accords with the account given in a likely to be authentic manuscript account edited in 1733 and published in 1774 as an appendix to Leland’s Collectanea: ‘ … the Bride habited in White embroidered with Silver, her Hair tyed up with silver Ribbands, not dishevilled about her shoulders as in former Times used, her Head adorned with a Garland of Pendant Pearls … ’; this goes on to describe her as wearing only an abundance of pearls including ‘a Rose of six great pendant Pearls’ at her breast (rather than the diamond brooch depicted by Van Dyck); thus apart from the dress, though without the train,³³³³Joannis Lelandi Antiquarii de Rebus Britannicis Collectanea cum Thomae Haernii Appendicis ad Johannis Lelandi Antiquarii Collectanea, 6 vols., London 1774, ed. Farnborough 1970 (ed. princ. 1715), V, pp. 343-44. the Princess is not portrayed here in the ensemble that she is described as having worn at her wedding.

The accounts of Dutch steward Arend van Dorp show that the groom in anticipation of the wedding followed the example of ‘the court and gentry [who] are preparing gorgeous liveries and rich clothes …’.³⁴³⁴De Navorscher 14 (1864), pp. 164-66; for the despatch of the Venetian ambassador in London, 3 May 1641, A.B. Hinds (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, 1640-1642. Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, London 1924, p. 142. Van Luttervelt³⁵³⁵R. van Luttervelt, ‘Het portret van Willem II en Maria Stuart in het Rijksmuseum’, Oud Holland 68 (1953), pp. 159-69, esp. p. 164; the text of the account by Van Dorp was published in De Navorscher 14 (1864), p. 165. believed that one of the elaborate suits itemized in Van Dorp’s accounts, is that worn by the prince in the portrait:

16 May, made:
a suit and cloak, to this rose-colour taffeta, canvas and stiffening /
5½ yards rose-colour tabby at 24 shill [for a cloak] /
9½ yards silver tabby [for a doublet] at 32 shill the yard [for the doublet and lining the cloak] /
3½ yards armosin, silk, stitching and sewing silk [for lining] /
Stiffening for the collar [of the doublet] and chest /
White satin to line the collar [of the doublet]/
14 dozen ells of silver lace, weighing 62 ounces at 5½ shill. the ounce /
Silver buttons, canvas and stiffening [for the cloak] /
For making, as above, 5 pounds and 10 shills.³⁶³⁶The original reads: ‘Den 16n Mayus ghemaect een Cleet en Mantel, daertoe Rosenkouleur _taubyn_, kanefaes en styvingh / 5½ jards rosenkleur taubyn a 24 schell. / 9½ jards Silver Taubyn en een wambais a 32 schell. de Jart voort wambais ende voeijeringe in de mantel/ 3½ jards Armoisyn, syde, stick en naeysyde / styvingh tot de craegh en borstgens / wit sattyn om de craegh te voeren / 14 dozijn Ellen silvre kantgens, weghende 62 oncen a 5½ schell. de once / silvere knoopen, kanefaes ende styvingh tot de mantel / voor maeckloon als vooren 5 pont 10 schell.’ Marieke de Winkel has kindly provided the translation.

This suit is not that portrayed by Van Dyck, as De Winkel has kindly pointed out, as the prince is shown in a rose-coloured satin suit embroidered with silver; there is no sign of the silver-coloured doublet or the watered effect of silk tabby. As Van Dorp was using the Gregorian style for dating, the suit he itemized would have been available on 12 May, but it is unlikely that the prince would have worn it at the ceremony. The account in the Collectanea describes him then as wearing ‘a Suite and Cloak of unshorne [the pile uncut] velvet richly embroidered with Silver’,³⁷³⁷Joannis Lelandi Antiquarii de Rebus Britannicis Collectanea cum Thomae Haernii Appendicis ad Johannis Lelandi Antiquarii Collectanea, 6 vols., London 1774, ed. Farnborough 1970 (ed. princ. 1715), V, p. 343. which De Winkel believes was most probably black, an embroidered suit of black velvet being normally worn by noble bridegrooms. Of course it is possible that Van Dyck depicted a suit owned by the prince – he is shown holding a beaver hat, doffed as the princess's precedence required, which was perhaps the one he had had bought in London – but De Winkel points out that very often at the time the doublet and breeches were different from the cloak in fabric, colour and trimming. So the prince’s costume, however elegant, may in part be fanciful.

The Rijksmuseum painting was usually described as an autograph work by Van Dyck until the late 1920s, when Schneider³⁸³⁸H. Schneider, ‘Die Ausstellung flämischer und belgischer Kunst in London’, Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 61 (1927/28), esp. p. 24. followed by Glück in 1931, referring also to Burchard,³⁹³⁹G. Glück, Van Dyck: Des Meisters Gemälde, Klassiker der Kunst, 2nd revised ed., Stuttgart/New York/London 1931, pp. 576-77, note to p. 505. expressed reservations. Adriaen Hanneman (c. 1601-1671) and Peter Lely (1618-1680) were associated with its execution.⁴⁰⁴⁰G. Glück, ‘Reflections on Van Dyck’s Early Death’, The Burlington Magazine 79 (1941), pp. 193-95, esp. p. 199; E.K. Waterhouse, ‘Van Dyck and the Amsterdam Double Portrait’, The Burlington Magazine 86 (1945), pp. 50-51, esp. p. 50. See also museum catalogues 1934-60. Hanneman can be ruled out, as he had left England by 1638 and was listed in the Haarlem painters’ guild in 1640.⁴¹⁴¹J. Turner (ed.), The Dictionary of Art, 34 vols., Basingstoke 1996, XIV, p. 139. Peter Lely’s candidature is to a degree validated by Houbraken’s confused account of his journeying to England in 1643 (sic) to paint the portraits of the bridal couple.⁴²⁴²P.T.A. Swillens (ed.), De Groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche Konstschilders en Schilderessen door Arnold Houbraken, 3 vols., Maastricht 1943-53, II, 1944, p. 34. Indeed nothing certain is known of the young Lely between 1637 and 1647, but he is not specifically named as one of the prince’s retinue; nor can he be counted among the categories of servants also listed.⁴³⁴³F.J.L. Krämer, ‘Journalen van der Stadhouder Willem II uit de Jaren 1641-1650’, Bijdragen en Mededelingen van het Historisch Genootschap 19 (1906), pp. 413-535, esp. pp. 422-24. Also, it seems inherently improbable that he should thus have personated Van Dyck’s manner, or that he should have joined an experienced and accredited studio for the purpose of executing the commission, especially as portraiture seems not to have been his early speciality. Indeed the 1976 museum catalogue preferred not to be specific, and simply lists the work as by Van Dyck’s studio. Millar expressed some further guarded qualifications in 1982,⁴⁴⁴⁴O. Millar, Van Dyck in England, exh. cat. London (National Portrait Gallery) 1982-83, under no. 62. but more recently he enthusiastically endorsed Van Dyck’s authorship by describing the painting as ‘an exceptionally important commission, the last surviving work of this significance carried out for a royal [sic] patron and with conspicuous success’.⁴⁵⁴⁵Millar in S.J. Barnes, N. de Poorter, O. Millar and H. Vey, Anthony van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven (Conn.)/London 2004, under no. IV.242. The handling of the figures compares with other portraits executed in the summer of 1641: the full lengths of Princess Mary (private collection, England) and of the Prince of Wales in military dress (Newport, Rhode Island, Newport Restoration Foundation).⁴⁶⁴⁶Millar in S.J. Barnes, N. de Poorter, O. Millar and H. Vey, Anthony van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven (Conn.)/London 2004, nos. IV.163 and IV.67.

However, there is little evidence here of Van Dyck’s brushwork in the background, where the sky is worn and characterless. The damask hanging and masonry are pedestrian in handling, although the motif itself – the juxtaposing of a damask hanging with a column silhouetted against the sky – would certainly have been most likely familiar in the studio;⁴⁷⁴⁷The pronounced participation of the studio in several stages (with Hanneman executing the prince’s face in Holland) was advanced by Staring (A. Staring, ‘Nogmaals het portret van Willem II en Maria Stuart in het Rijksmuseum’, Oud Holland 70 (1955), pp. 155-62), and more recently accepted by Judson and Ekkart (J.R. Judson and R.E.O. Ekkart, Gerrit van Honthorst 1592-1656, Doornspijk 1999, p. 249, note 1, under no. 313). it had been earlier used in the full-length portrait of King Charles I in the British Royal Collection Trust.⁴⁸⁴⁸S.J. Barnes, N. de Poorter, O. Millar and H. Vey, Anthony van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven (Conn.)/London 2004, no. IV.53.

The two faces are handled differently perhaps to convey a contrast – as might then have been expected – between the groom’s extrovert masculinity and the bride’s feminine modesty. Van Dyck would have been familiar with Princess Mary’s developing physiognomy; indeed a portrait (private collection, England)⁴⁹⁴⁹Millar in S.J. Barnes, N. de Poorter, O. Millar and H. Vey, Anthony van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven (Conn.)/London 2004, no. IV.162 and under no. IV.161. of her had been sent to the prince before his departure for England (Charles I had joked about it at his first meeting with the prince).⁵⁰⁵⁰Despatch of the Dutch ambassadors extraordinary of 2 May 1641, G. Groen van Prinsterer, Archives ou correspondance inédite de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, 14 vols., Utrecht 1841-61, III, 1859, pp. 434-35. Van Dyck may have relied on his study for this picture when executing the Rijksmuseum double portrait. But he had not seen the prince for some ten years,⁵¹⁵¹Vey in S.J. Barnes, N. de Poorter, O. Millar and H. Vey, Anthony van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven (Conn.)/London 2004, no. III.114; this portrait (Schloss Mosigkau) is dated to 1632. thus obviously necessitating a more prolonged study of his appearance. The brooch and wedding dress of the princess would have also required detailed study; the prince’s apparel may have depended – as noted above – on the artist’s inventive powers. Twelve days are left unaccounted for in the prince’s diary of his visit.⁵²⁵²F.J.L. Krämer, ‘Journalen van der Stadhouder Willem II uit de Jaren 1641-1650’, Bijdragen en Mededelingen van het Historisch Genootschap 19 (1906), pp. 413-535, esp. pp. 416ff. In one or two of such, Van Dyck could have had the opportunity to effect the necessary preparatory work. The clothes in the painting are rendered with a convincing attention to detail that presupposes at the very least Van Dyck’s active and close supervision.

Although the double portrait is first listed in the possession of the bridegroom’s mother in The Hague in 1654, there is no certainty as to whether it was commissioned for the house of Orange or for the house of Stuart, whose court painter Van Dyck was. It does not feature in the detailed accounts of Charles I’s possessions at the Commonwealth Sale of 1649 and years following. Nor has any payment for it been traced in the Oranje-Nassau archives. But it seems unlikely that the work was painted for Charles. Given that the focus of the work is principally on Prince Willem the commission most probably came from one or both of his parents, who were already patrons of the artist as Millar was the first to suggest.⁵³⁵³O. Millar, Van Dyck in England, exh. cat. London (National Portrait Gallery) 1982-83, under no. 620; Broos in R. van Leeuwen (ed.), Paintings from England, William III and the Royal Collections, exh. cat. The Hague (Mauritshuis) 1988-89, under no. 25; J. E. (Judy Egerton) in C. Brown et al., Van Dyck 1599-1641, exh. cat. Antwerp (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten)/London (Royal Academy of Arts) 1999, under no. 105.

If that is indeed the case, it can be assumed that the commission was effected on their behalf by the ambassadors extraordinary whom Frederik Hendrik sent to negotiate the marriage and who attended the bridegroom. Or it may perhaps have been commissioned by one of these diplomats independently, especially as no payment to the artist is recorded in Van Dorp’s very detailed accounts of the expenditure of the prince and his retinue during their trip to London.⁵⁴⁵⁴Published in De Navorscher 14 (1864) and 15 (1865) passim. The most likely candidate among them is the most senior, Johan Wolfert, Count of Brederode (1599-1655), who, it seems, himself commissioned a portrait of Princess Mary from Van Dyck.

This emerges from a letter written to him on 13 August 1641 from the Countess of Roxburghe, lady of the bedchamber to the queen and preceptress of the royal children.⁵⁵⁵⁵Published anonymously with no archival source given in De Navorscher 22 (1872), pp. 510-11; the text given here is that provided by M.E. Tiethoff-Spliethoff, ‘Familiereünie in Vianen. Portretten van Johan Wolfert van Brederode en zijn gezin herenigd’, in A.J.M. Koenheim (ed.), Johan Wolfert van Brederode 1599-1655. Een Hollands edelman tussen Nassau en Oranje, Zutphen 1999, pp. 75-84, esp. p. 79. The original is in ARA (Algemeen Rijksarchief, Familienbrief Brederode), 29, The Hague, National Archives, Familiearchief Brederode (3.20.07), inv. 29, see Tiethoff-Spliethoff 1999, p. 81, note 6. It was in reply to one evidently enquiring about a painting which he had expected from Van Dyck but was overdue. The wording of the letter is ambiguous, but it seems to refer to three rather than two paintings by Van Dyck; their execution had been delayed, because, as Lady Roxburghe explained, the artist had been ill for much of the time since the ambassador’s departure in early June. This meant that – in her words – ‘I could not have the portrait [of Princess Mary], destined for the prince [probably Willem] … until this time.’ Van Dyck had promised the Queen [Henrietta Maria], to whom Van Brederode seems also to have written, that ‘he will have yours ready in eight days’. She reported that the artist was to leave for Holland in ten or twelve days and that he would bring it with him along with ‘another which he will make for Madam the Princess of Orange’, i.e. Amalia van Solms.⁵⁶⁵⁶The French original reads: ‘Je n’ay peu auoir le Portrait … jusqu’a cett’ heure. / … il auroit le vostre pret dans huict Jours. / … un autre qu’il faisoit pour Madame La Princess d’Auraugnes’.

Two portraits of the princess (private collections, England) painted after her marriage are extant;⁵⁷⁵⁷Millar in S.J. Barnes, N. de Poorter, O. Millar and H. Vey, Anthony van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven (Conn.)/London 2004, nos. IV.163, IV.164. they can probably be identified with the first two pictures discussed by Lady Roxburghe. That for the young prince was probably despatched to Holland soon after she wrote; it is of superior quality and shows the face of the princess slightly fuller than in the portrait earlier sent to the prince,⁵⁸⁵⁸Millar in S.J. Barnes, N. de Poorter, O. Millar and H. Vey, Anthony van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven (Conn.)/London 2004, no. IV.162. which he had implicitly criticized by gallantly remarking that he found the princess more beautiful than her portrait, ‘plus belle que son portrait’.⁵⁹⁵⁹G. Groen van Prinsterer, Archives ou correspondance inédite de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, 14 vols., Utrecht 1841-61, III, 1859, p. 437 and p. 461. Although there is no proof, the third picture, referred to by Lady Roxburghe, as intended for the princess of Orange, may be the Rijksmuseum double portrait, especially as Amalia van Solms was documented as its owner not long thereafter.

There is no good reason to doubt that Van Dyck made this journey to the northern Netherlands, although no other accounts corroborate it. Baudouin believes that he travelled from there to Antwerp and thence to Calais, where he is known to have been around 4 October, determined to travel on to Paris.⁶⁰⁶⁰H. Hymans, ‘Les dernières années de Van Dyck’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 36 (1887), no. 2, pp. 432-40, esp. p. 439; F. Baudouin, ‘Van Dyck’s Last Religious Commission: An Altarpiece for Antwerp Cathedral’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 57 (1994), pp. 175-90, esp. pp. 178ff. That the double portrait was already in the northern Netherlands in the 1640s is perhaps demonstrated by the similarity of the poses of the young couple with those in the print, published by Frans van Beusekom, in which Frederik Hendrik, who died in 1647, and Charles I, executed in 1649, both appear with their spouses.

Probably at least partly in recognition of the dynastic importance of this double portrait, Van Dyck’s assistants appear to have executed copies before the original left the studio. Most likely one of these rather than the Rijksmuseum picture should be identified with the ‘One picture called the Prince and Princess of Orange’ which was one of a group of pictures found in Van Dyck’s studio at his death in December 1641, and which was then the subject of a lengthy legal dispute.⁶¹⁶¹C. Brown and N. Ramsay, ‘Van Dyck’s Collection: Some New Documents’, The Burlington Magazine 132 (1990), pp. 704-09, esp. pp. 704ff., where identified as ‘presumably’ the Rijksmuseum picture (p. 706). The group may have been dispersed by 1650 and Millar has suggested that it may be identified with that seen by Lodewijck Huygens when in London on 9 January 1652, as recorded in his diary: ‘… we saw a painting of H.H. Prince William and the Princess Royal by Van Dyck which was painted from life when they were married here; he [the owner] said that it belonged to a nobleman but did not name him.’⁶²⁶²Broos in R. van Leeuwen (ed.), Paintings from England, William III and the Royal Collections, exh. cat. The Hague (Mauritshuis) 1988-89, under no. 25; Millar in S.J. Barnes, N. de Poorter, O. Millar and H. Vey, Anthony van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven (Conn.)/London 2004, under no. IV.242. This work may have entered the English royal collection after 1660, and be the one recorded in the collection of King James II (1633-1701).⁶³⁶³A Catalogue of the Collection of Pictures, &c. belonging to King James the Second etc., printed for W. Bathoe, London 1758, p. 67: ‘Pictures of the Kings, in the Queen Dowagers’ Custody … No 750/Vandyck The late Prince and Princess of Orange’; Broos in R. van Leeuwen (ed.), Paintings from England, William III and the Royal Collections, exh. cat. The Hague (Mauritshuis) 1988-89, under no. 25; Millar in S.J. Barnes, N. de Poorter, O. Millar and H. Vey, Anthony van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven (Conn.)/London 2004, under no. IV.242. Its subsequent, and otherwise inexplicable, disappearance may have led to its inclusion as no. 25 in the Earl of Stanhope’s 1702 list of pictures claimed to have been removed from the English royal collection by King William III (1650-1702): ‘The prince & princesse of orange y [e] late k[ing]s fathers et mothers at length in one piece by van dyke’;⁶⁴⁶⁴R. van Leeuwen (ed.), Paintings from England, William III and the Royal Collections, exh. cat. The Hague (Mauritshuis) 1988-89, p. 61, as ‘must have been claimed in error’. no further light has been shed on the whereabouts of the picture Huygens saw.

Another version (improbably that seen by Huygens in London in 1652) is recorded in the 1681 inventory of Princess Albertina Agnes van Nassau-Orange (1634-1691), daughter of Frederik Hendrik and Amalia van Solms, and the widow of Prince Willem Frederik van Nassau-Dietz (1613-1664): at Leeuwarden castle, as no. 878, ‘Een lang conterfeitsel van prince Wilh. van Oranjen en deselfs gemaelinne, de pr. royale, geschildert bij Van Dijk’.⁶⁵⁶⁵S.W.A. Drossaers and T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Inventarissen van de inboedels in de verblijven van de Oranjes en daarmee gelijk te stellen stukken 1567-1795, 3 vols., The Hague 1974-76, II, 1974, p. 111, no. 878; Hofstede de Groot in a handwritten note suggested that this must have been a copy of the Rijksmuseum picture. It was incorrectly identified with the present picture in the museum catalogue of 1960; the present whereabouts of this picture, most likely a studio copy of the Rijksmuseum painting as well, is also unknown.⁶⁶⁶⁶Repeated in C. Brown et al., Van Dyck 1599-1641, exh. cat. Antwerp (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten)/London (Royal Academy of Arts) 1999, under no. 105. The provenance via the Frisian branch of the Orange-Nassau family was rejected by S.W.A. Drossaers and T.H. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Inventarissen van de inboedels in de verblijven van de Oranjes en daarmee gelijk te stellen stukken 1567-1795, 3 vols., The Hague 1974-76, I, 1974, p. 282, note 1188.

Prince Willem exercised his father’s office as stadholder for only three years after the latter’s death and died during a confrontation with the city of Amsterdam in 1650. Mary, known as the Princess Royal from 1642, had performed her prime function by bearing him a son and heir three days after his death. This was the future William III, Stadholder and King of England, Ireland and Scotland. She remained in the Netherlands during the Commonwealth; unpopular and on bad terms with her mother-in-law, she provided assistance to her exiled brothers, the future Kings Charles II (1630-1685) and James II. She died in London in 1660 not long after the restoration of Charles II to the throne.

Gregory Martin, 2022

Millar in S.J. Barnes, N. de Poorter, O. Millar and H. Vey, Anthony van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, New Haven (Conn.)/London 2004, no. IV.242

1809, p. 20, no. 83 (as of Princess Mary of England and her brother, the Duke of Gloucester); 1843, p. 16, no. 80 (as of Princess Mary of England and her brother, the Duke of Gloucester)[paint surface stable]; 1853, p. 10, no. 76 (as of Princess Maria Henrietta Stuart and her brother the Prince of Wales, children of King Charles I, fl. 20,000); 1880, p. 397, no. 465 (as of Prince Willem II of Orange and Maria Stuart, daughter of Charles I of England); 1885, p. 65, no. 465; 1887, p. 39, no. 307; 1903, p. 91, no. 857; 1934, p. 91, no. 857 (as probably completed by Adriaen Hanneman); 1951, p. 58, no. 857 (as completed by another hand Peter Lely?); 1960, p. 91, no. 857 (as completed by another hand, perhaps Peter Lely and by descent via the Frisian branch of the Orange family); 1976, pp. 208-09, no. A 102 (as studio of Van Dyck); 1992, p. 50, no. A 102

G. Martin, 2022, 'Anthony van Dyck, Double Portrait of Willem II (1626-1650), Prince of Orange, and Princess Mary Stuart (1631-1660), later Princess Royal, 1641', in Flemish Paintings in the Rijksmuseum, online coll. cat. Amsterdam: hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.8289