IIRC it was because no one realized he already had the right to citizenship based on his relation to Sophia.
And I’d guess it was simply thought politic in terms of possible public opinion for all foreign ties to be visibly cut.
I meant dual in the sense of “The King of Denmark? He’s the guy living in Buckingham Palace.” And then Charles would be too. And if the succession rules are different (i.e. how the Windsors lost the German lands because they don’t fall to the female heirs) then it’s even more interesting down the road.
At least, for James it was convenient that Scotland and England were adjacent - but I’m sure Scotland still figures they got the raw deal in the end.
The term you might be looking for is “personal Union.”
Scotland isn’t part of the United Kingdom because of the personal Union under James I/VI Stewart in 1603. It’s because Scotland acceded to the Acts of Union in 1707, largely after the fiscal and economic catastrophe following the failure of the Darien scheme.
Yes, I assume even back a few centuries, England and Denmark (to pick somewhere at random) would not become one country simply because the same person was king of both.
Not so random, actually … North Sea Empire - Wikipedia
One of James’s first bright ideas was to unify the two countries as Great Britain, but both parliaments demurred. His son’s attempts to unify the church liturgies was what sparked off the civil wars, and semi-unification under the Commonwealth never quite took root. Even the final Act of Union took a bit of chicanery to get the Scottish lords and Parliament on board.