The DofI (or is it Dofl? sans serif sucks) says on the headline: it’s about independence, which in British governance at that time, could only be expressed as separation from the sovereign. The colonies had a bunch of differing ways that the home country exerted control, but the chain of command always ended with the sovereign. Every complaint is about governance; there are no complaints about personal things like apparel, health, or hygiene.
Tying back to the original topic and mine early question: there’s lots of commentary about the balance of power between the monarch and the parliament with respect to England itself. There was presumably a similar back-and-forth in the colonies, especially between the 1600s and 1700s, but I’m lacking in knowledge.
Me too, but my guess is there were different issues and regimes for different places. What little I know suggests there were very different trajectories for Canada, India, Australia, the Caribbean and different parts of Africa, and no doubt there was some consideration of what had gone wrong in America. Took a long time before the notion of Dominion status developed, though.
What we learned in Canadian history was that the British government doubled down on firm control of the colonies after they lost the American Revolution. It took the the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada of 1837 to make them realize that this was not the way to go, and they loosened up and gave the colonies (the white ones) a bit more autonomy. Obviously, fear of pushing Canada into the arms of the expansionist USA was a factor in trying to reduce the antagonism to government. They had a minor advantage that Upper Canada (Ontario) was settled by a lot of United Empire Loyalists who had no love for the USA.
I’m assuming a freshly installed teenage girl or her geriatric Uncle before her, were more preoccupied with local matters than with overseeing the multitude of colonies.