I do so hope nobody minds my commenting here.
I have come to the conclusion that talking about the “schools” is sometimes very counter-productive. The only “school” I would genuinely back, as being particular to a country, is the Brazilian; and that is because it is highly unique, and doesn’t contain the overlaps seen in French or German or Dutch et cetera sources. I think, personally, we do it a disservice to lump it in with the others.
When I wrote that the “German method” is the most prevalent, I was not particularly talking about the meanings or anything intrinsically Germanic. The research I did basically narrowed it down to two core approaches being that of combination and then distance, with the latter being more ubiquitous in French sources (“French method”).
In German literature, you will find it quite difficult to find many sources and books that will document the method of distance. These techniques are also dominant in most Dutch, Russian, and Spanish, sources. With the latter, it is quite marked. I know Fennario and Chanah have written about this, too.
I really do not speak for Belgian and Dutch readers, and I once wrote on why I don’t class myself as that “school”, per se, on Facebook, but some took that I didn't like being classed as "Belgian" based. I first learnt the method of distance, which is most common method in French sources, from my aunt, who had never, to the best of my knowledge, been to Belgium. I believe she learnt to read the cards in Lausanne in Switzerland. I then learnt from a French lady who taught me further techniques.
If we were to believe the “schools” theory, apart from the Moon card and Snake, the cards’ meanings I use would be more similar to French sources rather than German or Dutch. When people ask me for sources I tend to recommend German based ones simply because most people who ask me only speak English, and these are the most represented in the Anglo-market. Otherwise, I tend to point them to Erna Droesbeke and Colette Silvestre.