I know James himself denies it, but I would expect him to do so in the position he’s in for many reasons –
But dang, Harry doesn’t look like Charles IN THE LEAST to me, and if memory serves, Harry was conceived during a time Di and Charles weren’t on the best of terms and a time not far removed from James’ and Diana’s affair.
Red hair isn’t always the determining factor, either, as many times red hair skips a generation, but it is curious that James and Harry’s “tone” of red as well appears close to identical.
Even without the hair, I think Harry’s eyes, nose, etc. are the spitting image of James’. Though I’m pretty sure we’ll NEVER know for sure – Charles would never do a DNA to prove or disprove he does not have a second heir. Anyone else?
He looks so much like Charles, it’s spooky. A spit-and-image carbon copy if you ask me. I don’t think he’s a love child. Just born into a really fucked up family.
To the question of why it matters, Harry is third in line to the British throne, but if he isn’t Charles’s son, he shouldn’t be king. So I would say it’s somewhat important for the future of the British nation, especially were William to never have children.
If you think it shouldn’t matter, they you probably shouldn’t have anything to do with a hereditary monarchy.
It’s not that anyone’s in question as to who his mother is, it’s that the red hair thing is from his mum’s side, and his looks are from his mum’s side as well - no need to drag Hewitt into it at all.
I think Diana was one of the most wonderful women to walk the earth, and that she was treated dispicably by Charles. She wasn’t perfect – no one is – but she expected to give her entire life and love to Charles and was treated to a rude awakening –
– That she was set up to be no more than a unloved, brood mare for the throne. My anger at Charles has little to do with the fact he had an affair with Camilla – many men, (as well as many kings and princes of England) expect to have affairs outside their married life. And as long as that man still has love for his wife, and treats her with respect, an affair isn’t a life or death offence.
But in Diana’s case I believe Charles lied to her about almost everything, and did not give her a modicum of true devotion or love. It escapes me that he could not sincerely be devoted to someone who loved him as much as Diana, even though he considered Camilla his favorite “bed mate” whose tampon he aspired to be.
So I think it would serve Charles right if NEITHER William nor Harry sprung from his loins – and my speculation about this issue is more because I hope Diana DID sneak at least one heir to the throne under Charles’ nose – a son of at least a sweet short romantic interlude with (wasn’t he a commoner?). At least one of them may have been born out of a loving relationship, however fleeting.
Re colors I’m surprised more don’t post in them here. In other forums I do the same so am only continuing the convention, and personally find it more interesting than basic black.
Look-Diana was FAR from innocent-and quite frankly, she and Charles BOTH had their good points and their bad. Diana was more infatuated with Charles than in love, and should have realized what she was getting into. I’m not saying she was a horrid monster, but she wasn’t this sweet innocent thing, nor was she “one of the most wonderful women to walk the earth.”
Queen Alexandra had her beat by a long shot-Edward VII was a notorious philanderer, and Alexandra had it a HELL of a lot worse than Diana. If you think Elizabeth is a formidable mother-in-law, try Queen Victoria.
I am so sick and tired of Diana worship. Charles was not, nor is he, a monster, nor is the British Royal Family.
Just an FYI,
You may find that a bunch of people here will be highly irritated by this.
You may also find that a bunch of people will not take a word you say seriously, regardless of what you post.
Well, of course everyone’s entitled to voice their opinion, and I’m certainly entitled to mine. I think Charles and most of the British Royal Family are COMPLETE and utter snobs.
I find it interesting that COLOR is irritating – is this supposed to be just a newspaper?
And whether anyone takes what I say seriously or not is THEIR pleasure or problem, not mine.
I’m not so prejudiced I JUDGE people based on color – of their face or their words or whatever – sorry if that’s a big hangup for anyone else. I didn’t read any signs that said “People posting in color will not be listened to.” That’s a hellofa snobbish way to be, but if that’s your style GO FOR IT – and I’ll go by mine.
From the looks of it this is more a FLAMERS forum than anything else. And if so, more power to it anyway.
FLAME, COLOR, WHATEVER, this is FREE SPEECH and I love it in all it’s forms. More power to ALL of us to say EXACTLY what we want to say WHEN we want to say it and HOW we want to say it, as long as there’s SOME kind of respect being shown, I say, let it fly.
Nice to meet all of you, by the way, whether you post in colors or not.
Anyone need someone to flame – I’M HERE! Get your torches out, this might be as fun as Burning Man.
But surely noone is question who his mother is?