Diana and James Hewitt


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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.
True, but you couldn't have made her pregnant and therefore you couldn't have been Harry's father! :lol:

The palace had all the evidence they needed for the divorce, she had told anyone who watched the infamous interview with Bashir, of her affair with Hewitt, I don't think any of the royals would have discredited Diana at the expense of William or Harry, just to score extra points.
 
inspite of the fact that hewitt sold his story to the press, or anyone else that has for that matter, are we instantly to believe that they are lying? i'm not crazy about hewitt and and anyone else that makes money from this particular situation but is it possible that they could be telling the truth and we have chosen not to believe them simply because we don't like the fact that some of things they've written aren't pleasant? having said that, i don't think this would automatically make those things true but it's a point that i haven't seen mentioned anywhere. hewitt hasn't ever made the claim that he's harry's biological father so it's come from somewhere and it's an unpleasant possibility.
 
I am not sure I agree with you that it becomes a possibility because somebody has made the claim. On the question...'are we instantly to believe that they are lying?', I would counter-query: "Are we instantly to believe that they are telling the truth?"

I thought the norm was...we are to assume doubt until proven true.

The facts I know are:
1) the hypnosis experience of Hewitt as posted by Skydragon in post #361.
Can revelations revealed during hypnosis be accepted as true?
Can the hypnotist manipulate the process for sensationalism?

2) the admission by both the Princess of Wales and Hewitt that they had an affair from 1986. Would they be lying about the affair? Would they be lying about the time?

3) Prince Harry was born in 1984. His hair is red which is a trait of the Spencers and of Hewitt.

To me the above are inconclusive that Hewitt is the father. Maybe there are other facts still out there. Another thing, I am always curious that people (in this forum) are more ready to bash Diana over the Bashir interview than Prince Charles over his own interview about one year earlier in which he admitted adultery. I chose not to listen to both. Was Diana's so atrocious?
 
IAnother thing, I am always curious that people (in this forum) are more ready to bash Diana over the Bashir interview than Prince Charles over his own interview about one year earlier in which he admitted adultery. I chose not to listen to both. Was Diana's so atrocious?

Yes, for me it was. IMHO you could see that Charles had a hard time telling things from his private sphere but he did it none-the-less, without flinching because he felt it had to be told. Diana's interview had a very fake feeling to it, her make-up and the way she spoke and looked very much screamed: I'm a victim, he's to blame. There is an academic analysis around in the net about how Diana blamed Charles and the Royal family, that's really interesting because it analyses the mechanics of speech she uses and shows how she worked to reach her goal. For me it was disgusting, really.
 
To me the above are inconclusive that Hewitt is the father. Maybe there are other facts still out there. Another thing, I am always curious that people (in this forum) are more ready to bash Diana over the Bashir interview than Prince Charles over his own interview about one year earlier in which he admitted adultery. I chose not to listen to both. Was Diana's so atrocious?

It was fairly cringe-making. At least Charles's interview had a point - it was supposed to be commemorating his many years as Prince of Wales, but of course there was the problem that most people were really only interested in the state of his marriage and it was felt that they needed to address that if he wasn't going to be accused of hypocrisy. Diana's interview was a piece of tit-for-tat revenge, done in secret after strong advice against it by some of her friends, and it was really all about her, how she felt, what she wanted, nothing of any really great relevance to anything else. For me, the way she was portraying herself as the poor wounded victim while simultaneously claiming to be a strong woman was very unconvincing. And the comment about wanting to be Queen in people's hearts was just downright incredible. How she thought she could have said such a thing and expected the Queen to remain supportive is beyond me. In a constitutional monarchy, if the Queen isn't Queen in people's hearts, she might as well chuck it in. That was a direct challenge to the Queen, and in doing that she stepped way over any line where her actions could be forgiven. No wonder Princess Margaret was spitting nails.

But she did say she adored James Hewitt and had had an affair with him and felt really let down by him. In terms of revenge, it seems as though these rumours about Harry might be his revenge for that public accusation of how he'd let her down.
 
Last edited:
And the comment about wanting to be Queen in people's hearts was just downright incredible.

I can't say I found that statement terribly appropriate either, if not a 'tad' pressumptuous on her behalf.

I've always felt there was something rather cheap about that admission. Whether it be playing to ones own celebrity, a dig at the in-laws or trying to amass continual public sympathy...I feel Diana could have better worded herself.

Oh, and Harry is a Windsor. There isn't a doubt in my mind! He's Prince Philip Jnr!!
 
Last edited:
Thank you Jo of Palatime and Elspeth for the information and sharing your viewpoints. For each of those intervies, after reading about the contents in the papers, of course sensationalizing the jucier bits, I decided I did not want to watch any part of it at all as I felt it was dishonouring the Monarchy. I guess I am old-fashioned in that respect. I feel the same way about this thread, to be honest.
 
2) the admission by both the Princess of Wales and Hewitt that they had an affair from 1986. Would they be lying about the affair? Would they be lying about the time?
Neither of them could afford at the time, to say anything else.
Another thing, I am always curious that people (in this forum) are more ready to bash Diana over the Bashir interview than Prince Charles over his own interview about one year earlier in which he admitted adultery. I chose not to listen to both. Was Diana's so atrocious?
Diana's interview was seen by some as a direct attack on the queen, as others have said. If you read the interview, she never said that Charles was having a relationship with Camilla, just that he loved Camilla, when pushed to say how she knew, she said (more than once) her instinct. She seemed to come out with so many lies or avoided giving a straight answer, especially about the Morton book, she denied the amount of phone calls to Hoare, the same tactics she had used on her Stepmother. Her suggestionthat Charles was not up to the job, "And because I know the character I would think that the top job, as I call it, would bring enormous limitations to him, and I don't know whether he could adapt to that".
To me that's why people talk about it. I think Charles was ill advised to tell the country of his affair, but he never made any derogatory comments about Diana in it.

What is interesting in the interview, is that the date for the start of the affair is stated as 1989, so if the dates are constantly changed by the main players, it casts doubt on the exact date, leading to a thread like this. Nobody can say with any certainty whether Harry is James Hewitts son, because none of us were there at the moment of his conception. :flowers:
 
Nobody can say with any certainty whether Harry is James Hewitts son, because none of us were there at the moment of his conception. :flowers:

For me I decided to take on the legal view: the mother was married at the time of the birth and her husband acknowledged the child as his. Thus he is the father.
 
This is the unfairness of it all. While men could have affairs it was up to recently impossible to trace an illegitimate child back to them, when women had affairs, any children from the affair were indelibly connected to them through pregnancy and childbirth. So if the husband has an affair it doesn't place a doubt on the couple's children but when the mother has an affair it does place a doubt.

Recently DNA tests have evened the score a bit and now courts can order a DNA test if a man claims he's not the father when the mother claims that he is. But traditionally women have paid more for illicit sex than men.

This is why I keep going back to the DNA test. They should just release the results and be done with it. No use having a discussion of doubt about Harry's parentage that properly belongs to the 18th century when there are tools to clear the matter up once and for all.

And about the people who will still doubt, DNA paternity tests are done with amazing frequency and are pretty common. This is not an esoteric test that only a few experts in the world can do. The test's reputation in the courts and in the minds of public opinion will carry some weight.
 
This is why I keep going back to the DNA test. They should just release the results and be done with it. No use having a discussion of doubt about Harry's parentage that properly belongs to the 18th century when there are tools to clear the matter up once and for all.

And about the people who will still doubt, DNA paternity tests are done with amazing frequency and are pretty common. This is not an esoteric test that only a few experts in the world can do. The test's reputation in the courts and in the minds of public opinion will carry some weight.

Charles is the only one with the right to ask for such a test and to decide if the result were to be published. Charles will never do such a thing, IMHO. He treats Harry as his son, why should he react to such rumours?
 
Charles is the only one with the right to ask for such a test and to decide if the result were to be published. Charles will never do such a thing, IMHO. He treats Harry as his son, why should he react to such rumours?

Because the rumours can hurt Harry for the rest of his life. If there is an easy way to dispel the rumours (and I think there is with the DNA test), I think the rumours are damaging enough for it to be a top priority for Charles to dispel them.

This is one time when I don't think Charles would serve himself or Harry well by standing on his rights not to do a test.
 
It won't dispel the rumours, though. Just as tests on Henri Paul's blood made no difference to the people who are determined to believe that Diana's death was premeditated murder. You'll just get the same old excuses that we got from the conspiracy merchants over the blood tests: switched samples, contaminated samples, shoddy testing methods, lab techs being bribed or blackmailed to lie, coverup by MI5, whatever.

I asked Skydragon a while back in this thread whether a DNA test saying that Harry was related to Charles would make any difference to her belief that Harry was James Hewitt's biological son, and she didn't give a yes or no answer.
 
This is why I keep going back to the DNA test. They should just release the results and be done with it. No use having a discussion of doubt about Harry's parentage that properly belongs to the 18th century when there are tools to clear the matter up once and for all.

Yes, unfortunately we have to remember that 'The firm' goes by the 'No comment' and the 'Never admitt, never deny' protocole. I believe they should do it for Harry, who is not very helped by the press. I also agree with your point on the women being more 'critizied' for having an affair than the men, and it's unfair. Although I think that the Queen was fair on that matter. When Diana came to tell her about Charles and Camilla she didn't move and kept the same attitude with Hewitt. She prefered to stay out of it. Perhaps she didn't help Diana when Charles was 'going back to his lady' but she didn't stop Diana going with Hewitt.
 
Because the rumours can hurt Harry for the rest of his life. If there is an easy way to dispel the rumours (and I think there is with the DNA test), I think the rumours are damaging enough for it to be a top priority for Charles to dispel them.

This is one time when I don't think Charles would serve himself or Harry well by standing on his rights not to do a test.

While I personally believe Harry is Charles' son, what on the off chance he really isn't though? Doing a DNA test and having it come out Charles' isn't his father and all the controversy/press that would cause would end up damaging Harry far more IMO.
 
It won't dispel the rumours, though. Just as tests on Henri Paul's blood made no difference to the people who are determined to believe that Diana's death was premeditated murder. You'll just get the same old excuses that we got from the conspiracy merchants over the blood tests: switched samples, contaminated samples, shoddy testing methods, lab techs being bribed or blackmailed to lie, coverup by MI5, whatever.

I believe you're right about never convincing the conspiracy theorists, Elspeth but I don't believe that everyone who thinks this way is a conspiracy theorist. Even fact I don't even believe the majority who think this way are conspiracy theorists. There are many like the people I met who just say they know that he is Hewitt's son probably from reading the headlines. The minds of these people I think can be changed by releasing the DNA test results and they probably are the majority.

I think most people are lazy rather than conspiracy minded; they'll believe whatever is shoved in their faces until something gets shoved in their faces that is more convincing. It doesn't have to be that convincing; just more convincing than what they've seen before.
 
Last edited:
While I personally believe Harry is Charles' son, what on the off chance he really isn't though? Doing a DNA test and having it come out Charles' isn't his father and all the controversy/press that would cause would end up damaging Harry far more IMO.

In that case, then, I think they should not release the DNA results which is all the more reason to release them if the results can prove Harry is Charles' son.
 
I asked Skydragon a while back in this thread whether a DNA test saying that Harry was related to Charles would make any difference to her belief that Harry was James Hewitt's biological son, and she didn't give a yes or no answer.
You did indeed ask me and I said I would plead the 5th.

What never ceases to amaze me is that if you would prefer not to answer, you are lumped in with the conspiracy theorists, as a negative way. Some posters state that they know Harry is Charles' son, because they believe that, perhaps they are the conspirators.
 
Last edited:
You did indeed ask me and I said I would plead the 5th.

Not to put too much of a damper on things, but as a British citizen resident in the UK, pleading the 5th wouldn't get you very far.;)

What never ceases to amaze me is that if you would prefer not to answer, you are lumped in with the conspiracy theorists, as a negative way. Some posters state that they know Harry is Charles' son, because they believe that, perhaps they are the conspirators.

Well, that depends on whether they'd be prepared to change their minds if presented with DNA evidence that Prince Harry was related to James Hewitt. Having seen how little difference the lab results seem to make to posters on this board who believe Diana was murdered, I don't have all that much confidence that DNA results would make a great deal of difference to opinions about Harry. Especially when the tabloids could make so much more money casting doubt on the results, the labs, the lab techs, and so on, and hinting darkly at Larger Forces At Play.
 
i would have to say that if dna results were made public, i'd have to believe them.
 
If he loved her as he has claimed to have, he would have never sold those letters and would have kept them or given them to William and Harry. He totally betrayed Diana by publishing his book Princess In Love . He's happy to say : I loved Diana, she didn't have bulimia when she was with me, etc. But I'm sure she would be sick to see that so many people, including him, used her for their cash.

Yes he betrayed her but what now ?! IMO he never got on after they broke up. He lives in the past, wanting to sell his love letters from her, writting books on their relation, ... He never married (I think), don't have any kids (please don't start with Harry). Even if Diana died at 36, she lived way more lives than him who's 48 (?) now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just read something here that's disturbing me now. In his hypnosis session, Hewitt said they had kissed in 1981 or 1982 ?! I thought he had only said they had met in these years. I'm completly lost
 
Just read something here that's disturbing me now. In his hypnosis session, Hewitt said they had kissed in 1981 or 1982 ?! I thought he had only said they had met in these years. I'm completly lost

Regardless of the time of the affiar, I'm still pretty convinced Prince Harry is Prince Charles' son, based on likeness between his father and grandfather.

But if the new date were true, it would be really disturbing. Not least because it would mean Diana entered into affair right after marriage - she wouldn't have the tome to feel lonely yet, would she? And even if she did, most new wives wouldn't go after affairs 'to improve' things.

This said, I take the article with a pinch of salt - we've had too many contradicting reports to trust blindly an article in the site called 'monsters and critics'.
 
Last edited:
if that date were true it would be quite disturbing. i think it would test everything diana has ever said about the happiness/lack of happiness in her marriage, her honesty, her devotion. i hope it's not true.
 
I'm sceptical about hypnosis and like Avalon, I think he probably did that to make people talk about it. Where I don't understand is that he had denied to be Harry's father and now he says Diana and him started a relation more than friendship in 1982. What's wrong with this man ?!
 
I think that if Hewitt was as in love with Diana as he claims and is indeed Harry's father, he should totally act like a father and do everything and anything to protect his son including keeping his mouth shut. Unfortunately, I think he is a money and publicity seeking individual so he will continue this tact until no one pays any attention to him anymore.
 
I think that if Hewitt was as in love with Diana as he claims and is indeed Harry's father, he should totally act like a father and do everything and anything to protect his son including keeping his mouth shut. Unfortunately, I think he is a money and publicity seeking individual so he will continue this tact until no one pays any attention to him anymore.
I totally agree with you, IF he really thought he was Harry's father, he would do everything, like Prince Charles has, to protect his son and the memory of the woman is supposibly loved:bang:. I personally think he is a great big money hungry individual who as long as people talk about him and Harry, he can stay in the lime light and maybe make more money. He has no right to mess with someones life the way he has for Harry and William. In everyway that is important, Prince Charles is Harry's father and will be for the rest of his life. :wub:
 
IMO Hewitt is the only man that could make Diana completely happy. I mean by that, it's the longest love affair she has ever had and without this dummy going to Gulf and leaving her behind, it would have last alot more. Even Hasnat Khan couldn't fight back. Diana, when in a relationship, gave all that she could possibly give but found herself more hurt than anything else each time because the man couldn't reply the same 'affection'. Hewitt seems to have given it well but blinded by all this 'celebrity', he prefered to drop the lady and take the money.

And Charles is a way more respectful man than Hewitt so Harry should be happy if he is Charles's son ;)
 
Maybe an insult but it would finally stop those people spreading rumors.

I very much doubt that - people like to cling to what they believe and would just say it was a lie!
 
I'm sceptical about hypnosis and like Avalon, I think he probably did that to make people talk about it. Where I don't understand is that he had denied to be Harry's father and now he says Diana and him started a relation more than friendship in 1982. What's wrong with this man ?!

Personally I can quite see that Hewitt may well have been simply faking it in the hypnotism program, simply to get back into the limelight & hence the money. We know he is a cad of the first order already, and Diana is not around to dispute anything he puts out, so he probably felt he had nothing to lose - he could lie or pretend anything he liked to add (in his eyes) to his personal kudos and reinforce rumors that someone had already been spreading.
 
Back
Top Bottom