Diana and James Hewitt

[Skydragon]

Once the red hair factor is eliminated, then what is left to call a resemblance? ...
After all, Prince William was conceived sometime around october 1981, more than a year and a half after they were married.

As they would say, you've just got to look at the bloke (Harry). You don't see any resemblance others do, even if you take away the red hair. Someone asked the general feeling of Brits, like ysbel I don't claim to speak for them all, I just repeated what is a common statement from people when asked what they think.
William was of course born 11 months after the wedding (29.07.81) on 21.06.82 and Diana was already unhappy in her marriage.

 

[TonyaR]

Skydragon I stand corrected regarding the wedding date, I mistakenly thought they were married in July 1980 instead of 1981.
I certainly understand that you're just repeating a common consensus, and I'm sure that many members of the British public do share that view point.
I guess I'm really curious as to why they would seem to be ignoring the obvious resemblance to Prince Harry's Spencer relatives, seeming to prefer instead to believe that Diana and Hewitt are likely lying.
It seems to me that they have a choice, and they simply choose to believe that she lied rather than that she had a liason with a red haired man 2 years after Harry was born, as she and the man involved have both stated.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

TonyaR, I think much like you about this. I think from reading others' posts that many will agree with us. But as far as the people Skydragon and ysbel mention, those who believe the media-implanted idea of Hewitt being Harry's father, are the very people who, unlike us, aren't paying much attention. They aren't even reading the articles(maybe) but just seeing grocery-store headlines, and they see Harry's red hair, Hewitt's red hair, and it's enough. So maybe they don't read what we read of Diana saying this, of Hewitt saying this, and they don't see pics of the Spencer family like we do,or they don't pay attention. I hope that helps you understand better. That's what I believe anyway.

 

[Skydragon]

I certainly understand that you're just repeating a common consensus, and I'm sure that many members of the British public do share that view point.
I guess I'm really curious as to why they would seem to be ignoring the obvious resemblance to Prince Harry's Spencer relatives, seeming to prefer instead to believe that Diana and Hewitt are likely lying.
It seems to me that they have a choice, and they simply choose to believe that she lied rather than that she had a liason with a red haired man 2 years after Harry was born, as she and the man involved have both stated.

You and others have kindly put pictures on here that you believe show a resemblance to the Spencers and the Windsors, but in reality very few people know or care about Diana's nephews. They see Charles and Harry, but primarily they see in their minds the pictures in the tabloids that show a resemblance to James.
Another problem is that much has been written of the various lovers Diana was believed to have had and if she was willing to do that, who knows what else she got up to. Many people watched the hypnosis programme, where Hewitt alleged that he and Diana started their affair just after William was born, followed by the crying and telling the world he still loved her. His refusal to speak about what he had said under hypnosis fuelled the flames, then add the statement that he was sticking to the agreed dates of 1986 and you can see why so many people really started to wonder.

 

[TonyaR]

are the very people who, unlike us, aren't paying much attention. They aren't even reading the articles(maybe) but just seeing grocery-store headlines, and they see Harry's red hair, Hewitt's red hair, and it's enough. So maybe they don't read what we read of Diana saying this, of Hewitt saying this, and they don't see pics of the Spencer family like we do,or they don't pay attention.

Casiraghi Trio, what you're saying in the above quote makes perfect sense to me. I confess I hadn't thought about that, I think I just assumed that everyone pays the same amount of attention that we do.

IMO it's such a serious accusation to level at someone, saying that they're attempting to pass off an illegitimate child as the blood heir of royalty, that I assumed anyone would pay utmost attention to all details before believing it.

Skydragon, I didn't see your post before I posted my own comment, but I can certainly see why people would have questions after watching such a broadcast. In light of what Diana and Hewitt both originally said, I think the hypnosis stunt was an attempt to generate interest in himself for financial gain.

 

[Elspeth]

Skydragon I stand corrected regarding the wedding date, I mistakenly thought they were married in July 1980 instead of 1981.
I certainly understand that you're just repeating a common consensus, and I'm sure that many members of the British public do share that view point.
I guess I'm really curious as to why they would seem to be ignoring the obvious resemblance to Prince Harry's Spencer relatives, seeming to prefer instead to believe that Diana and Hewitt are likely lying.
It seems to me that they have a choice, and they simply choose to believe that she lied rather than that she had a liason with a red haired man 2 years after Harry was born, as she and the man involved have both stated.

A lot of people who aren't royal watchers mightn't know that Diana comes from a family of redheads. She was blonde, her mother was blonde, and they're the ones who were in the news more than the rest of her family. And it sells more newspapers when Diana's son's red hair can be compared with James Hewitt's than with Sarah and George McCorquodale's.

It's just that James Hewitt's actions are really weird. He's claiming in public that he and Diana weren't intimate till the mid-1980s, so why even undergo the hypnosis? What was he trying to prove by undergoing hypnosis about something like this and then publicising it and then contradicting it? This guy sounds like someone who's desperate for attention or money or both. Such inexcusible mischief-making, when he must have known the tabloids would pick the story up and run with it for as long as they could make money - and all at the expense of Prince Harry's peace of mind at a time when he's already got enough problems because of his Army career. I wonder if it even occurred to James Hewitt how badly this might be hurting Harry. I would hope that he was so stupid that it didn't occur to him, because if it did occur to him, then his actions were downright wicked.

 

[Vanesa]

Exactly, Elspeth. There are a lot of red-haired people among the Spencers. Besides, Prince Harry has nothing to do with Mr. James Hewitt in facial features. He is nothing like him, but I see much of the Windsords and the Spencers on him.

Vanesa.

 

[ysbel]

But as far as the people Skydragon and ysbel mention, those who believe the media-implanted idea of Hewitt being Harry's father, are the very people who, unlike us, aren't paying much attention. They aren't even reading the articles(maybe) but just seeing grocery-store headlines, and they see Harry's red hair, Hewitt's red hair, and it's enough. So maybe they don't read what we read of Diana saying this, of Hewitt saying this, and they don't see pics of the Spencer family like we do,or they don't pay attention.

That's exactly what I meant CasiraghiTrio! You explained what I experienced when I spoke with these people. They're all wonderful persons, they're not accusing Diana of lying; they didn't even know that she made any statement. Its something that they don't care about that much. But I believe they are seeing the newspaper headlines and hearing it discussed and so they're seeing more written about Harry being Hewitt's son rather than why he is Charles' son.

Someone once said that a lie repeated often enough becomes a truth. He didn't mean that it actually becomes true but if it is repeated often enough, then people will start to believe that it is true and sometimes people's perceptions are all that really matters.

These people who don't care that much either way are a lot more numerous than those of us who do and at some point you have to think what would happen to the monarchy if it were put up to a vote that depended on the approval of these great masses of people who don't follow royalty like we do.

But on a more basic level, I think the rumours are hurting Harry and that's why I wish the royal family would do something decisive to put an end to it; even though I know a DNA test won't convert the extremists; but at least I think the royal family could put an end to it in the minds of these disinterested masses and by their numbers, I think their opinion can have more impact on Harry's life and the reputation of the royal family than the opinions of those are are more well informed.

 

[AuroraB]

Continually making reference to the resemblance between Harry and his maternal cousins is irrelevant, since no one is questioning the fact that Diana was his mother.

My older sister is a strawberry blonde with freckles, I have very dark brown hair (almost black), no freckles, and olive skin. Her looks favor our mother's side and I look like my father's side of the family. The standing joke when we were kids was that she looked just like our milkman.

 

[Duchess]

What I don't understand is how these 'chaps who help on the farm' and others have come to the "oh so sure" conclusion that Diana and Hewitt are just outright lying, and Prince Harry is Hewitt's son?

i don't think hewitt has ever made the claim himself. as for the resemblance to the spencer's it makes perfect sense because diana is his mother. it's the resemblance to the windsors that i don't see. i know that alone doesn't eliminate charles as his father but resembling the spencers doesn't eliminate hewitt as the father. but as i've always said, i remain open minded as to paternity and i think that charles has been a wonderful father.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

IMO it's such a serious accusation to level at someone, saying that they're attempting to pass off an illegitimate child as the blood heir of royalty, that I assumed anyone would pay utmost attention to all details before believing it.

Indeed, very serious allegation, but unfortunately for many in the general public, royalty is such a trivialized idea, that it matters little to them, or doesn't matter enough to spend the time to analyze the proofs for and against the allegations. After all, the average person probably believes Charlotte Casiraghi is a Princess of Monaco, Andrea is Prince Andrea of monaco, and that Diana was always 'Princess Diana' and all the rest of such media simplifications. Even the official websites of charities Diana was involved with call her that, and so she will always be for most people, unconcerned as they are with the minutiae of Letters Patent, etc.
These things are just not very important to most people. I am such a lover of details and particulars and most people think I'm a bit freaky because of it.

 

[TonyaR]

I am such a lover of details and particulars and most people think I'm a bit freaky because of it.

Not a bit! Freaky is entirely the wrong word. Thoughtful and careful and thorough is more like it. People like yourself and Skydragon, who take the time and make the effort to check things out thoroughly are our lifelines on a forum! That's where we get some of the best information.

 

[Skydragon]

After all, the average person probably believes Charlotte Casiraghi is a Princess of Monaco, Andrea is Prince Andrea of monaco,

I hate to be the one to tell you this, most people in the UK have not even heard of any of the Casiraghi's.

 

[Elspeth]

Continually making reference to the resemblance between Harry and his maternal cousins is irrelevant, since no one is questioning the fact that Diana was his mother.

It is relevant because it answers the question, "If James Hewitt isn't his father, where does he get his red hair?" The answer is that since his mother comes from a family of redheads, it's hardly surprising that she might have had a red-headed child.

 

[smgaries]

THE SPENCER COUSINS FROM THE CONCERT FOR DIANA
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x...s_14507023.jpg
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x...RE74975201.jpg
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x...RE74973597.jpg
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x...RE74976569.jpg
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x...RE74977538.jpg

 

[TonyaR]

Wow, I counted at least 4 redheads! Ginger colouring really does run in Diana's family.

 

[ysbel]

It is relevant because it answers the question, "If James Hewitt isn't his father, where does he get his red hair?" The answer is that since his mother comes from a family of redheads, it's hardly surprising that she might have had a red-headed child.

The only problem is that the tendency of the Spencers to have red hair does not unequivocally prove that Harry is NOT Hewitt's son so perhaps its relevancy is that it answers an irrelevant question.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, honestly, considering that this stuff all stems from that idiotic hypnosis episode, I'd say the whole business is irrelevant. Just some stunt of James Hewitt's to get publicity or money or notoriety or something.

I mean, if he really had known Diana and had an affair with her back in the early 1980s, why on earth wouldn't he be remembering it now without hypnosis? It's not some major trauma like being assaulted as a two-year-old or being blown up during a battle or something. And what would have made him want to undergo the hypnosis anyway? Surely it isn't something he was having unexplained nightmares about or whatever other symptoms of extreme trauma there might be. It doesn't begin to make sense.

 

[ysbel]

Oh that hypnosis is so hard to believe, Elspeth! It got James Hewitt in front of the public though!

I did remember to ask a couple of the blokes at work about the hypnosis episode and they didn't know a thing about it.

Their opinion seemed to be: Diana was unhappy in her marriage from the start; she started seeing James Hewitt, Harry looks nothing like the Windsors, Harry and Hewitt have red hair.

Oddly enough I don't think it is the red hair so much as the fact that Charles and Diana's boys don't have that telltale look of the Windsor family. I see small resemblances here and there but the Windsors tend to have an overall look to them which the Wales boys did not inherit. But of course that would also imply that William is not Charles' son so why they're picking on Harry and not William I don't know unless it must be the red hair.

 

[LOSSEAN]

Yes they are more Diana's sons than HRH Prince Charles. Even HRH Prince William when he was born looked like Earl Spencer (his grandfather). They are both taller and broader than their father. I saw that their cousin Alexander Fellowes is a big guy too! But don't worry. The tell-tale Windsor trait is sure to show up in their children. Though I do declare that HRH Prince Harry and HRH Prince Edward resembled each other as children.

 

[kpusa1981]

Yes they are more Diana's sons than HRH Prince Charles. Even HRH Prince William when he was born looked like Earl Spencer (his grandfather). They are both taller and broader than their father. I saw that their cousin Alexander Fellowes is a big guy too! But don't worry. The tell-tale Windsor trait is sure to show up in their children. Though I do declare that HRH Prince Harry and HRH Prince Edward resembled each other as children.

Actually, in heighth and broadness look the Duke of Edinburgh than HRH Prince Charles. William is looking more and more like a Windsor as he older while Harry at least at this point still has more of his moms Spencer features than Windsor features.

 

[Skydragon]

Well, honestly, considering that this stuff all stems from that idiotic hypnosis episode, I'd say the whole business is irrelevant. Just some stunt of James Hewitt's to get publicity or money or notoriety or something.

Very many people didn't see or hear about the hypnosis, so it can hardly be that.

HYPNO-DI-SED - News - Mirror.co.uk

Wharfe said in his book (2002) "The malicious rumours that still persist about the paternity of Prince Harry used to anger Diana greatly".

Which means the rumours predate the hypnosis by some years.

 

[TheTruth]

Wharfe said in his book (2002) "The malicious rumours that still persist about the paternity of Prince Harry used to anger Diana greatly".

Of course she was angry. Saying it's true is meaning that she lied to Charles and all the RF. I still and will always believe that Harry is Charles's son. The idea of Hewitt being his father is, IMO, based on no proof at all and nothing shows that he could have been his father.

 

[blondie28]

I believe that Harry is Charles son also and even if he weren't it wouldn't be like he's just going to switch father's, Hewitt was not the father that comforted him after his mother died.

 

[TheTruth]

Hewitt was not the father that comforted him after his mother died.

Totally true so why bother. I mean even if Hewitt is in fact Harry's father (which I doubt), he's only his 'biological father'. He showed no affection for him (nothing that could have been reported till now) and if he loved Diana as strong as he has claimed, he would have showed more concern about Harry's future. The poor excuse of the RF telling him to stay away from Harry doesn't work on me. If he wanted to see him he could have find a way.

 

[ysbel]

I agree that the rumours didn't start with the hypnosis session (in fact I think the rumours fuelled the interest in the TV program to contact Hewitt for a hypnosis session) but I do think if Hewitt had not done the session, the rumours would have had a lower profile than they do now. I still haven't seen any real hard evidence of Hewitt and Diana having an affair before Harry was born and unless something like that comes up, the speculations that Harry is Hewitt's son don't appear to be built on anything that is solid. Unfortunately that doesn't keep them from dominating the paper or making an impression on the average man or woman in the street.

 

[TheTruth]

Unfortunately that doesn't keep them from dominating the paper or making an impression on the average man or woman in the street.

True, and it's a problem because most of people are not like us, talking about royalty and knowing pretty much on it. Of course we don't know everything but we are aware that officialy Diana and Hewitt had an affair in 1986, which means 2 years after the birth of Harry. Although the average man or woman in the street like you said in previous post I think, read the headlines of the tabloids and don't go find another source of information so it's quite difficult to convince them that it might be wrong. It's the same thing with the assassination theory about Diana's car crash. Many polls were done and most of the time people voted for the assassination theory because they only make their opinion on tabloid headlines and media speculations, they didn't 'dig' further into the scientific proof and the fact that Mohamed Fayed had hired Henri Paul which makes him, in fact, more guilty than anybody else.

 

[Skydragon]

True, and it's a problem because most of people are not like us, talking about royalty and knowing pretty much on it. Of course we don't know everything but we are aware that officialy Diana and Hewitt had an affair in 1986,

There you have the problem, everything 'known' by posters on here about Diana, was gleaned from tabloids or written by people who alter the truth to sell their books to sell more copies. Some of the story that Diana fed to Morton has since been found to be less than truthful. As we all know, officially means nothing in reality.

There are many sides to the Diana/Hewitt story and somewhere buried in the middle, the truth.

 

[TheTruth]

Okay Skydragon but before 1986, we don't have a clue. You agree ? So what I say is before that time who can know what really happened ?

 

[qui mal y pense]

Didn't Hewitt lose his job after his revelations to the media? Sorry to be cynical, but is seems that when anyone remotely connected to Diana needs some cash, they suddenly remember things that have never been revealed before. I don't give Hewitt's new or old revelations much credibility. Once you betray another person's trust you are not trustworthy. Period. The fact that they did have a relationship was confirmed by Diana, but beyond that any details can be purely a figment of Hewitt's cash hungry imagination.

Face reality! I could write a book about an alleged affair I had with Diana. I'm sure it would sell, make me famous and make me a nice wad of cash.

I think that the palace was looking hard enough for dirt on Diana during the divorce proceedings and they could easily have proven that Harry was illegitimate to further discredit her.