English units weren’t a “more convenient” system than that used by the rest of Europe. Before the metric system, France used - feet and inches - and the French foot was composed of 12 French inches. The difference was that the French inch was a little bit longer than the English one - about 7%, although the ratio between the two varied over time, because before all this modern technology made it easier, maintaining consistent units was very hard. Feet and inches go back to the Roman Empire, but everyone ended up using a slightly different foot/inch. Even the US and UK used to use different inches (pre-1959), although the difference between the two is microscopic (but was considered important in US land surveying, since over hundreds of miles the difference can add up to several feet.) And today the US and UK still define non-metric volume measurements completely differently - the UK gallon is 20% larger than the US one
> And I think because we industrialized early, switching with the rest of the world was more expensive, so we stuck with it.
The problem with that argument is that US industry is actually more metricated than US everyday life. It is in domestic and consumer settings where the US lags the most in the adoption of the metric system; in industrial settings, it depends on the industry, but some US industries use metric heavily (for example, design and manufacturing of automobiles.)
Close to all trade, construction, design, healthcare etc in Britain is done in metric units.
That said, I think economic resiliency and early mover (did)advantage are the other parts of that story. Not many nations can handle the trade impediment of their own units of measure, but the UK and US were/are both large enough. And I think because we industrialized early, switching with the rest of the world was more expensive, so we stuck with it.