Now that Randy Andy has been exposed as an Epstein-associated degenerate, even the most dyed-in-the-wool defenders of the British royal family are starting to question their fealty to the House of Windsor. But do you know just how many pedophiles have personally mentored and advised King Charles himself? Strap in, because you’re about to learn just how deep the royal rabbit hole really goes.

Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!

WATCH ON:  /  /  /  / /  or DOWNLOAD THE MP4

WATCH IN GERMAN ON:  / 

---

TRANSCRIPT:

By now, even the most traditional of Brits are starting to realize why the rest of the world considers their royal family to be an outdated holdover of a medieval institution. And even the asleepest of the asleep are starting to understand how this weird, dysfunctional family of cousin-married inbreds is not just an anachronism, but actively evil. And every Tom, Dick, and Harry now knows about Andrew, formerly known as Prince Andrew, a.k.a. The Duke of Dork, and his very public Epstein problem. But perhaps the worst revelations are yet to come. Do you know, for instance, how many notorious pedophiles have personally mentored or advised King Charles? No? Well, by the end of this episode, you will know, and the answer will surprise you. Let’s get to it.

Welcome, friends. Welcome to another edition of The Corbett Report. I’m your host, James Corbett of corbettreport.com, coming to you, as always, from the sunny climes of Western Japan here in December of 2025 with Episode 488 of The Corbett Report podcast, “The Royal Family’s Pedophile Problem.”

Now, students of history have long recognized the British royal family as heirs to a monarchical institution that has presided over debauchery, devilry, and deception for hundreds of years. From the Gunpowder Plot false flag to the Lusitania false flag to the murder of Diana, the history of the British crown has been a history written hidden in blood and bejeweled with lies.

And now the general public is at long last beginning to learn the extent of this regal depravity. Now that Andrew has been stripped of his title and evicted from his residence, the public is finally beginning to realize that the royal rake, once popularly known as “Randy Andy,” was not just a buffoon but in fact a truly depraved, Epstein-connected, sex-addicted monster.

But even the royals’ biggest detractors would have a hard time comprehending the level of perversion that King Charles and his family have been steeped in all their lives.

So first, the latest on the prince formerly known as Andrew. Sidebar for those who are interested: Andrew is now formally known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. For all these royal nerds who keep track of such things, he was stripped of his title … he no longer is allowed to use Windsor as his … blah, blah, blah … whatever.

Anyway, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. If you want to know more about him, I guess you could read Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York by Andrew Lownie.

And while I did do so in preparation for this episode, I’m not sure I could wholeheartedly recommend this biography. I am sure that it is an incredibly well-researched and meticulously documented book. And I’m sure that the facts stated in there are stated truthfully—or at least as truthfully as we can possibly get them from the outside.

But, having said that, I’m not sure that it really tells the whole story of Andrew. And I think there’s probably a much more interesting—salacious, yes, but actually informative—biography to be written about Andrew in the future by someone who is probably less afraid of being sued by the royal household. That, I would assume, is the reason why this book—although it meticulously documents page after page about how much Andrew and Sarah were spending on this or that house that they never lived in … or this or that ski trip to some exotic location … etc. etc. … the influence peddling and other such things that have marked the career of formerly Prince Andrew—actually [supplies] surprisingly scant details about Andrew’s connection to Epstein.

Epstein is in the book, to be sure, and some of the details are there. But, given how important that particular piece of this tapestry has been in the overall story of the fall of the House of York, you would expect there to be a lot more information. And I would suspect that the reason there is not is because of some sort of threat of being sued or lawsuits or what have you.

Fair enough. Just go into the book knowing what it is and what it isn’t.

There are only two revelations—are they even revelations?—regarding the Andrew/Epstein connection of any interest that I found in the book.

One is that, as the book documents, Epstein said—or at least one of Epstein’s associates said—that Andrew was, quote, “my Super Bowl trophy” and that he was selling Andrew’s intel to Mossad. So, that is documented in the book. Again, that is coming from an Epstein associate who is saying what Epstein had said to him. So, that is at least documented in there in black and white. That’s something.

And then the other interesting thing about the book is actually something that didn’t make it into the book exactly. In fact, it made it into the first 60,000 printed copies of the book, but was then, after threat of lawsuit, removed by the publisher. So, subsequent editions of the book will not have this fact printed in them. And it was not in the one that I obtained. So, anyway, take that for what it’s worth. But now we know, at the very least, because Andrew Lownie has gone on record to say what was taken out of the book, we can now document it.

ANDREW LOWNIE: So here we are with him [Prince Andrew] in Mar-a-Lago, as you see, with Epstein, a woman called Gwendolyn Beck—who Andrew took to the island—and Melania. I had various references in my book to Melania Trump. Epstein had actually been her lover before Trump, but Trump didn’t like that in the book, so he ordered it to be taken out of the book after about 60,000 copies had been printed. So, it seemed to be a pretty pointless gesture. But anyway, my publishers did it. But I keep spreading the word.

 

SOURCE: Prince Andrew’s biographer says Melania was sleeping with Jeffrey Epstein before she met Trump

Indeed, a spicy little tidbit. And it does raise that joke that is going around these days: “Did Melania come to the US on an Einstein visa or an Epstein visa?”

Interesting. Well, more to the point for today’s purposes, though. I did read another book that is slightly more detailed along these lines of Prince Andrew and his activities, specifically Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.

[Her] name should be familiar to people in my audience, because, of course, I have talked about Virginia Giuffre and her story several times in various episodes, including, of course, my conversations with Nick Bryant of Epstein Justice.

We talked shortly after her death earlier this year—her suicide, her death, her murder, whatever that was. At any rate, we have talked about that in the past. So hopefully you’re aware that Virginia Roberts Giuffre was one of the most famous victims of the Epstein criminal enterprise.

There is, of course, the famous photograph of Prince Andrew holding an underage Virginia Roberts, back in 2001. And how do we know that? Well, we know that specifically from her posthumously published memoir, Nobody’s Girl. And, unlike that AI-generated deepfake “confession” video—that is actually audio—the nonsense that is being distributed among the more unseemly parts of the so-called erstwhile alternative media, this memoir contains Virginia’s actual account of, amongst others, her encounters with formerly Prince Andrew, including this passage from the book.

When Prince Andrew arrived at the townhouse that evening, Maxwell was more coquettish than usual. “Guess Jenna’s age,” she urged the prince, after she introduced me. The Duke of York, who was then forty-one, guessed correctly: seventeen. “My daughters are just a little younger than you,” he told me, explaining his accuracy. As usual, Maxwell was quick with a joke: “I guess we will have to trade her in soon.”

 

As we chatted in Maxwell’s entryway, I suddenly thought of something: my mom would never forgive me if I met someone as famous as Prince Andrew and didn’t pose for a picture. Excusing myself, I ran to get a Kodak FunSaver from my room, then returned and handed it to Epstein. I remember the prince putting his arm around my waist as Maxwell grinned beside me. Epstein snapped the photo.

 

We went to a restaurant for dinner and afterward to an exclusive London nightclub called Tramp. The prince went to the bar and came back with a cocktail for me. Then he invited me to dance. He was sort of a bumbling dancer, and I remember he sweated profusely. I had another drink, and the prince did too. We then headed back to Maxwell’s, again in two cars. On the way, Maxwell told me “When we get home, you are to do for him what you do for Jeffrey.”

 

Back at the house, Maxwell and Epstein said goodnight and headed upstairs, signaling it was time that I take care of the prince, In the years since, I’ve thought a lot about how he behaved. He was friendly enough, but still entitled—as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright, I took him first to a bathroom, where I drew him a hot bath.

 

We disrobed and got in the tub, but we didn’t stay there long because the prince was eager to get to the bed. He was particularly attentive to my feet, caressing my toes and licking my arches. That was a first for me, and it tickled. I was nervous he would want me to do the same to him. But I needn’t have worried. He seemed in a rush to have intercourse. Afterward, he said thank you in his clipped British accent. In my memory, the whole thing lasted less than half an hour.

Absolutely wretch-inducing. And one of the many things that makes that so particularly skin-crawlingly disgusting is that, yes, Virginia Roberts Giuffre—at that time, Virginia Roberts—was indeed underage when that event took place, documented by the fact that the photo developer printed the date of the development of the photo on the back of the photograph itself, something that would be trivial to prove or to disprove if that photograph were ever to emerge from the FBI evidence vault, where it has been locked away since the FBI took it off of Virginia many years ago.

But anyway, that being what it is, of course none of this can be true because, as we all know, the formerly Prince Andrew has a hitherto unknown-to-medical-science condition in which he is physically incapable of sweating.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, you’re absolutely sure that you’re at home on the 10th of March. She was very specific about that night. She described dancing with you and you profusely sweating and that she went on to have baths, possibly …

 

PRINCE ANDREW: There’s a slight problem with the sweating, because I … I … I have a peculiar medical condition, which is that I don’t sweat—or I didn’t sweat at the time, and that was—oh, actually, yes, I didn’t sweat at the time—because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War when I was shot at and I simply … it was … it was … it was almost impossible for me to … to sweat. And it’s only because I have done a number of things in the recent past that I’m starting to be able to do that again. So, I’m afraid to say that there’s a medical condition that says that I didn’t do it. So therefore …

 

SOURCE: Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal: The Newsnight Interview — BBC News

What is this? Who could be expected to believe such twaddle? Is this a cartoon? Is this some sort of South Park parody? Is this, even worse, the actual OJ Simpson case? One can imagine Johnny Cochran getting up there with the perspiration defense.”If he can’t perspire, he can’t conspire,” or something like that.

Anyway, if you can stomach those types of stories about people like that, then there are many more such stories in Nobody’s Girl. So, I will commend that to your attention as a book of interest, at the very least, for people who want more details—not only about the abuses, of course, but about Virginia’s life story and also how and when she chose to step forward and start pursuing this, and everything that ensued from that: the ABC News cover-up, of course, that we know about with Amy Roebuck and the hot mic and that incident, and the countersuits and lawsuits for defamation, and the settlement with Andrew, etc. All of that information is there from Virginia Giuffre’s perspective.

But yes, long story short, Andrew is not being stripped of his title and cast out of the royal family, or at least the royal line of succession, because he spent too much taxpayer money, as the Entitled biography might lead inattentive readers to surmise.

No, he is being cast out because, of course, he has been credibly accused—with photographic evidence and other types of evidence—of being a child predator and having a documented relationship to known child sex trafficker Epstein for years after Epstein’s conviction for those crimes.

And Epstein, who, by the way, bragged about Andrew as his “Super Bowl trophy,” and bragged that he was selling Andrew’s intel to Mossad. So, yes, it’s not even that which is the ostensible reason he’s being kicked out.

No, it’s because the public found out about all of that, and eventually the excuses stopped working and the public wanted wanted blood. So, they have thrown Andrew under the bus—and just like that, I guess we’re expected to believe, “Oh, good, the royal family has cleansed itself of this stain on their royal bloodline, and they can move on with their duties and business of ruling the world.”

I mean, after all, did you see that “viral moment” when Andrew attempted to speak to Prince William—and William politely nodded?

Wow. Well, if you didn’t see that viral moment, don’t worry. The establishment press will shove it in your face yet again. Wow. “Prince William and Prince Andrew’s Viral Awkward Moment Has Resurfaced Amid the Disgraced Royal’s Recent Drama.” This is proof positive that the royal family has really and truly had enough of Andrew and they’re not putting up with him anymore. So, they’re the good ones.

And in a way, throwing Andrew under the bus publicly like this, throwing him out of the royal line of succession, is actually good PR for the Windsors at this point. See, they’re a sensible British family. Yes, they’ll put up with quite a lot from their relatives, because blood is thicker than water and all of that stuff. But, at a certain point, once this true extent of someone’s depravity is revealed, like they have been with Randy Andy, he will be tossed out on his posterior, right? And there you go. The royal family maintains its cleanly image.

But of course that narrative is bunk. Not only because the royal family has known about Andrew and his predilections and what he gets up to behind closed doors for far longer than the general public has known that.

But secondly, what is his punishment exactly?

Oh, he’s being stripped of his title and won’t be able to profit off of HRH and Prince and Duke of York and all of that. Well, hmm.

But is he going to prison? No, hardly.

Is all of his property and goods that he has acquired over the course of these decades of his royal duties—is all of that being seized? No, of course not.

Is he being banished to a foreign country in exile to live in shame? No.

He’s getting banished alright, but it’s not to some swamp in the middle of nowhere. It’s to … Sandringham.

JOE ROGAN: He is now excluded from royal duties and public life, and his status has been dramatically reduced. His status has been reduced. Loss of titles and status. Eviction from royal lodge. Relocation to Sandringham Estate.

 

So, he’s relocated to an estate in the countryside. Look at this. Financial support. The king will provide for Andrew’s basic needs. Poor guy. That’s so sad. That’s so sad. They made him stay in that castle. Look how beautiful that place is. That is so nuts that this guy got kicked out of there.

 

BRIAN SIMPSON: Bro.

 

ROGAN: He got kicked out of wherever the f*** he was—the royal lodge.

 

SIMPSON: Unless they tell me his punishment is like—they give you that estate, but they take all the servants.

 

ROGAN: Bro, look at the gardener’s house. That’s the gardener’s house. That’s where the gardener lives. That f****** place is beautiful.

Oh, yes. Oh, poor Andrew. Oh, my God. How will he put up with it? It is laugh-not-to-cry-level satire that is masquerading as reality. But here we are. Yes, Andrew and Sarah are being kicked out of their spacious, accommodating mansion, Royal Lodge. And they’re being forced to go to the late queen’s favorite retreat, Sandringham Estate, which, yes, is literally “an estimated 20,000-acre estate with 600 acres of royal parkland and some 150 properties.”

But it’s “roughly 100 miles north of London.” So, I guess this is just the price that has to be paid as penance for Andrew’s crimes.

Now, to be fair, let’s correct the fake news. It’s not that Andrew and Sarah are going to move into Sandringham House. No, that’s, of course, where the current king and queen like to lodge when they’re visiting Sandringham. But one of the other 149 properties on the estate: York Cottage, perhaps, or Gardens House, or The Folly, or one of these other incredibly beautiful mansions that most people in Britain would work their entire lives and still not be able to afford anything near this level of luxury.

But, here you go, just by virtue of being born with the right blood in the right family, Andrew and Sarah Ferguson get to live this life. So, there you go. That’s what’s really happening. Don’t believe the lying liars of the mainstream press. “Oh, boy, they’re really sticking it to Andrew, guys. He’s really going to have a hard life now.” Yeah, I’m sure he’ll be boiling his own eggs for breakfast every morning, right? Something along those lines.

Anyway. That’s what’s really happening behind this PR mess. But you know what? OK, yeah, we get to see William basically not talking to Andrew. Wow, what a snub.

But what about Charles? What about King Charles? Why is it that the British press, to the extent that they talk about the royalty, seem to not even want to acknowledge King Charles’ existence?

Maybe it’s because he is an immensely and intensely unlikable human being who people do not have any affection for—with his sausage fingers, you know, trying to beckon his staff at a moment’s notice, etc. But beyond that, there are some very interesting and important questions that, if there were something approaching a real independent press in the UK, which we know that there is not, but if there were, they would be asking some very uncomfortable questions to Charles—not just about Andrew and Epstein, but about Charles himself and some of his connections.

Hopefully, I would assume most of the people in my audience and even some proportion of the general public will know at least one of the names that would come up in such an investigation. Because, of course, anyone who was actually paying attention when Jimmy Savile—a.k.a., the most prolific child predator and necrophile in the history of the world—was being exposed shortly after his death just over a decade ago, it was found that Sir Jimmy Savile, OBE, KCSG, didn’t just have a passing acquaintance with the royal family. No, he was actually a close personal friend and an advisor to the current king.

= = =

The public got a hint of what really goes on behind the royal family’s closed castle gates when the Jimmy Savile scandal first came to light a decade ago. If you are able to cast your mind back to the innocent days of 2012, you might recall that, at the time, the existence of high-level pedophile rings (let alone high-level necrophilic pedophile rings) was considered the stuff of total conspiracy lunacy.

You might also recall that the royal family’s relationship to Savile was certainly “problematic” (to use the kids’ lingo). But, given what the public then knew, not necessarily more problematic than the involvement of any of the other people who had cozied up to the monstrous pedophile during the course of his career.

Sure, the Queen had knighted Savile back in 1990, and any number of photographs could tell you that he was awfully chummy with Charles. Yet perhaps knighthood was to be expected, considering that he had seemingly dedicated much of his life to charity and had made many high-profile friends along the way.

In fact, the first hard questions about who knew what when about Savile were asked of the BBC, which certainly did know about the allegations many decades before the disgusting abuser finally died.

JON SNOW: One of the things that’s really interested me there was your view about Jimmy Savile and your knowledge at the time that it was going on.

 

JOHN LYDON: Yeah. Unfortunately, I think all of us—what we call “the peoples”—knew what was going on with the BBC.

 

SNOW: As bad as we now know it was?

 

LYDON: Yeah, we knew. We all knew.

 

SOURCE: John Lydon on Jimmy Savile and BBC

But over the years the “who could have known?” routine used by the Windsors’ defenders has become increasingly insupportable. First, there was the revelation that Savile was so close to the royal family that he was almost made Prince Harry’s godfather. Then came the increasingly damning reports on Savile’s close personal friendship with Charles, culminating in the release earlier this year of letters proving that the now-King of England regularly sought Savile’s advice on sensitive political matters.

= = =

That, of course, was a small clip from my Episode 443 on “Meet King Charles, The Great Resetter,” which, if you have not yet seen, I suggest you do. I think it’s highly relevant to our exploration today.

And while you’re at corbettreport.com, you might want to check out my previous edition of The Corbett Report podcast on “Political Pedophilia,” where—back a decade ago at this point [April 16, 2015]—I was talking about the Savile scandal as well as the Epstein scandal and how it ties into the heart of the British aristocracy.

But let’s continue this exploration because, as remarkable as it might seem, Jimmy Savile wasn’t Prince Charles’ only close personal friend, mentor, advisor who happened to be a pedophile. There are several to go through.

Let’s take a little inventory of the ones that we know about who are widely and totally acknowledged openly in even the establishment media. Let’s see what we come up with. Let’s see how many pedophiles King Charles has been associated with over his life.

We could start, for example, with his spiritual guru and someone that he looked up to all his life and great uncle of his, who he very much admired. And that was Lord Mountbatten. And if that name rings a bell, it might be because some of the FBI files that have come out on him recently to expose a little bit more about his life and his predilections than were known previously.

Specifically, we have this March 18, 2022, article from Irish Central: “FBI files allege Lord Mountbatten, murdered by the IRA, was a pedophile,” [subtitled] “FBI files on Prince Charles’ uncle, Lord Mountbatten, killed by an IRA bomb 41 years ago, describe him as ‘homosexual with a perversion for young boys.'”

Quote:

Throughout Lord Mountbatten’s life and in the years after he died in an IRA bombing on August 27, 1979, rumors swirled about his extramarital affairs. An FBI dossier on Mountbatten, released in 2019, thanks to a Freedom of Information request, reveals shocking information about the royal who was a mentor to his grandnephew, Prince Charles. The 75-year-old intelligence files describe Louis Mountbatten, the 1st Earl of Burma, and his wife Edwina as “persons of extremely low morals” and contain information suggesting that Lord Mountbatten was a pedophile with “a perversion for young boys.”

You can continue reading that report all the way down to the bottom, where it notes that “Prince Charles, who described Lord Mountbatten as ‘the grandfather I never had,’ visited the site of his assassination in 2015″—to pay his respects, no doubt.

Lovely. And more details on Mountbatten and what kind of person he was. You could find, for example, from TheJournal.ie: Again, completely establishment media sources: “New claims Mountbatten sexually abused children from notorious Belfast boys’ home.”

Quote:

A new book claims that boys were taken from a notorious Belfast children’s home to Lord Louis Mountbatten’s home in Co Sligo, where he then sexually abused them.

 

“Kinkora: Britain’s Shame” alleges that MI5 and the British political establishment have attempted to cover up his involvement in a paedophile ring which operated out of Kinkora Boy’s Hostel in East Belfast in the 1970s.

 

[…]

 

According to the book, five people claim that they were sexually abused and raped by Mountbatten, who was a great uncle to King Charles III.

And again, you can read more about Charles’ reverence and his affinity for Mountbatten, the person whom he very much looked up to.

But guess who Mountbatten just happened to be besties with? Oh, that’s right. Of course, Sir Jimmy Savile.

From this report, The Mountbatten Dossier:

Savile was a friend of Mountbatten. He once boasted: “Whenever it came to doing anything, he [Mountbatten] would say, ‘I’ll cut the ribbon, but get Savile down. He can do the speeches. He does it better than me.'”

 

Savile claims his handling of the press during inquiries about the purchase of expensive chandeliers by the Royal Marines so impressed Mountbatten that he decided he was an asset who should be embraced by the royal family. This is difficult, if not impossible, to believe. It is far more likely that their mutual pedophilia was the connecting glue.

And maybe some investigation into Savile and any relation he might’ve had with the Kinkora Boys’ Home would be a starting point for that particular investigation. But anyway.

Moving on from there, how much further does it go? Oh, it goes much further.

We’re already at two close personal associates of King Charles who have been exposed as pedophiles posthumously.

Why not a third? Here we go from The Guardian, 2001: “Secret life of royal guru revealed,” [subtitled] “Laurens van der Post, revered by Margaret Thatcher and Prince Charles, hid the fact he fathered a child with a girl of 14.”

Quote:

The official biography of Sir Laurens van der Post, the South African writer and late spiritual mentor of Prince Charles, is to reveal a life full of political intrigue, colourful fantasy, and the growing fear of scandal.

 

[…]

 

Documents found by the biographer J D F Jones have confirmed allegations that Van der Post had a secret child after an illicit affair with a 14-year-old girl.

You can read about the more details on that, or you can turn to the Irish Times, which has this post on “S African author Laurens van der Post dies in London,” which talks more about the relationship.

In recent years, he was known as Prince Charles’s spiritual guru and helped to develop his interest in alternative lifestyles and non-Christian religions.

In “alternative” lifestyles.

He was godfather to Prince William [GODFATHER to Prince William], the eldest son of Prince Charles and Princess Diana. He was reported to have more influence over the prince than any other person. A spokeswoman for Prince Charles said [upon Laurens van der Post’s death]: “His Royal Highness is very saddened by the death of Laurens van der Post, who has been a dear friend for a very long time.”

Hmm. Interesting. So, yeah. What’s the tally now? Yes, we’re now up to three. Three close personal friends, advisors, mentors, people who guided Prince Charles. The godfather to his firstborn son, the future king of England, also happened to be a pedophile. Interesting.

Can we keep it going? Oh, yes. Yes, we can.

How about this one from the Daily Mail just six years ago: “Paedophile priest called a saint by the Establishment and victim by Prince Charles, who gave him cash after police caught him.”

• Peter Ball is suspected of preying on more than 100 boys and young men
• He made his young victims roll in the snow naked or stand in freezing showers
• But when he faced investigation for abuse, judges and public school headmasters wrote to prosecutors protesting his innocence
• Prince Charles said disgraced bishop had been the victim of ‘monstrous wrongs’
• During enquiry, he [Charles] kept in contact with Ball and gave him small gifts of money

Quote:

He was a predatory pedophile bishop who for decades enjoyed the patronage and protection of the Establishment.

 

Sadistic Peter Ball is suspected of preying on more than 100 boys and young men in a 20-year reign of abuse.

 

[…]

 

[T]his included his highest-ranked friend, Prince Charles, who told the disgraced bishop he had been the victim of ‘monstrous wrongs.’

Etc., etc. You can read more about this bishop and the disgusting practices that he was involved in.

Again, a close personal friend, the person who took on the post of Charles’s spiritual guru after Laurens van der Post shuffled off this mortal coil, also happened to be a prolific pedophile. Interesting, isn’t it? Not one, not two, not three, but four prolific pedophiles happen to have been best friends, mentors, advisors to the current king of England.

And yet, despite the fact that, oh, you see how they’ve castigated Andrew [and banished him] from the family for his association with Epstein, but, oddly enough, we’re not hearing very much about Charles and his scandals. I wonder why that would be.

Well, obviously, of course, Britain is a completely controlled and locked-down country in which freedom of the press is completely and utterly a pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

And yet more evidence of that has just been reported on by the Gray Zone, which has a new report, “Files expose Britain’s secret D-Notice censorship regime” about the notices that the British government and military and intelligence are able to issue to squelch stories before they are published. And how often they are used in order to stop important information from getting out to the public.

But anyway, to have one close personal friend and mentor who just happens to be—just turns out to be—a pedophile may be a poor lapse of judgment on your part. To have four seems like a pattern that deserves to be investigated.

So, perhaps there is more with regards to the royal family and its protection of prolific political pedophiles operating at the highest rungs of society. Perhaps there is more to that connection than we have been led to believe hitherto. What do you think?

Of course, as always, I exhort you not to take my word for any of this. No, all of the notes, all of the links, everything that I have cited today will be in the show notes. Please do go and start researching this information for yourselves. I think there is some important information here, but I’d like to hear your thoughts. And if you are interested in sharing them, please go to corbettreport.com, where you can leave your comments in this particular episode of the podcast.

On that note, we’re going to leave today’s exploration here. I’m sure we will be returning to this subject, unfortunately, in the future as more details emerge. But that’s going to do it for today. I am James Corbett of corbettreport.com thanking you for investing your time in this investigation. And I’m looking forward to talking to you again in the near future.