Heisenberg's uncertainity principle(HUC)
I can provide some physical intuition, but it's still going to require math and previous work to make it happen (aside on this at the end).

Let's consider a particle in just one dimension. There are two quantities of interest: (1) the position of the particle along this coordinate, (2) the scalar momentum (related to the velocity) along this coordinate.

I'm going to represent this particle as a plot on a graph. The horizontal axis will measure position. The vertical axis represents some notion of how likely it is to find the particle at this position (formally, it would be squared and normalized). Finally, we also stipulate that momentum of the particle is going to be the frequency of what I draw. This may seem strange when we're talking about an arbitrary plot, but it's actually completely reasonable from the perspective of representing functions from as Fourier series. You're just going to have to assume that this is true because a formal analysis does require math (see other answers).

Now, let's make this more concrete with some plots.

Here's a standard sine function. It has a very well defined frequency, so we know the momentum exactly. Where is the particle? Well, the sine wave stretches out to infinity in both directions, so we have no idea where it "is."



Here's a different graph. Where is the particle? It's very close to $x=0$. What is it's momentum? It's kind of hard to pick out single frequency here, so you cannot easily establish what the momentum is.



And that's basically it. Identifying frequency (momentum) and position for a plot like this are traded-off against one another. You'll probably end up in the intermediate case where you know some information about both. This is wave packet.



This particle is roughly centered around $x = 0$, and we can roughly say what its momentum is.

The uncertainty principle simply formalizes this idea except using the formal mathematical structure of quantum mechanics.

Now, for the aside I promised. Your question was entirely reasonable until you got to the last line, and I quote: "No usage of earlier established principles and maths please."

This is impossible. Science does exist in a vacuum. It is based on the past observations and structure built by previous generations of scientists. If we were to start from scratch, would we arrive at the same science that we have today? Possibly, possibly not. But the understanding we are working with is built upon foundations that we are stuck with, for better or for worse.

You also can't really do this without math. Part of science is to describe relationships, and mathematics allows us to do so unambiguously. Words suck at conveying ideas because words mean different things.

Lastly, it's fine to try to build intuition on a concept by relating it to the macroscopic world. However, you should not assume that this is possible. It may be philosophically satisfying that objects behave in similar ways regardless of size, but that's not the way the world is.