GoFakeYourselfMeghan

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.

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

(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.

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

She was still learning how to be a Disaster Tourist, back then. She had no finesse. Still doesn't.

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

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.

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

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.)

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

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...  

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

https://t.co/LMMXKXRNyL

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

(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.

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

@JakesMom2015 @bornfirstkindly The truth of what she is, in four photos:

https://t.co/lHkdzORipK

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

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.

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

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.

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

@bornfirstkindly @MargaretLulu6 Yep, it's real. Ask any talentless basic-cable actress about it. 😂

https://t.co/aA8nWMPOyT

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

@JakesMom2015 @bornfirstkindly Really, she wasn't. She had to use tearstick to work up a tear for HMQEII.

A well-known tool for terrible actors.

https://t.co/aA8nWMPOyT

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

Ah, yes. That's from the 'Santa Mountbatten-Windsor Collection'*

*Formerly the 'His Royal Highness Prince Santa Collection' .

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

@DeborahBooher1 Not Harry's booger.

It's pink and all over the front...faint from being washed.

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

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.

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

@that_1 I can't see his eyes but I know he's looking to his left.

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

@JJZxhubby Stay mad.
*pats your pointy little head*

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

@unreMARKLEble Too much Texas Tuxedo & not enough Not Texas Tuxedo.

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

@that_1 My favorite humanized jellybean! https://t.co/KqawE0qKF5

[Prince & Princess of Wales Fan @HRHCatherine]

Never forget or forgive Meghan Markle’s lies to Oprah.

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

@mtaibbi *national

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

@mtaibbi I'd like to know how many mail-in votes were from homeless people that registered using the Nation Voter Registration form with a PO Box, no SS#, and only a signature attestation.

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

@Victori84604362 I need to sit down. Something before my time.

[GoFakeYourselfMeghan @GoFakeYourselfM]

@imjustbeingmeJ @OldStirling 💔....🥰

[That 1 @that_1]

you should sell these on etsy,M.