Why do you say it would be a "perilous undertaking" ? Do you still think that Harry might be Hewitt's son ? I don't think he is, but, if he were, the public deserved to know it as Harry is currently third in line to the throne.
There appears to be an iconic quality to Diana's memory. She is remembered as a great and good person. I may be wrong on this but that's my sense.
However, if one does some significant reading on Diana one becomes aware that she was a very complicated person, made more complicated by the public perception of her at the time. In any lawsuit brought by Harry regarding this paternity issue (trying to prove that Hewitt is lying) I am certain the defense would bring forward the unpleasant fact that Diana herself spread a net of lies, not just sometimes but generally, and was lying about most things when she was trying to shake the scent off her own trail of misdeeds. Her own family members have conceded Diana's issues with the truth. Can't get more damning than that. In sum, a lawsuit would irreparably (and needlessly) damage Diana's 'good memory'. IMO.
Why would he sue, when he has already stated that he is sure the play is accurate?
I'm confused. Harry would be the one suing. Are you saying that
Harry has said the play is accurate?
Sorry, but I don't believe Hewitt was a good and decent man who was deeply in love.
All evidence points to a man who was. He came forward at pivotal moments during Harry's growing up to verify a timeline that would put him out of consideration as Harry's father. Looked at through the lens of time it appears like he was called upon to make these disclaimers and did as asked. His suddenly speaking out (back then when he did so) made no sense within the context of the time except to beat back rumors at the time. That's loyalty. That's the mark of a good man, I think, a kind man, a gentle man. From what I get reading about Diana, she would not have had a man she stayed with for such a significant length of time be anything else than gentle and self-effacing and at her service.
A man like that would never have sold his love letters. (What kind of man does that, anyway?)
A man hurt. A man betrayed himself. Perhaps embittered. To go by the comments here, he has no one's good opinion (that matters to him) to lose. I don't fault him, but then, too, I take none of this personally. It's just human nature. Love does crazy things.
One can only pity the late princess's sons for having their lives yet again brought into the public view in such an unfortunate way.
Fact is our parents never leave us. Diana made choices that made a trail as long as wide in the public press. It's why I know so much about her. I'm sure they have both long since had to come to terms with their eccentric mother's peccadillos, as do we all.
If this play is allowed to go ahead, and sees the light of notoriety, then let it be reviewed for the fantasy it is and be done with it. One can only pity the late princess's sons for having their lives yet again brought into the public view in such an unfortunate way.
I agree. They are his. He needs money so why not sell them. He and Diana had a five year relationship and it's no secret. His reputation has been shot to pieces already. He has little to lose. The letters don't seem to contain anything salacious, so why not sell them?
