Andrew, I am not a conspiracyst, I don't believe in Roswell, I believe Harvey Lee Oswald acted alone, I believe we walked on moon etc etc, I'm a mathematics and science guy. I believe one should also keep an open mind, but not so open that one's brains fall out, so no problems there. However I do believe there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant further investigation into Harry's parentage, that's all I am saying. Also, on a site like wikitree I think it totally appropriate.
If Harry was in my family tree I don't think I could put Charles in as father is confident. I think a public DNA test would the only way to resolve the issue. He gets a lot of benefits with his position and he should be legitimate in order to receive it, just my opinion.
Firstly, it is well documented that both Charles and Diana had a lover at the same time, and during this time their marriage was on the rocks.
Secondly, Harry was conceived during this time and happens to look more like Diana's lover than Charles, I don't think you need to be conspiracyst to have reasonable doubt about his father.
Thirdly, in Harry's defence you said he looks like the Spencer's, well done, so he should, their his family and he looks like a combination of Diana's lover and the Spencer's, but he doesn't look a lot like William or Charles. William doesn't look like the Spencer's. Enough circumstantial evidence for me in order for further investigation, that's all I am saying.
Lastly, your loose use of adjectives implied I might be feeble minded, although you didn't outrightly say it. I could just as easily suggest that you have a romantic notion of the happily married Royal couple sailing off into the sunset with the two boy princes, and as such, Harry's legitimacy is in line with your preconceived prejudices. So to be civil, we will have to agree to disagree.