ON 13 August 1594, two Dutch noblemen, Jacob Valcke (?–1623) and Walraven III van Brederode (1547–1614), arrived in the Scottish port of Leith from Veere in the United Provinces. They were the representatives of the Dutch Parliament, the States General (Staten Generaal), who had been invited to attend the baptism of the Scottish Crown Prince Henry, which was due to take place in Stirling on 30 August. This may seem like an unlikely act of diplomacy for a number of reasons. The Dutch were in the midst of their 80-year-long war against Spain and a trip to Scotland could have been considered as an unwelcome distraction from the events at home, not to mention a financially costly and dangerous one. Moreover, six of the Dutch provinces had recently assumed sovereignty, having renounced not only their Spanish overlord, Philip II, but the concept of monarchy altogether. As the Scottish king James VI planned on promoting his claims to the English succession, the presence of two republican ambassadors may have appeared unusual to say the least. Finally, the baptism itself, envisaged as a spectacular international projection of Stewart aspiration and power, sent a message of challenge to Queen Elizabeth I of England, with whom the Dutch had a somewhat complicated relationship. Although she was their most important ally, her position was tried when Robert Dudley, 1st earl of Leicester (1532–88), accepted the appointment as Governor General of the United Provinces. His term had come to an unhappy end in 1587, over questions of authority and sovereignty. A deferential visit to Scotland might be construed as a loosening of Dutch ties with England. This chapter examines the Dutch visit, situating it within the context of the Scottish-Dutch relationship in the early modern period and their shared political and humanist culture. The questions it aims to answer are: why were the Dutch invited? Why did they accept James’ invitation? How should we understand their actions before, during and after their visit? Although Prince Henry's baptism has been well documented as a grand display of James VI's dynastic ambition, particularly with regards to the English succession, as Roger Mason most recently has argued, this is an untold part of the story.