Battle of Great Bridge

The Battle of Great Bridge was fought December 9, 1775, in the area of Great Bridge, Virginia, early in the American Revolutionary War. The victory by colonial Virginia militia forces led to the departure of Royal Governor Lord Dunmore and any remaining vestiges of British power over the Colony of Virginia during the early days of the conflict.
Following increasing political and military tensions in early 1775, both Dunmore and colonial rebel leaders recruited troops and engaged in a struggle for available military supplies. The struggle eventually focused on Norfolk, where Dunmore had taken refuge aboard a Royal Navy vessel. Dunmore's forces had fortified one side of a critical river crossing south of Norfolk at Great Bridge, while rebel forces had occupied the other side. In an attempt to break up the rebel gathering, Dunmore ordered an attack across the bridge, which was decisively repulsed. Colonel William Woodford, the Virginia militia commander at the battle, described it as "a second Bunker's Hill affair".
Shortly thereafter, Norfolk, at the time a Loyalist center, was abandoned by Dunmore and the Tories, who fled to navy ships in the harbor. Rebel-occupied Norfolk was destroyed on January 1, 1776 in an action begun by Dunmore and completed by rebel forces.
Background.
Tensions in the British Colony of Virginia were raised in April 1775 at roughly the same time that the hostilities of the American Revolutionary War broke out in the Province of Massachusetts Bay with the Battles of Lexington and Concord. John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, had dismissed the colonial legislative assembly, the House of Burgesses, who then established a provisional assembly in Virginia Conventions. The Burgesses authorized existing and newly raised militia troops to arm themselves, leading to a struggle for control of the colony's military supplies. Under orders from Lord Dunmore, British forces removed gunpowder from the colonial storehouse in the capital of Williamsburg, causing a confrontation between royal and militia forces. Although the incident was resolved without violence, Dunmore, fearing for his personal safety, left Williamsburg in June 1775 and placed his family on board a Royal Navy ship. A small British fleet then took shape at Norfolk, a port town whose merchants had significant Loyalist (Tory) tendencies. The threat posed by the British fleet may also have played a role in minimizing Whig activity in the town.
Incidents continued between rebels on one side and loyalists (Tories) on the other until October, when Dunmore had acquired enough military support to begin operations against the rebellious colonists. General Thomas Gage, the British commander-in-chief for North America, had ordered small detachments of the 14th Regiment of Foot to Virginia in response to pleas by Dunmore for military help. These troops began raiding surrounding counties for rebel military supplies on October 12. This activity continued through the end of October, when a small British ship ran aground and was captured by rebels during a skirmish near Hampton. Navy boats sent to punish the townspeople were repulsed by colonial militia in a brief gunfight that resulted in the killing and capture of several sailors. Dunmore reacted to this event by issuing a proclamation on November 7 in which he declared martial law, and offered to emancipate colonist slaves in Virginia willing to serve in the British Army. The proclamation alarmed rebel and loyalist slaveholders alike, concerned by the idea of armed former slaves and the potential loss of their property. Nevertheless, Dunmore was able to recruit enough slaves to form the Ethiopian Regiment, as well as raising a company of Tories he called the Queen's Own Loyal Virginia Regiment (later absorbed into the Queen's Rangers in 1776). These local forces supplemented the two companies of the 14th Foot, and in addition to the naval forces, that were the sole British military presence in the colony. This successful recruiting drive prompted Dunmore to write on November 30, 1775 that he would soon be able to "reduce this colony to a proper sense of their duty."
Prelude.
Lord Dunmore had, on arrival in Norfolk, ordered the fortification of the bridge across the Elizabeth River, about south of Norfolk in the village of Great Bridge. The bridge formed a natural defense point since it was on the only road leading south from Norfolk toward North Carolina, it was bordered on both sides by the Great Dismal Swamp, and the access to the bridge on both sides was via narrow causeways. Dunmore sent 25 men of the 14th Foot to the bridge, where they erected a small stockade fort they called Fort Murray on the Norfolk side of the bridge. They also removed the bridge planking to make crossing it more difficult. The fort was armed with two cannons and several smaller swivel guns. The men of the 14th were augmented by small companies from the Ethiopian and Queen's Own regiments, bringing the garrison size to between 40 and 80 men.
In response to Dunmore's proclamation, Virginia's assembly ordered its militia troops to march on Norfolk. William Woodford, the colonel leading the 2nd Virginia Regiment, advanced toward the bridge with his regiment of 400 and about 100 riflemen from the Culpeper Minutemen. On December 2 they arrived at the bridge and set up a camp across the bridge from the British fort. Upon their arrival the British set about destroying buildings near the fort to ensure a clear field of fire. Woodford was at first unwilling to assault the British position, thinking he lacked enough cannons to overcome an overly generous estimate of the garrison's strength. He therefore began entrenching his position, while more and more militia companies arrived from the surrounding counties and North Carolina. Some cannons eventually arrived with a contingent of North Carolina men, but they were useless because they lacked mountings and carriages. Woodford also became concerned when he heard rumors that a large number of Scottish Highlanders had joined Dunmore's forces. The rumors were partly true: the Highlanders were in fact 120 families, but few of the men were skilled at arms. By December 8, the force in the militia camp had grown to nearly 900, with more than 700 fit for duty.
Dunmore learned that the colonial militia had acquired cannons, but was unaware they were inoperable. Concerned for the safety of the garrison, he decided an attack on their position was necessary. His plan called for a diversionary attack by the Ethiopian companies of the garrison at a spot downriver from the bridge to draw the militia's attention, while the garrison, reinforced by additional troops from Norfolk, would attack across the bridge in the early morning light.
Battle.
Dunmore's best intelligence had informed him that the rebel forces numbered about 400. On the night and morning of December 8 and 9 Captain Samuel Leslie led reinforcements down to Fort Murray, arriving around 3:00 am. Upon his arrival he learned that the Ethiopian detachment intended for the diversion was not in the fort. They had been dispatched on a routine deployment to another nearby crossing, and Dunmore had failed to send orders ensuring their availability for the operation. Leslie decided to proceed with the attack anyway. After resting his troops until a little before dawn, he sent men out to replace the bridge planking. Once this was finished, Captain Charles Fordyce led a company of 60 grenadiers across the bridge. They briefly skirmished with militia sentries, raising the alarm in the camp beyond the entrenchments. Fordyce's men were then joined by a company of navy gunners who had been brought along to operate the field artillery for the attack, while the Tory companies arrayed themselves on the Norfolk side of the bridge.
The militia leadership in the camp at first thought the early skirmishing was a typical morning salute, and paid it little heed. Shortly after reveille, the severity of the alarm became apparent. While the camp mobilized, a militia company numbering about sixty prepared for the British advance behind the earthworks. They carefully withheld fire until the grenadiers, advancing with bayonets fixed, were within , and then unleashed a torrent of fire on the British column. Fordyce, leading the column, went down in a hail of musket fire just steps from the earthworks along with many of the men in the front ranks. The British advance dissolved as the militia musket fire continued; about half of Fordyce's force was killed, and many were injured. The navy gunners provided covering fire as they retreated back across the bridge, but their small cannons made no impression on the earthworks.
Colonel Woodford had by this time organized the forces in the rebel camp, and they marched out to face the British. After an inconsequential exchange of musket fire at long range, Woodford sent the riflemen of the Culpeper Minutemen off to the left. From this position the riflemen, whose weapons had a much longer range than muskets, began to fire on the British position on the far side of the bridge. The navy gunners, with the only weapons the British had available to contest the riflemen at that range, were now out of position, and were also being threatened by the large militia force approaching the earthworks. They spiked their guns and retreated across the bridge, and Captain Leslie ordered his men to retreat into Fort Murray. In some 25 minutes, Dunmore's attempt to stop the rebel buildup near Norfolk had been emphatically turned back.
Aftermath.
Following a truce to permit the British to remove their dead and wounded, the Tory forces sneaked out in the night to return to Norfolk. Captain Fordyce was buried with full military honors by the rebels near the site of the battle. Casualty estimates ranged from Dunmore's official report of 62 killed or wounded to an escaped patriot's report that the British losses totaled 102, excluding militia casualties. The only claimed rebel casualty was one man with a slight wound to the thumb. Colonel William Woodford, reporting on the 2nd Virginia Regiment's service at the battle, wrote in a letter published in Purdie's "Virginia Gazette", December 15, 1775: "This was a second Bunker's Hill affair, in miniature; with this difference, that we kept our post, and had only one man wounded in the hand."
The Virginia militia forces were then reinforced by the arrival of troops from North Carolina under Colonel Robert Howe. Dunmore blamed Leslie for his decision to attack without the accompanying diversion, although the outcome of the battle may not have been different even with the diversion, given the disparity in force sizes. In the following days, Dunmore and his Tory supporters took refuge on ships of the Royal Navy, and Norfolk was occupied by the victorious rebel forces. The danger Dunmore posed to the rebel cause, however, had not been eliminated. General George Washington, commander-in-chief of the Continental Army and a Virginian who knew Dunmore well, wrote a letter to Charles Lee in late December, warning of continued danger despite Dunmore's flight to the navy. He told Lee that "if that Man is not crushed before Spring, he will become the most formidable Enemy America has", and that "nothing less than depriving him of life or liberty will secure peace to Virginia."
After a series of escalations over the rebel's refusal to allow provisions to be delivered to the overcrowded vessels, Dunmore and Commodore Henry Pellow decided to bombard the town. On January 1, 1776, Norfolk was destroyed in action begun by Royal Navy ships and their landing parties, but completed by rebel troops that continued to loot and burn the former Tory stronghold.
Lord Dunmore occupied Portsmouth in February 1776, and used it as a base for raiding operations until late March, when General Charles Lee successfully forced him back to the fleet. After further raiding operations in the Chesapeake, Dunmore and the British fleet left for New York City in August 1776. Dunmore never returned to Virginia.
A highway marker was placed by the state of Virginia in 1934 near the battle site. In response to construction threats to the battlefield, local citizens organized in 1999 to preserve the area.


Ames Tavern

The Ames Tavern was a tavern in Dedham, Massachusetts. Founded as Fisher's Tavern in 1649 by Joshua Fisher, it eventually passed into the hands of Nathaniel Ames through a complicated lawsuit based on colonial laws of inheritance. It was eventually owned by Richard Woodward, who renamed it the Woodward Tavern by the time the convention that adopted the Suffolk Resolves met there.
Fisher's Tavern.
After Michael Powell left Dedham for Boston in 1649, it left the town without a tavern keeper. Joshua Fisher then opened Fisher's Tavern in what is present day Dedham Square, at the corner of Ames and High Streets, near "the keye where the first settlers' landed." Just across the street was a piece of unoccupied land including that on which the Norfolk County Courthouse now stands.
Fisher brewed his own malt liquor and had a tap room at his house and a drinking room at the brew house. Given the distance from Boston, the General Court agreed on May 9, 1649 to free Dedham from the tax levied on wine. They also granted Fisher the right to serve "strong waters." Should anyone get drunk at his establishment, though, he would be fined 10 shillings. A colony law also required him to close down during the time church services were held.
His tavern was passed down to his son, Joshua. About this time the old tavern was raised six inches higher, the walk filled with bricks, it was fitted with closets, and was completely furnished. After his death in 1730, it was passed down to his son, also named Joshua.
Ames' Tavern.
After Joshua Fisher died in 1730, he left a life estate to his wife, Hannah, with residual rights to his daughters. Nathaniel Ames moved to Dedham, and into the Tavern, in 1732. He married Joshua and Hannah's daughter Mary in 1735 and the two took up residence in the Tavern. Ames then, presumably with the approval of his mother-in-law, began running the tavern himself.
Mary and Nathaniel Ames had a son, Fisher Ames, in October 1737. Mary died a month later, however, leaving her rights in the tavern to baby Fisher. Fisher Ames died the following September. Nathaniel Ames continued to run the tavern, though he moved out in 1740 when he married Mary's cousin, Deborah Fisher.
Hannah did not die until 1744, at which point Joshua Fisher's other daughters and their husbands declared that they should inherit the very profitable tavern. Nathaniel Ames, who was litigious by nature, objected and filed a brief in probate court. He said that while under common law inheritances could only descend, a provincial law passed in 1692 allowed for inheritances to ascend. In this case, he claimed, the rights to the tavern flowed from Joshua Fisher to his widow, Hannah Fisher (who only had a life estate), to her daughter Mary Ames, to her son Fisher Ames, and then up to Nathaniel Ames.
Mary's sister, Hannah, and her husband, Benjamin Gay, her sister Judith, and her husband, John Simpson, and Samuel Richards, the widower of Mary's sister Rebecca, all opposed Nathaniel Ames with an appeal to common law. Nathaniel Ames won, but Benjamin Gay took physical possession of the property. When Ames took him to the Inferior Court of Judicature to evict him, Gay prevailed and the courts assessed Ames with court fees. Ames appealed to the Superior Court of Judicature, but lost again. Ames went back again to the Superior Court, this time getting a hearing before the full court and a jury. This time he won on a 5–2 vote.
Ames was incensed that he did not receive a unanimous opinion, however. He hung a sign out of front of the tavern, which was now officially his, that showed Benjamin Lynde and Paul Dudley, the two justices who voted against him, with their backs to books containing the laws of the province. When the judges heard about the sign, they dispatched the sheriff to go retrieve it so that they could see it for themselves. Word got to Ames faster than the sheriff did, however, so when the official pulled up to the tavern he found a new sign that simply stated "." Upon consulting a Bible, the sheriff read "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign but there shall be no sign given unto it."
Benjamin Franklin stayed at the tavern on October 12, 1763.
Woodward Tavern.
After Nathaniel Ames died in 1764, his widow Deborah ran it for several years with the help of several of her sons. In 1772, she married Richard Woodward and it became known as the Woodward Tavern. It was an unhappy marriage, however, and the couple divorced by 1784. Before he did, however, the convention that adopted the Suffolk Resolves met in the tavern and began their work.
Deborah died in 1817, at which time the tavern was torn down.
Building.
The public house featured a "Great Room" with a large fieldstone fireplace. In the summer, the room was filled with asparagus, smoke tree, and green shrubs. On the high desk, next to the quill pens, was the tavern's account book.
It was a roomy, two story, peaked roof old building. The end towards the street was the oldest part, but it had an addition of more modern construction to the front. The rooms were low, the windows small, and the lower floor was sunken a little below the ground. There was no fence between the house and the street, and the intervening space was covered with grass of that thick and stubbed growth peculiar to such localities. Behind it was a large barn while on both sides, and back for so or to the Charles River, stretched a broad field of irregular surface.


Politics and government of the Dutch Republic

The Dutch Republic was a confederation of seven provinces, which had their own governments and were very independent, and a number of so-called Generality Lands. These latter were governed directly by the States-General ("Staten-Generaal" in Dutch), the federal government. The States-General were seated in The Hague and consisted of representatives of each of the seven provinces.
Overview.
When several provinces and cities in rebellion against Philip II of Spain declared themselves independent in 1581 with the Act of Abjuration, they initially aspired to appoint another prince as head of state. The sovereignty of the provinces was first offered to Francis, Duke of Anjou, but his 1583 coup d'état was foiled and he was ousted. After the assassination of rebel leader William the Silent, it was offered in turn to and declined by Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England. Elizabeth did make the provinces an English protectorate and sent over the Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester as governor-general (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585). For many reasons, it was not a success, and Leicester left in 1588. This left the provinces in rebellion without a head.
The provinces of the republic were, in official feudal order: the duchy of Guelders ("Gelre" in Dutch), the counties of Holland and Zeeland, the former bishopric of Utrecht, the lordship of Overijssel, and the free (i.e. never feudalised) provinces of Friesland and Groningen. In fact there was an eighth province, the lordship of Drenthe, but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying confederal taxes and, as a corollary, was denied representation in the States-General. The duchy of Brabant, the county of Flanders and the lordship of Mechelen were also among the rebelling provinces, but were later completely or largely reconquered by Spain. After the Peace of Westphalia, the parts of these provinces that remained in the Dutch Republic's hands, as well as several other border territories, became confederally governed Generality Lands ("Generaliteitslanden"). They were Staats-Brabant (present North Brabant), Staats-Vlaanderen (present Zeelandic Flanders), Staats-Overmaas (around Maastricht) and Staats-Opper-Gelre (around Venlo, after 1715).
The republican form of government was not democratic in the modern sense; in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, the "regents" or "regenten" formed the ruling class of the Dutch Republic, the leaders of the Dutch cities or the heads of organisations (e.g. "regent of an orphanage"). Since the late Middle Ages Dutch cities had been run by the richer merchant families. Although not formally a hereditary "class", they were de facto "patricians", comparable in some sense to that ancient Roman class. At first the lower-class citizens in the guilds and schutterijen could unite to form a certain counterbalance to the regenten, but in the course of the 16th, 17th and 18th century the administration of the cities and towns became oligarchical in character, and it became harder and harder to enter their caste. From the latter part of the 17th century the regent families were able to reserve government offices to themselves via quasi-formal contractual arrangements. Most offices were filled by co-option for life. Thus the regent class tended to perpetuate itself into a closed class. However, in practice they had to take into account the opinions of the man on the street, otherwise they ran the risk of being dislodged by political upheavals, like the Orangist revolutions of 1672 and 1747 and the Patriot revolt of 1785.
Preponderance of Holland.
Historically, Holland was by far the most populous and prosperous of the provinces north of the rivers. Even today people use the term Holland colloquially to refer to the provinces of North Holland and South Holland as well as the Kingdom of the Netherlands in general. This was true in the past also, and is due to the predominance of the province of Holland in population, resources and industry north of the great river estuaries of the Rhine and the Meuse ().
Holland's hegemony over the other provinces north of the Rhine and the Maas that would form the Dutch Republic is a culmination of trends reaching back to the thirteenth century. (see also Northwestern Regional Center and Amsterdam-region) The Dutch Revolt removed the counterweights that had historically kept Holland in check from the fifteenth century: the relatively more prosperous commerce of Flanders and Brabant/Antwerp and the centralizing tendencies of the Burgundian and Habsburg rulers. Hollandish hegemony north of the Rhine/Maas delta was contested for a while by the Duchy of Gelderland (see Guelders Wars), but was unsuccessful due to the resources of Holland and their Habsburg rulers.
The center of the Dutch Revolt was initially in the southern Netherlands. The influence of William the Silent and Leicester also checked Holland. With Leicester's departure, and the reconquest of the southern Netherlands as well as large parts of the north by the Duke of Parma, there was no longer any countervailing influence. Much of the commerce that had fueled the growth of Flanders and Brabant also fled north to Holland during the upheavals of the revolt. So, at the formative stages of the Dutch Republic's institutions, from 1588 through roughly the next 20 years there was no other power that had any leverage over Holland. Holland built the Republic and its institutions on the basis of sovereign provincial rights. However, only Holland could fully utilize them. It employed the lesser provinces, as they were reconquered, to bolster her defenses and economic resources. The States General had powers over foreign policy, and war and peace. It extended its decisions, especially after 1590, to inter-provincial matters such as regulation of shipping, administration of the conquered lands, church affairs, and colonial expansion. This framework was largely built and imposed by Holland, sometimes over the objections of the other provinces.
This is not to say that the institutions of the Republic were completely Holland centric. In matters of form and ceremony the seven voting provinces were equal and sovereign in their own houses. The Union of Utrecht and the States General that gave it substance and form were not intended to function as a federal state. The provinces were supposed to take important decisions unanimously. So the intent of the Union of Utrecht was a confederacy of states. What emerged due to circumstances after 1579 was more a sovereign federation of sovereign states (a formulation borrowed by the United States of America). The rule of unanimity was largely unworkable: the decision to back William III's invasion of England in 1688 was a notable exception. Principle decisions, however, were seldom, if ever, taken over the objections of Holland. In the same way, Holland, in the interests of harmony, would not try, once the other provinces were reconstituted and rejoined to the Union, to take a decision over the strenuous objections of the other provinces, but would try to build a majority consensus on major decisions. Within these constraints, as seen below, a persuasive Councilor Pensionary of Holland and/or a Stadholder/Prince of Orange could move the provinces to a consensus.
National government.
States-General.
The States-General ("Staten-Generaal" in Dutch) or the Generality ("Generaliteiten") for short was a descendant of the medieval Burgundian and Habsburg States-Generals. In medieval times and under the Habsburgs, they met infrequently to discuss matters of common interest and to vote taxes for the benefit of the Dukes of Burgundy and their Habsburg heirs. At first the States-General was thought of as an extraordinary body. After the abjuration of the king in 1581 and the separation of the northern Netherlands from the Spanish dominions, the States-General replaced the king as the supreme authority and as the central government of the northern Netherlands, which then became known as the United Provinces. As alluded to above, this was an "ad hoc" arrangement since no prince would anger Spain by accepting sovereignty over the provinces. As the years went by, and the confidence of the governing regents and Princes of Orange grew, the desire to be ruled by a foreign prince diminished. From 1593, the States-General met daily, including on Sundays, usually between 11 and 1, and, after some variation in the earlier years, it came to sit in the Binnenhof, in The Hague, near the States of Holland.
The style of address to the States-General was codified by Johan de Witt in 1653 as "their High Mightinesses, the Lords States-General" or, in Dutch, "De Heeren Hoog-Mogenden, De Heeren Staten-Generaal der Verenigde Provinciën der Nederlanden").
Each province was allowed one vote in the States-General, and the Republic continued this practice. Each province could send as many representatives as they chose. However, the size of the meeting room limited the size of the delegations. The representatives were appointed for a term by the provincial estates and were not directly elected. Neither were they usually empowered to vote on their own decision. Referrals back to the provincial estates for a decision on how to vote were frequent. The system only worked when a talented Councilor Pensionary or Stadtholder (Prince of Orange) was able to arrange a consensus ahead of time. Meetings were held around a large conference table in the Binnenhof (the former palace of the counts of Holland), in The Hague, which was a central location and allowed easy travel back and forth to the other provinces. Since the States of Holland met in the same palace, communication between them and their delegates to the States-General was frequent, thus increasing their influence. Each province served as presiding officer of the States-General in turn. Given this weak executive structure, and the necessity to refer business for detailed review, the proceedings were often dominated by the Councillor Pensionary of Holland as the representative of the largest province, as well as the most well informed and prepared official. Representatives of Holland as well as other provinces would often defer to his expertise.
The States-General conducted foreign relations, declared war and peace, administered the army and navy, and levied tariffs. In short, it exclusively concerned itself with all those affairs that concerned the outward and common concerns of the Republic. It had negligible power internally, which was jealously guarded by the provincial States.
One of the most important tasks of the States-General was the appointment of the commander of the Republic's armies, the Captain General of the Union. The appointment was for life. William the Silent acted as chief commander of the army as the most eminent person and the leader of the rebellion, but this was never formalised. His son, Maurice was appointed Captain-General as a counterpose to Leicester. The Dutch were fortunate in this in that Maurice turned out to be a military genius and the foremost commander of his age. After that, it was a matter of course for the incumbent Prince of Orange to be appointed Captain General. The ability of the Princes to deliver victory and protect the Republic from its enemies lead to much of their political power and ability to provide clear, effective centralised leadership. The failure of the latter Princes, William IV and William V, to live up to this heritage consequently led to a large diminution of their power internally.
Once the budget for the year was set (as might be expected a subject of much negotiation), the percentage to be paid into the treasury of the Generality was set by tradition. As the largest, most populous, and richest province, Holland paid 58.3% of the required budget. The ability to provide this proportion of the Generality's funds is what gave the States of Holland (and as will be seen below the city of Amsterdam and its ruling burghers) their preponderance in the government. Zeeland contributed 10% to the budget, Friesland 11.7%, Utrecht 5.8%, Gelderland 3.6%, and Overijssel and Groningen 3.5% each. The poorer and more landward provinces were accessed less. The treasury of the Generality was administered by an official appointed by the States-General, the Treasurer-General. He chaired the Treasury Chamber of the Generality ("Rekenkamer") and kept its books. There was also a Receiver-General, who collected the taxes as well as the contributions of the member provinces. One of the key problems in this is that the Receiver-General had no authority to enforce payment into the treasury, and some of the poorer provinces were frequently in arrears.
The Generality Lands, which amounted to twenty percent of the new Republic's territory, were not assigned to any provincial council and had been conquered since 1581 from the Spanish. It was under the direct rule of the Generality, and not allowed to send representatives to the States-General. As such, these territories had no vote in the States-General.
Council of State.
The Council of State ("Raad van State") of the Generality functioned as the executive committee of the Union, and carried out its executive functions. It was descended from the Councils of States formed by the Burgundian Dukes and the Habsburgs. This incarnation was formed when Leicester became governor-general. After his departure, it was made subordinate to the States-General, and functioned as a subcommittee of it. It formulated the budget, organised and financed the army and navy (although naval policy was set by the Council of the Admiralty, as below), and levied taxes throughout the Union. It consisted of twelve members, appointed by the provinces for two, three, or four years, depending on the province, as well as the Prince of Orange. These members also tended to be the provinces' representatives to the States-General, as the Council was a subordinate to it. The councillors, contrary to general practice, voted individually, not by province. Each councillor presided in turn. Its members were fixed by tradition to:
Admiralties.
The administration of the navy of the Union and supervision of all its naval affairs was centred in another committee of the States-General, the Council of the Admiralty. It was responsible for setting naval policy and budget. Members were appointed by the states general and consisted of:
For day-to-day administration of the navy, there were originally three different subordinate Admiralties: The Admiralty of Rotterdam, representing Holland's southern quarter, the Admiralty of Amsterdam, representing its northern quarter (1587), and the Admiralty of Zeeland, based in Middelburg. A separate Admiralty of the Noorderkwartier based in Hoorn and Enkhuizen was later established. In 1597, the States of Friesland established the Admiralty of Friesland, based in Harlingen. On 14 June 1597 the States-General, approved a proposal in which the foundation of a "Generaliteitscollege" was decided upon; this replaced an earlier navy board, the "Collegie Superintendent," of which Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange (Admiral-General since 1588) had been the head, but which had been dissolved in 1593 as a result of disputes between the provinces. The "Generaliteitscollege" was to be a loose cooperation between five autonomous Admiralties to be represented in it. Each admiralty also had its own hierarchy. However, most ships and money came from Amsterdam, and after that Rotterdam and Zeeland. The situation tended to lead to divided command in battle and duplication of efforts, which could only be resolved by a strong Prince of Orange or Councilor Pensionary.
Stadtholderate.
One common confusion is that the office of the stadtholder was a national one. It was not. The stadtholder had been appointed by the sovereign (the Dukes of Burgundy or the Habsburgs) in each province as his representative, although traditionally Holland, Zeeland and Utrecht had the same Stadholder. By having 3, the Habsburgs prevented any one from becoming too powerful. In the absence of the sovereign, the provincial estates appointed their stadtholder. The term of office was for life. While it was held by the incumbent Prince of Orange, it was not made hereditary until the time of William IV. However, the Prince of Orange was not just another appointed servant of each of the provincial States, as the Councillor Pensionary was, nor not just another noble among equals in the Netherlands. First, he was the traditional leader of the nation in war and in rebellion against Spain as the direct descendant of William the Silent, the "Father of the Fatherland". He was uniquely able to transcend the local issues of the cities, towns and provinces. As the Prince of Orange, he was also a sovereign ruler in his own right. This gave him a great deal of prestige, even in a republic. He was the center of a real court like the Stuarts and Bourbons, French speaking, and extravagant to a scale. It was natural for foreign ambassadors and dignitaries to present themselves to him and consult with him as well as to the States General to which they were officially credited. The marriage policy of the princes, allying themselves twice with the Royal Stuarts, also gave them acceptance into the royal caste of rulers. The leaders in the individual provinces as well as the States-General looked to him for leadership and guidance. A strong Prince of Orange (those of the 17th century) could make the institutions of the Republic work efficiently. A weak Prince of Orange (those of the 18th century) would contribute greatly to the weakness of the government and the Republic.
Charted companies.
The Dutch East India Company and the Dutch West India Company, as quasi governmental organisations, were also under its general supervision along with the provincial and city boards of governors of the corporations. Staten Island in New York City (originally New Amsterdam) and Staten Island, Argentina (Discovered by Dutchman Jacob le Maire), are among places named after the Staten-Generaal.
Government of Holland.
States of Holland.
The province of Holland was governed from the earliest times by the States of Holland and West Friesland. This was an assembly of all the commons and nobles (though not clerics as in other countries) to the sovereign, the count of Holland. They also met in the Hague at the Binnenhof. The fact that their center of political power was also the de facto political center of the Republic gave them an advantage of the other provinces in addition to the 58.3% of the country's budget they paid. In 1653, de Witt formalised their style as "their Noble or Great Mightinesses, the Lords States of the Province of Holland and West Friesland".
The States of Holland met 4 times per year. Each city and town represented in the States had one vote, along with the College of the Nobility of Holland (Ridderschap in Dutch), which also had one vote. Each town could send as many representatives as it deemed necessary. The number of towns with voting privileges was originally six. Dordrecht was the first in rank. Its pensionary acted as Councillor Pensionary if necessary. The others were Delft, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Haarlem and Leiden. The number of voting towns was increased to eighteen by William the Silent in light of the population growth. The additional towns were Alkmaar, Den Briel, Edam, Enkhuizen, Gorinchem, Gouda, Hoorn, Medemblik, Monnikendam, Purmerend, Schiedam, and Schoonhoven. This composition remained unchanged until the end of the Republic.
The same method was used to raise revenue as was used by the States-General. Each city was charged its portion. Amsterdam paid almost 50% of the revenues/budget of Holland. Given Holland's contribution to the Generality's budget (above), Amsterdam paid approximately 25% of the entire national budget alone. This is part of what gave that city its preponderance in national and provincial affairs.
The Nobility was not very numerous in Holland, as Holland had never been very heavily feudalised. However, they still had a certain amount of prestige in an aristocratic age. They also had many prerequisites by tradition, such as the right to be appointed to certain lucrative posts and sinecures. Their hall, the Ridderzaal, was at the center of the Binnenhof. The Nobility usually had eight or nine of their number as representatives to the States. The office of Chief Noble of Holland an especially lucrative sinecure, although appointment was by the States. Some of its holders were Louis of Nassau, Lord of De Lek and Beverweerd and Joan Wolfert van Brederode They chaired the meetings of the States, as represented by their Pensionary, who was also counselor (retained legal advisor) to the States as a whole, hence the name Councilor Pensionary or in Dutch "raadpensionaris". This gave the Councillor Pensionary some of his power as he chaired the meetings of the States and spoke first as the representative of the Nobility, as well as last in summing up the debates. He was also the only representative with a fixed term (three years, extended to five years by the time of De Witt), an office, and the staff to prepare and study issues.
Delegated Councillors.
A major institutional change from previous practice was introduced in 1585. The main executive functions of Holland were carried out by the "Gecommitteerde Raden", usually translated as "Delegated Councillors". Except in emergencies, again after 1585, the States could only discuss agenda items set before it by the Gecommitteerde Raden. They formed a permanent standing committee of the States, with delegates from:
The Councilor Pensionary exercised much of influence here as he was again, the only representative with a fixed term, an office, and the staff to prepare and study issues, and then to carry them out.
The States of Holland usually sent the following delegates to States General:
Councilor Pensionary.
From his accretion of influence that went along with the committees, meetings of the States and States-General that he attended, and his staff that allowed him to study and carry out decisions, the Councilor Pensionary became by default the main executive official of the States of Holland and the States General. The Councillor Pensionary was appointed for a fixed five-year term, paid a salary, given a budget and a staff. This allowed him to study, propose, and carry out decisions of the States. He was not the leader (i.e. proto-prime-minister), but as the pensionary of the Nobility and the counselor of the States, a powerful Councillor Pensionary such as De Witt could shape the agenda, its outcome, and use his influence to persuade the other members of the States (who were part-time delegates) to vote for a particular policy, and then carry it out. The same carried through to the States-General, especially as he tended to the face of the most powerful province, Holland. As he was tasked with carrying out decisions, it was natural for other bodies, both domestic and foreign (i.e. ambassadors) to meet with him and deal with him to get the States and States-General to act on an issue.
Most of the other provinces (except Friesland, whose government differed significantly) had their own pensionary. However, none of them had the ability to build up the power and influence of the Holland's given Holland's influence in the Generality.
The office of Councillor Pensionary was a continuation of the office of Land's Advocate of Holland ("landsadvocaat"). That office shared many of the functions with the Councillor Pensionary, chairing meetings of the States of Holland, acting in committee for them, preparing business and agendas, acting a speaker for the nobility, and acting as their legal counselor and head of bureaucracy. The office started in the early 14th century and ended in 1619, when the title was renamed into Councillor Pensionary in response to the crisis of that year between the States of Holland, as represented by Johan van Oldenbarnevelt and the stadtholder, Prince Maurice, which the States lost.
Stadtholder.
The office of Stadtholder ("stadhouder" in Dutch), was a continuation of the Burgundian institution. Stadtholders in the Middle Ages were appointed by feudal lords to represent them in their absence. Each of the provinces of the Burgundian Netherlands had their own Stadtholder, although a Stadtholder might exercise authority over more than one province (e.g. William the Silent was Stadtholder of Holland, Zealand and Utrecht). A stadtholder was thus more powerful than a mere governor, who had only limited authority. In the 15th century the Dukes of Burgundy acquired most of the Low Countries, and these Burgundian Netherlands were in turn mostly governed by their own stadtholder. In the 16th century, the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, also King of Spain, who had inherited the Burgundian Netherlands, continued this tradition as he had much wider interests in Spain, Germany and Italy. Stadtholders continued to be appointed to represent Philip II, his son and successor in Spain and the Low Countries. Due to the centralist and absolutist policies of Philip, the actual power of the stadtholders strongly diminished. This was one of the causes of the Dutch Revolt.
When, in 1581, during the Dutch Revolt, most of the Dutch provinces declared their independence with the Act of Abjuration, the representative function of the stadtholder became obsolete in the rebellious northern Netherlands – the feudal lordship itself becoming vacant – but the office nevertheless continued in these provinces which now united themselves into the Dutch Republic. These United Provinces were struggling to adapt existing feudal concepts and institutions to the new situation and tended to be conservative in this matter, as they had after all rebelled against the king to defend their ancient rights. The fact that the stadtholder was William the Silent, the effective leader of the revolt, made the States determined to retain him and normalise his position. The stadtholder no longer represented the lord, the States retaining the sovereignty for themselves. He was appointed by the States of each province for that province, thus making it a provincial office. However, although each province could assign its own stadtholder, in practice the Prince of Orange, the direct descendant of William the Silent, was always appointed to the Stadtholderate of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, and Guelders, and the Count/later Prince of Nassau-Dietz, a cadet branch, was appointed Stadtholder of Friesland. Groningen and Overijssel appointed one or the other prince as their stadtholder.
The highest executive power was exerted by the sovereign States of each province, but the stadtholder had some prerogatives, such as appointing of lower officials and at times the ancient right to affirm the appointment (by co-option) of the members of regent councils or choose burgomasters from a shortlist of candidates. As these councils themselves appointed most members of the States, the stadtholder could very indirectly influence the general policy over the course of time. In Zeeland the Princes of Orange, who after the Dutch Revolt most often held the office of stadtholder there, held the dignity of "First Noble", and were as such a member of the States of that province, thanks to the fact that they held the title of Marquis of Veere and Flushing as one of their patrimonial titles.
In times of war, stadtholder, who, since the Prince of Orange was also appointed Captain-General (see above) and thus commanded the army, had much more influence and thus would have more power than the Councillor Pensionary. This was often why the Princes of Orange tended to favour a policy of war, against Spain or France (as was the case with Maurice and William II), rather than a policy of peace. However, this was not actually the power to command, but the power to influence, persuade the States, and have their decisions accepted as those of the States. As mentioned above, the ability of the 17th century House of Orange-Nassau Princes of Orange to influence and drive the States to a consensus lead to their leadership of the Generality. The inability of the Princes of Orange of the 18th Century to do so lead in great part to the fall of the Dutch Republic.
Government of the other provinces.
The governments of the remaining provinces, except for Friesland, tended to follow the pattern of Holland with some local variations.
The form of government of Zeeland was almost identical to that of Holland. It had six representative cities: Middelburg, Vlissingen, Ter Veere, Zierikzee, Goes and Tholen. William the Silent had bought the Marquisate of Veere and Flushing in 1582, giving him the right to appoint the government (regents) in the first three cities, and making him First Noble (actually the only noble) in the province. He thus controlled four of the seven votes, and thus the province. William the Silent had been promised the countship of Holland and Zeeland before his death. This was not granted to his heirs. However, this was another version of it, writ small, and a thorn in the side of the regents of Holland from that day to the end of the Republic.
Utrecht had a States consisting of the cities of Utrecht, Amersfort, Montfoort, Rhenen and Wijk, as well as the Clergy, as the province had been governed by its bishop in the Middle Ages.
Guelders' States included delegates from Arnhem, Den Bommel, Doesburg, Elburg, Groenlo, Harderwijk, Hattem, Lochem, Nijmegen, and the Nobility, which was very numerous there.
Groningen functioned as a city-state based on the city of Groningen. All representation flowed through there.
Overijssel had a States consisting of three representative towns, Deventer, Kampen, and Zwolle, as well as the Nobility.
The form of government of Friesland, as mentioned above, differed from that of the other provinces. The province had its own language, Frisian, more akin to old English than to Dutch. Its government was based on universal male suffrage and had a large dose of democracy surviving from the Dark Ages. It was organised into four quarters, three of which were further divided into local subdivisions known as "grietenijen" and governed by a "grietman". Eastergoa was divided into eleven "grietenijen", Westergoa was divided into nine "grietenijen", and Zevenwouden was divided into ten "grietenijen". The fourth quarter consisted of the eleven towns of Friesland, of which Leeuwarden was the largest, functioning as the seat of the States of Friesland. Each "grietenij" and each town sent two delegates to the States. Unlike the rest of the Generality, these delegates did not need to recourse to those who elected them to make a decision on how to vote.
Arms of Voting Provinces:
Arms of Non-Voting Provinces:
Government of the cities and towns.
Just as the delegates to the States-General of the Generality could not make any decisions without consulting back with their principals at the States of the provinces, so the delegates to the states of the provinces could not make major decisions without consulting back with their principals in the various cities and towns. As noted above, this lack of delegation of sovereignty led to a fair degree of inertia and would have been unworkable in a larger country less well connected with transport (albeit waterborne canals and shipping) links. It did, however, give the cities and towns a large amount of freedom. Also, the sovereignty of the provincial states was in practice dependent for its exercise on the magistrates of the cities.
Each of the towns and cities in the seven provinces had its own differences and peculiarities. However, as a general rule, the government of the city of Amsterdam was fairly standard. Also, as noted above, in the 17th and 18th century, the wealth that Amsterdam generated from commerce made it the most powerful city in the province of Holland, accounting for half of Holland's revenues and taxes and through that a full quarter of the Generality's. Because of this economic weight, it was the most influential voice in the councils of the province and the Generality.
The government of the city was from a very early time in the hands of four Burgomasters ("Burgemeesters" in Dutch, but better translated to English as "mayors"), largely for the same reason that Rome had two consuls: deconcentration of power. Originally, the burgomasters were appointed by the lord or the province, the Count of Holland and their successors, the Duke of Burgundy. As the Burgundian Dukes tended to have national interests to occupy them, the appointments were often left to their stadtholders. From the 15th century on, however, their election was by a complex system. An electoral college was formed yearly, made up of the outgoing burgomasters, the aldermen (City Councilmen), and all those who in the past had held the post of burgomaster or alderman. The burgomasters are chosen by simple majority. In the second stage of the election, the three newly elected burgomasters "co-opted" (chose) one of the outgoing four to stay on for a second one-year term. This way, one of the burgomasters stayed in office two years to provide continuity.
The three newly chosen were called "Reigning-Burgomasters" for that year. For the first three months after a new election, the Burgomaster of the year before presides. After that time, it was supposed the new ones had learned the "Forms and Duties of their Office", and acquainted with the state of the city's affairs, so the three new burgomasters had the privilege to preside by turns.
The burgomasters functioned as the executive of the city government. They were in command of the civic guard (the famous militia companies of the Dutch paintings) and troops stationed in the city. They appointed the city functionaries such as the administrators in charge of the welfare of orphans and of vacant succession, charitable institutions, and the captains of the companies of the civic guard. issue out all Monies out of the common Stock or Treasure, judging alone what is necessary for the Safety, Convenience, or Dignity of the City. They also kept the Key of the Bank of Amsterdam, which at the time functioned as one of the central banks of the nations of Europe. The vaults were never opened without one of them present. They were also in charge of all the public works of the city, such as the ramparts, public buildings (for example the great Amsterdam City Hall, now a Royal Palace).
The salary of a Burgomaster of Amsterdam was 500 guilders a year, though there are offices worth ten times as much at their disposal. None of them was known to have taken bribes: a credit to the integrity of the system.
Most cities, Amsterdam being no exception, employed a pensionary. He was the leading functionary and legal adviser of the principal town corporations in the Netherlands. They received a salary, or pension, hence the name. The office originated in Flanders, and was originally known by the name of clerk or advocate. The earliest pensionaries in Holland were those of Dordrecht (1468) and of Haarlem (1478). The pensionary conducted the legal business of the town, and was the secretary of the city council. He was also one of the city's representatives and spokesman at the meetings of the provincial States. The post of pensionary was permanent. As the official who kept a large part of the town's business in his hands, and had the most knowledge and experience, his influence was as great on the city level as the corresponding office, the Councillor Pensionary of Holland, was at the provincial and national level. Johan de Witt was originally pensionary of Dordrecht before he was appointed Councillor Pensionary of Holland.
The official responsible for the administration of justice was the schout. In former times he was the representative of the count of Holland. During the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, he was appointed by the burgomasters. In other towns and cities in Holland, this appointment was the prerogative of the States of Holland. The schout was the chief of police and the public prosecutor ("district attorney" in the US, Crown Prosecutor in the UK). The schout, through the colony of New Netherland (the present New York and New Jersey), is the origin of the American institution of district attorney and attorney general.
The schout also functioned as president of the Tribunal of Aldermen (Schepen), which sat as judges in the cases brought before it by the schout. They were the court of last appeal in criminal cases. They did not pass a death sentence without first advising the burgomasters of the possibility of that decision. Other than that, the burgomasters had no role in the process. In civil cases, after a certain value, there was a right of appeal to the Court of Justice of the province in The Hague. The Tribunal consisted of nine aldermen. The schepen were chosen annually by the stadtholder from a list of fourteen presented to him by the "Vroedschap". In the absence of a stadtholder, as in 1650–72 and 1702–48, the aldermen were chosen by the burgomasters. Seven are chosen annually, two from the previous year continued in office. The list is compiled by the "Vroedschap".
The "Vroedschap", or city council was really a Senate in the ancient Roman republican sense. As a fourth branch of the city government, it was a direct backup to the power of the burgomasters. It was a college of 36 members, "men both rich and wise" whose task was to "counsel" the burgomasters. Its members were called "vroedman", literally a "wise man". An honorific title of the "vroedschap" was the "vroede vaderen", or the "wise fathers". This practice was reminiscent of the ancient Roman Senate, the modern word senate being derived from the Latin word senātus (senate), which comes from senex, "old man". The influence of the "Vroedschap" on the city government had its precedence again in that of the Roman Senate.
In the past, election to the "Vroedschap" had been by majority of citizens gathered in a large assembly, usually at a large church, upon the death of a member, by a majority of the voices present. This practice was discontinued in favour of the co-option system around the year 1500, when the towns became too large to assemble the people in one place without tumult. By resolution of the burghers, vacancies to the "Vroedschap" were filled by co-option from that time forward, i.e. by vote of the members of the "Vroedschap". Members were elected for life. As the members of the city government who were burgomasters, aldermen, and other city officials were chosen for the "Vroedschap", and the "vroedemen" tended to choose each other for these offices without intervention from the burghers, city governments developed an oligarchy.
The members of the four colleges above that constituted the city government were dominated by a relatively small group of rich merchant, financial or land-owning families, many closely interrelated, called the "regents", or "regenten". A list of them can be found and along with some that were later ennobled, . It was not impossible to gain access, by success in business and being co-opted into the Vroedschap and the other colleges. This was most likely to happen when the stadtholder at that time appointed a new person into one of the colleges by choosing from the lists presented to him or making his own choice (the latter was called "changing the government"). The system was not immune to popular pressure, as events of the age showed, but it became tighter and more closed as time went on until the Republic fell. A son of family belonging to the regent class there opened up an equivalent of the Roman cursus honorum where he could show his talents and make the connections that would serve him and his city. As these same officials were appointed to provincial offices (e.g. delegate to the States of Holland, member of one of the admiralty boards) or offices under the Generality (ambassadors), the councils of local power perpetuated themselves into the regional and national levels.
First Stadtholderless period and the Great Assembly.
The First Stadtholderless Period or Era (1650–72; Dutch: Eerste Stadhouderloze Tijdperk) is the period in the history of the Dutch Republic in which the office of a Stadtholder was absent in five of the seven Dutch provinces (the provinces of Friesland and Groningen, however, retained their customary stadtholder from the cadet branch of the House of Orange). It happened to coincide with the period when it reached the zenith of its economic, military and political Golden Age.
Politically, the Staatsgezinde (Republican) faction of the ruling Dutch Regents, led by such talented men as Johan de Witt, his brother Cornelis de Witt, Cornelis de Graeff, Andries de Graeff and Andries Bicker (the last three uncles of Johan de Witt's wife) dominated. It was fortunate for the Republic that capable leadership arose in the absence of a Prince of Orange. The faction even thought through an ideological justification of republicanism (the "True Freedom") that went against the contemporary European trend of monarchical absolutism, but previewed "modern" political ideas that eventually found their fullest expression in the American and French constitutions of the 18th century. There was a "monarchical" opposing undertow, however, from the adherents of the House of Orange that wanted to restore the young Prince of Orange to the position of Stadtholder that his father, grandfather, great-uncle, and great-grandfather had held. The republicans attempted to rule this out by constitutional prohibitions, like the Act of Seclusion, but were eventually unsuccessful in the crisis of the Rampjaar (Year of Disaster) of 1672, that brought about the fall of the De Witt-regime.
The Gecommitteerde Raden (executive committee) of the States of Holland moved immediately to reassert their authority over the army and convened a plenary session of the States. Next Holland proposed in the States General that a so-called Great Assembly (a kind of constitutional convention) should be convened at short notice, to amend the Union of Utrecht.
The States of Holland did not wait for this Assembly, however, but for their own province immediately started to make constitutional alterations. On December 8, 1650, the States formally took over their Stadtholders' powers. The eighteen voting towns in the States were given the option to apply for a charter that enabled them to henceforth elect their own vroedschap members and magistrates, under ultimate supervision of the States, but otherwise without the usual drawing up of double lists, for outsiders to choose from. This did not apply to the non-voting towns, however, that still had to present double lists, but now to the States, instead of the Stadtholder. The States also assumed the power to appoint magistrates in the unincorporated countryside, like drosten and baljuws.
This did imply a significant change in the power structure in the province. The position of the city regents was improved, while the ridderschap (the oligarchical representative body of the nobility in the States, that had one vote, equal to one city) lost influence, especially in the countryside. The change also diminished the power of the representative bodies of the guilds in the cities, that had often acted as a check on the power of the vroedschap with the help of the stadtholder. The change therefore did not go unopposed, and caused some rioting by the groups being disenfranchised.
It was clear that the leadership of the republic was now in the hands of Holland. The other power center, the House of Orange, was out of the way, at least until William III came of age. The constitutional conflict between central authority, represented by the Princes of Orange, and provincial particularism, as represented by the States of Holland, had largely been a false one. Since the beginning of the Republic, these two institutions had largely exercised leadership in cooperation, with the two notable exceptions of Maurice and Oldenbarnevelt in 1618–19 and between William II and Holland in 1650. It had been one more of form instead of the deeper underlying one of function: who was to lead the Republic. For the present, the answer was clear. The leadership of the state and the aims of national policy would be led by the States of Holland. The Great Assembly sealed the transfer of leadership to Holland alone. In the institutes of the state, the new patterns soon showed themselves. The States General, where the deputies of the other provinces were so recently subservient to the Prince of Orange, now deferred to the judgment of Holland.
Political parties.
There was a periodic power struggle between the Orangists, who supported the stadtholders of the House of Orange-Nassau, and the States Party, who supported the States-General and sought to replace the semi-hereditary nature of the stadtholdership with a true republican structure. It would be a mistake to think of either of these factions as political parties in the modern sense, as they were really loosely aligned groupings of interests and families that sought power in the States. Many of the people and groupings that were part of one faction could as easily be found at later times in different factions as their interests and family alliances changed.
As noted above, the States Party, or "Staatsgezinden" developed out of the Loevestein faction of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. Behind the theological debate of the Remonstrant–Counter-Remonstrant clash lay a political one between Prince Maurice, a strong military leader, and his former mentor Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Land's Advocate of Holland and personification of civil power. Maurice desired war with Holland's enemy, Roman Catholic Spain. War would preserve his power and influence in the State. There was also no small part of revenge against Spain for assassinating his father. As Maurice is purported to have said, "I know not whether predestination is black or white, but I will make it orange." Van Oldenbarnevelt, along with Arminius and his followers, desired peace. They saw no great benefit to the continuation of war and real danger to Holland's developing trade. They also saw the sovereignty of the States of Holland as paramount. In their eyes, this meant state supremacy over the church. Personally, many of the regents were Counter-Remonstrant minded, but the coalition suited their political interests at the time.
Because of this, an influential part of the regents had never been reconciled to Maurice's treatment of their colleagues, in part because they were related to them. When William II died in 1650 with only a posthumous son, William III, the regents of Holland and the States Party stepped into the vacuum. The States Party at the height of the Republic in the First Stadholderless Period were led by such talented men as Johan de Witt, his brother Cornelis de Witt, Cornelis de Graeff, Andries de Graeff and Andries Bicker. During the Second Statholderless period, the States Party were again led by the Raadpensionaris of the time. As also noted above, the faction even thought through, at least during De Witt's time, an ideological justification of republicanism Ware Vrijheid (the "True Freedom") that went against the contemporary European trend of monarchical absolutism. De Witt and his allies primarily defended Van Oldenbarnevelt's and Grotius' claim to supremacy of (Holland's) provincial sovereignty over the sovereignty of the Generality. But the doctrine went further. "True Freedom" implied the rejection of an "eminent head", not only of the federal state (where it would have conflicted with provincial sovereignty), but also of the provincial political system. De Witt considered Princes and Potentates as such, as detrimental to the public good, because of their inherent tendency to waste tax payers' money on military adventures in search of glory and useless territorial aggrandisement. As the province of Holland only abutted friendly territory and its interests were centred on commercial activities at sea, the Holland regents had no territorial designs themselves, and they looked askance at such designs by the other provinces, because they knew they were likely to have to foot the bill.
This doctrine was formalised in works by De Witt himself on economics as well as his cousin's (also John de Wit) work on the "Public Gebedt" (Public Debt). By far the most complete reasoning behind the Republican regime came from Peter de la Court. The most famous of these, "The Interest van Holland" was published in 1662 and immediately became a bestseller in Holland and later also elsewhere. The book contained an analysis of the miraculous economic success of Holland, the leading province of the Dutch Republic, and then set out to establish the economic and political principles on which that success was based. De la Court identified free competition and the republican form of government as the leading factors contributing to the wealth and power of his home country. The book was written in an outspoken and polemic style and went through eight editions in 1662. A revised luxury edition appeared in 1669. It was translated into German in 1665, English in 1702 and French in 1709. A new English translation appeared as late as 1746. The text of the last English edition of the "Interest" can be downloaded from the website of the Liberty Fund: Pieter de la Court, "The True Interest and Political Maxims, of the Republic of Holland (1662)".
There was a "monarchical" opposing movement, however, came from the adherents of the House of Orange, loosely grouped into the "Orangist" faction, that wanted to restore the young Prince of Orange to the position of Stadtholder that his father, grandfather, great-uncle, and great-grandfather had held. Their adherence to the Prince of Orange's dynastic interest was partly a matter of personal advancement, as many Orangist regents resented being ousted from the offices they had monopolized under the Stadtholderate. Many adherents were also relatives of the House of Orange (i.e. the House of Nassau) and minor nobles whose influence would be greater under an "eminent" head such as a Prince of Orange, who could be a prime mover in the State and the Army and thus a dispenser of patronage. It was also, for members of the lower nobility, perfectly reasonable that they should be led by the fairly royal Prince of Orange in an age when all other nations were led by Kings and Emperors.
Many people also had a genuine ideological attachment to the "monarchical" principle. As the analogy of the Dutch Republic with the biblical People of Israel was never far from people's minds, this helped to give an important underpinning for the Orangist claims in the mind of the common people, who were greatly influenced from the pulpit. The Prince of Orange was seen in his traditional role as the leader of the nation in its independence movement, and its protector from foreign threats. References to biblical kings were never far from most of the Calvinist preacher's sermons. Other favourite metaphors were the likening of the Princes of Orange to Moses leading the people of the Netherlands out of the Spanish "house of bondage". Given the prevalence of dangers from floods, the Lord was seen as having placed the protection of the Dutch people from inundation, both physical and metaphysical religious terms in the hands of the Princes of Orange. Of course, the conservative Calvinist Reformed Church thought its interests best served by the Stadtholder from the House of Orange who had served them in the Remonstrant–Counter-Remonstrant controversy in 1619 under Maurice of Orange that culminated in the Synod of Dort. The Erastianism of the Holland regents was seen as a constant threat to its independence and orthodoxy.
The Republicans attempted to rule out the return of the House of Orange and cement their rule by constitutional prohibitions, like the Act of Seclusion (demanded by Cromwell, but not resisted by the Republicans). They were eventually unsuccessful in the crisis of the Rampjaar (Year of Disaster) of 1672, as the majority of the people turned to the Prince of Orange, William III, in the crisis. That brought about the fall of the De Witt-regime. Similarly, in the crisis of the French invasion of 1747, the Republican regime collapsed and brought about the installation of William IV as Stadholder. During the Anglo-French War (1778–1783), the internal territory was divided into groups: the Patriots, who were pro-French and pro-American and the Orangists, who were pro-British.
Influence.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces. They took from the Dutch Republic the idea of a "sovereign union of sovereign states". They also took from the Dutch example the need for political and administrative power to be exercised and interlocked at different levels: local, regional and national. The other great example taken from the Dutch was the ability to compromise in order to achieve a goal for the common good. However, the Dutch Republic, as cited in the Federalist papers by Hamilton, provided an example to be avoided of not allowing the (Con)Federal national government sufficient power to carry out its duties, collect its revenue, and come to decisions in a timely manner as set down in law.
In addition, the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, is strikingly similar to the later American Declaration of Independence, though concrete evidence that the former directly influenced the latter is absent.


Cosimo Alessandro Collini

Cosimo Alessandro Collini (Florence, 14 October 1727-Mannheim, 21 March 1806) was an Italian historian and Voltaire's secretary from 1752 to 1756.
Life.
Collini was born into a noble family and studied law.
He met Voltaire in Berlin in 1750 and was taken on as his secretary, alongside Joseph Du Fresne de Francheville (son of another ), in April 1752. When Voltaire left the service of Frederick the Great in 1753 Collini accompanied him, and was confined with him and Madame Denis on Frederick's orders for three weeks in Frankfurt. In 1755 the young Jean-Louis Wagnière was made his assistant and, just over a year later, took his place when Collini was dismissed from Voltaire's service for insulting Madame Denis.
Collini then entered the service of Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria as his private secretary and historiographer.
He staged Voltaire's "Olympie" at the Schlosstheater Schwetzingen in 1762.
In 1763 he became a member of the Palatine Academy of Sciences and director of the Mannheim Cabinet of Natural History. In 1784 he was the first person to describe the pterosaur that Georges Cuvier went on the identify, seventeen years later, as a flying reptile.
In his later years, he denounced the fanaticism of the French revolutionary wars and in 1799 he defended the collections in his cabinet from destruction, and managed to have them transferred, four years later, to Munich.
A street in Mannheim is named after him, as is the Collini-Center development in the city.
Publications.
Books
Articles in the "Acta Academiae Theodoro-Palatinae"


Henriette Louise de Waldner de Freundstein

Henriette Louise de Waldner de Freundstein, Baronne d'Oberkirch(5 June 1754 – 10 June 1803) was a French aristocrat, socialite, and memoirist.
Biography.
She was born on 5 June 1754 in Schweighouse-Thann, Alsace to François Louis Waldner de Freundstein, Baron de Waldner and Wilhelmine Auguste Berckheim de Ribeauvillé. After her birth, her father became the Comte de Waldner.
She married Baron Charles Frédéric Siegfried d'Oberkirch. They had a daughter, Marie-Philippine Frédérique Dorothée (1777–1827), who married in 1798 Count Louis Simon de Bernard de Montbrison. Their grandson edited and published the "Mémoires" in English in 1852 and in French in 1854.
The baroness lived in and wrote about court society in her native Alsace, in Montbéliard, Stuttgart and (most importantly) in Paris and Versailles; her trips to the court of Louis XVI occurred in 1782, 1784, and 1786. She was a childhood friend of the Grand Duchess Maria Feodorovna, (Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg), later the Empress of Russia, and of Goethe. The writer Jakob Michael Reinhold Lenz fell in love with her in 1776 and wrote several works inspired by this love.
Her writing provided insight into high society during the end of the ancien régime.
The baroness notably praised the whipped cream served at a lunch at the Hameau de Chantilly, which would later be named Crème Chantilly.


Louis-Michel le Peletier, marquis de Saint-Fargeau

Louis-Michel le Peletier, Marquis of Saint-Fargeau (sometimes spelled Lepeletier; 29 May 176020 January 1793) was a French politician and martyr of the French Revolution.
Career.
Born in Paris, he belonged to a well-known family, his great-grandfather, Michel Robert Le Peletier des Forts, count of Saint-Fargeau, having been Controller-General of Finances. After the death of his title-holding family, Le Peletier gained a vast amount of wealth.
Le Peletier entered into politics by becoming a lawyer ("avocat") in the employ of the Place du Châtelet, a prison. In 1785 he was advanced to avocat-general. In 1789 he was elected to the Parlement of Paris, and in that same year he became a deputy of the "noblesse" to the States-General.
Initially, he shared the conservative views of the majority of his class, but by degrees his ideas changed and became increasingly radical. On 13 July 1789 he demanded the recall of Necker, whose dismissal by the king had aroused great excitement in Paris. In the Constituent Assembly he moved the abolition of the death penalty, of the galleys and of branding, and the substitution of beheading for hanging. This attitude won him great popularity, and on 21 June 1790 he was made president of the Constituent Assembly. He remained in this position until 5 July 1790.
During the existence of the Legislative Assembly, he was elected President of the General Council for the Yonne "département" in 1791. He was then elected by this "département" to become a deputy to the Convention. Here he was in favor of the trial of Louis XVI by the Assembly and was a deciding vote for the death of the king.
Educational Reform.
While in the Convention, Le Peletier focused mainly on revolutionary reform of education, promoting a Spartan education. It called for both males and females to be taught in state-run schools and taught revolutionary ideas instead of the customary history, science, mathematics, language and religion. His educational plan was supported by Robespierre and his ideas were borrowed in later schemes, notably by Jules Ferry.
Death and later honors.
On 20 January 1793, the eve of the king's execution, Le Peletier was assassinated in a restaurant in the Palais Royal. His murderer, Philippe Nicolas Marie de Pâris, a member of the Garde du Corps, allegedly plunged a saber that he had hidden under his cloak into Le Peletier's chest. His assassin fled to Normandy, where, on the point of being discovered, he supposedly shot himself in the head. Other sources claim the real murderer fled to England where he died years later.
The Convention honored Louis Michel Le Peletier with a magnificent funeral. His body was displayed in the Place Vendôme beneath the statue of King Louis XIV. Le Peletier was buried in the Panthéon in Paris in 1793. His body was removed by his family on 14 February 1795.
Just a month after the assassination, on 23 February 1793, the Opéra-Comique presented the first of four performances of a musical treatment of his life and death called "Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau, ou Le premier martyr de la République française", with a libretto by Auguste-Louis Bertin d'Antilly and music by Frédéric Blasius.
The station Saint-Fargeau of the Paris Métro is named for him.
A Sèvres biscuit porcelain bust of Louis Michel Le Peletier is on display in the Château de Vizille, Isère.
On 30 September 1793 the French Navy's ship "Séduisant", one of two newly commissioned ships, with 74 guns, over 56 meters in length and 1550 tons in weight, was renamed "Peletier". On 30 May 1795, the ship reverted to her original name "Séduisant".
Painting by David.
The painter Jacques-Louis David represented his death in a famous painting, "Les Derniers moments de Michel Lepeletier" or "Lepelletier de Saint-Fargeau sur son lit de mort". David described his painting of Le Peletier's face as "Serene, that is because when one dies for one's country, one has nothing with which to reproach oneself." This painting, known only through a drawing made by a pupil of David, is considered by scholars the first official painting of the French Revolution, a rehearsal for David's later achievement "The Death of Marat".
Family.
Le Peletier had a brother, Felix (1769–1837), well known for his advanced ideas, and a brother Amédée Louis Michel Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau (1770–1845), a noted entomologist. The writer and academician Jean d'Ormesson is descended from his daughter Suzanne le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau.
In popular culture.
Le Peletier appears as an antagonist in "Assassin's Creed Unity", where he is depicted as a secret member of the Templar Order under Grand Master Francois-Thomas Germain who believes that he is doing what is right for France before what is right for the Templars. He is assassinated by the protagonist Arno Dorian in the Palais-Royale after he votes to have the king executed.


Community Alliance

Community Alliance () is a political alliance set up by a group of pro-democratic grassroots activists and community workers, many of whom are the former members of the Democratic Party. Mainly based in New Territories East, the group consists of several local political groups including the Community Sha Tin and Concern Group for Tseung Kwan O People's Livelihood (CGPLTKO). Many of the members contested in the 2019 District Council elections under different banners.
History.
The Community Alliance was set up in May 2019 for the 2019 District Council elections. It consists of more than 60 former Democratic Party members and another 20 pro-democracy advocates. Its convenor Ricky Or and two deputies Au Chun-wah and Ting Tsz-yuen, quit the Democratic Party in December 2018 due to the intra-party conflict. Since then, Ricky Or's Tseung Kwan O groups and Ting Tsz-yuen's Sha Tin groups operated under their own local groups of Concern Group for Tseung Kwan O People's Livelihood (CGPLTKO) and Community Sha Tin respectively.
The group planned to field 28 candidates in the elections in November 2019. However, many of its candidates ran under different banners including CGPLTKO, Community Sha Tin, Power for Democracy democrats and independent democrats. All four candidates in Tai Po who associated themselves with the alliance were elected, making it the largest political group in the council with Neo Democrats which also won four seats of which all the elected seats were taken by the pro-democracy camp.


Porsgrunds Blad

Porsgrunds Blad was a Norwegian newspaper, published in Porsgrunn in Telemark county first established on the 1 May 1846 as "Ugeblad for Porsgrund og Omegn", initially apolitical, it became conservative-leaning, facing competition from the more clear-cut conservative newspaper, "Grenmar". After a short time "Porsgrunds Blad" tried a liberal agenda, it went defunct in 1886 and was absorbed by "Grenmar". Its last issue was printed on 31 March 1886.
History.
"Ugeblad for Porsgrund og Omegn" was started as a weekly newspaper on 1 May 1846. It struggled economically, and was auctioned in late 1848. From 4 January 1849 its name was "Posttidende" ("Postal Times"), from 1858 "Porsgrunds Blad".
Demise.
It was first apolitical, then conservative-leaning, but from 1878 it faced competition from a more clear-cut conservative newspaper, "Grenmar". After a short time when "Porsgrunds Blad" tried a liberal agenda, it went defunct in 1886 and was absorbed by "Grenmar". Its last issue came on 31 March 1886.


Cornwallis in Ireland


List of English back-formations

Back-formation is either the process of creating a new lexeme (less precisely, a new "word") by removing actual or supposed affixes, or a neologism formed by such a process. Back-formations are shortened words created from longer words, thus back-formations may be viewed as a sub-type of clipping.
Each back-formation in this list is followed by the original word from which it was back-formed.


Greater Hartford

Greater Hartford is a region located in the U.S. state of Connecticut, centered on the state's capital of Hartford. It represents the only combined statistical area in Connecticut defined by a city within the state, being bordered by the Greater Boston region to the northeast and New York metropolitan area to the south and west. Sitting at the southern end of the Metacomet Ridge, its geology is characterized by land of a level grade along the shores of Connecticut River Valley, with finer-grained soil than other regions in the state.
Hartford's role as a focal point for the American insurance industry is known nationally. The vibrant music and arts scene defines the region's culture. The region's economy is closely tied with Springfield, Massachusetts, as Hartford and Springfield are twin cities, only 25 miles apart. The area is served by Bradley International Airport as well as the smaller Hartford-Brainard Airport.
Greater Hartford (metropolitan area as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau), had a total population of 1,212,381 (2010 census).
Definitions.
New England City and Town Area.
New England City and Town Areas (NECTA) are cluster of cities and towns throughout all of New England defined by the Office of Management and Budget. The Hartford-East Hartford-Middletown, CT Metropolitan NECTA consists of 54 towns, including 25 in Hartford County, 5 in Litchfield County, 6 in Middlesex County, 2 in New London County, 12 in Tolland County, and 4 in Windham County.
Metropolitan Statistical Area.
The United States Census Bureau also defines the Hartford–East Hartford–Middletown, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) based on towns as building blocks. The area contains 54 towns of Hartford County, Tolland County, and Middlesex County. The 2015 population estimate for the MSA is 1,211,324 and is ranked as the 47th largest metropolitan area by population in the United States. The MSA definition of the area contains a significant portion of the Lower Connecticut River Valley, which is not commonly considered as part of Greater Hartford.
A region very similar to the MSA is covered by the combination of the Hartford Service Delivery Area and the Mid-Connecticut Service Delivery Area, covering 56 towns.
Higher education.
Public colleges and universities.
Public, four-year universities in the area include:.
Community and technical colleges.
Public, two-year community colleges in the area include:
Private colleges and universities.
Private, nonprofit, four-year universities in the area include:
Healthcare.
There are numerous hospitals in the Greater Hartford area, including five teaching hospitals (of which, one is a pediatric hospital) and two psychiatric hospitals.
Teaching hospitals.
"All of the above hospitals are affiliated with the University of Connecticut School of Medicine"
Culture and attractions.
Performing arts.
The Bushnell Center for the Performing Arts is one of the largest indoor performing arts venues in the area. It houses two theaters within the complex: the 2,800-seat Mortensen Hall and the 906-seat Belding Theater, and is home to the Hartford Symphony Orchestra, the premiere orchestra in Connecticut. Other theaters in the area include the Hartford Stage and TheatreWorks.
The area is also home to the Xfinity Theatre, a 7,500-seat open-air amphitheater. The lawn outside the theater is capable of holding roughly 22,500 people, bringing total capacity to around 30,000 people.
Conventions and exhibitions.
The Connecticut Convention Center is located in downtown Hartford adjacent to the Hartford Marriot Downtown. The facility has more than of exhibition space, a ballroom, and of space for meetings and conferences. Since 2005, it has hosted ConnectiCon, an annual, multi-genre, pop culture convention.
The New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks also hosts many events, with three large hangars available for use. One of the more popular events held there is FlightSimCon.
In addition, AOPA has held their annual aviation summit in Hartford.
Sports.
Greater Hartford is home to multiple minor league professional sports teams and college teams. There are currently no major league professional sports teams. However, it was home to the Hartford Whalers ice hockey team from 1974 to 1997. The Whalers came to Hartford playing in the World Hockey Association, until they were admitted to the National Hockey League in 1979. In 1997, the team relocated to North Carolina, where they were renamed the Carolina Hurricanes.
Throughout the mid-1990s, the New England Patriots were negotiating with the state of Connecticut for a brand new football stadium located in downtown Hartford to replace the aging Foxboro Stadium where they played. The team eventually agreed to another proposal that saw the construction of Gillette Stadium. With the Patriots no longer in the equation, the state instead decided to construct a smaller football stadium on the former United Technologies-owned airfield in East Hartford. Pratt & Whitney Stadium at Rentschler Field seats approximately 40,000 spectators and is home to the Connecticut Huskies football team.
Collegiate sports teams.
Greater Hartford is also home to the Travelers Championship golf tournament (formerly known as the Greater Hartford Open/Buick Championship).
Shopping centers.
Major shopping centers in the area include:
Media.
Print.
The "Hartford Courant" is the daily broadsheet newspaper serving the Greater Hartford area. Founded in 1764 as the "Connecticut Courant", it is generally considered to be the oldest continually published newspaper in the United States. It is owned by Tribune Publishing.
From 1817 to 1976, the area was also served by another daily newspaper, the "Hartford Times".
Television.
Greater Hartford and Greater New Haven form a single television market. This television market is served by the following broadcast television stations:
Transportation.
Road.
Interstate highways.
Highway transportation in Greater Hartford is primarily run by two mainline Interstates:
There were several plans to expand the highway system (with at least one plan calling for a full beltway). Various plans encountered resistance due to budgetary and environmental concerns. However, some highways were ultimately constructed, if only partially:
U.S. Routes.
In the area, four major U.S. Routes serve the area's towns/cities:
Other major expressways.
Some state highways also serve as major expressways:
Bus.
Public bus transportation is operated by the Hartford division of CTTransit. It provides service to 30 local routes and 12 express routes seven days a week throughout the metropolitan area.
2015 saw the opening of the CTfastrak, a bus rapid transit system that runs from downtown New Britain to Hartford Union Station. The dedicated busway is over 9 miles long and stops at 10 stations.
Airport.
Bradley International Airport is located in the town of Windsor Locks, approximately 10 miles from Hartford. Bradley is the second-largest airport in New England (behind Logan International Airport), and was ranked the 55th busiest airport in the United States in 2008. Southwest Airlines, Delta Air Lines, JetBlue Airways, and US Airways account for more than half of the airport's passenger traffic. The Bradley Airport Connector provides highway access to the airport from Interstate 91.
Bradley is a dual-use civil/military airport, with the Bradley Air National Guard Base serving as the home of the Connecticut Air National Guard 103d Airlift Wing.
Hartford–Brainard Airport is a smaller reliever airport located in the southeastern section of Hartford. It is primarily used for general aviation purposes.
Rail.
Several Amtrak routes run through the metropolitan area, including the "Northeast Regional", "Vermonter", as well as a daily shuttle between New Haven and Springfield, Massachusetts.
The Hartford Line is a commuter rail service between New Haven, Connecticut, and Springfield, Massachusetts, using the Amtrak-owned New Haven–Springfield Line. CTrail-branded trains provide service along the corridor, and riders can use Hartford Line tickets to travel on board most Amtrak trains along the corridor at the same prices. The service launched on June 16, 2018.


Best in Show (film)

Best in Show is a 2000 American mockumentary comedy film, a spoof on American dog shows, co-written by Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy and directed by Guest. The film follows five entrants in a prestigious dog show, and focuses on the slightly surreal interactions among the various owners and handlers, as they travel to the show and then compete during the show. Much of the dialogue was improvised. Many of the comic actors were also involved in Guest's other films, including "Waiting for Guffman", "A Mighty Wind", "For Your Consideration", and "Mascots". The film's score was composed by C. J. Vanston.
Plot.
"Best in Show" is presented as a documentary of five dogs, their owners, their trainers and their handlers, who travel to compete in the fictional Mayflower Kennel Club Dog Show, held in the fictional Beyman Center in Philadelphia. Segments of the documentary continuously cycle among owners and handlers as each prepares to leave for the show, arrives at the hotel, prepares backstage, handles their dog's performance, and appears in a post-show follow-up. The owners and their dogs include:
The owners and their dogs all arrive in time for the show, which is hosted by dog expert Trevor Beckwith (Jim Piddock), and oblivious "color" commentator Buck Laughlin (Fred Willard). During the first round, Beatrice is disqualified when Hamilton cannot control her, but the other four dogs advance to the final round. Just before the finals, Cookie dislocates her knee and insists that Gerry take over for her. Though the audience is initially awed by seeing Gerry's "two left feet" (the result of a birth defect), ultimately Winky takes Best in Show.
Afterwards, the film explores what each character is doing after the competition. Gerry and Cookie return home to Florida and are overcome with attention after the victory. They go on to record, in amusingly bad style, songs about terriers, but discover to Gerry's frustration that the recording engineer (Steven Porter) is yet another of Cookie's ex-boyfriends. Sherri Ann and Christy have entered into a partnership and publish a magazine for lesbian owners of purebred dogs, called "American Bitch". Harlan, after weeks of "mellow[ing] out" on a kibbutz, goes on to fulfill his dreams and becomes a ventriloquist, entertaining sparse crowds with a honky tonk song and dance number. Stefan and Scott are in the process of designing a calendar featuring Shih Tzu dogs appearing in scenes, with appropriate costume, from famous classic films, such as "Gone with the Wind" and "Casablanca". Hamilton and Meg Swan no longer have Beatrice (they do not explain what became of her), allowing them to enjoy a calmer, more loving partnership, as well as a new dog (a pug) named Kipper, which they claim enjoys watching them make love.
Cast.
Dogs.
The starring dogs listed are denoted by their registered names. All have earned the title "Ch.", indicating they have qualified for a championship at conformation shows, with most qualifying for the Canadian Kennel Club Championship—hence the prefix "Can". The "kennel prefix" of one or more breeders precedes each dog's registered name; e. g. in "Arokat Echobar Take Me Dancing", the first breeder is "Arokat" and the second is "Echobar" while the name is "Take Me Dancing". The registered name differs from the dog's "call name", which is used to talk to the animal. For example, Arokat Echobar Take Me Dancing's call name is "Peach".
Production.
The greater part of the film was improvised by the actors, with little to no planning. 60 hours of footage was filmed.
Reception.
"Best in Show" received critical acclaim. The film has a 94% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 114 reviews, with an average rating of 7.53/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "A fine example of writer/director/star Christopher Guest's gift for improv comedy, "Best in Show" boasts an appealingly quirky premise and a brilliantly talented cast". The film also has a score of 78 out of 100 on Metacritic, based on 33 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews". It won American, British, and Canadian Comedy Awards. The film is number 38 on Bravo's "100 Funniest Movies". In 2012 "Best in Show" won a spot on Yahoo's list of the "100 Funniest Movies to See Before You Die".
The film opened to a weekend gross of $413,436 to 13 theatres with an average of $31,802 per theater. After opening to a total of 497 theaters, the film ended its run with a domestic total of $18,715,392. The foreign gross of $2,074,164 brought its total gross revenue to $20,789,556.
Legacy.
"Best in Show" was the inspiration for the National Dog Show which has aired each Thanksgiving on NBC since 2002.