Why Is This Conspiracy Theory Still Allowed To Go On?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4306170/Princess-Diana-s-former-lover-James-Hewitt-speaks-out.html

After all a simple D&A test would put matters at rest, once and for all.

[youngmafbog]

//would put matters at rest, once and for all. //

Depends what the result is surely?

[youngmafbog]

And he is a bit Ginger :-)

[NoMercy]

Harry is the spitting image of Charles, not Hewitt.

[emmie]

wish they would leave well alone.

[youngmafbog]

Well I dont think he is. But I also dont think Hewitt is the father.

[jno]

the royals don't do DNA tests; it might uncover things they don't want known. (In fact, some oddities were thrown up during the Richard III investigation.) That's not just because of Harry.

[Mamyalynne]

I don't think you can disallow a theory.


Still it seems to grab interest every time it's in the press.

[Gromit]

// Asked about the rumours that have persisted for decades, he said: 'It sells papers'.

It sells papers.

[mikey4444]

The resemblance between Hewitt and Harry appears to be quite strong, but don't forget, there is red hair in Diana's family, as can be seen from her brother.

[ummmm]

I can't see any resemblance...

[webbo3]

http://images.cdn.starpulse.com/news/bloggers/1340985/blog_images/prince-harry-real-father-james-hewitt.jpg

[anneasquith]

Look quite a convincing picture .

[Samuraisan]

Mmm webbo. Convincing pictures. Is that really so jno ? I didn't know that, but makes semse.

[jourdain2]

Those pictures do display considerable similarities. I heard, vaguely, once that the royal family said that a DNA test had been done and that Harry was Charles' son - but they would, wouldn't they? Apparently the teeth are a giveaway, according to someone read ages ago. Windsor teeth are quite different. Fortunately he is the younger son, so it is all a bit academic since the inheritance line is secure. These things happen. Not really anyone's business apart from the family's is it?

[Peter Pedant]

// the royals don't do DNA tests; it might uncover things they don't want known.//

umm yes they do - completely wrong - well its AB after all
when the Tsar ( Nicholas II - nicky ) was finally found
in the place Sokolov and others said he always was
The duke of edinburgh ( matrilineal relative thro his completely mad crazy mother ) gave a sample which showed that the bones were really the Tsars

This involved maternal mitochondrial D&A as AOG quaintly puts it
but mtDNA mutates faster than the rest so there WAS a mutation that had occurred in the last 100 y ( = heteroplasmy ) ....

no I cant go on - its like speaking a foreign language to s/o like Naomi

in short the Royals DO do DNA

and we KNOW that Harrys DNA is nothing like the Hewitts
because - one of his awful frenz stole it from his hairbrush and it matched Charlie boys and DIDNT match hewitts - altho this was around 20 y ago

You need a hair root - altho DNA may vary in a person,
per hair follicle, it is clonal- so EVEN if there is a mutation the hair root will have one or the other but not mixed....

anyway they got one
and Harry IS Royal
and is NOT Hewitts

[anneasquith]

So we are asked to believe the story of the hair brush peter ?

[Cloverjo]

As gromit said, it sells papers. And it's clickbait.

[Mamyalynne]

People post threads about it.

[Peter Pedant]

// I don't think you can disallow a theory//

yes you can and alot of people do

you can construct an experiment which shows the theory is wrong.
That is, it is falsifiable
Popper went so far as to say that if you have a theory and you cannot construct an experiment that would show a theory is falsifiable - then it isnt a theory - it is something else

In this case - the experiment is to show that Harry's DNA has no resemnlance to Hewitts ergo he cant be the father

this has been done