Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

New Talk That William "Dined Alone" With Rose Hanbury

Saturday, June 15, 2019

First of all, if you missed my first detailed discussion of the affair rumor, that article is can be found here: Did William Cheat on Kate With Rose Hanbury? [Spoiler: absolutely no evidence at the moment that he did]

Now, to today's non-update.  The Sun ran an article on Rose Hanbury that is getting a little traction--not a lot to be honest--but enough. Right now, if you read the article there really isn't anything of substance there. It claims that Rose's marriage to David Rocksavage is not a particularly happy one, which if true is unfortunate, and says that Rose is a little blue over the cooling of her friendship with the Duchess of Cambridge. If there was a falling out between them, this would also be a natural reaction--it is natural to be sad that your friendship has cooled. 

There was, however, an earlier version of the article that included a paragraph in which "a pal" said that the cause of the rift stemmed from two occasions on which Rose joined William at Anmer Hall for dinner while Kate was away. That just sounds weird, but we will go with it for the moment. The paragraph noted that Kate was aware that the two were dining together, and didn't mind the platonic friendship. This paragraph has since been removed.

Much has been made of the removed paragraph, but I think it is a nothing burger. First, let's take worst case scenario--that it is true Rose and William dined together twice (weird), with Kate's knowledge, but that it precipitated a cooling between friends. So what? Adult men and women who are married to other people, shouldn't be dining with each other while their spouses are away. It is recipe for disaster. If you think that's a silly stance, see the average divorce rate, or just about every couple in Hollywood. If you want a stable, happy marriage, you work for it, and you protect and defend it. That includes not putting yourself in a position that could create trouble. Maybe they did dine together on a few occasions (weird), and maybe Kate and William gave it some thought and decided, you know what this isn't a great idea. Perhaps after a bit of reflection they decided a little space was needed. No crime there, just mature adults steering the ship away from the shoals. 

Perhaps Rose's marriage is on the rocks. I have no idea if this is the case, but briefly for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is. Perhaps, in the course of one of these supposed dinners (weird), she confided her unhappiness to William. Perhaps he realized that given her situation, he needed some space, because he can't be the shoulder she cries on. Maybe Rose herself realized given her situation (again, we are assuming for skas of argument), she shouldn't be turning to a married man with her problems. Either party could have realized that lonely and unhappy men or women shouldn't spend time alone with people married to others! We could go on and on. I won't walk through all of the scenarios, but you can in your head. There are multiple possibilities, none of which include impropriety by either party, in which the Cambridges and the Marchioness of Cholmondeley decided that wisdom counseled space. (P.S. there are also plenty of scenarios that explain a break-down of their friendship that have nothing to do with marriage or relationships)

Some people poo poo the idea that even married people need to be careful and guard their hearts and emotions. There is a silly fantasy these people like to perpetuate--the farcical idea that adults have super powers that permit them to control their emotions and feelings by rational choice. It's a laughable absurdity, since these sophisticates who want to claim there is no problem do so in the face of overwhelming statistics to the contrary. 

If Rose and William dined alone, it would be a bad idea at the best of times. I think it sounds pretty weird, and I am skeptical, but whatever. Married people just shouldn't do that.  But, if Rose's marriage to David Rocksavage is on the rocks, it is a particularly bad idea. Any one of the three could have recognized that and decided space was the best course of action. And they'd be right. 

So, that's the first possibility--that the story is true. But, since that paragraph was pulled, the more likely possibility is that it is not true. Papers pull paragraphs like this from stories when they get a notice from an attorney that reminds them that unfounded speculation (that is stories without any actual proof or person willing to stand behind the story) is actionable. I suspect the Sun pulled the paragraph because "the pal" didn't actually know anything at all, and while the Palace might not bother with any number of other silly stories that are backed up by "a pal," when the story is of this nature, they do. This type of unfounded speculation is very damaging to the lives and reputations of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the Marquess and Marchioness of Cholmondeley and both couple's children, and lawyers tend to lay the law down awful quickly when these are the stakes. 

When a paper pulls a paragraph like this, it does not lend credence to the information, it detracts from its credibility. It suggests that the paper couldn't actually prove the statement and had to get it down fast before they had a legal proceeding launched. Keep in mind that if/when reporters are able to substantiate this rumor, the major papers will run it. It won't be an obscure article from a staff writer, it will be front page by the prominent royal reporters. Until that time, it isn't on the front page because no one has any evidence. And as I said in my first article, with respect to the charge there was an affair, you really do need to assume nothing happened until it is shown definitively that something did. If you don't, it says nothing about William and everything about your lack of character.