I find the idea that William's letters to Hewitt were written by William as a young child to be particularly interesting, because they would, or could be, so revealing for that very reason. How did William address him? What did he say? What did the innocent child give away about his mother - and, possibly, his father - in his naive ramblings? I'd love to read those letters.
I would agree.
What I don't understand is why some feel they know the content of the letters. That puzzles me. How is the content public knowledge?
I don't criticise Hewitt for selling the William letters. Not now that William is a grown man in his 30s. If Hewitt had sold them 15 years ago, yes, I'd think it was wrong, because William was still a teenager and processing the issues relating to his parents' marriage breakdown and mother's death, but not now. William is a grown man and not a vulnerable child. Hewitt has waited long enough, in my opinion.
Yep.
Anyway, if anyone is to be chastised for the William letters, I think it should be Diana, for letting them be written, or, at least, sent. Her little boys had a very long, in little-boy terms, relationships with their mother's soldier boyfriend - her illicit lover - and they were sure to have formed a bond with him, and those letters might reveal that bond.
They most assuredly formed a bond. There is every evidence that Harry was deeply effected by his mother's love for Hewitt, as she sat anxiously watching the television of his deployment. One could reasonably speculate that Harry's fervent desire to be 'in the fray' stems from those dramatic times watching his mother worry over the beloved James Hewitt. Beloved by Diana - and her sons. We are told the boys adored being with Hewitt.
We also have to recall how abruptly Diana yanked William away from his first beloved Nanny because she could not bear that William was loving the nanny possibly more than she. Could it have been that her sons were evincing a pretty fierce love of the devoted Hewitt that set Diana off? Possibility. (We know what she did with Charles, keeping the boys away from him).
Clearly a despicable man, to stimulate such dear love from a woman and her children.
But, if they do, then Hewitt should not be the one to be castigated for it. Diana was the one who was married to someone else at the time. Hewitt was just the poor fool who was caught up in it and strung along by her. There could be no happy ending for him in that relationship. Diana held all the aces.
More than that, it was a completely unequal relationship (in status conscious, class conscious Britain). Had a man engaged in such an unequal relationship he would have been pilloried for it and rightly so. The woman would have been seen as victimized. Here we have the strange reverse-side of sexism: a man can be victimized by a woman, but our cultural biases still require that he be 'the man' and take the brunt of the responsibility and abuse.
We are, however, unlikely to ever know the text of those letters. Hewitt owns them, and has the right to sell them, but maybe the purchaser is not, even if he has the desire to do so, which we do not know, able to publish them. The text may be held to be owned by those who wrote it, so William may have his day in court about that, and may prevail. But I would still love to read them.
But apparently posters here think they know the content of those letters, so my question stands: how is it that the contents of the letters have been made public?
BTW inconsequential letters have historical significance. Stating that they are not 'historical' is not accurate. They are. They are proof of a breach by the Princess of Wales that was really quite extreme in it's day, and would still be considered extreme.
I posit: what if Catherine were engaged (as we speak) in such an affair, allowing George and then Charlotte to form deep attachments to her riding instructor. What if Catherine spent her assignations at her lover's mother's house, having her two children be tended by her lover's mother in the downstairs kitchen while she and the lover were occupied upstairs. How would that go down? Thunderously, I would imagine.
I am not trying to excuse Diana; her behavior does her no credit. To me, it reinforces my idea that her judgment when it came to men was simply appalling.
You need to read about how long and patiently Hewitt maintained with Diana. He likely would never have left her. Hewitt was Diana's 'Camilla'. Diana had indeed found a devoted man who took all manner of abuse from Diana that no other man would. Diana did not have appalling taste in men. She just ran after men who knew better than to get involved with her, or knew when to say 'enough is enough' and walked. That may be hard to hear but it is what I have gathered from some considerable reading I did on Diana this past summer.
But - I don't blame her for feeling betrayed by Hewitt. Perhaps she even bought into the old expression: An officer and a gentleman. Hewitt definitely wasn't the latter, and I've heard some of his former colleagues also felt betrayed by his actions.
Ah, here we have the nub of it.
It was what Diana was relying on, Hewitt's loyalty to her social position at the top of the class system. Sorry to put it so baldly. The 'game' as played, and likely still played (one never knows what any of the BRF may be up to) is that one does not kiss-and-tell when dallying with the aristocracy. In return, one is made welcome in countless ways. One gets to go to Ascot and the Royal Enclosure, perhaps, or attend a yearly Garden Party. One is paid back with social cache.
It is Diana who betrayed Hewitt. She cut him. She robbed him of the very social connection that would have buttered his social/economic path after they broke up (euphemism for what Diana did to him). Diana cut him dead. After that, Diana had no reason to expect Hewitt to maintain loyalty. It was her arrogance and sense of impervability that misled her. She thought she could flaunt the rules and would win regardless. Honestly, I think she was right, if one is to go by this conversation.
What I find especially sickening is the way he tries to present that rather tawdry affair as some great love story. (If he truly regarded it as such, he wouldn't be cashing in).
But it was a great love story, and I wouldn't be sickened by it, unless the married woman with children part is the concern. There is actually a pretty significant screenplay in that story but it won't happen in our lifetimes because of the clout of the BRF. (It will happen one day). It was Diana's longest and her most abiding love. It even was domestic. She was with no other man to the extent she was with Hewitt, not even her husband. Had Diana not married Charles, is it probable that Hewitt and Diana would have naturally met? Because if so, they would have certainly married. JMO of course.