Skip to main content

A Royal Gossip That'll Still Go On: The Alleged Paternity of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

I guess gossip hardly dies, right? The British Royalty did install Princes Charles as King Charles III. I have watched a few episodes of the British royalty which is but symbolic now. A rumor that came out decades ago was the alleged paternity of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. I guess no matter how much one shouts it--some people will either never get it or refuse to get it. This is a rumor that Prince Harry's real father is allegedly a certain James Hewitt, a former British army officer. Yes, the late Princess Diana of Wales did confess she had an affair with Hewitt. However, the timeline doesn't add up to the bizarre (and obviously false claim) of Prince Harry's alleged paternity!

From The Daily Beast, Hewitt blamed the media saying these words, "It sells papers. It’s worse for him, probably, poor chap." I really can't help but agree with Hewitt on that statement that it's all about selling papers. Gossip is very juicy. Sitting down to discuss facts in a history class or seminar isn't as fun, am I right? It would be something to think about resemblances. True,, there are doppelgangers. Some say that James Hewitt is the father because of certain resemblances. However, doing the math, Prince Harry was born in 1984 and the affair between Princess Diana and Hewitt happened in 1986. The rumor just refuses to die as the bald patch now makes some foolish people think Hewitt is the real father.

Here's a photo from Elle which shows us the 10 times that Prince Harry looks like his late paternal grandfather, Prince Philip. I'm seeing more of a similarity between Prince Harry and his paternal grandfather than I'm seeing it with Hewitt. It's sad that even after these photos were released proving that Prince Harry is indeed the grandson of Prince Philip--the gossip lives on. If there's been a bald spot then why not look at King Charles III's bald spot too?

This analysis from The Daily Star will further show that the resemblance between Prince Harry to Hewitt is superficial. Deeper details will reveal how it's impossible and just made to sell papers. The juicy gossip can be easily disproven when Hewitt's features such as his brown eyes, dark red-brown hair, and smaller canines will totall show it's just impossible. Yet, we've got idiots on social media as well as broadcasting sites still saying stuff like, "Hewitt is the real father, trust me bro." Again, the statement "Trust Me Bro" makes a very poor source! If you can't back up your claims then don't make the claim!

Even more, here's Prince Harry compared to his father and paternal grandfather. The younger photos of Prince Philip really resemble Prince Harry. The resemblances between Prince Harry to his paternal grandfather are too strong to ignore. Who could ever forget that King Charles III has a bald spot too? Prince Philip also had a bald spot in his later years! 

The evidence of Harry's paternity towards King Charles III is way stronger. Yet, you still have people who love to raise it that, "No! Impossible! It's really James Hewitt!" You can even share the timeline of when Prince Harry was born vs. when Princess Diana met her first paramour Hewitt. You can even show the similarities. Yet, facts don't help you win an argument if the person is too convinced by the gossip. Gossip is overly appealing. It somehow gives people who gossip that "sense of importance". 

This is cognitive dissonance. Photos of Prince Harry's resemblance to his paternal grandfather are out. There's discomfort among people who still believe in the now disproven lie that Prince Harry is indeed not a spurious member of the Royal House of Windsor. Yet, you'll always have it, "No! No! Trust me bro! Harry's father is James Hewitt." That's why the gossip goes on because for some, the best source is, "Trust me bro!" 
Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

What's the Use of Complaining About Celebrities and Political Dynasties Running for Politics While DEFENDING Presidential and Rejecting Parliamentary?

2025 is just around the corner for the midterm elections . People keep emphasizing the need to "defend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines" for any amendments whatsoever. If that were true then we really need to remove Article XVII entirely if the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines was meant to be set in stone (read here ). Several camps whether it's PDP-Laban supporters, Liberal Party of the Philippines supporters, Uniteam supporters, etc.--I can expect social media mudslinging at its finest . I keep talking about the need to amend or even replace the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. However, they keep acting like it's the best constitution in the world, they cite Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. (and others like the Monsods) to idolatrous levels , and when I talk about the parliamentary system--I can expect the whole, "Boohoo! It will never work because we already tried it under Marcos! The proof was Cesar Virata!" However, I wrote a refute on that ...
Read more

The EDSA Revolution of 1986 Would've Never Happened if People were Stuck in Nostalgia

  It's something that I read crybaby comments online where people are saying, "Making EDSA a special working day is making us forget the glory of EDSA." Please, let me remind people that even 10 years later , neither the late Lee Kuan Yew's birthday nor his death anniversary has become a national holiday in Singapore! Singapore simply honored LKY's birthday by working on that day. I was laughing at the toxic Facebook page called We Are Millennials. What truly made me think that these people are stuck in nostalgia is that EDSA 1986 would never have been possible if the Filipinos were stuck in nostalgia . I remember talks about how the first Marcos administration was built on these two pillars. The first pillar was information control . The other pillar was toxic positivity. I remember back in 1995 when the social studies teacher talked about how he thought that Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was a "good president" due to the long holidays. However, the holidays ...
Read more

No to Cha Cha Because of EDSA?

Back when I was in elementary, we were told that EDSA 1986 was a good thing. I don't want to deny the well-documented human rights abuses of the first Marcos Administration . The repeated call to amend or reform the constitution has unfortunately been demonized as if it's always a bad thing. I guess that's a result of people with poor reading (and listening) comprehension for so long . If only people started to read in-between the details of Philippine history, if only people read through the book From Third World to First and not just quote the late Lee Kuan Yew about the Marcoses, they'll see that using EDSA to demonize charter change is really a bad move. Startling facts during the Marcos Years that may have been ignored by anti-charter change proponents What happened during EDSA was practically a revolutionary government . Above is a video of the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy. I confess that I do tend to admire Ninoy, especially with his Los Angeles sp...
Read more

[OPINION] Why Do Some Filipino Boomers Insist that the Marcos Years Were Under a "Parliamentary System"

  This is a screenshot I got on Facebook. The Tweet is courtesy of Raissa Espinosa-Robles, who I hear is a marites or a gossiper. I'm not denying that there are some truths in what she said. It's true that the Marcos Years have their well-documented human rights abuses. However, Mrs. Robles still continues to insist in the myth of a parliamentary system under Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s regime. It's not just Mrs. Robles but also some Filipino boomers who keep saying, "Are you crazy? We had a parliamentary system under Marcos."  I could show them some evidence like Marcos' severe lack of legitimacy to disprove the parliamentary systme. I even wrote about the snap elections because Marcos was a president with powers (read here ). Under a parliamentary system, the president is purely ceremonial. The president is just a door opener and credentials receiver! Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. and Salvador "Doy" Laurel both challenged the legitimacy of Marcos...
Read more

Why EDSA Should Be a Reason to Support, NOT Oppose Cha Cha

  I don't doubt that the EDSA Revolution left a legacy to the world. Yesterday, I wrote a piece where I asked if EDSA should be a reason to say no to cha-cha . It was a peaceful revolution though it's often argued that the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. didn't want to further ruin his already  tarnished image  in front of the world. How true was it that President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., in his younger days, wanted to run over the protestors? However, consider EDSA wasn't really one of a kind. The Indian pacifist Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi, and his  writings inspired the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy . also led a similar revolution against the  unjust  British occupation of India during that time. Gandhi may have been dead by the time Ninoy read about Gandhi. However, Gandhi's peaceful protests left a legacy that was probably not so well-known before. Today, the Indian economy has been doing better than the Philippines. I even consult...
Read more