But the British failed to maintain their monopoly. Would you say that caused the Crown to cease being “legitimate”? Or perhaps that happened as soon as it became possible to successfully rebel, even before any actual rebellion took place; in that case, declaring your sovereignty and attempting to defend it with violence is the way of discovering that fact.
That’s not the framework either the King and Parliament or the colonists’ leadership endorsed. Similar to Parliament during the English Civil War, the Continental Congress argued in the Declaration of Independence that they were defending specific rights with precedent in English law endorsed by king, parliament, and court alike. They needed this basis if they were going to retain precedent for e.g. respecting property rights, rather than initiating the sort of free-for-all Calvinball pragmatism implied by “you lose legitimacy as soon as it’s feasible to rebel.”
But the British failed to maintain their monopoly. Would you say that caused the Crown to cease being “legitimate”? Or perhaps that happened as soon as it became possible to successfully rebel, even before any actual rebellion took place; in that case, declaring your sovereignty and attempting to defend it with violence is the way of discovering that fact.
That’s not the framework either the King and Parliament or the colonists’ leadership endorsed. Similar to Parliament during the English Civil War, the Continental Congress argued in the Declaration of Independence that they were defending specific rights with precedent in English law endorsed by king, parliament, and court alike. They needed this basis if they were going to retain precedent for e.g. respecting property rights, rather than initiating the sort of free-for-all Calvinball pragmatism implied by “you lose legitimacy as soon as it’s feasible to rebel.”