If it were ever proven that Princes William and/or Harry had not been fathered by Charles, would they still be heirs to the throne? Does it count that they were the sons of Diana, who was married to Charles at the time? And does it count that Charles has been their father their entire lives, as opposed to their biologican father? How important is it that they don’t possess any of Charles’ DNA?
Nothing new here. The rumours have as much longevity as the royal family. So long as “the firm” are in charge, there will be no DNA tests.
A bit more salacious gossip here.
IIRC, under British law you are legally the child of your mother’s husband, regardless of who contributed half your DNA. Since Charles and Diana were married when both the princes were born, that means Charles is their father in every legal sense of the word – including inheritance of royal titles.
For the record, there seems to be little reason to believe either prince is not the son of Charles. Diana’s affairs all seem to have begun after William and Harry were born.
There’s a <i>presumption</i> that the child of a married woman is the child of her husband. That presumption can, however, be rebutted by evidence.