Claims about James Hewitt and Prince Harry's paternity

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by msleiman

The next thing he will be saying is that William is also his child!

Now that is unbelievable, you only have to look at William to know that he is Charles' son!

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sassie

Okay. But, again, Diana isn't alive to refute the claim, so we have only his word for it. Well, and Max Clifford, whoever that is. I don't think anyone seriously believes that Diana would have begun a love affair with Hewitt in 1981.

I think everyone is leaping here, he says he met her in 1981, not that he bedded her at that stage!

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I think this rumour comes from the fact that he went on a show and offered himself to be hypnotized to see if he was really Harry's father.

The rumour was about long before the show a couple of years ago, where apparently under hypnosis James Hewitt said he had met Diana in 1981. A point you raised in another thread that you met some Brits and they came right out with it.

To answer Jo, would she have done it on purpose, possibly (what 'sweet' revenge for a troubled mind).

To answer those that believe that it is only the people that didn't like Diana that consider the possibility, (although I freely admit I couldn't stand the woman), I don't believe that to be the case, the Brits on the whole are just realists and as time passes are not interested in sugar coating the past.

[ysbel]

Yes I remember that. I was quite shocked that Brits who seemed to be pretty uninterested in the royals (not for or against) were very sure that Harry was not Charles' son.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Now that is unbelievable, you only have to look at William to know that he is Charles' son!

Interesting I think William as gets older looks more and more like Charles Spencer and his grandfather the late earl. I actually see much more of PoW and DoE in Harry. Ears!

[Vanesa]

Of course, he could have meet Diana in 1981, but I think it's a little far fetched to think that just for Hewitt meet Lady Diana, he'll be Prince Harry's father! If some yellow press would claim the Prince is Hewitt's son they are worse that I thought! The lady is dead by now, and no need to bring these things to papers titles. I think this is not "sugar coating" anything, but simply to respect a persons memory.

Lady Diana Spencer had many defaults (as all here have) and even if I like her as a beatiful, elegant, caritative woman, I think she was not made to be a Princess. But this not allows me to lie about her, to be mean to her, and to try to make money on her. She was a person, made from bones and flesh, and not a product to sell. I can easily understtand Princes William and Harry's anger. I think they must demand Channel 4. If it doesn't show all it saids it should show, this doesn't matter. The Channel spoke about a serie of scandalous things just to attrackt public, and even if it wouldn't show them, the fact still remains that they spoke about them.

A person's memory should be respected.

Vanesa.

[BeatrixFan]

A person's memory should be respected.

I'm sorry but I disagree. A person's memory is only respected if they earned that respect during their lifetime. Automatic respect based on the criteria of being deceased would lead us to respect the memory of Hitler and I'm sure none of us would agree with that. And let us not overlook the fact that if the discussion of Harry's paternity sells newspapers, respect doesn't come into it.

[ysbel]

I don't think Diana is being hurt at all by what is said about her now.

I do think though that Harry is being hurt because of these rumours precisely because he is alive and he has to live with what people are saying about him.

Diana and the Queen Mum are in a place where nothing can touch them. The living are not so fortunate.

For the quality and dignity of human discussion, I prefer that no slanderous lies be spread against anybody - living or dead.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I think everyone is leaping here, he says he met her in 1981, not that he bedded her at that stage!

The change in Hewitt's story, and his explanation that it was "agreed upon" that both he and Diana would say they began their affair in 1986 is obviously intended to hope people will 'leap' to the assumption that they began their affair earlier, and that he is possibly Harry's father.

My point was that even the logistics of 1981 defy Hewitt's unsaid inference, for those who might make that 'leap'.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I'm sorry but I disagree. A person's memory is only respected if they earned that respect during their lifetime. Automatic respect based on the criteria of being deceased would lead us to respect the memory of Hitler and I'm sure none of us would agree with that. And let us not overlook the fact that if the discussion of Harry's paternity sells newspapers, respect doesn't come into it.

Yes a person's memory should be respected if they earned it in life so Diana's memory should also be respected.

[BeatrixFan]

And that is a matter of opinion, hence the right for all sides to be put forward.

[scooter]

Now thats not very nice. You wouldn't like it if someone said something like that about P Charles, would you? My personal view is that there were no innocent bystanders. But, two of the 3 are here and very happy together. The third is dead. Should we not at least be respectful?

[BeatrixFan]

I wouldn't like it but they have the right to say it. I'm afraid I don't buy into this idea that death cements angelic qualities that were lacking during a person's lifetime. In my opinion.

[ysbel]

Guys, I'm sorry to say I have to put my moderator hat on. With the Diana concert coming up soon, members are getting REALLY sensitive.

I understand your pain but we HAVE to cut the Diana vs. Camilla crap out.

We've been here before and we know we don't like where that takes us.

Try to understand your fellow members from their point of view even if you think they're totally wrong. And please think of how your words sound before you hit the Send button.

ysbel
British forums moderator

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sassie

My point was that even the logistics of 1981 defy Hewitt's unsaid inference, for those who might make that 'leap'.

As I said he has never inferred that is when they started their affair, just that the general agreement that they met in 1986 is wrong.

Something to ponder....
Has nobody every questioned why James Hewitt, an indifferent polo player and less than accomplished rider would have been taken on as instructor to Diana and her sons, when qualified and speicialist instructors were available to the RF?

[susan alicia]

I have never thought about it, do you have a theory?

Originally Posted by Skydragon

As I said he has never inferred that is when they started their affair, just that the general agreement that they met in 1986 is wrong.

Something to ponder....
Has nobody every questioned why James Hewitt, an indifferent polo player and less than accomplished rider would have been taken on as instructor to Diana and her sons, when qualified and speicialist instructors were available to the RF?

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

As I said he has never inferred that is when they started their affair, just that the general agreement that they met in 1986 is wrong.

Well, we could argue what Hewitt inferred endlessly, so let's just say that it is your opinion that he didn't infer it, and it is my opinion that he did.
< ed Warren >

[Aurora810]

Alright perhaps I shouldn't say anything and perhaps this has already been discussed.(sorry if it has) But today I watched an episode of "The Early Show" here in the U.S. it was Tuesday's epis