Rose Hanbury’s marriage is struggling in the wake of being Kate’s ‘rural rival’

The Duke And Duchess Of Cambridge Attend Gala Dinner To Support East Anglia's Children's Hospices' Nook Appeal

If you’re like me, you sort of believe that Rose Hanbury was the original source for the “rural rivals” story. The Sun reported, back in March, that Rose (the Marchioness of Cholmondeley) had fallen out with the Duchess of Cambridge, that Kate saw Rose as her “rural rival” in Norfolk, and that Kate was trying to have Rose “phased out” of the Turnip Toff society. The theory goes that Rose and Prince William had an affair, Kate found out and tried to have Rose phased out and Rose basically went to The Sun and the Daily Mail to spill the tea, but she did it using that coded language the aristocrats use. If that was the case, she played it perfectly because William overreacted and basically outed himself and their affair by trying to shut down the rumors.

Anyway, the dust has mostly settled, and Rose made an appearance at the Trump state banquet at the palace last week. She didn’t wear her wedding ring, although she was only there because she’s the wife to the Lord Great Chamberlain. So now it’s time for The Sun to spread some rumors about the state of Rose’s marriage, I guess? And now that I believe that the British tabloids speak in code about the aristocrats, I kind of think that the Sun is insinuating that the Marquess of Cholmondeley (Rose’s husband) is gay?? Some highlights from this Sun article:

Rose’s rift with Duchess Kate: The usually unruffled duchess is said to have “phased out” her Norfolk neighbour. The row has meant many of the agricultural county’s blue bloods — known as the Turnip Toffs — have almost felt forced to choose between the royal couple, based on the Queen’s Sandringham estate, and Rose and husband David Rocksavage, the Marquess of Cholmondeley, who live a few miles away at Houghton Hall.

Rose’s brother has spilled some tea: Now The Sun understands that the former model’s brother has been quizzed by pals over the rumours surrounding his sister’s friendship with William. A regular at the brother’s private members’ club, 5 Hertford Street, in Mayfair, said: “He let it slip when he had been drinking that Rose is aware of what people are saying about her and William. And it seems Rose’s marriage has less romance these days. He’s much older than her and they have different interests. Rose is up there in Norfolk in a nice stately pile. She’s a pretty girl and David is often a long way away in Paris or London.”

Rose is struggling: One of Rose’s friends told The Sun that she has been struggling to cope with the falling out. The pal revealed: “These are very, very trying times for Rose and she has not found it easy knowing that she is the subject of gossip simply because she happened to form a good friendship with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.”

Rose & David’s marriage is not great: Other sources also say that Rose and David spend time apart. While she is busy looking after their three children — ten-year-old twin boys and a three-year-old daughter — her husband’s business affairs keep him away for lengthy periods. As a major investor in various film projects, David is often in Paris, where he is said to have a close circle of old friends. And despite his relationships with several glamorous women — model and actress Lisa B, French film star Isabelle Adjani and heiress Sabrina Guinness — many people believed he would never marry as he so enjoyed being single.

David spent his bachelor days in Paris: He spent his bachelor days in Paris, where he bought a sumptuous house with his closest friend, Francois- Marie Banier, a bachelor photographer and novelist. There they entertained a cast of arty characters, including actors Johnny Depp, Faye Dunaway, Richard Burton and Liz Taylor. Francois-Marie remains extremely close to David and is godfather to his twin sons.

Houghton Hall is open to the public: Many of the rooms — which boast luxurious Chinese wallpaper and works of art by Gainsborough, Hogarth and Sargent — are open to the public from May 1 to September 29. Despite the couple’s immense wealth, it is a necessary measure to pay for the upkeep of the estate. So Rose and her family confine themselves to a relatively modest flat in the main house, away from the public rooms. The family also have use of a six-bedroom farmhouse on the Houghton land, safely tucked away from prying eyes.

[From The Sun]

What does it all mean? I think the Sun is using coded language and insinuation to say that David Rocksavage is gay or bisexual and he only married Rose because he needed heirs, and now their marriage is struggling because he’s always in Paris with his dude friends and she’s stuck in a farmhouse as their home is open to the public this summer. Are we supposed to feel sorry for Rose? Are we supposed to think that William is perhaps going to visit the farmhouse? Are we supposed to be appalled by this pretty typical arrangement in the aristocracy? I don’t know. But I think it’s interesting that the Sun is still doing some reporting on the Cholmondeleys. The Sun is being very careful about it too.

The Duke And Duchess Of Cambridge Attend Gala Dinner To Support East Anglia's Children's Hospices' Nook Appeal

The Duke And Duchess Of Cambridge Attend Gala Dinner To Support East Anglia's Children's Hospices' Nook Appeal

The Duke And Duchess Of Cambridge Attend Gala Dinner To Support East Anglia's Children's Hospices' Nook Appeal

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red and Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

238 Responses to “Rose Hanbury’s marriage is struggling in the wake of being Kate’s ‘rural rival’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. duchess of hazard says:

    Rose is fine. She did her duty, provided male heirs and for her reward she lives in relative comfort. No sympathy for that smart set at all, they know their role.

    • dota says:

      OK, this one will definitely get deleted, but, your opinion is that women are for breeding and should otherwise shut up and not be a distraction? I think she should be raising hell.

      • Des says:

        I don’t think that’s her opinion – not to put words in the duchess of hazard’s mouth but I think that’s the bargain you make when you’re social climbing and marry a guy that’s got a french boyfriend. What is Rose supposed to be raising hell for? You think she didn’t know what the deal was with her extremely rich husband who needed an heir? Or about the fact that she’s being frozen out by her former bff whose husband she was boinking?

        Nothing in life comes free. You want something, you gotta pay for it. This is Rose’s bill.

      • perplexed says:

        I think raaising hell would be fine…but I can’t tell if people in that set actually do.

      • duchess of hazard says:

        @dota – In the smart aristo set, that’s the deal, yes. You provide male heirs or else the seat/ property goes to a cousin or summat. It’s like this in London circles, and women know the score (to the point where, they’ll marry out of the aristo set and just marry rich, instead, or *gasp* work).

        As a Briton, I just can’t feel sorry for them at all, because about 5% of those monied families own about 95% of the land here. And a big deal about owning lands and keeping them in the family is via male heirs (primogeniture).

        Rose knows the game, and plays her part. She’s well provided for, so… *shrug emoji with blonde woman with palms turned upward* she’ll be fine.

      • lana86 says:

        “Women are for breeding “ where did you get that?..
        “She should be raiding hell” ehhmmm due to what exactly??…
        your comment seems so random.

      • Himmiefan says:

        Rose is from this set; she knows the rules, and sexist as they are, those are the rules (so glad we don’t have the patriarchal inheritance laws here in the US).

        Rose is not about to be frozen out by the Toffs. They’ll never pick an outsider/royal over their own kind.

      • Nic919 says:

        Ok but doesn’t this attitude also apply to Kate? William wasn’t known to be faithful while dating and his father was notorious with several mistresses along with almost all of his male ancestors including his grandfather. Kate would know that’s what she is marrying into as well.

      • Algernon says:

        @ Nic919

        Yes, this applies to Kate, too. She proved throughout her 20s she will always be there for William no matter who he sleeps with. She wanted the crown, she got it, she knew the score going in.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Himmiefan, I think Rose and David Cholmondeley are happy. She does what she wants and he does what he wants. IMPO, this story is be kept alive by Royal Reporters. Putting on my Tinfoil Tiara, I would suggest that the Royal Reporters are keeping this story alive as payback to Bill Cambridge for trying to shut them down via a legal maneuver which did not work.

        Rose wins either way, if she had an affair with Bill Cambridge she has a feather in her cap, if she did not have an affair with Bill Cambridge and Cathy over-reacted the Turnip Toffs will take her side with no questions asked, none of this seems to even be phasing her husband or affecting their relationship at all and the final cherry on top of the sundae is the free PR for Houghton Halls summer season generating more $$$$ than anyone could ever imagine.

        Time for Rose to go to London and start shopping in the art galleries. LOL!

      • Bunny says:

        Why should she raise Hell? She handpicked this particular path for herself.

        Rose chose to marry an older man with “friends” in Paris and all that came with it.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Bay “Tinfoil Tiara” is my new favorite thing.

      • Megan says:

        Speculating on someone’s sexuality is the lowest of the low for the RRs. I don’t agree with outing people, especially when the only goal is to be vicious.

      • Moneypenny says:

        Rose went into this wide eyed knowing what the deal was. She didn’t just fall off the turnip toff truck.

      • Wigletwatcher says:

        Kate hardly has her queen consort crown. Recent and distant history shows that the BRF men can and will divorce their wives after heirs are produced. And weather the bad PR storm.
        I think Kate is in this for as long as possible, but might currently be playing her cards wrong. Yes, she appears ok with William cheating here and there, but we’ve seen fallout of her outing him and being upset over his infidelities. I believe the phasing out was real and she does at times feel he might leave. Even if it will be terrible optics. William isn’t very self aware.

    • Lady Baden-Baden says:

      See, MY question is about the 10 year old twin boys. Is only one of them the heir and how is that fair?! I mean, I have 9 year old twin boys and although one was born 12 minutes before the other, it doesn’t mean he was conceived first (separate eggs) – birth order was determined by their positioning. And what if these posho’s twins are identical and literally conceived at the same moment from the same egg? Only one of them is heir?? Rough deal for twin 2! (Or maybe the other way round – not sure I’d like to inherit that ridiculous title). My 2 would be VERY unimpressed with this injustice!

      Sorry – I’ll see myself out!!

      • Becks1 says:

        Yes, only one is the heir. I think someone here said that the one who was bigger at birth got named the heir, but not sure if that’s true.

        So I think right now one is a viscount and the other is “just” lord. Maybe?

      • Lady Baden-Baden says:

        They went by which was bigger?! Jeez – that’s even worse! And bigger how? One of mine was much longer, the other heavier (which, incidentally, hasn’t changed in 9 years). Seems completely arbitrary anyway

      • Cee says:

        The one born first is their Heir.
        The second born son is a Lord.
        They’re identical twins. You don’t choose based on who’s bigger – order of primogeniture means “the one born first”

      • Lady Baden-Baden says:

        I just find it such a bizarre concept with twins. But then – the whole heir/inheritance bullshit is gross, so… *shrug*

      • BayTampaBay says:


        “Yes, only one is the heir. I think someone here said that the one who was bigger at birth got named the heir, but not sure if that’s true.”

        Your are correct, the identical twins were born via C-section at he same time as they were in the same “sac”. The larger birth-weight twin was designated the heir. All of this is discussed in the Vanity Fair article on Houghton Hall which I believe came out in 2012.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bay – thanks. that’s what I was thinking of.

      • Blue Orange says:

        This inheritance is all just about title. These families usually also then pass down the entire estate to their first born (or in this case, the larger baby) in order to keep the wealth within the titled family but in theory, these large land owners could divide their estate up equally between all of their children. They just don’t because that would almost certainly mean selling.

      • Tourmaline says:

        The Vanity Fair profile of the couple and Houghton Hall from 2013 makes it sound like the heir was the twin delivered first via Csection.
        It also says the twins were 12 weeks premature.

    • frizz says:

      Does England still practice primogeniture? I that was abolished a long time ago…!

      • VintageS says:

        Women are now included in the line rather than just men.

      • oddly says:

        It’s still Salic Law in the UK I’m sorry to say, once Kate had a boy first and not a girl they put the change on the back burner, too many laws had to be changed to get it through so it was put in the too hard basket because it didn’t really need to be changed after George arrived, and even then they weren’t talking about changing anything but the laws pertaining to Monarchy. Male Primogeniture still rules in the UK. No male child and a title goes to the closest male relative, except for the daughter of a Monarch , but the brothers still come first, as soon as one of those has an offspring, Charlotte is out of the running.

      • Nic919 says:

        Salic law has never applied in England because otherwise no woman would have even been queen regnant.
        The succession laws for the monarch have changed from male primogeniture to primogeniture starting in 2013 just before George was born. Outside of that the remainder of the British aristocracy is male primogeniture, outside of specific baronies where they don’t specify male heirs of the body.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Succession to the British Crown was changed right before George’s birth. Succession to the crown is now by absolute primogeniture.

        With regards to the hereditary peerage, every peerage is different based on the letters patent issued at the time the peerage was granted.

      • himmiefan says:

        Primogeniture for the throne was outlawed, but not for the peerage. There is a movement, though, for equality for women. There’s opposition, but ultimately, primogeniture for noble titles will be outlawed one day too.

      • A says:

        Only for the throne, not for aristocratic titles. All Dukedoms, Earldoms & Marquessates (?) are passed down to the eldest remaining male heir. Women inherit, but only in exceptional circumstances, and it has to be codeified when the title is granted to the person (for instance, when Louis Mountbatten became the Earl of Burma, he had two daughters and was separated from his wife so there likely would have been no sons, so the title was amended to pass down to his eldest daughter & then her male heirs thereafter).

        Yes, it’s disgusting and wrong and terribly sexist, but when you’re clinging onto the vestiges of an outdated institution like the monarchy or the aristocracy, you get what you get and you don’t look the gift horse into the mouth. These people will inherit gobs of money through trust funds, have access to some of the best education in the world, have networks that connect them to future prime ministers and world leaders in private industry, so yeah, there’s not much sympathy for me to spare from my end.

      • Carolind says:

        Oddly, sorry but you are talking absolute tripe. As regards the British throne, girls have as much right as boys. Even although Louis was a boy, Charlotte stayed as next in line after George and then Louis is after Charlotte.

      • Tina says:

        For primogeniture for the aristocracy, there is a court case before the European Court of Human Rights (which is not part of the EU so it won’t be affected by Brexit). We will see how that goes.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Law was changed for the monarchy in the UK, but wasn’t changed for The Duchy of Cornwall.

    • Coco says:

      She may not have known he was gay when they married. It happens. If happened to me…

      • Andrea says:

        Do you care to divulge more…just curious.

      • A says:

        Those rumours had been floating around and were well-established in their circles by that point. I don’t think that he’s gay, considering they had a shotgun wedding and she was around 7 months pregnant when they went up the aisle, but I definitely think he’s bisexual and they had an affair they weren’t too serious about until she got pregnant.

      • Some chick says:

        There is this thing called bisexuality (a bit of a dated term these days, but considering that they have three children… “gay” seems a bit inadequate.)

        All this story needs is a ghost!

  2. Becks1 says:

    See, I’m reading between the lines there and it doesn’t sound to me like their marriage is struggling. It sounds like Rose overplayed her hand a bit and didn’t anticipate that she would become the focus as much as she is, but beyond that, it sounds like this is just their marriage. They spend a lot of time apart, he’s older, they have different interests, etc.

    I did like the line about being good friends with the Cambridges. WHICH IS IT. They barely know each other or they are such good friends??

    • Erinn says:

      That line stuck out to me too! It’s so conflicting.

      It seemed like it was maybe a way to justify the time spent with W&K. “We’re just friends – my husband has his friends in the city, and he and they are a lot older, so it’s nice to have people in my age group” kind of thing.

      This whole story from start to now is just so strange.

      I do like that they were seemingly trying to make people pity Rose for having to take care of their children (with staff helping, I’m sure) and that they have to stay in the private area of the estate, or alternatively their super modest SIX BEDROOM home. I’m sure it’s lonely, and raising kids isn’t easy, but it was just funny because they tried to make the very privileged aspects sound so sad.

    • Deens says:

      Brit here with friends in Norfolk (blue-blood adjacent) and it is widely speculated/discussed that Rose’s husband is gay. So perhaps there is an arrangement in place to make the marriage work.

      • A says:

        I remember a really really weird interview that Rose Hanbury’s mother gave with the Fail once, where she talked about how “proud” she was that both her daughters married titled aristocrats, and how “well” they were doing with everything. It just struck me as really odd that in this day and age, you have a mother who would have been a better fit in Pride and Prejudice, gushing about her daughters’ success in marriage of all things.

        And then there was that one profile about the Hanburys that talked about how “bohemian” their upbringing was, and how Rose and Marina had always spent a lot of time around older people so of course it made perfect sense that they both married men much older than them, etc. etc.

        We give Kate a lot of grief for being a mercenary social climber, and yet, what she’s doing isn’t too far off the mark for this crowd. The Duke and Duchess of Rutland have been separated for years, but they haven’t divorced, because divorcing and remarrying would mean the the Duchess of Rutland would lose her title, and those titles matter a great deal to these people.

      • Becks1 says:

        @A – I don’t blame Kate for being a social climber. I kind of respect her for it; she had a goal and she was willing to do what it took to accomplish that goal.

      • A says:

        @Becks1, I agree. I think their marriage is complicated, but I’ve always thought that they “get” each other in a way that no one else would. I think they have the capacity to see each other as they really are, and to be okay with it, and that is why they’ll never break up the marriage.

      • Wigletwatcher says:

        Way back I think a lot of us had some respect for Kate being so driven. She wanted that comfort and to climb. What some of us and myself didn’t like was she wanted that rose life without marrying privately. And her total indifference to her platform. Until meghan.

  3. L84MYTEA says:

    The original article also stated that Will and Rose had dinner a few times in Norfolk while Kate was away. But Kate knew about it and was fine with Rose entertaining Will in her absence. I think this tidbit has been removed from the original article but there are screenshots on Twitter. I think this is the beginning of the PR spin for the Chumley’s impending divorce.

    • L84Tea says:

      Hello L84MYTEA, I’m L84Tea…

      • L84MYTEA says:

        I use your handle on Twitter but saw it was already taken here so I made a slight change. Hope it doesn’t cause confusion 😬

      • L84Tea says:

        That’s so funny because I have been using this handle for years (like back to the AOL days…). I’m an Earl Gray gal… 🙂

      • Becks1 says:

        Oh I’m def going to get the names confused lol.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Do not think the Cholmondeleys will get divorced. I think this is just a Royal Reporters trying to keep this story alive.

      • L84Tea says:

        Agreed 100%. The Sun is fishing to keep it going.

      • Tigerlily says:

        BTB Agree the Ch….lys won’t divorce. I think the old stiff upper lip, duty etc etc is strong there. I doubt it is first time there’s been cheating on either side though probably first time it’s been publicized. Seems like media is hanging on to it.

    • AM says:

      Yes the original article said William and Rose went to dinner together while her husband was away on business.

      No wonder US magazine had article how William and Kate are working on marriage, Cambridges are probably worried what is slowly coming out through Rose’s camp.

      If Rose and her husband split, it’s going to make William look like a Jerk and that the rumours are true.

  4. Toot says:

    That same article said that the brother let slip that William and Rose had a couple of “suppers” as platonic friends that Kate was totally fine with. Kate was supposedly happy that Rose could “entertain” Will.

    My question is, why would Will need to have any kind of supper with Rose without Kate being there, and if Kate was so fine with it, why was she supposedly trying to get Rose out the circle.?

    This latest Sun article just added more fuel to the affair fire.

    • Cee says:

      I suppose it’s because this mess was made public. Kate has been cheated on numerous times ever since she met William. She seems to accept it and conforms to it but that doesn’t mean she wants her arrangements with her husband to play out in public.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Cee, that’s it exactly, and we’ve seen this play out with many high profile couples: cheating isn’t the final straw, unintended publicity is.

      • V. says:

        Why it must be a “mess”? I know people want to believe at any cost that William and Rose had an affair lol,but it’s perfectly possible that they have or used to have just a friendly relationship. I don’t believe anything published by the Sun,but let’s say they are not completely making up staff because two weeks later tabloids have found out that Rose wasn’t wearing her ring (she often doesn’t wear it). This sounds like Rose is getting some facts straight. She values her relationship with the Cambridges and these “rumors” (rivalry or possible affair or both) are hurting her. The Sun actually offers a credible explanation (reading between the lines) of what has happened. I do think there were actually rumors (affair or rivalry with relative speculation) circulating in their circle. As I said,it’s possible that both couples had a good relationship and that William and Rose have met for lunch or dinner occasionally,and that Kate was fine with it. Let’s keep in mind that some people wouldn’t mind to spread damaging rumors about members of that family. It would explain why William probably took preventive legal action. He knew what tabloids like the Sun were doing with the rivalry gossip.
        I never believed the Rose/Kate feud either. Probably it was part of those rumors as well that in the end have taken on a life of their own. But if the rumors about Kate and Rose are true,the reason could very well be that Kate believes that Rose is behind some speculation going on in their circle (Rose telling people about meeting with William,for example).
        Or maybe she was simply angry about “cheating rumors” whoever was spreading them.
        On the other hand,William evidently wanted to keep a good relationship with the couple,if we want to believe that Richard Kay had some inside knowledge. And no, I don’t believe anyone ran to him. I think he just wanted to draw the attention to the ” rivalry” story again.
        It’s very likely that the Sun is just making up things. But I wouldn’t exclude that this is indeed Rose letting know what went down,and implicitly sending a message to W&K (she feels sorry and so on).
        If she had an affair with William, she would have continued to be silent.
        And if there was something remotely true and supported by sources, this story would have been splashed on every international gossip outlet months ago.

      • Cee says:

        It’s a mess because an article was published with enough insinuations to make William run to Richard Kay at the Daily Mail and to instruct his lawyers to sue every publication that alleged, insinuated, stated, etc about his “affair”.

        “And if there was something remotely true and supported by sources, this story would have been splashed on every international gossip outlet months ago.” HAHA, no. Something something about William’s Human Rights.
        Charles and Diana had the perfect marriage for years. WRONG. Once it got messy enough, the press published every little thing they had on them, accumulated over one decade.

        This story is far from over.

      • V. says:

        First, I doubt William ran to Richard Key. That piece was obviously written to fuel speculation about a story that was going unnoticed.
        Second,the rural rivalry stories didn’t contain any obvious insinuation,but when a tabloid starts to run the same story about a mysterious rivalry over and over again,it’s clear where they want to go. Above all if there were actually rumors circulating about both couples. If William took some legal action,he had all the reasons to do so.
        And since the daily mail and the sun are still running stories about Rose,her marriage,why she feels hurt by the unfounded rumors and whatever, I doubt there’s this great media blackout in UK either. As far as international press is concerned,the British royal family has zero power to prevent stories from being published. I don’t know why you’re using Charles and Diana as a comparison,because the media are completely different now.
        Everything is immediately available through social media. You just need a journalist wiling to contact the right people on their instagram (example) and he would have a whole story to write.

      • Becks1 says:

        There IS a media blackout though. That’s been confirmed by several sources, including Daily Beast. Its why we’re getting stories about Rose and not Will and Kate.

      • nic919 says:

        It’s a mess because people are talking about an affair with Rose whether or not it’s true with reports of threatening letters from lawyers to not violate human rights and with comments about platonic dinners suddenly being removed from articles. This is the purest example of the Streisand effect if there ever was one.

      • Monicack says:

        I may be alone in this but I absolutely believe the rumors were originally fed to the tabs by a third party who wanted revenge on both Kate and Rose. I believe William tried to bury the story to defend all three of them. I believe William may have had an affair with a mid to low level insider and she overplayed her hand or she was rejected by William as an aristo approved discreet mistress. Rose herself may have turned the woman out of her set to protect William and by extension Kate. I don’t believe Kate and Rose are feuding. I believe the leaker has made a critical error. Rose, David, William and Kate will survive this just fine. Kate may be miffed that William was not discreet and she may even blame Rose for being clumsy about facillitating his dalliances but they’ll all be quite fine soon enough. Just my theory.

      • A says:

        There’s definitely a media blackout. William flat out threatened these papers with legal action. That’s a huge deal, you don’t do that for things that are obviously untrue. Royals know how to pick their battles, they have connections with royal reporters who they speak to on and off the record. It’s how they get their side of the story out without having to put their name onto things. It’s really ignorant to think that the papers just make things up in order to sell and get clicks, there’s an ecosystem at work here, multiple royal reporters have talked about and discussed it.

      • AM says:

        It is a mess, the story is still being written about and being discussed and William ran to Richard Kay lawyers to try to stop the Royal Rivals story and to claim human rights protections on the rumours, so YES It’s a mess and it’s probably going to get messier. People are talking about it still.

        If Rose and her husband split, get ready for the floodgates to open IF any alleged, third parties are involved. Cough.cough,Will,cough.

      • V. says:

        But the Sun IS openly talking about “rumors” that Rose is aware of. That bit is still there. They can’t talk explicitly about any affair if they don’t have any evidence to back up their claims,unless they want to be sued.
        If there was this great media blackout,the “platonic dinners” wouldn’t even be in the article to begin with, and they wouldn’t touch anything about both couples.
        It’s not difficult to understand that if they keep the rivalry rumors alive ,even explicitly saying that Rose knows about the rumors about her and William,they are adding fuel to speculation about W&K’s marriage too.
        Now they’re writing about Rose because (two weeks later,lol) they realized that she wasn’t wearing her ring,so this is a good pretext to write about her marriage and keep alive the rivalry gossip.
        It’s very likely that The Sun is just making up things,but I wouldn’t exclude that Rose is somewhat leaking her version. She did nothing wrong and these rumors (rivalry, affair or both) are hurtful for her too.
        Talking about Rose,the Sun has removed the entire part about one of Rose’s friends telling The Sun that everything got out of hand,that Rose isn’t coping well with being the subject of these rumors, and that they started with nothing (the infamous platonic dinners).
        I wonder if this part was removed under Cholmondeleys’ request because it seemed that Rose was indeed the one talking with trashy tabloids.

      • A says:

        @V., you’re saying that just because this Sun piece is talking about how the rumours alluding to an affair are affecting one of the parties, there couldn’t possibly be any blackout. But you basically just answered your own question as to whether or not the blackout exists, and what it actually covers: any mention of William having had an affair with Rose Hanbury. The article after the subsequent edits basically removed ALL mention of William ever being in the same room as Rose.

        We know there is a blackout because we know that William basically rang up his lawyers who threatened the press with legal action, and numerous reporters spoke about this publicly. Are we going to assume that ALL of them are lying through their teeth? Don’t you think that that’s a bit of a stretch?

        And at any rate, the “platonic dinners” bit ISN’T in the current edition of the article. It was removed between the time that it was published and now. You’re asserting that this must be because the Cholmondeleys’ requested it, NOT because this violates the media blackout imposed by William, and that this article came out in Rose’s defense because she spoke to the Sun on how the rumours were affecting her. But we have as much proof of this as we do of William speaking to Richard Kay. The Cholmondeleys haven’t been in contact with the press–William and KP has. The Cholmondeleys and Rose’s family refused to speak to the press when they were being asked questions, and they shut everything down with “no comment.” We know that he rang up his lawyers and laid down the law because journalists across a variety of publications spoke out about it. What is your basis for speculating in Rose’s direction in this way, but absolving William and KP of basically everything? Every comment you make either blames the tabloids for making things up, or the readers for looking at what isn’t there, or Rose Hanbury. But somehow, William and Kate have nothing to do with any of this, anything that says they do is just speculation. Why? Where’s your proof of that?

    • oddly says:

      Interesting use of words, that’s exactly what the Queen said to one of her cousins re Philips lady friends……….”I know that Philip needs a lot of entertaing”.

    • Nic919 says:

      Considering the platonic suppers sans Kate have now been removed from the original article, I guess they aren’t as cool with it as was originally claimed.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Interesting that has been edited out.

      • Mego says:

        Platonic suppers? Riiiiiight. What would the purpose of these platonic suppers be? That would not be cool in my marriage. I get few enough crumbs of my husband’s time as it is.

  5. Beach Dreams says:

    How interesting that the article was updated from yesterday. The following passage is now gone:

    “It seems to have started because she had one or two suppers with William in Norfolk when Kate was away.”

    “But it was hardly as if they were meeting behind Kate’s back – of course she knew they were getting together.”

    “And Kate was grateful that a good friend and neighbour like Rose was there to entertain William – as a platonic friend.”

    Someone on Twitter took screenshots of the original. Here’s the part with that passage (it *was* right before the section where details on David’s past love life were discussed):

    • Becks1 says:

      This is interesting. I wonder why the edit??

      I wonder if there ARE, in fact, pictures or something of Rose and William – not like scandalous pictures, but pictures of Rose and William at dinner or something – something that would add fuel to the fire – and this story is trying to head that off. “of course there are pictures, they were friends!”

      • Nic919 says:

        I read that part about the suppers with Will when Kate was not there. Very interesting that it was removed because, why is Will in Norfolk but Kate is not?

      • Becks1 says:

        @Nid – yes! DigitalU mentioned that below – where is Kate? I thought she supposedly holed up in Norfolk as much as possible. Is she in London? At her parents? Why would will be alone in Norfolk and need someone to “entertain” him? It’s a weird detail to include and makes it sound like there are issues in the Cambridge marriage, which is probably why it was edited out since this article is trying to tell us the Chumleys are having issues lol

      • Lexa says:

        Possibly because it’s a statement that can’t be backed up by fact/evidence and someone complained through lawyers (Will, Rose, Rose’s Brother, Rose’s husband, whoever) or the original source for it walked it back?

      • starryfish29 says:

        I imagine there were some not so subtle hints dropped by some lawyers or sources close to the couples.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        I wonder if THAT statement (Rose was “entertaining” William w/out Kate being there) is WHY William and Rose’s husband went to the attorneys in the first place and threatened to sue. For PUTTING THAT in the original tweets/article…because it implies cheating (whether or not it actually happened)???

      • Amy Too says:

        Maybe Will hangs out with Rose when Kate and the children are spending time with her mother. She stays there a lot, doesn’t she?

      • Chrissyms says:

        Who entertains someone else’s husband for dinners? Sorry but that is fishy. Were her kids there ? Was it just the 2 of them. Also on the what planet was Rose a “Model”? She marries a “confirmed “ bachelor for the money and status. Her life is just fine. William is likely unfaithful from time to time but Kate is probably upset because he made this boo boo so close to home. It’s tacky. But in the end all these people have ridiculous amounts of money and status do. I don’t feel bad for any of them. Most people on this planet are worrying about paying the bills

      • Megan says:

        My husband and I have several female friends who are single and he occasionally has dinner with them, I occasionally have dinner with them, and sometimes we all have dinner together. Opposite sex friends can have dinner without it being a prelude to an affair.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Megan – I don’t think its weird if people have dinner with friends of the opposite sex. Heck my husband’s oldest friend is a woman, and if she didn’t live across the country I’m sure they would get together without me on occasion.

        Here, though, it’s the context that makes it seem fishy. Are they friends (such good friends that Rose entertains William when Kate is out of town? And how often is Kate out of town?) or are they just social acquaintances who barely know each other and are puzzled by the reports of a falling out?

      • Wigletwatcher says:

        Where was Kate? I’ll speculate she was on vacation privately again or with her mother. In the past every time she was assumed at home, but found to not be there she was either on a vacation or with her parents. This was her pattern even when dating William. He liked his space.

  6. bonobochick says:

    The Sun trying to get those circulation numbers up with fodder.

  7. Darla says:

    Well, well, well. I’ve seen so much glee about Kate thinking she had any power, and laughing at her, because she has none! Some even said that Rose does have power! Looks like Kate maybe wasn’t the one who overplayed her hand.

    • Momoftwo says:

      That’s how I see it too, if affairs are the norm but to be kept quiet, Kate was quiet, it was Rose who may have blabbed to get back at Kate for the phasing out, but the blabbing to tabloids isn’t done in their circles

      • Becks1 says:

        I don’t think Rose anticipated William going to Richard Kay. That was really when this whole thing blew up. Rose leaked the “rural rival” thing* and thought that would be it and then William was an idiot, lol.

        *as the current theory here goes, we don’t actually know who leaked what obviously.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Tinfoil Tiara time, adjust dial to medium:

        I think these Royal Reporters are trying to spin that not only is the Cambridge marriage in trouble but so is the Cholmondeley marriage in trouble. If one divorce can sell a million newspapers and generate 10 million click$ then two divorces in the same scandal should sell 10 million newspapers and generate 100 million click$. This story lives because readers are really interested in it.

        I still believe that Rose leaked the original story and everything else is just PR spin from Bill, Cathy & KP.

      • Megan says:

        @BTB – I think you have hit the nail on the head.

  8. T.Fanty says:

    No insinuations about sexuality there. Basically he’s a playboy and she didn’t realize that the job of a trophy wife is to stay home and raise the kids

    • Becks1 says:

      I think she realized it. that was part of the deal and I think she knew it.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I think Rose knew all too. I also think she is happy and not the person “The Dim” is trying to make her out to be. There are many more and much better fish in the sea than Bill Cambridge.

    • perplexed says:

      I got the impression he’s a playboy too. I didn’t think I was seeing any insinuations about sexuality either.

      • perplexed says:

        Oh wait — he owns a house with another guy. Okay, that does seem a little…so, er, never mind, maybe I’ve changed my opinion.

      • Dilettante says:

        “…many believed he would never marry as he so enjoyed being single.” Code, just like the old phrase “confirmed bachelor”.

      • olive says:

        @perplexed i read about the guy he owned the house with, too, and he seems sketchy – he was on the receiving end of a lot of VERY generous gifts (worth in the billions) from an elderly l’oreal heiress at the end of her life and was sued by her descendants for taking advantage of her.

      • T.Fanty says:

        I always assumed “enjoyed being single” was code for “manho who treats women like cr@p.”

      • betsyh says:

        Also the guy he owns the house with is gay, so people may insinuate that Chumley is gay too.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @betsyh, It is none of my business but if I had to make a call I would say bisexual. However, Europe is very different from the USA so I am really not qualified to have an opinion or make a call.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @T. Fanty,

        “I always assumed “enjoyed being single” was code for “manho who treats women like cr@p.”

        Agree 100% with you definition. Whenever I think of “playboy”, I think of Warren Beatty. God! I am showing my age!

      • Redgrl says:

        According to Wikipedia, Francois-Marie Banier is described as “openly gay.” Neither of them needs to buy a house with someone to share costs, so who knows. Maybe the Marquess is bisexual. Or is gay and married Rose because he needed an heir as some said above. And maybe she knew or maybe she didn’t. Or maybe he just bought a house with his friend who happens to be gay for companionship. Anything’s possible.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Redgrl, sorta like two dudes buying a hunting-fish camp on 10 acres in the middle of nowhere and one happens to be gay.

        Sure I buy it as know two dudes (one of which is gay) who bought as 50/50 partners a hunting-fish camp on 10 acres in the middle of nowhere because they both like to fish, hunt and are very good friends.

      • Redgrl says:

        @baytampabay – exactly – it could be anything from “friends with benefits” to true love to two guys who at the time were single and are platonic pals and like to hang out in Paris. At this point, who knows. But I suspect the language in the article is designed to get the chatter started…

    • Enny says:

      It’s the house purchase in France, I think. Similar to tabloid insinuations about Jeremy Renner and his “roommate.” The Marquess is rich enough that he does not need to go halfsies on a house Paris with a guy who then lives there with him, just like Jeremy Renner is rich enough that he does not need a roommate to afford the rent/mortgage on his place. Therefore, the insinuation goes, these guys who CAN afford to live in their own lap of luxury PREFER to live in it with guys they have been known to be VERY VERY VERY close to in public. Why do that unless you wanted 24/7 access to your “very close mate?” Thus, gay, in tabloid/aristo speak.

    • Ellev says:

      I dunno guys… I don’t get what the Sun is trying to insinuate when they say David is ignoring his pretty wife and other glamorous women to have frenchy arty bachelor fun times in gay Paris, investing in frenchy arty films and sumptuously decorating houses and entertaining with a frenchy arty bachelor bestie who is spiritually a father to his children…

      Can’t imagine what the average Sun reader would make of that!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The “a frenchy arty bachelor” is a Godfather to the twins. This story just gets weirder & weirder and continues to generate click$ from people like me. LOL1 LOL!

    • Tourmaline says:

      There was a 2012 Vanity Fair article about Rose’s sister Marina’s husband, the Earl of Durham. (not to be confused with the 2013 article about Rose/her husband/Houghton hall).

      Looks like the article isn’t fully online ( So Marina married another rich aristocrat who was much much older than her (over 20 years older) and in fact, he was a good friend of her’s and Rose’s parents. In the VF article he talks about how he knew her growing up and once she grew up he called her out of the blue and said he wanted to marry her (unlike Rose’s hubby, Marina’s hubby was married before – twice–one of his ex-wives is now married to Dominic West; and he has an adult son as well as kids now with Marina).

      Anyway it is interesting that both Rose and her sister Marina made these marriages to much older titled aristocrats with checkered pasts.

      • A says:

        IIRC, wasn’t Marina originally dating the Earl of Durham’s adult son? Or was that just a rumour? Or was that Rose who was doing that?

        And yeah, these circles are tight knit. They all date each other, all the time, and their exes can’t afford to part on hard feelings because chances are, you’ll run into someone eventually at some event or the other.

      • Tourmaline says:

        When I searched there is an old DM article that says Rose was ENGAGED to Earl of Durham’s adult son, at one point, before her sister Marina married the Earl of Durham. (article is by Katie Nicholl no less 🙂

        The Earl of Durham has a great house in Tuscany, wonder if Marquess C. can top that.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        To access any old Vanity Fair article online from the Vanity Fair archives you must have a subscription to Vanity Fair.

      • A says:

        @Tourmaline, I’m fairly certain that it was at a house party at that exact house in Tuscany that Rose Hanbury met the Marquess of Cholmondeley for the first time!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The house is named Villa Centinale.

        Ned (current Earl of Durham) Lambton’s father lived at Villa Centinale with Tracey Ward’s (Duchesses of Beaufort) and Rachel’s Ward’s (the actress) mother. These aristos are an incestuous bunch!

      • Tourmaline says:

        @Bay. Whoa didn’t realize that was who Claire Ward was, and that sent me down a minor rabbit hole reading the Tracy Ward/Duke of Beaufort marriage gossip! And with Rachel Ward there is even a Thorn Birds connection for those of us of a certain age 😉

  9. Mego says:

    I don’t believe the Sun knows much of anything about these people so I take this with a huge grain of salt. I guess the Sun is losing traction publishing lies about Meghan so they are trying to make some hay with the turnip toff story.

    • L84Tea says:

      I agree. The Sun doesn’t know anything. But they are definitely playing a weird little game in that they keep trying to keep this story alive.

  10. Brunswickstoval says:

    Extremely wealthy and dull people have problems. It must be terrible for them

  11. Digital Unicorn says:

    The rumours about him have been around for years, by all accounts she is fine with it as she’s a bit of a social climber. Both have reps for being a bit bohemian and she is no stranger to tabloid gossip.

    To me this reeks of payback from the Cambridge camp for the original story being leaked as well the press finding a new angle to keep the affair story going. Esp on the heels of the US story about how the Cambridges are working on their marriage and now we get a story that the Chumley marriage is on the rocks. Something doesn’t pass the smell test. Its PR spin to take things away from the Cambridges.

    • L84Tea says:

      Ooh, I think you are onto something!

    • Becks1 says:

      I can see it either way – as a Cambridge PR piece or a Chumley. It is kind of inept though which always makes me think its William, ha. But its sort of saying that Rose’s marriage is on the rocks (why, though, if she didn’t have an affair? That’s similar to what we said yesterday about the Us Weekly article.) And its sort of playing up the lonelier aspects of her life, but Rose seems to have a good life in Norfolk. Its not like shes out there all by herself. She has the Toffs!

      • Kylie says:

        Maybe her husband created the rumor to cover something shady of his own.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Rose comes from aristocracy herself (grandfather was an Earl and her family has connections to the BRF), although not quite the level as her husband so she’ll be fine in those circles. Her husband is worth around £60/80mill so she’ll still be fine in the event of a divorce.

        EDIT: To add I think the removal of the lines in the other article stating they she and Big Willy had suppers when Kate wasn’t around are the biggest hints that there are serious problems in the Cambridge marriage. It says they met up when Kate is not there – where is Kate, she’s not away from home working hard now is she? Me thinks the Cambridges are basically living separate lives and she’s in Middleton Manor with the kids and her parents while he’s living it up as a single man in Amner.

      • Becks1 says:

        But see, I don’t think they’re going to divorce. This article is trying to make it sound like their marriage is on the rocks but the reasons behind it would just be their marriage. Like David spending a lot of time in Paris and London – it doesn’t sound like he’s doing that to avoid Rose. He’s doing that for work and it sounds like that’s always been what he’s done.

      • oddly says:

        But the thing is that William is supposed to be good buddies with David, so why is he having dinner with Rose when David’s away, and why is Rose having dinners with William when David is away. Just makes the whole thing smell of ‘while the cat’s away’.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        @w1eVer: The tidbits show that W&K spend a lot of time apart regardless of who is where and when. Its not the happy little family unit they are desperate to make us all believe.

        Someone in the press is not letting this story go away, either the affair is still going on or William has finally p!ssed the press off that they are not dropping it to hold his feet to the fire.

        This latest story in the Sun has Williams ham fisted PR genius all over it.

      • betsyh says:

        Digitalunicorn: The best thing for the Cambridges is for this whole story to go away. They would not feed the fire of speculation. The perpetuation of it benefits the Sun and the Sun only through clickbait.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Digital Unicorn,

        I think the problems are in the Cambridge marriage.

        If David is away from Houghton Hall, then I am sure Rose may have dinner with someone who is not her husband. If it wasn’t dinner with Bill Cambridge then is would just be dinner with someone else such as the Earl of And-or-Wherever or the Viscount Somewhere.

      • V. says:

        “The tidbits show that W&K spend a lot of time apart regardless of who is where and when.”
        A couple of suppers hardly indicate they spend a lot of time apart. W1ever’s interpretation seso more accurate.

      • Becks1 says:

        the dinners alone with Rose are weird because – if Kate is only gone for a night here and there, why would William need to be entertained? Is he not capable of being alone for a night? It makes it sound like Kate is gone for long stretches of time.

        The fact that the story was edited to remove that detail is super interesting to me, because it seems as if someone realized that the whole “they just have dinners together sometimes when their spouses are gone!” doesn’t look so good if you’re trying to stop a rumor about an affair.

      • nic919 says:

        Kate has access to the helicopters so there is absolutely no reason for Kate and the kids not to be at Amner by Friday evening if the kids are in London during the week. The detail about the platonic dinners when Kate isn’t around revealed more than they wanted to and that’s why it was removed.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        According to Royal Foibles, Bill & Cathy lead separate lives during the week and are only together on the weekends. I have no idea if this gossip is true or what to believe as would rather follow the comings & goings of Rose & David Cholmondeley than Bill & Cathy Cambridge. LOL!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        According to Royal Foibles, Bill & Cathy lead separate lives during the week and are only together on the weekends. I have no idea if this gossip is true or what to believe as would rather follow the comings & goings of Rose & David Cholmondeley than Bill & Cathy Cambridge. LOL!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        There is much we do not know but it will come out as Turnip Toffgate is not dying down or going anywhere.

        I am now much more interested in who, other than me, is fueling this fire & giving this story legs and WHY!.

      • Nic919 says:

        So if Kate can’t come home one night with the kids then William has to invite Rose over for dinner? My point is that Kate can travel to and from London and from Middleton Manor very quickly if she wants to. And since she is never away on overnight engagements, there really isn’t a reason for William to be alone at Amner to the point where he needs to invite company over because the happy family image that we have been presented is that they are almost always together. Or maybe they have been fibbing about that last part? It would certainly explain why the platonic dinners are no longer mentioned in the article.

      • Wigletwatcher says:

        Why this story has legs? Maybe as simple as William. He made this story. He went to Kay. He made threats against the press Again. And now maybe they’re just looking to talk about it any way they can to keep it as a thorn in his side.

        The 1 thing we can all rightly believe of William is he has terrible pr instincts. As he always proves.

    • MrsBanjo says:

      That makes sense with the edit. The now removed mention of Rose and William having dinner would highlight more the (alleged) affair and problems in W&K’s marriage. If this was an attempt by Will’s camp to get back at Rose, that odd bit of info just shifts it back to the affair rather than focusing on Rose’s husband.

  12. Kylie says:

    If Rose is actually struggling it is due to the sudden interest and intrusion in her life. Rose was always the one in this story who had the most to lose.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I think Cathy Cambridge has the most to lose.

      Also, I believe Rose could not care less about any of this gossip as she is not affected one iota except for the inconvenience of publicity which she seems very accustom to dealing with.

      Again, this is all Cambridge PR to move the spot light off Bill’s marriage and on to someone else’s marriage (Sussex? Cholmondeley? ‘fill-in-the-blank”?), IMPO.

    • Agenbiter says:

      Interesting that her gown at the state dinner was so revealing – takes Carolyn-Bessette-level confidence to choose that when she’s supposedly shrinking from public scrutiny

      • Some chick says:

        It looked like a nightgown to me. I think she’s working it a bit too hard.

  13. Grace2 says:

    You’d never think Rose was a former model based on her posture – first photo with Kate especially.

    • Lizzie says:

      they can’t help to remind us that she is a beautiful former model….perhaps because it is not evident.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        She has the height and build to model, and from front view, she can be rather pretty (esp. in the older pics). From the profile, she’s rather… unfortunate. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  14. Chaine says:

    The way the article describes him as being good friends with Richard Burton and Liz Taylor makes him seem positively ancient rather than in his 50s.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      David Rocksavage Cholmondeley is 59 years old (b. 1960)

      David is the uncle of actor Jack Houston and is related via marriage (of his sister) to Angelica Houston and the rest of the Houston clan

    • Tourmaline says:

      LOL I thought that too! If he were hanging out with Burton/Taylor that had to be over 40 years ago!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I think, in his very young days, David Rocksavage worked as a photographer on film sets during school breaks. This would have been the late 1970s and early 1980s for high school & university school breaks.

  15. Vv says:

    for all the money and power these people have, it doesn’t seem to make them any happier does it?

  16. babco says:

    Francois-Marie Banier? He s not unknown …

    The guy is indeed a jet-setter and a photograph to the stars who managed to swindle billions (literally!!) from Liliane Bettencourt (now deceased, she was the heiress to L’Oreal).
    Her daughter took Banier to court when she realized how much her old, ailing mother was abused.
    The case made a big splash, also when they realized some politicians were also taking advantage of the confused old lady for cash donations, a butler recording conversations … it was a big scandal in France.

    Odd company.

    • Cee says:

      Did Banier win her case against him? I hate people who take advantage of old people.

      • C-Shell says:

        According to Wikipedia,

        “In May 2015, he was given a three-year sentence – six months of which was suspended – and ordered to pay a fine of €250,000 and pay back over €15m to the Bettencourt family.

        In August 2016, an appeals court reduced his sentence to four years suspended and a €375,000 fine.”

        The article also declares that Banier “is openly gay,” FWTW.

  17. GR says:

    I agree – The Sun is totally implying the Marquess is gay.

  18. perplexed says:

    No wonder she looks a little depressed…..

    Part of me didn’t believe the ” William is having an affair with her” story because if you’re going to cheat I’d figure you’d pick a livelier looking person. (I don’t think Camilla is pretty but you can tell she has a lively personality).

    • OuiOkay says:

      Meh. I’m not going to cheat but I can be attracted to lively or not lively. Not lively can still be witty and attractive in other ways. I like men and I’m a woman but I figure men can enjoy different types too. Hey I’m not lively myself and never had a problem

  19. PHD gossip says:

    Oh baby!!! I knew the name Francois- Marie Banier rang a bell!! He had “romance” with Lilian’s Bettencourt and she left him $1Billion dollars in her will. The daughter – in a controversial move -sued. It was a headline grabbing court case.

    • Ellen Olenska says:

      There’s a book called the Betancourt affair which features Francois…

      • Redgrl says:

        Wow, so the Marquess is buddies (or more) with a sleazy guy who bilks elderly women. Says a lot about him. And he and William are good buddies supposedly? And the toffs are all “oh, pah, we’re all aristocrats here! Shame on you plebeian upstarts for talking about us!” Rather sordid.

      • A says:

        @Redgrl, the toffs have never had a leg to stand on when it comes to morality. Ever. They’re also the same people who would scoff at Hollywood celebrities, but then jump at the chance to be friends with them and have them in their circle and brag about how they’re close. They’re clannish hypocrites through and through.

      • Redgrl says:

        @A – my point exactly. But they’d be the first to bang on about “how things are done, darling” and preserving appearances and all that foolishness.

    • leena says:

      @ A – that is a bit of a sweeping generalisation.

  20. Myra says:

    Questions still remain: if the issue is about Rose’s marriage why did Kate try to phase her out and why did William threatened to sue?

    • Kylie says:

      We don’t know that Kate tried to phase her out though.

      • Myra says:

        But wasn’t that the initial issue?

      • Kylie says:

        That was the initial rumor. Doesn’t make it true and it doesn’t even make much sense.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Considering the ceremonial duties of her husband’s (inherited) title, there’s no way that Rose and her husband would ever be “frozen out” of the Cam’s life. They will *always* be there. The coronation thrones are even kept in Rose’s home.

      • Myra says:

        So basically this entire story is just nothing. What a waste of time.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Waste of time but a whole lot of gossiping fun!

      • Olenna says:

        @Kylie, MTE. Big Willie may have had an affair, but I never thought it was the basis of the “freezing out” rumor. I don’t think we’ll ever know what sparked that first article.

  21. Guest says:

    I was wondering why the dailymail decided to make an entire article of harry snapping at Meghan (the new bs the tinhats started) to turn around. Now I know…

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      I saw that – total lets distract from the Rose story the Sun is running by chucking H&M under the bus AGAIN!!!!!!!

      • Guest says:

        Lol dailymail made it their top story

      • V. says:

        The Daily Mail had an article about Rose not wearing her ring a few days ago,knowing exactly who would have been riled up. Isn’t the daily mail Will’s biggest ally in his smear campaigns? LOL
        It happened two weeks after the banquet. It’s like someone realized two weeks later what certain overzealous “fans” were speculating.
        It’s exactly what is happening with M&H.
        I don’t know why some people don’t understand that both couples are click bait. It’s not like the daily mail needs to ask William permission to publish stuff about M&H.
        Surely not when the Daily Mail or the Sun have no problem fueling speculation about the Cambridges as well.

    • Brandy Alexander says:

      In all fairness, that blew up on social media before any articles were written. I saw it being discussed on this very site in the comments on Monday.

      • V. says:

        This. It’s pretty obvious that a lot of outlets write stories based on social media discussions and online speculation. It took them two weeks to notice that Rose didn’t wear her ring.
        Same with M&H. People have been analyzing the body language for a whole week. It was always going to be picked up by them.
        TheSe are the sevil sites that have entire articles about what fans are saying on Instagram..

      • BayTampaBay says:


        Sorta blogging about a blog or commenting on the comments? LOL!

    • Kylie says:

      It is not a new thing from tinhats though. Hey have been claiming for a long time that if he is not smiling it means he is unhappy with Meghan. Which is ridiculous. No one smiles all day long and the camera s going to catch them in moments where they are not smiling.

    • Lowrider says:

      Like I said the media is covering for Will. However , they will toss Harry and Meghan under the bus any chance they get.

  22. TheOriginalMia says:

    Hmm…I’m more interested in the deleted/edited out parts of the original story than the speculation about the Chumleys’ marriage. For the record, I think they are fine. Both are members of that set and know what those marriages entail. Kate was the outsider. She’s the one who didn’t know the rules when she tried to force Rose out of the set. No…I wanna know where was Kate during the time when Rose and William were having these platonic dinners? Was she living in London with the kids while William lived like a bachelor in Norfolk? And were these platonic dinners nothing more than cover for William’s dalliances under Rose’s roof?

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      William is Charles son in so many ways – as I always say on here William is making his fathers mistakes.

    • Lexa says:

      I mean, unless I misread it, we don’t have any real context for when the “one or two” dinners happened. Was it last year? It could have been when Kate had evening engagements (like galas/dinners) and the kids and Will had gone ahead to Norfolk for the weekend. Could have been when he was participating in a shoot with friends, or Kate was visiting Pippa and baby Arthur, or having one of the dinners with her steering committee, etc etc I’m sure they aren’t spending every second with each other, but I don’t think the Cambridges live separate lives(at least not these days) just judging by the ease of the kids around them both, especially Louis.

      It’s also possible to me after reading this that they didn’t have an actual affair, but Rose tried to suggest one and Kate found out, or William did and Rose, or a mutual friend, told Kate and Kate blamed Rose and not her husband.

      • V. says:

        I don’t think they had any affair either.
        This story also has been around for months and apparently the best the Sun can come up with is Rose and William having a couple of suppers. Probably.
        I think there were actually rumors (affair or rivalry with subsequent speculation) circulating in their circle.
        As I said,it’s possible that both couples had a good relationship and that William and Rose have met for lunch or dinner occasionally,and that Kate was fine with it.
        Probably the Rose/Kate feud gossip was part of a series of rumors that in the end have taken on a life of their own. But if the rumors about Kate and Rose are true,the reason could be that Kate believes that Rose is behind some speculation going on in their circle (Rose telling people about meeting with William,for example).
        Or maybe she was simply angry about “affair rumors” whoever was spreading them.
        On the other hand William evidently wanted to keep a good relationship with the couple,if we want to believe that Richard Kay had some inside knowledge.
        I don’t really see it as ” Cambridge PR” as someone is saying above. It makes little sense.
        I don’t believe anything published by the Sun and it’s possible they’re just making things up after they realized that Rose wasn’t wearing her ring. The Sussexes are flying under the radar,so now it’s open season again for W&K.
        But if someone is leaking something, this sounds like Rose’s camp. The stuff about her marriage is more the Sun embellishing the piece. It doesn’t really say anything new about them as a couple.
        It seems to me that Rose is setting some facts straight. An alleged source is also “a friend close to Rose” .
        She’s badically saying that she did nothing wrong,that she values her relationship with the Cambridges and that these “rumors” (rivalry,possible affair or both) are hurting her too.

  23. Lowrider says:

    Interesting the article was edited to remove the part about Will and Rose’s “platonic” dinners…

    • V. says:

      They have also removed the part about Rose’s friend” telling that these rumors are hurtful for her too and that they started with nothing and blew out of proportion. They have basically removed references to the fact that someone in their circle is speculating about them. There may be various reasons.

  24. Algernon says:

    Let’s not pretend like being “stuck in a farmhouse” is a huge inconvenience. Farmhouses on estates like that are not like farmhouses here, they can be large, beautiful old homes in their own right. And as much as they try to sell that these families live in “modest flats” within the great house, their “flats” are more like New York penthouses. Cry me a river for spending all your time in beautiful old homes in gorgeous countryside.

  25. guest says:

    Maybe the PR focusing on Rose is meant to distract from a homosexual affair between her husband and William. This works to the benefit of both families. On the one hand, the implication that Rose’s husband is gay could be seen as the reasoning for her getting it on with someone else, on the other hand maybe it’s one step removed (for legal reasons) from implying her husband is having a royal scepter tussle.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      This theory of “a homosexual affair between her husband and William” has a good amount of traffic on the DataLounge site.

      • Redgrl says:

        I was slowly piecing that together too! Ha!

      • Lowrider says:

        OMG 😮 now THAT would be scandalous!!!

        William and David are having the affair??!?

      • guest2 says:

        Very believable. In French magazines FM Banier is mentioned as David Rocksavage’s boyfriend or ex-boyfriend…
        ” A l’occasion de cette visite, FMB convaincra Mitterrand de décorer la grand-mère de son petit ami d’alors, l’Anglais David Rocksavage, marquis de Cholmondeley”

        And if I am not mistaken that very good blog, royalfoibles, alluded to PW’s mannerism when nobody’s looking…
        This would make a much more interesting story than anything else we heard so far. Why would Kate even bother about Rose if she’s ok about him entertaining her husband (when she’s not around!!!). My take is that Rose was talking too much about PW and Rocksavage.
        And Rose will be fine. (In fairness they all will be fine…) She knew about her husband ‘s relationship with Banier before marrying Rocksavage.
        These affair stories seem to drive a lot of business for the Rocksavages. “open to the public from May 1 to September 29. Despite the couple’s immense wealth, it is a necessary measure to pay for the upkeep of the estate.” Free PR! Impressive…

      • A says:

        @guest2, RoyalFoibles, iirc, only stated that William is a lot more “fey” behind closed doors than most people realize. But I’ve never seen any rumours that would indicate that he swings both ways, which is something the press would have run laps with for years by now if there were any substantial allegations on that subject.

      • violet says:

        I read DL. No one on that thread takes that rumor remotely seriously, it’s a joke. What they do believe on DL overwhelmingly is that Rose married hubby as a beard, that that stuff is finally hitting the fan, and the Cambridges are being used to deflect attention from the real story. If Rose’s marriage is (cough) “struggling”, it’s not because the Sun floated some totally unproved rumors about William and Rose and Kate. And if her family or Rose leaked the story in a feeble attempt to deflect attention from what everyone in her circles already knew about her husband, whose inclincations were hardly a secret but no one cared as long as discretion was the watchword, then I wouldn’t blame Kate for breaking ties with the Chomondeley family.

        The Marquis, from what I understand, has always been the subject of wink wink nod nod in those circles. These bargains are struck all the time: I need an heir for the title, I’m not quite prepared to live this life openly, you get a title and when it all goes south a handsome settlement, and on the side we do what we like with discretion.”

        I always loved Galsworthy’s “The Forsyte Saga”, which isn’t read much these days. Soames Forsyte’s family can’t understand Irene’s obvious unhappiness inside the marriage with her cold possessive husband. Galsworthy was a feminist, by the way. So he has this line in there about the family’s puzzlement: “He had money; she had beauty. What was the problem”?

        Some things don’t seem to change much in certain circles.

  26. Hope says:

    So …. it’s Hollywood Meghan sullying the vaunted values of these aristos? Right.

    Let’s hear more about William’s dinners with Rose and more about David’s friendship with the guy who conned the L’Oreal heiress.

    I think the negative stories about the Middleton family came from the Chumleys so if this Sun story is William’s foolishness, then we expect retaliation.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “Let’s hear more about William’s dinners with Rose and more about David’s friendship with the guy who conned the L’Oreal heiress.”

      @Hope, This would be a great subject for a book! LOL!

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The lives of Harry & Meghan are very boring compared to these Turnip Toffs!

  27. Snap Happy says:

    Every time I hear rural rival I think of 30 Rock and Jenna’s movie, “The Rural Juror.”

  28. Gia says:

    We don’t know if they had an affair.
    Perhaps Kate acted as a preemptive strike? She always knew that she wasn’t able to fascinate William or make him a devoted partner. so she tried to kill the problem before it started growing?

    Yep, I am sorry for Rose and her marriage difficulties. There are three children involved.

  29. aquarius64 says:

    Saw the Fail hit piece on Harry and Meghan. Trooping-gate is rolled out to distract from William’s alleged wandering scepter. The cheating story won’t die and it is leaving the UK. The Fail left out Harry and Meghan held hands afterwards. I think a lot of us see the cheating to be true because we want justice for Meghan since the Times wrote William encouraged the press to weaponize Bad Dad. Kate looks bad if this explodes. If she were an aristo her staying would be expected, but as a born commoner if she doesn’t dump him she’ll be dragged for selling her dignity for status and wealth. Some will be sympathetic because of the kids but she will get beaten up in the press.

    • V. says:

      But The Times didn’t even imply that William “weaponized” her father,which is honestly ridiculous. As if the daily mail needs his permission to publish click bait about her family mess. Not only some people selectively choose what to believe from that Times article,but that bit about Harry feeling that “the palace” sided with William and didn’t protect him is being misinterpreted at every opportunity.
      The meaning was basically that “the palace” (BP included) didn’t want to piss off anyone now that William was in a good phase with the press,which I think didn’t last in any case,judging by how they have no problem fueling speculation about Rose Hanbury and husband.
      Their body language has been discussed for a whole week online. I don’t know why people are surprised that the daily mail is running a story about it when they write every day stuff about what people say on social media. Again,it’s like when they found out that Rose wasn’t wearing her ring after two weeks of speculation on social media fueled by the Sussexes’ “supporters”.

      • Tourmaline says:

        @V. I do thank you for breaking down some of the press conspiracy theories. I always think you make sound points!

  30. A says:

    The whole bit at the end w/ the dates and times that Houghton Hall is open makes this sound like a sanctioned advertisement/sponsorship than anything else, lmao. But honestly, I don’t think Rose is out here crying into her silk sheets about her husband gallivanting off to Paris for long stretches of time tbh. Of course they live separate lives, you’d be very hard pressed to find a lot of people in the aristocracy who are all up in each other’s space at all times. She has her country pile and her children, and he has his documentaries and his boyfriend and a bachelor pad in Paris. I’m sure they’re both getting exactly what they want out of this marriage, just the same as William and Kate.

  31. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    I don’t think there is anything “unusual” in the Hanbury’s marriage, or in Rose and William’s relationship, or William and Kate’s marriage. I think it’s just the usual thing that does and has been going on a long time in the aristocratic circles.

  32. Jane wilson says:

    Say what you like about the toffs – “David Rocksavage” is a spectacular name.

  33. FuefinaWG says:

    Note: Francois Marie Banier is the guy who was able to get Liliane Bettencourt (L’Oreal heiress; net worth about $45b at death in 2017) to hand over about $1 billion in cash and gifts (including Picasso & Matisse artwork & a private island in the Seychelles) to him over about 30 years. Her daughter, with whom she did not have a good relationship, was finally able to put an end to it. Banier went to prison for 3 years and had to pay almost $180m in damages.

  34. Carolind says:

    I got the impression the articles were saying Rose’s husband was gay/bisexual.

    Probably this has already been commented on, but one of the articles mentioned William had supper with Rose a couple of times when he was in Norfolk and Kate was away. The suppers were no secret.

    Anything yet about Kate on Children’s TV last night?

  35. Carolind says:

    Adding something else. William and Kate had an engagement together in the Lake District at the beginning of the week (the sheep shearing). On their way home they had afternoon tea together somewhere which was taken in a bedroom for some reason. The article also stated that William and Kate have realised their marriage needs concentrating on.

    Perfectly obvious from the balcony appearance on Saturday that William spends a lot of time with his kids. Louis actually started reaching out to William as soon as he saw him.

    William and Kate are meant to share George’s school run. William is very chatty with the other parents – more so than Kate – and often turns up at school events.

  36. FredsMother says:

    Oh my stars, I leave the Internet for 16 hours to go live IRL and I come back to hear that the future King…may be… I love it. Oh Lord. #gayrightsarehumanrights

    If the story is indeed along the lines of the new plot twist…It’s the men not the women, as believed by many Parisians, well, I do declare I am quite naive and have zero gaydar.

  37. JaneBee87 says:

    One point that doesn’t get a lot of coverage here is the timing of Rose’s marriage. I’m quite sure they announced their engagement shortly after it was known she was already pregnant? Think the Fail covered it at the time.

    • Some chick says:

      They got married very, very quickly. Within days of announcing the engagement and the pregnancy, I believe.

      Twins! That would be tough for any new mum, even with help.

    • Aydee says:

      You are right. Rose was five months along when they got married in June 2009. Their engagement was announced just one day before the wedding. Their twins were born on October 2009.

  38. Stellaluna says:

    Before he inherited his title, the Marquess was known as David Rocksavage and as far back as the 80s, was in a relationship with Banier. The marriage with the younger Rose is known by many to be about producing an heir.

  39. HeyThere! says:

    Could you imagine if the affair isn’t real, and how all this negative international attention would be hurting you?!?! Omg. I hope I continue to walk through life invisible to the world and only visible to a few loved ones.

  40. Sarah says:

    The vanity fair article was great. My biggest takeaway: Cholmondeley is pronounced Chumley! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  41. Carolind says:

    Thought ‘Bad Dad’ was Charles but seems it is Meghan’s father??????

  42. Carolind says:

    Sorry, maybe I am naive but I don’t believe William is gay and I don’t believe he has had an affair with Rose. I am no great lover of the Cambridges but think it a load of tripe and waiting for concrete evidence.

  43. Kristic says:

    No opinion about the relationship drama, but both of her dresses are exquisite.

  44. Joja says:

    I find Kate William and this rose quiet boring.Most of The Windsor’s especially the direct heirs aren’t faithful.Kate knew that since the beginning.But she wanted to be diana so bad that she stalked William for 8 years.She doesn’t deserve one tears .
    What I need to know is why they tried to throw gary and meghan under the bus?
    Why did this British reporter inserted their name in this boring story?

    • violet says:

      She doesn’t need anyone’s tears; the story is b.s. and smells to high heaven of damage control by Rose’s family – she was a beard for a man who needed heirs and a hostess for his grand estate, and she was it. Kate has never seemed happier or more secure in her role or family life than she does now. It has malicious b.s. all over it. No need to cry for Kate – she is just fine.

      • HayaR says:

        Yup, this is PR from Rose’s side… All the piece talks about is poor Rose: poor Rose has it hard bringing up the kids in a terribly small home, all lonely, whilst her husband is away in France with his longtime partner. I don’t know why anyone would think this is from the Camb camp. The articles coming out now are all slanted with Rose’s lonely narrative.

  45. Godwina says:

    I wonder how many folks here up in arms about male primogeniture were perfectly okay taking their husband’s name at marriage? It’s ALL connected. Break the chains!