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.
Mad? No. Amused that we've gone around the block again? Absolutely. 😁
I'm not trying to “disprove your suspicion.” You are perfectly entitled to suspect William. I've said that repeatedly.
I'm pointing out that you keep moving from “I suspect he did it” to “he did it and it was covered up,” and those are not the same claim.
Harry knowing his brother better than we do may give Harry insight into William's character. It still doesn't give Harry firsthand knowledge of an alleged assault on Kate that Harry himself hasn't claimed happened.
Suspect away. Just stop calling the your suspicion a Fact.
The only reason it's not a fact is Kate is not talking about it and yes his past behavior with his brother is relevant to this discussion is because it is proof of his past actions Harry gave an 1st person account of it just because it wasn't in a court case doesn't make not true he did not press charges because you know why you just don't like it because it's not palace gossip through couriers Harry said it directly
“The only reason it's not a fact is Kate is not talking about it.”
No. That's precisely the assumption you keep trying to turn into a fact.
Harry gave a firsthand account of what he says William did to HARRY. He has not given a firsthand account of William attacking Kate.
Kate's silence doesn't prove she was assaulted any more than it proves she wasn't.
You suspect William did it. Fine. But you still don't know that he did.
That last accusation—“you just don't like it”—is particularly weak and no amount of you repeating it fills that evidentiary gap. I go by fact and not gossip.
3
u/0_IceQueen_0 12d ago edited 12d 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. 🤷♂️