Were the Netherlands Destined To Split?

There were numerous plans about what to do with the Burgundian Inheritance from the time it got dropped into the Habsburg lap inn the 15th century until they lost what remained of it in the 18th/19th. Several of these plans involved a splitting off of Netherlandish territories from the main Habsburg line's possessions (Imperial Germany-Hungary-Bohemia and Spain), but unfortunately, only one came to fruition and even that was shortlived (ie only lasting one generation).

The various plans were that it was generally to end up going to a younger son*, but the Spanish Habsburgs were in general short supply of those. My question is this: if a Habsburg king of Spain/lord of the Netherlands, maybe Charles V or Felipe II, were to have a second son to split the territory off to, would the Netherlands have still split into a Habsburg south and an independent north?

The reason I ask is because several of the earlier Habsburgs were tolerant of Protestantism, and Felipe's "foreign-ness" alienated the Burgundians - for instance, Maximilian II wrote that comparing his uncle's court in Spain to his brother-in-law's was like comparing the sun and moon. Charles' was Burgundian, lively, cultured, and the emperor mingling with anyone he chose to, whereas Felipe's was Castilian, austere, religious, and the king isolated himself (taking his meals alone etc) from the court. So, if Charles V had had a second legitimate son to whom to leave the Low Countries - IDK if said son would be vassal to Felipe or not (I don't think he would, but I'm not sure) - and the son was raised as the heir to Burgundy (perhaps at the court of Margaret of Austria/Marie of Hungary (not impossible, since quite a few of Charles' nephews/grandsons were raised at the Spanish court)) would the Netherlands still split? Or would the Archduke-Infante be able to hold the 17 Provinces together? Maximilian II and Rudolf II seemed to have an idea of religious toleration (Ferdinand I as well, but again, I'm not sure if it's just maybe me reading into it) at least. So if he's a little more flexible than Felipe II (especially since he's johnny-on-the-spot (and) rather than (waiting for responses**) sitting off in a monastery-palace in Spain).

I'd love to hear you guys thoughts on this.

*Charles V planned to split Burgundy off to a second son, but when none of his sons except Felipe II survived, he proposed granting it to his daughter, Maria, and son-in-law nephew, Maximilian II, but the idea didn't take. Then Felipe planned to do the same, except he didn't have any surviving sons at his death except Felipe III, so he granted it to his daughter, Isabel and her Habsburg husband. They unfortunately had no kids. Felipe III was the only Habsburg king of Spain to die with more than one son surviving, yet his son was only named "governor" rather than the post held by his half-aunt and uncle of sovereign ruler. Felipe IV reportedly planned to do it when the Spanish Netherlands returned to his rule, but again, it ended in failure due to him emulating his grandfather and great-grandfather with only one son surviving at his death.

**Like Margaret of Austria was forced to.
 
Were the Netherlands destined to split? I would say not. Before (and during) the Dutch revolt there basicly was no difference between what would later become the Netherlands and what would later become Flanders. Including relgion. Flanders used to be as protestant and the Dutch reformation actulay started there. Culturaly speaking there was no difference. Or more correctly, the differnce between Flanders (and Brabant) and the Dutch provences was comparable (and still is in my opinion). The reason it split was because of the militairy situation at the end of the 80 year war. There were differences between the Francophone part and the Dutch part. Most obviously language, but it was also less protestant than the north (although there were numerous protestant Walloons, who later moved north). Was it destined to split from the rest of the Netherlands? Obviously not, since Belgium exist. You can have a country with two different languages. With a different history the 17 provinces could remain together. Mind you keeping the southern parts (like Artois and Cambrai) away from France would be hard, but a united Netherlands might have an easier time defeating France.
 
Were the Netherlands destined to split? I would say not. Before (and during) the Dutch revolt there basicly was no difference between what would later become the Netherlands and what would later become Flanders. Including relgion. Flanders used to be as protestant and the Dutch reformation actulay started there. Culturaly speaking there was no difference. Or more correctly, the differnce between Flanders (and Brabant) and the Dutch provences was comparable (and still is in my opinion). The reason it split was because of the militairy situation at the end of the 80 year war. There were differences between the Francophone part and the Dutch part. Most obviously language, but it was also less protestant than the north (although there were numerous protestant Walloons, who later moved north). Was it destined to split from the rest of the Netherlands? Obviously not, since Belgium exist. You can have a country with two different languages. With a different history the 17 provinces could remain together. Mind you keeping the southern parts (like Artois and Cambrai) away from France would be hard, but a united Netherlands might have an easier time defeating France.

So if a Habsburg cadet line, descended from a second son of Charles V/Felipe II would be able to hold it together, were they resident in Brussels, rather than Madrid? How might they approach the religious division between north and south? As you say, a country can exist with more than one language, but I could see the religious divide being a more insurmountable object. Would there have to be a sort of Edict of Toleration for the Protestants? Or might this cadet line simply just appear to be slightly closer to Protestantism (not improbable, of Charles V's siblings, the only one who didn't display any interest in Protestantism besides himself, was his sister Katharina) than Catholicism? They won't necessarily out-and-out convert (they'd be risking wars with their arch-Catholic Habsburgs cousins if they did), but "appearance is the substance of power" as one monarch said.

And if there isn't a near century long independence war, how might this affect the development of the Netherlands?
 
Earlier split from Spain, better chance to keep Habsburg Netherlands united, so I'd prefer Charles V's second son scenario-Netherlands line would have more time to become "Native".
It is also important how would personal approach of these Habsburgs towards protestantism looks like? IOTL main Austrian line was quite tolerant compared to Spanish and Styrian line. If rulers of Netherlands will resemble more Matthias than Ferdinand II they should be able to keep whole Low Countries.
 
Earlier split from Spain, better chance to keep Habsburg Netherlands united, so I'd prefer Charles V's second son scenario-Netherlands line would have more time to become "Native".
It is also important how would personal approach of these Habsburgs towards protestantism looks like? IOTL main Austrian line was quite tolerant compared to Spanish and Styrian line. If rulers of Netherlands will resemble more Matthias than Ferdinand II they should be able to keep whole Low Countries.
Styria? I remember reading about the Tyrol basically having its own branch and possessing Breisgau and Sungau, but Styria... Around what time period are you thinking? Had Carinthia and Styria not yet yet unified under the joint rule of the Archduchy?
 
Styria? I remember reading about the Tyrol basically having its own branch and possessing Breisgau and Sungau, but Styria... Around what time period are you thinking? Had Carinthia and Styria not yet yet unified under the joint rule of the Archduchy?
Archduke Charles of Styria (1540-1590) was youngest son of emperor Ferdinand I and younger brother of emperor Maximilian II. None of Maximilian's sons left legitimate children, so imperial throne went to that younger, Styrian line, whose head was ultra-Catholic archduke Ferdinand, son of Charles.
 
A question about this situation:

How might the United Netherlands (17 Provinces) fare in the big wide world? Obviously they're ruled by the emperor/king of Spain's cousin/brother, but I don't know if that would necessarily safeguard them. I mean, if England or France goes to war with the Habsburgs, where better than to invade, through Flanders' fields, or over the Pyrenees. So I wonder if the archdukes in the Netherlands (how does grand duke of Brabant sound for a title? Open to other suggestions) would be held hostage by anyone going to war with their cousins in Spain/Austria?

Also, would (if the Dutch line descends from Karl V) they be compelled as much as what Albert and Isabel were (their sons can only marry someone approved by Madrid, their daughters must either marry the king of Spain or someone of his choosing) to intermarry with the Spanish branch? Or might we see a little more variation in who the archdukes/-duchesses marry? Maybe Dorothée/Renée of Lorraine for the first prince (Willem I of Orange wanted to marry one of them at some point (before he rebelled against Felipe))?
 
I'm thinking that the Dutch Habsburgs would be more independent marital wise and might actually serve as the peacemaker for the Empire.
Could they go for a electorate title?
 
I'm thinking that the Dutch Habsburgs would be more independent marital wise and might actually serve as the peacemaker for the Empire.
Could they go for a electorate title?

I've also wondered. The king of Bohemia was (pre-Habsburgs) not in a great way financially, so if the emperor offers to 'buy' his electoral vote (or perhaps with the electoral vote confiscated from the Wettins if the Hungarian Jagiellons survive), it could be raised to an electorate.
 
Top