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!

For me the most interesting pet of all this is trying to differentiate between posters on Mumsnet-
Who is an obsessive royal supporter?
Who is just interested because it's a current topic/ mystery?
Who is a paid KP bot ?

yeah that was it!

this seems to be a good explainer: https://ladysinclair.substack.com/p/pouring-more-water-on-the-rose-hanbury

Looks like this is where the renewed interest in her has come from in the last few hours:

https://www.etonline.com/who-is-rose-hanbury-everything-to-know-about-her-connection-to-prince-william-and-those-affair

Thank you! I was about to do a similar post, rather than all of the post's that dance around the subject.
It looks like Harry may be the only living royal with a succesful marriage!

personally I don’t go for the infidelity stories. Not because I don’t believe William to be above it - more that Kate generally looks so authentically happy when they are seen together. In the midst of - and for a long time after - my ex’s affair, I was not smiling like that.. particularly at him. No bias, not my circus etc and I’m probably more team H & M if I thought about it.

It’s strange that something Giles Coren said (and has since said he made up) is somehow the gospel on social media. Everything else he says seems to be torn apart on the same platforms.

And a "look at the absolute state of our broadsheet media" perspective.

But they warned us about this 20 years ago. Well not quite this but about newspapers becoming online entities.

Giles Coren didn’t start the rumour - it existed long before his tweet. He tweeted about it and then backed down, saying he didn’t know if it were true (or not).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3657396/Who-s-Queen-Bee-turnip-toffs-rural-Norfolk-neighbours-ve-got-common-sorry-Kate-superglam-Marchioness-Cholmondeley-lives-grander-style.html

According to this article they both have very ambitious mothers (no mention about aspirational fathers of course!)

I agree, Kate and Wills really do look lovingly at each other, no way, even for the kids sake, would she look at him like that if he'd had an affair.

On the contrary I am sure that Schillings or Carter Ruck or one of those other Rich-People-Pay-Us-Big-Money-to-Silence-the-Free-Press legal firms have been earning their extortionate hourly fees this past week, furiously writing threatening letters to all of Fleet Street's finest. But even they can't stop Mentionitis, not when the editor believes he (usually a he) is on firm enough ground in the story that's NOT being mentioned.

I appreciate this probably makes me awful but I cannot bear the royals thus find all this gossip mongering rather amusing.

Stephen Colbert was a bit of a shit, if on a talk show you need to surround your words with gossip and rumours maybe take that onboard before deciding to air. If only to protect Rose and her children who are often cast aside in the kicking of William and Kate.

Whatever has gone on or not gone on - I imagine that the implication is that William and Rose had an affair - I think the timing of this by the press is very spiteful. The press are typically spiteful, but seeing as Kate is recovering from a very very nasty operation, likely having had a load of her guts cut out, it seems more spiteful than usual to do it at this time.

I think I'd be really ashamed and depressed if my job involved writing stuff that might or might not be true, but would upset people - particularly someone trying to recover from a horrible operation.

What is SEO?

Totally agree!

SEO - Search Engine Optimization - i.e. newspapers are publishing articles about Rose Hanbury as they know people are googling her and they want people to hit their websites.

I got lost down the Rose rabbit hole years a go and the one thing that always 100% discredited it for me, Pippa would surely not have called her daughter Rose if it were true....there is Just. No.Way.

Search engine optimisation- the choice of key words in your website text that will match the terms most often searched for.

(Obviously it's much more complicated than that and an expert has posted at length upthread.)

I find myself feeling incredibly concerned about the children, the eldest of whom are approaching their mid-teens which is a notoriously fragile time for mental health. They can read and google, put two and two together and come up with fifty five.

I have friends who were contemporaries of Tom Parker Bowles who are certain his substance abuse problems began when the news about his parents and the then PoW became common knowledge.

Yes it must be awful for them. I have no idea why anyone would put their children in this position. I know the actual royals are brainwashed from birth but imagine marrying into it. Completely nuts to me.

It stands for search engine optimisation - it's an old-school method that was very popular pre-2016. The theory was that you could drive your website organically up the Google search rankings by publishing articles which mentioned certain key words that people were searching for and therefore drive trfafic to your website.

Google changed it's algo in 2016 and again in 2021 to combat this 'old school' SEO manipulation and it's not really a thing now although people still talk about it.

'New school' SEO is more about using different types of content (video etc) and packing the content with social media signals to drive the content up the rankings.

The Indie and ES websites are ~sort of~ doing this, but the fact is that if their Rose Hanbury articles are ranking high atm, it's likely that the public is just really really interested in Rose Hanbury just now due to the rumours.

But Rose Hanbury was at the centre of a rumour-mill years and years back — from what I remember she and her now-husband (who is 20 years plus older) announced their engagement, then the next day that she was pregnant (with what must now be teenage twins, one of whom is their heir to the marquessate) , and then got married about 48 hours after that, and the twins’ DOB suggested she was well into the pregnancy when they announced their engagement — I vaguely remember all kinds of rumours, such as him being gay/bi but usually into men, her being a beard to provide an heir, some kind of shenanigans about which twin inherited if it’s a CS and they’re ‘born’ simultaneously etc.

Which is not to say that any of it is true, only that RH isn’t new to the rumour mill.

Once you starting clicking on articles about Rose, you will start seeing more about her. I’ve not clicked on anything and only seen one article. I’m always checking the new sites on the trains to and from work as well.

That's what's throwing me as well. Why would she call her daughter Rose if another Rose was her brother in laws mistress.. Rose is a typical middle upper class name like her other children Grace & Arthur but there are lots of other makes that would have fit the bill eg Jane, Olivia, Matilda etc..

Isn’t it interesting that the OP has started the thread and repeatedly linked to articles about Rose. This is how it works for those who didn’t know about SEO. Something gets trending on SM, the press write articles for clickbait and others spread them across a range of platforms. It’s coordinated.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1259487/Marina-Hanbury-announces-engagement-Earl-Durham.html

Just putting it out there that Rose's older sister Marina also married an older man with a title.