Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:41:57.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“My Name is Ozymandias” The Kaiser in Exile

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Sally Marks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Much has been written about the events of 9 November 1918 at Spa, but little about the aftermath in Holland. Some studies present sketches, often inaccurate, of “the squire of Doorn”; others remark that answers to many questions must await the opening of Dutch archives. Since the Dutch documents have now been published in profusion, answers are for the most part available.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 1983 , pp. 122 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Rijks Gescheidkundige Publicatiën (R.G.P.), Serie, Grote, Beschieden betreffende de buitenlandse politiek van Nederland, 1814–1919: Derde Periode, 1899–1919, ed. Woltring, Joannes Aloysius and Smit, C., 8 vols. in 10 (The Hague, 1957–1974)Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as DuB with R.G.P. volume number. This series contains not only Dutch documents but also American, Belgian, British, and German documents bearing on Dutch questions, including that of the Kaiser. Also, R.G.P., Serie, Grote, Documenten betreffende de buitenlandse politiek van Nederland, 1919–1945: Periode A, 1919–1930, ed. Woltring, Joannes Aloysius (The Hague, 1976–).Google Scholar Hereafter cited as DuD with R.G.P. volume number. There are some lacunae in the Dutch Foreign Ministry's file on Wilhelm, chiefly after 21 January 1920, presumably because it was removed to Berlin during World War II, but most of the gaps have been plugged by recourse to duplicates in the files of the queen's office, cabinet records, and extensive extracts from the diaries of participants, notably foreign minister Jonkheer Herman van Karnebeek.

2. von Ilsemann, Sigurd, Der Kaiser in Holland, 2 vols. (Munich, 1967–1968), 1: Amerongen und Doorn, pp. 38–40Google Scholar; Baumont, Maurice, The Fall of the Kaiser (New York, 1931), pp. 133, 139, 244Google Scholar; Luise, H. R. H. Viktoria, Duchess of Brunswick and Lüneberg, Princess of Prussia, The Kaiser's Daughter, tr. and ed. Vacha, Robert (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1977), pp. 137–38.Google Scholar

3. Scheidemann, Philipp, Memoiren eines Sozialdemokraten, 2 vols. (Dresden, 1928), 2: 257Google Scholar. Nicolson, Harold assured Balfour, Michael (The Kaiser and his Times, New York, 1972 ed., p. 485Google Scholar) that no evidence in the king's papers confirmed Scheidemann's allegation. Prof. Lamar Cecil of Washington and Lee University, who has had recent access to the Royal Archive at Windsor for a study of the Kaiser, endorses Nicolson's statement. Similarly, nothing at the Public Record Office substantiates the charge. Beyond that, King George's response to Queen Wilhelmina's invitation to visit Holland (proffered without her cabinet's foreknowledge) would probably have differed in tone if he had played any part in Wilhelm's arrival there. DuB, R.G.P. 117:907; DuB, R.G.P. 145: 628–31.

4. DuB, R.G.P. 146:1138–39; Ilsemann, 1:36. For an account by a Dutch historian assuming Dutch complicity, see Smit, C., Diplomatieke geschiednis van Nederland (The Hague, 1950), pp. 332–33, 333 n. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. DuB, R.G.P. 146:923–27; de Villegas de St. Pierre to Hymans, n.d. [Nov. 1918], no. 10273–233/87, Ministry of Foreign Affairs archive, Brussels, Correspondance politique, Pays-Bas (hereafter BMAE CP PB/) 1918/II; Ilsemann, 1:45; United States, Department of State, Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States (hereafter FRUS), The Paris Peace Conference, 1919 (hereafter PPC), 13 vols. (Washington, 1942–1947), 2:82.Google Scholar

6. Baumont, pp. 140–49.

7. DuB, R.G.P. 145:214–18; Rosen, Friedrich, Aus einem diplomatischen Wanderleben, 4 vols. in 3 (Berlin and Wiesbaden, 1931–1959), 3:216Google Scholar. Discrepancies exist between Rosen's report to Friedrich Ebert on 17 November and his later memoirs. Since he was defensive about his role both at the time and later on, probably neither is entirely accurate.

8. During the war, the Dutch minister in Brussels, Jonkheer H. van Weede, followed the Belgian government into exile at Le Havre, leaving van Vollenhoven in the occupied Belgian capital as minister-resident.

9. Again, discrepancies exist between van Vollenhoven's report on the day (DuB, R.G.P. 117:728–29) and his memoirs: Memoires, beschouwingen, belevissen, reizen en anectoten (Amsterdam, 1946), pp. 404–5.Google Scholar

10. Ilsemann, 1:43–6. Most accounts describe a cortege of eight or ten autos, but Ilsemann's eyewitness diary entry, dated 10 November, is very specific.

11. Benoist, Charles, “Guillaume II en Hollande,” Revue des deux mondes, 8th period, 19 (15 01 1934): 388–90Google Scholar; Ilsemann, 1:44–45; de Villegas to Hymans, n.d. [Nov. 1918], no. 12373–233/87, BMAE CP PB/1918/II. The last is a detailed account after investigation by the Belgian consul at Maastricht, who was distressed by inaccurate press reports. He had a sharp eye for evidence, a passion for accuracy, and a fine record of cautious reporting on other confused matters.

12. Ilsemann, 1:45–47; de Villegas to Hymans, n.d., no. 12373–233/87, Fallon to Hymans, 10 Nov. 1918, tel. 753, BMAE CP PB/1918/II; van Vollenhoven, p. 405; Benoist, “Guillaume,” p. 389. A photo of Wilhelm pacing the platform at Eijsden is in Chastenet, Jacques, Clemenceau (Paris, 1974), p. 184Google Scholar. For others, see Boeye to Jaspar, 24 Nov. 1920, no. 705/834, BMAE CP PB/1920 or BMAE Classement B, file 324X (hereafter B-324X).

13. Ilsemann, 1:47.

14. Wilhelmina's mother and husband were German, and the court was deemed proGerman during the war whereas popular sentiments were divided. She acted with strict constitutionality through the Kaiser crisis (as it was for Holland) and avoided any contact with him until well after his presence ceased to be controversial. Her husband, Prince Hendrik, occasionally obtained reports about Wilhelm from third parties.

15. Ilsemann, 1:53(on the basis of the diary of Countess Elisabeth Bentinck, whom he married in 1920), 88; Bentinck, Lady Norah, The Ex-Kaiser in Exile (New York, n.d.), pp. 1–5, 15Google Scholar; Benoist, pp. 386–87; DuB, R.G.P. 117:744–45; Fallon to Hymans, 12 Nov. 1918, no. 16785/3085, BMAE CP PB/1918/II. Food and gasoline were severely rationed in Holland. The Dutch government rushed emergency supplies of gasoline from a nearby air base for automobiles which had not been driven for six months.

16. Rosen, 3:217–19; DuB, R.G.P. 145:214–18; Ilsemann, 1:47.

17. DuB, R.G.P. 117:729. Whether the Dutch cabinet then knew Wilhelm had not abdicated is not clear. News of Prince Max's unauthorized abdication announcement in Berlin on 9 November had reached The Hague that day. FRUS, 1918, Supplement 1: 484. Also, en route to Amerongen Wilhelm may have telegraphed the queen that he considered himself a private person. DuB, R.G.P. 145:214–18.

18. DuB, R.G.P. 145:665–66; Benoist, p. 388; Fallon to Hymans, 12 Nov. 1918, no. 16785/3085, 28 Dec. 1918, no no., BMAE B–324X; Barnouw, Adriaan J., Holland under Queen Wilhelmina (New York, 1923), pp. 195–97Google Scholar; Fallon to Hymans, 27 Nov. 1918, no. 17528/3210, 12 Dec. 1918, no no., BMAE CP PB/1918/II; FRUS, PPC, 2:76–77, 84–85.

19. Bentinck, pp. 15–16, 24; Ilsemann, 1:53–54, 57; Rosen, 3:241. Whether the Belgian refugees had arrived and, if so, their sentiments at being dispossessed for the hated Kaiser are not recorded. Preemption of the two inns left no local accommodation for the gathering horde of journalists.

20. Ilsemann, 1:48; Rosen, 3:222; DuB, R.G.P. 145:214–18. At the same time the train carrying Matthias Erzberger and the rest of the German armistice commission set out from Rethondes for Spa. Rudin, Harry R., Armistice, 1918 (New Haven, 1944), p. 389.Google Scholar

21. Foremost among them was Lady Susan Townley, wife of the British minister. Imperious and impetuous daughter and sister of dukes, she had the previous day rushed to another Bentinek estate, gained entrance and lunch on the pretext of an automotive breakdown, and spent the night in a farmhouse before turning up in the front row at Maarn station. Her latest escapade contributed to her husband's abrupt departure from his post shortly thereafter. Fallon to Hymans, 4 Jan. 1919, no. 119/14, BMAE CP PB/1919; Moncheur to Hymans, 27 Jan. 1919, no. 698/188, BMAE CP Grande-Bretagne/1919/I; Rosen, 3:238.

22. Bentinck, pp. 22–23; Ilsemann, 1:48, 54–55; Rosen, 3:238.

23. Bentinck, pp. 24–31; Ilsemann, 1:55–60; Rosen, 3:239–40. An enterprising Dutch journalist smuggled himself in with the luggage. Two days later came the first of many assassination scares.

24. Memoirs of the Crown Prince of Germany (New York, 1922), pp. 222, 342–57Google Scholar; Jonas, Klaus W., The Life of Crown Prince Wilhelm (Pittsburgh, 1961), pp. 127–29, 142, 149–50Google Scholar; Barnouw, p. 390; DuB, R.G.P. 117:737; Fallon to Hymans, 23 Nov. 1918, no. 1344/3165, BMAE CP PB/1918/II; Mencken, H. L., “Exile at Wieringen,” Baltimore Sun, 11 10 1922, pp. 1–2Google Scholar; Wilhelm, Kronprinz, “Von meiner Insel,” Velhagen und Klasings Monatshefte 38 (1923): 329–35Google Scholar. The prince installed a bathroom in 1922. Wieringen is now the northernmost part of the Wieringermeer Polder, reclaimed from the sea in 1930. At the southwest end of the enclosing dike, it lies roughly between the villages of Den Oever, Oosterland, and Hippolytushoef.

25. Rosen, 3:237; Ilsemann, 1:55, 63; Fallon to Hymans, 27 Nov. 1918, no. 17528/3210, BMAE CP PB/1918/II; Memoirs of Prince Max of Baden, 2 vols. (London, 1928), 2:360Google Scholar; Baumont, pp. 117–18, 121. But no decree of internment was issued for the crown prince and, on 20 November 1918, before either had abdicated, the American chargé reported that van Karnebeek had told the French minister that the Dutch government no longer considered the Kaiser and the crown prince interned since Holland had released all internees. FRUS, 1919, 2:652.

26. The Dutch legal opinion on the status of the Kaiser, written for the government in early December 1918, states Wilhelm declared at the border that he had abdicated both offices and came as a private person (DuB, R.G.P. 146/1195). Eyewitness accounts of events at Eijsden imply that Wilhelm said nothing but shed no light on what his aides may have said on his behalf. Rosen, who accompanied Wilhelm from Eijsden to Maarn, informed Ebert on 17 November 1918 (DuB, R.G.P. 145:214–18) that Wilhelm telegraphed the queen while en route to Maarn that “he considers himself as a private person.” Rosen may have told the German government what it wanted to hear and, in any event, this probably would have occurred after the Dutch cabinet's decision.

27. FRUS PPC, 2:78–79; Fallon to Hymans, 11 Dec. 1918, no. 18290/3374, BMAE CP PB/1918/II, A press release from Amerongen, arranged by Rosen on Wilhelm's arrival, implied he had not abdicated. Rosen, 3:227.

28. DuB, R.G.P. 146:1195–96. This opinion, dated 9 December 1918, also dealt with expulsion and extradition. Van Karnebeek later claimed that the Dutch thought the crown prince had abdicated but, in the absence of any definite proof, interned him at the outset. DuB, R.G.P. 117:771–74. He also later claimed that Dr. Wilhelm Solf, then German foreign minister, had told the Dutch minister in Berlin that the Kaiser had abdicated “about the time of his flight into Holland.” This is unconfirmed. FRUS PPC, 2:79.

29. DuB, R.G.P. 117:748–49, 761–63, 782, 796, 802; Ilsemann, 1:55, 68; FRUS PPC, 2:84–85. Wilhelm was a virtual prisoner at Amerongen, allowed to go beyond the gates only with Dutch escort. Rather quickly, his mail and telephone calls were censored.

30. Rosen, 3:241; Ilsemann, 1:60, 70, 791; DuB, R.G.P. 117:763–65, 802. Some accounts state that Queen Wilhelmina thought Bellemonte too grand for a deposed monarch. The arrangement at Amerongen after the first ten days or so was that Wilhelm would pay the expenses above normal household costs, as averaged from the previous three years' accounts.

31. On the property settlement, see Sweetman, Jack, “The Unforgotten Crowns: The German Monarchist Movements, 1918–1945” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1973), 1:116–21.Google Scholar

32. DuB, R.G.P. 117:708–10, 716, 723–24; Ilsemann, 1:60; Rosen, 3:209–14. Wilhelm did not make the same mistake at the onset of World War II. Between October 1939 and January 1940, he transferred two-thirds of his personal funds to Switzerland. Palmer, Alan, The Kaiser, Warlord of the Second Reich (New York, 1978), p. 224.Google Scholar

33. Ilsemann, 1:63, 88.

34. Great Britain, Foreign Office, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, First Series (hereafter DBFP) (London, 1958–), 9:708Google Scholar; The Times (London), 5 11 1920, p. 12Google Scholar; Republik, Weimarer, Reichskanzlei, Akten der, Das Kabinett Bauer (Boppard am Rhein, 1980), pp. 194–95Google Scholar. There are major discrepancies in figures concerning amounts paid. According to The Times, citing a report made to the Legal Commission of the Prussian Landtag, the Prussian Finance Ministry paid over 45 million marks (about $5.5 million) in January 1919, 10,138,000 marks (about $538,400) in August 1919, and 10 million marks (about $373,000), chiefly for Doorn, in October 1919. Up to the report of 3 November 1920, there had been no further payments aside from 40 million marks (less 2 million marks taxes), proceeds from the sale of two properties on the Wilhelmstrasse, which was also applied in part to purchase and renovation of Doorn. This last sum cannot be converted with any exactitude into dollars because the date of its transfer is unknown; assuming reasonably prompt transfer, a rough guess would be about $4 million. Berlin press reports, more or less confirmed by the Auswärtiges Amt in response to Allied inquiries, put the January 1919 payment at 400,000 to 500,000 marks (about $49,000 to $61,000) and the August 1919 payment (listed as arrears from the privy purse) at 1,800,000 marks (about $96,100). Given Wilhelm's perpetual penury, these sums seem more likely than the larger ones. There is no disagreement about the last two figures. Great Britain, Public Record Office, D'Abernon to Curzon, 26 Nov. 1920, tel. 598, Foreign Office (hereafter FO) 371/4781; French Foreign Ministry archive, Paris (hereafter FMAE), Saint-Quentin to Leygues, 10 Dec. 1920, tel. 2259–60, Série Z, Allemagne, vol. 26 (hereafter Z/Alle/26). According to the rather vague account of Wilhelm's second wife, the 1919 payments were obtained by Wilhelm's lawyer on account toward a future financial settlement, but Wilhelm left much of the money in marks and thus lost it in the inflation. Hermine of Hohenzollern, An Empress in Exile (New York, 1928), pp. 196, 279.Google Scholar

35. The Kaiserin, used to a palace staff of 500, planned to bring a suite of 11, and was dismayed by Dutch insistence on only one lady-in-waiting. She came by special train, seen off by the Dutch minister in Berlin and his wife, and escorted throughout the trip by a representative of the German legation at The Hague, who brought with him the definitive abdication document for Wilhelm to sign. To the border, she was also escorted by a SPD deputy commissioned by the German government and by soldiers from the First Guards Regiment—in civilian clothes. As long as it was on German soil, the train's engine sported a red flag. Rosen did not go to the border, but his wife and that of the legation's first secretary did, with two attachés. On arrival, she was met by Counts Bentinck and Lijnden, effectively her husband's two keepers. Within hours, a soldiers' council telephoned from Germany, asking why the train was still there. It left in the evening, carrying her small suite and most of the rest of Wilhelm's entourage. There remained at Amerongen only three gentlemen and a lady, a physician, and a few servants. DuB, R.G.P. 117:763–65; DuD, R.G.P. 156:17, n. 6; Ilsemann, 1:65–66; Rosen, 3:242; Viktoria Luise, p. 144; Fallon to Hymans, 29 Nov. 1918, no. 17586/3219, BMAE CP PB/1918/II.

36. DuB, R.G.P. 117:763–65; Ilsemann, 1:66–67. On 1 December at Wieringen, the crown prince also formally renounced his rights to both thrones. For texts of both documents, see Baumont, p. 171n., or FRUS PPC, 2:77–78. At the same time Wilhelm apparently asked the German government to return his property. Schiedemann, 2:328.

37. Balfour to Barclay, 2 Dec. 1918, tel. 7095, FO 371/3227.

38. FRUS, 1919, 2:653–54; PRO, I.C. 98, 98a, 99, 2 Dec. 1918, Cabinet files (hereafter CAB) 28/5; Balfour to Barclay, 2 Dec. 1918, tel. 7095, Barclay to Balfour, 4 Dec. 1918, tel. 5416, FO 371/3227; Barrère to Pichon, 8 Dec. 1918, tel. 3014, FMAE Série A/65.

39. George, David Lloyd, Memoirs of the Peace Conference, 2 vols. (New Haven, 1939), 1:109Google Scholar; Medlicott, W. N., Contemporary England (London, 1967), p. 119.Google Scholar

40. DuB, R.G.P. 117:768–872 passim; DBFP, 9:706; Rosen, 3:249–50; Ilsemann, 1:69–71, 85; FRUS PPC, 2:79; Graham to Curzon, 19 Aug. 1920 (Annual Report, 1919), no. 655, FO 371/3848. The Dutch cabinet wanted Wilhelm to leave within a few days. According to Dutch gossip, van Karnebeek expected Wilhelm to kill himself. The Dutch also informally let the British, French, and Americans know they were willing to discuss the problem of Wilhelm, though not to tolerate pressure or consent to extradition. These overtures were ignored.

41. For example, DuB, R.G.P. 146:924. The same despatch from the American minister at The Hague is printed in FRUS PPC, 2:80–84, but with the relevant passage excised. See also Whittle, Tyler, The Last Kaiser (New York, 1977), p. 307Google Scholar; Cowles, Virginia, The Kaiser (New York, 1963), p. 410.Google Scholar

42. Ilsemann, 1:71.

43. Ibid., pp. 72–77. Wilhelm was also to don a pince-nez and dye his hair.

44. It is not clear whether the Dutch government suspected anything, but full military censorship of incoming and outgoing mail was imposed by the Dutch cabinet on 13 December 1918, along with surveillance of telegraph and telephone communications. DuB, R.G.P. 117:796. The Bentincks were told nothing but noted the bustle. Ilsemann, 1:73, 76.

45. DuB, R.G.P. 146:923, 927–30; Ilsemann, 1:75–79; Cowles, p. 410.

46. Ilsemann, 1:78–79, 81, 86, 92, 93.

47. DuB, R.G.P. 117:802; Ilsemann, 1:79, 88; Rosen, 3:221, 239.

48. Ilsemann, 1:79, 85. Flemish Zeeland along the Belgian border was probably not in question. The rest of the province then consisted of islands, since connected to the mainland.

49. FRUS PPC, 2:85–87; Ilsemann, 1:86. Accounts in English-language studies tend to be embroidered.

50. Ilsemann, 1:87–88. The ice on the inner moat was even broken every evening.

51. DuB, R.G.P. 117:741–42, 762–63, 780–82, 908; Ilsemann, 1:81, 89, 91; DuB, R.G.P. 146:938, 1159.

52. Wilhelm arrived in Holland with only a military wardrobe; his civilian clothes were stolen in the looting of the Berlin palaces. Ilsemann, 1:88, 90, 93–94, 96, 99, 102–3.

53. DuB, R.G.P. 117:935–37.

54. Ilsemann, 1:89, 103–4. The memoirs were typed at the German legation at The Hague.

55. DuB. R.G.P. 117:813–14, 851–53, 871–72, 877. See also Marks, Sally, Innocent Abroad: Belgium at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (Chapel Hill, 1981), pp. 78–82.Google Scholar

56. Commission minutes and reports are located in de Lapradelle, A., ed., La Paix de Versailles, 13 vols. (Paris, 1930–1932), vol. 3Google Scholar. Majority and dissenting reports are also to be found in Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Violations of the Laws and Customs of War (Oxford, 1919)Google Scholar, pamphlet 32. Quotation from p. 25 of the latter.

57. France, de Guerre, Ministère, Examen de la responsabilité pénale de l'empereur Guillaume II (Paris, 1918), p. 18Google Scholar; Mantoux, Paul, Les Déliberations du conseil des quatre (24 mars-28 juin 1919), 2 vols. (Paris, 1955), 1:185–92, 195–96, 238, 269Google Scholar; I.C. 172, 16 Apr. 1919, CAB 28/7; Hankey, Maurice P. A., The Supreme Control at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 (London, 1963), pp. 114, 116Google Scholar; DuB, R.G.P. 117:1054–55; Hymans, Paul, Mémoires, 2 vols. (Brussels, 1958), 1:479Google Scholar. Quotation from FRUS PPC, 13:371. The treaties violated were those of 1839 which committed Prussia (and its successors) to defend the independence, territorial integrity, and neutrality of Belgium and that of 1867 concerning Luxemburg. It is probable but not provable that Belgian refusal to act as prosecutor effectively prolonged the extradition crisis. Had Belgium held a leading role, Lloyd George's hostility to that country might well have led him to drop the issue quickly. Without his insistence, the quest would not have been pursued. For a detailed account of the deliberations at the peace conference, see Willis, James F., Prologue to Nuremburg (Westport, Conn., 1982)Google Scholar, chap. 5. In some respects this work is inaccurate, particularly where the author used an unreliable translator of German and Dutch materials.

58. Ilsemann, 1:96–99. The Dutch government's distress was visible to Allied diplomatists. Prevost to Pichon, 10 May 1919, tel. 217, FMAE A/65.

59. Ilsemann, 1:99–101, 107.

60. Republik, Weimarer, Reichskanzlei, Akten der, Das Kabinett Scheidemann (Boppard am Rhein, 1971), pp. 357 n. 7, 407Google Scholar; FRUS PPC, 13:371–72, 6:699–701, 704–6, 710, 721, 740, 751–52, 756–57. When the Four discussed the trial in June, Wilson wanted to make delivery of Wilhelm as easy as possible for the Dutch, Lloyd George was adamant that Holland not stand in the way of a trial, and Clemenceau doubted that the Dutch would object to extradition. FRUS PPC, 6:677.

61. Ilsemann, 1:105. The Dutch documents throw no light on the curious timing of these decisions.

62. Ibid., pp. 105–6. When Wilhelm abandoned real hope of a restoration is not clear. Sweetman notes (1:91) he never relinquished his claim to the throne. He is generally thought to have lost heart after the Kapp Putsch failed in March 1920 but, according to Belgian diplomatic reports, he fired off compromising telegrams to his supporters in Germany after Matthias Erzberger's assassination on 26 August 1921. De Romrée to Jaspar, 8 Sept. 1921, BMAE B-324X. He also held his funds in Germany.

63. Rosen, 3:251–56; Ilsemann, 1:107; DBFP, 9:625 n. 2. Alfonso also raised the matter in Paris and with prominent Englishmen during a London trip late in 1919 and protested in January 1920 to the French chargé and naval attaché in Madrid. DuB, R.G.P. 156:332–33; DBFP, 9:624–25; Marine to FMAE, n.d. [10–15 Jan. 1920], tel. 508, FMAE A/65.

64. Ilsemann, 1:107–8.

65. Rosen, 3:246–51; DBFP, 5:14–15; Ilsemann, 1:110. At about this time, Rosen was asked by his foreign minister and chancellor to have no further dealings with Wilhelm and his retinue because the Independent Socialists would seize the chance to charge the SPD with tepid republican sentiments. Rosen ceased visiting Amerongen, sending his wife instead, and the retinue continued to see lesser members of the legation staff, especially at times of crisis. Rosen, 3:258; Ilsemann, 1:107; Benoist, p. 391.

66. Dutch Orange Book, Mededeelingen van den Minister van Buitenlandsche Zaken aan de Staten-Generaal, Juni 1919-April 1920 (The Hague, 1920), pp. 11–12Google Scholar (hereafter Dutch Orange Book, 1919–1920); Hankey, p. 184.

67. FRUS, 1919, 2:656–57; DBFP, 5:37–38; DuD, R.G.P. 156:48–49; Ilsemann, 1:111.

68. Ilsemann, 1:109; DuD, R.G.P. 156:15–17. In raising the question of buying a home, Gontard was clearly requesting Dutch permission via Lijnden. The government did not reply in writing. If it consented orally, no indication survives.

69. DuD, R.G.P. 156:16–17; Rosen, 3:248; Ilsemann, 1:112–13; DuB, R.G.P. 146:923; Casanave to Clemenceau, 29 July 1919, tel. 11345, Service Historique de l'Armée, Vincennes (hereafter Vin), 5N/188. Wilhelm had made early excursions to the Amerongen woods, to Zuylestein, a Bentinck castle one mile from Amerongen, and to view Belle-monte.

70. There had been prior talk in London of a trial in the House of Lords or Westminster Hall. Curzon to Lloyd George, 7, 9 July 1919, Lloyd George to Curzon, 8 July 1919, Curzon Mss. (India Office Library, London), Fi 12/211; Stamfordham to Curzon, 9, 10 July 1919, Curzon Mss. F112/214b; Baron Hardinge of Penshurst, Old Diplomacy (London, 1947), p. 247.Google Scholar The French accepted the idea of a trial in England, thinking this had been decided among the Four. In fact, Clemenceau's last word on the subject at the peace conference had been to reserve for a second time French consent to a trial in England. The surviving French records (including the Fonds Clemenceau at Vincennes) do not explain why. Marginalia on Fleuriau to Pichon, 7 July 1919, no. 433, FMAE A/65; FRUS PPC, 6:671, 701. A British cabinet meeting on 23 July 1919 debated venues for the trial including Dover, the Channel Islands, and, once again, Hampton Court. War Cabinet 598, 23 July 1919, FO 371/4271.

71. DBFP, 5:21–22, 35–39; Robertson to Russell, 11 July 1919, Curzon Mss. F112/2143a; DuD, R.G.P. 156:68.

72. DuD, R.G.P. 156:48–49, 171–72. The Dutch had also obtained proof that Lansing strongly opposed extradition. An international lawyer, Lansing was noted for intense legalism and pro-Dutch sympathies. FRUS, 1919, 2:656; Robertson to Russell, 11 July 1919, Curzon Mss. F112/214a; Hankey, pp. 114, 116.

73. As a member of the clergy, Msgr. W. H. Nolens, leader of the Dutch Catholic party, was not a member of the cabinet.

74. DuD, R.G.P. 156:28, 48–49. The Pope also appealed twice to the British to abandon the trial. Gasparri to Gaisford, 22 June 1919, no. 92401, Gasparri to Balfour, 4 July 1919, no. 92828, FO 371/4271.

75. DuD, R.G.P. 156:185–88.

76. Ibid., pp. 187–88, 104–5. Wilhelm thought the archbishop's move was inspired by Erzberger, whom he considered a traitor and whose bloody end he predicted.

77. Hermine, pp. 242, 260, 269; Bentinck, p. 94; Palmer, p. 217; Ilsemann, 1:324–25; Casanave to Clemenceau, 16 Aug. 1919, tel. 11353, Vin 5N/188; DBFP, 5:230. Contemporary documents refer to the villa, a fourteenth-century fortified castle of the bishops of Utrecht which was demilitarized and rebuilt in 1780, as Huize Doom. Dutch spelling was modernized in 1947. Most secondary accounts state incorrectly that Wilhelm bought Doom in the spring of 1920, and several contemporary reports claim it had eleven bedrooms, which seems unlikely since both guests and the children of his second wife were housed in subsidiary buildings. Princess Hermine, who should have been clear about the domestic arrangements if little else, stated that the main house contained fifteen rooms, more than half of them clearly not bedrooms. The village had a population of 1,500 to 2,000.

78. Ilsemann, 1:112–13, 231, 324–25; DuB, R.G.P. 145:667 (Graham annual report on the Netherlands, 1919); DBFP, 5:926, 9:708, 724, 7:431.

79. Ilsemann, 1:113–14.

80. Ibid.; The Times (London), 5 11 1920, p. 12Google Scholar; Bentinck, p. 53.

81. The Times (London), 5 11 1920, p. 12Google Scholar; Ilsemann, 1:112, 114, 324–25. New servants' quarters were added, and “the fine old existing staircase” was replaced by a marble one from the New Palace in Berlin. Fencing around the park was also required, possibly by the Dutch government. Bentinck, p. 94; DBFP: 5:927; quotation from Graham to Curzon, 17 May 1920, Curzon Mss. F112/216.

82. DBFP, 5:178, 230, 924–26; Carton de Wiart to Hymans, 2 Sept. 1919, no. 6763/1665, BMAE B-324X.

83. DBFP, 5:926–27.

84. Van Swinderin had been sent to Paris during negotiation of the Versailles treaty to influence British opinion in Belgo-Dutch issues and then led the Dutch delegation in the abortive renegotiation of the 1839 treaties, which opened in Paris on 29 July 1919.

85. DuD, R.G.P. 156:48–49, 68, 104–5, 171–72, 333; DBFP, 5:21–22, 35–39, 571, 609–10, 928; Guillaume to Hymans, 28 Nov. 1919, no. 9127/2234, BMAE B-324X.

86. Art. 227, Versailles treaty; DuD, R.G.P. 156:49, 105n. 1; Lloyd George to Curzon, 8 July 1919, Curzon Mss. F112/211; DBFP, 5:38.

87. DuD, R.G.P. 156:68; DBFP, 5:10–13, 21–22, 83–84, 571, 739–40, 926–29; Robertson to Russell, 25 July 1919, FO 800/156; Casanave to Clemenceau, 29 July 1919, tel. 11345, Vin gN/188.

88. DBFP, 2:758 n. 7, 5:83–85, 739–40, 925 n. 1; Ilsemann, 1:112, 122–24, 126–9. Reports in early December in the Dutch and British press that Wilhelm had been on a shooting party with Prince Hendrik were false. The Times (London), 8 12 1919, p. 13Google Scholar; DBFP, 5:926–27.

89. DBFP, 2:758–59, 783, 5:610; Guillaume to Hymans, 28 Nov. 1919, no. 9127/2234, BMAE-324X; procès-verbal, 13 Dec. 1919, FMAE Série Y/16.

90. An earlier draft, written by Lansing during the peace conference to be used when appropriate, called for delivery of “the ex-Kaiser at a time and place to be later specified to be proceeded against in the manner provided in Article 227 of the treaty.” FRUS PPC, 6:705–6.

91. DBFP, 2:797–98, 875, 884–86, 912–13. For final text, see Dutch Orange Book, 1919–1920, p. 12, or DuD, R.G.P. 156:387–88.

92. DBFP, 2:911–12; Pichon to Benoist, 17 Jan. 1920, tel. 42–45, Vin 6N/291.

93. Guillaume to Hymans, 12 Jan. 1920, no. 179/44, BMAE B–324X1 DBFP, 9:612. This was probably a pose. The continuing security precautions at Amerongen effectively precluded Wilhelm's departure.

94. When removal to Zuylestein was proposed, Countess Keller, Dona's lady-in-waiting, indignantly rejected the idea because Wilhelm and Dona would have to share a dressing room. The much-tried Countess Elisabeth Bentinck took the view that if the imperial couple shared a bed, their clothes could hang together. Ilsemann, 1:132.

95. DBFP, 9:624.

96. Ibid., p. 617; DuD, R.G.P. 156:408–9.

97. Ilsemann, 1:139–41; DBFP, 9:611–13, 631; DuB, R.G.P. 146:1132; DuD, R.G.P. 156:384, 389–90; Benoist, p. 391; Graham to Hardinge, 20, 22 Jan., 3 Feb. 1920, Hardinge Mss. (Cambridge University Library), vol. 42; Millerand to Benoist, 23 Jan. 1920, tel. 73, FMAE A/65. Agreement between van Karnebeek and Heemskerk on the Kaiser question was a rarity.

98. DuD, R.G.P. 156:391–92, 408–9; Dutch Orange Book, 1919–1920, pp. 12–13.

99. DuD, R.G.P. 156:409–11., 410–11, 460n.; Kerchove to Hymans, 25 Jan. 1920, no. 65/29, BMAE CP Alle/2; DBFP, 9:613, 616, 619–20.

100. DBFP, 9:617, 620; Hardinge to Curzon, 27 Jan. 1920, Curzon Mss. F112/199; Hardinge, p. 247 (which erroneously sets the meeting in Paris on 28 January); Harding to Graham, 28 Jan. 1920, Hardinge Mss./42; Guillaume to Hymans, 27 Jan. 1920, no. 531/140, BMAE B-324X; Benoist, Charles, Souvenirs de Charles Benoist, 3 vols (Paris, 1932–1934), 3:388.Google Scholar

101. DuD, R.G.P. 156:419.

102. Guillaume to Hymans, 27 Jan. 1921, no. 531/140, BMAE B-324X; DBFP, 9:621–24; DuD, R.G.P. 156:417.

103. Hardinge to Curzon, 27 Jan. 1920, Curzon Mss. F112/199.

104. DBFP, 9:628–30.

105. Ibid., p. 624.

106. DuD, R.G.P. 156:105 n. 1.

107. DBFP, 9:627.

108. The Belgian government, concerned not to jeopardize revision of the 1839 treaties, was relieved that it was not asked to participate. Though well informed during this phase of the crisis, it did not consider trying to link the two questions to its own benefit, which probably would have failed, given Lloyd George's hostility to all things Belgian. Hymans to de Gaiffier, 3 Feb. 1920, no. 663/174, BMAE CP France/1920/1.

109. DBFP, 9:627–28. The Dutch had given Graham no reason to think that any of the proposed places of internment were acceptable to them.

110. Ibid., pp. 631–32. Holland was threatened with the largest strike in its history.

111. DuD, R.G.P. 156:423–25; DBFP, 9:646–49. Graham also reported that Ruys, whom he saw later, thought he was bluffing and van Karnebeek was said to think it a matter of French pressure to get Dutch credits. He further stated that each had been asked if the Dutch would imprison Wilhelm under strict guard; each had said yes, and if there was no Allied coercion, they would go much further. The Dutch documents provide no confirmation.

112. DBFP, 4:1080–85, 9:633; DuD, R.G.P. 156:423 n. 1, 433.

113. Cabinet 9 (20), 5 Feb. 1920, CAB 23/20; Graham to Hardinge, 3 Feb. 1920, Hardinge Mss./42; DBFP, 9:627–28.

114. Benoist to FMAE, 1, 2 Feb. 1920, tels. 65–67, 68, FMAE to Benoist, 2 Feb. 1920, tel. 92, FMAE A/66.

115. Cambon to Millerand, 3 Feb. 1920, tel. 43–45, FMAE A/66. Most of the French diplomatic records for 1920 were destroyed in World War II. What survives in A/65–66 (formerly A/71) is rather fragmentary and sheds little light on French thinking.

116. DuD, R.G.P. 156:433–37; Benoist, “Guillaume” p. 395; Benoist to Millerand, 7 Feb. 1920, tel. 83–85, FMAE A/66. In later years, Benoist placed the meeting on 7 February but van Karnebeek described it in his diary entry for 6 February.

117. DBFP, 9:662–63; DuD, R.G.P. 156:436–37. Dutch objections to sending Wilhelm to the Netherlands East Indies, aside from the legal barriers, arose from the fact that in 1898 Wilhelm made a speech in Damascus assuring Muslims the world over that he would forever be their friend. Cowles, pp. 164–65.

118. DuD, R.G.P. 156:445–47, 452–53; DBFP, 9:652–53.

119. Great Britain, Parliament, Cmd. 1325, Protocols and Correspondence between the Supreme Council and the Conference of Ambassadors and the German Government and the German Peace Delegation between January 10, 1920, and July 17, 1920, respecting the Execution of the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919 (London, 1921), p. 26Google Scholar; New York Times, 4 Feb. 1920, p. 1, 5 Feb. 1920, p. 1; Jonas, pp. 32–33; DBFP, 7:119–20; Ilsemann, 1:144–46; Kerchove to Hymans, 11 Feb. 1920, no. 458/180, BMAE CP Alle/2; de Ligne to Hymans, 12 Feb. 1920, no. 898/265, BMAE B-324X. Clearly Germany could not extradite the crown prince, but his case fell under Art. 228, not Art. 227. No request to extradite him was ever addressed to Holland. Dona's heart attack came after Wilhelm's brother-in-law urged him to surrender to the Entente.

120. DBFP, 9:635–37, 681–82, 7:24–26, 29–31, 37, 42.

121. Dutch Orange Book, 1919–1920, pp. 13–14.

122. Ibid.; DBFP, 7:37, 42, quotation from p. 31. The redraft was written by Philippe Berthelot who probably had Millerand's approval for the departures from the British draft. The French records shed no specific light on the alterations.

123. Graham to Hardinge, 19 Feb. 1920, Hardinge Mss./42; DBFP, 9:682–4; Benoist, Souvenirs, 3:393; Ilsemann, 1:146. During the Supreme Council discussion, Graham had complained to London about lack of instructions, inconsistent instructions, and lack of support from Allied colleagues. He predicted that blockade would be effective but thought the question not worth the damage to Anglo-Dutch relations and warned that otherwise threats would only make Britain look ridiculous. He opposed internment in the Falklands as leading to martyrdom, but remained optimistic that Allied insistence would gain exile to Java or north Holland. In reply, Hardinge explained that inconsistency of instructions arose from Lloyd George's shifts between truculence and concession. At the moment he was conceding but nonetheless Graham was to use “strong private language” with the Dutch. Graham to Hardinge, 10 Feb. 1920, Hardinge to Graham, 12 Feb. 1920, Hardinge Mss./42.

124. DBFP, 9:685–86. Meanwhile the Dutch had again received support from the Vatican, which was disappointed that its assistance was not needed. DuD, R.G.P. 156:460.

125. DBFP, 7:220–22. In other matters, e.g., extradition of alleged war criminals, Lloyd George was doing his best to prevent treaty execution. His argument here was clearly tailored to his audience. The Supreme Council met almost continuously until late March.

126. Ibid., pp. 222–26; Curzon to Graham, 25 Feb. 1920, Curzon Mss. F112/216; quotation on Graham to Curzon, 23 Feb. 1920, tel. 51, FO 371/4273. A Japanese representative was present but, as usual, lacked instructions in the matter. At this juncture, the French, having finally been asked to support Graham at The Hague, did so only in terms of the identic demarch. Derby to Millerand, 23 Feb. 1920, Millerand to Derby, 2 Mar. 1920, Benoist to Millerand, 26 Feb. 1920, tel. 117–18, FMAE A/66.

127. DBFP, 9:687, 689–91; DuD, R.G.P. 156:487 n. 1; Benoist, Souvenirs, 3:394–96; Graham to Curzon, l Mar. 1920, Curzon Mss. F112/216; Graham to Hardinge, 10 Feb. 1920, Hardinge Mss./42; Graham to Curzon, 27 Feb. 1920, no. 214, FO 371/4273. According to van Karnebeek's diary, Benoist told him on 28 February that the Allies would never permit Wilhelm to remain in Holland. DuD, R.G.P. 156:437n. There is no confirmation in the French files, perhaps because Benoist left at once for Paris.

128. Dutch Orange Book, 1919–1920, pp. 14–15.

129. DuD, R.G.P. 156:487; DBFP, 7:431. In fact, Wilhelm had not yet been told of permanent restrictions and had signed nothing.

130. DuD, R.G.P. 156:488–90; DBFP, 7:425.

131. DBFP, 7:423–28, 9:698–99.

132. DBFP, 9:700–6. By this time, the French had abandoned hope of obtaining Wilhelm. Fernard Prevost, French chargé at The Hague, urged deciding where in Holland the Allies wanted him to reside; in London, French representatives raised Millerand's (and before him, Clemenceau's) proposal of a contumacy trial, which the British opposed; Millerand himself ordered Prevost to take no action beyond the demarche as he considered further talk with Holland useless and wished to drop the matter. Prevost to Millerand, 8 Mar. 1920, tel. 130–36, Millerand to Cambon, 9 Mar. 1920, tel. 2256, Cambon to Millerand, 9, 10 Mar. 1920, tels. 192, 200, Millerand to Prevost, 10 Mar. 1920, tel. 201, FMAE A/66.

133. DuD, R.G.P. 156:494–95, 502–3; Ilsemann, 1:147–48; DBFP, 9:707, 710; Benoist, Souvenirs, 3:397–98. Ilsemann says the Dutch did not insist and Wilhelm promised not to leave the specified district. But van Karnebeek told both Graham and Prevost that Wilhelm had signed a declaration, and confirmed this in writing to Graham on 12 March. Though van Karnebeek was not beyond stretching the truth, he was unlikely to do so in a formal diplomatic note on a matter of consequence where he might later have to prove his statement. Further, he gave a copy of the German text to Prevost. Prevost to Millerand, 13 Mar. 1920, tel. 139–45, FMAE A/66.

134. DBFP, 9:706–10, 716.

135. Ibid., p. 710. Millerand declared himself “personally very satisfied” with the Dutch decision. Millerand to Prevost, 14 Mar. 1920, tel. 210, FMAE Z/Alle/26.

136. Ilsemann, 1:149; DBFP, 9:711–12; DuD, R.G.P. 156:487 n. 2; Benoist to Millerand, 15 Mar. 1920, tel. 153–54, FMAE A/66; Graham to Hardinge, 16 Mar. 1920, Hardinge Mss./42. The entourage noted that the royal word was not fully trusted. Security was also tightened on Wieringen, and even Dona's letters from her children were censored.

137. DBFP, 7:492–93, 9:711.

138. Ibid., 7:552. Queen Wilhelmina had insisted that Wilhelm and Dona be allowed to live at Doom. Even then, Graham thought Allied firmness and unity (which he noted did not exist) could obtain colonial internment. Graham to Hardinge, 16 Mar. 1920, Hardinge Mss./42.

139. DuD, R.G.P. 156:487 n. 2, 513; Benoist, “Guillaume,” p. 397; DBFP, 9:716–17. On 9 April 1920, the cabinet authorized van Karnebeek “to buy out of refugee funds the parsonage at Wieringen as accommodation for the former German crown prince.” DuD, R.G.P. 156:513 n. 1. As to the Doorn-Amerongen area, van Karnebeek said it was particularly suitable since it had a railway on two sides and a river on the third. But the railway led to Germany and the river was the Rhine.

140. DBFP, 9:718.

141. Holland joined on 9 March 1920, one day before the deadline for invited states. FRUS PPC, 13:74. Though she had long been striving to obtain The Hague as seat for the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), she probably delayed entry in hopes that the Kaiser-crisis would blow over and, with it, the threat to bar Holland from the League.

142. DBFP, 9:713–16, 724, quotation on 716.

143. DBFP, 7:547–50.

144. Ibid., pp. 591–93, 600–1, 616–17, 657–58; Moncheur to Hymans, 29 Mar. 1920, no. 1481/514, BMAE CP Grande-Bretagne/18; Millerand to Cambon, 25 Mar. 1920, tel. 3044, FMAE A/Alle/26. French concern may have related to repayment of earlier Dutch loans.

145. Dutch Orange Book, 1919–1920, p. 15. This constituted the sole reference to the crown prince since the first note of 28 June 1919 referred to his possible escape.

146. De Ligne to Hymans, 30 Mar. 1920, no. 1983/531, BMAE CP PB/17. The Belgian report, based on Graham's account, says the note was given to van Karnebeek, but the British and French reports state it was given to Ruys, as with the previous note. Also, the English text would not have been read in French to van Karnebeek who, unlike Ruys, spoke English. DBFP, 9:728; Benoist to Millerand, 20 Mar. 1920, tel. 192, Vin 6N/211. The Japanese minister had finally received instructions to associate himself with Allied demarches. Curzon to Graham, 12 Mar. 1920, tel. 43, FO 371/4273.

147. DBFP, 9:729; DuD, R.G.P. 156:540.

148. This policy was observed at the time. Kerchove to Hymans, 24 Mar. 1920, no. 1387/522, BMAE CP Alle/2.

149. Lloyd George rarely read or wrote memos and his papers shed little light on his thinking.

150. Graham to Hardinge, 22 Mar. 1920, Hardinge Mss./42. On 15 March, van Swinderin told Sir Eyre Crowe of the Foreign Office that Lloyd George had indicated to him “that he quite understood and sympathized with the difficulties of the Netherlands government and had every desire to meet them.” Crowe minute, 16 Mar. 1920, on Graham to Curzon, 12 Mar. 1920, no. 269, FO 371/4273.

151. Graham to Hardinge, 22 Mar. 1920, Hardinge Mss./42. Hardinge replied, “We are all sick of the Kaiser-question. There was never a more hollow sham than the fictitious energy shown in demanding his surrender and then his internment overseas. Anybody but our present rulers would have known that refusal on the part of the Dutch was a foregone conclusion.” Hardinge to Graham, 10 Apr. 1920, Hardinge Mss./42.

152. Van Karnebeek underlined the phrase “soit sur place” in red and showed it to those who tried to convince him that the Allies were serious about removing Wilhelm from Holland. DBFP, 9:721.

153. In June 1920, a League of Nations committee meeting in Holland decided that the PCIJ would be established at The Hague. DuD, R.G.P. 156:595. International conferences soon followed.

154. Ilsemann, 1:153. Wilhelm—in full uniform—was the star attraction at the wedding in October. Bentinck, pp. 113–15.

155. Ilsemann, 1:154–56. Countess Elisabeth noted in her diary the joy of opening Amerongen's gates again after eighteen months.

156. Ibid., pp. 156, 160, 193–94.

157. Ibid., pp. 324; Benoist to Millerand, 20 June 1920, no. 209, FMAE A/66; Benoist, “Guillaume,” pp. 399, 401; Hermine, pp. 208, 225, 278–80; Langer, William L., In and Out of the Ivory Tower, (New York, 1977), p. 160.Google Scholar

158. Graham to Curzon, 17 May 1920, Curzon Mss. F112/216.

159. Benoist, “Guillaume,” pp. 399–400; Bentinck, pp. 131–32.

160. Benoist, “Guillaume,” p. 400.

161. Ilsemann, 1:156, 173; Briand to Benoist, 22, 25 Jan. 1921, tels. 28, 31, Benoist to Briand, 22 Jan. 1921, tel. 13–16, Laurent to Briand, 23 Jan. 1921, tel. 166, FMAE Z/Alle/26; de Ligne to Jaspar, 29 Dec. 1920, 24 Jan., 1 Feb. 1921, nos. 8895/3329, 329/129, 489/181, Jaspar to de Ligne, 22 Jan. 1921, tel. 3, BMAE B–324X; de Gaiffier to Jaspar, 3 Feb. 1921, no. 1013/517, BMAE CP France/1921; Benoist, “Guillaume,” p. 401. The Belgian government endorsed the Anglo-French stand.

162. Ilsemann, 1:174–78; de la Faille to Jaspar, 21 Apr. 1921, no. 3086/1150, BMAE B-324X. Prior negotiations between the Prussian government and Wilhelm's agents had led to agreement on an early morning interment before an invited group. In January 1921, the German cabinet had decided not to attend but to send condolences to Prince Eitel Friedrich. The telegram upon Dona's death read: “I am hereby honored to express the sincere and heartfelt sympathy of the Reich government at the severe loss that has be-fallen the imperial family. Fehrenbach.” Weimarer Republik, Akten der Reichskanzlei, Das Kabinett Fehrenbach (Boppard am Rhein, 1972), pp. 406, 406 n. 12.Google Scholar

163. Ilsemann, 1:178, 187–88, 191–92.

164. Ibid., pp. 218–19. In fact, her son (possibly at Hermine's instigation) wrote Wilhelm a letter on the latter's birthday and received in return an invitation to visit with his mother—who promptly came alone. Balfour, pp. 415–16.

165. Ilsemann, 1:218–225; Hermine, pp. 242–43. The crown prince was there but his wife refused to attend. Jonas, p. 145. The Dutch royal family kept its distance for some years. Indeed, in July 1922 Wilhelm asked for a letter from the Dutch government thanking him for giving no trouble so far; Kan not only refused but said no change in regulations was possible as the queen would not agree, thought his estate too large, and would not meet him under any circumstances. But Kan also indicated that exceeding the small assigned district around Doom would bring only a reprimand, and not that if he had official Dutch escort. Gradually the royal reserve and the restrictions eased. Contact resumed with the queen mother (who had a castle near Doom and who was related to Hermine) and Wilhelm was free to travel within Holland. Ilsemann, 1:231; Hermine, pp. 225–28, 258.

166. He died on 4 June 1941 and was buried at Doom at his own request. Hermine, banished from Doom by the crown prince, returned to her first husband's estate in Silesia. She died in Frankfurt a.d.O. on 7 August 1947. As the Cold War prevented removal of her remains to Doom, she was interred beside Dona in the Antique Temple at Potsdam. Jonas, pp. 145–46; Sweetman, 2:654–66; New York Times, 16 Aug. 1947, p. 3. After the war, the Dutch government seized Huis Doom, effectively preventing the crown prince from selling it and its contents, as he did other family properties to raise funds. Thus Wilhelm's last home is the sole surviving Hohenzollern museum. See Sweetman, 1:1–7, for an evocative description.