March 9, 2019.
We call our agents to do their duty, to reveal the truth regarding the imprisonment of Prince Charles in Niger, the usurpation of his identity and the visceral corruption of the Royal Family.
It is impossible to think in a world where we control strictly all the different pilars of power as the medias, that we maintain this shameful lying that bullies utterly the notion of justice. The truth should be re-affirmed. It is only in 1998 that the usurpation of Prince Charles' identity and title has been agreed by Elizabeth II and the then corrupt leader of the British Side of the Monarchists (Ata Stuart). The Prince was then, young and unaware even of his identity.
Before that day daily outlets made reports and analysis on Prince Charles' imprisonment. The putting of the partial veils on this serious contention, injustice has been the root of all the wars, rebellions and terrorist attacks we see in the world. It makes the war developed wild, underground.
Then re-publishing in clear terms articles about Prince Charles' imprisonment and usurpation of identity andid endless public engagements , all broadcasted on radios and Tvs of the planet. It was that year, that he was removed from Cheam and imprisoned by Elizabeth II in Niger. You need to have around 6 ( childhood awareness age) when his imprisonment started in Niger and when days later it creates a great division in our Kingdom and the world that it plunged in the third conflict.
During the period of the so called usurpation of his identity 1998-2017, there are endless outlets which all over the world continues writing about it clearly ( around 30% out of the 70% who were alive were aware when he was born ). They wrote in clear terms about his imprisonment conditions and as well to demand his release.
Around 25% of the medias write clearly about his imprisonment by using his exact name and title. Around 35% write about his imprisonment in 4 fashion meaning almost kind of Prince of Wales' perspective only to refer to the dead optional usurpation. 20% talk comprehensively clearly about his imprisonment with terms as Charles, Prince of Wales (hinting that he is an interim Prince Heir to Throne, whereas Prince Charles is the only heir to the throne).
There are less than 15% that hide the imprisonment and participate in the usurpation of his titles by referring to Prince of Wales as Heir to the Throne, but they do not participate in Prince Charles' usurpation of identity in their articles. In the 15%, 70% refer to Prince of Wales with this title, but do not call him as Heir to the Throne or Prince Charles. They refer to him as Prince of Wales, a British Prince in many. Thus how the British governments, political Parties, and the world leaders and dignitaries refer to him. In fact referring to him with the usurpatory title and identity create unmistakably a diplomatic crisis between UK and the country, beside the monarchists that will be angered by it.
Less than 5% of the news agencies totally consume the usurpation of his identity and his imprisonment, totally. Among that few percentage there are the zealous, kamikaze cronies of Elizabeth II (the council) who knows no rule and are ready to die even for that.
Before February 24, 2019 even Elizabeth II's outlets (the council) do not talk about Prince of Wales. It is only very rarely, something like once in three months that they write about it to prepare their impossible coup as before the wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank ( a tragedy happened to prevent the wedding).
They themselves, they fear the consequences of such reports. Even in their side, only few medias close to the council as Daily Telegraph write on Prince of Wales in pattern of once in three months. During that time, Elizabeth II's medias as The Sun Newspaper, and Metro mainly talk about Prince Edward and Prince Andrew, and especially the Comtess Sophie. It is even kind of odd to write on Harry Charles, or William Bingo. Most of the time they talk about Meghan Markle if they want to talk about the highly toxic two false princes.
But after Prince of Wales was killed, and Prince Charles forbid the usurpation of his identity and title, less than 20% of medias talk about the Prince of Wales either in term of consuming or rejecting the usurpation of his identity. Writing on Prince of Wales gives a connotation of being an extremist, and political kamikaze to an outlet.
80% of the news agencies prefer not write about the royal family as this is the case of 30% of them. The 50% only write about Harry Charles, the remaining 20% talk about William Bingo.
Beside, the serious consideration of the seriousness of the crime, the monarchists rules the world this even before February 24, when they took control of the entire world. Since, then it is simply beside being a radical a matter of political hariki than talking about either Prince of Wales, or any of the false princes and princesses. Almost all the medias who want to talk about the Royal Family talk about Queen Elizabeth II. Talking or writing about any of them is a political hara-kiri as inevitably the monarchists will retaliate in all fashions.d title, is not revealing it. We should not forget that UN voted resolutions to demand his release. This issue of his imprisonment has already sank the world in a third planetary conflict.
More than 70% of our Subjects and around 50% of the world population are aware of his imprisonment. A great part of this number were alive and even in their awareness age, when Prince Charles was born on August 30, 1981. You need to be 53 for being an adult then, when with his mother, he did endless public engagements , all broadcasted on radios and Tvs of the planet. It was that year, that he was removed from Cheam and imprisoned by Elizabeth II in Niger. You need to have around 6 ( childhood awareness age) when his imprisonment started in Niger and when days later it creates a great division in our Kingdom and the world that it plunged in the third conflict.
During the period of the so called usurpation of his identity 1998-2017, there are endless outlets which all over the world continues writing about it clearly ( around 30% out of the 70% who were alive were aware when he was born ). They wrote in clear terms about his imprisonment conditions and as well to demand his release.
Around 25% of the medias write clearly about his imprisonment by using his exact name and title. Around 35% write about his imprisonment in 4 fashion meaning almost kind of Prince of Wales' perspective only to refer to the dead optional usurpation. 20% talk comprehensively clearly about his imprisonment with terms as Charles, Prince of Wales (hinting that he is an interim Prince Heir to Throne, whereas Prince Charles is the only heir to the throne).
There are less than 15% that hide the imprisonment and participate in the usurpation of his titles by referring to Prince of Wales as Heir to the Throne, but they do not participate in Prince Charles' usurpation of identity in their articles. In the 15%, 70% refer to Prince of Wales with this title, but do not call him as Heir to the Throne or Prince Charles. They refer to him as Prince of Wales, a British Prince in many. Thus how the British governments, political Parties, and the world leaders and dignitaries refer to him. In fact referring to him with the usurpatory title and identity create unmistakably a diplomatic crisis between UK and the country, beside the monarchists that will be angered by it.
Less than 5% of the news agencies totally consume the usurpation of his identity and his imprisonment, totally. Among that few percentage there are the zealous, kamikaze cronies of Elizabeth II (the council) who knows no rule and are ready to die even for that.
Before February 24, 2019 even Elizabeth II's outlets (the council) do not talk about Prince of Wales. It is only very rarely, something like once in three months that they write about it to prepare their impossible coup as before the wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank ( a tragedy happened to prevent the wedding).
They themselves, they fear the consequences of such reports. Even in their side, only few medias close to the council as Daily Telegraph write on Prince of Wales in pattern of once in three months. During that time, Elizabeth II's medias as The Sun Newspaper, and Metro mainly talk about Prince Edward and Prince Andrew, and especially the Comtess Sophie. It is even kind of odd to write on Harry Charles, or William Bingo. Most of the time they talk about Meghan Markle if they want to talk about the highly toxic two false princes.
But after Prince of Wales was killed, and Prince Charles forbid the usurpation of his identity and title, less than 20% of medias talk about the Prince of Wales either in term of consuming or rejecting the usurpation of his identity. Writing on Prince of Wales gives a connotation of being an extremist, and political kamikaze to an outlet.
80% of the news agencies prefer not write about the royal family as this is the case of 30% of them. The 50% only write about Harry Charles, the remaining 20% talk about William Bingo.
Beside, the serious consideration of the seriousness of the crime, the monarchists rules the world this even before February 24, when they took control of the entire world. Since, then it is simply beside being a radical a matter of political hariki than talking about either Prince of Wales, or any of the false princes and princesses. Almost all the medias who want to talk about the Royal Family talk about Queen Elizabeth II. Talking or writing about any of them is a political hara-kiri as inevitably the monarchists will retaliate in all fashions.
