This week, Vulture published an impressively detailed article written by friend-of-the-blog Ellie Hall. Hall’s piece was about Rose Hanbury and the years of rumors of an alleged affair between Rose and Prince William. Hall’s analysis is less about the alleged affair and more about the media coverage of the rumors, and the subsequent attempts (many of them successful) to delete or alter the coverage in the British media. It begs the question: why is there a slow-motion cover-up and who is behind it? The answer is egg-shaped. Well, interestingly enough, Tom Sykes at the Daily Beast did a follow-up on Hall’s report, speaking to Hall and analyzing why this Rose story just won’t die. Some highlights:

Water off a duck’s back: Prince William’s office did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Beast about whether they had been involved in getting the [Rose Hanbury] stories killed. However, The Daily Beast has reported on prior efforts by the Palace to stop outlets in the U.K., where Palace press officers have significant influence, from publishing items about the allegations. Friends of William told The Daily Beast that the allegations were “water off a duck’s back” to him that and he would have ignored the story as “rubbish on the internet,” but had been forced to act after Hanbury, who is a good friend of William and Princess Catherine, was named.

Streisand Effect: Ellie Hall, the author of the Vulture piece, told The Daily Beast that her story which highlighted the removal and editing of dozens of online articles without informing readers, was essentially a critique of “media transparency,” but added that the ongoing interest in the story was “pretty much a textbook example of the Streisand effect” and that trying to “hide information” had only served to make people even more interested in the allegations. Hall said: “I think that this story would have died on the vine back in 2019 if they hadn’t threatened legal action, because the fact that media organizations had been warned off it, as reported by The Daily Beast among others, then became the story. The fact that somebody really wants the story to go away is the only reason it’s still around.”

Why did so many outlets delete/alter the Rose stories? Hall contacted the newspapers which have removed articles but none responded to her queries with the exception of the Guardian which said it had made changes to one story (about the Colbert monologue) on its own initiative not because of “external” pressure.

One former editor explains: A former senior staffer at the Sun told The Daily Beast: “No one likes killing stories and it’s always a bigger deal than you expect. Many editors are against it in principle but it is a last resort when you have lawyers giving you major aggro. If no one is reading the story any more as it’s old, it’s preferable to retrospectively spike it than to waste thousands fighting it.”

Christopher Andersen on the Rose story: The royal author Christopher Andersen, author of a new biography of King Charles, told The Daily Beast, “Anyone who was attempting to scrub or alter past coverage of Rose Hanbury’s alleged affair with William has a mighty—make that impossible—task ahead of them. Of course the irony here is that, by trying to tidy up past articles, whoever is behind this is now pouring more fuel on the fire.”

Friends of William and Kate: However William and Catherine’s friends were quick to defend the couple for pushing back against the stories. One said: “I genuinely think if Rose hadn’t been named they would have regarded this as just more rubbish on the internet and wouldn’t have lifted a finger. Nonsense stories are water off a duck’s back to the royals.” The friend also pointed out that the Cholmondeleys are “one of the great families” and “have a ceremonial role in the monarchy.”

[From The Daily Beast]

You can read my previous coverage in our Rose Hanbury archives. For years now, I’ve had an involved theory about what went down. My theory is that there was an affair between Rose and William (no smoke without fire) and that Kate actually did try to “phase out” her “rural rival” Rose. In the months before the Mail & Sun broke the story, Rose and William’s situation was common knowledge among the aristocrats and Turnip Toffs. Kate may be the Future Queen, but Rose is definitely the Queen of the Turnip Toffs, and the story becoming public was Rose’s revenge, it was Rose pushing back on Kate for not knowing “the rules.”

I also think it’s telling that even Wales-allies are like, yeah, it was different when Rose was named. There hasn’t been a similar freakout whenever William has been caught clubbing with random women or when he’s been seen out with a blonde. It was the fact that Rose was their neighbor in Norfolk, it was the fact that the gossip came out of the Toff set, it was the fact that Kensington Palace had no idea how to control it and so they went into panic mode for months and fed Harry and Meghan to the tabloids to cover it up. That’s another reason why the Rose story will never die – because it’s inextricably linked to what the Windsors did to the Sussexes, all to protect an unfaithful heir.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.