reason that trump ain’t “fingered” in the files, perhaps by scrubbing. So, our suspicions are probably worse than what’s in it, at same time, not releasing it is damning.

Plus, the file isn’t going to change anything. In meantime, people are scared, could literally starve, and worse.

Now if they have photos or solid evidence of trump raping /abusing innocent young women, that’s different.

or anywhere else. She's dead. (Lawrence knows that.) The alternative to giving Andrew a place to live would be to make him homeless. The homeless, like other vulnerable groups, are unfairly blamed for all kinds of societal ills they have nothing to do with. Putting an actual pedophile among them would be terrible for them and would not help the community in any way. Charles appears to be doing the best he can, or at least the best he can think of. As an American, I don't feel I have any obligation, or any right, or the insufferable gall to tell the British what kind of government should have, and esecially not at a time when theirs is functioning better then mine is. The Royal Family does work - granted they get some choice and the jbs are something like "Chairman of the Board" of something, and I'm sure they are nor all equally competent. ut when Diana (a former primart teacher) was alive, she was deeply involved in issues affecting children. When Charles was Prince of Wales, he worked on preserving historic buildings. British Antiques Roadshow interviewed him, and the inerviewer appeared genuinely impressed by anf grateful for his work. Oh, and they pay taxes on the incomes they make from their work. andrew is not allowed to do that any more - to represent the family in some endeavor. Can you think of anyone in their right mind now who would hire him for anything at all?

There is a fourth child, Edward, who has deliberately stayed out of the limelight as best he could. My impression, based on a PBS speacial on him (made while he was still engaged to his wife and his oldest child is now 21) gave me the impression that he has the best head of the four. )He is also, IMO, the best looking, if you don't mind a little male pattern baldness.)

The name change during the first World War was not done or intended to hide anything, which would have been impossible anyway. It wa s to distance them from relatives and from a country which was now a mortal enemy, and so the British people did not have to have the embarrassment of their royals wearing an enemy's name. It was done very publicly for thse reasons.Ans of course it would have to be a new name - It would have both been impolite and also a very bad look if they has stolen someone else's.

Sorry for the rant. But honestly, Americans are constantly selling the royal family short. We shoould instead be concentrating on our own corrupt politicians. Wemight actually be able to do something about them.

Though years ago my family would watch Masterpiece Theatre on Sunday nights and a lot of them involved British history.

The thing that puzzles me about Andrew, though I know he and Sarah Ferguson are divorced, I posted MSNBC's announcement about Andrew and his having to leave the Royal premises - and that Sarah would be expected to leave too. I remember that they lived together when their girls were young, but apparently they still live together?? And if he was involved with Jeffrey Epstein and his terrible abuse of young girls, wouldn't Sarah know? Weird.

And I'm not a fan of Charles after his treatment of Diana. I always thought she was lovely, yet he preferred that creepy Camilla, and how does she get to be queen?

And you're certainly right about overlooked Edward. Looking at the Royal kids, he appears to be the only one who isn't divorced!

Whether she plans to accompany him to the new place I have no idea.
Given that all the sex took place elsewhere, and I guess mostly on Epstein Island, I don't know how much she would know. She might have suspected. Before they ever married he was known for his overactive libido - he was not nicknamed "Randy Andy" for no reason. But even if she new or suspected he was effing around, she might not have known any of his partners were underage.

Charles's bad treatment of Diana, I have come to believe, was in marrying her in the first place. He was already in love with Camilla, who was married and not available (and possibly not eligible.) When he did it, he was under major pressure to sire an heir (and if possible a spare.) And I don't know about William, but I'm kind of glad the world got Harry from the marriage. But back to Charles, I'm open to evidence, but have not seen any that anyone ever fell in love because the other party was "suitable." I don't know how long he was in love with Camilla before marrying Diana, but the wedding was in 1981, so he has been in love with Camilla continuously for a minimum of 44 years. That's longer than I have been married. I'd say it would have been better for everyone involved if he had been able to be with her all along. Oh, and yes, she's "Queen Camilla," but the full title is Queen Consort, as opposed to Queen Regnant, as Elizabeth II was. She has the title but no authority with it (though she may have influence. That's between them.) If she outlives him she'll be Queen Dowager, with even less authority, though maybe still some influence. But maybe not. Queens Dowager have moral influence over their children, but William is not her child. She has children, but none of them is in line for the throne.