I doubt it, as the British do not pledge allegiance to the Queen (or anything else).
Would the Russian Revolution have happened?
Would Karl Marx have published?
How did the British colonial version of slavery vary from the US version at that point in time?
Would the method used to abolish it have worked as well here?
If there was no American Revolution there would have been nothing remotely like our own World War I or the Cold War or the various smaller wars America’s been involved in. Heck there might not be Napoleon either as Emperor of France since the French Revolution took much of its inspiration from the American.
And you make these statements based on what, exactly?
I don’t know if I would say the French Revolution took “much of its inspiration” from the American Revolution, but there was certainly a degree of ideological influence. Furthermore, the financial crisis which helped kick off the Revolution was caused at least partly by the spending the monarchy racked up in its attempt to stick it to the British by aiding their rebellious colonials. So, the American Revolution not happening or failing would at least have affected the course of the French Revolution, even if we conclude some kind of revolution was inevitable by that point in French history. And that means a certain Corsican artillery officer maybe doesn’t ever rise to power and glory. If the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars don’t happen, or take a radically different course, then everything after that–including the unifications of Italy and Germany–also take different forms, if they happen at all. So, there might have been a World War I, but it would not be the World War I that took place in our real-world timeline. No World War I (or a different World War I) means no Russian Revolution(s) (at least not in the specific form which actually took place), and no World War II (or a very different World War II), no Cold War–everything cascades from the initial changes in history, and the further you get from the point of divergence, the more markedly different a path events will have taken.
Again, this is assuming there isn’t some kind of cosmic fate or destiny that “wants” to lead to Napoleon or Hitler or Geraldo Rivera or whatever the case may be. And, even barring changes in the course of history at the political and diplomatic level, there were undoubtedly larger social and economic forces at work that would have gone on even if some time traveller arranged for George Washington to take a musket ball in the French and Indian Wars, or persuaded George III’s ministers that their colonial taxation policies were unwise.
France lost its continental North American colonies in 1763. The War for American Independence, by the admission of Washington himself, was about the colonial groups on the coast expecting to take the land they thought they had conquered in the “French and Indian War” & embarking on a campaign of terror when the Crown said no.
So I’m not sure what you’re arguing. Yes, if France had not lost the 1760’s war, then the American Revolution might have been avoided. But if the point of divergence is the Crown somehow locking down the coastal colonies & putting Washington’s head on a pike as a warning to others, then that doesn’t offer a clear way for France to regain its lost colonies. Maybe there would have been another war of reclamation, but how would France have won?
Good fictional treatment in The Two Georges, by Harry Turtledove and Richard Dreyfuss.
Also: For Want of a Nail
[quote=“Little_Nemo, post:7, topic:562901”]
Eh? Democracy already existed in Britain. Indeed, part of the reason the colonies revolted in the first place was not being allowed to participate. As for constitutions, they’re kind of overrated. Ignore a constitution, and it becomes a worthless piece of paper.
The French crown would probably have found something else to spend its money on. I think it’s possible that La Revolution doesn’t happen under this scenario, but by no means certain.
What makes you think the colonists wouldn’t have been driven to expand, even if the British Crown wasn’t?
Again, this kind of sounds like there would be no people in the New World if the British had won. The population of the British American territories would quickly have outstripped that of the UK proper.
I think you overestimate the inspirational effect of the American Revolution here. Indeed, maintaining its hold on the US territories might have cost Britain the resources it needed to maintain its other holdings. No US independence might have meant much earlier independence for, say, India.
Canadians do. I remember as a kid stating the Canadian Pledge of Allegiance when I was in something akin to (but not) Boy Scouts: “I pledge allegiance to the Queen, the flag, and the country for which it stands.” Etc. I’ve been to several banquets that feature a toast to the Queen (followed by a toast to the office of the President of the US, as there are invariably American visitors there). When I joined the Army, I was required to take a pledge to the Queen and assist her and defend her.
If I had to do all that as a Canadian, I imagine my British cousins for sure would have.
I still say the big thing that is changed in the OP was that the American Revolution was, as far as I can recall, the first time colonies have successfully declared independence. It was more a “holy shit, we can do that?” moment for other places like Haiti, Latin America, and, later, the rest of the world. There’s absolutely zero way to know if nationalism would have happened without the American example, but I think it’s highly probable that someone else would have been the catalyst (after all, it’s been 200 years, I’m sure someone else would have tried and have been successful by now), but I think it would have happened much later (my guess - late 19th century?) and much of the seminal events of the 20th century probably wouldn’t have happened anywhere like they did, if at all, due to a whole bunch of different players.
How would avoiding the American Revolution have affected the subsequent delopment of the British Empire? Would the Brits have gone on to colonize India, Australia, Africa, or would they have put all their resources into America?
This map shows the size of the territory that France held in North America twenty five years after the American Revolution. (And I realize that Spain historically held this territory in 1776. But there’s no reason to assume they wouldn’t have agreed to turn it over to France as they did historically even if there hadn’t been an American Revolution.)
Most Britons are not Boy Scouts or members of the armed services, and I’ve never even heard of a banquet involving a toast to the Queen.
It wasn’t democracy as we’d recognize it. Only about five percent of the population was eligible to vote. There were no secret ballots - you had to vote in public. Apportionment didn’t exist - small villages had MP’s (the “rotten boroughs”) while major cities didn’t. (Old Sarum, for example, had a population of fifteen people and sent two members to Parliament - and it wasn’t the most extreme case.) And after all this, any laws passed by the House of Commons were subject to a veto by the hereditary membership of the House of Lords.
As you pointed out, one of the complaints made by the Americans was that they weren’t represented in Parliament. And one of the responses made to this was that most of the people in England weren’t represented in parliament either, so what were the Americans complaining about?
Fair enough, but the American Revolution didn’t exactly usher in democracy as we’d recognize it, either. Aside from apportionment and the secret ballot, the system of democracy envisioned in the Constitution was hardly more democratic than the one in Britain at the time.
My 2 cents?
The Revolution would have happened sooner or later. Slavery issue, as mentioned by others, wouldn’t have gone away. However, this flies against the OP which wants to say it never happened…so what if the USA never revolted and remained strongly aligned to England (We are English citizens damnit!!) ?
Well, the American colonies would have gotten stronger and stronger in population and economically and, I believe, still have expanded West. It wouldn’t have been as speedy as what happened historically but there is no way France and Spain could have held onto their North American holdings indefintely. They would have fallen to England/America in some war sooner or later. The American colonies are in North America and growing much faster. North Amercian colonies would have a large influence on English politics and so if it was to survive into present day would most likely be politically centered more in North America than London.
What effect on Europe?
Well,…I am somewhat a believer that WWI and WWII can be partially blamed on the presence of North and South America. Germany saw that they were Johnny come lately and were falling further and further behind and so made a bid for more influence. Now, this may not have been consciously…but I believe it was an underlaying influence.
With America/England so tight and growing…this effect would have been even more pronounced. In reality, the USA was isolationist and didn’t get involved very much and so this muted the effect. With America/England as one…holy smokes the effect would have been projected in Europe much more strongly.
To keep things short…I think WWI/WWII would have been MUCH more a conflict than the huge one it alreasy was…with much of the world aligning against England and France (I assume France would still be pushed into the English alliance because of their colonies.
Germany and Russia would have been much more alarmed at the West and so, IMHO, could have been drawn closer together. Same with Italy and other countries. Japan, weirdy enough, may have been drawn closer to England…or maybe not.
So, I think WWI/WWII would have been an even bigger melee in which the West may not have survived.
Ahhhh, who knows 
There was also no hereditary positions. And the franchise was much broader than it was in England even if it wasn’t as broad as it would later become. The percentage of people who could vote in the United States was about three times as high as the percentage who could vote in England.
Excellent alternate history. Actually uses the Butterfly Effect.
Sure, but that’s an evolutionary step. You make it sound like a sea change.