Prince Harry of England, and the Ravenous Rag Play

If you want to start sputtering how "rich and privileged" Prince Harry and Prince William are, consider what seldom makes the press:

It's bad enough that the young Princes (William and Harry) had to endure a funeral of their beloved mother (Diana) so young. But then Diana's brother bad-mouthed the royal family IN HIS EULOGY - and later withheld the Princes' inheritance of Diana's money and clothing until Harry reached 30. (All so Diana's brother could continue making money off "touring" her clothes around the world for admittance fees. Some uncle!)

Prince Harry was always the wild one, a rebel "with a cause" to find his place in life - and within his royal family. He's gone thru military training (as did William), fought in Iraq, lost his pants at a pool party in Las Vegas (where that is surely not an occasional incident), and is now ready to settle down. But he can't find the right lady, amid the publicity glare of William and Kate's "eternal love affair" type courtship and marriage.

And now this!

www.newser.com...
LONG SIMMERING CONTROVERSY THAT PRINCE HARRY'S "REAL" FATHER IS NOT CHARLES
The play "Truth, Lies, Diana" is opening in London on Jan. 9th after a run in New York. And the red-headed (former) British Cavalry officer who'd had an affair with Diana (James Hewitt) starting a year before Harry was born, has cooperated by giving several years of interviews to the playwright, and called the play "accurate."

I just wish people would get off the royal Princes and take their rumor-mills with them. WHOEVER is Prince Harry's biological father, Prince Charles has loved and raised them both, through thick and thin. Charles IS Harry's "father" in the truest sense of the word, and there appears to be no relationship at all between Hewitt and Harry.

Just another petty, down-on-their-luck "peripheral" kicking dust off an old controversy, just to line his pockets with a "touring play" instead of royal clothing.

a reply to: MKMoniker

I just wish people would get off the royal Princes

You mean this guy right here?



They are a blight on society.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Wearing "inappropriate costumes" to parties is hardly a privilege of only the royals. So wearing a Nazi costume to a party falls under one of those "thought-it-was funny" juvenile ideas. I seriously doubt it was a "political statement," more a joke-in-bad-taste.

And besides, today the trend is for young women to attend parties in "sexy minimalist" costumes, take drugs and get drunk, then cry crocodile tears after they get raped. Would you characterize them as "a blight on society"?

Plus, consider the new "rage for atheism" and everyone wearing demonic costumes, or having "horns" or nubs tattooed or glued to their skulls. So worshiping sheer Evil - not a subsidiary like the Nazis - is more acceptable in your book?

I've heard the stories. Red haired officer yada yada. . Like red hair isn't as common as dirt in Great Britain ???

You're going to take a beating for that comment about rape and crocodile tears buddy.
And it has nothing to do with the OP but I guess you needed a pseudo platform to get that out. I'm guessing you think the statement no means no is just opening negotiations.

reply to: MKMoniker

This gossip and revelation about his "real" father is about a decade old, and the nazi fancy dress has been played to death. Nothing new here.

a reply to: MKMoniker

And besides, today the trend is for young women to attend parties in "sexy minimalist" costumes, take drugs and get drunk, then cry crocodile tears after they get raped.

Jesus, you're a disgrace to intelligent debate.

The 'crown lands' make 15 billion (£) a year for the British government, in turn the government 'gives' the Queen 15% of that, 'Jug Ears' (Charles) gets 17 million £ a year from the Duchy of Cornwall, Charles pays income tax on that.
Tourism also brings in quite a wad for the Government, all those tourists wandering around all those castles, churches, ships, bridges, museums, playhouses, quaint railroads, I expect I have left many things out...

a reply to: pikestaff

Don't be so niaive

Yep the royals are just fascinating.....they would be even more fascinating as a footnote to human history and stupidity......The whole lot get to play games with the plebs wealth and resources for free......
Hang em high says I....

Hmm

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

"You're going to take a beating for that comment about rape and crocodile tears buddy."

I'm female, not a "buddy." And I've been disgusted for a long time how my half of the species wants it both ways: to dress and act as sl**y as possible, yet think a drunken situation with a red-blooded drunken man will end with just a "No."

I guess I was raised in a different era, when you dressed to say "No" or "Maybe." And going to a guy's apartment after meeting in a bar or party, was interpreted as "Yes, probably."

Rape is a serious crime, and is being used by the most evil levels of society to "break" men, women and children. The Pentagon reports that 53% of sexually abused soldiers/sailors are male on male encounters. What does this horrendous violation do to the psyche and nerve of our fighting men?

www.gq.com...
MALE-ON-MALE RAPE IN THE U.S. MILITARY

I personally used to work in a Big Box store where the GM himself tried three different times to get me to work in different and dangerously isolated, remote areas. So my willingness to stand up to TPTB with the Truth, is a long-standing fact.

But young women today have totally unrealistic expectations, and have taken "the tease" into dangerous, drug/alcohol-addled territory. (Unless they are gold diggers looking to hook up with a celebrity, and then carefully save every e-mail, text message and record every phone call for the ultimate of extortion Paydays.)

I haven't had any female friends in years, and that's by my choice.

a reply to: DPrice

Yes, the resemblance is there. BUT it was Prince Charles who loved and raised him as his "father." And with that resemblance so obvious, I doubt Charles had a "DNA revelation moment" when he was ready to throw Harry out of the family. Diana wouldn't have stood for that anyway.

Forget the DNA. Same with adopted children. It's who loves and raises you that are the true "parents."

And for a "possible biological father" to now be trying to make money off such an old scandal, says more about him and his true values. Diana was good to ditch him, and not re-connect with him after the divorce.

a reply to: pikestaff
and Stirling:

England has a massive Social Net, including Free Lifelong Medical, so I doubt you "plebs" are suffering. (Do you work?)

And don't forget that the royals are a HUGE tourist draw. I got up at 6AM myself to watch William and Kate's wedding. So lovely.

a reply to: MKMoniker

You mean it was a team of nannies and servants that raised him. Why should this son of a non-royal enjoy a life of leisure at the taxpayers expense? I think we should have an independent DNA test live on Channel 4.

a reply to: DPrice

"You mean it was a team of nannies and servants that raised him."

From what I've read, Diana was a very hands-on, adoring mother. I read one account where she took Harry to his first day of school. He was upset by all the press present. And she told him simply "Just wave and smile, Harry. You'll be doing that the rest of your life."

*************************************************************

"I think we should have an independent DNA test live on Channel 4."

LOL! Check with Geraldo.

A lot of British people think James Hewitt the biological father of Harry
A lot of British people think Diana was murdered
A lot of British people loved Diana
A lot of British people care little for the royal family ... unless it is the one on the t.v. sitcom

a reply to: artistpoet

"A lot of British people care little for the royal family ... unless it is the one on the t.v. sitcom."

I'm a fan of the hilarious medieval "Black Adder" too. But I see little resemblance to the modern royals.

I thought it was total BS until I saw the picture. Doesn't prove anything, but I can see how people would at least entertain the thought now.

a reply to: MKMoniker

Oh great. So now along with men judging women by their dress youl want to do the same?'
I hope you're never in a situation where you thought you might want to and then decide you don't want to. If you are I hope the guy is sensitive enough to realize it's ok that you changed your mind. Even if his pants are already off.
And really? Half the women you know do actually behave this way? You may want to change your affiliations. The ones you describe sound like they're out of a movie script.
Just sayin'.