The point I was trying to make is that impoverished Cockneys–or Brummies, Geordies, whatever–could have retained their status as British subjects and move to a different part of the Empire; in this case, the Southern part of hypothetical British North America.
Many of them in reality did seek better lives in colonies like Australia and New Zealand, but if the states with arable farmland had remained colonies, one wouldn’t have to sail around “the Horn” or “the Cape” to reach prosperity.
I wonder if it would have changed the pattern of Irish emigration? While I think the primary reason for Irish emigrating was economic, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a secondary consideration of leaving British control. The United States fit both of these criteria.
But if America had remained part of the British Empire, I wonder if a significant number of those Irish emigrants would have decided, “Why leave home if I’m still going to have the English bossing me around? Screw that. I’m going to Argentina.”
As between those, would George III have any grounds to favor one over the other? All equally his subjects, y’know.
Bear in mind that this is a hypothetical scenario. In reality, you had xenophobic groups like the Ku Klux Klan in the South keeping immigrants out. Would they have kept out their Anglo-Saxon brethren? I couldn’t say, but if the Revolution of the colonies never happened, there might not have ever been a civil war in the South to begin with, and therefore no KKK slowing down migration.
What would have happened in the South is a more interesting question. There already was an Abolitionist movement in Britain in the 18th Century – American abolitionism emerged later (that is, later in the 18th Century). Both British and colonial Abolitionists would have had some voice in Westminster – but, so would the delegations from the slaveholding colonies of the South, and the West Indies. So, would Parliament have abolished slavery in 1834 as in our timeline, or earlier, or later, or never?
That’s an interesting thought. Not meaning to get off-topic here, but it could have been a definite possibility that the Irish would have moved to Latin America instead. They had Catholicism in common. And there were isolated cases where that really happened; both Anthony Quinn and Che Guevera were of Irish extraction.
Abolition or not, I think some Jim Crow-type laws would have existed in the South. Racism against people of African origin was fairly prevalent in Britain, too. In post-Edwardian days, black people were not allowed on any White Star Line ship (including the Titanic.) And during WWI, British officers did not want African Americans fighting alongside them in the trenches, so they went off to help out the French in their trenches.
Talk about jumping out of the frying-pan . . . 
Before anyone corrects me, I need to address this mistake. The assumption that White Star Line had a policy against admitting black passengers was based on misleading information (specifically, the lyrics to a song by blues musician Lead Belly.) There was, in fact, one black passenger in second class on the Titanic; he was an Afro-Haitian by the name of Joseph Laroche.
Returning to the original issue, I still believe Jim Crow laws would have existed under British rule.
Whew! For a moment there, I was tempted to doubt the historical accuracy of an SNL skit!
Good to know that’ll never happen! 
More than isolated cases. Argentina was considered a major target for immigrants. Not quite up there with the United States but in the same ballpark. In 1914, 30% of the population of Argentina was foreign-born.
The two biggest sources were Spain and Italy. But a lot of Irish also went to Argentina. The current Irish-Argentine population runs in the hundreds of thousands and is the fifth largest “Irish” community in the world.
If the US, and its revolutionary principles, was not created, it would not have been a source of inspiration for French statecrafters in 1789-92. Therefore, probably, no French republic, no Terror, no Bonaparte.
A lot of the staunch British conservatism of the early 19th Century was a reaction to the perceived horrors of the French Revolution. Without the US, we may have seen piecemeal, but gradual, reform of Parliament, say, in the late 1790s/early 1800s, instead of the 1830s as we actually did.
I’d imagine the Colonies would be granted a degree of self-rule and perhaps local, exclusive control over a degree of local affairs. Eventually they’d be given more formalised independence like Canada did. Whether they’d have it as one country, or as thirteen individual Dominions, or something in between, I couldn’t say.
I stand corrected. Thank you for this information.
I am reading The Two Georges now, and something I have noticed about this alternate history is that technology lags far behind the level it actually was in 1996 (this whole story has a sort of “steampunk” feel to it.) Does anyone have anything to say about that? In a world largely dominated by Britain, would technology be better or worse?
Personally, I think technology would have been better; Britain has long been world renowned for its engineers and scientists. Perhaps the authors were just having some fun writing a creative steampunk novel…
It could be a reflection of that world being more peaceful than ours. Major wars drive technology.
Mostly that. Also, in this timeline the American economy never developed in competition with the British. Parliament would have maintained its mercantilist policies so long as seemed good to them, subject to the need to compromise with and appease American interests.
It’s interesting that while capitalist theory was developed by an Englishman (in 1776) it caught on better in America than it did in England.
I think it was due to geography and history. Mercantilism essentially argued that wealth was a finite object and you could only become wealthier by making somebody else poorer; it saw economics as what would later be called a zero-sum game. Capitalism arguing that wealth could be created and two people could have an economic transaction which left both of them wealthier than they started.
England, like most of Europe, had developed under a system of land-based aristocracy. Land was the basis of wealth. If you acquired wealth in something else, you translated it into land. And on an island (or a fully populated continent) land was not something you could make more of. All of the good land was owned and wealth was just the transfer of ownership from one person to another.
America had fundamental differences. Land was cheap and with an open frontier there was no sense that it was limited. People could always travel further west than past people had and find unclaimed land (providing you were willing to ignore the claims of the Native Americans). And the American economy was growing at a rate where people could see it happening - they could see new wealth being created out of nothing.
So while you could make a plausible argument in defense of mercantilism in England, America was a land where capitalism’s superiority was obvious.
I thought Adam Smith was Scottish…
No, that was his cousin Jock MacSmith. They were often confused for each because they were identical cousins but you could tell them apart because Jock adored a minuet, the Ballets Russes, and crepe suzette while Adam loved to rock and roll and a hot dog made him lose control…
Oh, alright, I’ll just admit I was wrong.