Greetings! This is an interesting question on the relationship between the English and the 13 Colonies in North America. For the purposes of this response, I'll be alternating between the use of "English" and "British", as some of what is being discussed occurs prior to the Acts of Union of 1707 ( (thereby and henceforth creating the Kingdom of Great Britain), whilst other topics occurred afterwards. This response will deal with the perspective of the British in relation to the various political assemblies and bodies of the American colonies, so any input from the rest of AH's travelers on the "American" perspective would be helpful as well. Let's begin.

Establishing Empire

Prior to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the rise of the English Parliament as the main institution of government, the Royal Charters and Patents granted by the English Crown seemed rather unconcerned with how the founders of North American plantations (including those in the West Indies) went about governing their plots of land. Other than claiming the land for the Crown and paying a tax in trade goods back to the government in Britain, the colonial charters did not contain any substantial details on how these new settlements were to govern themselves. It did not take long however, for the "men-on-the-spot" to organise various form of government themselves. In 1619 for example, the first elections for a Virginia assembly took place (a mere 12 years after the first landing at Jamestown). There were however, general statements of authority that emanated from the British King. For example, the Virginia charter of 1606 reserved the King's right to establish the form of the colony's government and appoint a council in London with supervisory powers (although the Crown seemed rather... lax in enforcing this control, hence the occurrence of elections mentioned earlier). The Massachusetts Company, independent-minded as it was, also acknowledged this relation to the Crown and the obligation to shape its laws in any of its newfound territory to the current ones in England.

What incentive did the government have for giving such Charters, Grants, and Patents? Besides the hope for an economic bounty akin to those that the 17th century Spanish and Portuguese empires were reaping from their South and Latin American possessions, there was the added benefit of extending sovereignty of the English Crown (and later British Parliament) to lands which might otherwise have fallen to a rival power or a "private imperialist". As such, the Charters often granted citizenship rights to any currently or to-be living persons who inhabited the land. Returning for a moment to 1606, The Virginia Charter stated under such citizenship rights:

"That all and every the Persons [sic] being our Subjects, which shall dwell and inhabit within every or any of the said several Colonies and Plantations, and every of their children, which shall happen to be born within any of the Limits and Precincts of the said several Colonies and Plantations, shall HAVE [sic] and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities, within any of our other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born, within this our Realm of England, or any other of our said Dominions."

So to summarise the state of English relations with their American colonists and to-be colonies, we shall turn to the rather verbose description provided by American historian Herbert L. Osgood:

"Such in outline was the status of English colonial law previous to 1688. It was in the process of formation and adaptation to the new [North American] empire. There were ample precedents [examples] for the exercise of the rights of British sovereignty in America, but those rights had not yet been called into the fullest operation. Their legitimacy however was in general fully acknowledged by the colonists."

Osgood was a curious chap. An American historian who lived from 1855 to 1918, he actually praised the British empire's internal organisation and functions, especially in regards to the 13 colonies and the American revolution. Nonetheless, his source attached at the end of this response, goes into further detail about the "curious case of Massachusetts", which differed in its administration due to various religious and political reasons. Highly worth a read.

Parliament Takes Over

Osgood is rather blunt in detailing the period following the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the control of Parliament over the majority of colonial affairs:

"After the revolution of 1688, Parliament assumes more and more control of American concerns. Statutes on those subjects multiply. The administration of the colonies becomes a branch of the ministerial government of Great Britain [sic: of course the Union Acts had yet to occur]...The interferences of England in colonial affairs became more frequent and the control asserted more extensive than heretofore [before 1688]."

In many ways, those statues tightened English (and very shortly thereafter British) control over the American colonies. The revised charter for Massachusetts in 1691 for example, prescribed the "standard model" of government for settlement colonies: an elected assembly, an appointive 'council', and governor sent from Britain who was answerable to the king and the Privy Council (the supervisory body for colonial affairs). With these political restrictions on the 13 colonies came several economic ones, as well as the founding of an American post office in 1710. Do not however take this to mean that the American colonies were tightly under British control, rather far from it. Imperial historian John Darwin on the autonomy of the American assemblies:

"In theory of course, executive power remained in the hands of the governors, usually appointed in London, and the hand-picked advisers on their executive council. In reality, the balance had tilted decisively against them because the elected assemblies gained control over spending and governors lacked the patronage to reward their supporters. By the 1690s, the imperial government at home had adopted a policy of "salutary neglect" towards these tiresome colonials, leaving them to stew in their own political juice."

Under such a policy, and to return to OP's original query, the American colonies were, at least charter-wise, English territory. However, their administration as semi-independent and fairly autonomous colonies meant that they were often neglected in English law-making at home. Therefore, whilst the desire for a general conformity to English (and later British) was certainly expressed, that did not always materialise into the enforcement of legislative changes, nor did it always come easily.

Hopefully this response helps with the question, and feel free to ask any follow-ups on how this compared to other territories of the British Empire as you see fit!

Sources

Beer, George Louis. "British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765." Political Science Quarterly 22, no. 1 (1907): 1-48. Accessed March 6, 2021. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2140910.

Darwin, John. The Empire Project: The Rise and Fall of the British World System, 1830-1970. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Darwin, John. Unfinished Empire; The Global Expansion of Britain. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2012.

Jackson, Ashley. The British Empire: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Osgood, Herbert L. "England and the Colonies." Political Science Quarterly 2, no. 3 (1887): 440-69. Accessed March 6, 2021. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2139184.

Text of The First Charter of Virginia, April 10, 1606. Accessible online at The Avalon Project (free). Originally from The Federal and State Constitutions Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America. Compiled and Edited Under the Act of Congress of June 30, 1906 by Francis Newton Thorpe. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1909.