What I don't understand is how these 'chaps who help on the farm' and others have come to the "oh so sure" conclusion that Diana and Hewitt are just outright lying, and Prince Harry is Hewitt's son?
Is he supposed to be his son, because simply they say he is? It seems as if these 'chaps' are completely ignoring Harry's strong resemblance to his aunt Sarah McCorquodale and her son, his cousin George for starters.
Harry and George McCorquodale look so much alike they look like brothers; the resemblance is very strong. Their hair is the exact same shade of red and the exact same texture; it even has the same growth pattern. Once the red hair factor is eliminated, then what is left to call a resemblance?
The only thing left would be to start explaining away Harry's resemblence to his family and saying that all redheads look alike. But if they do that, then that would blow their own theory out of the water. Harry and Hewitt don't share any other physical characteristics, so they'd have to start making things up to fit their theory.
Which brings me back to my original question: why are these people so very certain that Diana and James Hewitt are just outright lying about the year they became involved?
It's as if they're trying to say that despite Diana's claims that she was still interacting with her husband when Prince William was a baby, they are absolutely determined to believe that she is lying, and that she was cheating on her husband almost from day 1.
There is only 2 years age difference between William and Harry, it was still early in their marriage when Harry was conceived. Diana said she was faithful at that time. Either she was lying or she was telling the truth. There is no in between. Hewitt has said that they were not involved in 1983. Either he's lying or he's telling the truth.
If they are both believed to be lying, then why? What else are they going on besides the hair colour?
There isn't any other physical resemblance that can beat out the physical resemblance that Harry has to his Spencer relatives. Other than both of them having red hair, Prince Harry doesn't look anything like James Hewitt. The red hair isn't even the same type. Hewitt's hair has a tendency to be curly or wavy. Prince Harry's doesn't.
Hewitt is a medium sized man with small hands and feet and a weak chin. Harry is tall (6'2". Another Spencer trait) and his hands and feet are large; he has a strong jawline that resembles Prince Phillip's. In some of the photos I included, you can see Harry from the side and he's smiling. Even his smile lines look like Prince Phillip's.
His eyebrows and brow bone look exactly like his grandfather's also, and the older he gets the more pronounced that resemblance becomes. When Harry gets older he'll have those exact same heavy, bushy brows that Prince Phillip has, they're just lighter in colour.
Given Harry's obvious and strong resemblance to the red-headed (or ginger for the non-americans) Spencer family members, and Diana and Hewitt's mutual claim that they weren't involved until 1986, what makes those people so convinced that she is a liar?
Personally I think it's because the scandal is more fun and more interesting to believe.
It's much juicier and more exciting to think that Diana is lying and she was cheating on her husband only 3 years after they married, and that in addition to cheating, she would be foolish enough to be married to a prince and have unprotected sex whilst she was cheating.
That is certainly a much more interesting assumption than the very mundane idea that Diana was telling the truth, and her second son is just as much her husband's biological child as the first son.
I hope Harry's strong resemblance to his mother's family isn't considered immaterial. Obviously the fact that Hewitt says he is
not his son and the fact that he doesn't look like Hewitt is immaterial to these people.
The bottom line is that they feel that Diana is lying about her the date of her involvement, and I'd like to know why they are so sure she is lying? Is there any evidence of any kind that she and Hewitt were involved with each other intimately during 1983?
If not, then why disbelieve her just because she has a red-headed child? Has Diana given people a reason to think that she was an out and out liar of that caliber, not to mention foolish enough to have unprotected sex with the man in this day and age of DNA testing?
Even in the 80's DNA testing existed, and she knew it. She was also aware that her children were in the line of succession. She knew that it was her duty to give birth to the legitmate/biological heir and the spare(s). Why are they so convinced that she either forgot this or wasn't aware of it to the point that she wouldn't protect herself during a romantic liason with someone other than her husband?
If Harry had been a blonde, I don't think anyone would be having this conversation. But since he's a 'ginger' it's assumed that his father is Diana's ginger-haired paramour, never mind the fact that she says they weren't involved until Harry was 2 years old. Well Prince William is blonde, but Prince Charles isn't. Does that mean that one of Diana's blonde paramours is possibly William's father also? After all, if she is believed to be lying about not being involved with Hewitt prior to 1986, then why not assume she's lying about
all of her involvements? Maybe she started a few months after the wedding.
After all, Prince William was conceived sometime around october 1981, more than a year and a half after they were married.
Surely she was disenchanted by that time, huh? And then Harry was conceived at the end of 1983. More than enough time for her to have taken a whole brigade of lovers by then.
I guess there's really no need to let statements from the mouths of the people actually involved (Diana and Hewitt) muck up a good conspiracy theory.
