Diana and James Hewitt

TonyaR · Jul 16, 2007

I think the question is, why isn't it believable that James Hewitt isn't Prince Harry's father?
He doesn't look like Hewitt, the only thing they have in common is red hair. James Hewitt has a funny looking chin and although he has a similiar build, he's even shorter than Prince Charles.
Prince Harry's red hair looks very like his Aunt Sarah's hair, the growth pattern is even similiar. His eyes and eyebrows both look like his grandfather Prince Phillip, and his chin is similiar as well. The photo of his cousin George McCorquodale shows how much Harry looks like a Spencer. His looks are a definite combination of Mountbatten and Spencer looks and physical characteristics.
If Diana said she dated James Hewitt in 1986, and James Hewitt says they dated in 1986, then why do they have to be lying about the date? Simply because Harry's hair is red?
That is a poor reason to assume a woman has presented her husband with someone else's baby when the first baby is barely 2 years old.

Harry looks like a cross between Diana's family and Charles' family, and the older he gets the more pronounced the resemblence is. Earl Spencer hasn't lost any hair. He and his sister Sarah share the same hair pattern that Harry has.
James Hewitt has red hair, but his hair looks very different. It isn't thick and lush and straight like Sarah McCorquodale and Harry's hair is. His hair seems a bit curly, like Prince William's.

Having red hair is just not enough to assume a woman has presented her husband with a baby that is not his, especially when red hair runs very visibly in that woman's family.

There should be something more concrete than that to go by before a person is considered as being as dishonourable as that.

CasiraghiTrio · Jul 16, 2007

Skydragon said:
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.

Ah but as a great TRF member once implied..... around and around we go....

Poor Harry. The press will always dangle this little "debate" whenever news is slow or they want to have revenge on him (you know how the media is always taking their vengeful jabs at the royals when the royals fail to give them what they wanted). The seed was planted by some over-eager commentator, probably one of the talking heads on a Larry King Live royal special, and it sprouts up its ugly head now and again, retreating after a spell of hot-headed debate, ready to sprout up again when the time is ripe!
Short of a DNA test, nothing can kill the ratty thing. It will just keep rearing its ugly head whenever the James Whitakers or the like-minded have a book to promote.

Roslyn · Jul 16, 2007

TheTruth said:
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 .

Thanks for responding. I thought there might have been something else new that I didn't know about.

Was he trying to cash in on his relationship with Diana by writing the book? I don't see it that way. The relationship had wrecked his career and caused him all sorts of other problems. In the introduction to the book he said most of what was written about him was not true, and that some journalists feel free to fabricate at will. He said he wanted to tell his own story, and he did, and Diana was a big part of his story. I found his account very interesting to read, and quite touching. I believe he really loved her and that she probably loved him.

I cannot explain the hypnosis thing at all though. I didn't see it and I can't comment except to say it seems to have been a crazy thing to do. But then I don't think James is particularly bright.

Elspeth · Jul 16, 2007

CasiraghiTrio said:
Short of a DNA test, nothing can kill the ratty thing. It will just keep rearing its ugly head whenever the James Whitakers or the like-minded have a book to promote.

A DNA test won't make any difference. Look what happened with the blood tests on Henri Paul. "Oh, the samples were switched." "Oh, they were deliberately contaminated." "Oh, the results were tampered with."

Facts will never make any difference to a good conspiracy theory, especially when there's some money to be made from keeping the controversy going. It'll just be more column inches and more dollars while the tabloids debate about whose DNA it really was and why people would falsify the evidence.

Henri M. · Jul 16, 2007

TonyaR said:
Prince Harry's red hair looks very like his Aunt Sarah's hair, the growth pattern is even similiar.

Eeerh.... the familiar relationship between Prince Harry and Sarah Ferguson is as non-existant as those between my neighbours and myself.

:flowers:

Skydragon · Jul 17, 2007

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

That is the big question and one we will never have the answer to. Most people are hanging Hewitt out to dry on this forum, can you imagine what would happen to him and anyone willing to 'back up' an allegation of the affair starting sooner than the 'agreed' 1986?

Henri M. · Jul 17, 2007

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

Major James Hewitt started his career in the Household Cavalry (Life Guards Regiment) in 1977. So the romance between the unhappy Princess of Wales and the dashing cavalry officer could gave started any moment between 1982 and 1986.

It can start very innocently, with a wink of understanding from the gallant and impressive looking officer to the shy young Princess. Sadly enough both the Princess and the officer did not know their places. The Princess had to realize that she is The Princess of Wales and the future Queen and she should not seek for comfort in the arms of an officer of the Queen's guards. And of course the officer had tot do everything to prevent that he would engage himself into an affair with The Princess of Wales.

The same can be said about The Prince of Wales, the Prince of Wales's present spouse, the former Duchess of York, and so many more.

susan alicia · Jul 17, 2007

well royal life just is not as chivalrous as you describe. Possibly Royals are more promiscous than their subjects.

Henri M. said:
Major James Hewitt started his career in the Household Cavalry (Life Guards Regiment) in 1977. So the romance between the unhappy Princess of Wales and the dashing cavalry officer could gave started any moment between 1982 and 1986.

It can start very innocently, with a wink of understanding from the gallant and impressive looking officer to the shy young Princess. Sadly enough both the Princess and the officer did not know their places. The Princess had to realize that she is The Princess of Wales and the future Queen and she should not seek for comfort in the arms of an officer of the Queen's guards. And of course the officer had tot do everything to prevent that he would engage himself into an affair with The Princess of Wales.

The same can be said about The Prince of Wales, the Prince of Wales's present spouse, the former Duchess of York, and so many more.

TonyaR · Jul 17, 2007

Henri M. said:
Eeerh.... the familiar relationship between Prince Harry and Sarah Ferguson is as non-existant as those between my neighbours and myself.

Skydragon · Jul 17, 2007

TonyaR said:
Harry's red hair comes to him from his mother's family, it's very evident when you look at his red-headed aunt and his red-headed cousin.

If only that was the only similarity.

ysbel · Jul 17, 2007

Elspeth said:
A DNA test won't make any difference. Look what happened with the blood tests on Henri Paul. "Oh, the samples were switched." "Oh, they were deliberately contaminated." "Oh, the results were tampered with."

But there's always going to be someone like that. Look at the Anna Anderson apologists who still maintain that Anna Anderson was really Anastasia. But before the results of the DNA tests were released, a lot of very smart and knowledgeable people also thought that Anna Anderson was Anastasia. What the DNA tests did accomplish was to separate the kooks from the rest of the population. Now you're not going to find a serious thoughtful documentary or article claiming that Anna Anderson is Anastasia. That is a major accomplishment for truth, IMHO.

My prior company was in a controversial business and the one thing that I learned there is that if one is trying to change public opinion, one needs to forget about plotting every move by what the extremists think because the extremists are never going to listen If these people want to persist in thinking that Harry is Hewitt's son then let them; there's not much the royal family can do about them. But there is a much larger population of people who don't know or are undecided and they can be influenced by what they read and hear.

So it is possible that the DNA results will influence them and because they are a much larger group than the extremists, their opinion carries more weight.

Skydragon · Jul 17, 2007

ysbel said:
But there is a much larger population of people who don't know or are undecided and they can be influenced by what they read and hear.
So it is possible that the DNA results will influence them and because they are a much larger group than the extremists, their opinion carries more weight.

I don't know if there is a much larger population in the UK that is as convinced that Harry is Charles' biological child. As you have seen & heard youself, many believe he is Hewitts son and have no problem voicing their belief to 'strangers'.

ysbel · Jul 17, 2007

Skydragon said:
I don't know if there is a much larger population in the UK that is as convinced that Harry is Charles' biological child. As you have seen & heard youself, many believe he is Hewitts son and have no problem voicing their belief to 'strangers'.

No that is not quite what I meant skydragon.

The British man I met in the pub who said, 'Well of course everyone thinks Harry is Hewitt's son' really didn't have a strong opinion on it. He quoted the reasoning that both Hewitt and Harry had red hair and Diana was very unhappy in her marriage from the beginning - but it wasn't something he felt passionate about - rather it was an offhanded comment and we quickly moved onto his opinions of the aristocracy which (since he had gone to school with several, he had a lot of more strongly formed opinions on the British aristocracy than he did the royal family).

He is what I would refer to as the larger undecided population - they have no strong feelings either way but are influenced by the press that's out there. There is more noise out there that Harry is Hewitt's son at the moment and nothing really substantial like a DNA test result to counteract the influence the Hewitt rumours have on the minds of the larger population.

Now I'm sure my British acquaintance would not so blithely assure a total stranger that Harry is Hewitt's son if the results of a DNA test were published and they were shown to be negative.

You can take the coroner's report surrounding Diana's car crash to see what a documented and thoroughly researched report can do to quash wild and unsupported speculation. Before the coroner's report came out, if you read the comments on a lot of articles on Diana, more than half of the readers suspected foul play. Now most of the readers when they respond to an article by Diana point to the natural causes - driving too fast, no seat belts, and nothing else, that led to the crash. Another triumph of truth over wild, mindless speculation.

auntie · Jul 17, 2007

I think I've mentioned it before, there are some children who look like neither parents, but are a clone of all the Genes involved, Prince Harry is a good example. He has the spencer and Mountbatten-Windsor looks all combined!

TonyaR · Jul 17, 2007

Skydragon said:
If only that was the only similarity.

The red hair is the only similiarity, and that isn't even the same texture. Prince Harry walks just like his brother Prince William, his hands look like his grandfather Phillip's. He even smiles the same as Prince Phillip. When you look at the photos facing Prince Harry from the side, it shows that he has the same smile lines in his face as Prince Phillip, and he has Prince Phillip's strong jaw line. To top it all off, he has Prince Charles' ears! It looks like he's inherited his hair, his height, and his over-all coloring from his Spencer side.

He's definitely a combination of Spencer-Mountbatten with a little Windsor thrown in for good measure. What's so funny is how Prince Harry and his cousin George McCorquodale look so much alike they look like brothers! Their hair is exactly the same: thickness, color, texture and all. Their skin coloring is the same also.

selrahc4 · Jul 17, 2007

TonyaR said:
What's so funny is how Prince Harry and his cousin George McCorquodale look so much alike they look like brothers! Their hair is exactly the same: thickness, color, texture and all. Their skin coloring is the same also.

I've seen the childhood pictures from 1992 which show the close resemblance between these two cousins. Are there recent pictures anywhere that show how much they have continued to look alike into young adulthood? Thanks to anyone who can provide the information.

Elspeth · Jul 17, 2007

Skydragon, if a DNA test was done and it was reported that it showed no relationship between Harry and James Hewitt, would you believe it was accurate and accept that Harry was Charles's son?

Elspeth · Jul 17, 2007

Janet, there's a more recent photo of George McCorquodale in post 288. You'll have to refresh the screen before being able to see it.

Jo of Palatine · Jul 17, 2007

ysbel said:
But there's always going to be someone like that. Look at the Anna Anderson apologists who still maintain that Anna Anderson was really Anastasia. But before the results of the DNA tests were released, a lot of very smart and knowledgeable people also thought that Anna Anderson was Anastasia. What the DNA tests did accomplish was to separate the kooks from the rest of the population. Now you're not going to find a serious thoughtful documentary or article claiming that Anna Anderson is Anastasia. That is a major accomplishment for truth, IMHO.

You're quite right. But - DNA-testing back then was not what it is today and the tests were conducted when Anderson was already dead, cremated and buried. The source of the DNA-material can be doubted, which leaves the question still open. As Anderson is dead and left no kids, it doesn't matter anyway anymore.

Jo of Palatine · Jul 17, 2007

Just wanted to add that the only two people whose opinion and belief counts are Charles and Harry. They probably have both an opinion about the matter and probably know of the other's opinion and that forms part of their relationship.All others have to be content with the fact taht as long as Charles does nothing, Harry is his son and that's that.

selrahc4 · Jul 17, 2007

Elspeth said:
Janet, there's a more recent photo of George McCorquodale in post 288. You'll have to refresh the screen before being able to see it.

Thank you. I can see that the previous comment about the hair (texture, growth pattern etc.) and complexion are spot on. Otherwise, they look less strikingly alike than they did in 1992, but a strong family resemblance can definitely still be seen.

Skydragon · Jul 17, 2007

TonyaR said:
The red hair is the only similiarity, and that isn't even the same texture. Prince Harry walks just like his brother Prince William,

Only in your opinion surely? I see other traits that remind me more of James Hewitt than any of Charles family. They had the same mother, so I would expect him to have some similarities with William, many traits like walking, talking, smiling, frowning etc are normally picked up from the caregivers. Having said that, his smile looks so much like James Hewitts, IMO.

Elspeth said:
Skydragon, if a DNA test was done and it was reported that it showed no relationship between Harry and James Hewitt, would you believe it was accurate and accept that Harry was Charles's son?

On that I will plead the 5th!

ysbel · Jul 17, 2007

Jo of Palatine said:
You're quite right. But - DNA-testing back then was not what it is today and the tests were conducted when Anderson was already dead, cremated and buried. The source of the DNA-material can be doubted, which leaves the question still open. As Anderson is dead and left no kids, it doesn't matter anyway anymore.

Well Jo even inferior DNA testing on a dead woman was enough to close the question to all but the most conspiracy-minded individuals in the Anna Anderson case. If you look at the literature post-DNA tests vs. the literature before, there is a remarkable difference in the opinions of experts who have their academic and scientific reputations to consider. Before the tests quite a few experts were willing to openly consider that Anna Anderson was Anastasia but after the tests, no one with a reputation to protect would back the statement that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.

So imagine how impactful DNA results with more advanced testing on Harry and Hewitt's DNA would be.

There's always a few people who will believe only what they want to believe, but but its impossible to reason a person out of an opinion that they didn't use reason with to get themselves in the first place. That shouldn't influence the decision whether or not to take a DNA test because the majority of people don't have strong opinions on Harry's paternity and therefore, I believe a DNA test result would influence their beliefs.

TonyaR · Jul 17, 2007

I agree with your assessment on this Ysbel. I think an advanced DNA test done with the most recent and cutting edge techniques would settle the matter beyond the shadow of a doubt.
All that would be left would be naysayers who might say that the test was a fake, or that the results were faked, or just anything that would prevent the dissolution of a much favored pet conspiracy theory.

I'm one of the people who believes that Diana did have her boys tested in 1995 and she just didn't tell them what was going on.
All it takes is a swab in the mouth, she wouldn't have needed any DNA from Hewitt, just DNA from herself and Charles and the boys.
The test works by checking for a match on the DNA strands. Both princes would contain DNA strands from both parents within their own DNA.
If the test revealed that Harry had a certain number of a certain type of DNA strands that matched Prince Charles' certain corresponding DNA strands, then that means he is Charles' son.

If he didn't have any DNA strands that matched Charles' in a certain way, then he wouldn't be Charles' son. It would certainly leave no room for doubt.

I hope Harry does get tested one day, just to vindicate his mother.

If he is not Charles' son, that would mean that his mother was a very dishonorable person, a terrible person that would attempt to pass off an imposter with the wrong bloodlines as a rightful heir in the line of succession to the throne of England. I don't believe she was like that.

I believe that at the time Prince Harry was conceived, Diana and Charles were still involved with one another. They had only been married 3 years at that time, if a lot of the books and stories written about their lives have their facts correct, then the marriage had not yet fallen apart in 1983.

Skydragon · Jul 17, 2007

TonyaR said:
I believe that at the time Prince Harry was conceived, Diana and Charles were still involved with one another. They had only been married 3 years at that time, if a lot of the books and stories written about their lives have their facts correct, then the marriage had not yet fallen apart in 1983.

If Ken Wharfs version is to be believed, then no they were barely a couple in the true sense of the word. We also have Tina Brown telling us that Mannakee and Diana were involved after all. As shown on this very forum, if it looks as though a book is set to reveal anything less than nice about Diana, it is rubbished, the sections showing Diana in a good light are emphasised, the ugly sections not mentioned or glossed over.
If as you suggest Diana took DNA samples from the boys in 1995, they would have to be thick not to understand what she was doing.

Harry will never be tested, to allow it would cast doubt on Williams parentage as well and that would be a whole new ball game! :ermm:

avrilo · Jul 17, 2007

I insist this is so tacky to discuss

Duchess · Jul 17, 2007

think of me as a conspiracy theorist but i think that in there are many ways to attempt to prove a point there are at least equal number of ways to attempt to cover it up.

Henri M. · Jul 17, 2007

TonyaR said:
I was referring to Prince Harry's actual blood relative -- his aunt Lady Sarah McCorquodale.

Oops... I was thinking about another Sarah, and coincidentally a redheaded lady as well.

By the way, I believe that the Princess has had a love affair with several men. Maybe understandable from a human point of view. But when you think about her as a royal, it is shocking that several gentlemen (?) can claim to have slept with The Princess of Wales and the future Queen.

Sadly enough she was no exception in the then royal family.
:neutral:

I try to imagine what my reaction would be when I hear that The Duchess of Brabant would have had an affair with another married man. Or that one of the guards from the Royal Marechaussee would claim that he has had secret rendez-vous with The Princess of Orange, the future Queen and mother of three innocent Princesses....

But no matter how... I cán not believe that Diana would be able to carry the baby of a Guards officer, hide it for her spouse and act as if he is a rightful blood descendant to the throne. Impossible. Therefore I'm almost 100% certain that Prince Harry is the son of Prince Charles and Princess Diana indeed.

:flowers:

ysbel · Jul 17, 2007

TonyaR said:
If he is not Charles' son, that would mean that his mother was a very dishonorable person, a terrible person that would attempt to pass off an imposter with the wrong bloodlines as a rightful heir in the line of succession to the throne of England. I don't believe she was like that.

I wouldn't say that, Tonya. For Harry to be someone else's son, all it would have taken was for Diana in a fit of sadness over her marriage to be comforted by someone other than her husband and the two to take it too far one time only. Depending on what was going on in Diana's life, it would have been an understandable mistake. The odds against something like that making her pregnant would be high enough for Diana to convince herself that Harry really is Charles' son despite a single indiscretion. And the odds would be high against someone else being Harry's father but the odds wouldn't be impossible.

On the other hand, it could also be true that if Hewitt and Diana had a dalliance, Harry could still be Charles' son as long as Diana and Charles had some sort of sexual relations back then.

ysbel · Jul 17, 2007

Skydragon said:
If Ken Wharfs version is to be believed, then no they were barely a couple in the true sense of the word. We also have Tina Brown telling us that Mannakee and Diana were involved after all. As shown on this very forum, if it looks as though a book is set to reveal anything less than nice about Diana, it is rubbished, the sections showing Diana in a good light are emphasised, the ugly sections not mentioned or glossed over.
If as you suggest Diana took DNA samples from the boys in 1995, they would have to be thick not to understand what she was doing.

Harry will never be tested, to allow it would cast doubt on Williams parentage as well and that would be a whole new ball game!

I think William is an entirely different kettle of fish. I haven't heard anybody say that Diana and Charles' marriage broke down irretrievably after only two months together which would be the necessary scenario for William not to be Charles' son since William was born 11 months after his parents were married.

Diana and James Hewitt

Nobility

Heir Apparent , TRF Author, Royal Blogger

Heir Apparent

Former Moderator

Royal Highness

Imperial Majesty

Royal Highness

Heir Presumptive

Nobility

Imperial Majesty

Heir Apparent , TRF Author

Imperial Majesty

Heir Apparent , TRF Author

Royal Highness

Nobility

Courtier

Former Moderator

Former Moderator

Heir Apparent

Heir Apparent

Courtier

Imperial Majesty

Heir Apparent , TRF Author

Nobility

Imperial Majesty

Courtier

Royal Highness

Royal Highness

Heir Apparent , TRF Author

Heir Apparent , TRF Author

Similar threads