The premise is that at some point in the 1760s, a more flexible British government engages with the American concerns and some sort of fudge is gradually sorted out. This involves notional Westminster supremacy, a fair amount of local autonomy, colonial representation in parliament and an (initially small) colonial contribution to the British exchequer, raised through whatever taxes the colonial assembly wants to use. Over time, the navigation acts get dismantled for imperial preference and the number of colonial MPs plus financial contribution goes up. Let's suppose we get some sort of combination of EU/NATO/UN for the imperial level and 75% dominion status for each American colony/aggregated groups of colonies. I don't want to debate this stuff as it has been discussed enough elsewhere.
What I am much more interested in having a discussion about is the Asian, African and even potential Latin American territories. I know butterflies are everything here, but we can imagine a probability distribution of scenarios. Britain only has a few toeholds as of 1765, but it's near certain Britain builds territory as it does in our timeline.
In fact, a lot of American chancers are likely to get in on the action of making a fortune in the East or grabbing territory and expecting British gunboats to back them up. In addition, American political and military strength in OTL forced free trade on Japan and a carving up of China. I can imagine the same American commercial lobbies would be pushing to use British strength to monopolize Far Eastern markets from other Europeans here. I also don't buy any arguments that the Brits would have "less focus" on other continents because of power in America. The Empire was always about local British types expanding whether or not London was focused on the area.
So how would these colonies evolve over the course of the 1800s? I can imagine the white elites in the Caribbean get included on the same basis as American colonies in whatever deals are worked out, and similarly with Southern Africa if the Brits dominate there. In both places I see a large enough white presence that a (semi) Anglocized black population gradually gets integrated into the electorate in several places. There would likely be violent struggle to get there, but the imperial center will sooner or later have a progressive government that forces local white elites to buckle.
People on this board occasionally propose something similar to happen to India. This seems utopian to me. The white British population is always going to be tiny in proportional terms. The Anglocized local population is also likely to be pretty small in terms of total population. The place is always going to seem more exotic to London than Pennsylvania or Jamaica. The nature of company rule also means a pure focus on commercial gain rather than strategic integration. And therr is a much longer history of native civilicivilization, which forms an opposition to British cultural domination. While the Brits can takeover Raj style and use divide and rule, it feels like independence is inevitable. Perhaps the Brits divide up India into more local states at independence and keep the princes in charge (or appoint new princes for direct rule areas) as they leave. I can imagine a similar situation to the American presence in the Middle East is OTL: closely allied local despots, occasional military deployments and plenty of local bases. But is there any territory the Brits might want to hang on to? Somewhere more manageable? Perhaps Ceylon?
China and Japan seem even harder to hang on to. Both have unified identities and prouder histories than the various Indian states. Chinese identity as the center of the world means they will react even more harshly to foreign subjugation. It feels like Britain might expand into treaty port hinter lands temporarily, but sooner or later small guns spread and the Brits face a horrific rebellion, with other European powers piling on. I can imagine it bringing the Empire to its knees and causing political crisis, similar to the French issues in Algeria. China is much more likely to get independence as a united entity than India, though perhaps the British keep it limited to China Proper with Tibet, East Turkestan, Mongolia and Manchuria separated. Would there be more Hong Kongs that survive independence? Perhaps even Taiwan? I can see Japan going both ways. It has the same strength of identity as China so that may cause a very strong anti-British identity. On the other hand, it may fear a nationalist China on its doorstep and want to keep close links. Especially if it is never formally annex to the British Empire and was "only" protectorate or vassal state.
Next we have South East Asia. I can imagine the British doing everything they can to keep the Straits of Malacca. With American money and population, I can see them holding on. It is a small population and multiple ethnic groups that would be played off against each other. The Indian and Chinese populations in particular have prospered there due to British rule. Access to the imperial market would also be worth a lot to TTL's Singapores.
The Middle East has a similar situation. Suez is as important as Malacca and the Brits are going to do everything to keep it. Egypt could likely break off, but the Brits could keep the Suez territory. Delayed decolonization (likely with no American antiimperialist pressure) will probably mean oil is discovered in the Gulf before the Brits leave. And virtually any cost is worth it to keep the oil.
The rest of Africa genuinely seems like it would stay out of British hands. It is unprofitable and there is no reason a mega-British Empire needs the prestige. I can't see the Scramble for Africa happening. Perhaps the French take over West Africa? Maybe the Brits prevent them and it's left as a whole bunch of tribal kingdoms? East Africa I can't really think through. Would we get the white highlands in this sort of timeland? Or just leave it unconquered.
Then finally Latin America. There will likely be more government backing for filibusters here so a lot more Belizes in central America and Mexico. Most of South America is going to have independence on the same timeline, given dysfunctional Spanish rule. I can't see the Brits being powerful enough at this time and region to determine new states, so it is likely informal empire and trading relationships.
So long term, perhaps the 21st Century British Empire/Commonwealth/whatever it is called has the British Isles, North America, Australia, some of the Caribbean, a bunch of microstates in central America, the Cape, the Suez, the Gulf, the Straits of Malacca and maybe Ceylon/Taiwan as remnants of Asian holdings. And then allied states in South America, African kingdoms, maybe Japan.
And yes, I know this could go hundreds of ways due to butterflies. But please, please, focus on the most plausible scenarios in each region. I genuinely appreciate the accumulated wisdom of this board to make me smarter.
What I am much more interested in having a discussion about is the Asian, African and even potential Latin American territories. I know butterflies are everything here, but we can imagine a probability distribution of scenarios. Britain only has a few toeholds as of 1765, but it's near certain Britain builds territory as it does in our timeline.
In fact, a lot of American chancers are likely to get in on the action of making a fortune in the East or grabbing territory and expecting British gunboats to back them up. In addition, American political and military strength in OTL forced free trade on Japan and a carving up of China. I can imagine the same American commercial lobbies would be pushing to use British strength to monopolize Far Eastern markets from other Europeans here. I also don't buy any arguments that the Brits would have "less focus" on other continents because of power in America. The Empire was always about local British types expanding whether or not London was focused on the area.
So how would these colonies evolve over the course of the 1800s? I can imagine the white elites in the Caribbean get included on the same basis as American colonies in whatever deals are worked out, and similarly with Southern Africa if the Brits dominate there. In both places I see a large enough white presence that a (semi) Anglocized black population gradually gets integrated into the electorate in several places. There would likely be violent struggle to get there, but the imperial center will sooner or later have a progressive government that forces local white elites to buckle.
People on this board occasionally propose something similar to happen to India. This seems utopian to me. The white British population is always going to be tiny in proportional terms. The Anglocized local population is also likely to be pretty small in terms of total population. The place is always going to seem more exotic to London than Pennsylvania or Jamaica. The nature of company rule also means a pure focus on commercial gain rather than strategic integration. And therr is a much longer history of native civilicivilization, which forms an opposition to British cultural domination. While the Brits can takeover Raj style and use divide and rule, it feels like independence is inevitable. Perhaps the Brits divide up India into more local states at independence and keep the princes in charge (or appoint new princes for direct rule areas) as they leave. I can imagine a similar situation to the American presence in the Middle East is OTL: closely allied local despots, occasional military deployments and plenty of local bases. But is there any territory the Brits might want to hang on to? Somewhere more manageable? Perhaps Ceylon?
China and Japan seem even harder to hang on to. Both have unified identities and prouder histories than the various Indian states. Chinese identity as the center of the world means they will react even more harshly to foreign subjugation. It feels like Britain might expand into treaty port hinter lands temporarily, but sooner or later small guns spread and the Brits face a horrific rebellion, with other European powers piling on. I can imagine it bringing the Empire to its knees and causing political crisis, similar to the French issues in Algeria. China is much more likely to get independence as a united entity than India, though perhaps the British keep it limited to China Proper with Tibet, East Turkestan, Mongolia and Manchuria separated. Would there be more Hong Kongs that survive independence? Perhaps even Taiwan? I can see Japan going both ways. It has the same strength of identity as China so that may cause a very strong anti-British identity. On the other hand, it may fear a nationalist China on its doorstep and want to keep close links. Especially if it is never formally annex to the British Empire and was "only" protectorate or vassal state.
Next we have South East Asia. I can imagine the British doing everything they can to keep the Straits of Malacca. With American money and population, I can see them holding on. It is a small population and multiple ethnic groups that would be played off against each other. The Indian and Chinese populations in particular have prospered there due to British rule. Access to the imperial market would also be worth a lot to TTL's Singapores.
The Middle East has a similar situation. Suez is as important as Malacca and the Brits are going to do everything to keep it. Egypt could likely break off, but the Brits could keep the Suez territory. Delayed decolonization (likely with no American antiimperialist pressure) will probably mean oil is discovered in the Gulf before the Brits leave. And virtually any cost is worth it to keep the oil.
The rest of Africa genuinely seems like it would stay out of British hands. It is unprofitable and there is no reason a mega-British Empire needs the prestige. I can't see the Scramble for Africa happening. Perhaps the French take over West Africa? Maybe the Brits prevent them and it's left as a whole bunch of tribal kingdoms? East Africa I can't really think through. Would we get the white highlands in this sort of timeland? Or just leave it unconquered.
Then finally Latin America. There will likely be more government backing for filibusters here so a lot more Belizes in central America and Mexico. Most of South America is going to have independence on the same timeline, given dysfunctional Spanish rule. I can't see the Brits being powerful enough at this time and region to determine new states, so it is likely informal empire and trading relationships.
So long term, perhaps the 21st Century British Empire/Commonwealth/whatever it is called has the British Isles, North America, Australia, some of the Caribbean, a bunch of microstates in central America, the Cape, the Suez, the Gulf, the Straits of Malacca and maybe Ceylon/Taiwan as remnants of Asian holdings. And then allied states in South America, African kingdoms, maybe Japan.
And yes, I know this could go hundreds of ways due to butterflies. But please, please, focus on the most plausible scenarios in each region. I genuinely appreciate the accumulated wisdom of this board to make me smarter.