Costs, Income and Fortune of the Dutch Royal Family

[Duc_et_Pair]

And add to that: the Royal Palace in Amsterdam is open all year, the Palace Het Loo is open all year, the Royal Mews are open all year, Soestdijk Palace has been open for years, now waiting for a new destination, etc. It is not exacltly like the royal residences are a fortress, except two: Noordeinde and Huis ten Bosch. Understandably.

 

[Jacknch]

A very typical example of politicians not thinking things through properly. It's so dangerous when they get ideas into their heads and then bring them to parliament!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

From the site of the Department of General Affairs (the Prime Minister's Department) concerning the costs for the maintenance of the Golden State Carriage (in Dutch): link.

My translation:

2015Z25052
QUESTIONS by the member Pechtold (D66) to the Prime Minister about the maintenance of the Golden State Carriage (submitted December 18, 2015)

Question 1
What are the costs, in total and per year, for the major maintenance of the Golden State Carriage?

Answer to Question 1
The costs of major repairs and the restoration of the Golden State Carriage are the responsibility of the Royal Household Services and covered by the State Budget: Chapter I - The King, Article 2.

These costs do not lead to an additional burden on tax revenue, because these are covered by the total of the budgeted amount. Section 2 of the named Budget contains the functional expenditures which can be related to the exercise of the kingship and which are submitted to the Prime Minister by the Royal House Services and are paid from the Budget of the King.

The budget article consists of a human and a material component and other specific expenses. The costs of major repairs and the restoration of the Golden State Carriage fall within the material component. Parliamentary control of the functional expenditures takes place through the Budget control in which the expenditure is estimated and is made through the annual financial report in which accountability for the expenditure is incurred.

As with all reports, is the annual Budget control on Chapter I - The King, accompanied by a report from the Auditory Chamber. Also every year an external audit is carried out to investigate the legality of the concerned expenditures. This system does justice to Article 41 of the Constitution ( "The King organizes his House, taking into account the public interest"). Under that provision, the King has the freedom to determine -within the limits of the Budget- how his House is organized and how the funds thereby are assignated. Should individual expenditures within the three components of the Budget be made transparent for everyone, this is not consistent with Article 41 of the Constitution.

Question 2
What maintenance is exactly carried out on the Golden State Carriage? Can you answer with a maintenance list and, if available, the underlying research to the decision to maintenance? If not, why not?

Answer to Question 2
Research into the condition of the Golden State Carriage has shown that the vehicle is due for restoration. The following activities will take place at least:
- the straps which hangs the cabinet will have to be replaced considering the age of the leather;
- the wooden wheels will be shrunken again, to tighten the spokes;
- in various places about the carvings have become loose and in some places there are cracks in the woodwork and panels of the cabinet;
- the gilding has been worn away;.
- both the strings and the tassels on the box are severely discolored and at some places worn out;
- the worn textile materials must be replaced.

The documents called for, are - where they exist - not sent with the answer, because that would enter into the constitutional powers of the King in which he has the freedom to organize his own House. See also the answer to question 1 and the information by the Council of State about the ministerial responsibility for the King and members of the royal family regarding the protection of their privacy, particularly in relation to the information duty of the Government towards the States-General (= Parliament).

Question 3
What is, given the multi-annual nature, the timing of the maintenance? What happens when?

Question 4
Why not opt for a faster maintenance process, so that the Golden State Carriage can become into operation again earlier?

Answers to Questions 3 and 4
The restoration of the Golden State Carriage will take several years. The restoration involves a time-consuming and specialized work, wherein the different specialists will not be able to do simultaneously work on the carriage. The experiences and insights gained in the restoration of the Glass State Carriage are used in the restoration of the Golden State Carriage.

Overall, the following phases of the restoration process can be distinguished:
- dismantling the carriage;
- inspection of all components and analysis of the restoration work;
- specialists make an offer;
- start of the restoration of the various elements: chassis, cabinet, upholstery, etc.

Question 5
Which services and maintenance has been done to the Golden State Carriage since the accession of Princess Beatrix to the throne (1980)?

Question 6
What exactly should be understood by "the first time that this type of major maintenance takes place at the Golden State Carriage", as you suggested in the parliamentary reading of the budget of The King for the year 2016? What other types of major repairs are possible and have occurred?

Answers to questions 5 and 6
It is the first time ever that the Golden State Carriage is undergoing a major restoration. The starting point for the restoration is that the carriage should be back for the next few decades in order to be deployed. For the restoration as now planned, the carriage must be disassembled. The carriage will be (in parts) mostly at the Royal Stables and some other places during this restoration.

In recent years, the only regular annual maintenance made to the carriage, such as greasing the axles and small repairs. The costs of these maintenance inspections can not be given for reasons mentioned in the answer to question 1.

 

[Marengo]

I think the prime minister is right in not giving even more openness about the matter. What will be next? They want to check Máxima's grocery lists?

The only reason why Pechtold & co are making this an issue is because it gives them time on television. If they are so worried about costs, why not check the receits of all these overpaid managers in our health care services? Or why not make all their own receits public?

The costs have become the main issue that republicans can put n the agenda to weaken the royal house. That these carriages, palaces etc. will need to be renovated when we are a republic is something that the press doesn't want to understand. These issues usually die a slow death after the MP received their television-time.

All these debates about incidental costs are useless IMHO: having a head of state costs money, preserving the national patrimony costs money; with or without a king. An issue that would make sense -namely to decrease the private income of the king and queen to the max. level that is allowed for people in civil service- is never touched.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I agree and... the States-General themselves have approved the Budget of The King with all agreements around. So now making noises on second thought... come on...

Key is this stance of the Prime Minister:

As with all reports, the annual Budget control on Chapter I - The King, is accompanied by a report from the Auditory Chamber. Also every year an external audit is carried out to investigate the legality of the concerned expenditures. This system does justice to Article 41 of the Constitution ("The King organizes his House, taking into account the public interest").

Under that provision, the King has the freedom to determine -within the limits of the Budget- how his House is organized and how the funds thereby are assignated. Should individual expenditures within the three components of the Budget be made transparent for everyone, this is not consistent with Article 41 of the Constitution.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] An issue that would make sense -namely to decrease the private income of the king and queen to the max. level that is allowed for people in civil service- is never touched.

To be fair, that issue has been raised so now and then. For the last in 2014. See link. In the Netherlands there is a regulation that top civil servants can not have more salary than the Prime Minister.

The income of the King however is no "salary" as the Prime Minister, or a general, or you and me, receive. It is established by Law and Parliament decides upon this. So the regulation for top civil servants has no workings over the King's income.

There is however a relation with civil servants: via a sort of calculation the income of the King is based on the income of the Vice-President of the Council of State. And it is indexed by the general pay rise for all civil servants.

 

[Mbruno]

The Dutch have one of the most complete and transparant overviews of all costs. The Belgians have a lot of "hidden costs". For an example the palaces and castles are owned by the Donation Royale, which was a gift from Leopold II to the State of Belgium. The costs of the palaces are administered at the Donation Royale but in fact these should be attributed to the monarchy as the Donation Royale is owned by the State. It is often just a matter of definitions and choices.

In the Budget 2016 and the Note on the state of the kingdom's finances 2015, which were presented today (Prinsjesdag) it became clear that 750.000 Euro was spent on a new telephone system for the Royal House. The budget was 250.000 Euro but exceeded with 500.000 Euro (!). There was no need for extra money because it was covered with money initiated for other posts. All communication infrastructures in the palaces have been modernized and the telephone systems are extra secured and state-of-the-art for current times.

The Donation Royale is independent of the State and is actually self-funded. It is wrong to mix it with the King's grant then.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Donation Royale is independent of the State and is actually self-funded. It is wrong to mix it with the King's grant then.

In the one country the palaces are directly on the State's Budget (the Netherlands) in the other country it goes via the Patrimonio Nacional (formerly Patrimonio Real), like Spain. In Belgium it goes via the Koninklijke Schenking / Donation Royale but as this was a gift to the State it can not be overlooked when you want to know what the costs are for the residences in use by the monarchy.

King Willem-Alexander makes use of various estates, directly administered by the State, via the Rijksvastgoedbedrijf (State Real Estate Agency). King Felipe makes use of various estates, administered via the Patrimonio Nacional. King Philippe makes use of various estates, administrated via Koninklijke Schenking / Donation Royale.

In the end all three of these are funded by the State. It is true that the Koninklijke Schenking / Donation Royale has own assets to finance the upkeep, but who owns this Trust? Yes.... indeed, the State of Belgium. It is not correct to compare the costs of the monarchies while in the one monarchy the costs for the upkeep of the palaces are included and in the other it is not.

The Palacio Real in Madrid is THE biggest palace in Europe. The costs for maintaining this enormous building must be astronomic. The King makes use of these premises. Of course, it has mainly a museal destination, but that is the same for the Royal Palace in Amsterdam, which is also only so now and then used but the costs are attributed to the King as well, leading to a total annual cost of around 100 million Euro of having a monarchy in the Netherlands. Shockingly expensive but it is also just a honest and open amount.

 

[Lee-Z]

"When the King is criticized, it's always about money"
Als er kritiek is op de koning, dan gaat het altijd over geld | NOS

translated

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

On itself it is a good report for the King: no any political problem concerning his functioning: 100% congruent with the Government.

The author is wrong in attributing 27 million of "onkostenveergoeding" (reimbursement of costs) to the King. Willem-Alexander gets 4,5 million for additional costs. The other millions are in the Budget "The King" for the staffing of the Household, for the State Information Service, for the Military House of the King, for the King's Cabinet, for the Royal Mews, for the Royal House Archives, etc. so really not his "onkostenvergoeding", as if he has 27 million a year to spend on Hermès bags.

The dude just wants to frame it in a certain way to see if he can stir up things.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

As expected, the gigantic costs for the maintenance of the De Groene Draeck are mainly due to the inefficient way the Royal Navy handles it. The wharf of the Royal Navy takes the maintenance like a military operation: every year new projectplans are issued. Ten managers (!!!) were supervising the winter maintenance 2014-2015: senior project manager, an executive project manager, a ship coordinator, an engineering coordinator, a project planner, three production-group managers, a work-calculator and a coordinator for safety regulations. Once in every three weeks (!!!) there is a hours-long meeting in Den Helder. These costs were attributed to the De Groene Draeck.

The maintenance lists are endless but there were no referrings to great luxury. The biggest costs were the annual paintwork: in 2014 more than 70.000 Euro. In 2007 the Royal Navy requested a -confidential- report on the maintenance by Kersten Experts from Enkhuizen. The conclusions were hard: a lot of hours were spent on the ship, the maintenance was inefficient, 'Grosso modo' the maintenance could be done for 30.000 Euro (instead of tonnes, each year). The expert concluded that the ship was "a special one which has the right to be treated with all égards" but this was not the reason for those massive bills: that was the unneccessary heavy technic overhead. According the expert the Naval Wharf made too little difference between a traditional sail yacht and a naval frigate which has to be full deployable under all circumstances.

An example named by the expert: the Perkins diesel motor, known amongst watersporters as most reliable, is taken out of the ship every five years, completely disassembled, revised and re-assembled again. The motor however is only used for 100 hours a year, at maximum...

Another example: the navy calculates a daily presence of a shipper and a boatsman for the De Groene Draeck. A permanent staffing for a little sailyacht which is only incidentally used, is pretty remarkable...

The taking-out of the ship for the winter-storage costs only some 1.000 Euro at every normal yacht marina. At the Royal Navy wharf however, this is calculated for 6 to 10 times more...

Etc. Etc.

So all by all, as expected: the immense costs are more to be blamed to the hopeless management of the Royal Navy, which only raises questions about their maintenance of the frigates, submarines, etc... It has little to do with Princess Beatrix herself.

Vertrouwelijke documenten: onderhoud jacht Beatrix kostte 1,5 miljoen | Binnenland | de Volkskrant

 

[Marengo]

Quite rediculous that nobody ever woke up and thought: maybe we should hire experts? 1,5 million euros: they could have bought two new boats for that money.

Of course the navy may regard it as training for their people on other materials, but in that case they should say so.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think there were many raised eyebrows, maybe at the palace too, but probably it was seen as painful when the prestigious object would be taken away from the Royal Navy wharf and given to a commercial wharf. It would expose the Royal Navy as incompetent to maintain a little boat to reasonable costs. In the meantime the boat has caused a negative effect on the royal family, while all this could have been prevented by a common sense minister ordering that the maintenace must be given to a Friesian wharf or so.

 

[Rudolph]

Prime minister Mark Rutte has asked the Council of State to advise him on how to deal with information about spending on the royal family, following widespread media speculation about the cost of restoring one of the king’s coaches.

The Council of State is the government’s most senior advisory body and the country’s highest administrative court.

Read more: Prime minister asks for advice on royal family spending reports - DutchNews.nl

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The newspaper De Volkskrant has written about some Foundations of the extended royal family.

The Foundation Protector Daffodil Trust, vested in Guernsey, has been dissolved per 14 March 2016. This foundation managed the private fortune of Princess Christina of the Netherlands (fourth daughter of the late Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard). It is not clear why the Foundation has been dissolved. Beside the Daffodil Trust, there is also a Crocus Trust, administering another part of Princess Christina's fortune. The Princess lives in the United Kingdom and pays income taxes to the British Tax Revenue. The capital in Guernsey was free of taxation. This was a legal fiscal construction.

Also the Foundation Lys Fund, vested in the Netherlands and administered by Notary Van Buttingha Wichers, Lange Voorhout 24 in The Hague, has been dissolved. This foundation managed the private fortunes of the children of Princess Irene of the Netherlands, the second daughter of the late Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard. This was a vehicle to provide finances to the four children of the Princess (the Duke of Parma and his three siblings). The Foundation Lys Fund has been dissolved per 13 November 2015. It is not known why the Foundation has been dissolved. This was a legal fiscal construction.

Princess Margriet of the Netherlands, third daughter of the late Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard also has a vehicle to avoid taxation: the Family Fortune Fund from the ABN AMRO Bank. Like the legal vehicles by her two sisters, also this was (and still is) a legal route to avoid taxation.

It is not known if the dissolved Foundations have been replaced by another Foundations or Trusts. Link

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

On page 5 of the Budget 2017, Chapter 1 ("The King"), already an extrapolation is made for expected future expenses, as is required in the Dutch budgetting method:

"On 7 december 2021 the Princess of Orange will reach the age of eightteen years. In accordance with the Act on the financial statute of the Royal House, from that moment on the Princess will receive a constitutional income as presumed successor to the King.

On annual base the income for the presumed successor to the King will be € 1.495.000 of which € 263.000 is a net income and € 1.232.000 for expenses."

Link: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/minist...en/2016/09/20/i-de-koning-rijksbegroting-2017

The reason for this lavish sum to a 18-years old is that Princess Catharina-Amalia has no choice. As only citizen in the country she is already destined for a function, which comes with limitations. The Government finds it "undesirable" when the (future) King is in a dependent relationship to thirds. It is lots of money, but as is often said in debates in Parliament: "A royal lifestyle requires a royal income".

 

[Marengo]

I find it an enormous sum for an 18 y/o indeed, especially because it is likely that she will devote most of her time to studies and not to public responsibilities. Like her father and grandmother, she will probably live in a student house, which probably will not be very costly. It is good that they already mention it now and in the years to come, so the public outrage -which surely will come- is somewhat softened as people can already get used to the idea.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Indeed and when parliamentarians are nagging about it (I have not heard one so far, I must say) they should find a firm majority NOW to change the Act on the financial statute of the Royal House. When the Princess is 18 it is already too late. Nagging in 2021 is nice for the cameras but it will not change the situation that the Princess of Orange will become entitled to a constitutional income.

The Constitution states in article 40:

Article 40

1.
The King shall receive annual payments from the State according to rules to be laid down by Act of Parliament. The Act shall also specify which other members of the Royal House shall receive payments from the State and shall regulate the payments themselves.

2.
The payments received by them from the State, together with such assets as are of assistance to them in the exercise of the royal function, shall be exempt from personal taxation. In addition anything received by the King or his presumed successor from a member of the Royal House by inheritance or as a gift shall be exempt from inheritance tax, transfer tax or gifts tax. Additional exemption from taxation may be granted by Act of Parliament.

3.
Bills containing legislation as referred to in the previous paragraphs may be passed by the States-General only if at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in favour.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

After the Address from the Throne and the offering of the "Note on the state of the kingdom's finances" as well the Budget 2017, it was the time for the ladies and gentlemen parliamentarians to discuss it in the Second Chamber (= Lower House) of Parliament.

In contrary to other years (questions about the costs of the royal villa in Greece, about the restoration of Huis ten Bosch Palace, about the travelling costs of the Royal House, about the raise of the royal incomes, etc.), this year saw no questions to the Government by the fraction leaders. Also not about the published extrapolation about the future 1,5 million per year to be given to the now 13 years old Princess of Orange.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Budget 2017

The incomes
The King: € 5.548.000,--
The spouse of the King: € 958.000,--
The King who has abdicated the kingship: € 1.503.000,--

Extrapolation of future incomes:
The presumed successor to the King: € 1.495.000,--

Expenses:
Staffing of the Royal House services (260 fulltime units): € 18.206.000,--
Material costs of the Royal House services: € 8.281.000,--
Material costs of the forestry: € 303.000,--
Expenses for the use of airplanes: € 814.000,--
Expenses for representation in the Caribbean part of the kingdom: € 80.000,--

Expenses on other Budgets allocated to the Budget of the King
The State Information Services (12,5 fulltime units): € 1.520.000,--
The Military House of His Majesty The King (15 fulltime units): € 1.818.000,--
The Cabinet of The King (25,5 fulltime units): € 2.390.000,--

Expenses on other Budgets in relation to the kingship
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs: € 2.000.000,-- (State Visits, Corps Diplomatique, etc.)
The Ministry of Housing and State Services: € 15.000.000,-- (normal maintenance of the royal palaces)
The Ministry of Housing and State Services: € 59.000.000,-- (restoration of Huis ten Bosch Palace)
The Ministry of Security and Justice: unknown (for purposes of security the State does not wish to disclose the exact expenses on the protection of members of the Royal House)
The Ministry of Defence: unknown (for purposes of security the State does not wish to disclose the exact expenses on the protection of the royal residences)

Special expenses
The annual maintenance of the private yacht of Princess Beatrix*: € 87.000,--

* the yacht De Groene Draeck was a gift for the 18th birthday of the Princess, including the promise to pay for the maintenance.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In the Budget 2017 the Government has given an extrapolation on expected future costs. This to prevent "surprises". That is why the income of the Princess of Orange is already mentioned.

Huis ten Bosch Palace is under restoration now. A Budget of 59 million Euro has been assigned for that purpose. For the coming years only the normal maintance costs are budgetted for Noordeinde Palace, Huis ten Bosch Palace and the Royal Palace in Amsterdam.

The Government has announced that a study is under way to see if the giant marble Burgerzaal (picture) in the Royal Palace Amsterdam, with that huge painted ceiling needs restoration.

 

[Mbruno]

On page 5 of the Budget 2017, Chapter 1 ("The King"), already an extrapolation is made for expected future expenses, as is required in the Dutch budgetting method:

"On 7 december 2021 the Princess of Orange will reach the age of eightteen years. In accordance with the Act on the financial statute of the Royal House, from that moment on the Princess will receive a constitutional income as presumed successor to the King.

On annual base the income for the presumed successor to the King will be € 1.495.000 of which € 263.000 is a net income and € 1.232.000 for expenses."

Link: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/minist...en/2016/09/20/i-de-koning-rijksbegroting-2017

The reason for this lavish sum to a 18-years old is that Princess Catharina-Amalia has no choice. As only citizen in the country she is already destined for a function, which comes with limitations. The Government finds it "undesirable" when the (future) King is in a dependent relationship to thirds. It is lots of money, but as is often said in debates in Parliament: "A royal lifestyle requires a royal income".

Not bad for a 18-year-old girl. In fact, if in addition to her personal income, one also adds the perks of living in royal residences attended by royal staff and using royal transportation, then it is an excelente deal.

 

[Curryong]

I wish the British government would recognise that 'a Royal lifestyle requires a Royal income.' That is a very reasonable point of view.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I wish the British government would recognise that 'a Royal lifestyle requires a Royal income.' That is a very reasonable point of view.

In the Netherlands all parties more or less agree that the Netherlands are a prosperous country and a corresponding status in representation and ceremonial may be expected.

But when all agree that a royal lifestyle comes with a royal income, then the discussion is: WHAT is a royal income? The strange thing is that the States-General (Parliament) themselves have, with qualified majority, agreed with the financial arrangements for the monarchy. Sometimes a party in Opposition protests against these settlements they themselves voted for when they were in Government...

But all by all, the more transparent and accountable the budget and the costs, the less the nagging. That seems the trick. That then -as a result of this transparency- the Dutch monarchy is billed as "The Most Expensive Monarchy In Europe"... tja...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The newspaper NRC Handelsblad tries to stir some scandal around the sale of artworks by the royal family. Predictably some members of "left parties" (Labour, Socialist Party and D66) jumped on it and announced criticial questions to the Governent.

It seems sometimes in depôts old artworks are found belonging to the royal family. For an example an enormous painting Boschbrand (Wood fire) by the Netherlands East-Indies (now Indonesia) prince Raden Saleh, given in 1847 to King Willem III of the Netherlands: picture

It was found in a state depôt, in poor state and was restored. The four daughters of the late Queen Juliana gave it to her 14 grandchildren (3x Oranje-Nassau, 4x De Bourbon de Parme, 4x Van Vollenhoven and 3x Guillermo). They decided to sell it and now it hangs in a museum in Singapore. The newspaper claims it was "an artwork of national importance" and should not have been sold or should have been offered to Dutch museums first.

The State Information Agency has responded: "The artwork concerned was no part of the state collection nor was it part of the Foundation Historic Collections of the House Orange-Nassau. It is free for the heirs of the late Queen Juliana to sell artworks and indeed to estrange to foreign countries."

In 1988 Prince Bernhard sold two artworks of King Willem II of the Netherlands for 700.000 Euro. It went to the World Wildlife Fund. In reality 500.000 Euro was bypassed to a sort of private army to fight poaching in Africa with -to put it mildly- quite unorthodox and often illegal means. It were armed ex-soldiers hired by the Prince and other wealthy donors to protect the wildlife against poachers.

In 2011 a big clearance was held of left-over items belonged to the estate of the late Queen Juliana. The result, 7 million Euro, went to the charities of the four daughters: the Princess Beatrix Fund (to fight child muscle diseases), the Nature College (Irene), the Red Cross (Margriet) and the Princess Christina Music Concours.

 

[lucien]

Cheap trash from political parties jumping on the bandwagon with the coming March 2017 elections in view!!What other thing to do then to fuzz over PRIVATELY owned art by the RF which I wouldn't even had given to Spullenhulp,Rataplan or whatever it is called....!The nerve!...Ghastly lot...bah...

 

[Marengo]

It seems classic case of too little too late. It is a pity the family sold the pieces and didn't use them for a palace or offered it to a Dutch museum first - or perhaps an Indonesian one. It would have been a nice piece for the collection of the Tropenmuseum.

Prince Bernhard never minded selling patrimony of his wife, and it seems the habit has been inherited by his (grand)children. Of course they may simply have too many items since less and less palaces are used. I know of no other reigning RF that brings artwork, furniture etc. on an auction. The family must be much less wealthy than assumed.

Of course the family was free to do as they please. The sale was legal so if politicians want to complain they may want to tighten the laws first to prevent this from happening in the future.

D66 is a right-wing party btw.

 

[lucien]

It seems classic case of too little too late. It is a pity the family sold the pieces and didn't use them for a palace or offered it to a Dutch museum first - or perhaps an Indonesian one. It would have been a nice piece for the collection of the Tropenmuseum.

Prince Bernhard never minded selling patrimony of his wife, and it seems the habit has been inherited by his (grand)children. Of course they may simply have too many items since less and less palaces are used. I know of no other reigning RF that brings artwork, furniture etc. on an auction. The family must be much less wealthy than assumed.

Of course the family was free to do as they please. The sale was legal so if politicians want to complain they may want to tighten the laws first to prevent this from happening in the future.

D66 is a right-wing party btw.

!!!..Right-wing??..It hasn't got a clue on wings and it hasn't been elected in anything worthwhile because they're not sweet nor sour,geen vlees geen vis...for I can't remember how long,they're a folly.

Btw,there is SO MUCH art stuffed in atticks and storages it is incredible!
Put that in the market and the prices of artworks and the market plummets....
And then there is the treasure of art in the Koninklijk Huisarchief.

The Tropenmuseum isn't waiting for yet another tigerview in paint,they're stuffed with an immens collection already.

So,really,if I own something and wish to sell it,I do that without hesitation,as does the RF.It is theír right.No nonsense
with national bla bla..it's private and no-one can keep anyone from selling what they don't want anymore.We wish for the RF to be as "normal"as possible,yet when they sell their crap some has beens and wannabees in The Hague trip over it?Joke,a joke..

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] I know of no other reigning RF that brings artwork, furniture etc. on an auction. The family must be much less wealthy than assumed.

[...]

The Belgians, the Luxembourgers, the British (the Kents, the Gloucesters, the Windsors), the Borbóns, most of them indeed have auctioned items. In this case it seems the 14 grandchildren of the late Queen Juliana were the beneficiaries. One can not deconstruct such a huge painting in 14 pieces. Sale is the only option.

In the newspaper De Volkskrant it was written that the State Cultural Heritage Agency has given a permission for the sale of the painting outside of the Netherlands: the artwork was not enlisted under the Act on the Preservation of Heritage. This means nothing was done "in secret" as the newspaper NRC claimed.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/beeldende-...-over-kunstverkoop-door-koningshuis~a4392109/

 

[Lee-Z]

Well, apart from that politicians try to make a story of it that isn't there, what imo *is* clear is that the Oranje family cares more about money than about history, otherwise they'd consider keeping it in the country even if they wouldn't officially have to.

But that the Oranjes like money is not new