Amenhotep was between 2 and 12 years old when he took the throne, marrying Tiye (probably about his 16th year) and starting to have children, both with Tiye and his other wives and concubines, which included two of his own daughters later in his life.
I believe the co-regency lasted until the twelth year of his son's reign, who had moved with his family to Aketaten and that Tut was one of Amenhotep's III off-spring from a lesser wife or concubine. Tut seems to have grown up in the North Palace.
It is a well-known fact that men are able to produce children into their 70's, so the ability to have a child was more than possible.
Amenhotep's image, from a stele found at Akhetaten, shows an old, quite heavy, man. We know from his mummy he had severly abcessed teeth. In fact, I believe it was the poison from his teeth that finally killed him, I'm not sure of the cause of his death.
Later in his life, he seemed quite content to leave the ruling of the kingdom to Tiye and her son, A. She seems to have been a very controlling woman. She lived for several more years after her husband, and seems to have had an active role in politics.
The Armarna Age is, indeed, a battleground for mystery! No wonder it's been called the Amarna Tar Pits! About any theory one chooses can be applied to history of that time. Up to this point, very little is actually known, but with the high concentration of excavation in that area and others, we are gaining more knowledge every day.

I also tip my hat off to you!
And a tip of the hat to you, too!

Seriously, though--don't feel you are in any way insulting or hurtful to anyone here. Everyone enjoys a good debate, and yours are extremely interesting and informative. A good debate is based on several things. First--a subject of great interest. Second--a person completely in favor of one point of view. Third--a person who sees the subject differently. These things add up to a most enjoyable airing of opinion.
I agree completely--morework has to be done in the Amarna field--not only in excavation work, but, hopefully, we will find an entact tomb there or in the Valley of the Kings that contains some sort of information that will shed illuminating light on the subject. The track record, up to this time, has answered a lot of questions for us, but there are a lot that need to be answered.
Who knows, maybe someday somewhere something--a tomb, an inscription, a papyrus--will be discovered that "Tells All"!

Tut had green eyes and thats final! (jokes, they were brown and THAT'S final!) LOL

Well, in short you are wrong because my conclusive proof shows that Tutankhamun had one orange eye and one pink eye, so there! haha, proved you all wrong!

I was reading through this thread and was surprised about how vitriolic some folks were getting over certain issues, particularly the Rosetta Stone and Zahi Hawass. The argument over the Rosetta Stone is really quite moot--the British Museum will never return it, right or wrong--but I'd like to add a couple of thoughts about Hawass.

In my position as a docent at the Field Museum I've met numerous people who have had personal dealings with Hawass and know him professionally. An Egyptologist related to me that Hawass's brash character and occasional arrogant and overbearing demeanor have made him unpopular among his colleagues, including those in his own country. He is not the quite the cheery, affable fellow we see all the time on the Discovery Channel.

I've never met Hawass so I shall reserve judgement. However, with the Tut exhibit coming to our institution next year (May 2006), I will more than likely have the opportunity to meet him. And you know what? I really hope I do get to meet him.

Say what you will about Zahi Hawass, he is a terrific spokeman for his country and has done much good for the antiquities and heritage of modern Egypt.

There, enough said by me for now.

Now, as for you two, Si-amun and tutness, you're both wrong about the color of Tut's eyes. My personal psychic told me he was an albino, so his eyes were white! So there!