If the french were more successful in their colonization of North America and had significant landholdings and settlers there past the 18th century would the american revolution still have taken place?
Indeed. The French threat legitimised the continued British military presence and involvement. Once that threat was gone, the American colonists no lonfer wanted to pay up for that protection, other grievances started coming to the surface, and things escalated from there. As long as France remains a real threat, the British colonists will continue to prefer British protection (even if it curtails their own sense of their liberty to a certain extent) over the preceived alternative-- that being French conquest.
Incidentally, a stronger french presence may well mean that France retains the OTL Northwest Territory (as well as Louisiana). This in turn might realistically prompt Britain to encourage settlement of the trans-Appalachian lands, rather than prohibit such settlement. After all, if the French hold Louisiana and the NW Terr. and Quebec... then they are a direct threat to those lands between de Mississippi and the Appalachians. As such, the British crown would likely try to settle those lands ASAP, to keep them out of French hands. So that would remove one of the major grievances the colonists had.
All in all, the whole situation might just mean that British North America is mostly or completely confined to the eastern seaboard, which would make it more realistic for Britain to ultimately retain control over these North American possessions.
Losing the Seven Years' War might be the best case scenario for the British Empire in the long run as the population of the Thirteen Colonies would emigrate across the empire.Indeed. The French threat legitimised the continued British military presence and involvement. Once that threat was gone, the American colonists no lonfer wanted to pay up for that protection, other grievances started coming to the surface, and things escalated from there. As long as France remains a real threat, the British colonists will continue to prefer British protection (even if it curtails their own sense of their liberty to a certain extent) over the preceived alternative-- that being French conquest.
Incidentally, a stronger french presence may well mean that France retains the OTL Northwest Territory (as well as Louisiana). This in turn might realistically prompt Britain to encourage settlement of the trans-Appalachian lands, rather than prohibit such settlement. After all, if the French hold Louisiana and the NW Terr. and Quebec... then they are a direct threat to those lands between de Mississippi and the Appalachians. As such, the British crown would likely try to settle those lands ASAP, to keep them out of French hands. So that would remove one of the major grievances the colonists had.
All in all, the whole situation might just mean that British North America is mostly or completely confined to the eastern seaboard, which would make it more realistic for Britain to ultimately retain control over these North American possessions.
Bengal? Really, that was about it at this point of North America and a couple of ports in Africa. Besides, these are millions of people who have been there for generations. This would all be disastrous for the British economy, as they have lost one of their main markets, population vents, and providers of raw materials. The French would have to go there and remove them all themselves. And why would they want to? They never tried to colonize New France themselves, so there is no reason they should decide to get hundreds of ships making dozens of journeys to fill them up with Frenchmen. The nobility wouldn't allow losing their peasents, nor would the semi-autonomous tax regions wouldn't allow it either. They didn't relaly make France French until the Revolutionary war abolished internal autonomy, sweeped the young men of villages into the army, taught everyone standardized French, then fought all their neighbors for over a decade getting a reinforced national identity. Any major war and you see the French areas of the Americas break off if their are noblemen, democrats, whatever there that don't agree with Paris or who want more power.Losing the Seven Years' War might be the best case scenario for the British Empire in the long run as the population of the Thirteen Colonies would emigrate across the empire.