Then again, maybe I'm just a nitpicking weirdo. Although I've gotten enough upvotes by now that it seems that others have the same feeling. Maybe someone else can explain the reason for their subjective emotions upon reading this better.
Based on the sibling thread about the geographic extent of the modern Netherlands vs. the post-revolt Dutch Republic, yes, to me it seems like you're nitpcking. The author is trying to give a rough reference point to readers not familiar with the details of the history or geography. Trying to enumerate the changes in borders would be tedious, beside the point, and go over the head of most readers (who wouldn't recognize the names of the relevant towns/regions/etc.)
But Lord of the Netherlands was exactly the title used by Charles V in those days ("Landsheer van de Nederlanden"), and "de Nederlanden" was the customary name to refer to the region. What is it exactly that feels off to you?
And the description of the Dutch Republic as "loosely modern Holland" seems placed to contrast it with the Flanders and Luxembourg areas -- it doesn't feel tone-deaf to me, other than that "Holland" itself in an antiquated term, but I'd think it permissible given that it's used in the context of the Dutch Golden Age (which is where that name gained prominence).
Then again, I do know that Emperor Charles is referred to as 'Lord of the Netherlands' in English language history books, and I wouldn't easily know how to do it differently, but somehow there it's always more... padded in context?
Likewise (although it may be the same issue underneath...), equating the area of the Dutch Republic with modern-day Netherlands (which I assume he's referring to but didn't want to use that because of confusion with the previous point?) is... rather simplistic. I mean, I guess it's something someone who's never left the Randstand wouldn't think twice about, but that doesn't make it true.
But as I said, it's not like there are any factual errors I could find, and in any other writing I would have easily understood how difficult it is to convey all that nuance in a piece like this where, frankly, that nuance doesn't even matter. It's just that the combination of subtexts made the whole thing feel weird. To me. Maybe it didn't to you.
This is something that I think most people recognize when they see journalism about a subject they know much about. Journalism often seems really limited and dumbed down when you know a subject and the journalistic piece is short. But then when you don't know a subject, it seems really good and valuable and you learn a lot (ignoring that it must seem dumbed down to somebody else).
I guess this phenomenon is well-known by people who are from cultures that are usually written about by outsiders :) but I don't encounter it often and this specific article just evoked this really weird feeling in me. So many instances where I internally reacted with 'WFT is this guy saying' yet no actual factual errors that I can find.