History
On 17 September 1806 (The Netherlands were under the rule of King Louis Napoleon) Louis Napoleon decided that the striking and distribution of coins should be by a single, national body. This was in contrast to the Middle Ages customs of large trading cities to have their own mint and coins. This resulted in several coins circulating within the country, and many levels of controlling bureaucracy.
Originally it was the intention to found the mint in the capital city of Amsterdam but, since there were insufficient financial means available, it was decided to locate the National Mint seat in Utrecht.
After Napoleon was defeated in 1813, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands was founded with William I as King, the Mint was renamed to 's Rijks Munt. What is now known as Belgium was a part of the new kingdom, and a second Mint was located in Brussels. Once Belgium achieved independence in 1839, 's Rijks Munt became the only mint in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The provincial coins which were made before the unification of the Mint were still in circulation. Due to their relatively high intrinsic value, the "new" coins would only gain popularity with the passage of time. In 1849 the provincial coins were officially taken out of the circulation.
In 1901 the company was placed under supervision of the Ministry of Finance, and in 1912 the Mint officially became a company owned by the State. At the end of the German occupation during the Second World War, in 1944, coins were produced in the United States. This was necessary to make sure there would be sufficient currency available after the liberation.
In 1994 's Rijks Munt was renamed to De Nederlandse Munt NV. It became a company, of which 100% of the shares are owned by the Dutch State. The Queen awarded the company the prefix Koninklijk (Royal) five years later, and the company was now allowed to call itself De Koninklijke Nederlandse Munt (The Royal Dutch Mint).
Read more about this topic: Royal Dutch Mint
Famous quotes containing the word history:
“To summarize the contentions of this paper then. Firstly, the phrase ‘the meaning of a word’ is a spurious phrase. Secondly and consequently, a re-examination is needed of phrases like the two which I discuss, ‘being a part of the meaning of’ and ‘having the same meaning.’ On these matters, dogmatists require prodding: although history indeed suggests that it may sometimes be better to let sleeping dogmatists lie.”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)
“History ... is, indeed, little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind.
But what experience and history teach is this—that peoples and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.”
—Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831)
“The history of our era is the nauseating and repulsive history of the crucifixion of the procreative body for the glorification of the spirit.”
—D.H. (David Herbert)