Diana and James Hewitt

[sirhon11234]

I do not believe for a moment that Hewitt is Harry's father. The red hair is a Spencer trait and Harry has Charles' face and features. As willful as Diana could be, she never would have given birth to a child who was not of the blood royal during her marriage.

People forget that Diana had royal protection officers watching her every move, including who she was sleeping with and the royal family is often spied on by MI6. There is no way The Queen would not know if Hewitt was, in fact, Harry's father.

She denied having a sexual relationship with her bodyguard, but you are quite right the queen would have known if Harry wasn't her grandson.

 

[Duchess]

i did say in an earlier post that harry has mannerisms that are undeniably charles-like. i don't however think he looks one iota like him. i agree that if in fact he was hewitt's child we will never know about it. i think he resembles hewitt moreso but as someone said earlier that's not something that you can go and i agree with that. we all have a "twin". anyway...i haven't meant to start arguments i just wanted to give an opinion and i hope i haven't tread on anyone's toes. this is quite a delicate subject and i respect EVERYONE'S thoughts on it.

 

[branchg]

She denied having a sexual relationship with her bodyguard, but you are quite right the queen would have known if Harry wasn't her grandson.

Therefore, it follows if he wasn't, both the Government and the Crown would have taken action to deny him right of succession and his style and title of HRH Prince of the UK.

Even in a modern society, there is no way Harry would be allowed to be in line to the throne if he wasn't Charles' son.

 

[Duchess]

true enough but would they tell the world if he wasn't charles's biological son? if they denied him the styles and titles wouldn't it be saying something they didn't want the world to know?

 

[Roslyn]

Therefore, it follows if he wasn't, both the Government and the Crown would have taken action to deny him right of succession and his style and title of HRH Prince of the UK.

Even in a modern society, there is no way Harry would be allowed to be in line to the throne if he wasn't Charles' son.

Do you really think so? I think that to make noises about denying Harry such things because he's not Charles' son would open a can of worms the RF wouldn't want to open. The republicans would love it and public opinion would turn against them because it would be very cruel. No, even if Harry is Hewitt's child and the RF know it, they'll keep it quiet and keep their fingers crossed that William marries early and breeds quickly.

 

[Elspeth]

true enough but would they tell the world if he wasn't charles's biological son? if they denied him the styles and titles wouldn't it be saying something they didn't want the world to know?

Indeed, especially back in 1984 when the Wales marriage was still supposed to be a happy one. It would have created a really major scandal, and the fallout would have been hugely damaging to the monarchy.

 

[Vanesa]

If Harry were a blonde or a brunette, we probably wouldn't be having this debate. I think the major factor of the whole thing is he shares Hewitt's hair color.

I find Prince Harry's features very close to the Spencer family...All the Hewitt affair is ridicoulous. The man must be wanting publicity or something...

Oh, wait. And maybe my father is not my father...For nobody had already said that my next door neighbor was not...and maybe he is.

Vanesa.

 

[misselle]

I'm one of those people who think that Charles is Harry's father,but I can understand why tongues are wagging.James Hewitt, himself, bears a strong resemblance to a younger version of Johnny Spencer,Diana's father.But appearance isn't what a parent makes;Harry offered to take the DNA test years ago,but the Queen said no. She herself had to live with the rumour that Andrew was not Philip's son!And Buckingham Palace officials think that the chances are slim-to-none that Hewitt is the father,so they don't think it's necessary;they know that the Windsors all consider Harry to be one of them and that is that.If Harry were to take the DNA test and Hewitt were the father,the only thing that would change would be the line of succession;Harry would still be part of the family.

 

[Roslyn]

I find Prince Harry's features very close to the Spencer family...All the Hewitt affair is ridicoulous. The man must be wanting publicity or something...

Vanesa.

Which man? Hewitt does not claim to be Harry's father, in fact he denied it in his autobiography.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

yes, i'm saying that i'm open minded to the question of who his father is. however, i'm not questioning who his mother is.

since you've decided to make this personal then yes, i'm open minded to, and have, for various reasons throughout my life, given serious thought to the possibility that neither of parents are my bioligical parents. have i ever taken measures to find out - no. do i need to take measures to find out - no - because i feel the same way - my father is my father and even if i did find out that he's not my biological father it wouldn't change the way i feel about him.

Duchess, I believe we have a misunderstanding here. What I was trying to point out is that there is a very important lex in law: "In dubio pro reo" - which means in case there is a doubt, it's to the advantage of the accused.

You turned (or so I read it) this principle into the opposite: you said that because there is no proof for the innocense of Diana in this case, you doubt Harry's parentage. And IMHo that is not fair, not to Diana, not to Harry. There must be a presumption of innocense or proof: as long as there is no proof, Harry has a right to be considered Charles' son. Which he legally is anyway as his parentage was never contested with legal action.

 

[Skydragon]

Do you mean to say that back in 1984, years before the rumours about extramarital affairs started up and two years before Hewitt and Diana claimed to have met, there were already rumours that this guy nobody had ever heard of was the father of Prince Charles's younger son?

You may not have heard the rumours, for those of us around at the time, there was talk that the child was not Charles'.

People forget that Diana had royal protection officers watching her every move, including who she was sleeping with and the royal family is often spied on by MI6. There is no way The Queen would not know if Hewitt was, in fact, Harry's father

How? HM would ask Diana if it were the case, Diana would say no (she didn't always tell the truth) and that would be the end of the matter. The government wouldn't be involved.
If HM knows Harry is not her blood grandson, it would never be told and as for the argument that MI6 etc watch the royals at all times, who's to say that there isn't a dossier somewhere detailing every man Diana slept with, that the general public would never be made aware of!

It certainly makes you wonder what was seen and heard in KP when Princess Michael said the Brits care more about the breeding of their animals!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

i i was just saying that just because harry looks like a spencer doesn't mean that would eliminate hewitt as the potential biological father. is that what you mean that just because he looks like his aunt he could be her son? i suppose that's a good point too. however do we want to open that can worms?

No, of course I don't say Harry is Sarah's son. I don't say either that both Harry and Sarah's son are Hewitt's kids.

What I was trying to say is that both sisters, Diana and Sarah have born sons who look alike. If we talk about the plausibilities of potential reasons for it, we can assume with a very high percentage of plausibility that it's because the mothers were sisters. The plausibility that both kids have the same mother (Sarah) and one was swapped to Diana is very small, IMHO. The plausibility that both sisters had an affair with hewitt, got pregnant and foisted the respective son on their husbands is even smaller, IMHO.

So where does that leave us?

I personally believe that the fact that both sisters have similar looking sons is based on their being sisters family trait. But that means that Harry looks like a Spencer. Nothing else.

There is no real proof that Diana had an affair with Hewitt before she became pregnant with Harry. There is no proof she had any extramarital relationships before her sons were born. There is a high plausibility that she wouldn't have dared to foist a bastard on The Prince of Wales. Having an affair is one thing, being caught in the act of getting pregnant by another man as wife of the heir to the throne is a different matter altogether.

But I guess the fact that there were no more children after Harry is based on a) a stop in the marital relations to Charles and b) using contraceptives.

Of course there were these rumours about a pregnancy and an abortion in 1994 but exactly the points mentioned as explanation to this abortion show IMHO that Diana wouldn't have had an affair while still really married to Charles.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

You may not have heard the rumours, for those of us around at the time, there was talk that the child was not Charles'.

Now that's interesting. Do you mean public talk as in something that could be read in the media or was it more insider's talk of people who either had insights themselves or knew people with such information?

Diana calimed according to Wharfe that Charles went back to Camilla after prince William was born. I have to say that I don't believe her when it comes to the timing of Charles' putting an end to his marriage. But if there were these rumours around, as you say, then insiders must have had knowledge about problems in the marriage, affairs etc. from early on. Which is sad, I think.

As for Charles: he commented according to Diana in the Morton-book when he first saw newborn prince Harry: "A boy - and one with red hair" (retranslated from the German edition). I doubt he would have said that if he had had an idea about the rumours. Or would he?

 

[Skydragon]

There is a high plausibility that she wouldn't have dared to foist a bastard on The Prince of Wales. Having an affair is one thing, being caught in the act of getting pregnant by another man as wife of the heir to the throne is a different matter altogether.

But I guess the fact that there were no more children after Harry is based on a) a stop in the marital relations to Charles and b) using contraceptives.

Of course there were these rumours about a pregnancy and an abortion in 1994 but exactly the points mentioned as explanation to this abortion show IMHO that Diana wouldn't have had an affair while still really married to Charles.

What do you think anyone would have done about it Jo, sent her off to the tower? Or do you think she would do as millions of women do and pass the child off as her husbands child.
Your last point that she wouldn't have had an affair while still really married to Charles, what was she doing in her admitted affair in 1986, pretending?

BBC ON THIS DAY | 24 | 1981: Prince Charles and Lady Di to marry

After Prince Harry's birth on 15 September 1984 it was clear the fairytale marriage was falling apart.

Just one of many articles that mention the marriage was seen to be falling apart in 1984 and these things don't happen overnight.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

What do you think anyone would have done about it Jo, sent her off to the tower? Or do you think she would do as millions of women do and pass the child off as her husbands child.
Your last point that she wouldn't have had an affair while still really married to Charles, what was she doing in her admitted affair in 1986, pretending?

BBC ON THIS DAY | 24 | 1981: Prince Charles and Lady Di to marry

After Prince Harry's birth on 15 September 1984 it was clear the fairytale marriage was falling apart.

Just one of many articles that mention the marriage was seen to be falling apart in 1984 and these things don't happen overnight.

In Germany we have a legal term about seperations leading up to divorce where the couple has to go on sharing a flat. It's "sharing of table and bed" - I meant that as being "really married", as in "still living together as man and wife, including having marital relationships". In 1986, AFAIK, they didn't share the same table and bed anymore - so any child simply could not have been Charles'.

The BBC article was written well after 1984, so for whom was it clear? Diana told Morton that for her it was clear. But for Charles?

 

[Skydragon]

The BBC article was written well after 1984, so for whom was it clear? Diana told Morton that for her it was clear. But for Charles?

IMO, anybody who had any contact with either party could see the marriage was far from a happy and contented one, but unless any of the people concerned were willing to 'go public' apart from articles that have been written since, there will never be proof what those people thought.

I think they both knew soon after Williams birth that things were not working out.

 

[Duchess]

Duchess, I believe we have a misunderstanding here. What I was trying to point out is that there is a very important lex in law: "In dubio pro reo" - which means in case there is a doubt, it's to the advantage of the accused.

You turned (or so I read it) this principle into the opposite: you said that because there is no proof for the innocense of Diana in this case, you doubt Harry's parentage. And IMHo that is not fair, not to Diana, not to Harry. There must be a presumption of innocense or proof: as long as there is no proof, Harry has a right to be considered Charles' son. Which he legally is anyway as his parentage was never contested with legal action.

first let me say that i hope i'm not coming across totally against your point of view as that's not my intention. i agree that harry has every right to be considered charles' son as charles has been the only father that he's ever known. i just feel that as long as there are people out there questioning this issue i will, personally, have to remain open minded...not that the world gives a hoot about what my opinion is . i don't believe (and correct me if i'm wrong) that hewitt, to his credit, has ever said publicly that he wants to have tests done. i'm content to leave things unverified but even if they were i would be happy to say "charles is his father, he has always been a wonderful father and nothing should change".

thanks for your thoughts on the topic though...this has been very interesting.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

IMO, anybody who had any contact with either party could see the marriage was far from a happy and contented one, but unless any of the people concerned were willing to 'go public' apart from articles that have been written since, there will never be proof what those people thought.

I think they both knew soon after Williams birth that things were not working out.

I guess, you're right. Whitacker wrote in 1993 that it was in 1987 that Charles believed Diana had an affair with Philip Dunne and that that was the reason he stopped living with her completely apart from holding up the facade. He claims that Hewitt, then member of the Guards and a good polo player, was selected by courtiers to be the one to teach William how to ride and that he could maybe be the one to teach Diana, too. But he said as well that Hewitt and Diana had common friends, including David Waterhouse, who for Whitaker, was a candidate as a lover of Diana. Not sure what to make of this. But he refers to his sources by name, so it could be at least a bit of the truth.

 

[Elspeth]

IMO, anybody who had any contact with either party could see the marriage was far from a happy and contented one, but unless any of the people concerned were willing to 'go public' apart from articles that have been written since, there will never be proof what those people thought.

I think they both knew soon after Williams birth that things were not working out.

That's as may be, but the question isn't so much a case of the marriage not working out as the allegation that by early 1984 Diana was already being unfaithful. To say nothing of the fact that she was supposed to be being unfaithful with a person with whom, by all accounts, she only had a very casual acquaintanceship at the time, if that.

If all the books and articles are to be believed, the marriage was in trouble because Diana was very insecure, jealous (of Camilla), and possessive, not because she was indifferent to Charles and already eyeing possible alternatives. The scenario you're suggesting means that she was already intimate with James Hewitt less than three years after her wedding to Charles.

 

[Nichola]

I can't believe this thread is actually open - the claim is absurd!

 

[Elspeth]

Well, some people seem to think it isn't. As long as it's a topic of discussion in the press, there's no harm in having a thread about it; it does at least stop having Harry's current-events thread derailed with the rumours.

 

[Martha]

This is absurd. Princess Diana is dead, and She can´t to defend her. Prince Harry looks like his uncle Charles Spencer.

 

[Skydragon]

You say by all accounts she only had a very casual acquantance with Hewitt, I presume you mean by published accounts. Has anyone managed to get a statement from any of his fellow officers, for instance?
If she was desperately unhappy with Charles while she was carrying William (it was she who said she threw herself down the stairs and self harmed while pregnant), why do you think it so hard to believe that she looked elsewhere, straight after the birth, many women do, especially as Charles was apparently unable to cope with her, more than usual, at this time?

The fact remains that all these conversations, gossip and speculation will continue, because although both Charles and Diana had affairs, only one was able to cause major problems for the monarch, because of course only one of them could cause these problems by getting pregnant.

To the person who said she would have been careful and taken the pill. how do you suppose she would have got that and who from?

 

[semisquare]

why?????

why bring up such a subject. don't you think he has suffered enough with the death of his mom, having no private life, going to war and now this. imo its a waste of time, since time only goes in one direction im going to move on

 

[Elspeth]

You say by all accounts she only had a very casual acquantance with Hewitt, I presume you mean by published accounts. Has anyone managed to get a statement from any of his fellow officers, for instance?

He himself is only claiming a casual acquaintanceship with Diana before 1986, even with the aid of hypnosis. I don't recall hearing statements from his fellow officers that he was close to Diana in the early 1980s, although it's possible that they've all been very discreet for the last 25 years.

If she was desperately unhappy with Charles while she was carrying William (it was she who said she threw herself down the stairs and self harmed while pregnant), why do you think it so hard to believe that she looked elsewhere, straight after the birth, many women do, especially as Charles was apparently unable to cope with her, more than usual, at this time?

Sure, it's possible, but considering all the stuff that's come out about her since she died, it seems to be significant that nothing has come out about a close relationship with anyone, Hewitt or otherwise, in the early 1980s.

 

[olga101]

I hope (in the event a dna test is ever requested or done) that Hewitt is not the father. He was an abominable person, a woman's worst nightmare after being in a relationship, casual or otherwise. He used the occasion and just cheapened man/woman relationships, in general.

 

[olga101]

And I should that even is a test showed positive, secretly, that Prince Charles would ignore it and consider himself the father. As is/has often been done when a woman strayed in a marriage and the husband was possibly negligent-that he considered the child his responsibility.

 

[Skydragon]

He himself is only claiming a casual acquaintanceship with Diana before 1986, even with the aid of hypnosis. I don't recall hearing statements from his fellow officers that he was close to Diana in the early 1980s, although it's possible that they've all been very discreet for the last 25 years.

Under hypnosis, as I thought you knew, Hewit claimed that he met Diana in 1981 and that they started their affair after William was born. He went into great detail of how they met at friends and that she was the one who made the first move. When he was woken from the 'apparent' hypnosis, he refused to answer any questions on what he had just said and stated again that the agreed date of their meeting was 1986.
Very few fellow officers would ever speak out, it is their code of conduct, Hewitt may have brought shame on the regiment, but it doesn't mean they have to. There is also a little thing they sign, called the official secrets act, that they all seem to honour.

 

[Elspeth]

Under hypnosis, as I thought you knew, Hewit claimed that he met Diana in 1981 and that they started their affair after William was born. He went into great detail of how they met at friends and that she was the one who made the first move.

Perhaps if the friends in question come forward to confirm all this, it might help. Generally this sounds like a stunt; hypnosis may (or may not - there seems to be some professional controversy about this) allow people to recover repressed memories, but there's no reason why this particular memory would be repressed. One of the things that makes repressed-memory recovery so controversial is that it's been shown that false memories as well as true ones can be recovered.

I wonder why he would even agree to be hypnotised for public consumption - if it's really true that he doesn't want to hurt Prince Harry, this is a very strange way to go about it. I wonder what he's trying to achieve, other than giving Harry yet more trauma.

Very few fellow officers would ever speak out, it is their code of conduct, Hewitt may have brought shame on the regiment, but it doesn't mean they have to. There is also a little thing they sign, called the official secrets act, that they all seem to honour.

So the point of your previous question asking whether anyone had managed to get a statement from one of them was what, exactly, if they have a code of conduct by which they don't make such statements?

 

[Polly]

Someone here has mentioned what I think, i.e. that Harry has 'the look' of his maternal grandfather and Spencer cousins in his facial mix. And yes, I saw the late Earl Spencer in the flesh, just as I have seen all of the royal family.

Another reason why I believe Harry to be Charles' son is that my mother has, on tapes, many videos of the Queen with her family, both on public occasions and more private moments. Time and again, the Queen is walking holding Harry's hand; bending to smile and laugh with him; ruffling his hair, i.e. displaying all of the usual sort of affection that a grandparent shows a small child. I do not believe that she would ever have behaved in this way if she had the slightest doubt that Harry wasn't her natural grandson. Given her well known antipathy towards Diana, I can not imagine that she would show Diana's son any obvious affection if were not Charles' son, as well.

Someone also intimates that Hewitt's fellow officers might know 'something', and that I don't believe either. If Hewitt told them that he was Harry's father, we'd know about it by now. We can no longer assume that officers are gentlemen - look at Hewitt's unconscionable behaviour.

These sorts of rumours are often attached to royalty, including Her Majesty. In the past, I've read that Lord Carnavon is Andrew's father (Andrew looks like Carnavon and is built like him and Carnavon's sons) and that Lord Plunket is Edward's father (they certainly share remarkable physical similarities). Where does all of this stop?

Whereas I liked Diana, I didn't think her particularly intelligent. Even so, I strongly doubt that when having an affair with another man that she wouldn't have known about and used contraception. To insinuate, further, that she might deliberately have imposed a bastard child on the royal family out of revenge alone, is to claim that she was an evil, vindictive, sociopath, and I don't believe that, either.