Well James I (VI in Scotland) did push for colonisation. So if he didn't do that, then the Dutch would be able to colonise more? But then, how did the Hanover's take over in that timeline?
You know who started it all, explorers, pirates etc.?
You must be registered to see the links

I think if she lived longer, she would push just as much. And the
You must be registered to see the links
didn't last that long. But it's just a fun idea based on BWG's comment about a change in history in the 16. century.
You must be registered to see the links
I think not much would have to change in regards to the Hanovers.
From that wikipedia article you provided a link.
"After Mary II died in 1694, her husband continued to reign alone until his own death in 1702. The line of succession provided for by the Bill of Rights was almost at an end; William and Mary never had any children, and Princess Anne's children had all died. Therefore, Parliament passed the
You must be registered to see the links
. The Act maintained the provision of the Bill of Rights whereby William would be succeeded by Princess Anne and her descendants, and thereafter by his own descendants from future marriages. The Act, however, declared that they would be followed by James I & VI's granddaughter
You must be registered to see the links
, Electress Dowager of Hanover (the daughter of James's daughter
You must be registered to see the links
), and her heirs. As under the Bill of Rights, non-Protestants and those who married Roman Catholics were excluded. Because Sophia was a foreign citizen, Parliament passed the
You must be registered to see the links
to make her and her descendants English nationals and therefore eligible for the throne. "
" Anne was predeceased by Sophia, Electress Dowager of Hanover, and was therefore succeeded by the latter's son, who became
You must be registered to see the links
in 1714. "
Elizabeth didn't have any heir, you know the whole "virgin queen" act. Just replace William, Mary and Anne with Elizabeth.
" Mary was succeeded by her half-sister, Elizabeth, who broke with the precedents of many of her predecessors, and refused to name an heir. Whilst previous monarchs (including Henry VIII) had specifically been granted authority to settle uncertain successions in their wills, the
You must be registered to see the links
asserted that Parliament had the right to settle disputes, and made it treason to deny Parliamentary authority. "
" Elizabeth I of England and Ireland was succeeded by King
You must be registered to see the links
, her first cousin twice removed " So if she was related to the Stuarts a similar situation could have heppened, just in ~1700. Or she could just appoint a heir. Not necessary her child.