Diana and James Hewitt

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

I really dislike this thread. What good can come of discussing this?

And I like Harry. I think he'll turn out all right.

i don't think anyone's trying change the world view on harry in this thread and i for one certainly hope that i haven't offended anyone. i like harry too. and also think he has and will be just fine. it's just people expressing their thoughts.

[hibou]

Harry appears to be a basically good kid but sometimes it is better to let some things be. Must we, the public, always go inside people's bedrooms? What if this rumor is untrue. What a terrible thing to do to a child at any age. If Harry wanted to pursue it in private that should be up to him. But even if it is true do you really want to disinherit him? He seems like if he were to end up as King, he might just be someone who might just be a darn good leader. Why rock the boat? Let it be up to Harry to decide what to do. JMO

[Duchess]

i think harry would make a fine king if that unfortunate position were thrust upon him. he's a tough kid that's for sure but at the same time i see some wonderful qualities. i like him.

[TheTruth]

Harry is a nice boy, no matter who's his father. He has received a good education IMO. Not too tough and a modern one. With the time he will become wiser , he's just a young man who wants to have fun.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by hibou

Harry appears to be a basically good kid but sometimes it is better to let some things be. Must we, the public, always go inside people's bedrooms? What if this rumor is untrue. What a terrible thing to do to a child at any age.

I think the public is interested in what happened inside Diana's bedroom because of things she, herself, admitted. We know from her own lips that she had an affair with Hewitt; we saw her say it, and also say that her marriage was a mess. We have been told from other sources that the affair was a lenghty one, and also that she had affairs with other men. Some of those sources said she had affairs before Hewitt. We don't necessarily believe all the stories, but since she admitted to Hewitt we wonder, and either accept or reject those stories.

If the rumour about Harry is true, it would indeed be a terrible thing to do to a child, but Diana would have been the one who did it, not anyone else. I don't believe she would have done that though.

As for the significance of Harry not being Charles' son, though it is nice to have warm fuzzy thoughts about Charles being the only father he has known, and that Charles would love him like his own flesh and blood, etc., etc., I don't think we can be so sure in this case. We are talking about the Royal Family of the UK, the succession, and duty. I believe that both Charles and the Queen would think and feel differently about Harry if they knew that he was not Charles' son. Whatever they might feel personally, I think their attitudes to the monarchy and the succession would colour their opinions and affect their relationship with Harry. But I think Diana would have been aware of that too and wouldn't have brought a child into the world who was not Charles' because of how the child could suffer.

[Vanesa]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Finally someone who doesn't stay still on his position ! Thank you so much Vanesa for reconizing that we can sort things out in an objective way, without involving our personal feelings about who we like and who we hate. Those who like Prince Charles and make Diana a stupid woman for having a child with someone else get it all wrong IMO. I can't choose between Charles and Diana, I mean I don't have to neither. I love Diana and Charles, they were so different. Even as a Diana 'supporter', I admitt she has made mistakes (Panorama Interview, getting with Dodi Al Fayed (IMO) , etc ...) and I'm not going to defend her for that, she's a big girl (well 'was'...). Although I refuse to believe that James Hewitt is Harry's father. Like I said in a previous post, those who think that are somehow the ones who don't like Diana. Sad for them if they can't see the truth and put their hatred beside for one moment ...

Thank you, TheTruth! I'm happy you understood what I was trying to say! It was exactly this: we can love Diana, hate her or being idifferent to her and yet have an objective opinion about this issue. We are only dicussing Prince's Harry paternity, nor Diana's personality, or Prince Charles and his current wife.

As for the other people who believed I was adressing my message to them , in an special way, they are wrong. I've read all the post since this thread was open and I gave my opinion about other members post in a whole. I meant, that I took the majority of posters against or in favor of James Hewitt paternity, not the exceptions, that's is the people who even liking Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, admits that Lady Diana wouldn't have a son from another person who wasn't her husband before the divorce. Here there is a lot of objective persons, but giving the names of those who are not it's not too polite, I think. Of course, most of "The Royal Forums " members are abjective. I was only commenting some post that were not.

Vanesa.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

I think if Diana had seen James Hewitt before 1986 and not only in a friendship way then we would have known it already. With all the staff working everywhere there's an HRH,

If that were the case, explain how she kept the affair quiet for as long as she did, why did nobody come forward, at the time and sell the story of Diana or Charles' affairs?

Originally Posted by Roslyn

If the rumour about Harry is true, it would indeed be a terrible thing to do to a child, but Diana would have been the one who did it, not anyone else. I don't believe she would have done that though.

As D & C were supposed to be trying for a second child, it would have been rather difficult to get or explain away the pill. Accidents can and do happen.

Originally Posted by Vanessa

I was only commenting some post that were not

Other posters have said that they were fond of Diana, but accept the possibility that Hewitt may be Harrys' father, why do you feel it is so different, so much of a crime, that those that admit they didn't like her also accept the possibility. What you appear to be saying, is that as long as posters do not accept that Hewitt may have been the father or were Diana fans, they are objective and it is OK for them to put their opinion.

[TheTruth]

Just seen that on a picture of Hewitt on isifa.com :

Princess Diana dies in car crash 31/08/97
After the breakdown of his affair with Diana, Hewitt then committed the ultimate betrayal, co-operating on the kiss and tell book Princess in Love with Anna Pasternak, earning himself the label of cad. Nonetheless, on hearing of Dianas death, he maintained he still loved her.

Then why the hell does he use her as marketing product ?!

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Just seen that on a picture of Hewitt on isifa.com :


Then why the hell does he use her as marketing product ?!

I seem to be out of the loop. In what way is he using her as a marketing product?

[LOSSEAN]

Did they or did they not first meet in 1986? If they indeed met for the first time in 1986 (as seems to be the general consensus of posters to this thread) and HRH Prince Harry was born in 1984 then problem solved.

But I can see our appetites have been whetted by the tabloids....we are dissecting all the rumours and speculations with great diligence.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by LOSSEAN

Did they or did they not first meet in 1986? If they indeed met for the first time in 1986 (as seems to be the general consensus of posters to this thread) and HRH Prince Harry was born in 1984 then problem solved.

But I can see our appetites have been whetted by the tabloids....we are dissecting all the rumours and speculations with great diligence.

Well, I've never believed this rumor about Prince Harry and James Hewitt, but actually James Hewitt and Diana did know each before 1986. In fact, Hewitt know many of the royal family before that year, the thing is diana and Hewitt's accounts of the relationship point to their *seeing* each other in a romantic/sexual way in or after 1986, so that's where the 1986 comes from.
But they knew each other, if only slightly, before.

[LOSSEAN]

OK I'll rephrase my question "When did they begin their romantic liaison?".

I undestood that Hewitt's duties brought him in contact with members of the Royal Family so he would be known to them (including Diana). So if both of them have identified 1986 as the year they started their involvement, it is still later than 1984 the year HRH Prince Harry was born.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I seem to be out of the loop. In what way is he using her as a marketing product?

Well, if you love someone you don't go on TV under hypnosis. You don't use her to put yourself on the stage. If I remember well he already went to Larry King's show. He made a book, Love and War. I won't blame him for that of course, but in his book he talks about his life and his story with Diana. I'm pretty sure that if he had only written about his experience in the army and his childhood, the book would have lost alot of interest to many people. I hope you understood what I'm trying to say .

[Henri M.]

Originally Posted by LOSSEAN

Did they or did they not first meet in 1986? If they indeed met for the first time in 1986 (as seems to be the general consensus of posters to this thread) and HRH Prince Harry was born in 1984 then problem solved.

But I can see our appetites have been whetted by the tabloids....we are dissecting all the rumours and speculations with great diligence.

James Hewitt has joined the Life Guards (together with the Blues & Royals forming the Household Cavalry) in 1977.

So he already was at service at the various royal residences 5 years before Diana came on the stage. The Household Cavalry is the most elite or historically senior military grouping to provide functions associated directly with the Queen.

James Hewitt was a senior officer with the rank of Major and for sure had entrance to the more close encounters of members of the royal family.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by LOSSEAN

OK I'll rephrase my question "When did they begin their romantic liaison?".

I undestood that Hewitt's duties brought him in contact with members of the Royal Family so he would be known to them (including Diana). So if both of them have identified 1986 as the year they started their involvement, it is still later than 1984 the year HRH Prince Harry was born.

I totally agree. It seems to be the most logical scenario, at any rate. I know Hewitt's account unmistakably points to summer 1986 as the time they began to look at each other with a loving or sexual (whatever it was) interest. As far as Diana, I'm not sure she ever went into those kinds of specific details (certainly not 'on record') but I believe it is logical to assume Hewitt did tell the truth or remember accurately on this point. Diana had already given birth to Harry by the time she was blushing around him and taking the boys to sit in Hewitt's army tank. Moreover, it fits with everyone of the many accounts of Diana's life, at least the ones I read ages ago: Campbell, Morton, Seward.

About Hewitt though, yes, his position as officer in the Life Guards undoubtedly brought him into royal contacts since the early 80s, but I always had the impression most of his royal contacts came from the polo circuit. He played polo for the Army team in the early-through-mid 80s and was always seeing the Waleses in that capacity. In fact, he once admitted as much, that the first time he saw Diana in person she was still Lady Diana, and it was 1980, although she and he just passingly interacted then.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

I totally agree. It seems to be the most logical scenario, at any rate. I know Hewitt's account unmistakably points to summer 1986 as the time they began to look at each other with a loving or sexual (whatever it was) interest. As far as Diana, I'm not sure she ever went into those kinds of specific details (certainly not 'on record') but I believe it is logical to assume Hewitt did tell the truth or remember accurately on this point. Diana had already given birth to Harry by the time she was blushing around him and taking the boys to sit in Hewitt's army tank. Moreover, it fits with everyone of the many accounts of Diana's life, at least the ones I read ages ago: Campbell, Morton, Seward.

About Hewitt though, yes, his position as officer in the Life Guards undoubtedly brought him into royal contacts since the early 80s, but I always had the impression most of his royal contacts came from the polo circuit. He played polo for the Army team in the early-through-mid 80s and was always seeing the Waleses in that capacity. In fact, he once admitted as much, that the first time he saw Diana in person she was still Lady Diana, and it was 1980, although she and he just passingly interacted then.

I think your explaination sounds like the most reasonable and truthful of all IMO. Saying Hewitt was sleeping with Diana before 1986 is like saying that Charles slept with Diana when he was dating her sister, Sarah. Charles saw Diana at Althorp when he came to see her sister, that dosen't mean he was dating her also. It's not because you often meet the person that you're actually having an affair with her.

[HRH Kimetha]

I find the constant question of Harry's parentage with Hewitt so stupid by the media, but understand their question and interests. As I look and listen to Harry more and more, I find him to be very Windsor in looks (Prince Philip & Prince Charles), expressions and mannerisms. Harry may have some Spencer traits and looks (redhair etc.), but he looks so very much like her paternal line with the brows of both PP & his father.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Saying Hewitt was sleeping with Diana before 1986 is like saying that Charles slept with Diana when he was dating her sister, Sarah.

Why? I find this sort of argument simplistic in the extreme. Diana was a child when Charles was dating her sister, IMO, Charles would not have looked at a child in that way, Hewitt and Diana were adults at the time. There are very many cases of men & women sleeping with their wife/husbands sibling, as there are many cases of a wife or husband, straight after marriage or a child, bemoaning the fact that the spouse doesn't understand, isn't spending the time with her/him, etc.

[sirhon11234]

Diana was around my age 17 or 16 when her sister Sarah was dating Charles so she wasn't a child but a young adult.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Diana was around my age 17 or 16 when her sister Sarah was dating Charles so she wasn't a child but a young adult.

Under British law 16 - 17 is a child, unable to vote, serve their country, marry without parental consent, etc. Here that would have been called cradle snatching! In 1977 it would have really been frowned upon.