Vulture: Why have so many articles about Rose Hanbury been deleted?

It really was the royal-gossip Wild West in the first six months of the year. A missing princess, an unsteady and drunk heir, the death of Thomas Kingston, and the renewed interest in Rose Hanbury. The rumors of a much-alleged affair between Rose and Prince William have circulated for years. We picked up on the story in March 2019, which is when the “rural rival” gossip began in the British tabloids. That was the story about the then-Duchess of Cambridge “phasing out” Rose because of some kind of falling out. There were enough breadcrumbs left out by the tabloids to lead us straight to an unfaithful egg. In the years that followed, the Rose rumors have been more of a persistent hum and an open secret. Then everything exploded this year for obvious reasons. Certainly, when Stephen Colbert name-checked Rose and the affair, it suddenly felt like everything went super-mainstream.

What happened after the Colbert segment was even weirder – Rose’s lawyers threatened to sue CBS and they were sending out formal denials of the affair. Even weirder was the fact that suddenly Rose was much more visible, showing up at the Badminton Horse Trials and chatting with Queen Camilla, then attending the OBE service with her husband. It felt… pointed. Well, adding to the years of shenanigans is the fact that so many of the shenanigans have been deleted from the digital record. Ellie Hall at Vulture did a HUGE breakdown of the years-long affair rumors and everything else, and Hall points out which rumors have been subsequently removed, mostly from the Mail, Express and the Sun. There are so many links to our coverage over the years too – we’ve got a lot of the good Rose Hanbury stuff archived here. You can read the full Vulture piece here.

Since 2019, rumors have circulated on gossip blogs and royal social-media spaces of a supposed affair between the Marchioness of Cholmondeley and Prince William despite lawyers for both parties strongly denying that there’s any truth to them…

As far as royal scandals go, the Rose-William story barely registers on a list that includes the far more sordid (and substantiated) stories of the previous generation of Windsors, such as Squidgygate, the now-King Charles’s infamous tampon comments, and the whole Fergie toe-sucking thing. But if you start to dig a little more into the history of these recent royal-affair rumors — if you go looking for information about the Marchioness of Cholmondeley’s connections to the House of Windsor — you quickly encounter a problem. Years of U.K. media coverage about Rose have now vanished. And, to be clear, we’re not talking about just allegations of “aristocratic extramarital romance” but also allusions to an apparent tension between friends Rose and Catherine. Foundational stories about Rose and the future king and queen now lead to unavailable pages or redirect to the host website’s homepage.

Other stories remain online but were updated post-publication to remove details about the “feud” or other unspecified “rumors” about Rose, William, and Catherine, as seen via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine or archive.today. Vulture is unable to share links to the deleted stories for legal reasons. However, the mysterious individuals in charge of removing stories didn’t do a great job cleaning up after themselves. Broken links to these vanished stories still exist in each publication’s royal coverage from this timeframe and, in many cases, on these outlets’ official social-media accounts.

In total, this investigation found 21 deleted stories and six stories that were edited post-publication to remove information, published from 2019 to 2024. All of the media outlets in question are based in the U.K.: Tatler, the Daily Mail/MailOnline/Mail on Sunday, the Evening Standard, the Mirror, the Sun, the Daily Express, the Guardian. Vulture sent several requests for comments to these outlets over a period of three months; the Guardian was the only news company to respond.

So where did they go? The gossipmongers’ assumption has always been that the Palace is pulling strings behind the scenes, leaning on media outlets to suppress news of or speculation about the alleged affair in order to protect the future king. (There have even been — wholly unsubstantiated, for the record — rumors on social media about a “media blackout” or “super injunction” on stories about William and Rose.) According to a Daily Beast story from April 2019, royal lawyers sent strongly worded letters to at least one media outlet warning them off reporting on the affair rumors, not just because they were “false and highly damaging,” but because they apparently violated Article 8 of the European Convention to Human Rights, they claimed.

But there have been no reports of the Palace asking media organizations to remove stories or parts of stories, and certainly no statements from the U.K. media outlets in question — or notices to readers — explaining why they’ve chosen to delete paragraphs and even entire posts. Legal representatives for both the royal family and the Marchioness of Cholmondeley strongly denied all rumors of an alleged affair between William and Rose but declined to provide any specific on-the-record statements about the deletion of or removal of information from the stories referenced above.

[From Vulture]

Vulture does one of the most substantial breakdowns I’ve ever seen of the chronology of the rumors and which articles have been since deleted or edited. We’ve covered that extensively over the years too, and Ellie Hall cites our stories throughout. One of the funniest censorship attempts was with Tatler’s Kate the Great cover story in 2020. Kensington Palace absolutely threw a sh-tfit and threatened to sue Tatler and KP made Tatler remove almost all of the story… months after the fact, months after the damage had been done. I absolutely feel like that’s why so many of the Rose stories have been edited, changed or removed too – Rose is not the one trying to censor the rumors. It’s almost always Kensington Palace. I’m including those infamous James Palmer tweets. When the editor of Foreign Policy is stating something as obvious…

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty, Avalon Red, Cover Images.

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

138 Responses to “Vulture: Why have so many articles about Rose Hanbury been deleted?”

  1. Lady Esther says:

    About the superinjunction applying to William’s alleged affair with Rose, I thought that information came from a Scottish journalist, who claimed that such superinjunctions didn’t apply in Scotland? And “there have been no reports of the Palace asking media organizations to remove stories or parts of stories” is another thing that is “actively untrue.” Tatler was quite open about KP asking to remove or redact passages discussing the Rose rumours IIRC? While leaving things like the fact that William consults astrologists regularly (snort) untouched….

    Anyway, thank goodness Kaiser and CB have all of this archived!

    • Tarte Au Citron says:

      For real? 🙂 William is into astrology? Well, that is interesting.

      • sunnyside up says:

        Especially as the next head of the Church of England doesn’t do god.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        Wasn’t Diana into astrology as well?

      • Lucille says:

        The first head of the Church of England was also super into astrology and was also a known shitbag to his spouse(s) so…

      • Chaine says:

        Princess Diana was well known to consult astrologers and psychics. Some of them have given interviews about her and one even wrote a book. I’m not surprised that her children might also thus have some reliance or belief in these less conventional means of guidance.

    • The Robinson Group says:

      They are testing the waters to see how the public will take to Rose hanging on Willie’s arm once the already inevitable announcement of his separation from Kate — is made public. There will be some nonsense that Rose has always been his sanity rock helping him through the most difficult times in his life… blah, blah, blah…

    • Teddy says:

      @kaiser uses extensive quotes in her links. I suspect this web site is now the sole remaining source of the content of many of those now-deleted and edited articles.

      • Christine says:

        I think so too. It’s incredible that Celebitchy is the historical record now, simply because they have an out of control heir who rage briefs and then threatens everyone much later to edit or completely delete already published articles.

      • Interested Gawker says:

        And it’s the BM putting all this information out there in the first place! It is the reason they exist, it’s what royal watching *is* to some degree.

  2. sevenblue says:

    Last night after seeing the length of this article, I made tea and read it in full. It is a great journalistic work on media. This angle (media manipulation by palace) wasn’t reported enough with solid examples before by the mainstream media. I hope everyone gives a click to the article.

    One interesting thing to me was clicking on past CB articles referred on the article. The comments there were interesting. Some people were wondering why the KP isn’t protecting Meghan the way they are fighting with the media about Rose, some are saying, there is no way the KP is the party leaking horrible stories about Meghan. Looking at everything in 2024, it is painfully obvious, Will&Kate sacrificed Meghan (and Harry to some extent) to cover up affair rumors and in 2024, some people still hate on Meghan due to these fake stories. That is why I will never have compassion for those two horrible people. They deserve everything coming into their way.

    • Flower says:

      “That is why I will never have compassion for those two horrible people. They deserve everything coming into their way.”

      ^^ This 100%

      I am still convinced that Kate had a breakdown/ threw a wobbly and that is why a lot of these articles were deleted or redacted.

      Yet they allowed a suicidal pregnant Meghan to just muddle through, I can understand why Harry has such animosity towards his family and protects his family, they were horrific to them.

    • Jais says:

      All of this. They gleefully used Meghan and Harry to not just protect themselves but to make themselves look better. Seeing it laid out so comprehensively is amazing.

    • Becks1 says:

      I fall down the rabbit hole with old comments on posts like those sometimes and its interesting to read them in context of what we know now. Some people were giving William the benefit of the doubt in terms of leaking on Meghan even after the Flybe stunt, which was such a pointed dig at Harry and Meghan – my opinion of William had long been on the decline by then but that was the moment where I was like, man this guy is just a complete ahole.

      • Jais says:

        The flybe moment was such a blatant ahole move. In retrospect, William was telegraphing his hateful maneuvers way too obviously. It was such an ohhh moment of oh wow he’s really playing games. And then people naturally started asking and what other things has he been doing behind the scenes.

      • Betsy says:

        I do not keep a detailed memory log of that time, so I can’t remember exactly what I thought when, but that *seems* to be about the time that I realized that William was playing games with Harry via the press and then I thought, oh. That’s what William really is.

        (But I don’t think I had a high opinion of him at that point anyway, I just hadn’t realized until then how much he was playing games).

      • Nic919 says:

        I think we suspected William was behind a lot of the bad stories, but tiara gate and cry gate were trending more toward Kate and the Middletons in terms of leaks. The Flybe mess basically confirmed that William was directly involved in the attacks too.

  3. manda says:

    It was very lengthy. I started it yesterday and still haven’t finished! Very interesting though

    • goofpuff says:

      Really interesting article. And the modeling pics of Rose really shows off how incredibly beautiful she is. She definitely has a very striking look that’s very different from Kate.

      • Nic919 says:

        And comparing that to the awful Vogue Uk cover and photos kate did shows that she did not have that same charisma.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Very long, but interesting. I’ve got it bookmarked for this weekend.

  4. Hypocrisy says:

    Everything about Peggy’s Kensington Palace is shady.. it is a pleasant surprise that someone is pointing it out.

    • Chrissy says:

      I guess that since there seems to be little else for anyone to talk about re: the Royals, writers are looking deeper into the mire that is William and his shady behaviour. It would be great for his evil/shady/illegal moves to be totally exposed for all to see once and for all so has to change the narrative about the BRF and maybe, bring it all down!

  5. Wagiman says:

    Is it the situation where the removal actually MAKES the story?

    No one other than people like us cared about the chumley /willy /Kate story.. The removal of those makes it a story.

    I don’t think it’s a thing at all. Willy screwed around (with whomever) over many years, that’s a given. He did it all through the dating years, not like he’d stop. And Kate knew that and said that. The continual dragging of the Cholmondeley’s into it seems strange.

    • Jenny says:

      I think so, yes. A boring affair with some Turnip Toff wouldn’t have really been scandalous. But as evidence that they’re having stories killed, or altered after the fact? That’s some very clear evidence of shadiest and back door dealing between KP and the media. (And I 100% believe it’s KP not the Chomodeleys.) I agree that continuing to drag them into it is strange but I wonder if that’s part of the bargain—they can semi-whisper about that in exchange of keeping other, actually scandalous things, quiet.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        Why were they so side-chatty about Rose, and so silent about Jecca? That’s another interesting question. Was one other woman used to protect the other?

      • Jais says:

        At the same time, one of the details that was deleted came from Tom Sykes in a DB article. And it’s one I didn’t recall but Sykes says, ‘ “William is believed to have enjoyed a dalliance with Rose while he and Kate were on a break” before they were married.’ No idea of the accuracy but it was a deleted detail, which is interesting, and one i didn’t even recall. It would be wild to think that rose and William had had something that far back in the day.

      • DK says:

        Eh, I’m not sure it’s so wild to think Rose & Willie had a “dalliance” back in the day before he and Kate married – it seems like exactly something they would both do:
        he was a serial cheater and for all the present-day “Oh Rose is such a lovely aristocrat and so much better than middle class Kate” discourse, it seems pretty evident (from the excerpts and links in this Vulture article) that she was a social-climbing, partying, pick-me gold digger. Why wouldn’t she try to get Will, who would have been a much better catch than her craggy-old boyfriend who was more than 2x her age? Will was closer in age, interested in women, and his title outranked DS’ and everyone else’s.

    • Flower says:

      @Wagiman because Kate finally likely saw that she would never be one of them, that women like Rose would always have the upper hand in terms of breeding and just understanding the way things are done.

      Ma Midd could never have transmitted that inter-generational knowledge to her, for all the preening and crawling on their bellies almost Kate will always be a commoner.

      She’d given William an Heir and at the time one spare with another to follow and he still cheated on her and was now pursuing more serious relationships that were not just about sex. There was a very real threat that she could be cast aside or even end up like Diana.

      Not a Kate fan, but any woman marrying the heir in that family at some point must wake up to that realisation. Chuck has set a precedent that I believe Bill is only too keen to follow and with the right PR and messaging no one would bat an eyelid, especially if there was no hint of cheating involved i.e. they just grew apart.

    • seaflower says:

      Will it end up being the Streisand Effect and drawing more attention to Willies Wandering Wand?

      • Becks1 says:

        I think it was absolutely the Streisand effect. If you look back at the CB comments, on the first story about Rose Hanbury, there is some speculation about an affair but theres a lot of back and forth. The second or third story about it is I think Richard Kay, and its the one where William is insisting he’s not that close to the Cholmondeleys but close enough that he was considering suing over the story (which at that point was really just about Kate trying to phase out Rose) and they laughed over the rumors of a falling out but still, potential lawsuit!!!

        that was the article that made many of us go……oh okay so its an affair. It was definitely a streisand effect. And I think the same is true with the removal of so many articles etc. even in tatler – oh okay, you finally got them to remove the Rose Hanbury references months later, good for you? It just drew more attention to the article itself, again months after it had been published.

      • Nic919 says:

        It was definitely the Richard Kay article that tried to clean up the turnip toff tiff but instead used language that hinted at an affair. It is also around this time that Giles Coren friend of Tom Parker Bowles sent his tweet saying if definitely was an affair.

    • Lux says:

      This is a story because Kate pushed back and reacted by trying to “phase out” Rose. These are not things we came up with—they were literally the lede in all the first stories. A “falling out” with a neighbor that no one in the international area was familiar with. If Kate had endured it (not saying she should’ve) and acted like the late Queen, it would’ve stayed hidden.

      I maintain that Rose leaked it to put Kate in her place. And I do think the betrayal was huge in this one because Kate had considered Rose a friend. If you read the full Vulture piece there were many old articles that said they were close. They only claimed acquaintance-ship AFTER the falling out. They’re definitely not friends anymore (won’t be pictured in the same frame like the late queen and that Penelope chick) but I bet they’re all trying to put it behind them because 1) the affair is over and 2) they want it struck from public record for everyone’s sake. I, for one, don’t think there is a Rose rollout for Will. She just wants to be done w them and live her life.

      And she married David because she knows it’s a huge win-win for both of them. She provided heirs for him while it was not subtly hinted that he did whatever he wanted. They are old school aristos who let each other be. Why would Rose WANT to be with Will and live Kate’s life?

      • GTWiecz says:

        Yes, but while he lives with his photographer BF in Paris (isn’t he the same guy who tried to take the L’Oreal heiress’ fortune?), Rose doesn’t have any partner that we know of. She’s too young to ride solo.

  6. Slippers4life says:

    William trying to CTRL + Shift + n the media.

    • ML says:

      Yeah, this is either William or Charles, and I don’t see any reason why Charles would be doing it.
      Given that William is a cheater and that’s normal amongst royals, what specifically is it about the Rose situation that needs to be erased?

      • Miss Scarlett says:

        My first thought is that erasing the Rose stories is part of the negotiations with Kate and the Middletons. This erasure seems to coincide with Kate’s sort of reentry and the Middletons coming back into society.

      • Jais says:

        Except I think the erasure has been going on for a while and pre-dates just this year. Kate actually went missing when these rumors emerged and that was her longest time away from the public since this year, aside from summer holidays. The queen interestingly gave her an honor when she returned. I’m thinking the erasure has been happening since then but ramped up again as this year brought the rumors out again.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate went missing for almost 2 months in spring 2019 after these stories came out and no explanation was provided. The queen gave her the GVCO and then she started showing up again.

        But let’s not forget that crygate one year earlier is when Kate would have learned of the affair with rose, especially as Meghan implied that Kate was going through some things when she had a fit over tights.

        Kate did not disappear then but did it when the rose story became public knowledge in 2019.

      • DK says:

        This is the thing that makes no sense. In the grand scheme of things, who cares about a royal affair? Will’s dad cheated on his wife. His grandfather cheated on his grandmother. His ancestors have been cheating (among other horrible things) for generations.

        So why all this bending over backwards to scrub this story?

        It might be that bc Will identified with Diana more than his father for most of his life (or perhaps he’s just well aware of how poorly the world saw his father, compared to Diana), he’s horrified for the world to find out he’s been a Charles all along;

        It might be that he & Kate have built their brand around “family first” to get out of work and he knows if he blows up the marriage he’ll have to step up more (and/or he recognizes that Kate really is the most interesting person among the Left Behinds, to the casual public, at least);

        Or there might be something more to this simple affair – but what? Peggington can’t put the peg rumor back in the hole, so to speak (all possible puns intended), so what is he afraid of coming to light?
        I’m sure we’ve all heard the rumors (also hinted at in the Vulture article) that David RS is gay or bi and that Will’s affair is with him and not Rose.
        But going to these ridiculous lengths to hide that seems antiquated and homophobic – who cares if Will sleeps around, and who cares who he does it with?

        Although, maybe that’s why they’ve tried to protect Rose?
        If the affair is with David, yet Rose has to take the public fall for it, maybe KP feels the least they can do is try to protect her fallout by burying negative articles, publishing random pro-Rose pieces, and trotting her out with the Queen to show she’s under BP protection (I’d also believe this is more to buy her silence rather than compassion for the difficult position they’ve put her in).

        But I’m just not buying there isn’t more to Will-had-an-affair-with-Rose to cause all these cover ups and shenanigans – as someone mentioned up thread, no one was doing the most to cover up Jecca affairs, or sad Dad-dancing weekends away with the boys, etc. So why this particular affair?

      • HuffnPuff says:

        I wonder if Kate put out the Rose story to try to expose a fling between Peggy and David’. Remember how Kate looked gleeful at that party and Rose looked sad? That was also the time that Kate got cast out by the Turnip Toffs. Maybe she overstepped the bounds of her mean girling.

  7. Wagiman says:

    Btw I don’t know what meta means (I’m as old as fuck) but a story about a scrubbed story… Is that meta?

    • Emmlo says:

      Meta just means a media piece about media coverage. A film about moviemaking. A play about putting on a play. It’s an art form commenting on itself.

    • PinkOrchid says:

      Meta is like that old image my Dad described to me from the 1930s (I’m old AF too) of a kid holding a cereal box with a picture on it. The picture on the cereal box is of the same kid holding the same cereal box, and on that box, again a picture of the same kid holding the same cereal box, and on and on. It gets smaller and smaller, into infinity.

      You can do the same thing with a 3-way mirror.

      In terms of the mind, it’s the mind thinking about the mind.

      • Delphine says:

        I remember watching this cartoon as a child

      • SpankyB says:

        I thought that was the Droste effect. Named after the Droste cocoa box.

      • Jenn says:

        Yes SpankyB, that’s the Droste effect, a visual example of recursiveness/recursion. Generally when we say “meta” we mean “self-referential” or “breaking the fourth wall” or otherwise going out-of-bounds, but meta is really just a Greek prefix that means “beyond”

      • SpankyB says:

        Jenn – That’s a great explanation, thank you. I was trying to use google to figure out the similarities and/or differences and couldn’t come up with anything that made sense. I get it now.

    • Where'sMyTiara says:

      meta short for metadata. Even when you delete something, on a machine it leaves traces. That’s what this journalist did – study the story-shaped-holes on the internet. Absence is former presence, and all that.

      • Lux says:

        I thought I understood what meta meant (certainly used it correctly in the right context) but I love all these expounded explanations. Thanks!

  8. Nikomikaelx says:

    Isnt she still a private citizen, not living by palace money? Cant we leave her alone?
    Its extremely insulting calling someone a cheater and a mistress for years.

    • Wagiman says:

      Wouldn’t it be nice if Harry and Meghan were treated thus.

      • Nikomikaelx says:

        Obviously yes, but they have nothing to do with this lady? Or are you suggesting that because Harry and Meghan get bullied by media we should be doing it to everyone ?

      • sevenblue says:

        @Nikomikaelx, Meghan, a WOC, was thrown under the bus to cover up Rose & Will affair rumors. That is news. She can be a private citizen, but that doesn’t mean she won’t be get reported on when she hang out with future King and Queen.

    • Wagiman says:

      I’m saying they’re also private citizens who’ve been treated 1000x worse than Rose and as the story says, rose gossip has been scrubbed. Gossip is gossip. She’s never been bullied so yeah. It’s relevant. They are private citizens too and deserve at least what Rose deserves.

      Hardly anyone in the world knows Rose. She’s fine. I wish the Sussexes had the same treatment.

    • Katy says:

      When you lay down with Eggs, expect to be scrambled..

    • Jais says:

      Looking back, I wonder what would have been the best approach to quell the rumors. The rumors really started with the aristos. William’s heavy-handed approach in some ways caused it to blow up more. Had he not traded negative stories about Megan to cover up the story, would it have just died out?

      • Interested Gawker says:

        I guess that can’t be known because the actual reason isn’t known. The dinners must have been the door to something else and key players inching the story along in aristo whispering circles are tied to Camilla.

        William might have been heavy handed because he was fighting on two fronts MaMidds and Kate doing their thing and Cam&Co. doing theirs. Three if you add Wootton and Jones, at least one of Wootton’s columns was a really weird’I know what you did last summer’ vibe and it was Wootton that was angling to blow up ‘rural rivals’ at first then placated with Sussex stuff.

      • Jais says:

        So true. There was the Camilla factor. The New Zealand “outsider” Whooton. Christian Jones and his bf, Richard Kay, Richard Eden, and Tom Sykes. There were so many players! So yeah it’s hard to say what would have happened. What’s not hard to say is that the Sussexes were purposely targeted in the crossfires by both William and Kate. And this is why some of us don’t mess with the Wales couple.

    • Interested Gawker says:

      “Isnt she still a private citizen, not living by palace money? Cant we leave her alone?”

      One could say the same of H&M.

      Rose Hanbury has been left alone, broadly speaking, THAT’S THE POINT. She and her husband are structurally baked in to the monarchy with the Rocksavages’ ancestral role and get coverage in the BM that is relatively benign. That comes at a price and it’s been taken out on the Sussexes, Meghan in particular. Discussing this situation is important, by deleting these articles the BM and KP are guarding William’s secrets, protecting his reputation and also trying to bury the origin of their campaign of abuse towards the Sussex family on social, digital and print media by KP and the BM. Even the recent article getting the mother of Pat Tillman and the hysteria over these awards Harry receives is a direct outgrowth of this situation.

    • equality says:

      Her husband was Lord Great Chamberlain for QE and is Lord-in-Waiting to KC. They attend state banquets and other official events. If they wanted to be just private citizens, wouldn’t they be turning down these “honors”?

      • Agnes says:

        I do wonder if the Chomondeleys appealed to Camilla to use her press connections to have things removed. I bet they know what a scary clown 🤡 Egg truly is and don’t want his stench anywhere on them.

      • Interested Gawker says:

        What I wonder is, did the Chomondeleys *appeal* to Camilla as a useful wedge because their role reverts back under William’s reign, insurance if CIII goes first, more important now we know he has health issues. Camilla doesn’t want the other Royal women to wear her colours but was photographed with Rose, both wearing blue, when she was reported to have curtsied to Cam. Cam had her fingerprints on both the original rumours and the Tatler article. Rose being the shiny object made her notorious in royal gossip circles but it was the US media that put WAY more eyeballs on her and her antique furniture. That was the first time a bit of direct blowback from this situation truly made problems for the Rocksavages after all these years. I think Cam is a part of the media game they’ve all been playing but only for herself, if it aids KP or the Rocksavages that’s just an extra.

      • Agnes says:

        IG, it does seem like the “media game” they’ve been playing is to make William seem capable of a “love affair” with a classy lady, and not just some completely off, creepy uncharismatic soft-boiled Egg who has to pay for what ever it is he wants (and which I devoutly hope I never know about.)

      • Jais says:

        In spare, Harry very pointedly recounted a conversation with William and how he was complaining about Camilla and Pa. It was vague but I’ve always wondered if it had to do with the rose rumors.

    • Proud Mary says:

      Is the story only about her? Or is it also about the future King? How can there be a report about the future King’s alleged affair without talking about the women with whom he allegedly had the affair? Not only that, nice of you to clutch pearls over her privacy, but not about the two people who where abused by the press in exchange for not reporting on this story.

    • sevenblue says:

      With that logic, Camilla’s “friendship” with Charles wouldn’t get reported on either. Camilla was also a private citizen.

      • kirk says:

        Except that Chuck tried to protect Cam at every turn. And once she knew he was truly in the bag and she had access to his purse, she proved adept.

    • Jaded says:

      Rose’s husband held the very important and visible position of Lord Great Chamberlain until the death of Queen Elizabeth II. After the Queen’s death, David was appointed as a permanent Lord-in-Waiting to King Charles, meaning that he is a retired senior official of the Royal Household who may be called to represent the King at public events. He has an aristo background going back centuries. As his wife, Rose is very royal adjacent and therefore subject to intense media scrutiny, so no, we’re not bullying her, we’re discussing an alleged affair between two highly visible people, both married, one royal and the other a highly placed aristo. Kate managed to blow it open by trying (and failing) to ice her out. In all, it’s a sordid, selfish situation that only highlights how awful people can be and the lengths they’ll go to cover up the truth.

    • Nic919 says:

      Camilla was also a private citizen until she married Charles in 2005.

    • Isabella says:

      This is a gossip site. Of course we’re going to gossip.

  9. Interested Gawker says:

    That overview was very well done and a reminder to screenshot, print or download things when you see them for ‘receipts’ not just rely on the links themselves. BM change titles, change names -I remember an article about Kate that got switched to Harry some hours later, they remove bits and wipe them altogether.

    The people who incessantly screech online that the story was started by Coren or Meghan are also part of this KP institutional zeal to control this story. Whatever it truly is it must be a doozy.

    Having accurate documentation of this timeline is important, the abuse of Meghan in the BM at the hands of the BRF links hand in hand with the Rose Hanbury story.

    • Tuesday says:

      I mentioned on here at the beginning of the year when Kate was still “in hospital” that I save screenshots and someone implied I’m a crazy person. Perhaps, but I’ll be a crazy person who can produce proof after it’s been wiped by the palace. 🤷🏾‍♀️

      • Interested Gawker says:

        @Tuesday

        EXACTLY.

        It’s not ‘crazy’ to capture what you see. We all have seen them change and remove stuff, delete SM posts because KP and the BRF are lying liars who lie and get their BM henchmen to disappear all sorts of things. If you want to review or return to something you saw or read online links are unstable; even twenty minutes later it might get edited, redirected to something else or removed.

      • Nic919 says:

        Digital media is easily altered and it is happening for more than just stories about William and rose.

        Screencaps are what made Ellie Hall’s story possible.

      • Anance says:

        @Nic919 You are so right!

        Through social media, bots, and the Internet, the past is being rewritten and forgotten by those who control it.

  10. Amy Bee says:

    I don’t know I feel like this story has run its course. Maybe it’s time leave Rose alone.

    • manda says:

      I also just find it hard to believe that anyone is seeking out an affair with him

      • Nerd says:

        There was an unknown blonde that was photographed in the back seat with William one night. The media quickly ignored the story and never verified or questioned who this woman was. Any other public figure caught in the back of a car with an unknown woman would have been part of tabloid fodder. The complete silence of that and the erasing of anything regarding Rose with leaked information and lies about Meghan and Harry is only part of the reason why it is still talked about. They have been attacking Meghan for years because of a coverup of this story. She and her family are participants in royal events. I would even say they are willing participants in abusing Meghan in order to coverup this story.

    • ShazBot says:

      I think it’s unfortunate for Rose that she’s constantly brought up – who knows if there was and continues to be an affair?
      BUT it’s the gateway to the bigger story, which I personally think is that Will and Kate have, and have always had, an arrangement on having a public marriage and family life and a very different private life. I actually don’t think he’s following Charles, I think he’s following the Queen and Philip and those that came before them. But he’s trying to do it in a time of social media when royal propaganda is harder to control.
      It must be exhausting for both of them leading double lives, as we have seen with it starting to crack apart, and I do wonder how the kids will come out of it, but that to me is the bigger story that the media will never ever touch.

    • Interested Gawker says:

      So long as they continue to abuse Meghan this story can never die. The KP bots even insist Meghan started these Rose rumours, it’s become a foundational reason to insist Meghan is ‘bad/jealous/hates Kate/manipulator/etc’.

      Rose has become the face and shiny object over ‘something to do with William’ (with Camilla’s tentacles mixed in it)and enjoys protection from the BRF in return. Meghan to this day is written about negatively, has all of her projects stalked and maligned by the BM and has You Tube channels, SM accounts and the same exact reporters who wrote the original Rose articles devoted to slagging Meghan off and encouraging sick fixated people wanting to endanger her and her children. It was the Rose Hanbury story that put the BM’s abuse of Meghan into overdrive at the behest of KP.

      The story hasn’t run its course, it’s a foundational reason why the Sussexes left and continue to be stalked and abused by KP/BM/BRF.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Interested Gawker: The attacks on Meghan and Harry go deeper than Rose. It’s their refusal to play the media game, the Palace’s leaking of stories about them and William and Kate’s bullying that caused them to leave. If Rose didn’t exist, William would have still had a deal with the press because of his jealously and need to control Harry and Meghan.

      • Interested Gawker says:

        “The attacks on Meghan and Harry go deeper than Rose. It’s their refusal to play the media game”

        That is true, I don’t disagree with that, their lawsuits are part of it too. The fact remains ‘trading’ H&M stories to kill the ‘rural rivals’ was an accelerant of the media abuse of Meghan and now exists as a Rosetta Stone documenting every aspect of the KP/BRF/BM’s moves against the Sussexes.

        Rose is an avatar and camouflage in front of the closet full of skeletons William, Camilla and the BM not only want to keep closed as they work to scrub everything they want to blame to fall to Meghan for it all on the way out the door. This story is not dead, hasn’t even been dealt with properly and should not be allowed to die as it is vitally important to the crux of H&M’s story

    • Becks1 says:

      I think in many ways, this story is less about Rose herself and more about the palace machinations and what they are willing and able to do to protect someone they want to protect, and the level of control the palace has over the British press. In that regard, Rose is more of a footnote.

      the over the top reactions when she attends a state dinner or something – there I agree with you – we can stop gawking at pictures of the alleged mistress (or former mistress.)

      • Nic919 says:

        This is it. The story isn’t about Rose at all but about how powerful people, including publicly funded people like William and Kate, can easily alter media stories they don’t find to be favourable. Especially when they maintain the facade that the UK has a free press.

    • Proud Mary says:

      Leave rose alone? Or leave William alone? Interest that there can actually be a stopping point for reporting on negative stories about the future King, but all trumped up lies about the Sussexes can go on ad infinitum, or whatever they say. I’m always amazed at the pearl clutching on behalf of folks who pretty much receive back rubs from the British press.

    • PinkOrchid says:

      I’ve noticed Rose has been posting more frequently on her Houghton Hall Instagram account, but the comments are heavily moderated, if not turned off altogether. She must be sick of all the attention, not to mention the fact that she is actually married, with three children. All these references to her “soft launch” as PW’s “sidepiece” are incredibly disrespectful to Rose and her family. She may seem larger than life to us, but she is a real person.

      • equality says:

        The comments thing could also be about controversy about the origins of some of their furnishings also.

      • QuiteContrary says:

        I agree with equality — Rose likely doesn’t want people asking in the comments where a certain piece of art in Houghton Hall originated.

        I have no sympathy for any of these folks (Meghan and Harry excepted). They’re living off of plundered wealth.

        Props to Ellie Hall for this deep journalistic dive. The rota would never.

    • Isabella says:

      Again, this is a gossip site. We will gossip.

  11. Tessa says:

    There were lots of signs of Williams attitude towards Kate when they were dating. He would go solo to events where j e c c a was including going to her brothers wedding and leaving Kate to go alone to peter Phillips wedding. After the marriage if Kate and william he’d do the same thing leaving Kate to go on a hunting trip where j e c c a was going to be.

    • SueBarbri33 says:

      This whole thing is just so odd. William has always behaved strangely around these women, and the press has always been weird about the whole thing. I feel like whatever we’re seeing with William/Kate/Jecca/Rose is really just the tip of some strange iceberg. Whenever Harry was in a relationship, it was always clear and obvious–I can’t speak to what was really happening behind the scenes or whatever, but as a royal watcher Harry’s love life has always felt very simple to me. Meanwhile, William has been linked with the same names for the past 27 years, but there are never any photos or sightings or anything. It’s just so strange. I’ve never seen anything like this. He just seems unnecessarily secretive. KP calls it “privacy,” but that’s not really it. It’s a Richard Nixon-like thing at this point: just coverup after cover up, layers and layers of lies that seem to be there just for the sake of lying. I don’t get it. A Prince of Wales having affairs isn’t even shocking at this point, so there has to be more to it.

  12. EasternViolet says:

    My tinfoil hat about the Rose Hanbury and Turnip Toff “scandal” was that it was William and David Rocksavage. I think Rose and Cams this spring was sending a message to William, not Kate. I wish I knew more about Camilla’s machinations to undermine William, but she is savage (no pun!) and its the only thing I admire her.

  13. Nanea says:

    It’s always good to see the usual suspects in the Squad archiving links faster than the Fail, Scum, Terror, Twatler can change their stories.

    I know Ellie Hall isn’t unproblematic, but sometimes she truly delivers — and will probably be a target of the Derangers again for some time to come.

    The internet truly is forever, no matter how many injunctions the Prince of Ales has Harbottle&Lewis issue to the press.

    I still don’t get why Rose was dragged through the mud again, years after the fact, when it’s TOB who should be investigated. Especially when one of his suspected affairs, Svetlana Ignatieva of Flora&Fauna, has ties to Russia.

  14. AmyB says:

    The main takeaway her shouldn’t be “poor Rose” because she is no world poor anything. And it is not whether they had an affair (although I fall into the “yes they did”). The takeaway is the palace lies outright when they say they don’t do clean up in the press or push back against stories – they do but only for the white members. Show me one story about Meghan they corrected?

  15. Libra says:

    Interesting history tidbit. Look up Prince George born 1905 and became Duke of Kent. William looks exactly like him. He was a roue, a bisexual and constantly in trouble with both sexes. He was killed very young in a plane crash.

  16. Mslove says:

    I think the problem is arrogance. Peg does not want the peasants reading about his messy love life, or anything personal. He does not give a crap about public funding or transparency either, he feels he is entitled as the future king.

    • Interested Gawker says:

      I think the issue is control. And power. William wants to control his public image, he wants to control Harry, UK media owners want to control William, Camilla wants to keep a hand in after CIII dies. It is true William doesn’t want anything personal to become fodder but there’s some aspect that isn’t just embarrassing (and Kategate might have added a second ’bad thing’) some part of whatever has gone on with William might be extremely detrimental to the monarchy itself and that’s why there is so much effort in quashing this stuff. Controlling this story maintains power, having the truth come to light threatens the institution. Having it to hold over William means somebody ’owns’ William and can control the next king. That’s a great deal of power.

  17. Underhill says:

    I have been wondering if the gutter press is featuring Rose Hanbury merely as a distraction, a stalking horse, to cover something, and someone else. Look over there, don’t look over here. I think that they should leave Rose Hanbury alone.

    • Interested Gawker says:

      I believe so. I was intrigued that Omid Scobie said he thought it was ‘all nonsense’. I took that to mean she was the distraction from something or someone else. And talking about BRF media manipulation including hashtag and emoji banning, story trading, the ‘invisible contract’, bot buying, online harassment and bullying, legal actions and whatever else becomes ‘don’t talk about Rose Hanbury’ oh she must hate the rumours, stop talking about this and our perennial favourite:

      ’Leave her alone!’

      • sevenblue says:

        Omid said he has never seen any evidence of the affair, so as a journalist he doesn’t believe it, but he thinks as we all do, the interesting story is the way the KP went around to cover up the rumors.

    • Liz says:

      Mary Pester always reckoned the Rose affair was long over and Wills is with someone else.

  18. aquarius64 says:

    The stupidity of the cover up and scrubbing of articles of Rose being William’s alleged former (?) mistress is that it’s sending the Bat Signal to UK’s foreign enemies that the future king can be blackmailed, a potential national security risk. Going tinfoil tiara here: what makes the BRF to MI6 believe a hostile nation have not screenshot these articles and had its intelligence agency get the receipts – video, audio, phone hacks, emails, texts? William may have a secure line but Rose doesn’t, nor do the rota rats who know and are covering it up. And why would William make occasional visits to MI6 when he’s not even the sovereign? It would be better for the Waleses to come clean about the state of the marriage. Charles cheated and he still was able to become the monarch and the mistress became the queen consort. It would not be the first time the sovereign was planned to be used as a tool of an enemy country (see Edward 8, Duke of Windsor) but the UK will wait until it gets to critical mass and it would be too late. My two cents.

    • TheOriginalMia says:

      William has been compromised for years due to his affair with that Russian-born UK lawyer. Before that, he owed a debt to British secret services for protecting and shielding his vices and fuckups.

      He’s an idiot with unearned power & privilege who believes he’s earned adoration & respect for being born. Completely vulnerable and malleable.

    • GTWiecz says:

      The difference is that Diana’s death was a gift to Chuck and Camilla. That wouldn’t happen to Willy. Whoever he’s with the ghost of an alive Kate making appearances with their children will appear. Kind of like Jennifer Garner with Ben Affleck and JLo, in celebrity terms. The omnipresent ex.

  19. Tarte Au Citron says:

    Amazing work by Ellie Hall there.

    The BRF absolutely do comb the internet for articles and posts. I used to follow a number of royal bloggers, posting well-sourced articles, and *poof* the article is gone. Or the blogger decided it wasn’t worth it anymore.
    For example, there were a few articles/posts about a mattress years ago (if you know, you know)… good luck finding them now!

    • Libra says:

      Ah yes, the one about the mattress that has been forever scrubbed from print but not from memory.. I wonder if it resurfaces during alumnae reunions.

  20. Peanut Butter says:

    Maybe, in person, Rose Hanbury oozes sensuality, dazzling intellect, wit and vibrance. But in photos, at least, she comes across as utterly pedestrian and uninteresting. I’m not talking about her looks; they’re fine. I’m talking about her nondescript way of being and engaging with others, to the extent those qualities show in photos and videos. Maybe she’s just a very low-key person in public? Truthfully, when Kate was more in the public eye, I found her more interesting and at least making attempts to engage. Sometimes I marvel on the amount of ink that’s been expended on Rose over the years.

    • Hannah1 says:

      Yeah, who would ever find *quiet confidence* interesting when you could have ANIMATED ENTHUSIAM from Huevo and Kate?

    • IFoxi says:

      She’s what Steely Dan would call”languid and bittersweet”. Her posture adds to the languid look.
      I’m annoyed by the enthusiasm she gets from people, given she’s of the aristos. And now evidently pals with the queen consort. Bunch of snobby mean people, for the most part. I think people idealize her as everything Kate should be but isn’t. Just because she schooled Kate doesn’t mean she’s a good or cool person. To borrow a phrase “Show me your friends, and I’ll show you who you are”

  21. Nerd says:

    It was the Tatler Kate the Great article that made it abundantly clear that KP was behind the attacks and leaks on Harry and Meghan, especially Meghan and the lie that Meghan made Kate cry. The initial article focused on Kate’s family and how they are seen with the aristos and William. It also included the lie that Meghan made Kate cry with yet another made up lie for why Kate was upset. The part that was mainly noticed was the parts that made the Middletons look bad and that backlash is why KP approached Tatler to make changes, but the only changes they asked to have made were the parts that made Kate, William and the Middletons look bad and not the lie about Meghan. It was KP threatening to sue and Tatlers response to that threat that made it clear that KP had previously known about the article and initially gave the okay for it to be published with the lie about Meghan. So not only did KP give the okay for the lie about Meghan once, but they okayed it a second time and only protected themselves by removing the parts that made K, W and the Midds look bad. They couldn’t claim to not be the leakers because they were in talks with Tatler the entire time and it was found out at the time that Kate was an old school friend with the owner or editor of Tatler. So it was obvious that this glorified tabloid which has been attacking Meghan from the very beginning had a royal connection who happen to also be the only link to crying gate. So I continue to believe that this woman who has copied Meghan’s fashion and projects and allowed to let a pregnant woman be attacked is also one of the royal racists who was leaking against her from the start.

    • Jais says:

      💯 @nerd. The fact that KP sued Tatler on some details but had no problem with Tatler repeating the lie that mean Meghan made Kate cry. The lie they originally started wile Meghan was pregnant. I’m sorry but that’s some evil shit. But yeah, not correcting it in Tatler, it was essentially like telling the lie twice. Again, another reason some of us don’t mess with the Wales couple.

  22. Jay says:

    Hmmmm. If the palace has the ability to quietly delete or remove any references to the alleged affair, it makes me wonder why Rose and her lawyers even bothered to try to threaten Stephen Colbert earlier in the year? We know from the Tatler article that when they want to, the palace has made edits to published pieces, and it’s usually quiet. Was there panic because American outlets don’t play by the same rules as British ones? Or were Rose and her legal team going rogue?

    Consider the timing – this was at the fever pitch of speculation over Kate’s disappearance, just before the palace released the video sharing her cancer diagnosis. I have to wonder if Colbert and the American media getting ahold of this story was the tipping point in getting Kate in front of the BBC camera to try to dispel the rumours? Who knows, if it was just the British media and CB, they might have kept posting frankenshopped photos and pretending that all was well.

    • sevenblue says:

      Yeah, Colbert made it mainstream and the palace has no power over CBS. I think, Rose was following the palace’s advise to keep silent and the BRF is gonna handle the problem. When it got to the one of the most watched shows in USA, they probably couldn’t stay silent anymore. I am sure, all the international media reached out to them for comment after Colbert show.

      • Interested Gawker says:

        I think that happened recently with the Houston hospital rumours. I don’t think KP was prepared to face or even understood that a Texas newspaper of record would also be monitoring the Houston Reddit alongside SM users. I’m not sure KP ever intended to make an on the record denial about Kate, I suspect they just wanted to let it percolate on SM and ply their bots out of the larger media’s eye.

        The story KP wanted to run with had the Frankenphoto not gotten busted was ‘Kate not wearing Big Blue’, ‘friends surprised she wasn’t wearing her ring’. The two together -the photo kill and Colbert bringing Rose into the story made William’s plans spill badly out of BM control. Playing with TikTok and Reddit probably got out of their hands too. KP playing about in the mainstream US Media isn’t wise.

    • Berkeleyfarm says:

      I think Colbert was a tipping point.

      Rose and her lawyers threatened him because threatening in the UK works very well for them. It doesn’t work as well in the US because our libel laws work a lot differently.

    • Interested Gawker says:

      “ if it was just the British media and CB, they might have kept posting frankenshopped photos and pretending that all was well.”

      KP did continue posting frankenshopped photos they just stopped using them as formal handouts. The wire services simply slap ‘may not adhere to our guidelines, etc.’ on them and call it a day.

    • Pinkosaurus says:

      I always thought KP should have had the legal threats come from Rose or, even better, David Rocksavage because KP’s efforts to bury the gossip are more newsworthy than the gossip itself. I wonder if one slightly bright staffer at KP realized Colbert would IMMEDIATELY disclose if he got a threat or take down notice from the palace and that’s why they changed strategy after all these years and had it come from Rose instead. KP can intimidate the British press not to disclose their threats and “deals” but not the US media (as the publisher of the Washington Post just found out the hard way).

  23. Bev says:

    Why do a lot of people think this Rose person is such a hot ticket. She is plain at best, certainly not as pretty as Kate.

    • Interested Gawker says:

      She can be striking in the right poses. She carries the aristo casual vibe well and has a sense of style that’s very impressive. As we’ve seen with Cam the ‘other woman’ doesn’t have to be a knockout. I do feel Rose can *do* ‘knockout’ in a conventional sense when she wants to.

  24. Mightymolly says:

    I gotta say, of all these characters in this Lifetime drama, Rose lives the most enviable life. She’s got the title, status, children, seemingly well suited marital match, and dayum she looks good. The only part I don’t understand is wasting time with Wills. I get a quick dalliance just to check future king off the bucket list but ick.

  25. Monlette says:

    I am a bit startled by the similarities between Charles and William if this is all true – prince bamboozles starry eyed teen with good genes into furnishing an heir and a spare, before being dumped for the aristocratic married neighbor the prince is desperate to protect from the press.
    Watch William play the old “I never cheated on Kate. Rose and I were friends first, and it was only when the marriage became impossible that I realized how truly special she was. Rose has never in her life done anything wrong except to fall in love with a future king, which was never her intention…”

    • Sarah says:

      Kate has good genes? Diana was the aristocrat. Camilla’s grandfather was titled. A Baron not an Earl. They swapped on that.

      • Iolanthe says:

        Diana had a better pedigree than even the royals if they were looking at breeding programmes. A quick glance at Williams ex girlfriends shows every single one had either a better gene pool and was more talented , attractive and had much more of a brain and personality. Whether it’s Jecca Craig the conservationist or Rose Farquhar who sings like an angel , Isabella Calthorpe both lovely and blueblooded and others like Carly ,Davina , Arabella, definitely from the same circles and probably distantly related . He didn’t want them ? More likely they didn’t want him ..though to his credit, he goes to their weddings and seems to have stayed friends . Kate was a very very poor second . I am sure Diana, wherever she is in heaven , flinched when her Wills got trapped in the Middleton butterfly net. I wouldn’t have wanted Kate for any son of mine . Rose Hanbury didn’t even feature as a romantic interest ..she has a better looking husband , a beautiful house that I always wanted to see and three exquisite children . If she knows William it’s because of old connections..her grandmother Lady Elizabeth , was one of the Queens bridesmaids .

  26. Slippers4life says:

    This writer and celebitchy are the ones doing the important work of holding power to account and keeping a historical record of these actions. This is the important role of true unbiased journalism.

    • Jais says:

      4real. And very importantly, along with sussex supporters and squaddies on SM, especially Twitter. It’s why I can’t quit Elon’s hellscape.

  27. Ben says:

    I’m pretty sure those Rose 🌹 appearances were completely planned. I mean she wore the same hat as Kate. Camilla got photographed with her. She knew what she was doing. Telling Kate I’m not afraid of you and I have the palace protection. This was Charles, Camilla and William telling her to hurry up with her negotiations or else. This was a reminder how she was once replaced by Rose in her private life. Then they threw up Lady Gabriella Windsor who’s prettier more glamorous and a blood royal to remind her one again how disposable she is even in her public life.

    • Interested Gawker says:

      Absolutely. Rose and Lady Gabriella being highlighted in the media were decisive messages with a lot of menace underneath attached to the intended recipient(s) too. Kate’s ‘peaceful under a tree’ photo and press directly before all that panto weirdness of her attending Trooping was just as controlled and nefarious. This much planning, this much effort in covering their tracks, lies, tricks, chicanery and the media helping them do it, smdh.

  28. bisynaptic says:

    Impressive investigative journalism.

  29. 411fromdownunder says:

    How worrying that digital stories can be deleted or edited. Any historical story can be changed or simply disappear.

    Technology today gives the ability for everything to be discarded or altered, video, photos, print… scary times.

    If media companies and publishers are doing this for Rose and William over their stupid and salacious storyline, imagine what they are doing for other rich and powerful people the world over.

  30. :( says:

    This is scary, tbh. It shows once again just how much power royalty and wealth can give a person, how they can just delete information that’s harmful for their image, and how knows what else. This is just a silly affair, but it shows just how corrupt and injust the world is.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment