Diana and James Hewitt

[Em8654]

In my opinion I think Harry looks a lot like Hewitt if you put a picture of them together. It is a very tricky question to answer but I think the Royal family should get a blood test donw to find out the REAL truth.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Yes, they do look a lot a like, but you should also look at the kids of Lady Sarah McQuorquodale (spelling?). Harry is the spitting image.

And what makes you think the BRF hasn't done a blood test?

But, like most people in this thread, you're completely missing the point. Harry's paternity doesn't matter because:

Harry was born in wedlock to a man who acknowledged him as his son. Under the law, Harry is the son of Charles, period. No debate, end of story.

Moreover, there is no way to prove it one way or the other in a conclusive way. No matter what result comes out, half the country will say it's a lie.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

But, like most people in this thread, you're completely missing the point. Harry's paternity doesn't matter because:

Harry was born in wedlock to a man who acknowledged him as his son. Under the law, Harry is the son of Charles, period. No debate, end of story.

Moreover, there is no way to prove it one way or the other in a conclusive way. No matter what result comes out, half the country will say it's a lie.

I think you are missing the point. According to British law there is the possibility to question the paternity in case you are eventually cheated out of an inheritance. As long as William lives, it doesn't matter who Harry's father is. But should something happen to William, Harry becomes Charles' heir and thus heir to the throne. In this case it could matter to prince Andrew if Harry really is Charles' son. Because if he wasn't Andrew would be Charles' heir and thus the heir to the throne.

So if something happens to William, Andrew could force Charles and Harry to produce proof of their relationship. If they fail, Andrew could sue Harry for his position as Charles' heir. As there have been similar cases concerning peerages, I believe Andrew stood a chance. All on the condition that Harry is in fact not Charles' son and William leaves no heir. Who in Britain would want Hewitt's and Diana's child on the throne if they could have a son of Elizabeth II.? Okay, after Andrew it would be a daughter of Sarah Ferguson but at least Beatrice looks like a Windsor, so I guess she is.

 

[Skydragon]

But, like most people in this thread, you're completely missing the point. Harry's paternity doesn't matter because:

The point of this thread is not, to me, to argue 'points of law', but to discuss who the biological father is.

The question being asked is not whether Charles has claimed Harry as his son, but who donated the sperm.

 

[TheTruth]

Why does it matter so much to know who gave the sperm ? It's a personal affair and so, no one's business. I don't try to know if my neighbor is the result of an illegitimate union. That's the same thing with Harry.

 

[Skydragon]

Why does it matter so much to know who gave the sperm ? It's a personal affair and so, no one's business. I don't try to know if my neighbor is the result of an illegitimate union. That's the same thing with Harry.

Is there a possibility of your neighbour becoming a king or enjoying privileges that are given to a prince?

Unfortunately as one of the 'premier' families in the UK, it is of importance and interest. Perhaps in 20 - 30 years time, if interest has dwindled in the Royal Family and the UK becomes a Republic, it will have no importance at all, but will probably still hold the interest of some.

 

[TheTruth]

Is there a possibility of your neighbour becoming a king or enjoying privileges that are given to a prince?

Unfortunately as one of the 'premier' families in the UK, it is of importance and interest. Perhaps in 20 - 30 years time, if interest has dwindled in the Royal Family and the UK becomes a Republic, it will have no importance at all, but will probably still hold the interest of some.

But it's still his life. People don't have the right to question him and spy on him like they do. Of course, we are aware of his privilege position and it would be unfair for UK citizens to pay taxes for someone who is not of Royal blood. However, I'm not convinced on the way people are desperately trying to find something wrong in the RF.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

But it's still his life. People don't have the right to question him and spy on him like they do. Of course, we are aware of his privilege position and it would be unfair for UK citizens to pay taxes for someone who is not of Royal blood. However, I'm not convinced on the way people are desperately trying to find something wrong in the RF.

As if life was fair, Kelly... IMHO his mother had a very unfortunate tendency to select the wrong company and to say sentences which could be misunderstood. Not only the fatal "look what I do next" but the sentence that she had no idea how she and Charles created their second child...

That, together with her need to be loved and her opinion that she didn't get this love from her husband created the climate in which people started to doubt Harry's paternity. That he looks like a Spencer and not like a Windsor at all doesn't help either.

But IMHO as long as William lives it will all be mere speculation and I do hope that Harry is grown-up enough to disregard any such thoughts.

 

[Skydragon]

But it's still his life. People don't have the right to question him and spy on him like they do. Of course, we are aware of his privilege position and it would be unfair for UK citizens to pay taxes for someone who is not of Royal blood. However, I'm not convinced on the way people are desperately trying to find something wrong in the RF.

Unfortunately, people are people and speculation will never end. I do not mean this as an assault on Diana but this will always be a problem when women have extra marital affairs and more so when titles or money are involved.

Even in the 'normal world', If a man has an extra partner, at worst he may come away with a STD and/or paying to support a child until it is 18. If the woman becomes pregnant, it can cause immense heartache and speculation over the paternity of any child and must surely damage the child. On top of this you may have medical/genetic issues.

 

[TheTruth]

Yes, unfortunately we will never change people. But I think we all agree to say it's unfair for a child to go through that kind of experience.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

it would be unfair for UK citizens to pay taxes for someone who is not of Royal blood

Not a single penny of tax money supports the Royal Family. The money that supports the Royal Family actually comes from the Civil List, which is money taken from the income of the Crown Estate, which is the hereditary property of the sovereign and is voluntarily surrendered to the government at the beginning of each reign.

If they fail, Andrew could sue Harry for his position as Charles' heir.

Do you honestly think Andrew would ever be allowed to do that? Do you really think he would want to create such a schism in his family? Of course not. Which, again, makes the whole point of Harry's biological parentage completely moot.

 

[Skydragon]

Not a single penny of tax money supports the Royal Family. The money that supports the Royal Family actually comes from the Civil List, which is money taken from the income of the Crown Estate, which is the hereditary property of the sovereign and is voluntarily surrendered to the government at the beginning of each reign.

I'm afraid you are incorrect in your statement that the Royal Family receives no money from UK taxpayers.
The documents show that the royals cost £37.3m last year - the equivalent of 62p per UK taxpayer - and 0.3% less than in 2005-6.
BBC NEWS | UK | Queen reveals Royal spending bill

These are figures released by HM, but are not really a fair and accurate tally as apart from the cost involved in security, bodyguards etc, the figure given of 62p per person also includes babies, children and non taxpayers, therefore making the burden on taxpayers higher still.

Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state, said £37m was "fantasy" and claimed the real figure was £150m.
Campaign manager Graham Smith said the Royal Family had not included security costs or tax breaks in their calculation

 

[TheTruth]

Not a single penny of tax money supports the Royal Family. The money that supports the Royal Family actually comes from the Civil List, which is money taken from the income of the Crown Estate, which is the hereditary property of the sovereign and is voluntarily surrendered to the government at the beginning of each reign.

Britons still pay taxes : Queen costs Britons 62p each

That's what most anti-monarchist people reproach them.

Edit : Sky, you're such a sharp-witted member

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

I'm afraid you are incorrect in your statement that the Royal Family receives no money from UK taxpayers

I'm afraid you're incorrect, actually. Please read about the Civil List. It's not tax money.

 

[jcbcode99]

I thought that a portion of the Civil List was paid by government departments--and government is funded by taxes, so it would appear that taxes in fact contribute to the MOnarchy. I believe the last figure I read stated that the Monarchy costs the taxpayer 61 pence. Not much--in my opinion-

 

[TheTruth]

I'm afraid you're incorrect, actually. Please read about the Civil List. It's not tax money.

According to Wikipedia : Civil list - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh receive funding from the Civil List.

And UK citizens still pay taxes, like mentioned in my previous post.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

I thought that a portion of the Civil List was paid by government departments--and government is funded by taxes, so it would appear that taxes in fact contribute to the MOnarchy. I believe the last figure I read stated that the Monarchy costs the taxpayer 61 pence. Not much--in my opinion-

The Civil List is paid for from the revenues of the Crown Estate, which is surrendered by the sovereign to the government at the beginning of each reign. It amounts to approximately 200M pounds a year.

To put it in simpler terms:

Income to government from Crown Estate: 200M pounds
Payments to RF for Civil List and Grants-in-Aid: approx 40M pounds

Net cost to Britons: 0.

 

[TheTruth]

The Civil List is paid for from the revenues of the Crown Estate, which is surrendered by the sovereign to the government at the beginning of each reign. It amounts to approximately 200M pounds a year.

To put it in simpler terms:

Income to government from Crown Estate: 200M pounds
Payments to RF for Civil List and Grants-in-Aid: approx 40M pounds

Net cost to Britons: 0.

Then how do you explain that it's been evaluated that each taxpayers pay 62 pence to the Queen ?

 

[Skydragon]

Income to government from Crown Estate: 200M pounds
Payments to RF for Civil List and Grants-in-Aid: approx 40M pounds

Net cost to Britons: 0.

You are incorrect, unless you are saying that HM, the BBC etc have all got it wrong.
2007 2006

The Queen has published her annual public accounts revealing how taxpayers' money is spent by members of the Royal Family

net cost to each and every person in the UK 62p.

 

[wbenson]

The Crown Estate would most likely continue to be government property in the event of a republic, as it's the property of the monarch as opposed to being property of the person whose status as monarch is completely incidental.

 

[Thomas Parkman]

Well, good people, this premise or question that is the basis for this thread is not only silly but vulgar beyond redemption. Tacky, that is the wordl. Cheers.

 

[Roslyn]

Well, good people, this premise or question that is the basis for this thread is not only silly but vulgar beyond redemption. Tacky, that is the wordl. Cheers.

So we shouldn't ask questions lest we be labelled silly, vulgar or tacky for asking them? Do you want to take all the fun out of life, Thomas?

 

[Thomas Parkman]

Oh good heaves, of course not!!! There is a difference betweet fun and vulgarity. I myself can be just as bawdy and as ridiculous as the rest. But this subject is not only speculation it is also profoundly hurtful and humiliating. I realize that the RF live under a spotlight and microscope all the time but shouldn't there be some limits of decency. After all canning one of EII's tiaras or some other defenseless royal, as I have done, and done viciously and with riotous abandon I might add is not quite the same thing as this.

So of course we should have fun and enjoy ourselves. I refer you to some of my raunchier and ridiculous postings on the Royal Jewels Forum. I think you can even pull up my name and read them. May I suggest that you find my comments about Mr. Brad Pitt and a suggestion for an emerald fig leaf-a minor literary masterpiece if I do say so myself- to dispell any illusions about my gentility. Or my confessions about chewing on the carpet along dotted lines when in Lyme rages. It should all reveal a depth of sheer silliness you have never imagined. And then there is chocolate ice cream and the little men in white suits. Cheer.s

 

[the1mcgraws]

Yes, the situation is really awkward when you know what's been going on.

What's rather amazing with their affair is that it was kept secret for so long. I find it hard to believe that no one except a few members and friends of Diana's knew about it. I tend to think some people of the press were perfectly aware of the love affair but that's where Diana's relations with newspapers editors intervened. It's been already proved that she didn't hesitate to use the press for her own purposes. That wouldn't surprise me if she had on this matter as well.

I don't think it was a secret. If it was it was definitely in the category of an "open well known secret". Due to the security around Charles and Diana and all royal members,I would imagine Charles knew. Most of those around him were pretty loyal and when the affair started the "his" and "her" camp hadn't broken off yet. So he knew. He probably justified his own affair by it. As for the press, I don't think they knew. At least not until things started leaking in the early 90's. The same security would have been very protective of her and her secrets. They helped them sneak around, at least per James Hewitt's book. Even Andrew Morton discussed how secretive things had to be.

 

[TheTruth]

Charles knew, I didn't/don't contest that. Hewitt even told that he was part of Diana's life the same way Camilla was in Charles's. Moreover, I doubt Charles was upset or mad about it. The couple was already in piece way back then.

 

[fishingnut18]

Harry's Paternity

I finished reading Christopher Andersen's book After Diana. After comparing pictures, I believe Harry looks like his uncle, Charles Spenser, and his grandfather Spenser not James Hewitt.

 

[Nitefeatherz]

Oh good heavens

Well said! I am one who also loves a bit of gossip or an active discussion but I absolutely abhor any kind of news that seems to be deliberately hurtful and shows absolutely no potential for a positive influence.

Honestly this seems to be a waste of time, effort and emotional baggage for poor Harry and the RF and it should be for anyone else as well.

I would also like to say...it shouldn't be chocolate ice cream it should be mint chocolate chip ice cream with godiva dark chocolate caramels and grande mintes with lots of cola... yum!!! (And the men don't wear white coats where I come from... the men in coats that chase you are wearing blue very clearly enough with shiny badges!! Hehe.

 

[tan_berry]

I finished reading Christopher Andersen's book After Diana. After comparing pictures, I believe Harry looks like his uncle, Charles Spenser, and his grandfather Spenser not James Hewitt.

Especially his Spencer grandfather. And finally, where are the promised photos of prince Charles when child and young boy?​

 

[Menarue]

I think they look like two peas in a pod but what difference does that make?
Prince Charles is his father and this questioning of a young Prince´s paternity can really only be hurtful to the young man in person. Being the youngest son is difficult enough but questioning if he is really royal is a useless exercise and must be extremely vexing to the royal family. Look at the photos and speculate but accept what the royal family has, he is Prince Charles´s son and the subject should be left at that.

 

[Skydragon]

I finished reading Christopher Andersen's book After Diana. After comparing pictures, I believe Harry looks like his uncle, Charles Spenser, and his grandfather Spenser not James Hewitt.

I think we covered that his mother was a Spencer and that could be why he looks like a Spencer!