Diana and James Hewitt

[Skydragon]

This thread has become hilarious, just vaguely looking through, perhaps the mods ought to start a poll.
Eyes matching Charles
Eyes matching Queen
Eyes matching Phillip
Eyes matching James
Eyes matching James Mother
Eyes matching James' brother
Eyes matching James cousin 13 times removed
Ears matching Charles
Ears matching Spencers
Ears matching, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Roslyn]

And he has her close-set beady eyes. Not to mention Charles' ears.

I haven't noticed a similarity in the ears, but I agree that Harry has HM's close-set beady eyes via Charles, who also has them. They're deep-set too. They came from Queen Mary.

 

[Polly]

This thread has become hilarious, just vaguely looking through, perhaps the mods ought to start a poll.
, etc, etc, etc.

With all due respect, Skydragon, I don't find any of this hilarious.

I have gained the impression (perhaps I'm wrong?) that you do not believe that Charles is Harry's father. If I'm wrong, then I apologise. If I'm right, then I'd like to know why, if possible.

To me, and many of my compatriots, it's not a light matter. A lot is riding on the personal circumstances of the BRF in this country, and will be, much more so, in the near future.

There is one variable about which I'm confident that not too many have considered, i.e. the unreasonable and off-the-wall belief that Diana could have, successfully, foisted a bastard child on the royal family.

Quite simply, I just don't believe it possible. The BRF is adept, indeed, in preserving its best interests and sense of inviolable integrity.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

With all due respect, Skydragon, I don't find any of this hilarious.

I have gained the impression (perhaps I'm wrong?) that you do not believe that Charles is Harry's father. If I'm wrong, then I apologise. If I'm right, then I'd like to know why, if possible.

To me, and many of my compatriots, it's not a light matter. A lot is riding on the personal circumstances of the BRF in this country, and will be, much more so, in the near future.

There is one variable about which I'm confident that not too many have considered, i.e. the unreasonable and off-the-wall belief that Diana could have, successfully, foisted a bastard child on the royal family.

Quite simply, I just don't believe it possible. The BRF is adept, indeed, in preserving its best interests and sense of inviolable integrity.

I think one should realise that there are many, many things that happen in the RF that never reach the knowledge of the public. I bet if Diana had not talked about Camilla, we would not know about her - and we still don't know exactly what was really going on as the people who talk don't know and those who know don't talk.

Same with Harry's paternity: if he isn't Charles' son, then he is still recognised as that in public. And that probably means that the RF made it clearthat they don't want any information given to anyone that might help to prove that he isn't what he appears to be. But in the right circles - probably the officer circles in which Hewitt moved - there was bound to be talk anyway. As Skydragon once said she has beent he wife of an officer, she might well have heard information which is not out in the open but well-known within the army.

But that's not the point I think. The basic question in all this speculation is this, IMHO: do we believe that Diana was
a) capable to cheating on Charles that early on in her marriage?
b) capable of foistening a bastard on her husband?
c) capable to employ the RF and the court to cover it up?

For me, honestly, all three questions are answered with "yes". It does not necessarily mean that Harry is Hewitt's son, but he could be.

 

[Elspeth]

I think if a is true, b and c are also true because what's the alternative? Hauling her off to get an abortion? I mean, if she had an affair early in her marriage when she was apparently still sleeping with Charles, it might not be obvious whose child it was anyway, so what options would Charles and the royal family have?

However, I doubt that Diana would have been cheating on Charles early in the marriage, and as far as I know, Hewitt's "recovered memories" about this early affair haven't been corroborated by anyone. I'm still mystified why he would need to undergo hypnosis to remember something that shouldn't have been so traumatic that it led to buried memories in the first place. And given his track record of courting publicity, it does tend to make me suspicious.

To say nothing of that photo which I linked to above, which I first saw (if I remember right) before all this Hewitt nonsense blew up and which I initially thought was a photo of Charles.

 

[Skydragon]

With all due respect, Skydragon, I don't find any of this hilarious.

To me Australia is already on the path to a republic and good luck to them. I can't see how Harry being Hewitts could influence that in any way.

It is hilarious, IMO, those that believe or want to believe that Harry is Charles' son, pointing out that he has so and so's ears, eyes, nose, hair etc. Their belief that it is 'only' because of the red hair. Millions have red hair, are we to believe that they are all Spencers?

For all the tragedy of this situation, Harry has his own ears, nose, chin, eyes etc, his hair could be dyed black, but to me, he would still look like James Hewitt .

But that's not the point I think. The basic question in all this speculation is this, IMHO: do we believe that Diana was
a) capable to cheating on Charles that early on in her marriage?
b) capable of foistening a bastard on her husband?
c) capable to employ the RF and the court to cover it up?

For me, honestly, all three questions are answered with "yes". It does not necessarily mean that Harry is Hewitt's son, but he could be

Exactly.

 

[love_cc]

The basic question in all this speculation is this, IMHO: do we believe that Diana was
a) capable to cheating on Charles that early on in her marriage?
b) capable of foistening a bastard on her husband?
c) capable to employ the RF and the court to cover it up?

For me, honestly, all three questions are answered with "yes". It does not necessarily mean that Harry is Hewitt's son, but he could be.

Totally agree. The three situations could have happened without any public knowlege. If they kept slience throughout their lives, we will never know. It is trageic because there is a similarity between JM and Prince Harry in exisitence and the timing stuff can be faked thus only the two people really knew the truths. Diana is dead and even she were alive, she would never really tells the truths straight away because it was out of her character. I only think the conseuqences of her affairs were unpredictable and definitely cast historical doubts about some certain issues. We are still too early to make conclusions and after 100 years people in that time will have a better idea about who is really Prince Harry's daddy.

 

[Polly]

To me Australia is already on the path to a republic and good luck to them. I can't see how Harry being Hewitts could influence that in any way.

Well, I suggest that that's because you don't live here and probably know little about Australia, beyond the silly stories that often appear in the UK press about this country.

In the first instance, I believe that if one is to accept a monarchy then it is paramount that one can respect it. Believing that the royal family behaves as second-rate actors in a seedy soap opera isn't concomitant with those standards necessary to maintain the dignity and honour of the institution.

There are serious issues to consider and reflect upon concerning Australia's constitutional connections with the UK, but frequently, debate is suborned by tabloid muck-raking (which, sadly, does appeal to the LCD in the community) such as Harry's being a ring-in; Prince Phillip arranging Diana's murder, etc.

Unlike you, I haven't seen Harry and Charles together, but I have shaken Prince Harry's hand. Up close and personal, he looked enough like a Windsor to me.

 

[Skydragon]

Well, I suggest that that's because you don't live here and probably know little about Australia, beyond the silly stories that often appear in the UK press about this country.

I have friends in Australia and all are adamant that if it is worded correctly, they want a republic. I think there are quite a few on these forums who feel the same way, none of them seem to base this on whether Harry is JH's son or not. I tend to avoid the 'silly stories' in the UK press, regardless of whether they involve Australia or not.

.......Up close and personal,. he looked enough like a Windsor to me.

I don't know why you feel the need of an 'up close and personal' remark, many people have shaken hands with Harry but would not term it as either 'up close' or 'personal', or is your presumption that nobody else could possibly have had contact with Charles and Harry?

You think he looked like a Windsor but, many people see what they expect or want to see.

 

[ysbel]

Can a belief that Diana could not have fostered a bastard child on the royal family be rooted in a desire to protect the Royal Family or a desire to preserve the memory of Diana which is not necessarily the same thing?

I can well see a future where the BRF is driven from the throne in disgrace while Diana's reputation as an icon and image for the perfect princess remains intact (or as one person so inelegantly put it) Diana was the only good one to ever come out of that sorry dysfunctional family.

I can also see Diana's reputation take a downturn while the rest of the family muddles through and recreates a new identity for themselves. Basically if Harry is a bastard, Charles and the rest of the royal family have claimed him, he's only second in line to the throne and so the impact to the monarchy can be lessened.

 

[Polly]

I don't know why you feel the need of an 'up close and personal' remark, many people have shaken hands with Harry but would not term it as either 'up close' or 'personal', or is your presumption that nobody else could possibly have had contact with Charles and Harry?

You think he looked like a Windsor but, many people see what they expect or want to see.

1. An 'up close and personal' remark suited my purposes as it demonstrated that I wasn't basing my opinion on photographs, alone.

2. I didn't presume, contend, suggest, imply or infer that nobody else had had contact with Charles and Harry. Why would I? For starters, I don't think it very probable, you know.

3. I didn't expect to see anything at all other than a young English prince. I certainly didn't examine his visage, as it were. He seemed enough his father's son to me, that's all.

 

[kaffir]

We know he's not Hewitt's; royals routinely get a paternity test right after birth.

 

[lilytornado]

We know he's not Hewitt's; royals routinely get a paternity test right after birth.

Really? how do you know this?

 

[Skydragon]

1. An 'up close and personal' remark suited my purposes as it demonstrated that I wasn't basing my opinion on photographs, alone.......

3....... He seemed enough his father's son to me, that's all

Would that be based on photographs?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Paternity tests, as we have discussed before, are a fairly new thing.

 

[Polly]

I'm not quite sure that I understand what you mean, Skydragon, but if you mean what I think that you mean, then the answer is 'no'.

 

[rani]

In a recent posting of pictures of the Diamond Wedding celebrations there was a full face picture of Prince Harry. Take away the red hair and substitute blonde and it could be Prince Phillip at that age. His Mother did,after all,have a family,indeed a family where red hair is quite prevalent.I also do not believe Diana cheated on the POW until after the "heir and spare" were born. It would have been totally against her upbringing and family pride.

 

[HRH Abigail]

Hasn't this subject been done to death, and beyond?

This is really ridiculous, have they seen Prince Harry's recent picture? His resemblance to his father is really striking. If they alleged Prince Harry is Hewitt's son, I'm going to start thinking of the possibility only if they prove Hewitt is in turn Prince Philip's love child, because Prince Harry does resemble his father and grandfather quite a lot.

I quite agree with you, here!

Hasn't Prince Harry's parentage ALREADY been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt?

I feel as though people want to flog dead horses, as we say.

Harry is undoubtedly his Father's, Prince Charles', SON.

I should think The Media would be well advised to leave him alone regarding his parentage.

 

[Skydragon]

It would have been totally against her upbringing and family pride.

Many children were and are foisted off within many families as being the child of the husband, upbringing would have had nothing to do with it.

Hasn't Prince Harry's parentage ALREADY been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt?

No, put simply, it hasn't.

 

[Duchess]

i think it would be more accurate to say that if it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the parties that have the proof haven't, and won't make it public knowledge.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Many children were and are foisted off within many families as being the child of the husband, upbringing would have had nothing to do with it.

I think we should stop talking about biological parenthood here. There are biological fathers who don't care one bit about their children and stepfathers who adore the kids not created by them.

Legally Harry is the son of the Prince of Wales. He is acknowledged and is treated as such. It's not Harry's fault that his mother is deemed capable of foistering a bastard on her husband and it's not Charles' fault that despite all he has done for Harry he is still regarded as a potentially cuckolded "father". In any case Charles and the Royal family have behaved not only perfectly well-mannered but warmly and lovingly whatever their misgivings may have been and IMHO it's only polite to follow their lead. But of course the topic is unfortunately one one can pretty well discuss about.

 

[Rice]

Wow, can you imagine being thrust in the public eye, from the moment you were born, with the nickname "the spare". Every little nasty habit or charming trait you possess tabloid fodder from the time you start drooling as an infant.
You happen to have red hair, whereas your older brother and mother are blondes and your father has brown hair. BTW, you have this red hair from your very first baby picture that the public has ever seen. Your parents marriage breaks up in a nasty public manner, difficult for any child, but well after you have been born. Insults being flung back and forth. Extramarital affairs bantered about--and then, then after enduring all of that, rumors start that your father is not your father. Unbelievable.
Now, Buckingham Palace is a crafty bunch, for sure! The moment there was a whiff that Diana had an affair, wouldn't they be all over the possibility of one, or both of the boys not being royal. To really digress on a tangent here, I believe there was speculation in Belgium that Prince Laurent was not the Kings son and that is why King Baudoin changed the line of succession for Princess Astrid to come before her brother Prince Laurent (I personally think it's because she could have secured the line at that point b/c neither one of her brothers were married, but whatever. And Seriously, look at Prince Laurent, he is the Spitting image of the king) My point is, Buckingham palace had to be ALL over these rumors when they came out.
Both Diana and Hewitt went on public record saying when their relationship started.
Poor Harry, it's bad enough his late nights out with friends wind up on the cover of every newspaper in Britain (that's why it's good to be the spare I guess---look at the "Margaret Set") but seriously, to have his identity still questioned for the sole purpose of selling books or magazines is just mean. I guess I shouldn't be shocked but the press, but I still am.

----Okay--I will hop off my soapbox now--lol

 

[Royal Fan]

Ok heres the Truth Ready: in 1984 a boy was born with red hair the Spencers have red hair ........and he has Windsor Eyes nose and mouth so I Can Honestly say The Prince of Wales is his father,Until honestly provem otherwise.

 

[Russophile]

27 pages of ad nausem! (Where is that barfing smiley when you need him???)

 

[KingCharles]

In all areas of royal history there have been cover-ups for children's legalities with regards to public image and thought. King Henry VIII had a few children with mistresses which were not to be heard of. Do you really think that Prince Charles would ever let it slip if this was the case? Or, even more than that do you think The Queen would ever allow this information to be made public, if indeed, it's even true.

 

[Russophile]

In all areas of royal history there have been cover-ups for children's legalities with regards to public image and thought. King Henry VIII had a few children with mistresses which were not to be heard of. Do you really think that Prince Charles would ever let it slip if this was the case? Or, even more than that do you think The Queen would ever allow this information to be made public, if indeed, it's even true.

I beg to differ there. Henry flaunted the fact that he had an illegitimate son to Katherine of Aragon by Elizabeth Blount (see Tudor Monarchs: King Henry VIII ) and I'm sure others of the court were well aware that Henry FitzRoy (literally "Son of the King") existed and enjoyed the King's favor.
Until somebody puts proof of a DNA paternity test with Hewitt's name on it in front of me, Harry is Charles' son.

 

[sirhon11234]

Princess Mary has a son Christian who has blonde hair while she and her husband are brunettes. But no one is doubting that he is Fredrick's son.
Harry inherited the red hair from his mother. Harry also has many windsor-mountbatten traits from his father Charles.

 

[pinkie40]

What bothers me is how Hewitt has remained on (or very close to) the scene. He has never completely disappeared..and supposedly his signet ring was in the very important mahogany box in the possession of Paul Burrell.

 

[LOSSEAN]

I
many people see what they expect or want to see.

By all intents and purposes this seems to be the main thrust of this thread. Without the facts, the protaganists are doing just this.

 

[Maricar]

These speculations will never be put to rest until and unless a paternity test is performed. And there's no chance of that ever happening to a royal.

 

[TonyaR]

I think they will eventually be put to rest by Prince Harry's physical appearance. As he gets older his resemblance to his Windsor and Mountbatten family members becomes more apparent and more pronounced. He looks a lot like Prince Phillip, especially his eyebrows, his browbone and his eyes. He also looks like Prince Phillip in profile. The photo below shows a remarkable resemblance to his father and his paternal grandfather.
http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa239/prettyBaby3000/harrydiving.jpg