@sandy. I think you are not really accepting the fact that in terms of royal family, it is Charles who matters. You raise the issue of paternity for Thomas and Laura Parker-Bowles. If that were the case (rather unlikely); it would be an enormous advantage to them. Diana herself benefited from being descended from royal "bastards". Typically they get titles and lands. As it happens Charles has already created Trust Funds for Laura and Tom, even though they are not his children.
That is a very different proposition from any paternity questions relating to William and Harry. If any of them were proved not to be Charles' children, they would face a significant or even devastating loss in status. They would lose all their titles and privileges. So you see, fathering a love child has very different (even opposite) implications depending on whether you are the Prince or Princess of Wales. The Parker-Bowles children benefit from being close to Charles. It is not a disadvantage to them that he is their stepfather and they clearly revel in that status (read Thomas' constant praise of his stepfather). By contrast, if Hewitt was hypothetically the biological father of Harry; it would be a devastating blow to the young man.
In her eagerness to take revenge, Diana failed to realize that admitting adultery on national television opened up the way for conspiracy theorists to question her children's paternity. Some go as far as suggesting that William is a Spanish Bourbon. That is what you get when you air dirty laundry, particularly when you are a woman. By admitting adultery, Charles merely raised the profile of Camilla. She was now his undisputed consort and it was only a matter of time before she would be given an official role. Andrew Parker Bowles took the opportunity to divorce and everything was set for Camilla's ascent. Diana knew this and bitterly resented how Camilla was on the verge of taking her place.
Diana (and it seems some of her fans) failed to realize the true importance of Charles, until it was too late. Without him she was just another minor aristocrat (an Earl's daughter is way, way down the line the aristocratic ranks) or later on celebrity fundraiser. It is Charles who gave Diana the cache of royalty. When he took that away from her, she was devastated. Had he not been important, she would not have clung to the marriage despite knowing that Charles did not love her (just quoting her own words in Panorama about not wanting a divorce) or even raised a stink about the removal of the HRH title. It is Charles who has always been the important party in the equation. Like it or not, that is how the monarchy operates. It was very foolish of Diana to push Charles and the Royal Family. When they wielded their power, she wilted.
Also the Hasnat Khan relationship did not last that long, precisely because of the drama surrounding Diana. Her love life was a mess and the paparazzi were emboldened in their harassment by the fact that she was now only a detached member of the Windsor clan. That is one of the reasons she was so resentful about the birthday party for Camilla. Diana contrasted her own trail of failed relationships and betrayal with the relative security that Camilla had with Charles. Diana was no fool. She realized what had been lost and it is silly to pretend that she did not regret being removed from the mainstream royal family.
Had she lived longer, it was possible that Diana would have joined the heap of jaded Hollywood celebrities; probably running the gamut of multiple nasty divorces and tabloid scandals. A few weeks before her death, the press was already turning on her. It is only when she died that they temporarily deified her. Now they are back to picking her apart. The divorce was a very big loss to Diana but it actually freed Charles to do as he pleased i.e. openly go out with and eventually marry Camilla.
You might want to read the "accident waiting to happen" revelations from Diana with a pinch of salt. At this time Diana was very lonely. She was surrounded by charlatans and sycophants who fed her paranoia. The Windsors had neutralized her influence over their image through the separation and forced divorce. They had nothing to gain from having her killed. She was in the process of destroying her own reputation with a series of controversial decisions (Dodi, landmines etc.). It is said that Diana was addicted to fortune tellers they kept telling her dire predictions about the death about to befall her former husband. She started imagining Charles' death and even planning her outfit for the queen mother's death. As history has shown us, all these were wrong predictions by people who never had Diana's interests at heart.
There was no such problem since Harry and William are biological children of Charles and Diana. NO way would Charles keep another man's child in line of succession. Tom name drops Sir and Mum to help peddle his cookbooks though fortunately he's more low key now. Hewitt is not Harry's father so I don't get why this is regurgitated. Harry was about 2 years old when Diana and Hewitt got involved.
Diana's admitting adultery did not compromise anything. Only Diana bashers think it did. Charles admitting adultery forced APB to divorce his wife and had serious consequences. And Charles got criticized by the public as well as Camilla's own father who confronted him about it. What Charles did was not "noble". CHarles as good as named APB as a cuckold and no he could not name Camilla as partner by doing this because at the time he was married to Diana and she was married to APB.
Diana did not "cling" to the marriage. If she did there would have been no MOrton book nor a Panorama interview. She'd just put up and shut up if she was a "clinger."
The Spanish Bourbon gossip about WIlliam is as ridiculous as stories about aliens abducting people.
You really want to think the worst of Diana had she lived. She would still have been the mother of a future King and the "spare" Harry. She would have had grandchildren to love. She was only divorced ONE year when she died yet you consign her to failure.
The press was not turning on Diana at the time. That is not true. If they were nobody would have made such a fuss when she died and the royals would not have given her the lavish funeral. They pretty much had to because of public demand.
When did Diana plan her "outfit" for the Queen Mum's funeral? This sounds like tabloid fodder like the Spanish Bourbon rubbish.
The Queen Mum loathed Camilla and did not want Charles to marry her. Charles had to wait until the Queen Mum passed on. Camilla had to go into hiding after Diana died and Charles tastelessly used his sons to get her promoted less than a year later.
You bash Diana but Camilla's life is nothing to write home about. She got where she is today by being a mistress to the Prince undermined the wife and is not popular with everybody.
Charles has been criticized and is not the Saint you think he is. He showed himself unable to sustain a marriage to the mother of his children (and yes he shared the blame), too wishy washy to commit to the marriage, too wishy washy not to dump the mistress, and too weak willed and spineless to take any responsibility for his own actions. Bedell Smith "helps" Charles by claiming he was "forced" to marry Diana and none of the problems were his fault.
The people "picking apart" Diana are Camilla worshippers and Charles sycophants like Penny Junor, Bedell Smith, and Charles cousins the Mountbattens every now and then bash Diana. Charles technique of trashing his late ex wife makes him look just plain nasty like the sycophants.
Junor and Camilla and Charles are best pals and she very conveniently bashes Diana in all are books.
The Landmine Campaign was well received. She dated Dodi. Her bad decision was getting involved with Charles and his mistress.
How do you know Diana "resented" the party for Camilla. It was so ludicrous she probably had a good laugh over it.