An independent US still under the monarchy?

My question is this, what if the american revolutionaries essentially turned all their anger really towards the British parliament specifically during the revolutionary period, yet still clung to a loyalty to the King and the monarchy as a whole?

Could we have ever had a situation where the US declared itself independent from Britain but still decided to keep the Monarch as its head of state? Similar to the current proposal of a possibly future independent scotland or the current situations of Canada and Australia?
 
My question is this, what if the american revolutionaries essentially turned all their anger really towards the British parliament specifically during the revolutionary period, yet still clung to a loyalty to the King and the monarchy as a whole?

Could we have ever had a situation where the US declared itself independent from Britain but still decided to keep the Monarch as its head of state? Similar to the current proposal of a possibly future independent scotland or the current situations of Canada and Australia?

Well it would be difficult. King George III had no sympathy for the rebels and refused to consider any compromise. Get a more sympathetic King on the throne and it would be a whole different ball game.
 
As an alternative under those circumstances, would it be possible for America to acknowledge the supremacy of the Monarchy without acknowledging the Monarch him/herself? In other words, sundering ties with the Parliament AND the King or Queen, but remaining loyal to the Monarchy as an abstract institution? That way they'd have freedom of self-government while also giving an "out" in case a king like George III decides to crack the whip too hard or often. IDK if that could even work, just a way-out-there proposal.
 
As an alternative under those circumstances, would it be possible for America to acknowledge the supremacy of the Monarchy without acknowledging the Monarch him/herself? In other words, sundering ties with the Parliament AND the King or Queen, but remaining loyal to the Monarchy as an abstract institution? That way they'd have freedom of self-government while also giving an "out" in case a king like George III decides to crack the whip too hard or often. IDK if that could even work, just a way-out-there proposal.

No way. The monarchy and monarch was essentially the same thing. I mean I suppose it could be like James II and William & Mary, but that was England, not the colonies. The idea of an "out" from the Monarchy as a whole didn't exist in the 18th century. And really that would be a bit to technical for the American revolution.
 
I'm no expert on the British political system at that time but it strikes me that the majority of the gripes of the americans at the time had more so to do with the various acts that were passed in the British parliament during the period following the Seven years war, just how much a hand if any did king george have on those aspects?
 
I'm no expert on the British political system at that time but it strikes me that the majority of the gripes of the americans at the time had more so to do with the various acts that were passed in the British parliament during the period following the Seven years war, just how much a hand if any did king george have on those aspects?

Well I would say very little. Anything before 1760 would be during his grandfather George II's reign. But for the most part the Crown a had a hands off approach to the colonies, leaving it up to Parliament and the government.
 
Maybe they could declare George III King, but with no powers what so ever and just ignore his complaints?
 
Well I would say very little. Anything before 1760 would be during his grandfather George II's reign. But for the most part the Crown a had a hands off approach to the colonies, leaving it up to Parliament and the government.

Except that the King's minsters were, in this period, still influenced by the king himself.

Claiming to oppose to Lord North but not George III would mean little (at best) to both men and probably anger the latter.

I don't think George III directly made policy in the sense of kings centuries earlier, but his appointments were there and his opinions were certainly not ignored.
 
Except that the King's minsters were, in this period, still influenced by the king himself.

Claiming to oppose to Lord North but not George III would mean little (at best) to both men and probably anger the latter.

I don't think George III directly made policy in the sense of kings centuries earlier, but his appointments were there and his opinions were certainly not ignored.

I'm not saying that they were. I'm saying that, for the most part, both the Crown and the Government had a hands off policy where the colonies were concerned, and only started intervening directly (ie taxes) after the seven years war.
 
Please read the Declaration of Independence. The list of grievances were explicitly directed at King George, not Parliament. There is no possibility of an 'Independent' America swearing fealty to the British Crown. The concept of Dominions under the Crown would not evolve for another 60 years. Britain was not ready to accept the quasi-dominion status envisioned by either the Albany Plan or the last ditch Galloway Plan, even if such plans were to be accepted by the Americans. Had the Revolt of 1775-76 been militarily suppressed, then the ultimate outcome would have most likely been a dominion status, but not for some time to come.
 
I'm not saying that they were. I'm saying that, for the most part, both the Crown and the Government had a hands off policy where the colonies were concerned, and only started intervening directly (ie taxes) after the seven years war.

Fair enough. I mistook your meaning.
 
Please read the Declaration of Independence. The list of grievances were explicitly directed at King George, not Parliament. There is no possibility of an 'Independent' America swearing fealty to the British Crown. The concept of Dominions under the Crown would not evolve for another 60 years. Britain was not ready to accept the quasi-dominion status envisioned by either the Albany Plan or the last ditch Galloway Plan, even if such plans were to be accepted by the Americans. Had the Revolt of 1775-76 been militarily suppressed, then the ultimate outcome would have most likely been a dominion status, but not for some time to come.

Yeah I think that had more to do with the fact that the Continental congress VASTLY overestimated the powers of the Crown. The British monarchy of the 18th century mainly dealt with foreign affairs, and tended to leave domestic affairs (which included the colonies) to the Prime Minister of the day.
 
Top