Diana and James Hewitt

[Dman]

One can be sad about Mr. Hewitt's silly actions but I guess he's got nothing going for himself and continue to carry on the untrue rumor.

Diana may have made a mistake in getting involved with Hewitt, but he's behaved terribly over the years and have danced on Diana's grave for far too long. Charles should have punched his lights out long ago.

 

[amaryllus]

Whoever said that Diana had disastrous taste in men was spot on

I think she wanted someone to tell her things she wanted to hear and take her side esp. if it was from men. If they laid it on thick like Hewitt probably did she fell for it.

 

[Dman]

I think she wanted someone to tell her things she wanted to hear and take her side esp. if it was from men. If they laid it on thick like Hewitt probably did she fell for it.

She looked for a source of love and comfort. He betrayed her while she was living and he still manage to do so today.

 

[sthreats]

It seems to me that her family should be able to sue
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2888733/


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

 

[Lee27]

A year before Harry was born would be September 1983 (since be was born 09-1984). This would be slightly 2 years AFTER her marriage and just 15 months after the birth of Prince William.

James Hewitt may want to perpetuate the rumor…. but the dates disprove the rumor.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I remember a conversation on these boards awhile ago about the possibility of suing on behalf of a deceased person. I think that the consensus was that it's not possible. That's probably why so many "shocking revelations" come out after a person's dead, such as the book about William Tallon, the Queen Mother's late servant.

 

[Rudolph]

Prince Harry 'relaxed' over smears James Hewitt is his father in new play - Mirror Online

 

[mslewis]

I hope no one pays to see this piece of junk That would say a lot about this speculation. It would say NOBODY CARES ANYMORE. And then perhaps Hewitt will return to his hole and stop talking.

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

One of my former bosses was a high ranking officer at London's Scotland Yard in the '80s and '90s. About five years ago, when Mr Hewitt was broke and looking for attention, I asked about the rumours. My boss had a friend in the Royal Protection Squad who said a DNA test, done years ago, proved the Prince of Wales is Prince Harry's father. But it wasn't done to test paternity, as nobody doubted who the father was, but rather as a normal screening for genetic disorders. If it hadn't been for the random coincidence of red hair, and Mr Hewitt's caddish behaviour, the whole story would have died a natural death years ago.

 

[nascarlucy]

Tacky to say the least. Very tacky.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Red hair is a Spencer family trait.
​

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I don't believe the Royal family would have Harry's Dna tested. I believe that a tabloid would have done so from a glass or cigarette but and if it matched Hewitt would have broke the story.

It also does make sense for the affair to start before Harry's birth. The time after William's birth is the closest time of Diana and Charles being together. It starts to go downhill post Harry birth.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Going by Diana's own words in "Her True Story" the closest and most intimate time in her marriage to Charles was during her pregnancy with Harry. But she did confirm that the relationship deteriorated after that.

Yet another reason to disbelieve Hewitt.

 

[MARG]

Pity that Harry has inly red hair like hewitt.. he is the spitty imag of Charles...

I was ready to post on this and then I thought yes, as Cepe advised, denying it oxygen is it's best fate.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I thought the play was about Diana - with the Harry paternity issue a side issue - not a play about Harry per se.

 

[Mermaid1962]

That's what I understand as well.

 

[Curryong]

Trust James the leach to associate himself with something else to do with Diana. Has Mr Hewitt done anything else with his life beyond spruiking his long-ago relationship with the Princess of Wales?

 

[Queen Camilla]

A year before Harry was born would be September 1983 (since be was born 09-1984). This would be slightly 2 years AFTER her marriage and just 15 months after the birth of Prince William.

The article states 18 months before Harry was born that would mean March 1983. William would have been 9 months old.

Hewitt and several people were interviewed as the bases of the play.

Hewitt was approached by Conway not the other way around.

Hewitt was a major part of Diana's life although some people may not like it.

Whether Hewitt had known Diana since 1981 or 1983 or 1985 or 1986, Hewitt was in Diana's life 5 years, 6 years, 10 years or 12 years, either way if you are writing a book or play about Diana Hewitt is someone whom you are going to interview regardless of his relationship to Diana.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

My point about Prince Henry was not that Captain James Hewitt would have been his father: after all the Captain himself denies it. The point was that the Princess of Wales already made herself accessible to other men than the Prince, in the second year of her marriage.

 

[Mirabel]

My point about Prince Henry was not that Captain James Hewitt would have been his father: after all the Captain himself denies it. The point was that the Princess of Wales already made herself accessible to other men than the Prince, in the second year of her marriage.

Hewitt doesn't deny it any longer, though. He just says

No Comment

and allows the press to promote the idea.

 

[Princess of Durham]

Not to start another him vs her conversation ... but just to ask how many women in that kind of position with a husband who undeniably is involved with another woman would/may not put themselves in a position to seek out comfort elsewhere? I find it unbelievable that a man would enter into a marriage when he had a long standing relationship with someone else.

 

[Cris M]

According to many sources, the Prince of Wales only started his affair with Mrs. Parker Bowles in 1986. So, if Diana had a lover by 1983, she started to cheat first.

Of course, none should have cheated.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

According to many sources, the Prince of Wales only started his affair with Mrs. Parker Bowles in 1986. So, if Diana had a lover by 1983, she start to cheat first.

Of course, none should have cheated.

That was my understanding as well. Of course I am applying double standards: "Gentlemen may cheat, ladies not". This is rubbish but my politically very incorrect gut feeling says that the Princess of Wales, a young mother also, should have shown the class her spouse apparently lacked. But she did just exactly the same. The Princess of Wales and future Queen of the United Kingdom made herself available for an army Capitain. And that same officier knew he was dating a married woman, married even to the person who once would become his supreme commander....

 

[Lee27]

The article states 18 months before Harry was born that would mean March 1983. William would have been 9 months old.

This should put a damper on the Diana supporters, according to this she was committing adultery less than 2 years into the marriage.

This has got to be hurtful for both William and Harry as it cheapens their mother.

I am sure Prince Charles is not too happy with this either.

Interesting how Hewitt is trying to re-write history. There is too much already out there in statements by Diana and other friends that will dispute this story. It is hard to re-write history with the internet available.

 

[Mermaid1962]

This is my opinion as well. It's an unpopular opinion, but I agree with you. The Prince and Princess of Wales both gave up too early on their marriage and went to seek comfort elsewhere. Because of this, two boys were robbed of their mother and the nation lost a beloved Princess of Wales. Had adultery not entered their marriage, I believe that history might have taken a different turn.

This is rubbish but my politically very incorrect gut feeling says that the Princess of Wales, a young mother also, should have shown the class her spouse apparently lacked.

 

[JessRulz]

The 'New Play About Harry' thread has been merged with this one as the discussion did little but revolve around the relationship between Diana and James Hewitt.

Several posts involving theories as to what other princesses would do in Diana's situation have been removed as they are off-topic and of little relevance to this thread. And no one can for certain say what any individual would do in such a scenario.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

According to many sources, the Prince of Wales only started his affair with Mrs. Parker Bowles in 1986. So, if Diana had a lover by 1983, she started to cheat first.

Of course, none should have cheated.

If-as Diana and her friends always insisted-Charles was romantically involved with the very married Mrs. Parker Bowles up to the day his engagement was announced he IS the one who cheated first. And he duped an immature teenager into believing he could love her, which was even worse.

Perhaps after the marriage collapsed Charles and Diana believed that the centuries old maxim that allows upper crust couples to have discreet extra-marital affairs also applied to them. And the status quo might have been successfully maintained to this day if Diana had not decided to give a half-baked version of the truth in a tell-all book.

 

[Cris M]

If-as Diana and her friends always insisted-Charles was romantically involved with the very married Mrs. Parker Bowles up to the day his engagement was announced he IS the one who cheated first. And he duped an immature teenager into believing he could love her, which was even worse.

Perhaps after the marriage collapsed Charles and Diana believed that the centuries old maxim that allows upper crust couples to have discreet extra-marital affairs also applied to them. And the status quo might have been successfully maintained to this day if Diana had not decided to give a half-baked version of the truth in a tell-all book.

We could argue forever, as the Prince of Wales and his friends have said he only started his affair in 1986.

But the supporters (if we can call them that) of the Prince of Wales are, at least, capable to admit his mistakes, while the majority of Diana's supporters prefer to portray her as an innocent victim of her husband and of the Royal Family, ignoring the five lovers she had.

But, in the end, who started to cheat first doesn't matter, as both parts were wrong. Diana is now dead and the Prince of Wales is happily married with his true love.

 

[Ish]

If-as Diana and her friends always insisted-Charles was romantically involved with the very married Mrs. Parker Bowles up to the day his engagement was announced he IS the one who cheated first. And he duped an immature teenager into believing he could love her, which was even worse.

Perhaps after the marriage collapsed Charles and Diana believed that the centuries old maxim that allows upper crust couples to have discreet extra-marital affairs also applied to them. And the status quo might have been successfully maintained to this day if Diana had not decided to give a half-baked version of the truth in a tell-all book.

Some of what you're saying here is putting words into other's mouths. We don't know that Charles set out to dupe Diana into anything - not having been a part of any of the conversations we don't know whether Charles acted like he could love her or not. In fact, given as he was rather public on the fact that he wasn't exactly sure what love meant prior to his marriage (but after his engagement) I'm not entirely sure how Diana was duped into believing he was in love.

That said, if Charles' relationship with Camilla ended before the engagement I'm a bit confused as to how he cheated then. It's not exactly like he and Diana had any courtship before their engagement. Can you really say the, what, 6 months before the engagement was announced counts as him cheating? He continued to have a friendship and sexual relationship with a woman who he had no intention of marrying, who had no expectations of marrying him, and who was married to another man, while he began to develop a relationship with a woman who he considered as a possible wife. When he then decided to marry her he ended his other relationship... sure it's not exactly the cleanest of starts, but we're literally talking about a 6 month period here.

Charles then didn't resume his relationship with Camilla until he felt his marriage was essentially over. This is after years of a lot of problems, including his pregnant wife throwing herself down a flight of stairs. Diana is being accused by her former lover of having started an affair just two years into the marriage. That is her apparently cheating first - although, she may well have felt that the marriage was pretty much over at that point, I don't know.

That was my understanding as well. Of course I am applying double standards: "Gentlemen may cheat, ladies not". This is rubbish but my politically very incorrect gut feeling says that the Princess of Wales, a young mother also, should have shown the class her spouse apparently lacked. But she did just exactly the same. The Princess of Wales and future Queen of the United Kingdom made herself available for an army Capitain. And that same officier knew he was dating a married woman, married even to the person who once would become his supreme commander....

If Diana started having an affair in 1983, then she was showing a lack of class that her husband seemed to still have, given as he didn't start his affair until 1986.

I don't think Charles is any worse than Diana for cheating, nor Diana any worse than Charles for having done the same, but saying that one is displaying the lack of class that the other had should at least consider the apparent timeline here.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

During the courtship and engagement it's my opinion that Diana WAS indeed a victim. A wordly 30-something man and his coterie of equally sophisticated friends, determined to protect his secrets, were no match for someone of Diana's youthful age and emotional temperament. I do not believe she would have ever agreed to marry Charles if she had realized the depth of his entrenchment with another woman...despite the fact that that woman was another man's wife. According to the story she did try at the last minute to call the entire thing off after becoming suspicious of what she was getting into...only to be told by her family that it was too late.

AFTER the wedding is a different story. She became every bit as cunning and manipulative as her detractors have made her out to be. It was indeed the height of hypocrisy to authorize a tell all charging your spouse with adultery when you yourself are in the midst of one of many adulterous affairs.


Ish, with all due respect your firm assertion that Charles had ended his affair with Mrs. Parker Bowles at the time of his engagement is no less presumptuous than my opinion that Diana was rather cruelly duped. Charles and his camp say that, Diana's say otherwise. We will never know for sure 100%.


Even if Diana was the Messalina she was reported to be the responsibility for ending this trainwreck before it left the station was Charles's. He could have kept up his affair with Andrew Parker Bowles' wife until he met another woman he DID love enough to want to fully commit to.


He was too weak to do so. And the result was tragic.

 

[Roslyn]

If-as Diana and her friends always insisted-Charles was romantically involved with the very married Mrs. Parker Bowles up to the day his engagement was announced he IS the one who cheated first. And he duped an immature teenager into believing he could love her, which was even worse.

Perhaps after the marriage collapsed Charles and Diana believed that the centuries old maxim that allows upper crust couples to have discreet extra-marital affairs also applied to them. And the status quo might have been successfully maintained to this day if Diana had not decided to give a half-baked version of the truth in a tell-all book.

No good can come from playing the "who cheated first" game about these two, partly because we can't know precisely when either of them first formed the intention to have sex with someone other than their spouse and acted upon that intention, and partly because we now know the marriage was doomed from the start and that both of them cheated at some time so it doesn't really matter.

However I have to say that attributing that dubious distinction to Charles for what he did before he was even engaged to Diana is stretching things a bit far.