Possible Separate Huguenot State in Europe

(I think you meant too far from God, too close to Portugal)
No, I meant what I wrote.
The attempts at settling Huguenots were plagued not only by their proximity to Catholic powers (Protestant and French settlement in their sphere of influence wasn't going to end well) but as well by religious issues, not only between Protestant, but between guys leading the expeditions that were often moyenneurs (middle way men) : as in not really picking a side, except when it meant looking loyal to the crown.

Except when it is not (Guyane). Interestingly, the Dutch also grabbed nearby Suriname.
Netherlands beneficied from official political support, huge financial ressources.
Huguenots had wishful thinking.

Furthermore, as you said, they grabbed it, not founded it, and in a later date (mid-XVIIth) when the Spanish and Portuguese pressure was far less important.

This is why I am suggesting that Dutch, not French, backing is just what is needed to make this colony successful.
You forget to take in account the nature of Wars of Religion, and the post-war situation.
They were as well political than religious, with more or less defined political objectives (mostly imposing themselves).
Fleeing would have been rather the result of defeat, and Ligue mindset was clearly more about mass slaughter than allowing that to happen.

Not only that, but the situation was quite different from late XVIIth in the late XVIth : no Protestant power was acknowledged, and Spain turned Netherlands into its battlefield. Emigration trough Netherland was particularly compromised : you don't move for safety into a war zone.

As for the post-war situation, well, as I tried to point out, Protestants were subject to royal arbitrary that was essentially about crushing any attempt at political counter-power, and maintaining the Catholic domination (Edict of Nantes wasn't a tolerance edict as we understand it : rather the acknowledgement of a de-facto situation, and tolerating it, for a time)
 
Ok, what do folks think of this possibility:

1) The House of Valois survives - one of Henry II's sons has issue.

2) This means Henry of Bourbon, King of Navarre never inherits the French throne, and he remains a Protestant King of Navarre.

3) Lower Navarre (a tiny territory) is flooded with Protestant migrants from France until it is majority Protestant (again this wouldn't be a large number of migrants at all because Lower Navarre is so tiny).

4) We have a Huguenot-majority Kingdom of Navarre (even though it doesn't really deserve to be called a "Kingdom".

My questions are:
How long can Navarre retain its independence? Especially as a Protestant state sandwiched between France and Spain? Would France prop it up due to the fact that the existence of Independent Navarre encourages revolts in Spanish Navarre?? Could it become a micro-state like Andorra?

Would this count as a "separate huguenot state in Europe?
 
2) This means Henry of Bourbon, King of Navarre never inherits the French throne, and he remains a Protestant King of Navarre.
Bourbons-Albret were as well, and probably more, french lords than Kings of Navarre. Remember that Henri had to convert several times even when he wasn't the apparent heir.

Sure, they would remain champions of Huguenot cause, but their royal title isn't going to protect them more than it protected them IOTL. Either they bend, either they'll know the same fate than...well, Bourbon.

4) We have a Huguenot-majority Kingdom of Navarre (even though it doesn't really deserve to be called a "Kingdom".
Well, you probably had this majority IOTL already. And it was probably a kingdom, regardless of what it deserves, giving it was considered as such contemporarily.

So if it counts as a Huguenot european state, and it does in a weird way, the OP is filled by History.

How long can Navarre retain its independence?
Approximatly ten seconds? Take or leave one.
More seriously, Lower Navarre was under french sphere of influence since quite a time, would it be only because Bourbons owed far more important territories within the kingdom of France (as Plantagenets did, if Plantagenets ruled a pocket kingdom)
Any likewise tentative would be doomed if Ligue or Valois (in the case they are still distinct).
 
Well, you probably had this majority IOTL already. And it was probably a kingdom, regardless of what it deserves, giving it was considered as such contemporarily.

So if it counts as a Huguenot european state, and it does in a weird way, the OP is filled by History.

Hell, I can pull a second one--Geneva. Which was, at this point in history, an independent ally of the Swiss Confederation, and pretty much Huguenot Central.
 
Hell, I can pull a second one--Geneva. Which was, at this point in history, an independent ally of the Swiss Confederation, and pretty much Huguenot Central.

"Huguenot Central" is probably the best wording indeed. Most of Huguenot emigration there was in "transit", mostly to Germany and Netherlands.
Of course there is the possibility to change that, mentioned in the previous page.

You'd need french policies to be less coherants than IOTL, in order to make a return in the kingdom more likely, and therefore letting more people settling in bordering regions; and in the other hand, this possibility being void after a time (all of that before Louis XIV death).
An earlier persecution could do (No "mister nice man" conversion policy, that failed IOTL, and dragonnades appearing earlier, with an official revocation happening at roughly the same date).

Note that it would be made mostly at the expense of Germany and Dutch refuges

As for the political outcome. Having 60 000 to 100 000 Huguenots settlers in Switerland is going to change manythings, but would it be enough to make the confederacy a Huguenot states (Alex Richards, I summon thee!)
 
"Huguenot Central" is probably the best wording indeed. Most of Huguenot emigration there was in "transit", mostly to Germany and Netherlands.

The city of Geneva was a French-speaking Calvinist state that the Huguenots in France looked to for inspiration. Hence my choice of words, LSC.
 
The city of Geneva was a French-speaking Calvinist state that the Huguenots in France looked to for inspiration. Hence my choice of words, LSC.

I'd disagree, then. Again, I stress that you can't consider Huguenots as it was an homogenous entity. Be careful to not confuse social and religious elites, with the whole of population.
After the departure of the religious elites, Huguenots' religiosity turned a bit particular : prophetic elements weren't rare, and generally driven by religious visionary trend.
Abraham Masel is probably the best exemple of this.

And giving the refuges size, Netherlands seems to have been far more considered as an haven than Geneva (it can be argued, up to a point, that it was considered as a model for the French Protestant movement since the Dutch revolt). Let not the linguistical factor fools you.

At the point that after 1715, Swiss protestants pastors had to re-tighten beliefs and practices of the Désert. (Or that the Huguenots later emigrating in England being badly welcomed due to these particularities).
 
Top