This research project was assigned to the Leiden University Fund and was carried out by the Leiden University Institute for History.

Committee in charge of the research

• Dr. Esther Captain
• Kathleen Ferrier MSc
• Prof. Gert Oostindie (chair)
• Prof. Henk te Velde

Academic feedback group

• Wendeline Flores MA
• Prof. Idesbald Goddeeris
• Prof. Maria Grever
• Prof. Susan Legêne
• Wim Manuhutu MSc
• Prof. Maarten Prak
• Prof. Susie Protschky

This academic feedback group advised the research committee on the setup and final results of the research project.

Research team

A team of over thirty researchers was given access to the Royal Collections, including the Royal House archives. They have also consulted various other archives and collections for their research. The study ended in the final quarter of 2026 with the presentation of five books.

Academic integrity

The study was subject to the usual rules on academic integrity, impartiality and independence as applied by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and the joint Universities of the Netherlands (formerly VSNU). See also the webpage on Academic integrity at Leiden University.

The Royal Household was not involved in the design or conduct of the research project, nor in the formulation of its findings.

The research focused on ‘the role of the House of Orange-Nassau in Dutch colonial history’. The topic is therefore not ‘Dutch colonial history’, nor is it ‘the history of the House of Orange-Nassau’; rather, the focus was on the point at which the two intersect. The research covered the whole colonial period from around 1600 through to the present day.

Based on the existing historiography, the research group formulated the following premise:

The House of Orange-Nassau had a constitutional role in the colonial history of the Netherlands, taking part actively and with conviction; the members of the House thereby derived political influence, income and wealth, status and dynastic importance; the significance and meaning of that role and involvement and the extent to which it contributed to each of the aforementioned aspects varied over time and were different for each stadholder, king and queen; this history covering over four centuries was important to the colonies too, with repercussions that continue to the present day.

The research project aimed to test this starting assumption by researching a series of sub-questions. That required a clear description first of several core concepts, and then a longitudinal approach in which the recurring questions were how much scope the members of the House of Orange-Nassau were given (and took) to play a role, what use they made of that opportunity and what consequences this had for the aforementioned ‘benefits’. In the analysis, comparisons were made where useful with the royal houses of other European colonial powers.

Definition of terms

House of Orange-Nassau. The focus is on the successive stadholders, kings and queens along with their immediate family. Of course, the House promoted broader dynastic interests in which more distant relatives played roles as well. These broader networks were examined where relevant, and the House considered as a collective.

The constitutional role and actual involvement in practice of the Oranges were determined and often limited by their constitutional powers on the one hand and their personal interests, motives and ability to obtain information about the colonies and colonial government on the other hand.

Actively and with conviction. This is a premise that was investigated. To what extent do the sources give an indication of the opinions of the various Orange rulers about colonialism and their desire to play an active role? Do we see a development over time in this regard?

Dutch colonial history. The focus of this research project is on the Netherlands, but the questions that it asks relate to all the colonial ambitions, relations and possessions of the Netherlands. For the period of the Dutch Republic, this means the entire charter area of the Dutch East India Company and the Dutch West India Company. For the Kingdom of the Netherlands, this implies a focus on Elmina (now Ghana) up to 1871, the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), Suriname and the six Dutch Caribbean islands, including the Oranges’ post-war relationship with the postcolonial communities in the Netherlands.

Of course, it is inherent in the position of the Oranges that they had political influence, but it is assumed that their involvement with colonial policy offered opportunities to increase that influence, for example by appointing confidants to colonial positions (clientelism). 

When reconstructing the financial income and wealth, the aim was to map the interests, investments and income as well as to determine the contribution they made in the various periods — up to the present day — to the overall income and wealth of the House of Orange-Nassau. 

The assumption was that the Dutch state, and consequently also the members of the House of Orange-Nassau, not only had an economic and geopolitical interest in colonialism but also derived status and prestige from it. How this was expressed at the court will be investigated. In addition, the researchers have investigated the extent to which the Oranges derived personal satisfaction — or the opposite, a feeling of personal unease — from the colonial dimension of their office. It might seem harsh to use a term like ‘satisfaction’ in the context of slavery and colonialism, but this question needs to be asked: consider the formation of colonial collections in the time of the stadholders, homages paid by the colonies and, in the post-war period, royal visits, versus on the other hand a feeling of discomfort due to being faced with criticisms of colonialism.

Both during the Republic and in the Kingdom, dynastic interests were paramount in determining the position that the House of Orange-Nassau adopted in Europe, particularly when arranging marriages. It may be assumed that the colonial possessions increased the international prestige of individual members of the House and the royal family as a whole.

The question concerning the repercussions of this history in both the former colonies and the Netherlands has been left completely open. This is not about the repercussions of colonialism in general, but specifically on the one hand about the meaning – both at the time and in the present day – for the House of Orange-Nassau, and on the other about the perception at the time of the Oranges in the colonies, how the involvement of the House is remembered now and what that means today. 

Periodisation

As said above, the research focused on the point of intersection between Dutch colonial history and the history of the House of Orange-Nassau. The periodisation is therefore primarily defined from a national and House of Orange-related perspective, namely: the Dutch Republic – French Period – Kingdom. Other choices of periodisation are conceivable on substantive grounds or for the purpose of international comparison, for example: early colonial expansion — consolidation — late colonial state — decolonisation — postcolonial period. Each author could work with an alternative periodisation if appropriate.

How this setup translated into five books

The research resulted in five books (other than any translations). Four in Dutch: a collection of biographies in chronological order, two thematic collections and a summarising book designed for a broad readership. There is also a collection in English with international comparisons.

The book with a chronological setup follows the traditional periodisation into the Republic, French Period and Kingdom, while also exploring continuities and turning points during this four-century period. Each of the stadholders, kings and queens have their own chapter, which is in line with what it is assumed a broad readership expects: chronology and biography go nicely together here. However, each chapter discusses thematic questions, and the wider family connections are handled too where relevant. This book comprises contributions by various authors, four of whom also act as the editors. However, each chapter follows the same structure, so that the book can still more or less be read as a monograph.

The first themed collection covers the entire research period. It is divided into three parts plus an epilogue. The focus of the first part are politico-administrative aspects. It examines the role of the Oranges in theory and in practice and the extent to which they deliberately intervened in colonial policy, and looks at their networks and advisors. The second part considers the significance of colonialism for their financial income and wealth. The emphasis in the third part is on questions regarding the visibility of the colonies at court and thus the issue of status — people from the colonies at the court, colonial collections, involvement in exhibitions and research, issues regarding religion and the church, and the Oranges as a representation of imperial unity. The epilogue offers a first attempt at an international comparison.

The second themed collection, with the working title Overzee over Oranje/Oranje overzee (‘Overseas on the Oranges/The Oranges overseas’), is mainly about the late colonial period and the postcolonial period. At its heart are two questions: how was the House of Orange-Nassau deployed in the colonial period to create an idea of imperial cohesion; and how has that history and the role of the Oranges resonated during the postcolonial period? This collection chiefly focuses on the later colonial period and postcolonial years. Above all, it offers insights into themes relating to cultural prestige and status, as well as satisfaction and unease. This collection primarily features authors with postcolonial backgrounds and offers plenty of scope for critical reflection, including considering the broader themes mentioned above about the role of the House of Orange-Nassau in colonial history. This collection is also organised around several distinct themes.

The challenge was to prevent unnecessary overlap between these three books and to avoid duplicating research activities unnecessarily. To this end, regular meetings were organised between the various researchers, either in smaller groups or (less frequently) with the entire project research team.

The fourth collection is in English and offers an international perspective. Experts seek to answer questions about the historical involvement of Europe’s royal families in colonialism and the associated debates today. They specifically consider Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom and Sweden.

The fifth publication, a book for a broad readership, functions as a summary of the research project as a whole. It takes the same starting point and covers all the themes mentioned above. The obvious solution was to use a thematic setup for this book, with a more or less chronological approach within each theme.

Historiography

There are many hundreds of books and especially articles that contain data – often only presented in passing, in a different context – that are important for the study of the role of the House of Orange-Nassau in the colonial history of the Netherlands. In the many dozens of chapters that are written in our project, these data are included, with reference to the authors and their publication(s). This document mainly deals with publications dating from 2000-2024 explicitly and exclusively focusing on the Orange-colonialism nexus; furthermore, reference can be made to the bibliography in Oostindie, De parels en de kroon. This document has been discussed and supplemented in the research group.

Contribution to international historiography and theory

The research project focuses explicitly on the colonial history of the Netherlands and the results resonate above all in the Dutch socio-political context. In addition, the research results are important to the former colonies — in particular the Dutch Caribbean islands and Suriname. Given the limited time and resources available, that means it was not possible to give a high priority in the Dutch-language publications to contributing to the historiography in terms of international comparisons and to the theory. However, the authors can be expected not just to be familiar with the relevant historiography concerning the Netherlands and Dutch colonialism but also to have sufficient knowledge of the broader historiography. Ideally, that broader knowledge will help them link their own research to concepts and issues at play in the international academic debate.

As stated above, the focus of the collection in English is in fact the international comparison. The conclusions from this are summarised in the concluding chapter of the first themed collection. The book for a broad readership also pays attention to that comparison.

If you have suggestions or questions concerning the research project, please contact the project leader, Prof. Gert Oostindie.