FillyofDelphi
Banned
The colonies were happy and content,and well developed as well,due to the decentralized nature of government. There was practically no chance of ruling colonies well without decentralized rule,given the vast distance between France and the rest of the colonies.What you call centralized rule of the colonies was nothing other than brutal exploitation,with most of the money sent to metropolitan France rather than being used on the development of the colonies themselves.
Just look at the smouldering wreck that the Spanish colonies became.
I never said it was horrible, but it DID come at a rather substantial expense to the development, wealth, and good goverance of France proper to constantly concede to colonial interests and promote Imperial talent over homegrown. The resulting "Brain Drain" and demographic crisis of so many well-educated young Frenchmen flighting to the colonies ultimately lead to the weakening of the center who's power had once held the Empire together making it, while unlikely to rebel, highly vulnerable to the wars France found herself fighting in on the mainland as her rivals tried to undermine her hegemony and kept struggling to put out the fires of "fraternal" conflict as the interests of different colonies clashed. It was exactly the same fate that hit Spain during the 17th century and for very similar reasons.
Though, to be fair, France played the diplomatic game alot better in that reguard and was forunate enough nothing so ground-shaking as the Reformation occured during her weakest periods and that the British Isles had been effectively knocked out of the game. So long as the "Silver Ring" alliance with Sweden and the Ottomans remained intact Spain was the only viable rival left on the continent who's influence coulden't be easily deflected outside open warfare.