Receive up-to-the-minute news updates on the hottest topics with NewsHub. Install now.

Prince Harry NOT James Hewitt’s son…and this PROVES it

May 19, 2017 11:00 PM
38 0
Prince Harry NOT James Hewitt’s son…and this PROVES it

A VICIOUS conspiracy theory that Prince Harry is not Prince Charles’ son may finally have been put to rest.

Harry’s mum Princess Diana had a five-year affair with cavalry officer James Hewitt while married to Prince Charles.

The main evidence put forward for the claim is Harry’s red hair and the roguish streak he shares with Hewitt.

But new close analysis of the facial features, body and personality of Harry, Hewitt, Charles and Harry’s granddad, Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh, show the Prince is a Windsor.

A Royal source with expert knowledge of hereditary features has revealed why Harry must be Charles’ son.

The apparent similarities between Harry and Hewitt – who was rushed to hospital after suffering a heart attack last week – have kept the rumour alive since Diana admitted the affair on BBC Panorama back in 1995.

More than 50% of the 1,800 people who responded to a Daily Star Online poll said the retired major was Harry’s dad, compared to just 34% who thought he was Charles’ son.

Although the results must be taken with a pinch of salt as 4% said fellow ginger Ed Sheeran was the culprit, with another 2% fingering Frankie Boyle.

Although both Hewitt and Harry are normally tarred with the same ginger brush, our Royal expert pointed out Harry’s hair is better described as strawberry blond with a red beard.

In contrast, Hewitt’s hair is a darker brown, with brown eyebrows and brown eyes.

Although neither Diana nor Charles were redheads, Diana’s brother Earl Spencer is, so Diana could have been carrying ginger genes.

Our Royal expert also pointed out Harry’s hair – unlike Hewitt’s – is curly.

Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother – Harry’s great-grandmother – was a member of the Scottish aristocracy.

Also read: Prince Charles to succeed Queen as head of the Commonwealth


Share in social networks:

Comments - 0