Redheads Experience The World Differently Than Everyone Else

by Guest Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:55 pm

The genetic differences that give people fiery locks affects more than just the color of their hair and skin, according to the Reactions video above. For example, redheads are more sensitive to pain and cold temperatures. Small studies even show that redheads may require more anesthesia during surgery due to this sensitivity.

While scientists have yet to figure out why this happens, they theorize that it has to do with a gene called MCR1. Redheads have a variant of this gene, which is what affects the process that alters their pigmentation in the first place (more on that in the video, too!). Experts suspect that MCR1 expresses itself in a part of the brain that deals with sensation, which may lead to heightened sensitivity.

Take a look at the breakdown above, which is produced by the American Chemical Society and PBS Digital Studios, to learn more about the chemistry of being a redhead. It’s proof that this characteristic is just as rare and unique inside the body as it is on the outside.
We always knew you were special, redheads!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/redheads-experience-the-world-differently-than-everyone-else_us_58c811ede4b0598c6699ef32?section=us_good-news

by eddie Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:00 pm

I admire red hair and am rather envious of it. I must've read this before as I seem to remember the sensitivity to cold and pain threshold.

Quite interesting. They do have paler skin so perhaps that's something to do with feeling the cold?

by Guest Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:04 pm

eddie wrote:I admire red hair and am rather envious of it. I must've read this before as I seem to remember the sensitivity to cold and pain threshold.

Quite interesting. They do have paler skin so perhaps that's something to do with feeling the cold?

No idea to be honest Eddie, but is very fascinating to read and learn about.

by veya_victaous Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:07 am

irony being they only naturally survive in cold places

they seem worse with heat since their skin peels so easily

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:24 am

eddie wrote:I admire red hair and am rather envious of it. I must've read this before as I seem to remember the sensitivity to cold and pain threshold.

Quite interesting. They do have paler skin so perhaps that's something to do with feeling the cold?

You'd think that having pale skin would make someone less susceptible to feeling the cold, but it doesn't seem to. I have also wondered if those with dark skin feel the heat less than those with pale skin.

by JulesV Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:10 pm

Everybody - name 5 famous redheads. Rupert Grint, Ed Sheeran and Red Ken not included!!

by JulesV Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:05 pm

See what I mean? Ten years ago, my quiz question would have been easily answered. Anthropologists say redheads are dying out and that within a few generations they will be extinct. (recessive gene & all that)

Be a shame if the only place where future generations of kids will see this fabulous hair colour would be in wax museums like this ------>

Redheads Experience The World Differently Than Everyone Else Goldtr10

Redheads Experience The World Differently Than Everyone Else Goldtr10

by nicko Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:33 pm

Who's that?

by JulesV Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:38 pm

Cynthia Nixon. She's beautiful! Yank actress from Sex&TheCity. She's a lesbian so she went and completely shaved all that lovely hair. Her lil boy is the spit of her, so cute.

by Original Quill Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:02 pm

Jules wrote:Anthropologists say redheads are dying out and that within a few generations they will be extinct. (recessive gene & all that)

Makes sense to me, but I remember my genetics professor saying that a recessive gene cannot lead to extinction. If a recessive gene mates with another of the same, they can only have recessive off-spring...which then repopulates the recessive population at 100% (4 of 4).

Add to that, the dominant carrier still produces 25% (1 of 4) recessive off-spring, and recessives gain back the ground for being trumped in the uterus...so to speak. Rolling Eyes

by Raggamuffin Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Jules wrote:Anthropologists say redheads are dying out and that within a few generations they will be extinct. (recessive gene & all that)

Makes sense to me, but I remember my genetics professor saying that a recessive gene cannot lead to extinction. If a recessive gene mates with another of the same, they can only have recessive off-spring...which then repopulates the recessive population at 100% (4 of 4).

Add to that, the dominant carrier still produces 25% (1 of 4) recessive off-spring, and recessives gain back the ground for being trumped in the uterus...so to speak.

That depends on which genes they pass on. If both the carriers of recessive genes pass on the recessive genes, the offspring will have the characteristic.

by Original Quill Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Makes sense to me, but I remember my genetics professor saying that a recessive gene cannot lead to extinction. If a recessive gene mates with another of the same, they can only have recessive off-spring...which then repopulates the recessive population at 100% (4 of 4).

Add to that, the dominant carrier still produces 25% (1 of 4) recessive off-spring, and recessives gain back the ground for being trumped in the uterus...so to speak.

That depends on which genes they pass on. If both the carriers of recessive genes pass on the recessive genes, the offspring will have the characteristic.

You are repeating what I said in the highlighted passage (now underlined). Because of the exclusivity of the recessive off-spring, they tend to make up for the short-fall of the mixed off-spring.

by Raggamuffin Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:51 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That depends on which genes they pass on. If both the carriers of recessive genes pass on the recessive genes, the offspring will have the characteristic.

You are repeating what I said in the highlighted passage (now underlined). Because of the exclusivity of the recessive off-spring, they tend to make up for the short-fall of the mixed off-spring.

So I did - soz. Laughing

by Ben Reilly Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:55 pm

Jules wrote:Everybody - name 5 famous redheads. Rupert Grint, Ed Sheeran and Red Ken not included!!

Prince Harry, Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, Sophia Turner, Lindsay Lohan?

by JulesV Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:18 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Jules wrote:Everybody - name 5 famous redheads. Rupert Grint, Ed Sheeran and Red Ken not included!!

Prince Harry, Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, Sophia Turner, Lindsay Lohan?

Hmmm Not a bad effort. Surprised

I won't hold it against you that one of those names would not necessarily be classed as "famous" on this side of the pond, with this being a global forum.
Just like if I mentioned the names like Chris Evans, Robin Cooke and that Dr Who's assistant (I forget her name now), the American posters probably won't know who I mean either.

The way recessive and dominant genes work is dead simple and straightforward but somehow most people tie themselves in knots trying to explain it. It does not even need 'explaining' - it's a simple concept.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:23 pm

Jules wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

Prince Harry, Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, Sophia Turner, Lindsay Lohan?

Hmmm Not a bad effort. I won't hold it against you that one of those names would not necessarily be classed as "famous" on this side of the pond, with this being a global forum.
Just like if I mentioned the names like Chris Evans, Robin Cooke and that Dr Who's assistant (I forget her name now), the American posters probably won't know who I mean either.

The way recessive and dominant genes work is dead simple and straightforward but somehow most people tie themselves in knots trying to explain it. It does not even need 'explaining' - it's a simple concept.

Explain why red hair will become extinct then.

by JulesV Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Jules wrote:

Hmmm Not a bad effort. I won't hold it against you that one of those names would not necessarily be classed as "famous" on this side of the pond, with this being a global forum.
Just like if I mentioned the names like Chris Evans, Robin Cooke and that Dr Who's assistant (I forget her name now), the American posters probably won't know who I mean either.

The way recessive and dominant genes work is dead simple and straightforward but somehow most people tie themselves in knots trying to explain it. It does not even need 'explaining' - it's a simple concept.

Explain why red hair will become extinct then.

Dilution!

by JulesV Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:30 pm

A weak (ie recessive) gene cannot survive indefinitely when it is overly diluted in the population.

Anyone who disagrees can take it up with the social anthropologists who predicted it. Their prediction makes sense IMO.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:01 pm

Dilution? Recessive genes still get passed on just the same as dominant ones.

by Fred Moletrousers Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:15 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Jules wrote:Everybody - name 5 famous redheads. Rupert Grint, Ed Sheeran and Red Ken not included!!

Prince Harry, Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, Sophia Turner, Lindsay Lohan?

Apropros the first of those names, I am amazed that no-one has suggested the, er, possibility of, er, a certain, er, shall we say "liaison" between,er, HRH, er, and a certain, er, "officer and gentleman" who shall,er, remain nameless.........

(That's it. I shall say no more on pain of being sent to The Tower and having my head severed from my shoulders in the Tudor fashion........)

by JulesV Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:31 pm

Actually I reckon there is a big hole in the current theory about redheads being on the road to extinction. Can anyone see it?

( Btw I'm pleased that our biology teacher used the redhead model to teach us about inheritance, cos it brought the subject alive and made it interesting. If she'd been droning on about Mendel's inheritance in peas we'd have lost interest. lol!

)

by JulesV Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Dilution? Recessive genes still get passed on just the same as dominant ones.

Correct, but it needs another recessive gene to hook up with, to make its presence felt. It's no use if people have this gene on board if they have no similar carrier nearby to hook up with, to produce a visible redhead.

The dilution thing might be due to the 'melting pot' factor, mixing with other communities that don't have as many gingers.

.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving on ....

Guys, the hole in the sociologists theory is simply that genes can mutate unexpectedly Smile

- after all this is how cancer happens isn't it. Either spontaneous mutation or mutation due to damage from extraneous pollutants in the environment. So even if the gene dies out eventually, non redhead genes may spontaneously change into redhead ones and keep the whole show going.

Case in point.
Queen Victoria had the haemophilia gene and she passed it on to many of her European and Russian descendants. It was disastrous and made huge dynasties fall. Yet no one has ever been abe to trace where the HELL it came from in the first place. Who did she inherit it from???? Answer ... no one ! It was a spontaneous mutation. So that's the big hole in the redhead theory imo!

by 'Wolfie Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:45 am

Redheads Experience The World Differently Than Everyone Else 2097912929

There are some 'redheads' on my mother's side of the family, (with a bit of Oirish and Scottish ancestry in there..).

Early photo's of her show that she had "auburn" hair herself at times -- not a full-on redhead.. My nephew had 'gingery' hair when little, becoming more brown as he grew up (a bit like Prince Harry, and some other Royals..).

The couple of times that I've grown a proper beard, my whiskers were a reddish-brown for the first couple of weeks, gradually bleaching to light brown (If I grew a beard now it would end up grey..).

by Original Quill Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:59 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

Prince Harry, Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, Sophia Turner, Lindsay Lohan?

Apropros the first of those names, I am amazed that no-one has suggested the, er, possibility of, er, a certain, er, shall we say "liaison" between,er, HRH, er, and a certain, er, "officer and gentleman" who shall,er, remain nameless.........

(That's it. I shall say no more on pain of being sent to The Tower and having my head severed from my shoulders in the Tudor fashion........)

All the time. But I think it's believed to be impolite.

But I believe it. How is it his fault? Frankly, I think he's the best of the lot...imagination, athletic, smart and handsome. Beats those long-necked Germans...oops. they can't help it too.

Redheads Experience The World Differently Than Everyone Else James-hewitt

Redheads Experience The World Differently Than Everyone Else James-hewitt

Tell me I'm wrong. I'm all for Will, but I like this kid. He's a Hewitt, with a ginger Spencer mop on his head.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:14 am

Jules wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Dilution? Recessive genes still get passed on just the same as dominant ones.

Correct, but it needs another recessive gene to hook up with, to make its presence felt. It's no use if people have this gene on board if they have no similar carrier nearby to hook up with, to produce a visible redhead.

The dilution thing might be due to the 'melting pot' factor, mixing with other communities that don't have as many gingers.

.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving on ....

Guys, the hole in the sociologists theory is simply that genes can mutate unexpectedly - after all this is how cancer happens isn't it. Either spontaneous mutation or mutation due to damage from extraneous pollutants in the environment. So even if the gene dies out eventually, non redhead genes may spontaneously change into redhead ones and keep the whole show going.

Case in point.
Queen Victoria had the haemophilia gene and she passed it on to many of her European and Russian descendants. It was disastrous and made huge dynasties fall. Yet no one has ever been abe to trace where the HELL it came from in the first place. Who did she inherit it from???? Answer ... no one ! It was a spontaneous mutation. So that's the big hole in the redhead theory imo!

There are probably other carriers of the recessive genes nearby - they just don't know it because they don't actually have red hair themselves.

You're correct about spontaneous mutations, although haemophilia is a bit different because it's carried on the X chromosome. There are other genetic, hereditary conditions which start with a spontaneous mutation. I'm not sure how that relates to the redhead theory.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:16 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

Prince Harry, Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, Sophia Turner, Lindsay Lohan?

Apropros the first of those names, I am amazed that no-one has suggested the, er, possibility of, er, a certain, er, shall we say "liaison" between,er, HRH, er, and a certain, er, "officer and gentleman" who shall,er, remain nameless.........

(That's it. I shall say no more on pain of being sent to The Tower and having my head severed from my shoulders in the Tudor fashion........)

It's only because they both have red hair. Harry looks like Charles IMO - especially his eyes.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:52 am

Original Quill wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Apropros the first of those names, I am amazed that no-one has suggested the, er, possibility of, er, a certain, er, shall we say "liaison" between,er, HRH, er, and a certain, er, "officer and gentleman" who shall,er, remain nameless.........

(That's it. I shall say no more on pain of being sent to The Tower and having my head severed from my shoulders in the Tudor fashion........)

All the time. But I think it's believed to be impolite.

But I believe it. How is it his fault? Frankly, I think he's the best of the lot...imagination, athletic, smart and handsome. Beats those long-necked Germans...oops. they can't help it too.

Tell me I'm wrong. I'm all for Will, but I like this kid. He's a Hewitt, with a ginger Spencer mop on his head.

You're wrong - he's not a Hewitt. Harry was already a toddler when Diane started her relationship with Hewitt.

by nicko Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:56 am

He doesn't look anything like Hewitt, nose, mouth, ears, etc, no relation whatsoever.

by Fred Moletrousers Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:02 am

Original Quill wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Apropros the first of those names, I am amazed that no-one has suggested the, er, possibility of, er, a certain, er, shall we say "liaison" between,er, HRH, er, and a certain, er, "officer and gentleman" who shall,er, remain nameless.........

(That's it. I shall say no more on pain of being sent to The Tower and having my head severed from my shoulders in the Tudor fashion........)

All the time. But I think it's believed to be impolite.

But I believe it. How is it his fault? Frankly, I think he's the best of the lot...imagination, athletic, smart and handsome. Beats those long-necked Germans...oops. they can't help it too.

Tell me I'm wrong. I'm all for Will, but I like this kid. He's a Hewitt, with a ginger Spencer mop on his head.

There has certainly been a tremendous amount of speculation here over a number of years, and not always polite.

But his parents' marriage, particularly as it deteriorated, was subject to a tremendous amount of media scrutiny, pressure, speculation and "insider" revelations (some malicious and some well-intentioned but which simply made matters worse), and at the bottom of it always lay the known infidelity of both parties.

I'm certainly not being judgemental on them; marriages break down and the Queen's family has been particularly plagued. Not for nothing did she refer to her "annus horribilis."

However, I still can't help wondering about Harry...

I agree with your assessment of him. Great play is always made of his lifestyle, his friends and relationships but I challenge anyone to criticise his great service to his country, not only in his increasing involvement in public duties, but primarily in the Army where, I understand, he kicked up a hell of a fuss when the bigwigs finally insisted that he stopped putting himself in front-line danger by flying his Apache constantly within range of missiles and gunfire.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:08 am

Why do some people think that Hewitt is Harry's father, or even speculate about it? Because of the red hair. Clearly, there are some red hair genes on Diana's side, and also on Charles' side. Is that really all people are going on?

by 'Wolfie Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:39 pm

Hewitt doesn't look all that much like his father...

Different eyes, higher cheek bones, narrower nose, squarer jaw, flatter ears..
His complexion is lighter, and his hair deeper and darker.

Some people will simply see what they want to see..

And didn't the Queen's grandfather have reddish-brown hair and beard -- as did his German cousin ??? king

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:51 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Hewitt doesn't look all that much like his father...

Different eyes, higher cheek bones, narrower nose, squarer jaw, flatter ears..
His complexion is lighter, and his hair deeper and darker.

Some people will simply see what they want to see..

And didn't the Queen's grandfather have reddish-brown hair and beard -- as did his German cousin ???

Hewitt's father?

by 'Wolfie Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Hewitt doesn't look all that much like his father...

Different eyes, higher cheek bones, narrower nose, squarer jaw, flatter ears..
His complexion is lighter, and his hair deeper and darker.

Some people will simply see what they want to see..

And didn't the Queen's grandfather have reddish-brown hair and beard -- as did his German cousin ???

Hewitt's father?

Harry's father....

Re: those two photo's above..

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:01 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Hewitt's father?

Harry's father....

Re: those two photo's above..

Hewitt isn't Harry's father.

by Syl Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:09 pm

Harry looks like Hewitt imo, the profiles are very similar....nothing like Prince Charles. Course it could be a coincidence. Laughing

Redheads Experience The World Differently Than Everyone Else Screen-Shot-2014-12-29-at-8.56.41-PM

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:43 pm

Syl wrote:Harry looks like Hewitt imo, the profiles are very similar....nothing like Prince Charles. Course it could be a coincidence.

Harry has Diana's nose - no mistaking that - and he has Charles' eyes. I think these rumours are awful actually.

by Syl Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:Harry looks like Hewitt imo, the profiles are very similar....nothing like Prince Charles. Course it could be a coincidence.

Harry has Diana's nose - no mistaking that - and he has Charles' eyes. I think these rumours are awful actually.

They have always circulated, from when Harry was first seen in public as a baby, and some reporter commented on his red hair...she was very indignant and replied he was fair haired.
Then many people remarked on the facial similarities as Harry grew older. I think they look alike, always have.

In any case it certainly hasn't damaged Harrys image, no matter who is dad is rumoured to be, he has to be one of the most popular likeable royals since his mum....and I think its a good thing he doesn't look like Charles side of the family anyway, Laughing

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:59 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Harry has Diana's nose - no mistaking that - and he has Charles' eyes. I think these rumours are awful actually.

They have always circulated, from when Diana emerged from hospital after giving birth, and some reporter commented on the babies red hair...she was very indignant.
Then many people remarked on the facial similarities as Harry grew older. I think they look alike, always have.

In any case it certainly hasn't damaged Harrys image, no matter who is dad is rumoured to be, he has to be one of the most popular likeable royals since his mum....and I think its a good thing he doesn't look like Charles side of the family anyway,

She didn't even know Hewitt when Harry was born, so they can't have speculated that he was the father. I don't think they look alike. Would you think so if Hewitt didn't have red hair? I doubt it.

I think it must be awful for him for people say he's not Charles' son. For a start it would mean he was never in line to the throne and has no right to be called a Prince.

by Syl Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:00 pm

I just amended my post, it wasn't when she first left hospital (just watched the vid) she didn't speak then, it must have been soon after.

by Syl Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

They have always circulated, from when Diana emerged from hospital after giving birth, and some reporter commented on the babies red hair...she was very indignant.
Then many people remarked on the facial similarities as Harry grew older. I think they look alike, always have.

In any case it certainly hasn't damaged Harrys image, no matter who is dad is rumoured to be, he has to be one of the most popular likeable royals since his mum....and I think its a good thing he doesn't look like Charles side of the family anyway,

She didn't even know Hewitt when Harry was born, so they can't have speculated that he was the father. I don't think they look alike. Would you think so if Hewitt didn't have red hair? I doubt it.

I think it must be awful for him for people say he's not Charles' son. For a start it would mean he was never in line to the throne and has no right to be called a Prince.

Apart from the red hair yes, I do think their features are alike.
No it cant be nice for him to know people think an arse like Hewitt could be his father, but no doubt blood tests were done years ago....if he was Hewitts son I imagine he would have met a fate like Diana did before he grew up.
Its unfortunate he resembles him....but he is handsome and likeable, and I think he has risen above all the scandals that the adults around him generated as he was growing up.

by magica Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:10 pm

Harry has the Spencer red hair which can trace its ancestors back to Tudor times.

He look very much like Diana's brothers boy. Nothing like Hewitt, just cos he has ginger hair. You can see Charles in Harry now he is older too.

My soninlaw had ginger hair, his brother had dark hair yet they had the same parents both brown haired.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:13 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

She didn't even know Hewitt when Harry was born, so they can't have speculated that he was the father. I don't think they look alike. Would you think so if Hewitt didn't have red hair? I doubt it.

I think it must be awful for him for people say he's not Charles' son. For a start it would mean he was never in line to the throne and has no right to be called a Prince.

Apart from the red hair yes, I do think their features are alike.
No it cant be nice for him to know people think an arse like Hewitt could be his father, but no doubt blood tests were done years ago....if he was Hewitts son I imagine he would have met a fate like Diana did before he grew up.
Its unfortunate he resembles him....but he is handsome and likeable, and I think he has risen above all the scandals that the adults around him generated as he was growing up.

I doubt that blood tests were done. It's only idiots who spread the rumour that he was Hewitt's son. Why would the Royal family take any notice of idiots?

Why would he have been killed in a car crash if he'd been Hewitt's son? That's absurd.

I don't think he resembles him anyway - I can see both Diana and Charles in him.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:14 pm

Syl wrote:I just amended my post, it wasn't when she first left hospital (just watched the vid) she didn't speak then, it must have been soon after.

She didn't meet Hewitt for another two years, so it can't have been soon after she left hospital either.

by magica Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Apart from the red hair yes, I do think their features are alike.
No it cant be nice for him to know people think an arse like Hewitt could be his father, but no doubt blood tests were done years ago....if he was Hewitts son I imagine he would have met a fate like Diana did before he grew up.
Its unfortunate he resembles him....but he is handsome and likeable, and I think he has risen above all the scandals that the adults around him generated as he was growing up.

I doubt that blood tests were done. It's only idiots who spread the rumour that he was Hewitt's son. Why would the Royal family take any notice of idiots?

Why would he have been killed in a car crash if he'd been Hewitt's son? That's absurd.

I don't think he resembles him anyway - I can see both Diana and Charles in him.

Yes I think so too Rags

by Syl Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Apart from the red hair yes, I do think their features are alike.
No it cant be nice for him to know people think an arse like Hewitt could be his father, but no doubt blood tests were done years ago....if he was Hewitts son I imagine he would have met a fate like Diana did before he grew up.
Its unfortunate he resembles him....but he is handsome and likeable, and I think he has risen above all the scandals that the adults around him generated as he was growing up.

I doubt that blood tests were done. It's only idiots who spread the rumour that he was Hewitt's son. Why would the Royal family take any notice of idiots?

Why would he have been killed in a car crash if he'd been Hewitt's son? That's absurd.

I don't think he resembles him anyway - I can see both Diana and Charles in him.

Of course blood tests would have been done, the palace didn't trust Diana, why should they not check to see if the babies she had were of royal blood or not, imo they certainly would have done so.

And its as absurd to say the young prince would have been disposed of (had he not been Charles) as it is to say Diana died in a simple accident.....or put another way, not absurd at all.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:30 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I doubt that blood tests were done. It's only idiots who spread the rumour that he was Hewitt's son. Why would the Royal family take any notice of idiots?

Why would he have been killed in a car crash if he'd been Hewitt's son? That's absurd.

I don't think he resembles him anyway - I can see both Diana and Charles in him.

Of course blood tests would have been done, the palace didn't trust Diana, why should they not check to see if the babies she had were of royal blood or not, imo they certainly would have done so.

And its as absurd to say the young prince would have been disposed of (had he not been Charles) as it is to say Diana died in a simple accident.....or put another way, not absurd at all.

Of course they wouldn't have. They had no reason to - Diane had Harry when she'd been married for three years. Why would they think she'd been having an affair in those three years?

It's absurd to suggest that someone would have killed him - on the orders of the Royal family? I think you need to keep your feet on the ground a bit more.

by Syl Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Of course blood tests would have been done, the palace didn't trust Diana, why should they not check to see if the babies she had were of royal blood or not, imo they certainly would have done so.

And its as absurd to say the young prince would have been disposed of (had he not been Charles) as it is to say Diana died in a simple accident.....or put another way, not absurd at all.

Of course they wouldn't have. They had no reason to - Diane had Harry when she'd been married for three years. Why would they think she'd been having an affair in those three years?

It's absurd to suggest that someone would have killed him - on the orders of the Royal family? I think you need to keep your feet on the ground a bit more.

Some people think its absurd to think Diana was deliberately murdered ......I do believe they are called conspiracy theorists if they believe the royal family ...or the 'establishment' ever get rid of people who could bring down the Royal family, the governments etc.
I tend to believe some people in power are ruthless......so yes, I think anything is possible.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:47 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course they wouldn't have. They had no reason to - Diane had Harry when she'd been married for three years. Why would they think she'd been having an affair in those three years?

It's absurd to suggest that someone would have killed him - on the orders of the Royal family? I think you need to keep your feet on the ground a bit more.

Some people think its absurd to think Diana was deliberately murdered ......I do believe they are called conspiracy theorists if they believe the royal family ...or the 'establishment' ever get rid of people who could bring down the Royal family, the governments etc.
I tend to believe some people in power are ruthless......so yes, I think anything is possible.

How could Harry have brought down the Royal family? You really think they would have him murdered?

by Syl Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:55 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Some people think its absurd to think Diana was deliberately murdered ......I do believe they are called conspiracy theorists if they believe the royal family ...or the 'establishment' ever get rid of people who could bring down the Royal family, the governments etc.
I tend to believe some people in power are ruthless......so yes, I think anything is possible.

How could Harry have brought down the Royal family? You really think they would have him murdered?

In the past royals have gotten rid of the undesirables who could in some way harm them....I don't see the present lot being much different tbh.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:03 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

How could Harry have brought down the Royal family? You really think they would have him murdered?

In the past royals have gotten rid of the undesirables who could in some way harm them....I don't see the present lot being much different tbh.

Really? I can't see the Queen taking out a contract on someone. There was no reason for them to get rid of Diana - she was divorced from Charles and it was all done and dusted. Ditto with Harry - to say they would kill him for not being Charles' son is ludicrous IMO.

Anyway, he clearly is Charles' son - anyone with a brain can see that.

by Sponsored content