WI: French Huguenots stay on Parris Island or move north?

[AsukaEMP]

After a failed first attempt to start a settlement of Parris Island, SC in 1562 French Huguenots returned in 1564 to try again, this time building their settlement on the bank of the St Johns River in Jacksonville, FL. However after problems with supplies some colonists turned to piracy and attacked Spanish settlements around Florida. In response to this the Spanish destroyed the settlement the following year. 3 years later de Gourge would return to massacre the Spanish who had taken over the fort but didn't attempt to start a new settlement.


So what if the French on their second attempt had decided to return to Parris Island? Or if they moved north, further away from the Spanish colonies? Would it have been possible for them to establish the first permanent settlement half a century before Jamestown or Quebec? How do you think this would have affected French (and subsequently other nations') colonisation of North America?

 

[LSCatilina]

The first immediate problem is that it largely depended from royal authorization : Coligny managed to take the opportunity in a period where Catherine de Medicis and Charles IX politic of balance favored such enterprises. But eventually, political-religious tensions got hot again, both Coligny and Protestants got deluded about royal support, and the court was increasingly stuck between militant ultra-Catholics and Protestants electing to get rid of, at least, one of the most vulnerable sides (namely Hugenots) for the sake of royal authority survival (and loosing soon control of he whole thing).
Regardless of actual plans on Florida, you need to address the situation in France because even the most detailed and intelligent colonial plan wouldn't survive Wars of Religion.

Now, Florida was probably too close of the heartland of Spanish America to really have chances to survive : that it was settled by Protestants was probably "only" aggravating at this point. So either trying to get a go at Guyanas and Brazil would be more spot on, or even follow in the paths of François Ier and Verrazano in North America without guarantee of success for either of these, French Colonial policy being really more of a hit-and-miss before Richelieu.

The second problem would be the nature of these colonies, and I think that besides providing some shelter (which wouldn't go anywhere close to religious settlements in English colonies, IMO) we're talking more mercantile and outpost colonies than settlement (as the private peasant property was generally safer and more guaranteed in France than in England, you never had a huge colonial drive for the population).
At best we would be talking of two different colonial models that were already hinted at historically : a plantation/cash colonial model as in Carribean islands, and a commercial/settlement colony as in IOTL Canada. You could arguably displace geographically these colonies (less centered on St. Laurent, maybe? and more of IOTL Brazil, Dutch-style?) but I'm not seeing a good reason why it would be comparable to either Spanish or English colonial models.
You'd have potential for significant geopolitical changes, as you're right, you could have earlier permanent settlements, but social-economical changes would be harder to get (you may need an early XVIth PoD for that, with no-Charles V or with a French half-victory in Italy).