I would have to strenuously disagree.
One of the reasons why the Stuarts fell was the King's inability to raise enough capital for artillery and other armaments.
One of the reasons why the 30 Years' War went on for so long was the Emperor's dependence on private individuals (like Wallenstein) to finance armies that he could not afford to pay or feed.
The penury of the Crown was the main reason why the Bourbons felt compelled to convoke the Estates - which led directly to their downfall.
Absolutist kings were generally quite poor, and their means were generally much less impressive than the powers they bombastically claimed to have.
Anywho, my somewhat long-winded point is that the American Revolution was indeed profoundly traditionalist and conservative.
I tend to agree with this. The American revolutionaries did not see themselves, in general, as remaking society from scratch or anything like that.
They saw themselves as defending their rights and privileges from encroachment.
But their "tradition" was the tradition of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. They were defending the views of Locke, Sidney, and Blackstone - who were all radical reinterpreters and modernizers of the English Constitution.
Their tradition was classical liberalism and was less than 100 years old.
All the others had been squashed by absolute monarchs. As I quite specifically pointed out in my post, England was a unique case, and thus cannot be used to disprove my general point.
At the start of the English Civil War, the Royalists were seen by most as the wave of the future, with the Parliament as hide-bound conservatives clinging to an outmoded past. Most of the older nobles went with Parliament, most of the younger ones supported the King. It is only in retrospect that the Parliamentary cause is viewed as one of radical change.
Sure, the absolute monarchs of the early modern period were broke most of the time. This was not because they had inadequate resources compared to their people, but because they insisted on fighting very nearly continuous and ruinously expensive wars against each other. This actually makes my point. If the Kings, with their comparatively enormous resources, were bankrupted by their wars, how could coalitions of much less wealthy nobles hope to compete?
This was a much older phenomenon. Most of the wars of the Middle Ages ended mainly because one or both sides ran out of money.
The 30 Years' War, after its initial period, consisted of bands of looters sweeping back and forth across the corpse of Germany, some supposedly national armies, and other merely those of warlords. Wallenstein, BTW, was so immensely wealthy only because he conquered Bohemia in the first phase of the War and was basically gifted the entire country by the Emperor.
A private individual with such wealth and power was such a great threat that the Emperor eventually had him assassinated.
My point is that in England there was a smooth transition of power or at least influence (below the King) from Council dominated by the great lords to a Parliament dominated in Commons by merchants and country squires. On the Continent, no such handoff occurred. The Kings destroyed opposition by their nobility, with the Sun-King as the classic example. The nobility mostly moved to court. Their intriguing continued, but it was not for independence or freedom for themselves, it was for influence over the King, or in extreme cases to kill and replace him.
I guess my main point is that the terms "conservatism" and "traditionalism" have no meaning at all unless you expand on which tradition you are trying to conserve.
The American tradition in 1775 of aristocratic freedom (as expanded) and the Glorious Revolution was a very different tradition that that of ancien regime France or Ching China.