Rose Hanbury is everywhere!

[Missingprincess]

https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/lady-rose-hanbury-marchioness-of-cholmondeley-princess-kate-best-friend-childhood-children-marriage-b1144827.html

Yet another piece! What are they trying to tell us without telling us?
Rose went to Stowe so presumably had a knowledge of Wills inner circle growing up.. But why all the articles!

Its weird, totally pitting her against kate and trying to make kate sound dull and boring by comparison.

It's to bully and punish Catherine and William for refusing to release her neducal infirmation to the media. Which you are also doing by reposting this shite. Get a life.

Why all the articles? revenge, because KP isn't giving the press what it wants about the PoW's condition - so they're getting their clicks some other way. Clearly the press thickos think that this will make KP more inclined to co-operate when as far as I can see all it will do will reinforce PW's dislike of the press.

And the Standard is such trash it's given away free.

The Stephen Colbert show and mention of the “unsubstantiated rumours” although not rose by name are in the telegraph this morning along with actual mention of theories like divorce.

It's because they all use SEO to attract clicks (same tools, same usage)

It's extremely common practice in online news sites, as well as "news" sites.

Some go as far as to say it's a sign of trouble in the newsroom (ie pandering to the clicks rather than actually seeking out newsworthy events), but a kinder interpretation is that there will always need to be something populist and it may as well be this

I guess their intent depends on the actual truth of the situation and how much they know of what is going on behind the scenes. There's been rumours about William and Rose for years, this all just stirring the pot.

It's good ol' Mentionitis, which is as common to newsrooms as the common cold is to kindergartens.

Got a story that your editor has a blackout on? Frustrated because it's a story that's already widely rumoured and your enforced silence is making your journalistic instincts look stale? No problem! Simply MENTION one or more of the people involved in the real story. Ensure you do this in a seemingly innocent journalistic context.

Do this often enough and someone will eventually break and publish enough of the real story for the floodgates to open. You can then all pile in. Happy swimming!

The thing is they must believe there is a story there, and that they can stand it up (but not legally publish). They can't just hint at any old thing. Their lawyers would go ape.

But if there is any truth to any of it, why give Kate a kicking? She hardly deserves any of this either way. It's like the press are determined to smash the golden egg.

Do this often enough and someone will eventually break and publish enough of the real story for the floodgates to open. You can then all pile in. Happy swimming!

"Arranging" for an obscure foreign title to break the story also seems to be popular, but that hasn't happened yet.

Whatever the truth of it all, this episode will be studied in the future.

They’ve had it coming for a while.

No, not necessarily. If using SEO, they just need to believe that people will click on that subject, and hope some will link it on SM, bringing in even more clicks from an audience they might not otherwise reach

You read this post…as you say ‘get a life’ !

Yes it has, its all over facebook from US sites

Oh good, now we're bullying and harassing 2 women online now.

Happy days.

This whole sh*te about how "they can't publish because the Palace is scary" - if they have proof they will publish. They haven't got proof (and God knows they've been digging for it for years) so they're publishing unsubstantiated gossip for clicks.

Why is there no proof? After looking for years?? I dunno. Maybe because it's not true? And don't start going on about super injunctions again - ask Ryan Giggs about how well they work.

Yes, gossip is all over. Same as here. Still no proof. Same as has been for years. Link to the credible sources citing their verified evidence.

I refuse to click on it out of principle, will they never learn??

But why choose this particular woman? There are dozens of similar aristos in Norfolk!

Really?!

i work in this sort of area, it’s because the newsrooms use software to see what’s trending and what people are searching for, then they want to capitalise on that wave of interest so they write articles.

Because so many people are discussing the rumours surrounding Kate and the photo, conspiracy that she’s going to divorce william, his alleged affair with Rose, it’s leading to more Google searches hence more converse about rose. Who she is etc.

they will try and write something fresh and an interesting angle to ensure Google “picks” their article to show when somebody Google’s lady rose.

No, not necessarily. If using SEO, they just need to believe that people will click on that subject, and hope some will link it on SM, bringing in even more clicks from an audience they might not otherwise reach

Not necessarily what? Believe that there's a story there? Well if it's bad faith (they don't believe it's true and have no evidence) as well as harassing and shakily executed, then we're watching the British press do something suicidal.

This mentionitis is usually a red top tactic to break a verboten story. Watching the rest of the press join in is quite peculiar and unpleasant enough. If they don't even believe it ti be true but are doing it for clicks, that's just madness.

Not an edifying sight, any which way you look at it.

But where are the editors and the lawyers? Don't tell me the SEO experts have sole editorial control. Or do they?

Come on OP, she wasn’t selected at random. Use those critical thinking skills

Quite. It's libel law that's stopping them, not the big scary palace.

Besides, if the palace are that much of a concern, this is quite enough for the royal rota to feel the chill.

What I mean is why are the press honing in on this particular aristo? Did they just suddenly decide she would be their target aristo using iinie meeni miiini mo as their process of elimination?

"Not necessarily what? Believe that there's a story there?"
That's correct

The lawyers won't be concerned - there is no mention of salacious rumour.

Editor will be happy to run a piece that is pitched as likely to bring in traffic. They don't actually care if it's just fuel to the conspiracy mongers.