That sounds like a good idea. Given the challenges France faced colonizing North America OTL was it likely that this would happen would it always be more of an unlikely turn of events? How big does the population of French North America get?
State-sponsored settlement, successful colonies in Florida, and not giving up all the territory east of the Mississippi in unsuccessful wars would be a start.
French identity is strong in Quebec to this day. Without an American revolution, perhaps there'd be no large settlement of Americans in upper Canada, and the region remains French-speaking, with ripples out west and south along fur-trading routes.
That depends on if the French can get the Indians to outbreed the English colonists. If France can create a native state west of the the Appalachians with a population of over a million, they will have established a permanent power base in North America.
Just building up a white population alone isn't enough to stop the English.
Why would you necessarily need Indians any more than the English did? If you have a border at the Appalachians, and maybe 1-2 million Frenchmen in the region (counting slaves, allied Indians, etc.), then not a square inch of land is going to be ceded. The Appalachians are very defensible, and as long as the Gulf Coast is protected, then the Englishmen simply aren't getting through. It would be too expensive to conquer the land.
The problem is that one can settle the territory bordering western Appalachians only after :
- either settling the territory bordering eastern Appalachians and the Atlantic coast,
- or settling the Ohio valley and the Mississippi basin.
So you need an early POD.
I'm not certain about the validity of the claim, but I've seen it argued that quite a few native peoples sided with France against Britain because the French were rather thin on the ground, and thus less busy pushing these natives off their land than the British. If that's true, then it must be taken into account that increasing the French population will be likely to turn more Native Americans against France, and PODs that increase the number of Natives may end up being detrimental to the French cause. (But again, I'm not sure about the accuracy of this idea-- just figured I'd raise it here, so it can be discussed.)
All in all, the French state pursuing a coherent and goal-oriented colonisation strategy, with incentives for settlement and mass transportation of prisoners and the destitute poor to North America, seems like the best improvement for French North America. Clear allocation of settlements, and good agreements with Native peoples about lines of settlement, would also help keep trouble on that front to a minimum. The largher population means more fighting men by definition, and increases North America's relative importance for France-- which means more dedication to defending and keeping it. That, in turn, may well lead to French victories in the inevitable colonial conflict. The British east coast colonies would be hemmed in completely. Even if France claims Britain's Hudon Bay lands, I suspect they couldn't make that claim stick easily (same way British forts were in the old North-West territory for years and years after the ARW, despite their obligatio to withdraw). Given Britain's limited options, I can see Britain trying to make a go for land on the west coast, which would prompt a race to the west against France.
By the 1770s, you could see North America looking something like this:
View attachment 343506
(Quickly edited from an existing map)
A big consequence of all this would be that the British east coast colonies remain very much threatened by France, so they'll hardly be inclined to secede and form a USA-analogue. So it may well turn out that Britain retains North American colonies with a much larger population base than OTL Canada in this ATL! French success in various colonial wars (assuming they don't lose big elsewhere) would meanwhile mean that France receives indeminities afterwards, rather than having to pay them. That, the larger (an presumably far more prosperous and thus revenue-yielding) French North America, and the lack of an ARW (and thus of costlt Frenxh involvement) also wipes out all the economic causes that led to the French revolution in OTL.
The world is going to be very different.
Good points on the relationship between British and French America. If the French have such a threat to their east would they still have the capacity to fend off the Spanish to the west and south?
I'm not certain about the validity of the claim, but I've seen it argued that quite a few native peoples sided with France against Britain because the French were rather thin on the ground, and thus less busy pushing these natives off their land than the British. If that's true, then it must be taken into account that increasing the French population will be likely to turn more Native Americans against France, and PODs that increase the number of Natives may end up being detrimental to the French cause. (But again, I'm not sure about the accuracy of this idea-- just figured I'd raise it here, so it can be discussed.)
All in all, the French state pursuing a coherent and goal-oriented colonisation strategy, with incentives for settlement and mass transportation of prisoners and the destitute poor to North America, seems like the best improvement for French North America. Clear allocation of settlements, and good agreements with Native peoples about lines of settlement, would also help keep trouble on that front to a minimum. The largher population means more fighting men by definition, and increases North America's relative importance for France-- which means more dedication to defending and keeping it. That, in turn, may well lead to French victories in the inevitable colonial conflict. The British east coast colonies would be hemmed in completely. Even if France claims Britain's Hudon Bay lands, I suspect they couldn't make that claim stick easily (same way British forts were in the old North-West territory for years and years after the ARW, despite their obligatio to withdraw). Given Britain's limited options, I can see Britain trying to make a go for land on the west coast, which would prompt a race to the west against France.
By the 1770s, you could see North America looking something like this:
View attachment 343506
(Quickly edited from an existing map)
A big consequence of all this would be that the British east coast colonies remain very much threatened by France, so they'll hardly be inclined to secede and form a USA-analogue. So it may well turn out that Britain retains North American colonies with a much larger population base than OTL Canada in this ATL! French success in various colonial wars (assuming they don't lose big elsewhere) would meanwhile mean that France receives indeminities afterwards, rather than having to pay them. That, the larger (an presumably far more prosperous and thus revenue-yielding) French North America, and the lack of an ARW (and thus of costlt Frenxh involvement) also wipes out all the economic causes that led to the French revolution in OTL.
The world is going to be very different.
Concerning your map, I can't see Hudson's Bay company retaining control of its territories if inhabitable Canada remains french.