Flanders remains part of the Netherlands

Whether from a partially successful / limited Belgian Revolution with only the region of Wallonia forming an ATL Belgium (later possibly uniting with France) or some other event, what is the effect of Flanders remaining part of the Netherlands?
 
I have always said that dividing Belgium between France, who gets Wallonia and the Netherlands, who would get Flanders would be better for the Netherlands, the Flemish, France and maybe even the Walloons and Europe itself.

With Flanders Dutch the population of the Netherlands will be larger, which means the Netherlands will be (at least slightly) stronger. It will not make the Netherlands a great power, or even an industrial superpower, but the Netherlands will be stronger and might do, for example, slightly better in the colonial department (for example all of Borneo could end up Dutch, or the Dutch keep the Dutch Gold coast). Economically it will be better for the Netherlands, if it includes major cities like the harbour of Antwerp, etc.

For the Flemish it will be better, since they aren't second class citizens in their own country. Also the Flemish economy suffered after the Belgian independence, since it was more aimed north than the Walloon economy was.

For France it would be better, since they now would have the industrial base of Wallonia, something 19th century France could realy use, especialy compared to the industrial development of Germany.

For the Walloons it might be good, since now they are part of a major country and will end up probably relatively influential since Wallonia will probably become one of the major regons of France. Still the will lack the autonomy they had in Belgium.

For Europe, well, with a France that has a better industrial base than OTL and a larger population, I think France might actualy be a closer match to Germany. This could mean less wars or at least closer matches, so Germany would not be able to dominate the continent like what happened OTL. Basicly if this would avoid the first and second world war and have a closer match during the Franco-Prussian war, I would say it is better for Europe.
 
As Catholics, the Flemish are second class citizens in the Netherlands just as much as they are in Belgium as Dutch-speakers.
 
Not true, certainly not after 1848.

Nominally that wasn't true since 1795, however Catholic emancipation lasted until the 1960's. In 1848 there was freedom of education, though funding wasn't addressed yet, public and private (Catholic or Protestant mostly) were only funded equally after 1917 (when every adult Dutch man was allowed to vote).
It's probably true, that the Pillarization prolonged it a bit, but the emancipation definitely was not finished in 1848.
 
Nominally that wasn't true since 1795, however Catholic emancipation lasted until the 1960's. In 1848 there was freedom of education, though funding wasn't addressed yet, public and private (Catholic or Protestant mostly) were only funded equally after 1917 (when every adult Dutch man was allowed to vote).
It's probably true, that the Pillarization prolonged it a bit, but the emancipation definitely was not finished in 1848.

However keeping Flanders in the Netherlands may speed up Catholic Emancipation a fair bit, possibly Catholic Emancipation occurs in the Netherlands but the mid-late nineteenth century.
 
Well, they wouldn't call themselves 'the Fleminsh' for a start. The Flemish movement which led to every Dutch-speaker in Belgium calling themselves that only came about because of ethnic nationalism later in the 19th century. Before that Flanders was just the western part of the country, the former County of Flanders. The Antwerpian heartland was (and still is in anything but name) strongly Brabantian.
 
As Catholics, the Flemish are second class citizens in the Netherlands just as much as they are in Belgium as Dutch-speakers.

Not if Flanders never remains under the Spanish in the first place. Without Spanish oppression and religious persecution, the southern Netherlands are likely every bit as Protestant as the northern (Antwerp and Brussels were both relatively major Protestant centers), and though there's no precise demographics, there's record of very large numbers of numbers of Protestants and even some Catholics fleeing north after the war.
 
Not if Flanders never remains under the Spanish in the first place. Without Spanish oppression and religious persecution, the southern Netherlands are likely every bit as Protestant as the northern (Antwerp and Brussels were both relatively major Protestant centers), and though there's no precise demographics, there's record of very large numbers of numbers of Protestants and even some Catholics fleeing north after the war.
Thereby allowing them to minorly oppress the local catholics ;)

But I think it's going to be quite different when this happens. If during the 80 YW, the Netherlands will be a bit greater power, and the butterflies will flutter like a madman (Dutch New York forever? Who knows. Dutch Brazil? Unlikely, but maybe some chunks. Dutch Rhineland? Well, they did garrison Kleef/Cleves already...)

In 1830 or thereabout, it's hardly gonna matter much. France will be slightly bigger, sure - but the same essentially power dynamics with Germany will exist. In the Franco-Prussian war France wasn't weaker in the basics, it was just terribly led and organized - Wallonia doesn't have to change anything. And afterwards, German relative power did a lot to affect diplomacy - a stronger France might improve Germany's diplomatic position enough to compensate, for all we know (or the Netherlands might be more active on either side as a somewhat stronger power...).
 
Top