Tripe & What Not

James Hewitt is not the father of Prince Harry

James Hewitt is not the father of Prince Harry
April 26th, 2011
Author: Richard Henley Davis

Princess Diana's former lover James Hewitt has put the record straight saying he is not Prince Harry's father.

When repeatedly questioned in an interview with Inside Edition ( on the question regarding Harry's paternity and the possibility that Harry may be a genetic abbreviation of himself, Hewitt said "No I am not".

"I am not happy talking about it."  and added "It's out of respect for everyone."

Speculation has been rife over the similarities between Harry and James since the news of Diana's affair with Hewitt broke, but the affair is not meant to have taken place until after Harry's birth.

I really don't care if Ken the milkman is Prince Harry's father and nor should anyone else except Harry and his family (and possibly Ken the milkman…..who is fictitious by the way).

But seeing as its out in the public domain lets just take a look at Harry.

His glare/look is exactly the same of that of Prince Philip. He even likes the Nazi uniform just like his grandad (supposedly) does, so I think that lays to rest any further speculation on the matter.

Unless of course we have a state sanctioned DNA test to see if Hewitt is Harry's father with Jeremy Kyle reading out the results to the world in between Kate and William's wedding vows broadcast live.

Now that would be entertainment!……

Harry is Prince Charles's son…..he just doesn't look like him but he does have that 'I will tear you apart from limb to limb Mr Fox and drink your blood through a straw' look.

Would I trust Prince Harry to look after my Children's pet rabbits and hamsters if we went away?

No I would not….that is how certain I am that Philip is Harry's grandfather which makes Charles Harry's father by default.

James Hewitt is ginger and so is Prince Harry…..that single connection is the premise, which many base Harry's paternity on. But with that same logic an Ed Miliband is Cheryl Cole's brother because both are unconvincing in their professional roles.

Comment Here!



Tags: , , , ,

24 Responses to “James Hewitt is not the father of Prince Harry”

  1. Gary Barker says:

    I keep imagining hacks trying to get dna samples from Harry and Hewitt for comparison a bit like they did in Hannibal lol

  2. Violet says:

    Absolutely agree with you! That's exactly what I'v been telling everyone who would listen! Prince Harry looks just like Prince Philip and his ginger-colored hair is inherited from his Uncle Charles Spencer! He does not even resemble a bit of James Hewitt if one were to look closely.

  3. Paul says:

    Surely if the Prez of the US has to prove his when and where status when he popped into the world…. it couldn't be too much trouble for Nugget to take a mouth swab?

  4. steven says:

    harry is the ringer of hewitt, you seriously think he can come out so openly and say he is the father? if you believe charles is the father you are deluded

  5. Connie Coburg says:

    Ummm..harry's real names are..Henry Charles Albert David. H for Hewitt, and the rest spells CAD…interesting!

  6. Connie Coburg says:

    Also, Harry does not appear to be balding like the rest……William, Andrew, Edward and charles…take a look at their monk topped hair and compare with harry…by the way would he be disinherited if it were true or business as usual at ROYAL FAMILY INC?

  7. Linda says:

    How anyone who has heard Harry talk cannot believe that Charles is his father is beyond me. The first time I heard Harry's voice, I thought it was Charles talking. They sound exactly alike.

  8. Linda says:

    And to Connie Coburg, male pattern baldness is a trait that is carried on the X chromosome, so Wills would have inherited that from his mom, not his dad. So, whether or not Harry is bald has nothing to do with who his father is.

  9. Gary Barker says:

    But the X chromosome is part of the both male and female genetic make-up, it's just that females have two X chromosomes and males one x and one y

  10. Connie Coburg says:

    My interest in harry (henry's) paternity is related too the fact that Australia must have it's laws ratified (signed off) from the monarch of england. If William were to die, and this could be a reality due to his work as a pilot, and if charles were to die (not in succession order), then that would leave Harry as king, after the queen has died obviously, and if it were discovered that harry was not of royal blood and Kate is not pregnant, then where does that leave the royal succession…with Andrew? Sounding more like a soap opera every day! Or, because charles is listed as the father of harry on the birth certificate,(regardless of DNA) then he stays in the line of succession? Better to face these questions now, rather than if or when the deaths of the three pre-mentioned were to happen.

  11. It is a soap opera of distraction to prevent you seeing the bigger picture…..i.e. we are NOT living in a democratic society….just an illusion of one.

  12. Gary Barker says:

    Indeed Richard, it's all about bread and circuses

  13. Connie Coburg says:

    Can the queen bequeath upon her death that the monarchy dies with her? Or better still, can she bequeath that a referendum must be set in motion upon her death, not to vote for a republic, but to vote on keeping the monarchy? Imagine the referendum question then! It could be "Do you wish to retain the current system of an unelected Head of state?" as opposed to "Do you wish to replace the current Head of state with an elected representative, to be named President?"

  14. Gary Barker says:

    The Queen cannot constitutionally do anything, she is merely the figurehead that governments use to impose their will upon us.

  15. Jeff Taylor says:

    There is a constitutional train of thought Connie, that says that the monarch cannot give away or surrender their powers. They can lend them out to the government of the day but that's about it.

    Remember that every law is only enacted when the monarch signs it (even EU laws that affect the UK have the Queen's signature somewhere at their root). So the monarch is the sole law-maker and only signs in parliamentary made law as a 'convention'. She could in fact just do it herself, but she wouldn't.

    The monarch, so the argument goes, therefore has total power, which can never be destroyed by law or violence.

  16. Gary Barker says:

    Government's create policy and the monarch rubber stamps it. It is this relationship that means we have no written constitution to protect our rights and remain subjects rather than citizens i.e. our freedom is in the 'gift' of the monarch and can be removed at will by them through their representatives i.e. the government. Magna Carta is often offered up as a counter-argument to those who like myself know we have no formal constitution and the way New Labour removed the right of habeas corpus shows that Magna Carta to be nothing more than a historial document and not one that applies today.

  17. franicn denise says:

    Prince Harry looks like Princess Dianna's sister Sarah

  18. Georgie says:

    Only a DNA test can verify one way or another. It aint gonna happen. So speculate away, you'll never know for sure.

  19. Diana Goodavage says:

    Isn't that what the Wars of the Roses were about?

  20. D. Thomas says:

    Harry's voice sounds like Charles. Harry has the same glare/look at Phillip. Hmmm… is this the standard of debate? Has anybody heard about objective evidence. Linda, most baldness is autosomal, not X-linked. Forget the non-specific traits and concentrate on those that are known to be inherited (baldness, Harry is not, yet), earlobe (same as Hewitt), hair colour (closer to Hewitt than Spenser). Only a DNA test will confirm. It doesn't take an Einstein to see that if Harry is Charles' son, then it would be denied and if he were Hewitt's it would be denied as well. As to when Diana and James Hewitt met, well, Hewitt seems to have given multiple answers to this question. Could he have been paid to shut his mouth?? Heaven forbid!

  21. Gary Barker says:

    So his voice sounds like Charles and glares is any type of evidence is it? And you have the brass balls to criticise the standard of debate? Ha ha try again.

  22. George Radner says:

    I think the above may demonstrate why it is important to carefully read, not only the comment you are replying to, but also its context within the other comments before setting out to belittle the author. Otherwise the joke is very firmly on you.

    On Harry, we'll never know. The 'for' and 'against' arguments often seem to be tainted, in the sense that a conclusion appears to have been arrived at, via wishful thinking, and only then is the 'evidence' gathered to match the conclusion.

    All things considered, if I was forced to bet on it, I would say that Hewitt is our man.

  23. Laurel Ennis says:

    Nonsense! All you have to do is see pictures of them. Okay theres the hair colour, fine a lot of people have ginger hair. But he's also got his receeding hairline, his exact copy of his nose, his smile, his teeth, his chin, his ears. OMG people they couldn't look more alike if they were twins! Grimaces are learned behaviour not genetic. What I want to know if what are they paying him/threatening him with to make him deny his son. It's not Harry's fault but I wonder if he ever wonders. He must! You'd think he'd want to sit down over a beer somewhere and have a chat with his real Dad.

  24. Gary Barker says:

    Ah the thread that just keeps on giving. The whole country is going down the toilet and no one bothers commenting on those stories, but you mention the royals and people will bang on forever proving what a silly class-riven cap doffing lot we really are. Panem et circenses.