Maison Weinthal postcard

Historian and researcher Rob de Spa showed me one of the original postcards that was printed in 1902 on behalf of Guillaume Rigal. This Frenchman was the last brothel keeper of Maison Weinthal in Amsterdam. De Spa found this wonderful source from the past on Marktplaats. But it is not only the front of the card that is fascinating. 

Closure of Amsterdam brothels

The printing of the cards was a response to the new regulation introduced by the capital in 1902. It specified that all establishments where “unchaste acts” were performed for payment were punishable.(1) Exploiting a brothel had already been prohibited a few years earlier, in 1897. With the new rules, the 'disguised public houses' were also tackled. This category included the large and luxurious brothel Maison Weinthal, which continued after the 1897 ban under the name Hotel Weinthal. The owner did not leave it at that and mounted a defence.

Protest

Rigal had postcards printed bearing an image of the 'hotel', above which appeared the head of a lady wearing a large hat. The scene was framed by a drawn wreath of men’s faces, their gaze directed at both the building and the woman. At the bottom of the card was the text: “The new Police Regulation. You are allowed to look, but not to go in.”

The addressee

In addition to the front, the other side of the postcard is also interesting. To whom was such a message addressed? The back of the tem shows that it was sent to an infantry officer, Captain R.E. van Dijk, who had served in Aceh from 1873 to 1896 and had received an honourable distinction for this service.(2) Since the card was sent to Bangkinan in Sumatra, the sender assumed that the captain was still residing in the Dutch East Indies.

The sender

It seems obvious that the brothel keeper had sent this card. The brothel’s clientele belonged to the upper classes, and the army was a well-known user of the services this 'hotel' offered. A captain could have been part of this group of customers, or perhaps he was a friend of Rigal. However, the brothel owner would not have disclosed the names of his visitors.

Nicknames

In 1902, the newspaper De Telegraaf interviewed the brothel keeper following the introduction of the new regulation. In it, Rigal said: “I know the majority of my guests, even those who are customers, only by nicknames. I know a Baron Boom and a Jonkheer (= lower nobility) Bam. But I do not know whether they are a Baron or a Jonkheer, or Bam or Boom. And in the street I walk right past them as if I had never seen them.” (3)

It seems unlikely that he knew little about the customers who frequently visited the 'hotel'.

Historical value of the card

In this way, the back of the postcard raises more questions than it answers. Yet it is precisely this that constitutes the historical value of the object. The card sheds light on the interplay between morality, legislation and commerce at the beginning of the twentieth century. How many of these cards were printed, and who received them? Perhaps further copies lie hidden in archives or private collections. They are the silent witnesses of a public matter that people preferred to keep private.

* Thanks to Rob de Spa for the images.

Notes

1. Quoted from: De nieuwe courant. 's-Gravenhage, 02-10-1902, p. 2. Accessed on Delpher on 01-03-2026, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB15:000768162:mpeg21:p00002

See also: J.F. van Slobbe, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis en de bestrijding der prostitutie te Amsterdam. (Amsterdam 1937); A. de Wildt, 'De bewogen geschiedenis van Maison Weinthal', Ons Amsterdam (2002).

2. Nederlands Militair Erfgoed, Officiersboekjes, 1902, Soest.

3. De Telegraaf. Amsterdam, 13-08-1902, p.1.  Accessed on Delpher on 01-03-2026,