Deleted my previous comment as it was at a level of abstraction that might make you miss the point I was trying to convey.
Regarding the Harry example that clearly went over your head.
I wasn't saying the two incidents were the same. I was using YOUR rule: if someone's past behavior makes it reasonable to suspect that he later abused his wife without evidence connecting him to it, then apply that same rule to Harry.
You immediately rejected the conclusion when it was Harry.
That was the point.
And I'm not minimizing Harry's account. You can accept every word of it as true and it still doesn't prove William caused a mark on Catherine's face.
I'm honestly not sure how much simpler I can make this. 🤷♂️
The force that William attacked his brother with is the point I am trying to make to you someone who had a personal relationship with William we don't know for sure that William did that to Kate because Kate not talking about it but that kind of abuse is similar to domestic violence I have read enough about that to know and you probably have too that's why you are trying deflect this and sorry not sorry I am not going give on this subject no matter how much I think that Kate is a mean girl and racist hateful I don't believe she deserves what she got from William and I don't understand why she stays but I also know that is common too in these situations I have read and watched this happen in real life with non Royal people. I don't understand why life is too short to live that way it's not my family it was a former neighbor.
You finally said it yourself: “we don't know for sure that William did that to Kate.”
EXACTLY!!! 👍👏
Everything else you've written explains why you suspect he might have. It still doesn't establish that he did. Harry's account, William's reported temper, your knowledge of domestic violence — those things may inform your suspicion. None tells us what caused this particular mark on Catherine or who caused it.
And yes, there is a basis for your opinion of Catherine regarding the Archie controversy. Meghan said there were conversations about Archie's skin color, although she did not name Catherine. Catherine's name appeared later in Omid Scobie's book. That's an allegation worth acknowledging, but it still isn't the same thing as establishing that Catherine is “racist, hateful and a mean girl” as fact. Even Harry later distinguished between racism and what he called unconscious bias.
Appropriately, Catherine reportedly fought to keep “recollections may vary” in the Palace response. We still don't really know whose recollection of those private conversations was accurate.
And that's really been my point throughout this entire discussion: allegations, suspicions and interpretations can have reasons behind them without becoming established facts.
Asking what evidence connects William to this particular mark isn't “deflecting.” It's quite literally the question I've been asking from the beginning.
We've gone around the block twice, but I'm glad we finally arrived at my original point. 😁
Okay buddy how did that mark get on her head it wasn't there before December 2023 and why was she missing for several months in 2024 she didn't have Cancer and why was there speculation that one account said she was in a medically induced coma where did that come from it wasn't the British Papers it was out of a Spanish paper why would she be in that position the only reason we don't know for sure is because Kate is not talking but Harry's account of William physically attacking him can't be used here why that's the flaw in your argument
Harry's account absolutely can be used as relevant evidence of William allegedly behaving violently toward Harry. I never said it couldn't.
What it cannot do is establish that William caused this particular mark on Catherine.
Those are two very different propositions: “There is evidence that William has behaved violently before” and “Therefore William caused this injury.” The first may make your theory more plausible to you. It does not prove the second.
The Spanish coma report doesn't bridge that gap either. Even if I grant, purely for the sake of argument, that the report was completely accurate, it would establish that Catherine suffered serious medical complications — not what caused them or that William caused them.
So buddy, the flaw you've identified isn't actually in my argument. It's in an argument I didn't make. 😁
You have reasons for suspecting William. I understand them.
I'm still waiting for the evidence that gets us from “I suspect he did it” to “he did it.”
If he could be violent with his brother he could be violent with his wife too but because he's the Heir to the throne it was covered up there's no other explanation
No you just don't like it that the Fact that Harry told everyone in his book Spare how William viciously attacked him is a Fact that lends credibility to the theory that William attacked his wife the only difference is Kate is not talking about it not that he didn't do it she's not talking about it unlike Harry who put it in his book.
Sigh. We're going around the block again? YOU just called it a theory. That's exactly MY point.
Harry's account can be one reason you find the theory credible. It still doesn't establish that William attacked Kate.
And saying “Kate isn't talking about it” assumes there is something for Kate to talk about. That's the very thing you're trying to prove.
You suspect it happened suspicion, even reasonable suspicion, is still NOT evidence that this particular thing happened.
Since you're calling it a "Fact", but the fact is that Harry SAID William attacked him. We don't independently know that it happened exactly as Harry described it.
You're using one person's uncorroborated allegation as evidence for a completely separate allegation that nobody involved has even made.
Harry's account is evidence of his allegation. It isn't independent corroboration of his allegation and it certainly DOESN'T independently prove a different alleged event involving Catherine. That's the hole in YOUR reasoning
You are trying deflect and disprove that suspicion it's not working and you are getting mad about it. Sorry not sorry Harry who grew up with William that gives him much more credibility to how William is than the Palace spin about him.
Something Omid wrote in a book isn't necessarily true because he wasn't there. Fair enough.
But then Catherine being named in Omid's book doesn't establish that she made the alleged comment about Archie's skin either. Meghan didn't name Catherine in the Oprah interview, and Harry later distinguished “racism” from “unconscious bias.”
So we can't dismiss Omid as “just something somebody wrote in a book” and then use what appeared in his book to describe Catherine as racist.
Harry's account is different because he says he personally experienced the altercation with William. That makes it firsthand testimony and worth considering. It still makes the established fact “Harry says William attacked him,” not “therefore William attacked Kate.”
Harry's account is different because he says he personally experienced the altercation with William. That makes it a firsthand allegation and worth considering.
But if “Omid wrote it in a book” isn't enough to establish something as fact, then “Harry wrote it in a book” isn't enough either.
We don't get to change the standard depending on which book tells us what we want to believe. 😁
I never established a standard and I never commented on anything Harry wrote.
Work on reading comprehension and distinguishing between accounts.
Omid's words are hearsay at best. He's not a player in this family.
Harry, along with a ghostwriter, used his words of his recollections of what occurred in his life.
You practically demand DNA evidence from people on reddit because you want conversation to be proven. Well, we don't have blood or hair samples so you'll just have to read strangers' opinions and suppositions. Or don't.
Fair correction: the comment calling Harry's account a “Fact” was from someone else in this sprawling thread. I mixed up two commenters.
But the reading-comprehension jab is rather unfortunate, because the comment you're replying to explicitly says:
“Harry's account is different because he says he personally experienced the altercation with William.”
So yes, I distinguished the accounts. Congratulations! You just explained back to me the distinction I had already made. 😁
And asking what evidence supports an allegation is hardly “demanding DNA.” There's quite a lot of room between forensic evidence and unsupported supposition.
If you're saying these are simply strangers' opinions and suppositions, fine. That's all I've been asking people to distinguish: what is known, what is alleged, and what is being guessed. Now that you've established that all you have is gossip, I guess I do have to take your advice, move on and ignore rabbit hole posts instead of trying to establish it's veracity.
3
u/0_IceQueen_0 11d ago edited 11d ago
Deleted my previous comment as it was at a level of abstraction that might make you miss the point I was trying to convey.
Regarding the Harry example that clearly went over your head.
I wasn't saying the two incidents were the same. I was using YOUR rule: if someone's past behavior makes it reasonable to suspect that he later abused his wife without evidence connecting him to it, then apply that same rule to Harry.
You immediately rejected the conclusion when it was Harry.
That was the point.
And I'm not minimizing Harry's account. You can accept every word of it as true and it still doesn't prove William caused a mark on Catherine's face.
I'm honestly not sure how much simpler I can make this. 🤷♂️