Diana and James Hewitt


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well clearly it's all just speculation and opinion. Just like the nature of James' relationship with Diana and whether or not he was truly devoted/loyal to her. We can read all the books and articles we want, but only the people involved know what really went down between them. Everything else is just opinion based on what one reads, or the feelings one has for the parties involved.

One of the two people in question wrote a book about the relationship. "Love and War" by James Hewitt is readily available on Amazon. I found it a fascinating read.
 
I know he's written a book, but there are two sides to every story. His account of the relationship may be different than Diana's. Plus he may have left out things to make himself look better. It's easy to write a story when the other person is no longer around to defend/get their side out. But the main point I'm trying to make, is that we will likely never know the entire truth about what occurred between them. So everything we discuss, is really just opinions based off of whatever account we choose to believe.
 
Last edited:
I'm very disappointed with what's been posted here. William was 6!! Most 6 year olds can't write beyond copying basic words yet posters think they are going to find out what he was feeling etc. People are licking their lips thinking what might be in the letters. Yet same people didn't want Charles spider letters made known. I am so disappointed about the double standards but guess I shouldn't be surprised IMO


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
In my jewelry box I have a loving letter, not a love letter, from a man who became quite renowned in the years after I lost touch with him. We had a very sweet romantic relationship when he was 19 and I was 30. The letter was written when he was dying, and my husband has read it (with my permission, of course).

Because of various reasons, this letter and the personal history it reveals, would be of great interest to "Jon's" biographer and other researchers if I chose to share it. It is not in the least salacious, but it does have some historical significance, and if I chose to, I might be able to sell it for a modest, yet significant sum.

But I never would. It was personal, and the sentiments and remembrances belonged to him, and to me, not to the world. A person of honor would never despoil those memories by auctioning them off to the highest public bidder.

You sound like a wonderfully decent human being.:)
 
I'm very disappointed with what's been posted here. William was 6!! Most 6 year olds can't write beyond copying basic words yet posters think they are going to find out what he was feeling etc. People are licking their lips thinking what might be in the letters. Yet same people didn't want Charles spider letters made known. I am so disappointed about the double standards but guess I shouldn't be surprised IMO

One thing we do know that is a given and that is that Diana was a stickler for sending thank you notes (even to the butler for a small kindness). These so called "letters" could be something that a very happily married Princess of Wales (a supposition of course) was teaching her young son to do. Mummy was writing a thank you note so William wanted to do the same. For all we know, someone could be spending a whole lot of green dollars on words so simple that its impossible to read "between the lines". Perhaps the only "value" of these letters would be the signatures of Diana and a very young future King of Great Britain. Maybe they also wrote letters to the baker for the surprise cake he sent them at the same time. Who knows?

Personally, I wouldn't waste my money.
 
IMO, all the letters should be published in date order, in their entirety.

They can be compared to her version of events in the Morton book and her various interviews both formal and informal.

The letters can reveal a great deal. It can reveal if she was lying or he was lying.

If a letter dated in 1988, talks about their 5 year relationship then we know he was telling the truth about his relationship beginning before Harry was born. If a 1988 letter, talks about a 2nd anniversary, then we know he was lying.

They may reveal her real feelings as they occurred rather than the revised version of the Morton and the Panorama interview. Contemporary letters and diaries are always better than reminiscences made for television audiences.

The letters have already revealed something interesting, the staff at BP already knew about her relationship.

On December 19, 1987, she wrote: ‘If by any chance you want to get in touch for whatever, the B. P. switchboard will know exactly where I am even if I don’t ... it has been known!’
(Interesting the DM blurred some word.):whistling:
What was known...:whistling:

The letters may also divulge her real feeling towards her family, the RF and her charities.

They may shed some light on her real relationship with Prince Charles.

Her letters may tell a very different story than the Morton or Panorama interview.

The letters are her words, her story.
Why not put everything together to get a complete picture?

The more info, the better.
 
Last edited:
It's none of our business. If no one paid him any mind and refused to buy these things there would be no point in him putting them forth.



LaRae
 
I know he's written a book, but there are two sides to every story. His account of the relationship may be different than Diana's. Plus he may have left out things to make himself look better. It's easy to write a story when the other person is no longer around to defend/get their side out. But the main point I'm trying to make, is that we will likely never know the entire truth about what occurred between them. So everything we discuss, is really just opinions based off of whatever account we choose to believe.

How is he changing anything?
These are her letters to him.
This is the best source of information from her.
These were written by her to him while their affair was going on.
This is the most reliable of sources.

These are her letters and can reveal what occurred between them.

It is not our opinion, when it is her words.
 
Last edited:
I know he's written a book, but there are two sides to every story. His account of the relationship may be different than Diana's. Plus he may have left out things to make himself look better. It's easy to write a story when the other person is no longer around to defend/get their side out. But the main point I'm trying to make, is that we will likely never know the entire truth about what occurred between them. So everything we discuss, is really just opinions based off of whatever account we choose to believe.

You're quite right about there being two sides to every story, and about us never being likely to know the entire truth, and that's the same with everyone we discuss here.

We have Hewitt's account from his book and interviews he's given, and we have a few words from Diana in her interviews. If we accept what we have in her words, we know from the Panorama interview that she was in love with Hewitt, and that she adored him, but that she was "very let down". Hewitt told Larry King that he understood that to be a reference to his decision to go to Germany with his regiment, and thus was no longer there for her anymore. We also know, from the Squidgygate tape of 31.12.1989, that she "decked out" Hewitt, i.e. chose and paid for his clothes. "Entirely dressed him, from head to foot, that man. Cost me quite a bit."

I am always interested in what the parties say in their own words, which is why I would love to read her letters. Yes, I've changed my mind since yesterday, now I've thought about it more. They are primary evidence of her feelings and the nature of their relationship and very valuable for that reason. I wouldn't expect much from a young William's letters, but I would still find them interesting, no matter how brief or formal or banal. I'd love to know how he addressed Hewitt, for one thing.
 
Last edited:
It's none of our business. If no one paid him any mind and refused to buy these things there would be no point in him putting them forth.LaRae

She made it our business when she collaborated with Morton on 'Her Story'.
She made it our business when she went on television.
If she did not want her business to be known, she should have kept her business to herself.
 
Hewitt can sell the letters because he was the receiver of them. However, the words written are under the copyright of the writer. So publishing may not be legal.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Hewitt can sell the letters because he was the receiver of them. However, the words written are under the copyright of the writer. So publishing may not be legal.

Why would there be different rules for Diana?

Numerous people have had letters published without their consent.
 
Last edited:
IMO, all the letters should be published in date order, in their entirety.

They can be compared to her version of events in the Morton book and her various interviews both formal and informal.

The letters can reveal a great deal. It can reveal if she was lying or he was lying.

If a letter dated in 1988, talks about their 5 year relationship then we know he was telling the truth about his relationship beginning before Harry was born. If a 1988 letter, talks about a 2nd anniversary, then we know he was lying.

They may reveal her real feelings as they occurred rather than the revised version of the Morton and the Panorama interview. Contemporary letters and diaries are always better than reminiscences made for television audiences.

The letters have already revealed something interesting, the staff at BP already knew about her relationship.

(Interesting the DM blurred some word.):whistling:
What was known...:whistling:

The letters may also divulge her real feeling towards her family, the RF and her charities.

They may shed some light on her real relationship with Prince Charles.

Her letters may tell a very different story than the Morton or Panorama interview.

The letters are her words, her story.
Why not put everything together to get a complete picture?

The more info, the better.


Oh dear lol lol who is going to demand that.
 
Hewitt can sell the letters because he was the receiver of them. However, the words written are under the copyright of the writer. So publishing may not be legal.

Yes. So far it's only a "may", but if there were an attempt to publish any of this material I have no doubt that William would seek an injunction and a determination of this issue.
 
I see some of the defense of Hewitt is based on Diana doing so and so, so why shouldn't he?

Well, Diana is dead.
Whatever she did is in the past. We can only speculate as to whether Diana would have regretted some of her actions had she lived today.
However, the things Diana did wrong a couple of decades ago does not IMO justify Hewitt doing something wrong today.

I don't care what's in the letters. I don't care if William's letter consisted only of stick-people, it's the principle. Unless there are very good reasons, you do not publish personal letters. Period.
Mirabel put it very well: This is not something a gentleman would do.

If Hewitt believes these letters have a historical significance he could donate them to the national archives for study by historians. Well, he doesn't so the conclusion must be IMO that he is doing this for profit and/or attention.

As for William's letters: Well, they are probably pretty harmless, so if such letters from that period in his life should be published let the BRF do it themselves. I'm sure Hewitt wasn't the only one who got a letter from William, so did I'm sure his dad and grandmother as well.
But "in the public interest", "historical interest" and "providing a different angle", yeah right! Has he got an Eiffel Tower for sale as well?
 
How is he changing anything?
These are her letters to him.
This is the best source of information from her.
These were written by her to him while their affair was going on.
This is the most reliable of sources.

These are and her letters can reveal what occurred between them.

It is not our opinion, when it is her words.

I'm not talking about Diana's letters. My post was referring to the book James wrote.
 
Hear, hear ! Terrific post !
There's of course a huge hipocrisy about James Hewitt. He's, after all, the living proof that Diana was an adulteress too : an unbearable though for many.
I don't like the man but his life was more or less destroyed by this affair because he's seen, unfairly, a the sole responsible of it.
He's one of the worse collateral damage of the war of the Wales. I've more pity for him than some real sympathy.
I totally agree with your post. These letters remind us that Diana was fully half of this "couple". It is so easy to see people discarding her lovers as if they had had never happened and was, therefore, irrelevant and, if pushed, they tend to paint them as someone who all but debauched an innocent!

I agree with Queen Camilla. These are Diana's words and also her son's and if they were written to Hewitt then they are his to keep, save, burn or sell.

Basically, I think people just do not want to be reminded that there should only ever have been two people in that relationship and Diana chose to include her sons.
 
Last edited:
She made it our business when she collaborated with Morton on 'Her Story'.
She made it our business when she went on television.
If she did not want her business to be known, she should have kept her business to herself.


Not talking about her, talking about him. If people minded their own business and ignored him there's be nothing for him to sell.



LaRae
 
And you would have him continue to be broke, living with his mother and in desperate need of money rather than sell valuable assets and improve his circumstances?

Yes. He's broke for a reason. It's called karma. He could always live on the dole as they call it in England or welfare as we call it here in the States. So he won't starve. But to sell personal letters from someone you once supposedly loved is an awful way to improve your circumstances. How about getting a job? (Probably impossible for this jerk since he apparently has few friends except for those who also want to exploit his relationship with Diana.)
 
Not talking about her, talking about him. If people minded their own business and ignored him there's be nothing for him to sell.
LaRae

Why should he be ignored?

She started it. If she cared about her privacy, she should have kept her private life private.

She is the cause of him being trashed all over the internet and media.
He has every right to do anything that might make him whole again.
He was the one wronged.
If he needs her letters to prove he was not lying about their relationship starting in 1982, then why try to deny him his rights.
If he needs a source of income, because he could not support himself because of his tarnished reputation, then why deny him his right to an income.

The double standard that she could do what she wants and tell her story but he cannot because if he did then he is a cad, is the height of hypocrisy.
 
Why should he be ignored?

She started it. If she cared about her privacy, she should have kept her private life private.

She is the cause of him being trashed all over the internet and media.
He has every right to do anything that might make him whole again.
He was the one wronged.
If he needs her letters to prove he was not lying about their relationship starting in 1982, then why try to deny him his rights.
If he needs a source of income, because he could not support himself because of his tarnished reputation, then why deny him his right to an income.

The double standard that she could do what she wants and tell her story but he cannot because if he did then he is a cad, is the height of hypocrisy.

He made the choice to involve himself in an affair with a married woman...and not just any married woman.

It's got nothing to do with a double standard. I'm not supporting what she did either. However this isn't about her. She's dead. We are talking about his actions now.


LaRae
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well clearly it's all just speculation and opinion. Just like the nature of James' relationship with Diana and whether or not he was truly devoted/loyal to her.

I am going by what has been reported by others who were present or heard from Diana herself. Her actions with Hewitt speak volumes. You just have to look at the famous picture of Diana handing Hewitt the trophy to have an insight into their relationship. In their own words, they adored each other. :flowers:

We can read all the books and articles we want, but only the people involved know what really went down between them. Everything else is just opinion based on what one reads, or the feelings one has for the parties involved.

Correct, and we are hearing from those involved: they adored each other. What more do we need? :ermm:

My feelings about Hewitt (I have next to none except a feeling of pity for his making the choice to get tangled up with Diana in the first place) or about Diana (which are not positive overall, I admit, but I do have compassion for her) hardly has a bearing on what I see between the two. I do take into consideration Diana's character, which we know a great deal about. Hewitt is more the mystery. One has to infer his character from how events unrolled.

So what you are saying is that, if Hewitt couldn't cash in socially, then he was justified in doing so financially?

No, you are taking what I am saying too far. The statement was made by a poster that Hewitt betrayed Diana. My point was that lovers of members of the BRF are given a sort of social protection as 'close friends' of the royal. We can just say it's my opinion. Let's say I am floating a reasonable speculation. My point was to show that it was Diana who betrayed Hewitt when she cut him out without further communication. There was no betrayal by Hewitt initially, no matter what you think of Hewitt or his later actions.

I am aware that 'cashing in' on royal connections is a touchy subject for many. Even socially 'cashing in' apparently. I have to admit that I am out of my depth with this line of reasoning. My American sensibilities make me ill-equipped to understand the British pov on this, so I will withdraw while I am ahead. :flowers:

Yes, that really sounds as if he regarded his liaison with Diana as a great love story.

You cannot forgive him for 'telling'. How about Diana? Can you forgive her for 'telling' about Charles? How does this work? I confess to being confused. Some posters have mentioned a double standard. I'd have to agree.

What I do know, if someone I once loved could ease their daily life by selling something that belonged to me (were I ever famous) I'd tell them to do it. In a heart beat! The 'thing' means nothing. Well being is everything. That's love imo. :flowers:
 
Last edited:
James Hewitt is only doing these things to gain some attention and to remind the media and others about the past, which is no longer relevant. I would tell him to get his head out of the past and be a better person than this.

Hewitt reminds me of Paul Burrell. They will do anything to draw some attention to themselves and cash in on Diana's name. They have beat that dead woman's memory over the head one too many times.
 
Last edited:
I agree. Diana and Hewitt were adults and both aware of the risks they were taking in pursuing their relationship. William and Harry were innocent bystanders who developed a child-like attachment to their mother's friend. William's letters shouldn't be sold. I think that William's letters should be returned to William.


Whatever, publishing letters, especially by a child, is a breach of trust in my eyes.
 
James Hewitt is only doing these things to gain some attention and to remind the media and others about the past, which is no longer relevant. I would tell him to get his head out of the past and be a better person than this.

How do you know this? It's a serious question. From what I understand he was trying to do the transaction 'on the quiet' and it was the Daily Mail who blew the whistle on his attempt. How is that him trying to draw attention to himself when it was the Daily Mail who blew his cover? :sad:

Hewitt reminds me of Paul Burrell. They will do anything to draw some attention to themselves and cash in on Diana's name. They have beat that dead woman's memory over the head one too many times.

Well, it's a point of view. Even if it's true (and I don't think it is) it's not anything to 'hate' him for imo. JMO. :flowers:
 
How do you know this? It's a serious question. From what I understand he was trying to do the transaction 'on the quiet' and it was the Daily Mail who blew the whistle on his attempt. How is that him trying to draw attention to himself when it was the Daily Mail who blew his cover? :sad:



Well, it's a point of view. Even if it's true (and I don't think it is) it's not anything to 'hate' him for imo. JMO. :flowers:

Do you honestly think James can sell a letter that has something to do with his past with Diana and William "quietly" and not gain some attention from the media? Not going to happen. James knows what he's doing, and he's not fooling anybody.

James's number one move is to remind people and the media of his connection to Diana and that he's still around. He has danced on her grave for years and his heart is in the bank.
 
Last edited:
Do you honestly think James can sell a letter that has something to do with his past with Diana and William "quietly" and not gain some attention from the media? Not going to happen. James knows what he's doing, and he's not fooling anybody.

James's number one move is to remind people and the media of his connection to Diana and that he's still around. He has danced on her grave for years and his heart is in the bank.


Than we have to agree to disagree on that point - I very believe he wanted to get it sold quitly and without fuss, because he needs money. Diana very much ruined his chances of getting adequat good jobs after she spilled the beans and freezed him out. That wasn't what he had to expect. In the 'normal' run of things they would have stayed amically and friendly even after a split. But Diana didn't play by the rules - in many ways - that's what brought the whole 'war of the wales' desaster on.
 
Why should he be ignored?

She started it. If she cared about her privacy, she should have kept her private life private.

She is the cause of him being trashed all over the internet and media.
He has every right to do anything that might make him whole again.
He was the one wronged.
If he needs her letters to prove he was not lying about their relationship starting in 1982, then why try to deny him his rights.
If he needs a source of income, because he could not support himself because of his tarnished reputation, then why deny him his right to an income.

The double standard that she could do what she wants and tell her story but he cannot because if he did then he is a cad, is the height of hypocrisy.


Yes, blame Diana for everything. I think you're forgetting that James chose to have a relationship with her (a married woman). When he was caught possessing cocaine in 2004, which did not help his 'tarnished reputation', was that Diana's fault too?

I think you're talking about the West End play 'Truth, Lies, Diana' when you said he claimed their relationship started in 1982. Actually, the play claimed that their relationship started 18 months before Harry was born which would be 1983, not 1982. This is also the same play that claimed that the palace discovered that she was expecting a 'Moslem baby' and, with the help of the world's top arms dealers, killed Diana. Because of this, I really doubt the credibility of the said play.

Even Penny Junor, an author that always defends Prince Charles, said that Hewitt was not on the scene in 1984 and was not the father of Prince Harry as was shown on the negative DNA test by the News of the World in 2003.
 
Back
Top Bottom