Was the Edict of Fontainebleau a factor in causing the Glorious Revolution?

The Edict of Fontainebleau is often presented as a grave error on Louis XIV's part. Not only did it economically weaken the kingdom through the flight of disproportionately rich, skilled, and literate Huguenots (though the extent of the damage done is debatable, as many skilled Huguenots just converted to Catholicism), it also greatly hurt Louis' international image, as it greatly increased the hostility of Protestant Europe against France, and was probably a significant factor in the formation of the Grand Alliance that would so frustrate Louis' ambitions.

What I'm curious about, however, is if and how the Edict of Fontainebleau damaged James II's position. Did Louis' actions make many English Protestants fearful of similar persecutions by their own Catholic monarch? I've read that anti-Louis and anti-Catholic sentiment got quite a bit stronger in England and in the Netherlands as a result of the arrival of Huguenot refugees. If Louis had not revoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685, but still continued his aggressive posturing in Europe, would James have had a stronger position?
 
I would imagine so, especially since the Stuarts were perceived (with reason) as pro-French.

The Edict of Fontainebleau was not a sudden event though. Louis had been steadily trying to convert the Protestants to Catholicism for two decades and had instituted the dragonnades a few years earlier. By 1685 Protestantism as an institution was basically destroyed and Louis was assured by his ministers that virtually everyone had converted already. He was surprised at the number of people that fled.
 
The Edict of Fontainebleau is often presented as a grave error on Louis XIV's part. Not only did it economically weaken the kingdom through the flight of disproportionately rich, skilled, and literate Huguenots (though the extent of the damage done is debatable, as many skilled Huguenots just converted to Catholicism), it also greatly hurt Louis' international image, as it greatly increased the hostility of Protestant Europe against France, and was probably a significant factor in the formation of the Grand Alliance that would so frustrate Louis' ambitions.

What I'm curious about, however, is if and how the Edict of Fontainebleau damaged James II's position. Did Louis' actions make many English Protestants fearful of similar persecutions by their own Catholic monarch? I've read that anti-Louis and anti-Catholic sentiment got quite a bit stronger in England and in the Netherlands as a result of the arrival of Huguenot refugees. If Louis had not revoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685, but still continued his aggressive posturing in Europe, would James have had a stronger position?
Only talking for the situation in the Dutch republic. As you were already suspecting this edict persuaded a lot of merchants (regenten) of the bad intentions of Louis. Many of the fled Huguenots were their trading contacts in France before their flight. So this hurt them were it counted, in their pockets. But it also made it personal, because the distinction between trading contact and personal friend wasn't clear. It gave William III the perfect argument in his request to finance the preparations for his conquest[1] of England. Before the Edict the French ambassador, the count of Avaux, was able to play out the differences in the Republic. F.i. by promising continued trading rights to Amsterdam. After the Edict the Amsterdam regents didn't trust his words anymore
 
Top