04-18-2017, 05:48 PM
(04-18-2017, 05:03 PM)irukandji Wrote: Woulda, coulda, shoulda.......it's all assumption. It's just as easy to say that Nick and Diana never bonded over the 20 years as it is to say they did.
(04-18-2017, 11:36 AM)Circe27 Wrote: I know Juliette says she didn't know that Kenneth planned to kill Kelly to get Diana, but I think she's dumber than I thought possible if she didn't realize that was his intention. I don't know how she thought they were going to get Diana from Kelly without a fight or that Kelly would just give up and let them have her. That was pure stupidity on her part for believing that since she already knew about the royals and how they operate. Once the fight started, she was standing in the doorway listening to Kelly get beat, taken outside and still didn't intervene, she couldn't plead innocence/ignorance anymore.
And this is exactly what I mean. Why would the argument that Diana wouldn't call Nick, "Dad" be any different?
From what I'm gathering, these two debates are different. Juliette is being called a moron here for not realizing Kelly's life was in danger. Even more so when Kelly was being ambushed downstairs.
No one has called Diana an idiot for referring to Nick as Dad. I see that you feel differently but Juliette not considering the royals would kill Kelly is more unbelievable to me than Diana calling Nick Dad after twenty years. I'm guessing we disagree on this point.
However, the facts haven't changed. They said Juliette didn't know and Diana was referring to Nick when she said Dad. I can question their motives for doing so and how it was presented because this matters in terms of quality. I really like having these types of debates. But, it doesn't change what happened. I think we can agree that it's unbelievable on how they tried to sell us on certain story lines. Even the ones where we have different opinions about the outcome.