I'm not posing this question as a fun, "Let's extend the life of the GLORIOUS British Empire!" scenario. What I genuinely want to know is, how long could British rule in India have gone on if there were no major global conflicts between the great powers between 1900 and the present day? Smaller conflicts are unlikely to be avoided - things like Balkan wars, trouble in the Arab states (rebellion against the Ottomans, primarily), potentially the Tsardom or Austria-Hungary collapsing, and so on - but let's for argument's sake suggest that at the very least the British are not embroiled in some major rough and tumble with their neighbours. So, in OTL the Raj ended in 1947. Arguments could be made either way, as I see it. I have heard people suggest that the Raj only lasted as long as it did because of the world wars, and the fighting men being brought to Europe and Africa from India. This in turn fostered nationalism in India, which led to independence. Without a major conflict involving the British, would the Raj have lasted longer, or ended sooner? Could the Raj endure to the present day? In this I don't necessarily mean as part of a British Empire (as the old argument, IMO, stands - it would eventually become an Indian Empire), but in terms of the Windsors retaining the Head of State position in the same way they do in other independent nations, like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. If Queen Liz, as an example, still holds the title Empress of India, that would in my mind count as an enduring Raj (albeit one independent from Britain, just with a British monarch).