In the 16th-century England and Scotland are two different countries, with two different parliaments, and two different crowns (held by the Tudors and the Stuarts, respectively).

In March 1603, the Tudor dynasty fails in England with the childless death of Elizabeth I. The English crown falls to James VI of Scotland, her nearest cousin. England and Scotland were still two different countries, with two different parliaments, and two different crowns (both just happen to be held by the same king – who is appropriately styled “James I of England and VI of Scotland” to reflect the two crowns held in personal union).

Fast-forward a bit to June 1688.

James II of England and VII of Scotland (the aforementioned James’ grandson) fathers a son. This establishes a Catholic heir apparent to the crown of Protestant England. The English bishops and nobility exile James and his heir (who go to France); and the English parliament declares that he has abdicated the throne. England then replaces James with his Protestant daughter and her Dutch husband – who reign jointly as William III and Mary II.

This is what I don’t get:

If England and Scotland were two different countries, with two different parliaments, and two different crowns (they would not become one country, with one parliament, and one crown until 1707) – then how does the English parliament in London deciding that James is no longer the King of England have any affect on him as the King of Scotland?

From what I understand, 1688 should have just been the end to the personal union of the crowns – with James VII as King of Scotland, and with William III and Mary II and King and Queen of England. Unless I’m missing something, which I clearly am…

Can the rabble help clear me up?