Posted on 03/01/2024 3:09:14 PM PST by RummyChick
That was what was re4ported and the inquest began TWO DAYS LATER!
The ONLY people talking about 1) Tom was killed by William 2) William was injured when he attacked Catherine 3) William is going to be arrested 4) Catherine had an hysterectomy 5) Catherine NEVER had any surgery 6) Catherine in is a coma 7) other BS....ARE VIDEO SUGARS, GOSSIP RAGS, AND ANTI-ROYAL PAPERS SUCH AS THE GUARDIAN !
What is meant by "trauma to the head", is the gun shot/s!
Took one for the truth,by watching utter complete garbage spewed by a bunch of damned SUGARS and idiots on American T.V. gossips! O-M-G...what torture! None of these people know even one factual anything at all!
Yet YOU fell for these speculative abominations, spread by people who are NOBODIES, who know NOTHING!
Do you believe that William attacked Catherine and/or killed Tom?
That Catherine NEVER had surgery of any kind?
That William did not go to the memorial of his Godfather, but instead, went out drinking, at some unnamed pub, and got BLOTTO with friends?
And yes, I sat through hearing even more and worse crude, just for YOU!
Re William and cancer......
Though no, cancer isn't "catching", like measles, mumps,and chicken pox used to be, pre-vaccinations that work, the presence of cancer in families DOES make one susceptible to one having it, in my opinion. Some of them, such as breast cancer have proven links to a certain gene. Others, such as esophageal cancer, can be caused by life choices, but also an inherited link to having GERD and/or an Hiatal hernia left unfound and/or untreated.
Prince Williams grandmother died from bone cancer. His father has some form of cancer, but where/which kind has not been exposed to the public. Does THAT mean that he will get cancer? Just because someone he flew with had it, does NOT mean that he WILL have it too; no matter WHAT you may think!
<< Anne is a TREASURE; that’s for certain!>>
Really impressive at her Mothers funeral. I’m sure the Queen is disappointed Anne wasn’t the oldest.
Philip was a lousy father, when it came to Charles. He never took Charles's personality and wished into consideration, forced him to go to schools that were all wrong for Charles, but which Philip had loved and flourished at.And....worst of all, forbade Charles from marrying is first and ONLY love...Camila, sent him away for over a year, and later made him marry Diana, who was ALL WRONG for Charles AND the nation!
I didn’t know that was Philips doing. I just assumed the school and even the wife were the way it had to be…..
Those Spencer’s are right up there in the rankings. I’ll look for the name tomorrow. There’s a wonderful you tube about Charles Spencer and their Althorp house….Excellent history, you’ll love it !
Lady Georgina, the Duchess of Devonshire was a precursor of Lady Di...beautiful but nuts!
Di's father was a an out and out rotter and adulterer AND wife beater! And her grandfather was also a nut case.
Besides being spoiled to death by his mother, Harry is also quite dumb! Di was NOT well educated and no, she also was NOT intelligent! Oh she was manipulative, cunning, vengeful, and NUTS; however, intelligent...NEVER!
OTOH...no matter WHAT others may think/say...Camila is very intelligent, well educated, not bad looking when she was young, shares many common interests with Charles, and supposedly quite kind, charming, and very nice as a person.
Philip did NOT like her.
Charles HATED the boarding school he was sent to; it was absolutely THE wrong fit for him, in every single way AND prince or no prince, he WAS bullied there!
Then his father sent him off to the same college he had gone to and loved. Anne and Andrew also went there. But once again, it was NOT the right fit for Charles, at all!
Though Anne is quite like her mother, when it comes to doing her duty and doing it well, she IS her father's daughter in a lot of ways and was the apple of his eye!
I've seen the documentary, on PBS, about Althorp as well as one with Charles Spencer. It this a different one? I've also seen a YouTube one.
Can’t say which this is. Charles, Diana’s brother does a tour and spouts Spencer history better than a text book. He appears to be the best Spencer so far altho there is a lot of gossip on him also. I’ve watched it more than once and I come aways liking him. They kept Geo. Washington’s family afloat when they hit on hard times. They are also connected to the Duke of Marlborough, his wife is another good piece of history and the reason the Spencer’s were able to carry on. That might be talked about in this episode.
Who was the queen who turned England into The United Kingdom…….was it Anne ? My memory fails me. Anyhow…..the Dukes wife was her favorite, she was savvy politically and ended up with more money than the queen…I think it’s Lady Marlborough and the Duke who have the only house that is a called a “palace” besides royals….take a look, see if it’s the one you saw, I’m sure you’ll be pleased….then look up the one on Marlborough who won the war that made England become the United Kingdom ……enjoy
The first Duke and Duchess of Marlborough...John and Sarah Churchill are two of my favorite historical figure!I saw the PBS series and read the book about them, written by Winston Churchill.
Blenheim is the "palace" that the Queen gave the land for, to John Churchill, who was a gallant and brilliant general.
Sarah was brilliant, beautiful, NOT a lesbian ( damned stupid move that was recently made about her and yes, Queen Anne...all lies and uber WOKE crap! ), and extremely politically savvy! She was already a member of the court, when John met her for the first time. She was a Spencer through her paternal grandmother.
<< Blenheim is the “palace>>
Yes yes, that’s it…..a really good story. It’s a real shame how they just rewrite history. I know Sarah and the queen had a falling out but I never for one minute believed the queer crap. It’s sad cause if you’re young or new to this, you look things up and you get bogus info that’s put out there to fit some morons agenda…I’ve noticed lately they are even ruining archeology….they say anything they want and then try to present it as fact. When you check these people out they are called “interpretive archeologists”….
It’s no wonder there’s 50 opinions on the once simple thing like line of succession.
I’ve seen so many of these castle, manor houses shows I start getting them confused……they cover so many of my interests….history, royals of old, the houses themselves. 500/600 years of one family in one house it boggles the mind. And the records they keep Holy cow, the genealogist in me goes into overdrive……
No I do not. A gun beside the body does not mean a gun shot wound in the head. The inquest report does not state gunshot wound to the head. For example a traumatic wound to the head could be he was hit in the head with an axe and the gun he was holding fell to the ground next to him. There is a poster on this thread that is playing fast and loose with the facts like claiming the inquest report said suicide. It did not.
It may or may not be suicide but whatever happened is something we don’t know yet forensically.
You keep changing your story. You said the inquest report said suicide. It does not.
Not quite right. Regency Act says Harry would be Regent then Andrew etc. Anything different would have to be voted on. They technically would not be removed from succession line. So let’s say anne is voted to be Regent. Williams entire line dies In a plane crash. Anne does not become Queen. HARRY BECOMES KING.
at least that is the way I read that 16 page document
The self proclaimed expert on the thread that said Catherine automatically is regent is wrong. William cant wave his hand and make Catherine or even anne automatic Regent
You are playing fast and lose with the facts
Once again..the inquest report does not say suicide and it does not say gun shot wound to the head.
A gun beside the body does not automatically mean gunshot wound to head and it does not automatically mean suicide.
A post mortem report has been ordered to determine cause of death.
So as the law stands ...an underage king George would have prince harry as Prince Regent unless prince harry is disqualified. Prince harry can easily change his domicile.
Any other claim people are making is not true. All anyone has to do is read the Regency act.
Parliament would have to act to remove Prince Harry who is the next adult in line. If he is disqualified prince andrew would be Regent...and so forth. Pushing him aside for regent doesnt mean Regent becomes king. For example..prince Phillip would not have been King if underage king charles had died. If all of Williams line dies Harry is King even if he wasn’t Prince Regent.
William has no say in whether harry becomes king upon the death of Williams line.
King William cannot remove Harry’s birth right.
It would be twisted but George Gently would have solved it.
Hercules Poirot would have used his little grey cells and solved it.
Inspector Morse would have downed a lot of local brew and solved it.
Inspector Lewis would have teased his partner Hathaway and both would have solved it.
Fred Thursday and Endeavour would have solved it as Thursday goes bad and Endeavour looks constantly pained.
Father Brown would have solved it on His bike.
Miss Marple would have solved it over tea while annoying the local police.
Indeed, all masters at their craft..
but now in the real world they’ll write if off as suicide and all go home early….leaving everyone shocked and saddened…
<< Not quite right. Regency Act says Harry would be Regent then Andrew etc>>
I’m not in the mood to research now, I’m going by what I remember (which isn’t much these days, I admit) If I recall regency doesn’t simply happen, it goes thru a process when needed. I’m sure with the next 2 princes in line who both disgraced the crown and were stripped of their titles by the queen herself ….neither one would be allowed. The English would do a repeat of Charles the first before that would happen.
The American bride will have to dream on !
Let’s all hold a good thought for the safety and well being of the young family…then none of this will matter.
We need to worry about our own royalty…..Letitia and Fani
Okay, I will try one more time....
I was referring to the writing error in the piece; I have no quarrel with the logic of the narrative.
The redundant portion is contained within what I quoted:
Alongside his body, a gun was found near to his body....
So we have “Alongside his body” and “near to his body” in the same sentence. Just one of these phrases, not both, should have been used.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.