Your beliefs about the Monarchy are based on assumptions about events more than 300 years ago

 I anticipate that most people who visit this blog will start from the viewpoint that Mr. Charles Mountbatten-Windsor is lawfully "King Charles III" and that it's "obvious" that he is King.

Many, likely almost all, who hold that view won't understand that their viewpoint is founded on events and the making of supposed "Laws" over 300 years ago.

The "Laws" which I refer to are these:

• The 16th January 1707 "Union with England Act 1707" of the "Old Scottish Parliament" (see Union with England Act 1707)
• The 6th March 1707 "Union with Scotland Act 1706" of the "Old English Parliament" (see Union with Scotland Act 1706)

Those "Laws" supposedly brought into effect the provisions of the Articles of Union (see Articles of Union) which is often called the "Treaty of Union".

The 1706 date for the "Union with Scotland Act 1706" which was passed on 6th March 1707 is explained by the English legal year of the time beginning on 25th March. Viewed from that viewpoint, an Act passed on 6th March 1707 was deemed to have been passed in the legal year 1706 (which began on 25th March 1706 and ended on 24th March 1707).

Each of the two "Acts" in the list was supposedly given "Royal Assent" by Queen Anne who, it is generally supposed, became Queen of England on the death of William of Orange on 8th March 1702.

There are important legal questions to be asked about whether William of Orange ever lawfully became "King of England".

In my view, as I hope to argue in the prospective legal challenge referred to in the first post on this blog, William of Orange did not lawfully become "King of England".

Similarly, the supposed "Queen Anne" did not lawfully ever become "Queen of England".

If, as I will seek to argue, "Queen Anne" was no more than a "pseudoQueen" she could not give legally effective "Royal Assent" to the Union with Scotland Act 1706.

In other words, the supposed "Union with Scotland Act 1706" is a legal nullity and is void.

The consequence is that "the United Kingdom of Great Britain" was not lawfully created.

In parallel, the supposed "Crown" of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" to which Mr. Charles Mountbatten-Windsor supposedly suceeded on 8th September 2022 does not, in Law, exist.

In turn, Mr. Charles Mountbatten-Windsor could not lawfully succeed to a Crown that has never existed in Law.

My conclusion is that Mr. Charles Mountbatten-Windsor is not lawfully "King Charles III".