Committee preview · proposals for reviewReview guide

What Else Happened?

← All Anna’s articles

By Anna von Reitz ·

Anna’s original wording is retained below. Any published TASA overview is presented separately.

Reading overview

TASA summary of Anna’s article

In this concise follow-up, Anna connects the British union with her interpretation of changes in the King's land-jurisdiction role. She identifies Scotland as supplying the basis for the subsequent arrangement and explains why she characterises Great Britain as a company operating in sea jurisdiction. The post draws together three elements of the historical and jurisdictional argument developed in her wider research.

Key points

  • Anna begins with her interpretation of a change in the King's land-jurisdiction role.
  • She identifies Scotland's place in the subsequent union.
  • She connects that history with her distinction between a country and a company.

Prepared by TASA from the research, conclusions and reflections Anna presents in her article. Her original wording follows below.

Read Anna’s original article ↓

Anna’s original article

 By Anna Von Reitz

1. The "King" couldn't do land jurisdiction business anymore so he had to borrow some land jurisdiction from somewhere, somehow.  

2. Scotland came to the rescue - for a cut of the profit - and the "Union" was formed to create "Great Britain". 

3. "Great Britain" is a company, not a country.  It is ruled over by the "British Monarch" and operates in the sea-jurisdiction.