One thing that may be missing in our discussion of Dutch-French emnity: part of the rise of this emnity was trade. Initially France had been fairly laissez-faire on trade, and as a result Dutch merchants (as they did everywhere) took over a huge chunk of France's trade and associated profits. France was strong enough to eventually object, and it would've taken quite some diplomacy on both sides to either make the Dutch accept a mercantilist France (when the Baltic states were a bit nasty on mercantilism, they'd see a Dutch fleet on their worst enemy's side, and trying the same against France makes sense) or to make France accept free trade and the associated Dutch dominance (I mean, France accepting someone else taking all its wealth? Not very likely).
The big problem was that France and the Republic were both Great Powers in a rather small pond; hostility was natural so long as England or Spain was no lethal threat to both (and England, for all its failings, wasn't dumb enough to be such).
This is just flat out wrong. France's policies under Colbert were protectionist, and manufacturing oriented. He originated the idea of mercantilism. France was perfectly happy to let Dutch merchants buy French goods in French ports, to sell to the Baltic and other places. The flow of gold from that transaction was still inward to France, which was the goal. The Dutch wanted to be traders. The French wanted to be producers.
The Dutch were naturally shut out of French colonies, as the French were from Dutch colonies, but the Dutch were perfectly welcome to purchase goods in French ports. The French wanted to be exporters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colbertism
Uhh...
"He spent a lot of energy trying to reorganize industry and commerce. He believed that in order to increase French power it would be essential to grow France’s share of international trade and reduce the commercial hegemony of the Dutch."
From 1665 to 1683 a minister was ruling who wanted to threaten Dutch commercial hegemony, and I say that helped cause Dutch-French hostility. I don't see the flat out wrong?
I have this feeling that French traders should be the ones doing inside French borders was what was intended by Colbert anyway, however I cannot pronounce myself when it comes to external trade. Hell, it would make sense for France to let the Dutch get external trade, since it would concurrence the British.
Henri II would have given France stronger leadership than his sons, certainly. But he didn't seem inclined to give Protestants religious tolerance, even as they were rapidly growing in number. I think France was probably headed for conflict anyway.
Than François II and Charles IX? I completely agree. Than Henri III? Not that sure. After all, he seemed to have better political sense than his two brothers which were always their mothers' puppets.
Then, again, if the dynastic situation doesn't change (no legitimate sons for Henri II's four sons), the crown will go to Henri de Navarre one way or another.
There was this saying among French Huguenots : 'Henri II refused to see the reality of the Reform, God struck him in the eye. François II refused to hear it, and God struck him in the ear" or something like that. It sorta reflects the way the more radicals protestants felt at the time.
I believe an early Edict of Nantes would have been necessary (the Edict of Amboise was that IOTL; having Henri III not murdered and managing to push it forward despite opposition might make the transition at his death much smoother), but before that, maintaining a strong royal authority is necessary because protestantism is an easy revolt matter. One way or another, the problem France faced was mostly foreign interference : the Guise descended from the House of Lorraine, and Philip II was willing to spend money to destabilize France.