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.