This enabled Van Duvenvoorde and his relatives, the families: Wasseaar, Polanen, Brederode, Boechorst, etc.

It led to ever growing irritation and resentment with those families who were left out, and steadily lost goods.

The favoritism towards the Duvenvoorde clan continued, while the financial situation got out of hand due to the lifestyle of the count.

[1] Count William IV was killed in the 26 September 1345 Battle of Warns, part of his failed attempt to conquer Friesland.

The lack of a clear heir caused chaos and confusion that was increased by an invasion by the Bishop of Utrecht.

By this time the nobility had long been divided in two parties: pro and contra Van Duvenvoorde, and was arduous to fight.

[12] In it Count Willem promises not to alienate any part of the county, nor to grant any fiefs or tax exemptions, in the coming year.

Next came the important promise that without the consent of his allies mentioned in the treaty, William would not allow their enemies on his territories, would not make peace with them, and would not allow them back on the possessions they had forfeited.

The same condition of not acting without the consent of his allies applied to William alienating part of his lands or his future inheritance the County of Hainault.

[16] William named his younger brother Albert as his successor in case he would not have legal offspring.

The 1667 book by the lawyer Simon van Leeuwen has the date formula On Sunday on Beloken Pinksterdag, the 14th day of May 1350.

The reason for this reconstruction was that Gouthoeven claimed that the original text was with the heirs of Floris 's Serclaes, bailiff of Schoonhoven.

[19] As regards content Prevenier and Smit stated that Jan van Noordeloos still supported Margaret in March 1351.

He stated that the medieval extensive date description could only point to 1350, and that a later error could just as well be made in the year as in the day and month.

In general, Wallene appreciates the text as a Cod alliance concluded on 23 May 1350, without William, who would have to join and seal it later.

[22] With regard to the text, Wallene then continues by stating that the surviving manuscripts all give 23 May, and that Trinity Sunday 23 May can only refer to 1350.

[23] The part played by the cities would also be strange with a date in 1351, because so little was agreed upon with regard to financial support and influence.

Finally Wallene cites Brokken as claiming that the content of the treaty would have made it useless if it had been concluded in June 1351.

These made a treaty to mutually protect their citizens from aggression caused by the way the count handled his affairs.