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.
= new reply since forum marked as read