Do imperial cult active measures polarize natural differences in populations and/or does "us against them" branding help a minority criminal ruling class to engineer the "critical mass" required for them to divide and conquer?

WHAT COUNTRY HAS THE MOST BILLIONAIRES AND ARE ALL BILLIONAIRES PART OF THE CRIMINAL RULING CLASS?

Beginning with the first part of this compound question, according to World Population Review, "there are more than 2700 billionaires globally", and "over a quarter of the world's billionaires live in the United States", which has the most billionaires, specifically 724, followed by China, who has 626, followed by India, who has 140, followed by Germany, who has 136, followed by Russia, who has 117, followed by China's Hong Kong, who has 71, followed by Brazil, who has 65, followed by Canada, who has 64, followed by the United Kingdom (UK), who has 56, followed by Italy, who has 51, and where these 10 countries have 78.4% of all the world's billionaires [1].

These countries have a number of things in common, including but not limited to the following.

1. The United States, China, India, Germany, Russia, Hong Kong, Brazil, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Italy are each a derivative of the largely, if not totally, illegitimate Bolingbroke-Tudor-Habsburg-Windsor "royal" families' Holy Roman Empire imperial cult and syndicate, and/or their proxies. The alleged illegitimacy of these alleged "royal" families as monarchs is addressed further below.

2. Similarly, the United States, China, India, Hong Kong, Canada, and the United Kingdom were and/or are countries, groups of countries, colonies, protectorates, allies, members, derivatives, and/or affiliates of of the British Empire, UK Commonwealth, and/or Commonwealth, and/or occupied by, controlled by, and/or influenced by the largely, if not totally, illegitimate Bolingbroke-Tudor-Habsburg-Windsor "royal" families. The alleged illegitimacy of these alleged "royal" families as monarchs is addressed further below.

3. Furthermore, the United States, China, India, Russia, Hong Kong, Canada, and the United Kingdom were allies in WWI and/or WWII, in the context that at least the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom had individuals, organizations, leaders, and/or countries who initially supported, aided, and/or financed Hitler, and/or the Nazis, Germany, and/or Italy's WWI and/or WWII criminal war crimes conspiracy in a manner that is difficult to argue didn't overtly further and/or eventually result in the murder of their own people, and where Hitler was a Habsburg military asset from WWI. This support of the Nazis is addressed further below.

4. Notwithstanding, the United States, China, India, Russia, Hong Kong, Canada, United Kingdom/Britain, Brazil, Germany, and Italy respectively and/or collectively have an established history of fascism, colonialism, and/or slavery -- which provided each of these countries inexpensive labor forces, which is suspected to be one of the driving forces behind the economic advancement of some to all of these countries -- and often linked to countries with illegitimate "royal" families and/or imperial cults operating the slave trades, but to balance, our research also found some examples of instances where under illegitimate royal rule, some slavery was outlawed, for example in India under British rule, but where slavery resurfaced nonetheless thereafter. As explained across some of our other investigative journalism investigations and articles, the chronology here is that the Roman Imperial Cult (based out of modern day Italy), learned slavery from the Greek Imperial Cult, which learned slavery from the Egyptian Imperial Cult, and where an imperial cult is when a self-proclaimed and often illegitimate royal/emperor expects to be worshiped, and/or expects their family members, friends, and/or proxies to be worshiped as God, Gods, and/or divine, and/or those in close proximity with the divine, best illustrated by the Roman Imperial Cult of August and the Roman Senate, whose conduct collectively made Caesar God, and/or divine, and August, the nephew and adopted son of Caesar, the "son of God", roughly around the same time period of Jesus Christ, born into the era of the Roman Imperial Cult, which was arguably defeated and/or usurped by the Germanic troops and tribes of, and/or giving rise to, the Western Roman Empire, and the resurrections and/or continuations of imperial cults, kings, queens, and popes of Western Europe thereafter, through to the largely, if not totally illegitimate and/or resurrections of, the Holy Roman Empire, which eventually resulted in resulted in, contributed to, and/or were affiliated with the illegitimate Bolingbroke-Tudor-Habsburg-Windsor alleged "royals" of the UK and/or EU, as will be further addressed below.

5. Also, our research confirmed that the United States, England, France, Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain became "filthy rich" as a result of the slave trade, which was found to have been operated by countries with alleged illegitimate "royals" addressed further below, largely, if not exclusively linked to, derived from, and/or affiliated with the Habsburg family, also spelled Hapsburg -- whose founding "royal" employed a series of forged deeds and/or other documents, collectively known as Privilegium maius, in order to substantiate the fraudulent Habsburg "royal" claims, further addressed below. [2]

6. Continuing, our research found more recent examples of child and forced labor in China, India, Russia, and Brazil, who collectively form the BRIC economic block, one of the fastest growing economic blocks in the world, as specified by the U.S. Department of Labor, who also identified 74 other countries employing child and forced labor to boost the profits of their billionaires [3].

7. Similarly, United States, China, India, Germany, Russia, Hong Kong, Brazil, Canada, the United Kingdom, and/or Italy have no fewer than 80 companies that operate in their countries who employ and/or benefit from Chinese slave labor for the benefit of their billionaires, and/or multimillionaires including but not limited to Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Victoria’s Secret, in the context that the most profitable companies in the world based on pre-tax income (2022) were Saudi Aramco (1st), Apple (2nd), Microsoft (3rd), Alphabet/Google (4th), China Construction Bank (9th), JP Morgan Chase (13th), Agricultural Bank of China (15th), Bank of China (17th), Gazprom (19th), Meta/Facebook (20th), PetroChina (23rd), AT&T (32nd), China Mobile (36th), and Novartis (42nd), and in the context that the founders, operators, and/or rulers of or over Amazon, Apple, Alphabet/Google, Microsoft, Victoria Secret, Saudi Aramco, JP Morgan Chase, Meta/Facebook, and AT&T, were found named in the "black book" of, and/or affiliated with the operational contacts, business partners, financiers, money launders, clients, friends, associates, affiliates, and/or social circles of child kidnapper, child sex trafficker, and/or child rapist, Jeffrey Epstein, and/or Ghislaine Maxwell before and/or after Epstein was convicted of sex crimes involving sex trafficked children, and where child sex trafficking and sex trafficking is also a form of slavery and/or forced labor [4], [5], [6] [9], [10], [11], [12].

Those operational contacts, business partners, financiers, money launders, clients, friends, associates, affiliates, and/or social circles of child kidnapper, child sex trafficker, and/or child rapist, Jeffrey Epstein, and/or Ghislaine Maxwell, are further addressed below, and not surprisingly, include members of the Habsburg family, UK royals, and EU royals, who it has been repeatedly alleged aren't legitimate and/or the proper "royals" usurping the thrones of England and/or the EU, furthered addressed below. The full list of names found in Epstein's book of clients can be found here, and include, but are not limited to Donald J. Trump (who lived in Trump Tower with his family, the GRU's Paul Manafort, Cambridge Analytica's Kellyann Conway, Michael Cohen, and/or Russians), Ivanka Trump, Mohammed bin Salman (who directly or indirectly financed Ivanka Trump's husband Jared Kushner's company $2 billion, and who has been linked to 9/11 attacks on the United States in part managed thereafter by Trump's attorney, Rudy Guiliani, currently under federal investigation, along with Trump, and the Saudi LIV PGA golf tour financing), Rupert Murdoch (whose Fox News settled for about 3/4 of a billion dollars regarding false claims related to the 2020 elections), David Koch (whose Federalist Society proposed 6/9 corrupted SCOTUS judges, and where the Federalist Society is also linked to Cambridge Analytica's Mercer family), Leon Black, Henry Kissinger, Jean Luc Brunel, some 10-20 UK/EU royals, and many others, in a manner that is hard to ignore given regular mention of them for related and/or other matters in the daily news, including outlets some of these people largely own, operate, control, influence, and/or have. [6]

8. Furthermore, no less than over 3,999 companies linked to global billionaires have been found to have employed forced and/or prison labor, with the following download available specifying the names of many of these billionaire and multi-million dollar companies, here. [13]

9. Also, many of those linked to Jeffrey Epstein named or implied above or below have also been found to have ruled over, facilitated, and/or been named in and/or affiliated with tax evasion and/or tax avoidance schemes, money laundering, organized crimes, and/or financing of global terrorism, specifically, but not limited to, the Panama Papers, Paradise Papers, Pandora Papers, FinCen Files, Russia's interference with the US and Brexit elections in 2016 and the Scottish Referendum, terrorist attacks on the United States on 9/11 linked to the Saudis, cyber-terrorism attacks on the United States linked to Russia's FSB and GRU, financing of the GOP/RNC involved with organized crimes, and/or other organized crimes and/or misconduct, in a manner that starts to add up to an ongoing organized crime syndicate involving some of the wealthiest billionaires, their companies, and their countries. To balance, all of this has reduced prices of some goods in the US, UK, and EU, and/or stimulated their economies, and/or contributed to the retirement plans of some of their respective citizens, in what Naomi Klein has specified is "Disaster Capitalism", whereby those who conspire to manufacture major global issues, then have taxpayer funds directed towards them, to save their countries and the world as "heroes" for the major global issues they have manufactured, and where our investigations have found that this sort of conduct has been facilitated by many of the same networked families, companies, and countries since at least WWII.

Supporting the same, Dr. Stephen Greer has specified that Liechtenstein "royal" family member, Hans Adam, specified to Dr. Greer that their strategy is -- and paraphrasing more than one quote published by Dr. Greer -- to "scare the public into a sacrifice of blood and treasure". More simply, to use propaganda to scare taxpayers and soldiers to fund and to die for an ongoing murder-for-profit conspiracy, is a reasonable inference. 

Dr. Greer has also been an advocate for the research team (Carol Rosin) of Nazi and US scientist, Dr. Werner von Braun, an early inventor and innovator of the modern rocket, used for space travel and war -- who warned the global elite would use the UFO or alien "card" as the "last card", to scare the majority they oppress into submission -- in the context the republican GOP/RNC is currently furthering the manufacturing of that perspective, as investigations into their Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and Russian organized crimes begin to merge under the investigations of United States Attorney General Jack Smith, FBI's Chris Wray, NSA's A. Mayorka, Special Counsel Jack Smith, US Virgin Islands Attorney General Ariel, Smith, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and DIstrict Attorneys Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis, but not limited to the same, piggybacking on the Mueller Investigation, two impeachments of Trump, and on the US Congress' House of Represenatives' January 6, 2021 Committee, as addressed in some of our other reporting here at UpRights News. 

Accordingly, at least some of the rulers of and/or billionaires and multimillionaires in the United States, China, India, Germany, Russia, Hong Kong, Brazil, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Italy, but not limited to the same, have a great deal of shared interests that further their profiteering, regardless of the harm or cost to humanity and taxpayers, and where advancing shared interests defines them as a "syndicate", and because at least some of these shared interests have involved the incarceration, enslavement, sex trafficking, and murder of others, coupled with treason, sedition, insurrection, elections fraud, removal/destruction of government documents, tax evasion/avoidance, money laundering, terrorism, terrorism financing, bribery, embezzlement, government fraud, RICO, obstruction of justice, and/or other ongoing organized crimes, as our ongoing investigations, government investigations, investigative journalism, and civil lawsuits continue to reveal on almost a daily basis -- it is a reasonable inference that an ongoing organized crime syndicate by at least some of the wealthiest people, organizations, and countries in the world is supported by a pretty significant body of evidence -- and thus UpRights News and others have a reasonable basis to believe the same is true.

UpRights News would love for any of those implicated herein to provide UpRights News the evidence that any part of our reporting is not true, or needs retraction, or correction, or a follow-up article -- precisiely because we don't want to accuse anyone of anything they didn't do, or are suspected of doing, if the same is not true.

However, like any legitimate investigative journalism team, UpRights News "tests" the truth with the evidence we can find. If there is no legitimate or believable evidence to the contrary, then what we test as true remains true, until we receive or find evidence to the contrary, employing the Scientific, Socratic, and/or 10th Man methods, rules, and/or principles to do the same.

Though UpRights News does not condone this sort of ongoing organized crime -- and like the government, civil lawsuits, and investigative reporting, we also seeking to elucidate the origins, nature, membership, and crimes of this ongoing syndicate, which we have been insiders to, as victims of this ongoing organized crime syndicate -- we balance with trying to understand what motivates those with relatively everything to continue their harmful misconduct, and we believe that the same can be explained by their clinical inability to stop themselves, as specified in some of our ongoing investigations and articles. 

More specifically, we believe that the evidence proves that some to all of the same above has resulted from networked mental illness and/or developmental conditions -- breeding the maintenance, obstruction, and/or expansion of these specified and other ongoing organized crimes -- specifically, but not limited to, sociopathy, malignant narcissistic personality disorder, Machiavellianism, sadistic personality disorder, kleptomania, obsessive compulsive hoarding disorder, and/or ADHD (impulsive type), requiring immediate government and clinical intervention.

Now addressing the second part of the original compound question found in the title of this article, though many billionaires are part of the criminal ruling class, we didn't find evidence of criminal misconduct for every billionaire, which doesn't mean that they and/or their billionaire companies haven't committed crimes, it just means that we weren't able to find evidence of any crimes.

Accordingly, we can't say in a sweeping manner that every billionaire and/or every billionaire company is furthering some nefarious ongoing organized crime syndicate, but with almost 3000 billionaires, and some being more sophisticated or discrete than others, and with already an obstructive volume of ongoing organized crimes for any single investigator -- no single investigator would have the capacity to investigate the nearly 3000 billionaires, who every generation are expected to double, triple, or more the number of billionaires, and despite off-shore wealth havens having been elucidated, surely not all of those haven nor the misconduct linked to the same have been and/or will be elucidated.

What our investigations have revealed is that a core of billionaires, their billionaire companies, and/or their multimillionaire proxies, seem to be regularly involved in ongoing organized crimes with one another in different combinations for different crimes. What are investigation also reveals is that the billionaire experiment is largely a failed one, and hasn't significantly improved the lives of the rest of the world, but rather, deteriorated the lives of the rest of the world, and life on Earth in general.

Former Department of Justice and Army prosecutor, Glenn Kirschner, has summarized much of the same as follows, "as a whole I have been trying to balance the need for patience in any large-scale criminal investigation with the frustration that I feel.

Part of my daily work when I was a prosecutor involved assessing whether there was probable cause to support the application for an arrest warrant or an indictment. We had many long-term investigations that started out covert, they were proactive. By comparison, a reactive investigation is when an arrest is made, and we begin presenting evidence and information and seek an indictment. That is the stock in trade of state, local and county prosecutors as opposed to federal prosecutors.

Federal prosecutors mostly do proactive investigations where there is adequate predication and then we start in a very leisurely way. We want the case to be perfect. That's always the goal of the federal prosecutor. When federal prosecutors decide to return an indictment, they have likely already negotiated a pre-indictment plea, so it's already wrapped up in a pretty little bow and dropped on the court docket such that the Department of Justice is never operating under deadlines. We didn't have a sense of urgency. I often found that problematic. Every day, particularly when I was chief of homicide, we were investigating murders, conspiracies and obstruction cases.

Once we had probable cause to make an arrest, to indict somebody, I had to assess whether the right thing to do was to continue to investigate proactively, meaning covertly, without making an arrest, or to move forward to an arrest, a takedown and an indictment. The biggest factor in that decision was public safety.

The fact that Donald Trump is not being held accountable doesn't make sense. But it can be explained by the phenomenon of the ruling-class criminal. America has never been willing to hold them accountable.

How does that translate to the investigation of a former president? They're very different investigations in very different circumstances, of course. But I maintain that public safety writ large — for example, the viability of our democracy — should be an enormous factor in when the Department of Justice chooses to move toward an indictment of Donald Trump. Public safety is at risk. Our democracy hangs in the balance.

We are prosecuting Donald Trump's foot soldiers who he unleashed upon the Capitol on Jan. 6 to stop the certification. They are going to trial; they're going to prison. The man who gave the criminal order to attack is playing golf, holding rallies and attending dinner parties. That is a deep injustice at play in America every minute of every day, until Donald Trump is held accountable." [14]

This is a segway into some of the other ongoing investigations and articles UpRights News has published and is exploring -- how mental illnesses results in organized crime, and how that results in kleptocracy, bribery, RICO, obstruction of justice, treason, insurrection, sedition, terrorism, witness intimidation, investigations tampering, and/or other organized crimes, and how all of the same seems to regularly involve the same people, the same families, the same organizations, and/or the same countries in different combinations over time, in a manner that allows the ongoing organized crime syndicate to evade criminal, civil, and/or historical prosecution and/or liability, largely by using the massive wealth of the failed billionaire experiment -- and where some billionaires have more wealth that some countries -- and use the same to illegitimately overthrow governments, install organized crime syndicate members or proxies to directly and/or indirectly rule, who are bribed and help further government fraud conspiracies, who change laws and regulations, issue pardons and clemency, and who issue corrupt rulings, and who overtly further obstruction of justice for some to all of the same, and who contribute to the engineering of a "critical mass" of supporters, required to maintain and expand minority monarchy, oligarchy, kleptocracy, plutocracy, autocracy, and/or theocracy rule by the failed billionaire experiment and/or their proxies, to maintain and expand a two-tiered system of government, where those who lead or serve the crime syndicate, won't be prosecuted in the same manner, or at all, as those who don't serve the crime syndicate.

WITH RESPECT TO A CRIMINAL RULING CLASS LINKED TO CHILD SEX TRAFFICKER JEFFREY EPSTEIN, DO THE UK AND EU "ROYAL" FAMILIES HAVE LEGITIMATE CLAIMS TO THEIR THRONES, WHICH ALLOW THEM TO REMAIN IN POWER IN AN INHERITED MANNER, AND/OR ARE THEY ABOVE THE LAWS THEIR GOVERNMENTS OBLIGE OTHERS TO FOLLOW? IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT SUPPORTS THAT THE UK AND/OR EU ROYAL FAMILIES MAY NOT BE THE PROPER "HEIRS" TO THEIR RESPECTIVE AND/OR COLLECTIVE THRONES, AND IF SO, WHAT DOES THAT EVIDENCE SPECIFY?

INTRODUCTION

As a primer, many, if not all, of the UK and EU royal families, have royal claims that were usurped by, derived from, and/or affiliated with the Bolingbroke-Tudor-Hapsburg-Windsor complex, which is an abbreviation for many more allegedly "royal" houses of Europe linked to these families, and is not limited to the same, and which we have referred to in the past in an even more abbreviated manner as the Tudor-Habsburg crime family, with this article herein providing some of the enormous evidence which supports the same.

Carolingian, Salic, Magna Carta, Common Law, and/or Canon Law -- with regards to inheritance and royal succession -- largely mirrors the inheritance laws passed down by the Roman, Greek, and/or Egyptian Imperial Cults, which allowed titles and assets to be passed down to new generations by way of inheritance. 

The legal concepts of stare decisis, a priori, and a fortiori, as well as the fruits from the poisonous tree doctrine, but not limited to the same, collectively form the legal, logical, reasonable, and critical basis for all law -- as the foundation of legal precedence -- without which it can be argued, there would be no law that needs to be followed, but rather lawlessness, or chaos, because there would be no stronger or former argument that applies to everyone.

The chief difference between democracies and monarchies/empires, is that the same laws apply to everyone in a democracy, in such a manner that "no one is above the law", and where "no one may be their own judge", which is known as natural justice and dates back to the foundations of some of the earliest Western democracies, also known as nemo iudex in causa sua, nemo judex idoneus in propria causa est, nemo judex in parte sua, nemo judex in re sua, nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, and in propria causa nemo judex. [15]

Accordingly, is there any evidence at all that legal precedent, or any other material fact supporting that some to all of the UK and/or EU royal claims are illegitimate?

Prior to elucidating the same, it is important to note here -- and applicable to all UpRights News content -- that we make the disclaimer that everyone is innocent and/or free of liability for any to all of our claims across all of our content, until a court of law specifies otherwise, and where only full due process of every relevant matter will provide all parties the opportunity to prove or disprove any specified or implied allegation of any wrongdoing, and where we idemnify Webador for any content we provide, as not to accuse anyone of anything they didn't do, in a manner that might harm anyone.

As specified in our About section, investigative journalism is about testing the truth with the information that has been found, and that truth may change over time if more information is found.

With all of that said and returning -- many, if not all, of the UK and EU royal families, have royal claims that were usurped by, derived from, and/or affiliated with the Bolingbroke-Tudor-Hapsburg-Windsor complex, and so UpRights News has been investigating the nature of these alleged royal families and their alleged royal claims to see if there is any available evidence in the least which might support a theory that some to all of the UK and/or EU royals aren't legitimate royals -- and where there is a public interest in the same -- if it can also be proven that they have overtly furthered any crime or ongoing crimes against any of the citizens, organizations, and/or governments of any the respectively countries they allegedly have legitimate royal claims to lord over.

More simply, any such evidence would be both news-worthy and of immense public interest. 

FORGED AND THUS ILLEGITIMATE HABSBURG/HAPSBURG "ROYAL" FAMILY CLAIMS ORIGINS?

Beginning with the Habsburg family, and already addressed, supra, it is clear that there is at least some evidence or allegations that one of the earliest founding members of the Habsburg family -- whose family stoked both sides of the Protestant Reformation of Martin Luther, who advocated against anyone other than Jesus leading Christians, and who advocated against indulgences, tithes, or payments to church for relief from sins, which only Jesus or God could forgive, only for them to marry the Tudor family, who then made themselves the leaders of Christians to remain in power, and required payment from those forced to adopt the religion the family they married stoked into existence -- employed forged royal claims/deeds, specifically Privilegium maius, to advance their house as forged European royals.

Their elevated and not original leadership claims originated in quasi-legal, quasi-legitimate, Wild West-like regions in between European royal territories' boundaries' regions, which the forged deeds eventually evolved them into resurrected versions of the Holy Roman Empire, with them as Emperors, eventually resulting in the Habsburg's military asset, Adolf Hitler during WWI, who then attempted to retake and/or expand the Habsburg empire in WWII, aided by none other than Edward VIII of England, whose family received usurped thrones and/or alleged royal claims from the illegitimate and forged Habsburg-Tudor "royals", whose syndicate changed the laws of succession, after the Bolingbroke-Tudor-Habsburg complex unlawfully and thus illegitimately "took" power. Res ipsa loquitur malum in se, this natural evil speaks for itself.

More specifically, "The Privilegium maius (German: Großer Freiheitsbrief 'greater privilege') was a set of medieval documents forged in 1358 or 1359 at the behest of Duke Rudolf IV of Austria (1358–65) of the House of Habsburg. It was essentially a modified version of the Privilegium minus issued by Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa in 1156, which had elevated the former March of Austria into a duchy. In a similar way, the Privilegium maius elevated the duchy into an Archduchy of Austria.

The privileges described in the documents had great influence on the Austrian political landscape, and created a unique connection between the House of Habsburg and Austria.

The House of Habsburg had gained rulership of the Duchy of Austria in 1282. Rudolph IV (1339–1365) attempted to restore the Habsburg influence on the European political scene by trying to build relations with Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV of Luxembourg and increasing the respect of the Austrian rulers.

However, Rudolph IV did not belong to the seven Prince-electors, who—as dictated by the Golden Bull of 1356—had the power to choose the king. In the same way Charles IV had made Prague the center of his rule, Rudolph did the same for Vienna, giving it special privileges, launching construction projects and founding the University of Vienna. All this aimed at increasing the legitimacy and influence of the House and its Austrian lands. For this purpose, in the winter of 1358/1359, Rudolph IV ordered the creation of a forged document called Privilegium maius ("the greater privilege").

The Privilegium maius consists of five forged deeds, some of which purported to have been issued by Julius Caesar and Nero to the historic Roman province of Noricum, which was roughly coterminous with the modern Austrian borders. Though purposefully modeled on the Privilegium minus, the original of which "got lost" at the same time, the bundle was already identified as a fake by contemporaries such as the Italian scholar Petrarch.

In the Privilegium maius, Rudolf IV declared Austria an "archduchy", endowed with rights similar to those of the prince-electors of the Holy Roman Empire such as:

• inseparability of the territory
• automatic inheritance of the first-born (primogeniture), later extended to female heirs in the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 in favour of Archduchess Maria Theresa
• independent jurisdiction and legislature, without any possibility to appeal to the Emperor (privilegium de non evocando)
• permission to display certain symbols of rule

Rudolf also created the title Pfalzerzherzog ("Archduke Palatine"), similar to the Elector Palatine of the Rhine, the holder of an electoral vote. The first Habsburg ruler who actually used the title of an archduke was Ernest of Iron, ruler of Inner Austria from 1406 to 1424. From the 15th century onward, all princes of the Habsburg dynasty were called Erzherzöge.

Emperor Charles IV refused to confirm the Privilegium maius, although he accepted some claims. The discoverer of the forgery was his advisor, the poet and scholar Petrarch. However, Frederick III, having become Holy Roman Emperor, was able to confirm the document and made it part of imperial law, thus making fiction become fact. From then on, the status as claimed by the document became widely accepted. Frederick also extended the Privilegium maius by granting the power of ennoblement for his family as hereditary rulers of Austria (this power was normally reserved for the emperor). Thus, the act of confirmation by Frederick was what elevated the House of Habsburg to a special rank within the Empire.

The Privilegium maius had great influence on the Austrian political landscape. The Habsburg archduke arrogated an almost king-like position, and demonstrated this to outsiders through the usage of special insignia. The Habsburgs gained a new foundation for their rule in these lands; in a way, the House of Habsburg and Austria became a single unit. The family subsequently published special editions of the documents, and forbade all discussion of their authenticity.

With the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, the Privilegium maius finally lost its meaning. In 1852, it was proven a forgery by historian Wilhelm Wattenbach." [16]

Accordingly, to answer the Socratic Method questioning above, there is evidence or allegations that the Habsburg family were not part of the original royal families of Europe, per the Golden Bull of 1356, and as such Carolingian, Salic, and Magna Carta laws could not be used by them to claim any sort of legitimate royal succession to any of the thrones of Europe, which they clearly knew, given that they employed as many as 5 forged documents or deeds to illegitimately have their family elevated, further supported by the allegations their family "lost" the original documents, supported by the allegations their family forebade discussions of the forged documents used to elevate them into the usurping of the thrones of Europe, is a reasonable inference. [17]

No one who is a legitimate member of the royal family, legitimately-installed as a SCOTUS judge, legitimately-installed as any other judge, legitimately-installed as a member of Congress, and/or legitimately-installed as POTUS/President, would forbid the discussion of the legitimacy of their claims to legitimately occupy power, nor would they make changes in the laws after unlawfully-seizing power, to be able to remain in power, nor would they obstruct justice for those who installed them, nor would they claim in violation of their oaths of office, and the law, that they are above the law, and get to be their own judge. That's not what people who are legitimately installed in positions of power do. But rather, that is what people who aren't legitimately-installed in positions of power do, to remain in power.

The Tudor-Habsburg family, and/or those who derived also illegitimate royal claims from them, changed the succession laws and/or influenced their change, in such a manner that would only allow their illegitimate heirs to the thrones of Europe, in a manner defeated by the treason and other laws they violated, earlier and stronger established laws of royal succession, stare decisis, a priori, and a fortiori, and where any evidence to the contrary would be fruits from the poisonous tree of all of the same, but not limited to the same, is a reasonable inference.  

It is important to note that these forgeries were used to deceive others to elevate or accept some of their forged claims, which thus would also be illegitimate, by again, employing the law unlawfully, in a manner defeated by earlier, established, and stronger royal succession laws and precedents, in a manner that mirrors royalist Donald J. Trump's and/or the GOP/RNC's attempts and/or successes in overthrowing the United States -- to make Donald J. Trump the King of the United States, for there is great deal of evidence for -- in order to change laws and/or appoint others, who could obstruct justice for the same, and/or return him/them to power, despite royalist Donald J. Trump and/or the GOP/RNC having made himself/themselves ineligible for public office with a treason conspiracy with Russia before and after the 2016 elections, then a 2020-2023 insurrection conspiracy with insurrectionists, removal/destruction of governments, and/or violations of the 14th Amendment Section 3 -- a reasonable inference, the subject of enormous government investigations and prosecutions, and/or which UpRIghts News will be covering and further elucidating with our investigative reporting, and relevant to, and overlapping with, but beyond the full scope of this article.  

Next, as the seemingly proven illegitimate and forged royal Habsburg crime family married the Tudor family, UpRIghts News explores the legitimacy of their royal claims. 

PROHIBITED, UNLAWFUL, TREASONOUS, RETROSPECTIVE, INFERIOR, BASTARD, CONCEALED, AND/OR ILLEGITIMATE TUDOR FAMILY "ROYAL" CLAIMS ORIGINS?

As a primer, the Tudor family, who the forged Habsburg family married, were eventually the illegitimate successors of Henry Bolingbroke, who self-proclaimed himself Henry IV of England, and so UpRights News explores the legal claims of Henry Bolingbroke to see if there is any evidence at all or allegations that he did not have a legal right to succeed to the thrones of England, and where if so, and where UpRights News did find evidence or allegations of the same, then the Tudors would not have had a legal right to be his successors, which we have found separate evidence for, as will be presented further.

More specifically, "Henry participated in the Lords Appellants' rebellion against the king in 1387. After regaining power, Richard did not punish Henry, although he did execute or exile many of the other rebellious barons ... Henry spent the full year of 1390 supporting the unsuccessful siege of Vilnius (capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) by Teutonic Knights with 70 to 80 household knights. During this campaign, he bought captured Lithuanian women and children and took them back to Königsberg to be converted, despite Lithuanians being baptised by Polish priests for a decade at this point.

Henry's second expedition to Lithuania in 1392 illustrates the financial benefits to the Order of these guest crusaders. His small army consisted of over 100 men, including longbow archers and six minstrels, at a total cost to the Lancastrian purse of £4,360. Despite the efforts of Henry and his English crusaders, two years of attacks on Vilnius proved fruitless ... The relationship between Henry and the king met with a second crisis. In 1398, a remark regarding Richard II's rule by Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk, was interpreted as treason by Henry who reported it to the king. The two dukes agreed to undergo a duel of honour (called by Richard II) at Gosford Green near Caludon Castle, Mowbray's home in Coventry. Yet before the duel could take place, Richard decided to banish Henry from the kingdom (with the approval of Henry's father, John of Gaunt) to avoid further bloodshed. Mowbray was exiled for life.

John of Gaunt died in February 1399. Without explanation, Richard cancelled the legal documents that would have allowed Henry to inherit Gaunt's land automatically. Instead, Henry would be required to ask for the lands from Richard.

After some hesitation, Henry met the exiled Thomas Arundel, former archbishop of Canterbury, who had lost his position because of his involvement with the Lords Appellant. Henry and Arundel returned to England while Richard was on a military campaign in Ireland. With Arundel as his advisor, Henry began a military campaign, confiscating land from those who opposed him and ordering his soldiers to destroy much of Cheshire." [18]

To summarize all of the same, "The King's [Richard II] dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, he took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled ... In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the King disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers." [19]

Accordingly, to answer the question above regarding the illegitimacy of Henry Bolingbroke, there is indeed more than one example of the illegitimacy and unlawful occupation of the thrones of England by Henry Bolingbroke, where (1) he committed treason against his own family in the Lords Appellants' rebellion, for which his coconspirators were executed; (2) he committed treason against his own family when he began to invade, destroy, and usurp his family's lands with former treason coconspirator Thomas Arundel; (3) he committed treason when he conspired by Prussian Teutonic Knights and their embedded freemasons when he made treasonous remarks against Richard II; and (4) he committed treason against his family in 1399 to usurp the thrones of England; (5) despite being disinherited; (6) exiled; and (7) the legal documents for his land deeds were cancelled and disallowed, as a result of his unlawful behavior, providing as many as seven different instances where Henry Bolingbroke made himself, and/or was made ineligible for the thrones of England, which is a pattern of pretty compelling evidence of ineligibility, versus a single contested example of evidence of ineligibility. 

Similarly, the Golden Bull of 1356 also forbade conspiracies against the crown.[17]

To summarize, neither Henry Bolingbroke, nor the Habsburgs that married the thrones of England via the Tudors who succeeded Bolingbroke, had legitimate claims to the thrones of England, Austria, nor Europe, and where there is still more evidence of this syndicate's ineligibility, as follows.

Henry Bolingbroke's wife, Mary de Bohun, who gave birth to his successor, Henry V, died before she was made a queen, and so neither of Henry V's parents were legitimate king nor queen when Henry V was born, nor thereafter, is a reasonable inference, making it difficult if not impossible to argue that Henry V was a legitimate king of England, when the evidence seems to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was not. [20]

Supporting that this family was illegitimately usurping the thrones of England, during those times others challenged their illegitimacy or inferior claims to the thrones of England, "Henry VI (6 December 1421 – 21 May 1471) was King of England from 1422 to 1461 and again from 1470 to 1471,^[21] and disputed King of France from 1422 to 1453. The only child of Henry V, he succeeded to the English throne at the age of nine months upon his father's death, and succeeded to the French throne on the death of his maternal grandfather, Charles VI, shortly afterwards. Henry inherited the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453), in which his uncle Charles VII contested his claim to the French throne." [21]

Accordingly, there can be little doubt that the Bolingbroke crime family was unlawfully-seizing power in every direction, and that the same was illegal, and thus contested by those with superior legal claims to the thrones of Europe, and that the same resulted in armed conflict by the usurpers seeking to maintain, illegitimately justify, and expand their illegitimate and unlawful land and title grabs across England and Europe, with Henry Bolingbroke's daughter becoming the Queen of Sweden and Denmark also. [18] 

Continuing, Henry VI only had one child, "Edward of Westminster (13 October 1453 – 4 May 1471), also known as Edward of Lancaster, was the only son of Henry VI of England and Margaret of Anjou. He was killed aged seventeen at the Battle of Tewkesbury, and so the bloodline of Henry VI ended there and could no longer propagate additional illegitimate heirs to the thrones of England. [22] Accordingly, no one claiming right to the royal thrones of England would benefit from this bloodline in any legal or legitimate manner.

With no child, Edward IV was the successor of Henry VI, but according to accounts by the mother of Edward IV, Cecily Neville, and/or her children, she was unfaithful to Edward IV's perceived father, instead giving birth to the child of French archer Blayborne, and thus Edward IV was a bastard, and thus not a legitimate candidate for the thrones of England, because his real father was not an immediate royal family member, but rather, one of their servants. [23] Accordingly, no one claiming right to the royal thrones of England would benefit from this bloodline in any legal or legitimate manner.

More specifically, per research found at https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/could-edward-iv-have-been-illegitimate/, "But what if there was a break somewhere in the chain?  What if instead of uniting his line with the descendants of Richard, Duke of York, Henry had inadvertently hooked-up with the heir to a little-known French archer?  According to rumours, he had done just that.

The story goes that when they were both in France, Cecily, Duchess of York and her husband the Duke were temporarily estranged due to his military commitments.  During this separation, she succumbed to the advances of an archer named Blaybourne and fell pregnant with the child that would one day become Edward IV, hero of the house of York and father to the first Tudor Queen.

Most damagingly, it is claimed the story originates with Cecily herself.  As even the most casual observer of this era will be aware, Edward’s marriage to the low-born Elizabeth Woodville (whose family were both known as Lancastrian sympathisers and fierce social climbers) was immensely controversial.  Apparently, so enraged was she with her son, that she threatened to confess that he was illegitimate and deprive him of the throne.

It’s a serious accusation but one we should be cautious about taking at face value.  There is no record of the rumour before 1483 when it emerged in the pages of Dominic Mancini, an Italian scholar dispatched to England to serve as the eyes and ears of a continental Bishop.  It must be remembered that at this point, Richard III and his cronies were putting it about that Edward IV was a bastard, in order to bolster his younger brother’s claim for the throne.  It is likely therefore that this rumour crops up for the first time in 1483 and probably didn’t spring from Cecily’s lips.

Without being able to depend on this fundamental plank of evidence, the rest of the arguments fall down somewhat.  Let’s explore them.

• The absence of the Duke of York at the time of conception – When you look at Edward’s birthdate (in late April 1442) and work backwards, it appears as if the Duke of York was away from home at the time of conception, but the truth is, we just don’t have enough evidence to read too much into it.  The couple resided in France at the time and while the Duke was away, he wasn’t so far that the Duchess couldn’t have joined him for some of this time.  Of course, the future King could also have been slightly premature or even a little late – there isn’t much time in it.  All of these seem more likely than the Duchess secretly ‘liaised’ with a man of such lower rank, that tongues would surely have been set wagging.  We should remember that no rumours of Edward’s paternity are recorded before a time when they were politically advantageous to someone.

• A low-key baptism – It has been suggested that Edward’s low-key baptism (in the corner of the church), which contrasted a year later with a more lavish christening for his younger brother, indicate that the Duke of York was not going to splash out for a baby that he didn’t think was his.  However, this is counter-intuitive; if the Duke of York had decided to raise this child as his heir, even if he was suspicious of paternity, surely he would have gone out of his way to maintain a pretence of legitimacy rather give the world a sign that his wife had so embarrassingly betrayed him.  Besides, the Duke and Duchess had previously had a son who died very soon after birth; their decision to go for a low-key baptism was probably a sign that they had concerns for his health and wanted to make sure he was dedicated to God before anything went wrong.  Incidentally, this somewhat backs up the suggestion that he was premature.

• A lack of physical resemblance between father and son – This is a bit of a non-starter.  Yes, Edward was tall and strapping (which his father was not) but there are plenty of obvious people in his blood line (on both mother and father’s side) where he could have got this from.  Family resemblance is tricky and for those of us analysing today, we don’t have an awful lot to go on.
• Both his brothers accused him of being a bastard – Yes they did.  Both had a political motive for doing so.  Others made such accusations as well, but not until long after he was born and crowned.  Besides, when a noble was born in another country, away from the glare of the commentators of the day, rumours often surrounded the circumstances of their birth." 

Accordingly, no one claiming right to the royal thrones of England would benefit from this bloodline in any legal or legitimate manner.

DNA EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY PROVES THAT RICHARD III WAS ALSO A ROYAL BASTARD

Further torching the "royal claims" of the UK/EU royal family, it turns out that DNA evidence may prove Richard III was also a royal bastard, and so he can't confer superior claims to the thrones of England either, no can any of his descendants in any legitimate or lawful manner, stare decisis, a priori, and/or a fortiori, based on the very nature of precedence, or the very foundation of all law -- as without precedent of law, there is no law -- just chaos and/or pseudo-law based on emotional detachment whim(s), also known as dictatorships. [24]

THE SUPERIOR RETROACTIVE ROYAL CLAIM TO THE THRONES OF ENGLAND OF HENRY BEAUFORT (AND ALICE FITZALAN) OVER HENRY BEAUFORT"S SIBLINGS AND THEIR CHILDREN, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO JOAN AND MARGARET BEAUFORT, IN CONTEXT THAT HENRY VII WAS ILLEGITIMATE, AND THEN MADE A RETROACTIVE CLAIM

"Henry VII (28 January 1457 – 21 April 1509) was King of England and Lord of Ireland from his seizure of the crown on 22 August 1485 until his death in 1509. He was the first monarch of the House of Tudor.

Henry's mother, Margaret Beaufort, was a descendant of John of Gaunt of the House of Lancaster. Henry's father, Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond, a half-brother of Henry VI of England and a member of the Welsh Tudors of Penmynydd, died three months before his son Henry was born. During Henry's early years, his uncle Henry VI was fighting against Edward IV, a member of the Yorkist Plantagenet branch. After Edward retook the throne in 1471, Henry Tudor spent 14 years in exile in Brittany. He attained the throne when his forces, supported by France, Scotland, and Wales, defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field, the culmination of the Wars of the Roses ...

The descent of Henry's mother, Margaret, through the legitimised House of Beaufort bolstered Henry's claim to the English throne. She was a great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (fourth son of Edward III), and his third wife Katherine Swynford. Swynford was Gaunt's mistress for about 25 years. When they married in 1396 they already had four children, including Henry's great-grandfather John Beaufort. Gaunt's nephew Richard II legitimised Gaunt's children by Swynford by Letters Patent in 1397. In 1407, Henry IV, Gaunt's son by his first wife, issued new Letters Patent confirming the legitimacy of his half-siblings but also declaring them ineligible for the throne.^[6] Henry IV's action was of doubtful legality, as the Beauforts were previously legitimised by an Act of Parliament, but it weakened Henry's claim.^{[citation needed]} Nonetheless, by 1483 Henry was the senior male claimant heir to the House of Lancaster remaining after the deaths in battle, by murder or execution of Henry VI (son of Henry V and Catherine of Valois), his son Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales, and the other Beaufort line of descent through Lady Margaret's uncle, Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset ...

To secure his hold on the throne, Henry declared himself king by right of conquest retroactively from 21 August 1485, the day before Bosworth Field.^[22] Thus, anyone who had fought for Richard against him would be guilty of treason and Henry could legally confiscate the lands and property of Richard III, while restoring his own. Henry spared Richard's nephew and designated heir, John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, and made the Yorkist heiress Margaret Plantagenet Countess of Salisbury suo jure. He took care not to address the baronage or summon Parliament until after his coronation, which took place in Westminster Abbey on 30 October 1485.^[23] After his coronation Henry issued an edict that any gentleman who swore fealty to him would, notwithstanding any previous attainder, be secure in his property and person. [25]

However, both his claims of conquest and/or his claims to have the most superior to the claim are dubious and self-serving, because as proven herein, neither of his parents' claims were legitimate, nor were the claims of Richard III, relative to the superior claims of each Henry Beaufort and Alice Fitzalan, collectively descending from the established royal families of England, Scotland, Germany, and France.

Furthermore, Henry VII's claim to the thrones to Margaret Beaufort and her mother Joan Beaufort had an inferior claim to Joan Beaufort's brother, Henry Beaufort, as follows. Henry Bolingbroke/IV was prohibited by law from succession to the thrones of England, and committed treason, and so he was not lawful-eligible to be a monarch, and so any retroactive claim to Henry IVth, would fail. Henry Beaufort was the oldest surviving male grandchild of Edward III, after Henry IV, and John Beaufort (who Henry Beaufort outlived as the most senior male by 37 years), and so any retroactive claim would necessarily fall on Henry Beaufort, who also outlived all of the male children of all of his siblings, in a manner that the thrones would have again falled on the most senior male who was alive and who had not been prohibited from succeeding by a legitimate monarch, not the case with Henry IV, who was illegitimate. 

Furthermore, Henry Beaufort's inheritance was robbed from him and passed over by the illegitimate usurper Henry Bolingbroke, who denied John of Gaunt's family their lawful (per Act of Parliament and Papal Bull) inheritance, which included the Beaufort family.

But for the illegitimate usurping of the thrones of England by Henry Bolingbroke, Henry Beaufort would have inherited his right to marry other queens or princesses of Europe, and would inherited the royal titles, including the Duke and Duchy of Lancaster in retrospect, and his family and heirs would have inherited the same, stare decisis, a priori, and a fortiori, relative to the inferior claims of Henry VII.

The following is the royal pedigree of First Lady Abigail Adams, who was also the First Lady to live in the White House -- and where this royal pedigree is also available at the U.S. Library of Congress --which seemingly proves the family of Abigail Adams had a superior retroactive royal claims to the thrones of England, relative to illegitimate Henry VII's 100+ years retroactive claims to the thrones of England, primarily because Henry Beaufort was seemingly the oldest surviving male grandchild of Edward III, and he seemingly outlived all of his male siblings, and he seemingly outlived all of the male heirs of his siblings, including Margaret and Joan Beaufort, whom Henry VII retroactively claimed was his basis to usurp the thrones.[26]

This pedigree was compiled by Harvard University's H.E. Scott circa 1988, and found decades later in his portfolio by his heirs, and compliments the genealogy he also published at the U.S. Library of Congress, in The family of William Greenleaf Eliot, 1811-1887, and Abby Adams Eliot, 1817-1908, CS71.E468 1988.

Furthermore, John of Gaunt was the very first Duke of Lancaster for the Duchy of Lancaster and that is the throne that rules England, and thus Britain, and thus all of the UK Commonwealth, is a reasonable inference, and/or specified.

"John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster(6 March 1340 – 3 February 1399) was an English royal prince, military leader, and statesman. He was the third surviving son of King Edward III of England, and the father of King Henry IV. Due to Gaunt's royal origin, advantageous marriages, and some generous land grants, he was one of the richest men of his era, and was an influential figure during the reigns of both his father and his nephew, Richard II. As Duke of Lancaster, he is the founder of the royal House of Lancaster, whose members would ascend the throne after his death. His birthplace, Ghent in Flanders, then known in English as Gaunt, was the origin of his name. When he became unpopular later in life, a scurrilous rumour circulated, along with lampoons, claiming that he was actually the son of a Ghent butcher. This rumour, which infuriated him, may have been inspired by the fact that Edward III had not been present at his birth.

John's early career was spent in France and Spain fighting in the Hundred Years' War. He made an abortive attempt to enforce a claim to the Crown of Castile that came through his second wife, Constance of Castile, and for a time styled himself as King of Castile. When Edward the Black Prince, Gaunt's elder brother and heir-apparent to the ageing Edward III, became incapacitated due to poor health, Gaunt assumed control of many government functions, and rose to become one of the most powerful political figures in England. He was faced with military difficulties abroad and political divisions at home, and disagreements as to how to deal with these crises led to tensions among Gaunt, the English Parliament, and the ruling class, making him an extremely unpopular figure for a time.

John exercised great influence over the English throne during the minority of King Richard II (Edward the Black Prince's son) and the ensuing periods of political strife. He mediated between the king and a group of rebellious nobles, which included Gaunt's own son and heir-apparent, Henry Bolingbroke. Following Gaunt's death in 1399, his estates and titles were declared forfeit to the Crown, and his son Henry, now disinherited, was branded a traitor and exiled. Henry returned from exile shortly after to reclaim his inheritance, and deposed Richard. He reigned as King Henry IV of England (1399–1413), the first of the descendants of John of Gaunt to hold the English throne.

All English monarchs from Henry IV onward are descended from John of Gaunt. His direct male line, the House of Lancaster, would rule England from 1399 until the time of the Wars of the Roses. Gaunt is also generally believed to have fathered five children outside marriage: one early in life by a lady-in-waiting to his mother; the others, surnamed Beaufort, by Katherine Swynford, his long-term mistress and third wife. They were later legitimised by royal and papal decrees, but this did not affect Henry IV's bar to their having a place in the line of succession. Through his daughter Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland, he was an ancestor of the Yorkist kings Edward IV, Edward V and Richard III. Through his great-granddaughter Lady Margaret Beaufort he was also an ancestor of Henry VII, who married Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth of York, and all subsequent monarchs are descendants of their marriage." [26]

Accordingly, it can be argued that any superior legitimate claim to Henry Bolingbroke/IV, Margaret Beaufort, Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, the Habsburgs/Hapsburgs and/or others who have forged, stolen, betrayed, and/or have been prohibited from legitimately occupying the thrones of England, Britain, the UK Commonweath, and/or Europe, are illegitimate claims, making them liars and usurpers of the thrones of the same, is a reasonable inference, based on the evidence UpRights News found.  

THE ILLEGITIMATE ROYAL CLAIMS OF THE ENGLISH, BRITISH, AND/OR UK COMMONWEALTH ARE PUBLICLY-KNOWN 

Per the film, Britain's Real Monarch, and also per a lawsuit that has since been scrubbed from our ability to re-find the same, and per treason claims made against Elizabeth II, there have been repeated efforts by those with allegedly superior claims to the thrones of England to remove or disclose the alleged usurpers. [28] [29][30]  

WAS SPOTIFY RIGHT THAT THE UK/EU ROYAL FAMILY ARE "LAZY" "FUCKING GRIFTERS"?

ARE FAKE UK/EU ROYALS DECEIVING OTHERS INTO BELIEVING THEY ARE LEGITIMATE ROYALS WITH DAILY PROPAGANDA?

Circa June 17, 2023, a top Spotify executive, Bill Simmons, publicly-accused "prince" Harry and his wife of being "lazy" "fucking grifters". [47]

A grifter, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, a grifter is "someone who gets money dishonestly by tricking people". [48]

Is there any other evidence that supports that the UK/EU royals are dishonest? Have they ever lied before, and if so, what have they lied about?

According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Meghan Markle, the wife of Harry, lied on Oprah about the two of them getting married in their backyard, "'Meghan told the US chat show queen only she, Harry and Justin Welby were there, with Harry later adding: 'Just the three of us.' Officials later poured cold water on the claim, with Stephen Borton, who drew up the licence for the wedding, telling The Sun Meghan was “obviously confused'. And now the Archbishop has told La Repubblica that the wedding seen by millions across the world was the real deal. He said: “If any of you ever talk to a priest, you expect them to keep that talk confidential. It doesn’t matter who I’m talking to. 'I had a number of private and pastoral meetings with the Duke and Duchess before the wedding.' The legal wedding was on the Saturday. 'I signed the wedding certificate, which is a legal document, and I would have committed a serious criminal offence if I signed it knowing it was false'. All of Meghan’s Oprah fibs exposed"

Is that the only false statement one and/or both of them have made?

Accordingly, another false statement or exaggeration was made regarding them being involved in a car chase, per the New York Post.

Well how about the family name Windsor, is that the real UK "royal" family's name?

Apparently not, as it is alleged that they were unpopular in England because they were Germans, and that their family was in 52nd place for the throne, and so they named themselves after Windsor Castle. The same article specifies they may have played a role in bombing Britain "into submission" in both the WWI and WWII eras.

Well maybe they have changed their ways and given up their deception, fascism, and/or grifting?

Apparently not, where Harry, William, and/or Charles have been accused of "rot at the castle", farce, and/or improper and/or unlawful use of charity funds, Harry has been caught in a Nazi uniform, and Charles has been caught receiving bags of cash, suitcases of cash, and/or donations from the likes of the family of Osama bin Laden, Qataris, and/or Russian bankers (Dmitry Leus), and where "prince" Michael Kent has been caught selling access to the Kremlin, and/or Charles may have been implicated in money laundering for Russia, who allegedly may or may not have helped Trump, the GOP, and Brexit candidates "engineer" the royals into more power over their own criminal investigations, by exiting the EU, in the context Putin, Prince Andrew, and/or Trump have been accused or raping and/or (sex) trafficking children with Jeffrey Epstein, themselves, and/or others. 

To summarize, there may be supporting evidence, that the English, British, UK, and/or EU royals,

(1) may not be legitimate royals of England, Britain, the UK, and/or the EU, and/or

(2) that they have lied about the legitimacy of their royal claims, and/or forged the same, and/or

(3) that they have lied about their marriage(s), and/or

(4) that they have lied about the legitimacy of their children and/or changed the established laws of succession to usurp thrones, and/or 

(5) that they have committed treason, murder, heinous, and/or sex crimes against children, soldiers, law enforcement, and/or the people of England, Britain, UK, the US, and/or the EU, and/or

(6) that they have engaged in organized crimes or mismanagement of their charities, and/or

(7) that they have lied or exaggerated being pursued by others, and/or flood the daily news with propaganda that they are "royals".

Returning, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, a grifter is "someone who gets money dishonestly by tricking people". [48]