Geschichte Mitteldeutschland 2.0 » Brothers de Witt and Willem III

Hello all,

Last year, I took a class on the Dutch Golden Age, and for my final project, I decided to examine all of the portraiture linked to the De Witt brothers to see how it traced along with their prominence in society. Of course, I put a lot of my focus into the final de Baen portrait of them; that sickening inverse political portrait of both brothers hanged upside down, nude and disemboweled. I've been giving quite a lot of thought to the lynching of the brothers De Witt, especially insofar as the government's complicity in the matter.

I know that their star started to fall after the Battle of Solebay in the Third Anglo-Dutch War in 1672, so I am at least partially aware of why people were starting to get upset with them. I'm also aware that, in 1654, the Act of Seclusion was passed, barring Willem III from ever succeeding to his familial title. This may have secured De Witt's station even more, but it was not without problem, as he pressured all of the other Provinces to uphold it. Even though De Witt had all of the makings of an able ruler, there was still a considerable amount of political turmoil and dissent. One party – the Orangists – still supported Willem III's claim to the Stathouderate. They believed that without a figurehead like Willem the Silent or Fredrick Hendrick, the Netherlands would not able to exist and sustain itself. All of this would have set the brothers up for a bit of a rocky ride.

It all boiled over to a head in 1672. I know that Willem III had given cash awards to the head conspirators in the lynching, and his propaganda was always circulating against the brothers. However, to what extent was he complicit in the murders? It seemed somewhat organized, I suppose; of course it was hectic, but everyone descended on them at once, perhaps too many people to be a mere coincidence. If Willem wasn't complicit in this (or if he didn't approve of it) he wouldn't have given money to those guilty. Do we have concrete proof that he was leading the charge against the brothers? Or was he just rewarded by the results of the murders, and wanted to show his gratitude?

From what I know at the time, it seems very sensible that Willem would have been complicit in the murders directly (perhaps not the cannibalism, however), but I would like to see if there was concrete proof. I know that he urged people to forget about the brothers after the fact, and that artists of the era followed suit. I do not know if forced amnesia and paying off the murderers is a legitimate corpus delicti on Willem's part, but it sure if fishy.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts! .


For More

Professional Web Explainer Video Production