The Guardian edited out Rose Hanbury’s name in their Colbert-monologue summary

The Guardian does summaries of what American late-night hosts discuss in their monologues, and usually it’s political coverage, jokes about Donald Trump or President Biden, jokes about Congress, etc. Then, on Tuesday night, Stephen Colbert devoted about three minutes of his opening Late Show monologue to Prince William’s alleged affair with Rose Hanbury, the Marchioness of Cholmondeley. This was some narrative-changing royal tea – while American media has always been free to talk about rose bushes, there was never a huge movement to do a deeper dive on the affair rumors. That’s changed now. The Guardian’s original summary quoted Colbert accurately (you can see the archived copy here):

In royal family news, “the kingdom has been all aflutter by the seeming disappearance of Kate Middleton,” Colbert reported, especially after multiple international photo agencies retracted a photo issued by Kensington Palace for image manipulation. Colbert jokingly noted that some internet sleuths have concluded that Kate’s absence is because William is having an affair with Rose Hanbury, the Marchioness of Cholmondeley. “Oh no, my heart goes out to Kate … now let’s dish the hot goss,” Colbert joked.

According to tabloids, the affair began in 2019; when Kate confronted William about it, he “laughed it off” and dismissed it. “Aha, always a good response when your wife accuses you of cheating,” Colbert deadpanned, whipping out a mock British accent – “Ha ha, imagine me having an affair, it is to laugh! It reminds me of a joke, knock knock, who’s there, oh it’s my illegitimate son. I’ve knocked up my mistress.’”

The “Marcus Mumford of Chumbawamba” is an old friend of the royals and married to Will’s friend David Rocksavage. “Really? Rocksavage? That sounds less like a British noble and more like a musician from The Flintstones,” Colbert joked.

[From The Guardian]

An accurate summary of Colbert’s jokes, with previous little commentary by the Guardian either way. The Guardian’s commentary is that they published Colbert’s words. And now the Guardian’s commentary is that they quickly edited the summary to remove Rose’s name and title- this is the new version at the link:

In royal family news, “the kingdom has been all aflutter by the seeming disappearance of Kate Middleton,” Colbert reported, especially after multiple international photo agencies retracted a photo issued by Kensington Palace for image manipulation. Colbert jokingly noted that some internet sleuths have concluded that Kate’s absence is because William is having an affair. “Oh no, my heart goes out to Kate … now let’s dish the hot goss,” Colbert joked.

According to tabloids, the affair began in 2019; when Kate confronted William about it, he “laughed it off” and dismissed it. “Aha, always a good response when your wife accuses you of cheating,” Colbert deadpanned, whipping out a mock British accent – “Ha ha, imagine me having an affair, it is to laugh! It reminds me of a joke, knock knock, who’s there, oh it’s my illegitimate son. I’ve knocked up my mistress.’”

[From The Guardian]

So… did a prickly editor say “we can’t accurately summarize what an American TV host said on network television?” Or did the Guardian get a pissy call from Kensington Palace and/or William’s lawyers? It definitely feels like people are complaining and explaining all over the place. Not only that, they’re telling on themselves.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

72 Responses to “The Guardian edited out Rose Hanbury’s name in their Colbert-monologue summary”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Miranda says:

    Did Kate edit The Guardian’s recap, too?!

    • Proud Mary says:

      Rim shot!

    • MoxyLady007 says:


      Colbert shooed the guy who brought out the tea service off the stage. Then said “I’m not going to share the stage with someone that handsome”


      his wife or some staffers definitely are on this site. Hello!

      • StarWonderful says:

        Right! That comment about not having someone so handsome not wait on him was definitely in reference to Charles.

      • sevenblue says:

        @MoxyLady007, wow I didn’t get it while watching, you are right. Colbert has a diverse, young writers. I wonder if they were also following the handsome staffer and got disappointed about his disappearance.

    • AlpineWitch says:

      Oh the Guardian has received tons of calls from BP and KP in the past, we weren’t even allowed to bash Andrew anymore in the comments!

      Pretty sure PettyWilly’s staff bothered to call pronto to have that removed.

  2. Seraphina says:

    The blatant deception that is going on is not only offensive to those with half a brain cell but also very telling and continues to make them look like a bunch of spoiled aristos out of touch with the world today.
    And still – WHERE IS KATE, where is Ma Middleton AND where are the kids?????

  3. Pinkosaurus says:

    Streisand effect for sure. Anyone interested will know what was cut out.

    I wonder if Peg’s current side piece(s) are getting tired of hearing about Rose?

    Meanwhile at BP 🐎 🍸 👑 Camilla is living her best life.

  4. Jeanne says:

    it also could have been rose or her husband who asked for it to be edited out. it’s not like they don’t have power in those circles. i feel for her right now more than anybody especially since I don’t think she’s currently the one having an affair with william. she’s being dragged for nothing.

    • LadyE says:

      Posted very similar view and agree with you 100%

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        Since the Chumleys (or whatever they are) are private citizens, it’s very possible that it was their lawyers (or the Guardian’s) who wanted mention of them cut.

    • Cate says:

      I agree, I’m really not convinced they are still involved (assuming they were in the first place) and until there’s something that more conclusively proves they had an affair (though please not another tampongate!!!) Rose should be entitled to some privacy.

    • ML says:

      Jeanne and LadyE, Me too… I don’t think he’s (still) with Rose either —she’s just the one we truly know that he’s been linked to in the past. I wouldn’t want to be linked to him anymore either.

    • Becks1 says:

      That was my thought, that the Chumleys placed a phone call. I think if it had been William’s lawyers, they would have pushed for at least the line about the illegitimate child to be removed. Maybe they tried though and the Guardian refused.

      Either way, it feels pointless – that clip is getting millions of views on social media. Its out there once again lol.

      • ML says:

        “I am not the mother of that illegitimate child; please be so good as to remove my name from your article…”

    • Proud Mary says:

      So you’re saying that Williams absolute injunction covers Rose? Otherwise, I don’t see what liability the Guardian could be subjected to for merely doing basic journalism. Those were not their words’ they were quoting the Late Show. This level of censorship could have a chilling effect on free press, which presumably only exists on that island if you’re servicing the monarchy or the Tories.

    • sevenblue says:

      So, in UK, they can lie about, make stories about Meghan freely, but when it is an English rose, they suddenly think of their liability. Don’t they have liability about their lies on Meghan? It seems to me, they don’t care if Meghan sues them. I am a little irritated that people are also worried about Rose. She had an affair with a married man and watched a pregnant Meghan to be fed to the tabloids, so her name would be protected. She isn’t some poor innocent woman. It sure is the pretty privilege to make people feel sorry for you for getting dragged about an affair. How is she different from Camilla?

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        sevenblue, we’ve often wondered here if Rose’s house was simply a place for a rendezvous from Billy Idle and his current mistress. I still think that’s a possibility. As far as the affair? I know there was Twitter talk, but I don’t usually use Twitter as a source. That just means, I don’t know.

      • sevenblue says:

        @Saucy&Sassy, it is not twitter, I don’t even have a social media account. When the affair story first broke, the tabloids talked to Rose’s brother. He said, they (Will & Rose) were having friendly dinners, nothing more. Omid also wrote in his book, the paps were trying to get pics of Rose for the story, stalking her. After Will’s team made a deal with Dan Wootton sacrificing H&M, it went away. Whatever the story is, Meghan got sacrificed. Look at all the people Rose is hanging out with. She isn’t some poor woman minding her business. She is friends with the worst people in politics and media. I have no empathy for her. She is no different from Camilla.

      • Sum says:

        Sevenblue, I agree. Rose keeps reminding and inserting herself in the conversation. It’s fair to talk about her. I believe she works with the press to get attention.
        Kate seems okay with it which leads me to believe their wasn’t an affair.

      • sevenblue says:

        @Sum, there are dozens of pics of Diana with Camilla when Diana was married to Charles. Just because Kate was seen with Rose doesn’t mean that there is no affair. QE2 also made sure she was seen with Philips’s “companion” Penny. That’s how they squash rumors. After Kate tried to oust Rose from the friend circle and failed and was put on her place in Tatler article, she may have accepted the defeat and tried to be the good silent wife. That is why BRF likes her, unlike Diana, she shuts up and accepts the bad behavior of her husband. Also, Rose isn’t the first woman Will got caught with, but It is probably the first woman in their friend group he messed with and that’s why Kate ‘s first reaction was to oust her.

  5. LadyE says:

    I’m not British and am not familiar with UK media standards, but I actually think this might have been Rose’s lawyers, not the RF. Honestly, I’m all for dragging William, but I’m not super comfortable with how Rose’s name and alleged role is being bandied about so much. Frankly, Will seems like an extremely arrogant, entitled man (obv as he was literally raised to see himself as superior to all) and it wouldn’t surprise me if he pursued Rose (along with many other women) and that’s the root of the Kate conflict. Blaming a woman for husband’s flirting is sadly not uncommon and, yes I’m speculating, but I would imagine being pursued by Will could have been awkward for Rose to deal with, given the horrid misogyny that pervades the British aristocracy, particularly as it comes to the “heir”

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      💯 agree, Ladye.

    • Jks says:


    • JaneG says:

      We have been bandying about Rose Who for years now with a sprinkling of Jecca — why all the squeamishness now ? It does feel like the Chumleys lawyers put this out …. Don’t lie with dogs .

    • windyriver says:

      Agree with your basic premise about not blaming a woman for another husband’s flirting. Don’t know if anyone is blaming Rose? or just noting there was a connection. A few comments though. First, Will strikes me as the type of arrogant yet insecure person who would be slightly cowed/subdued around a woman he perceives as on his level. And Rose strikes me as someone who can take care of herself. David Rocksavage is a much older man, reportedly with a “good friend” (male) in France. Theirs seems like the traditional aristocratic/society marriage where a well connected young woman marries a even more well connected man, with property and position, for the benefit of both – and where dabbling with others is frequently part of the package.

      At the time, there were commenters here who seemed to have reliable tea that hookups had in fact occurred between Will and Rose. That said, I could see them getting casually involved, but Rose losing interest fairly quickly, while Will wouldn’t let it go, and that’s when it got awkward (see: Jecca).

      • LadyE says:

        Ehh sorry, my comment wasn’t clear. The blaming a woman for husband flirting was in reference to Kate and the stories about her trying to ice Rose out. I just mean that it seems plausible if not likely to me that Kate’s reaction to William trying to cheat would be to go after the woman even if Will had been rejected.

        I have always been pretty skeptical about this story, but I don’t feel the need to comment one way or another defending Rose about harmless gossip in the comment section of a gossip website, even if I don’t find it likely to be true. My comment is about my discomfort of Rose’s name being used in mainstream newspapers (which the Guardian is). That’s very different to me and I am not comfortable with it, hence why I commented as I did and why I imagine (and support if so) Rose’s lawyers demanding her name be removed

  6. Cessily says:

    Oh to be able to listen in behind the scenes at Kensington Palace right about now.. I don’t know how they will dig themselves out of this mess that they have made, but it is nice to see people opening their eyes and calling out the hypocrisy. Any ideas on Kensington Palaces next move?

  7. blueberry says:

    lol the whole reason he did the bit was to mock the ridiculousness of the names. Marcus Mumford of Chumbawumba is about how ridiculous the titles and spellings of the British sound to Americans.

  8. ML says:

    I did laugh at Colbert, but looking at this from Rose’s p.o.v., (I don’t really care about the Wales’ as much), I could understand if she were tired of being linked to Egg. I’m sure it was KP who asked though.

    • SAS says:

      Honestly, the fact they can jump on that so quickly but leave other narratives hanging in the wind is telling enough as it is!

      • ML says:

        That’s because all of their other issues involve WanK. This one is/n’t W and Rose: much easier to correct and control.

  9. Mslove says:

    What type of mate could this angry, pompous Prince possibly attract? Birds of a feather flock together. It’ll be another social climber no doubt.

  10. Dee(2) says:

    I can understand Rose not wanting to be linked to this and asking for her name to be removed, especially if they never actually had an affair and she was only providing cover. What should be more disquieting is the speed and regularity at which the media in that country changes stories because of offense or complaints usually by KP or BP. I’m not saying they should be okay to defame people, but it’s clear that these people don’t report without a lot of influence exerted. That should really be the disquieting part.

    • Kit says:

      The Guardian is the opposition paper, but it cowers and usually toes the royal line. It had articles that pushed back the blatant racism in the UK press that were heaped on Meghan when she was a working royal. BUT those few articles were penned by (guest) columnists who were mostly women of color.

      Now you have mainly regular Guardian white women columnists like Marina Hyde and Zoe Williams who penned their usual snarky stuff with a liberal dose of Oxbridge snobbery thrown in when writing about the royals. They are very much the Karens here. These two are anti-Meghan and Harry. They love to throw in cheap shots and often conjoin pedo Andy with M&H. In that way, they are like the gutter press writers.

  11. Jay says:

    Good luck to the British media as a whole keeping that injunction up, with or without Rose’s name. People can still find the video – this will just push them to actually view it. I agree that Rose is powerful enough that she could request the guardian leave her name out of it, and I think if it were a KP job, they would have removed mention of the segment altogether. They are not exactly subtle…

  12. BassWitch3 says:

    I once watched a documentary about one of Charles’ many mistresses – an Australian woman called “Kanga,” who had married a peer. One of the people interviewed gave statements on a time-honored tradition: Members of the aristocracy are expected to “lay down their lives and their wives” for the royal family.
    In my opinion, that gives William’s affair a dark and ominous edge. How much could Rose Hanbury really consent to that hideous, temperamental waste of space? Her refusal could have had catastrophic consequences for her husband and their everyday lives together.
    I hope the Nostradamus prophecy actually *is* relevant and accurate. Because if it is? William won’t be King.

    • Crystal says:

      Cams still spends time with Tom, he’s her main advisor cams sons buddy broke the story of Rose? Rumoured Charles still has many many side chicks still like his pa, and cam is okay with it. Phillip and uncle Mountbatten groomed Wills to be a hedonistic man so did Charles not knowing he did. Everyone is okay with it. Excused even. Kate knew he was a world stage cheater and played her heart long before big blue. She knew what happened to Diana. She can’t be pitied. She knew who he was what he came from and what he stood for. While Charles was with Camellia married to Diana Tom was his his sister Anne who was also married. David rock savage is 63 and has long time lovers too. It’s their thing. It’s an honour really, sickening for Kate who grew up middle low class with monogamous marriage. Reading stories of princesses. But she knew The queen knew Charles and David know.

  13. JT says:

    If you don’t want to be publicly named as man’s mistress, don’t have an affair with said man. The moral high ground went out the window ages ago. I don’t believe the affair is still going on but I think it did happen.

    • Shawna says:

      My issue here is that her name is being used as a pawn to distract the public, not out of a genuine journalistic wish to communicate truths.

      • JT says:

        I don’t think rose is being used to distract anything. So much of what went don’t with the monarchy, with H&M leaving, with the Wales sham marriage has everything to do with Rose. William sold out H&M to the press to cover up his affair with Rose. Kate was iced out of the tiffs by trying to kick out Rose. William and Kate have a vested interest in being the perfect family and the Rose rumors puts a chink in their carefully crafted lies. William has a super injunction over Rose. Her name is apart of this for a reason. Distraction tool or not.

      • Shawna says:

        @JT, you’ve convinced me!

  14. Nerd says:

    Maybe the photo of him in the backseat of his car with the blonde will start circulating more internationally.

  15. Shawna says:

    Is it possible that William’s lawyers are under some kind of standing order to call off any reference in the British press? I would think William has better things to do than actively track mentions of Rose, but I don’t think the Cholmondeleys had a track record of litigiousness. It would be more their style to leak something catty to the Tatler.

  16. Inge says:

    Weirdly, the article does not say that it’s been edited. Isn’t that mandatory?

  17. Normades says:

    If Wills lawyers did move on this on behalf of Rose it’s because the Rocksavages are powerful aristo people. If he easily blamed Kate for photogate it’s because she is not in any position of power.

    • MollyF says:

      @Normandes I think you’re right, all this point to Kate (and all the Middletons) being totally powerless. Probably that’s why her parents weren’t bailed out of their debts, which to me at the time sounded very weird.
      She must have been queuing on the way out since a long time, Peg waiting for the final kick. Who knows what happened in December, probably she broke down.. whether all by herself or helped by her hubby with a knock (physically, psychologically?) or two I hope we will one day know..

      • JaneG says:

        I respectfully disagree – this is the most power Kate has ever had. Right now the world press is just waiting to see and hear from her , she will never have a bigger audience . The irony is that Spare lends credibility if Kate goes rogue …. She can verify , add to and share her own stories of abuse at the hands of the Monarchy.
        I know we all want her tossed out penniless in the streets but I hope she makes them pay through the nose.

        The ass kissers weren’t far off when they said the future is in her hands .

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Normandes, MollyF and JaneG, Mary Pester has commented on another post here that KHate is the one who did the manipulation of the photo. I believe her. I also think it’s quite possible that she is the one refusing to talk. That’s the power that she has. That’s my 2 cents, but I wish people wouldn’t assume that she’s this innocent, put upon woman. Let’ not forget that she also has Ma Mids in her corner.

      • MollyF says:

        @Saucy&Sassy Of course I believe Mary Pester, but I don’t see the two things (she being treated as expendable by the Windsor, and she having the highest leverage she’s ever done). To me those seem two side of the same coin. She was (at least since the not covering her parents’ debts episode) and is considered like garbage by Prince Huevo; but she has leverage, which to me is something different from power, and her leverage has now skyrocketed. I believe Mary Pester. She (or mom Carol) migt be smarter than one could’ve imagined: maybe she tricked Peg to “creare a wonderful family portrait” to silence every rumor, giving him even the credit for the “art” she was going to create, and then she made a mess on purpose. Peg, who is really the dumbest of the bunch, at this point, didn’t even notice what he was signing for. She then apologize, playing the ingenue amateur. This means she doesn’t care for anything any more but the essential (kids, wealth, security, her parents). And if she did do it on purpose, she checkmated the whole firm. One false move and she will talk. And still she is irremediably powerless: leverage doesn’t mean respect, or dignity. She is out. What she really wanted, the crown, she can’t have.

  18. aquarius64 says:

    Whoever ordered the edits, too late. The segment is all over the internet and it shows they have no power over the US media.

  19. Flower says:

    Notice however that the UK press can now actually mention the affair which effectively proves it’s true as they only edited out Rose’s name.

    Only a matter of time before this breaks.

    I suspect that Willy is trying to delay the divorce announcements.

    • MollyF says:

      Maybe she’s trying to play her last cards, and trading her silence for agency in respect to the kids, and negotiating isn’t going into Peg’s direction and stalling; so she doesn’t cooperate with KP, and no announcement is possible. I have this feeling that with all this mess her price (the price of her silence) has gone up and up.

  20. Portia says:

    UK defamation law is very different than US defamation law. “Free speech” in the UK is not the same as the free speech protections in the US making it much more onerous for the publisher to defend themselves in the UK (hence public figures, like H&M, can bring defamation claims in the UK that they won’t be able to successfully bring in the US). This doesn’t have to have been William’s or Rose’s lawyers calling. The Guardian’s lawyers could have independently caught it and suggested it be re-edited out of an abundance of caution (lawyers are not usually consulted before things are published as a matter of course).

  21. TeamMeg says:

    It’s also possible the Cholmondeleys wanted the reference removed? The Guardian is famous for rewriting history, editing out inconvenient copy, etc. Last year they deleted Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America” after scores of young people discovered it through a viral TikTok and began questioning the narrative around the Gaza/Israel conflict.

  22. mary Pester says:

    Ahhhhhhhh my tongue is so sore from biting it! Please stop, ROSE SEASON is over. The spring bloom is through. Watch the Easter service please xxx

    • Liz says:

      Message understood Mary 👍

    • Moxiemiam says:

      In Mary we trust. I’m hoping for a spicy Easter. 🐣

    • Beverley says:

      Aaahgrh, Mary Pester. Easter is still more than 2 weeks away! I’ll be watching with bated breath. Thanks for the tea.

    • SavageGarden says:

      I am assuming from this you know who will be at Easter Service and where they will be sitting, Mary? Can’t you give us a little more of a clue please….. (can’t wait two weeks)?

  23. Chris says:

    I’m new but I am fascinated by this. When was the last time they were in church? Not the commonwealth service? Surely there was one after Christmas. @marypester said there was something in that seating and there would be something in the Easter seating that’s revealing. It’s like a mystery and I’m totally hooked. I’m sure the Rose thing has been over for a long time but there’s clearly someone new who is very Royal adjacent and more long term than Rose.

    • May says:

      Hi @chris, and welcome! I totally did not get what was meant by the seating arrangement at Easter. I do agree that Rose is over and am curious if his Russian lady friend is still in the picture. I was curious about the seating at the Commonwealth service because one speculation on this forum was that William was not attending certain events because they were expected to be led by uCamilla. I and some others theorized that William was pissed off that Camilla would have precedence over him.

      In time past, the Prince of Wales would have been the lead Royal (in the absence of the Monarch); and, it appears as though Charles has changed that. Normally the lead Royal is the last one to enter a service and the first one to leave. What was hilarious at the Commonwealth service was that William and Camilla entered at the same time and minor Royals were walking behind them. I viewed this as a compromise. However, I did not see pictures of the seating arrangements. The lead Royal is the one that sits in the front row furthest to the left. So, who had the choice spot? Will William even show for the Easter service? Now that I have totally not answered your questions, perhaps someone could clarify comments around the Easter service.

  24. phlyfiremama says:

    You have to wonder about the woman who has been so thoroughly publicly humiliated and Mr. Rocksavage (hahaha), and just how much of it they can take. I know it’s no problem in aristocratic circles, but DAMN~the world wide humiliation of being so publicly cuckolded by your cheating wife has got to STING. 😂

    • Kit says:

      Rose and Rocksavage are ok with all of this I suspect. They are sophisticates! As Mary Pester said, she’s past bloomed and I believe her. Given the history of royal mistresses, this isn’t a big deal. It does rub the shine off the perfect, fairy tale marriage of W&K. The only people who are crying are the die-hard Kate’s fans. No more fudgly ball gowns and blood diamond tiaras. Willy is obviously ready to ditch her in a lonely tower like poor mad Bertha.

      Plus the Rocksavages’ lovely “Chumley” needs all the PR for music/art venues to draw crowds. Think Downton Abbey mania. It’s expensive to maintain these big country piles with their famous rose gardens kept well manicured and blooming (yes, metaphors here).

      • BayTampaBay says:

        David and Rose are fine.

        This summer should be really big for the Houghton Hall $pring/Summer art installations. If I was in the UK, I would buy a multi-day admission ticket.

  25. Katie Beanstalk says:

    I think Rose is really pretty.

  26. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    I’m just guessing, but as others have said, the obvious reason is Rose complained. Since they left in everything else except her identity, that makes sense. But if Rose did not complain and the tabloid edited the article on their own volition, then . . . to me it means William has other mistress(es) and the tabloid didn’t want the public to limit the idea to only Rose.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I do not consider The Guardian a tabloid. Pegginton may have leverage over The Guardian but he has no power or influence over Stephen Colbert.