Thanks
@Oohthedrama for the new thread, and thanks to the title giver.
The thing which seems to shake peoples ''faith'' seems to be the fact that W/K lawyers reacted to the affair rumours.
What it implies is that the motives are a ''cover up'' or silencing because of W/K.
The other part gets missed, namely the importance of the position of Rose's Husband, who is actually a close person to a Monarch as a Lord Great Chamberlain.
The affair rumours impacting W/K is one thing, the other part is that they create a possible media narrative of a ''man who laid down his wife for his country" a similar situation as with Andrew Parker Bowles.
And I think that nipping this in the bud(at least in MSM) is a good idea.
I don't think that there would be a reaction if the alleged affair was Sally Percy(fictive, random aristocrat)
As mentioned before the stans do research, collect info, and use resources from past anti-Kate(staunchly pro ''blood Royal" fans) and people being generally insufficiently informed enables them to believe, and be ''shaken'' by a stan.
Factual, but random example from Kate haters:
William leaves Kate to attend Jecca's brother wedding.
He loves her(they never dated as adults and had a kids ''engagement" romance)
Kate is stalking him, he dumped her, so she infiltrates a wedding via her ''circles."
Logic?
Yep.
The reality:
They attended the weddings separately because William would know, and be advised not to attend a wedding which was sold to a tabloid.
It was OK for Kate to attend as a girlfriend, not OK for the future King, because it creates what?
A precedent actually.
So they divided ''duties"' without giving the tabloids ammo about a King attending a ''sellout'' wedding, (Peter Philips)
Yep, stans and haters, same BS.