Final answer:
The fall of Nouvelle France likely led the Hudson's Bay Company to anticipate a near-monopoly on the fur trade, as they would face less competition with the French influence diminished.
Step-by-step explanation:
The leaders of the Hudson's Bay Company likely felt that the fall of Nouvelle France would lead to a monopoly on the fur trade for them. Initially, the fur trade in North America was a competitive business with various European powers, such as the French and Dutch, vying for control and establishing alliances with different native groups to secure trade routes and partnerships. The French, having granted a monopoly to the Company of New France in 1627 and later putting it under royal control, directly influenced the fur market dynamics. Dutch merchants and the Dutch West India Company (DWIC) also aimed for a similar monopoly, but their control weakened over time due to internal and external challenges, such as smuggling and competition.With the fall of Nouvelle France, the Hudson's Bay Company, which was in competition mainly with French interests, would now face less resistance in controlling the fur trade. The exit of the French from the scene meant that their allied Native American tribes would also potentially lose a vital trading partner, shifting the balance of power to the British and their associated traders like the Hudson's Bay Company. This could result in the company achieving a near-monopoly status in the region.