I think it could have been successful if Howe hadn't defeated General Washington.
I can see it happening if Lee and Gates had been there to assist, and not been captured and killed. The rebels had no way to govern, nor the British backing. Not even the French would be stupid enough to back them after that loss. Of course, let's assume it happened. Who would be king of the rebels? Surely you don't believe all that republican propaganda they were spouting. The only one that might even agree was Prince Henry, and he wouldn't have children. Nice try, but I think Britain would just re-incorporate them later.
I can see it happening if Lee and Gates had been there to assist, and not been captured and killed. The rebels had no way to govern, nor the British backing. Not even the French would be stupid enough to back them after that loss. Of course, let's assume it happened. Who would be king of the rebels? Surely you don't believe all that republican propaganda they were spouting. The only one that might even agree was Prince Henry, and he wouldn't have children. Nice try, but I think Britain would just re-incorporate them later.
I think a republic is possible, if not certain-remember that at the time that there were virtually no colonial peers and few colonies had anything resembling a hereditary aristocracy, so the elites were by and large mercantile and used to a basically concilliar system of internal self-government. Under these circumstances I could see a Republic take off simply because there's no obvious reason to have one and attempting to pick a king would inevitably be a divisive affair. On the other hand, a rebellion that succeeds before the monarchy had made itself so unpopular that "king" was a political slur might well be more amenable to a king with strictly limited powers.
Remember also that no likely European candidate(should they pursue that) would be a native English speaker or used to living in the colonies so it's possible that they would choose a king in order to gain international legitimacy and have someone to 'represent them to Europe' so to speak while leaving him largely out of the loop of actual government. It really depends on who emerges with the most power after the rebellion succeeds.
It may be possible, but again, as Sobel & Turtledove, and many others besides, have pointed out, the idea of another monarch replacing George III truly was unpopular amongst many North Americans, especially highly so in the colonies north of Maryland. I suspect that the point of departure might require a saner George III, which does carry with it, the possibility of butterflying the Rebellion as we know it.
I'm confused; how does a saner George III help the rebel cause?
Prince Henry? The Young Pretender's still alive through 1788. Even if they try a republic at first, the colonies' confederation probably falters and they turn to him as a nice stabilizing central figure with royal legitimacy.
And it's not like the succession eventually falling to the Sardinian crown after Charles "III" and Henry "IX" die isn't any more a problem than the previous British succession falling to the Hanoverians.
But ho could a insurrection lead to independence? It was not a majority that rebelled - it wasn't even a plurality. Most colonists were loyal to the crown, more interested to make a living than in politics.