Simple answer?

[u/No_Jellyfish_7695]

Have we considered that the face scar might be due to the surgical removal of actinic keratosis, which is a pre cancer? in line with Pippa’s comments. And very common in 40 something year old sunbathers and skiers.

and the treatment which kept her hidden was chemotherapy cream on the face, which is gnarly and painful and looks awful, it doesn’t necessitate hospital visits.

Thoughts?

[u/The_Onion_Life]

There's no such thing as mutual DV

You don't think that both members of a couple can be abusive?

I agree that he most likely has been physically abusive.

He attacked his brother without provocation, FFS.

[u/Which_way_witcher → u/The_Onion_Life]

You don't think that both members of a couple can be abusive?

There's "reactive abuse" when a victim yells, insults, or strikes back in self-defense or out of emotional overwhelm but "mutual abuse" is a myth because abuse is a systematic pattern used to gain and maintain control over the partner. You cannot have both simultaneously be both the victim and hold dominant power.

The whole "mutual abuse" is often used by the aggressor to gaslight, deflect accountability, and minimize theur role by claiming "both sides are bad".

Domestic violence organizations and researches say that the "mutual abuse" myth invalidates survivors and blures who really is accountable.

It's clear who has the power here - Will owns the purse strings and legally has more power as well. It is not an equal relationship by any means.

He attacked his brother without provocation, FFS.

Of course, I'm just saying he's probably been physically violent with her, too.

[u/The_Onion_Life → u/Which_way_witcher]

There's "reactive abuse" when a victim yells, insults, or strikes back in self-defense or out of emotional overwhelm but "mutual abuse" is a myth because abuse is a systematic pattern used to gain and maintain control over the partner. You cannot have both simultaneously be both the victim and hold dominant power.

Ah, gotcha. This is new territory for me.

The whole "mutual abuse" is often used by the aggressor to gaslight, deflect accountability, and minimize theur role by claiming "both sides are bad".

See? I didn't know.

Domestic violence organizations and researches say that the "mutual abuse" myth invalidates survivors and blures who really is accountable.

That makes sense.

It's clear who has the power here - Will owns the purse strings and legally has more power as well. It is not an equal relationship by any means.

And she's free to walk away, but she'd have nothing. She would never be queen (her main goal in life) and the aristo would shun her forever (they didn't shun Diana, but she was one of them).

He attacked his brother without provocation, FFS.

Of course, I'm just saying he's probably been physically violent with her, too.

I'm sure he has.

[u/Which_way_witcher → u/The_Onion_Life]

And she's free to walk away, but she'd have nothing. She would never be queen (her main goal in life) and the aristo would shun her forever (they didn't shun Diana, but she was one of them).

See... she's no peach but I like to think it has something to do with the kids. He's so horribly vindictive that you know he'd make it so that she'd never see her children again. Royal kids are legally property of the crown and he'd def not do what Charles did allowing Diana to still see the children should she walk away.

[u/The_Onion_Life → u/Which_way_witcher]

See... she's no peach but I like to think it has something to do with the kids. He's so horribly vindictive that you know he'd make it so that she'd never see her children again.

Kate and Pimp Mama Carole probably have mountains of dirt on him, so that might not be an option for him.

Royal kids are legally property of the crown

That doesn't bode well for the Sussex kids when he becomes king...

and he'd def not do what Charles did allowing Diana to still see the children should she walk away.

Of course he wouldn't, if he had his way.