The British Empire is dead and I think ultimately the British will drift into German orbit due to ties between the royal family and being close to the continent.
Hummmm ... the problem is that the Royal Family has influence, but no actual political power (and might actually be rather keen to avoid reminding their battered subjects that there's a family connection with figurehead of their old enemies the Germans); on the other hand it's perfectly fair to suggest that, after two disastrous coalition wars, Great Britain is probably keen to enjoy a little "Splendid Isolation" for some while.
Would Germany and the USA actually have the manpower and inclination to occupy Britain? People have already mentioned the US occupation of the southern states and Canada, and Germany will have at least that much trouble holding down France and eastern Europe.
As Mr B points out, it would be important to emphasise that Britain is not only battered but BEATEN and (given the circumstances) even a small garrison might make a pretty big statement about GBs position at the end of the Second Great War.
in all probability Britain would re-emerge as a significant player (albeit in the shadow of the US, Germany and perhaps Japan and India) in a similar tier to that which it holds in reality. I doubt a single nuke of that era could permanently eliminate London as a major economic hub, both for Britain and the world - the geography is just too good.
I'm willing to accept that London might not have been wiped from the map, but I suspect Great Britain would be a rung down from her current (much lowered) status in the world; given that the British Isles aren't exactly a treasure chest and that a good deal of Britain's relatively exalted position is based on legacies from a tradition of victory (however Phyrric) rather than crushing defeats, it's difficult to imagine her a more than a regional power in Timeline 191.
I'm not sure resentment towards the USA would run particularly deep in Britain - most of their conflict happened on the far side of the Atlantic, whereas the German government was responsible for direct attacks on the Isles. The Anglo-American relationship ITTL would depend more upon the American view than the British. Rapprochement with Britain might suit American interests in 'containing' Germany, and whilst Ireland could serve as a useful host for military bases, it couldn't match up to Britain in terms of economic or demographic weight.
I'd like to think you're right, but the rest of Timeline 191 makes it difficult for me to take the most optimistic view of the situation; that Timeline hits the English-speaking world HARD again & again (Honestly, it's like an especially nasty game of "Stop hitting yourself" played by the English-speaking peoples).
It would be interesting to see the religious consequences of the defeat for Britain. If the Church of England was seen to be complicit in the wartime regime, it could lose a lot of prestige and may even face disestablishment, especially (and perhaps inevitably) under a republican government. I imagine 'High Church' Anglicanism receiving greater criticism than the 'Low Church', given the former's historical links to the Conservative Party. There's potential for an increase in the numbers attending Methodist and Presbyterian churches if Anglicans go so far as to switch denominations. Baptist and Congregationalist churches might be more of a jump, but it's possible that they could also see higher attendance.
I suspect that, again, a good deal depends on how the Monarchy related to the 'Silver Shirt' coalition; given the King is the Supreme Head of the Church of England, the opinion of the monarch is likely to shape the opinion of the Anglican Communion.
Regarding the numbers of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and others in Britain, it would presumably depend upon the immigration rate - perhaps Britain's reduced position relative to OTL might make it a less attractive destination?
I suspect the West Indies contingent would be more reluctant to migrate to a Britain that sided with Featherston, if nothing else.
I guess the question is how likely is it there will be active insurgencies in Britain and France?
My best guess is that, after two world wars and two defeats, Great Britain doesn't have much left in the tank in terms of fighting spirit - though that might change as time passes and a younger generation grows to maturity with stories of all the country has lost and if the Germans don't play things carefully; when it comes to France I'm less sure, but given that France has been humbled to the dust by Germany as an Empire, a Republic AND a Monarchy I would be very surprised if the nation's morale weren't left absolutely shattered.
Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if the French went absolutely experimental with their Government; having tried just about everything else, perhaps they'll make a go of communism or straight-up Anarchism?
I agree with this. My impression from the books was that the Americans seemed to feel that they had adequately settled the score with the British in the First Great War and didn't really seem to bear them too much rancor by the time of the Second Great War (where US and British forces only really fought at sea.) Likewise the British by the Second Great War seem far more worried about the Germans than the Americans.
Whomsoever persuaded the British Government to support Featherston's assault on the United States really does deserve a spell in the stocks; it's a decision on a par with
Herr Hitler getting wind of Pearl Harbor and thinking "A-ha, those Americans are on the ropes and it's time to give them the steel chair!"
There was no steel chair, but there WAS a screw-job.