The Kingdom of France had such advantages that it is truly amazing that it was never able to conquer the world.
In 1650, it had a greater population than England, Spain, and Portugal combined, and its population was also twice that of the German lands. It had claims on an easily navigable area (by way of the Great Lakes and Mississippi) -- Louisiane, the North American interior -- that constitutes even to this day the single largest and most fruitful area of arable land in the world. This land had few diseases, unimaginable amounts of game, a great wealth of mineral resources, and a remarkable consistency across a very large area that, as mentioned, was tied together through an easily navigable river system.
On top of this, France had a strong monarchy, international prestige, and a geographic position in Europe that made it at once in touch with every region and close to the papacy.
Almost all of these advantages were, for the most part, squandered. These advantages were great. Global domination could have been a very natural development, and it could have become permanent, as well. Global domination failed to occur, however, for several key reasons.
The first is the lack of strategic foresight of the Bourbons and some of their ministers (particularly Colbert) with regard to their overseas holdings. If France were to have settled New France with only half of the English colonists or were to have settled New France with the same number of people but two generations earlier, New France would have a population exceeding 300 million people today from natural growth alone, and perhaps higher since it would attract significant immigration later.
Second, the French birthrate began to significantly decline in the age of Louis XIV. If it were as high as that of England or Germany during the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries, the metropole alone would have a population exceeding 150 million, and perhaps as high as twice that number. With such an advantage in population, other lands too could have been easily taken and settled, including Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Uruguay, and South Africa. India, of course, and the rest of Asia would be firmly under France's sway, to say nothing of the Mediterranean.
Third, France antagonised the Papacy rather than assuming its ancient role as the Pope's chief defender. The trajectory of Philippe IV and François I and then, of course, Louis XIV towards the proto-Gallican national church model (and then outright Gallicanism under Louis le Grand) forced the papacy into the arms of the Habsburgs for political patronage over the course of five hundred years. This, too, was very shortsighted. If France were more prominently and more vigilantly Catholic than she became during the reigns of the Louis's, such as she was prior to Bourbon realpolitik, she would have had the support of the Pope and could have used her status as Eldest Daughter of the Church to advantage against Protestant powers. With this and her advantages in geography and demography, France could have united Western Europe under the Throne of the Lilies and created a permanent cultural zone.