I thought it was you who was relying on the legal rationales? For the record, I'm articulating the dominant Scottish (not English) view. History can be diminished to competing narratives, but they still have to take account of the facts and the blood on the ground is a fact.
I just don’t see the legal justifications or lack thereof as falsifiable. It’s all a fiction.
I'm lost by this. What the hell are you talking about? If you use 'fiction' as a pejorative term you fundamentally fail to understand how much effort and labour historians put into their trade. The blood on the ground is not false. Your desire to fictionalise it is weird.
I am afraid you are the one who isn’t quite understanding. And why would I— an academic who specializes in historical work— say that? Law is whatever people say it is. There was no objective, defined established law of default royal abdication in 1688. It’s all made up to justify the G. Revolution.
We may have more in common than the limits of X allow. If you go back, my complaint is why 1688 is not called a coup. You wanted 'abdication', but the spin is all wrong. G. Revolution is better but not as good as coup. The English narrative is unacceptable to a Scottish perspective. Words matter