Than we have to agree to disagree on that point - I very [much] believe he wanted to get it sold quietly and without fuss, because he needs money. Diana very much ruined his chances of getting adequate good jobs after she spilled the beans and freezed him out. That wasn't what he had expected. 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.
You have pretty much summed it up, Nice Nofret.
I agree.
I have two hunches regarding the vitriol that follows Hewitt: that he is an ever present reminder that Diana was as much an adulteress as Charles was an adulterer. As long as Hewitt breaths air, he confirms the uncomfortable fact that Diana was not a love-lorn newly-wed bereft of a husband she adored. Not in the least. Nor was she unlucky in love: Hewitt is clear evidence that Diana had her devoted companion (just like Charles) had she not thrown him over.
Second hunch is that the red hair, and the unfortunate resemblance, suggests something that must not be. I am reminded of the strange decision Diana made to share a story about Charles greeting the newly born Harry with a dismissive statement about the infant's red hair. I have trouble believing someone like Charles would do something like that, it's so superficial. Who does that with a child just born? But if there was a knowledge (or suspicion) that Diana was engaged in an affair with the red-headed Hewitt, can you imagine Charles' reaction to seeing red hair? I've never understood why Diana would tell such a story that was actually an extremely cruel story against her son Harry, who would one day hear (life being what it is) that tale. Why do that? What sub-text is in that story that would give Diana pleasure in telling it? That she had pulled a fast one on Charles and the BRF, which she was fast loathing? It's crossed my mind.
Except for this additional factoid: that Diana made a point of indicating that the time when Harry was conceived was particularly loving between she and Charles. She is deliberate in making that point while trying to make Charles out as a jerk. It's a curious insistence imo, as Diana admits, and those who were a witness to that time agree, that in the latter part of the pregnancy the relationship between Charles and Diana was particularly problematic, and never recovered. Curious shift, so sudden. There's a sub-text here. I don't know what it is (though I have a hunch). It's there. What would 'irretrievably' break down a marriage beyond repair? I can think of one.
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.
As best as I can determine the News of the World story is a non-story. It never happened because it was foiled by one account. But the rumor persists because Penny Junor stating it as fact in an article has given the fabulation legs. (The newspaper is defunct so cannot fight back). The fact that Harry resembles the Spencers simply confirms that Diana was Harry's mother, nothing more. That Penny Junor would defend Charles (and Harry) is not a surprise. (Though one other possibility is that the BRF has done a DNA test, which they would never admit to publicly, of course, and the results were clear that Charles is Harry's father, and Junor just used the NotW story as more easy to reference).
When did Hewitt carry on the rumour? Serious question. In two interviews - to the Mirror in 2002 and CNN in 2003 - he expressly denied the possibility that he could have been Harry's father.
Exactly so.
Thank you for bringing this up, Roslyn. Whenever there were serious questions of paternity, Hewitt was duly trotted out to make the denials. Hewitt has done his part only to get kicked endlessly. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if Hewitt is inclined to give some push-back by this time. Hewitt is not royal. Why his life should be the business of others is a mystery to me. How powerful the reach of the royal touch remains in British society. Just an observation.
What puzzles me is how enflamed people can be about Hewitt's 'indiscretion' in talking about Diana, but the very same cannot muster one smidge of disapproval for the massive indiscretions of Diana, who (pretty much) single-handedly smeared the BRF with scandal across two decades (if we ignore Fergie). The disjunct is hard to ignore.