evolution of france that retains wallonia

Gallic85

Banned
Was is possible for France to have kept Wallonia under Louis XV and set up a principality or kingdom to include the Flemish parts and especially coastal parts of the Austrian Netherlands and avoid pissing off the British too much, while still retaining the southern parts including all Luxembourg. What would this look on a map, who would be the prince and what name and evolution would the flemish realm have? What would be the economic, political and territorial evolution of France after this? Why would France join Austria in the seven years war if it allready had what it wanted or what other territories would she try to obtain in that war and subsequent wars? Who would be prince of the flemish realm and what name it might have and what evolution. What about effects on the Vienna Congress and the Franco-Prussian war. Would France try to get Neuchatel from prussians and neighbouring territories like Geneva and the rest of Romandie? What about effects on the Greek war of independence if there is no more Belgian crisis?
 
One thing to realise when talking about this, especially in the 18th century, is that dividing Belgium in a French/Walloon and a Dutch/Flemish part is a very recent thing (my guess would be late 19th century). Before that time people never thought about Wallonia or Flanders. If in the 17th/18th (and even 19th) century France would gain (part of) the Southern netherlands it would annex all of it, not just the Walloon parts. If it would be somehow limited to just part of it, it would not simply gain the French/Walloon speaking parts, it would try to get the most useful parts. That would probably mean Flanders, or at least the coastal areas, especialy considering those used to be French, while Wallonia never had been.

So what if France manages to gain the Southern netherlands? Well, looking at Dunkirk it probably would mean that it manages to assimilate most of it, thus the Flemish language would be a minority language. I think the Frnech would be more successful than the Belgians were OTL. There probably would be a small Flemish spekaing minority, especialy outside the major cities.

Besides that, the Walloon iron and coal mines would probably be a big boon for the French. Actualy I would say that adding belgium to France would probably secure the dominant position of France within Europe during the 19th and 20th century, instead of Germany (certainly if France would manage to gain the German Rhineland). Although it is possible that it would just mean a continuation of the 17th and 18th century diplomacy of most of Europe allying against French imperialism and thus still limiting French influence.
 

Gallic85

Banned
yes,but...

Hm, Ii get that they would not care about language or ethnic borders, but I understand they would fear British reaction to such an extension of French control of Antwerp and Flemish north sea coast, while annexing just the southern parts and not necessarily respecting any language borders, plus creating some independent flemish and brabant state under a prince, maybe even a habsburg, bourbon or some german catholic prince, would be acceptable to the British. I understand that louis xv feared british reaction and not just wanting to "not be a shopkeeper". Would the congress of vienna allow france to keep all southern netherlands or at least than they would be deprived of the coastal and flemish areas? Or what areas would france be either allowed to keep in 1815 or what parts would louis xv be content with annexing. If there is no more austrian netherlands, would france still join austria in the seven years war and what would she ask of austria as reward or compensation, cause apparently louis changed his mind and had been promised austrian netherlands under some bourbon prince.
 
Top