The first stadholderless era commenced upon the death of William II in November 1650, with the major political crisis not yet settled. The house of Orange in these years depended on the cultural loyalty of Orangists for support. These new circumstances resulted in a displacement of Orangist loyalty from the person of the stadholder-prince of Orange to the house itself, and a fidelity to the idea that the prince of Orange belonged in the offices of stadholder, captain- and admiral-general. Orangists had strong hopes that the young William III would one day come to power. Images of nursing mothers in conjunction with the house of Orange espoused the notion that William III benefited from proper nurturing and education.
Many Dutch people have viewed Orange as their rightful leaders for centuries. The relationship dates back to the sixteenth century, when William the Silent, prince of Orange, took command of the rebel Dutch armies and government during their Revolt against the Spanish Habsburgs. William held the title of stadholder in several provinces, a post through which he led provincial governments in the name of King Philip II of Spain. William also served as captain-general of the army and admiral-general of the navy, effectively uniting political and military command. When the States General, the supra-provincial body of urban burgers, nobles, and clergy in the Low Countries, voted in 1581 to abjure the rule of Philip II, they continued to recognize William as captain-general and admiral general. More importantly, since the provinces each appointed their own stadholder, the States of Holland and of Zeeland (the States being the assembly of towns in each sovereign province) continued to recognize William as stadholder. Martyred by an assassin’s bullet in 1584, William’s offices devolved in 1585 upon his second son, Maurice of Nassau, who also succeeded to the principality of Orange many years later. The succession of the stadholderate in the male line of the house of Orange set a pattern that would last until the death of William II in 1650.
In May 1650, William II, great-grandson of William I, tried to bully the province of Holland into a more favorable political settlement by visiting its principal cities at the head of the army. The conclusion of the Revolt against Spain in 1648 left open the matter of what to do with the large number of foreign mercenaries stationed in the cities of the Republic. The States of Holland wanted to disband most of the companies, not least because they paid for most of them. William II, sensing his chances at military glory slipping away, wanted to remain at the head of the unreduced army. When he failed, he undertook an invasion of Amsterdam to usurp its government. Though the invasion did not exactly succeed either, William II did gain the political advantage.
When he died unexpectedly in November 1650, with an heir born posthumously, his political rivals – the States of Holland – acted quickly to reverse the actions of the previous summer. The States of Holland called a Great Assembly (Grote Vergadering) of all the provincial states to settle a number of constitutional questions. The most important matters facing the Assembly were what to do about the offices of stadholder, captain-general, and admiral-general. Those offices had passed de facto to the next prince of Orange since 1585 and de jure since 1630 in Holland and Zeeland (since 1629 in Utrecht and Overijssel). The Great Assembly decided not to name anyone to the posts of stadholder, captain-general, or admiral-general despite the birth of William III as prince of Orange eight days after the death of William II. Thus commenced the first stadholderless era, a time when supporters of the house of Orange clamored for a return of William III to the now-vacant offices of his ancestors, and when Holland regents controlled the government of the Republic.
William III, an infant, could not exercise the prerogatives of the offices held by his father William II, grandfather Frederick Henry, great-uncle Maurice, and great-grandfather William the Silent. His age alone did not prevent him from doing so, however. Ever since the abandonment of the Habsburg government during the Revolt against Spain, a political faction had evolved that saw little need for an “eminent head” in the Dutch political system.3 The States of Holland, often at the forefront of republican ideas, led the way once again at the Great Assembly. The States of Holland embodied what came to be known as the States party, a loose collection of regents in favor of provincial sovereignty at the expense of a single head of state, in fact the prince of Orange.
During the first stadholderless era, the States party controlled Dutch government under the skillful leadership of the most powerful politician in Holland, the Grand Pensionary Johan de Witt. De Witt articulated a set of political principles he called the “True Freedom” (Ware Vrijheid), the primary components of which were the sovereignty of the individual provinces and the absence of a stadholder. The States party never took hold of the imagination ordinary citizens of the United Provinces in the same way as the house of Orange. Throughout the eighty years of rebellion against Spain, the deeds of the princes of Orange on the battlefield captured the hearts and minds of Dutch citizens. As successive generations witnessed and prospered under the political leadership of the princes of Orange, many began to view the princes as a rightful and natural part of Dutch government. Thanks to the right of the stadholder to appoint the regents in each town, a large section of the urban oligarchy professed loyalty to the person of the stadholder-prince of Orange. These regents came to be known as Orangists, and their political ideology as Orangism.
Orangism was the practice of acting in the interest of the prince of Orange as stadholder. Orangism received a major boost when, in 1618, the stadholder Maurice purged the town councils of regents who would not conform to his political program, and replaced them with loyal Orangist regents. William II intended his actions in 1650 to achieve a similar end but ended up instead with the house of Orange powerless. The onset of the First Stadholderless period put an and to the type of Orangism seen in the first half of the seventeenth century. No longer could Orangist regents count on the stadholder for political favors, because no one held that office. The prince of Orange could offer little patronage otherwise, either.
Despite the absence of any prospect for personal or political gain, much of the Dutch citizenry and pockets of regents continued to express their desire for a restoration of the stadholderate. Why? The house of Orange had become an integral part of the Orangist view of Dutch culture. By 1650, Orangism had ceased to be a merely political movement, and took on a significant role in the still developing culture of the Dutch Republic. Orangists did not just sit in civic council chambers as regents; they baked bread, worked the docks, wrote poetry, and illustrated books as ordinary members of society, too. Orangists during the first stadholderless era believed the house of Orange belonged in a position of political power because they believed first that they could not separate the house of Orange from Dutch culture or the Dutch state.
The Orangism that emerged during the stadholderless era signified a depersonalization of devotion to the house of Orange. The house of Orange in these years depended on the cultural loyalty of Orangists for support. These new circumstances resulted in a displacement of Orangist loyalty from the person of the stadholder-prince of Orange to the house itself, and a fidelity to the idea that the prince of Orange belonged in the offices of stadholder, captain- and admiral-general. Orangists had strong hopes that the young William III would one day come to power, of course, so perhaps some viewed their support as an investment in the future. In the everyday reality of the stadholderless era, however, Orangists did not know when, how, or if the house of Orange would ever return to its former glory. Persistent devotion in the face of such dynastic insecurity indicates a high level of sincerity on the part of Orangists, imbuing their cultural displays with greater significance.
