Charles and Scotland

The Scottish Crown is different from the English. It represents the sovereignty of the People of Scotland

On July 5, King Charles III of England, the only regnal title he can legitimately hold, will pay us a “royal visit” to “view the Honours of Scotland”.

The UK government and the palace are desperate this visit not be viewed as a “second coronation”, because it would demolish the myth that there is a “King of the United Kingdom”.

The event will try to convey that King Charles III of England is already King of Scotland, but he can’t be for two reasons. 

First, there has never been nor can there be a “King of Scotland” because the People, not a monarch, are sovereign. Second, Charles III can’t become King of Scots without taking the Scottish Oath, referenced in the 1689 Claim of Right and required by Scots law for a legitimate monarch.

That oath binds him to uphold and never transfer or undermine the rights, rents and privileges of the Scottish Crown. The Scottish Crown is different from the English. It represents the sovereignty of the People of Scotland. Rather than the People swearing fealty to him as under the English Crown, he must swear it to the People. 

That’s a problem for England. That nation is currently looting our territorial assets in right of the English Crown – as if they had grabbed the Crown of Scotland along with everything else they got through their ‘treaty’! But they didn’t. 

Charles is between a rock and a hard place: take the oath and expose the looting for what it is, or go on pretending to be King of Scots in defiance of Scots law as ratified in the condition for the Union, the Claim of Right.

Leah Gunn Barrett
14/06/23