The US is still part of Great Britian

Well, Bruce, you sure could have fooled me on that one.

That is, of course, until they don't. Didn't do much good for Charles I or Louis XVI, did it?

Debatable. Most of the colonies were financed by private companies. The king (or queen) gave (or sold) land grants to the colonial enterprises. The British government eventually did pay for defense of the colonies, but that wasn't the king's money; it was appropriated by Parliament. By that time, if you'll remember, the king had precious little personal control over finances because of the settlement that put William and Mary on the throne.

Whoever wrote this paragraph seems not to have bothered to read the Declaration of Independence, which lays every single charge directly at the feet of King George III.

Is the person who wrote the above paragraph able to read?

The treaty begins: "[SIZE=+1]It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse ... "

The king's titles take up the entire first part of the sentence; the reference to George ends with "etc." It is followed by the second party to the agreement, the United States of America.

So it is George etc. AND the United States of America making the agreement. Read further to see that there are two parties to the agreement, not one.

BTW: The title "prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire," to which George was entitled because he also was Elector of Hanover, a small Protestant state in northern Germany. Being an elector was largely a matter of status (ever important to kings) because the crown of the Holy Roman Empire had been tucked away in the hip pocket of the Austrian Habsburgs for decades.
[/SIZE]

I would feel more confidence in this reference if I could find this it some other place than on conspiracy (and often anti-Jewish) sites.

And? They may have assumed the honorific as representatives of the United States of America, putting them on an equal footing with the British ambassador. None had held office under crown or obtained any form of "nobility" from it.

Alternatively, they may have assumed the rank of gentlemen because they were property owners and professionals.

Again, can this person read English? Or didn't he bother? The treaty gave Americans the rights to fish on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland, which was British territory, not American.

It staggers the imagination that someone can in good conscience write such things - or that people will believe it.

Unless this gentleman has a different version of the Treaty of Paris than the rest of the world, the first article says: "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

The treaty has only a few provisions about money, including that creditors may collect debts without interference and that British subjects should face no legal impediments to reclaim property seized from them during the war (a provision seldom honored.)

A theory usually is based on at least some facts. This one is not.