Agreed, could you remind me what your views on France and England were in this scenario?
here few example of james II policy and some exemple of what he could have done Increase the size of the army, developping the manufacturing sector,centralize the state, impose central control of the local government, developping the surveillance system, create national instution, the thirteen colonies would be more centralized, England and French trade would surely grow under his reign, the setback would be a small emigration of protestant and a lesser migration of huguenot in England, nop boom of English and Netherlands trade and would not see some mesure take by Whilliam II happened, the situation would be a little more tense but during thee war James II would surely join french side and would made quick gain that could be useful to England and improve his legitimaty.
France would be the great winner since England armies would not be against him and would surely join his side, Sweden and Denmark joined the coalition side thanks to the involvement of William in this case he would lose credibbility and affraid to fight a naval war against France and England in the same time (epescially in term of trade) would made them not join or leave the coalition), in this case France would be in a great position i'm nost sure that Brandebuurg of Bavarai would want to join a war that seems loose before it started, Savoy would likely sign a peace (OTl they refused because they think that they would have the numeric superioty) with a lesser war the finance would be in a better situation and would avoid the worst of the famine of 1693 and would fight against it they would still have dead (but if they got 500 000 nstead of 1.500.000 it would mean 5% of population this kind of impact would be monstruous in the long term) also they would have a have more conquest so they will be in a better situation especially if they could trade with English.
Did the Glorious Revolution really do much for the Dutch economy? AFAIK f.e. the Navigation Acts were not abolished.
According to different source the trade boomed between both power during his reign.
the strength of the relationship can also be seen in the “british trade surpluses” after 1688, THE STUDENT ECONOMIC REVIEWVOL. XXVIII 53 culminating from “re-exports ofVirginia tobacco” and “newworld drugs, dyestuffs” and “beverages”, with these re-exports reaching £200,000-400,000 in 1693-1695 (deVries and van derwoude, 1997, p.485).the bullion flows in the longer term after 1688 were also very significant.the republic ran a deficit, but this was paid in large part by its services and investment income.to give a scale of the bullion flows from britain to the republicin this period,and thus their interdependency,from 1706-80‘a total of £59 million’ flowed in, with this number being equivalent to ‘the total output of Dutch mints in this period’ (deVries and van derwoude, 1997, p.486 [ref. HOW DUTCHWASTHE INDUS- TRIAL REVOLUTION? PETER N. PREBENSEN Senior Sophister]