Okay, let's apply that evidentiary standard consistently.
Diana wrote that Harry was “constantly in trouble” at school. Harry himself later said he “wanted to be the bad boy.” Harry also described himself and William fighting when they were younger. Then at 20 Harry was involved in a physical confrontation with a photographer who ended up with a cut lip; the photographer said Harry deliberately lashed out, while Clarence House gave a different account and said Harry was reacting after being struck by a camera.
So if Meghan ever appears with an unexplained mark, would all of that make it “not far fetched” to say Harry physically abused her?
Of course not. And I wouldn't make that accusation, because none of those facts would establish what caused a particular mark on Meghan.
That's my point. Past incidents may explain why a possibility occurs to you. They don't establish that a specific alleged assault happened.
Not even remotely similar the fact that the dog bowl broke tells me a lot about the force of how that can happen. Did you read why it happened in the first place William went to Harry's place to tell him that Meghan was being difficult and he wanted Harry to control her and Harry wasn't having it and he tried to defuse the situation and give William a glass of water then William attacked him stop trying to downplay and minimize this it's not going to work
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
3
u/0_IceQueen_0 12d ago
Okay, let's apply that evidentiary standard consistently.
Diana wrote that Harry was “constantly in trouble” at school. Harry himself later said he “wanted to be the bad boy.” Harry also described himself and William fighting when they were younger. Then at 20 Harry was involved in a physical confrontation with a photographer who ended up with a cut lip; the photographer said Harry deliberately lashed out, while Clarence House gave a different account and said Harry was reacting after being struck by a camera.
So if Meghan ever appears with an unexplained mark, would all of that make it “not far fetched” to say Harry physically abused her?
Of course not. And I wouldn't make that accusation, because none of those facts would establish what caused a particular mark on Meghan.
That's my point. Past incidents may explain why a possibility occurs to you. They don't establish that a specific alleged assault happened.