Prince Harrys Real Father

unclejunior

I was having a couple of pints with an old timer the other night and he was complaining about the royal visit. He mentioned that the royal family was ''full of b.astards'' and that Prince Charles isnt even Prince Harrys father. He alledged Prince Harrys father is an Irisman from Derry called James Hewitt who had an affair with Princess Diana. I googled it and was shocked to find that this is supposedly true.

Mahatma coat

tisa an interestin proposition alright, anyone know how many of the Previous generations of Royals were ginger???

Brown Bomber

Mahatma coat wrote: »

tisa an interestin proposition alright, anyone know how many of the Previous generations of Royals were ginger???

William of Orange anyway.

Green Back

Dont usually agree with you conspiracy nuttjobs, but I think you're right about this one.

My name is URL

Green Back wrote: »

Dont usually agree with you conspiracy nuttjobs, but I think you're right about this one.

Well aren't you just adorable!

Anyhoo, the guy is the spitting image of Hewitt but there's no real way to know whether he's the father or not. Hewitt has denied it many times over

Green Back

My name is URL wrote: »

Well aren't you just adorable!

Anyhoo, the guy is the spitting image of Hewitt but there's no real way to know whether he's the father or not. Hewitt has denied it many times over

ician

Worth noting that Diana's brother Earl Spencer is a red head also.

Green Back

ician wrote: »

Worth noting that Diana's brother Earl Spencer is a red head also.

Nobody's perfect

Johnny Favourite

Former cavalry officer James Hewitt today denied he was Prince Harry's father.
Hewitt, who was Diana, Princess of Wales's secret lover for five years, admitted people did compare Harry's looks with his own but stated categorically: "There really is no possibility whatsoever that I am Harry's father. I can absolutely assure you that I am not."
Hewitt chose an interview in the Sunday Mirror to put on record for the first time his denial of the persistent rumours. He said: "I can understand the interest but Harry was already walking by the time my relationship with Diana began."
Hewitt added: "Admittedly the red hair is similar to mine and people say we look alike. "I have never encouraged these comparisons and although I was with Diana for a long time I must state once and for all that I'm not Harry's father.
"When I first met Diana, Harry was already a toddler." Referring to portraits by fashion photographer Mario Testino taken to mark the Prince's 18th birthday a week ago, Hewitt said: "Looking at the pictures I have to say he's a much more handsome chap than I ever was."

Hewitt added: "I have been aware for a while that the issue of Harry's paternity has been a major talking point." But he said he did not meet the Princess, who died in 1997, until two years after Harry was born.
St James' Palace declined to comment on Hewitt's interview.

In a book by Diana's former police bodyguard Ken Wharfe, the rumours are also rubbished. Wharfe, who worked at Diana's side for six years, said the gossip used to upset the Princess.
He said in his book: "The malicious rumours that still persist about the paternity of Prince Harry used to anger Diana greatly.
"The nonsense should be scotched here and now. Harry was born on September 15, 1984. Diana did not meet James until the summer of 1986, and the red hair gossips so love to cite as proof is, of course, a Spencer trait."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-139425/Hewitt-I-Harrys-father.html

so there you have it.

ician

Johnny Favourite wrote: »

Former cavalry officer James Hewitt today denied he was Prince Harry's father.
Hewitt, who was Diana, Princess of Wales's secret lover for five years, admitted people did compare Harry's looks with his own but stated categorically: "There really is no possibility whatsoever that I am Harry's father. I can absolutely assure you that I am not."
Hewitt chose an interview in the Sunday Mirror to put on record for the first time his denial of the persistent rumours. He said: "I can understand the interest but Harry was already walking by the time my relationship with Diana began."
Hewitt added: "Admittedly the red hair is similar to mine and people say we look alike. "I have never encouraged these comparisons and although I was with Diana for a long time I must state once and for all that I'm not Harry's father.
"When I first met Diana, Harry was already a toddler." Referring to portraits by fashion photographer Mario Testino taken to mark the Prince's 18th birthday a week ago, Hewitt said: "Looking at the pictures I have to say he's a much more handsome chap than I ever was."

Hewitt added: "I have been aware for a while that the issue of Harry's paternity has been a major talking point." But he said he did not meet the Princess, who died in 1997, until two years after Harry was born.
St James' Palace declined to comment on Hewitt's interview.

In a book by Diana's former police bodyguard Ken Wharfe, the rumours are also rubbished. Wharfe, who worked at Diana's side for six years, said the gossip used to upset the Princess.
He said in his book: "The malicious rumours that still persist about the paternity of Prince Harry used to anger Diana greatly.
"The nonsense should be scotched here and now. Harry was born on September 15, 1984. Diana did not meet James until the summer of 1986, and the red hair gossips so love to cite as proof is, of course, a Spencer trait."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-139425/Hewitt-I-Harrys-father.html

so there you have it.

From his wiki article -

"However, in 2005 he was hypnotised for a television programme aired on Five (James Hewitt: Under Hypnosis) in which he told "past-life regressionist" Tony Rae that his affair with Diana had begun earlier than he had previously stated, commencing in 1982, not 1986. Prince Harry was born in 1984."

Da Shins Kelly

I don't think it's true, and it's proabably a bit upsetting for the lad to have to hear it. Even if Hewitt is his biological father, Charles raised him, so he's more of a father to him.

w0bbles

This is a gr8 thread,, its been a few years since Iv seen Hewitt and just the other day i was talkin to me missus about this subject,,, she of course said no way,,, Charles is the father ! ! ! i cant wait to show her this image when she comes in lol. Well done:rolleyes:

Talk E

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I don't think it's true, and it's proabably a bit upsetting for the lad to have to hear it. Even if Hewitt is his biological father, Charles raised him, so he's more of a father to him.

Prince Charles doesn't strike me as the snuggle up on the couch with the family type of guy. Diana on the other hand does, any due credit goes to her in my book, her and the butlers/nannies.

I reckon it wouldnt be as upsetting for the lad to discover his real dad as it was to discover that his pretend dad ordered the killing of his mother.

Da Shins Kelly

Talk E wrote: »

Prince Charles doesn't strike me as the snuggle up on the couch with the family type of guy. Diana on the other hand does, any due credit goes to her in my book, her and the butlers/nannies.

I reckon it wouldnt be as upsetting for the lad to discover his real dad as it was to discover that his pretend dad ordered the killing of his mother.

Oh sh*t. I forgot. This is the conspiracy theory forum. I probably shouldn't try to explain that sometimes things just are what they seem.

ician

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Oh sh*t. I forgot. This is the conspiracy theory forum. I probably shouldn't try to explain that sometimes things just are what they seem.

Ah there is your mistake! Wrong forum, try the 'Everything is as it Seems' forum under Soc! :P

BengaLover

omg...Them royals are all at it..

Talk E

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Oh sh*t. I forgot. This is the conspiracy theory forum. I probably shouldn't try to explain that sometimes things just are what they seem.

Looks like you remembered just in time.

Yes things are what they seem, from our individual perspectives.

You should visit the ct forum more often, you are a great addition.

Da Shins Kelly

Talk E wrote: »

Looks like you remembered just in time.

Yes things are what they seem, from our individual perspectives.

You should visit the ct forum more often, you are a great addition.

I think most of the time things are what they seem. Some people are far too keen to see the bad side of everything. Cynicism really, in my opinion. In this case, I'd say that Hewitt is not Harry's da, and Diana was not killed by the Royal Family. Charles is the da, and Diana was killed through reckless driving and insane paparazzi. Simple as. Nothing more to it, in my opinion. Sometimes you just have to take it for what it is.

My name is URL

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I think most of the time things are what they seem. Some people are far too keen to see the bad side of everything. Cynicism really, in my opinion. In this case, I'd say that Hewitt is not Harry's da, and Diana was not killed by the Royal Family. Charles is the da, and Diana was killed through reckless driving and insane paparazzi. Simple as. Nothing more to it, in my opinion. Sometimes you just have to take it for what it is.

There is a resemblance between Hewitt and Harry though, don't you think? Maybe it's just the power of suggestion at play, but I can definitely see a likeness.

Then there's this - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2005/09/19/hypno-di-sed-115875-16147029/

He said, while under hypnosis; that his affair with Diana started in 1982, just months after Diana's wedding to Charles.

Talk E

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I think most of the time things are what they seem. Some people are far too keen to see the bad side of everything. Cynicism really, in my opinion. In this case, I'd say that Hewitt is not Harry's da, and Diana was not killed by the Royal Family. Charles is the da, and Diana was killed through reckless driving and insane paparazzi. Simple as. Nothing more to it, in my opinion. Sometimes you just have to take it for what it is.

Yes it would seem like that if you listen to the mainstream news.
Then when you look into it you find that Diana wrote a letter to her friend 4 years prior to the accident stating that her husband was planning an accident in her car.

Admittedly 4 years is a long time between writing the note and the accident occurring to make a positive connection.

But the fact that she thought the establishment were capable of murdering her speaks volumes.

Wouldn't you agree ?

Da Shins Kelly

My name is URL wrote: »

There is a resemblance between Hewitt and Harry though, don't you think? Maybe it's just the power of suggestion at play, but I can definitely see a likeness.

Then there's this - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2005/09/19/hypno-di-sed-115875-16147029/

He said, while under hypnosis; that his affair with Diana started in 1982, just months after Diana's wedding to Charles.

I think it's completely the power of suggestion. People love the idea of scandal with the Royal Family, particularly Diana, and I think people love the idea that she defied them in every way possible, from calling them out on national television to having numerous relationships with different "undesirables". The idea that she spawned an illegitimate Prince is just part of this love of the idea of a fiesty woman upstaging the royals at every turn. I also don't think that hypnosis thing is very reliable. Publicity, nothing else. Hewitt's been milking his relationship with Diana since it all came to light, and still does years after her death.

Da Shins Kelly

Talk E wrote: »

Yes it would seem like that if you listen to the mainstream news.
Then when you look into it you find that Diana wrote a letter to her friend 4 years prior to the accident stating that her husband was planning an accident in her car.

Admittedly 4 years is a long time between writing the note and the accident occurring to make a positive connection.

But the fact that she thought the establishment were capable of murdering her speaks volumes.

Wouldn't you agree ?

There is no legitimate reason for them to murder her. She wasn't a terrorist or any kind of threat to the state. All she did was make fools of members of the Royal Family. Hardly a death sentence offence. As romantic and appealing the idea of this lone woman defying convention and going against the traditions of one of the most famous families in the world in front of millions of people only to be murdered to 'shut her up', I just don't think that it's very realistic.

Talk E

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

There is no legitimate reason for them to murder her.

That you know of.

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

She wasn't a terrorist or any kind of threat to the state. All she did was make fools of members of the Royal Family. Hardly a death sentence offence. As romantic and appealing the idea of this lone woman defying convention and going against the traditions of one of the most famous families in the world in front of millions of people only to be murdered to 'shut her up', I just don't think that it's very realistic.

What you think is irrelevant.

Diana knew they wanted her dead by car accident. And she was sure enough to write it down and send it to a friend just in case.

That tells me what kind of folk they are and what they are capable of.

Call me a nutty conspiracy theorist but instead of listening to what you think you think about something and someones you know absolutely nothing about, I'll listen to Diana who knew the Royals very well, and despised them.

Richard tea

Talk E wrote: »

That you know of.



What you think is irrelevant.

Diana knew they wanted her dead by car accident. And she was sure enough to write it down and send it to a friend just in case.

That tells me what kind of folk they are and what they are capable of.

Call me a nutty conspiracy theorist but instead of listening to what you think you think about something and someones you know absolutely nothing about, I'll listen to Diana who knew the Royals very well, and despised them.

Can you retype what the note says. I cant make out most of it. Thank you

Talk E

Richard tea wrote: »

Can you retype what the note says. I cant make out most of it. Thank you

Life danger

husband

planning accident car.

I used to have trouble reading joined up writing too.

Talk E

oh, it was only 10 months between the note and her accident. :eek:

Written 10 months before the car crash, she writes:

“This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. X” (and the name’s blacked out) “is planning an accident in my car – brake failure and serious injury, in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry”.

According to Piers Morgan, editor of the Daily Mirror and self-confessed Diana sceptic, the letter increases pressure on the Government to hold an inquest into Diana’s death.

PIERS MORGAN: If people in the Royal Family or the British establishment want to stop the conspiracy theories raging out of control following today’s publication of this letter, then they need to have an inquest and have a formal inquiry, in my view.

http://www.conspirazzi.com/?p=227

Da Shins Kelly

Talk E wrote: »

That you know of.



What you think is irrelevant.

Diana knew they wanted her dead by car accident. And she was sure enough to write it down and send it to a friend just in case.

That tells me what kind of folk they are and what they are capable of.

Call me a nutty conspiracy theorist but instead of listening to what you think you think about something and someones you know absolutely nothing about, I'll listen to Diana who knew the Royals very well, and despised them.

Yes, she despised them, but at this stage of her life I wouldn't be surprised if she was completely delusional. She was probably paranoid as f*ck, what with the paparazzi following her all the time, everyone trying to get into her life and the royals probably had their 'people' have a word with her, but I seriously doubt that they orchestrated her murder. Yes, Diana knew the royals well, but that doesn't mean that her word is to be trusted simply because she's Diana. If I'd been in the position she was in at that time her life, I'd have probably been locked in the mental asylum. I'm not saying the royals are perfect and did nothing wrong (I happen to have a pretty low opinion of the lot of them, except Harry), but I just don't think that there was any legit reason to have her killed. It was a tragic accident, in my opinion (and this is all just opinion).

(On a side note, I'm enjoying this debate quite a bit. It's a healthy and refreshing break from AH! )

Talk E

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Yes, she despised them, but at this stage of her life I wouldn't be surprised if she was completely delusional. She was probably paranoid as f*ck, what with the paparazzi following her all the time, everyone trying to get into her life and the royals probably had their 'people' have a word with her, but I seriously doubt that they orchestrated her murder. Yes, Diana knew the royals well, but that doesn't mean that her word is to be trusted simply because she's Diana. If I'd been in the position she was in at that time her life, I'd have probably been locked in the mental asylum. I'm not saying the royals are perfect and did nothing wrong (I happen to have a pretty low opinion of the lot of them, except Harry), but I just don't think that there was any legit reason to have her killed. It was a tragic accident, in my opinion (and this is all just opinion).

(On a side note, I'm enjoying this debate quite a bit. It's a healthy and refreshing break from AH! )

I'm glad your having a good time lol.

However I find it quite amusing that you make your big entrance into the CT forum with your holier than thou attitude stating the following..

Oh sh*t. I forgot. This is the conspiracy theory forum. I probably shouldn't try to explain that sometimes things just are what they seem

When you are not in possession of the most basic of facts regarding Diana's death.

And this is a common problem with mainstream news viewers.

The official verdict from Diana's inquest was "Unlawful Killing", not "accident". Hence the title of the new documentary.

"Unlawful Killing" legalese for Murder

TashaMonster

If this story is true then I have lost all respect for Diana, its one thing to have an affair, (they were both at it so I wont judge them for that) but it's a complete other level of betrayal to get pregnant by another man and tell your husband he is the father.

Even if we consider that Charles has known the truth all along it's still disgusting behaviour by both Diana and Charles to lie to Harry about who his real father was, robbing him of the chance to know and create a bond with this man.

If Diana was so miserable as we are led to believe surely leaking this info would've been her get out of jail card.

caseyann

Nah they all have the signs of the balding genetics on the top of the head.YOu can see it in both the sons.

Talk E

TashaMonster wrote: »

If this story is true then I have lost all respect for Diana, its one thing to have an affair, (they were both at it so I wont judge them for that) but it's a complete other level of betrayal to get pregnant by another man and tell your husband he is the father.

And the other fella said

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

There is no legitimate reason for them to murder her. She wasn't a terrorist or any kind of threat to the state. All she did was make fools of members of the Royal Family. Hardly a death sentence offence. As romantic and appealing the idea of this lone woman defying convention and going against the traditions of one of the most famous families in the world in front of millions of people only to be murdered to 'shut her up', I just don't think that it's very realistic.

I'd kill my missus for less