I hide replies from the Sausage Squad because I've seen enough to know they are ALL morons. Megxiters that cannot have a civil debate can jog on, too.
Joined March 2025
- Tweets 4,255
- Following 1,622
- Followers 2,506
- Likes 9,780
1,407 Photos and videos
Pinned Tweet
(I am going to add this, here, and make it my thread of Royal Styles and Titles.)
PART 1
I suspect King Charles has pulled a fast one.
More precisely, I think he may have killed two birds with one carefully crafted stone in his act to remove Andrew's HRH and princely title. (See below.)
I would argue two points:
1. KC did NOT remove Andrew's HRH and princely title.
2. KC DID make his wish known that the Invisikids have NO "entitlement" to the style 'Royal Highness' nor the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, under the 1917 LP.
I'll start with #2.
Within KC's LP, he removed "THE ENTITLEMENT" (noun) that he states entitled Andrew to the style 'HRH' and the titular dignity of 'Prince'. (Compare with the LP removing "THE ENTITLEMENT" to HRH for ex-wives below.)
He sets out by referencing the 1917 LP. Specifically, KC refers to the section regarding the children of the monarch, and ALSO the children of the sons of the monarch.
While I disagree that the 1917 LP entitles the aforementioned to the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, a plain reading of KC's proclamation states "the above-mentioned ENTITLEMENT" is removed.
Such "entitlement," however, is not specific to one individual.
By his direct reference, any "entitlement" applies to the children of the monarch & ALSO the children of the sons of the monarch. Regardless, it is removed.
I believe this was the true goal of his LP, while not drawing attention to it.
KC goes on to say that Andrew is specifically no longer "entitled" (verb), under the last section & I'll get to that in the next part.
And, of course, The Wales children are entitled to their styles & titular dignities, under QEII's 2012 LP.
2
2
11
449
Mayhaps she is a child model?
Hm...not that the Invisikids qualify for this exception. It's for royal family members under the age of 18.
2
45
GoFakeYourselfMeghan retweeted
Was Diddy supposed to be the next Epstein? Was he trying to lead William & Harry to his honeypot parties -- much like Epstein led Andrew for a walk in the park where a pap was waiting to get clear photos of them.
Both of W's & H's phones were wiretapped. Far more of William's conversations were listened to than Harry's.
But, William proposed to Catherine and Chelsey ended it with Harry. Was Harry 'Plan B'?
What role did Trevor play? This is a plan long in the making and execution.
Was Trevor recruited, in part, for his similarities to both William and Harry..in case they had to go with 'Plan B'?
What was in their private divorce stipulation? Frozen eggs would not need a divorce agreement -- they would belong to Meghan.
Frozen embryos? Yes...they would need a court judgment OR an agreement on those. Whatever it was. it wasn't the usual property and assets -- those were handled within the public documents.
Could the Invisikids be Meghan's and Trevor's biological children born to a surrogate from frozen embryos they stipulated were hers?
All roads lead to SoHo, but travel beyond:
...SoHo leads to Ron Burkle...
...Burkle leads to Epstein & Clinton....
...Clinton leads to Bush Sr....
...Bush Sr. leads to the perversion, corruption, and takeover of the CIA...
...The CIA leads to a globalist intelligence network...
...And that globalist intelligence network answers to a secret globalist government that no one consented to nor voted for.
1
2
10
352
Two degrees of Jeffery Epstein (subtlety was abandoned in the early 1990s):
1
3
165
Was Diddy supposed to be the next Epstein? Was he trying to lead William & Harry to his honeypot parties -- much like Epstein led Andrew for a walk in the park where a pap was waiting to get clear photos of them.
Both of W's & H's phones were wiretapped. Far more of William's conversations were listened to than Harry's.
But, William proposed to Catherine and Chelsey ended it with Harry. Was Harry 'Plan B'?
What role did Trevor play? This is a plan long in the making and execution.
Was Trevor recruited, in part, for his similarities to both William and Harry..in case they had to go with 'Plan B'?
What was in their private divorce stipulation? Frozen eggs would not need a divorce agreement -- they would belong to Meghan.
Frozen embryos? Yes...they would need a court judgment OR an agreement on those. Whatever it was. it wasn't the usual property and assets -- those were handled within the public documents.
Could the Invisikids be Meghan's and Trevor's biological children born to a surrogate from frozen embryos they stipulated were hers?
All roads lead to SoHo, but travel beyond:
...SoHo leads to Ron Burkle...
...Burkle leads to Epstein & Clinton....
...Clinton leads to Bush Sr....
...Bush Sr. leads to the perversion, corruption, and takeover of the CIA...
...The CIA leads to a globalist intelligence network...
...And that globalist intelligence network answers to a secret globalist government that no one consented to nor voted for.
1
2
10
352
MeMe's a really shitty Mata Hari with SoHo handlers of the Jeffrey Epstein handler variety.
A lot of Megxiters have concluded the same and for good reasons. All roads lead to SoHo...and SoHo leads to nefarious globalist intelligence networks.
I suspect that because QEII was getting very old and Andrew's mileage was drying up, Harry was chosen as the new weakest link.
Harry's phone was wiretapped. They listened to his calls with Chelsey, other girls and friends. They learned about his dating interests...& what might woo him over.
MeMe got a script. She practiced a fake love story for cameras, on Suits. She stalked him, inserted herself. She showed up late wearing Harry's Mummy's perfume, on their first date.
There is a goal..probably more than one. But MeMe is a sloppy Mata Hari and a terrible actress. She developed no skills while on Suits. She managed to get Harry down the aisle but she's ham-handed, sloppy, and attracted skepticism. I don't think QEII was fooled. I think she took measures to protect the monarchy.
Hopefully, MeMe continues to botch 'Plan B.'
1
1
2
294
GoFakeYourselfMeghan retweeted
Whoa! Does this look like a man to anyone else???
74
14
359
7,287
On a related note:
From what I have seen, Harry isn't even "kind." He's smug, bitter, vindictive, and has a huge chip on his shoulder.
Jun 12
Now that Elon Musk is a trillionaire, Meghan Markle has just one question: âWell⌠is he nice?â
Because if he wasnât kind, it just didnât seem like it would make sense. đ
5
2
53
766
GoFakeYourselfMeghan retweeted
Meghan! Will you please stop wearing ugly-ass shoes!
Signed,
Everyone
138
36
907
35,867
She was still learning how to be a Disaster Tourist, back then. She had no finesse. Still doesn't.
She carried in her gloves, put them on after the service, stood next to people that paps wanted to photograph, the smudge was visible, then she wiped her left eye with the smudged finger....and *voila* she got the photo of her dreams.
IDK why she wanted a photo looking like a heartless, soulless, crass, disgusting human being...but she did! Only the tabloids she pays were *moved* by it.
3
3
42
724
The 1917 Letters Patent specifically PROHIBITS the Sussexes & the Invisikids from ASSUMING the titles of Prince and Princess.
The key wording:
"the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall NOT henceforth be ASSUMED or BORNE by ANY descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms."
Yet the Sussexes and all the complicit media torture the 1917 Letters Patent to use it as proof the Invisikids are entitled to princely titles.
BULLSHIT! They are prohibited from assuming princely titles!
That said, the 1917 LP bestows on them the style 'Royal Highness' AND titles as children of a Duke.
IF the grandchild of a Sovereign is a Prince or Princess, then the 1917 LP indicates they are styled 'Royal Highness'.
If the grandchild is titled as a child of a Duke, they are also styled 'Royal Highness.'
Below is the 1917 Letters Patent (w/my own notes) showing that it is primarily a document making the STYLE 'Royal Highness' consistent and has very little to do with bestowing titles. It plainly states no descendant can ASSUME or BEAR the title Prince or Princess unless they were already bestowed the title.
***
1917 LETTERS PATENT (w/my notes)
George the Fifth by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith To all to whom these presents shall come Greeting: Whereas Her late Majesty Queen Victoria did by Her Letters Patent dated the thirtieth day of January in the twenty seventh year of Her Reign declare her Royal Pleasure as to the style and title of the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family in the manner in the said Letters Patent particularly mentioned  And whereas we deem it expedient that the said Letters Patent should be extended and amended and that the styles and titles to be borne by the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family should be henceforth established defined and limited in manner hereinafter declared... Â
Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the children* of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy:
1. The style title OR attribute of Royal Highness:
A. With THEIR titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names (If they are a Prince or Princess).......OR
B. with their other titles of honour (If they are not a Prince or Princess)
("With their" they must already have the aforementioned titles for this part to even apply to them. This only bestows the STYLE 'Royal Highness' on Harry's legitimate children should he ever have any.)
***
2. And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid:
A. The style title or attribute of Royal Highness, Highness, or Serene Highness AND
B. the titular dignity of Prince or Princess
Shall NOT henceforth be ASSUMED or BORNE by ANY descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms
excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked
^(The 1917 Letters Patent specifically PROHIBITS the Sussexes and their children from ASSUMING the titles Prince & Princess!)
***
3. It being Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the children* of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions:
A. The style AND TITLE enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms
^^^^(THESE ARE THE ONLY TITLES BESTOWED ON Harry's children (if they are legitimate descendants) within the 1917 Letters Patent. "AND" is the key word. Contrast it to "WITH THEIR" in section 1.)
****
Our Will and Pleasure further is that Our Earl Marshal of England or his deputy for the time being do cause these our Letters Patent or the enrolment thereof to be recorded in Our College of Arms to the end that Our officers of Arms and all others may take due notice thereof. In Witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the thirtieth day of November in the eighth year of Our reign.
*Amended by Letters Patent, in 2012
heraldica.org/topics/britainâŚ
5
5
56
3,512
(I am going to add this, here, and make it my thread of Royal Styles and Titles.)
PART 1
I suspect King Charles has pulled a fast one.
More precisely, I think he may have killed two birds with one carefully crafted stone in his act to remove Andrew's HRH and princely title. (See below.)
I would argue two points:
1. KC did NOT remove Andrew's HRH and princely title.
2. KC DID make his wish known that the Invisikids have NO "entitlement" to the style 'Royal Highness' nor the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, under the 1917 LP.
I'll start with #2.
Within KC's LP, he removed "THE ENTITLEMENT" (noun) that he states entitled Andrew to the style 'HRH' and the titular dignity of 'Prince'. (Compare with the LP removing "THE ENTITLEMENT" to HRH for ex-wives below.)
He sets out by referencing the 1917 LP. Specifically, KC refers to the section regarding the children of the monarch, and ALSO the children of the sons of the monarch.
While I disagree that the 1917 LP entitles the aforementioned to the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, a plain reading of KC's proclamation states "the above-mentioned ENTITLEMENT" is removed.
Such "entitlement," however, is not specific to one individual.
By his direct reference, any "entitlement" applies to the children of the monarch & ALSO the children of the sons of the monarch. Regardless, it is removed.
I believe this was the true goal of his LP, while not drawing attention to it.
KC goes on to say that Andrew is specifically no longer "entitled" (verb), under the last section & I'll get to that in the next part.
And, of course, The Wales children are entitled to their styles & titular dignities, under QEII's 2012 LP.
2
2
11
449
PART 2
Contrary to my opinion, King Charles wishes to acknowledge such entitlement to princely titles exists. I do not believe it. I also think KC does not believe it.
I suspect QEII may have asked for his assurance that Andrew would never lose his HRH and princely title. She may have even helped KC plan for how to handle it, should it become necessary. With the Sussex titles shenanigans and the increased pressure to deal with Andrew, it became necessary.
**Andrew is still entitled to his 'HRH Prince' because he was never entitled by the 1917 LP.**
In 1948 -- long AFTER the 1917 LP was issued - QEII's father issued a LP that also referenced the 1917 LP. (See below.)
Within it, he granted QEII's and Prince Philip's children the style and dignity of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess.
The 1948 LP is the controlling document, contrary to popular opinion. It came AFTER the 1917 LP & even references it. The 1948 LP specifically entitled their children to their styles and titles.
Therefore, imo:
1. King Charles did not remove Andrew's style and princely title, under the 1948 LP.
2. King Charles did remove the entitlement to the style and dignity of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, under the 1917 LP, which the Sussexes claim applies to their Invisikids.
****
NOTE: KC DID NOT have to reference "the children of the sons of the monarch." Andrew was never a child of a son of any monarch.
Yet, he did exactly that.
____
(As always, any contrary evidence may change my opinion.)
1
1
9
282
GoFakeYourselfMeghan retweeted
Never forget or forgive Meghan Markleâs lies to Oprah.
157
143
1,544
57,258
GoFakeYourselfMeghan retweeted
Mass mailing voting and the National Voter Registration Form (below) are a recipe for disaster.
A PO Box mailing address AND a cross-street map residential address allows an infinite number imaginary homeless people to register to vote -- without a SS# or proof of ID -- especially in California.
Mail-in voting removes the requirement to show proof of ID at the polls the first time an imaginary voter cast a ballot.
(The HAVA and the quarantining and adjusting of raw exit poll data are also disastrous for free & fair elections
1
2
17
463
GoFakeYourselfMeghan retweeted
IMO, their wedding is null and void because someone asked that they close and LOCK the doors during the marriage service. No one could come in and object if they knew a reason M&H could not be lawfully wed...not even her first husband, Trevor.
Curiously, the date on their divorce petition shows a different date of marriage, too. Did the divorce judgement even apply to their marriage?
1
2
229
I don't know of any nutritious drinks that are neon pink and could have left that enormous stain all over the front of her shirt.
Pretreating it may have helped...now it's set in. Queen Bey is ruint.
21
6
99
3,039