Meghan Didn't Start the Rose Rumors

With regard to the now infamous Affaire Hanbury, one of the most persistent speculations I see increasingly (and annoyingly) presented as fact is that Meghan is responsible for starting rumors of the affair. And it's like guys. I get it. Meghan is awful. But there is basically zero chance that this rumor originated with Meghan, as I believe a dispassionate analysis of the facts will demonstrate. Shall we commence?

Naughty boy Bill

Our story begins on March 22, 2019 in the pages of The Sun newspaper. Under the headline "Kate Middleton has fall-out with glamorous best friend and tells Prince William to ‘phase her out’," the collapse of the formerly close friendship between Rose and Kate is chronicled by reporter Dan Wootton. Though Wootton never explicitly identifies the reason for the rupture, in the first sentence of the piece he does pointedly identify Rose as Kate's "rural rival."

Consider the context here. This is a gossip article in the British tabloid press, which is a globally famous morass of rancid misogyny (and Wootton is a pig, although fair play to him he does have a knack for landing important royal exclusives - but I digress). In the misogynist's mind, what does it mean for two women to be in conflict and competition with each other, or in other words, rivals? Why, they are fighting over a man, of course! So while the reason for the falling out is never made explicit, the savvy reader is nonetheless invited to intuit the existence of an affair in the very first sentence of the piece.

This is some very subtle sh!t, and a classic British tabloid tactic for breaking sensitive stories without running afoul of draconian UK libel laws. And there you have both the first and second strikes against Meghan being the source of this story. Our Lady of Perpetual Clapbacks charges through life with all the subtlety of a Rottweiler sinking its teeth into the soft flesh of a startled burglar. Our Megsy also has zero understanding of the British psyche, and has made exactly zero effort to assimilate to British culture or adopt the British way of life. (South Africa, any one? Stiff upper lip? Internally damaging?) Meghan is incapable of planting a story like this because she lacks the psychological capacity for subtlety, as well as fine-grained knowledge of the British press/legal system.

Classic Megsy

Compounding Meghan's personal deficits is the press team she chose to work with, the infamously aggressive Sunshine Sachs. We royal watchers have witnessed SS steadily alienate the British public with hardball tactics tailored to American celebrity culture but poorly suited to the UK. We also witnessed SS double, triple, and quadruple down on these tactics despite obvious backlash. Trust and believe, SS did not magically develop the ability to engage the British way for the span of exactly one story. Strike 3.

The way this story gained traction in the media is another strong indicator Meghan was not involved (strike 4!). Wootton's exclusive would probably have fallen off the radar fairly quickly if not for a bizarrely over-the-top rebuttal penned by Richard Kay in the Daily Mail. Kay loudly sings William's praises as a family man, decries the threat to Cambridge "domestic tranquility," makes vague allusions to potential legal action, minimizes the relationship with the Cholmondeleys, and generally takes the whole Lady-doth-protest-too-much routine to the Nth degree.

I won't get into nitty-gritty of the Kay piece because there's just way too much detail there, but suffice it to say that every sentence is basically a brand new WTF moment. Keep in mind that most readers of the original Sun piece probably interpreted it simply as a story about a friendship ending, and hey, who hasn't lost a friendship in their lifetime? Big whoop. But suddenly, Kay is bringing up the Cambridge children and praising "family man" William (why? what does "family man" Wills have to do with his wife losing a friend?), condemning "extraordinary" rumors (wait, this seemed like ordinary "life happens" stuff - what's the extraordinary part?), alluding to previous legal actions against the press to defend Cambridge reputations (whose reputation is at stake and why?) while noting that "inconsequential reports are simply disregarded" (again, why is this consequential?), and on and on and on.

Sus

We should note here that Richard Kay is known to have very strong back channels to the palace. He was thick as thieves with Diana back in the day, and is known to have maintained connections with both the Wales boys. So to an observer-in-the-know, Kay's piece looked very much like the Cambridges lashing out in fury and panic over a tabloid rumor that three days prior hadn't seemed like a very big deal. The obvious conclusion was that the "rural rivals" story was in fact a very, very big deal. 

(This perception would later be fully cemented by William circulating threatening legal letters to press outlets. Notably, these letters asserted his right to privacy pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention to Human Rights. They made no mention of British libel laws, with the obvious implication being that he had no grounds for a libel action since truth is an absolute defense. A defiant and offended press continued reporting the affair rumors, with one Daily Beast headline sassily asserting "Prince William’s Lawyer Tries to Suppress Rumors of Affair.")

To summarize: The "rural rivals" story gained traction due to the Cambridge's overreaction. It was a massive Cambridge own goal, deliberately nudged along by silver-tongued viper Richard Kay. (A similar pattern of overreaction would later play out with the Catherine the Great Tatler debacle, which I am firmly convinced Meghan also had nothing to do with - I'll probably do a post on that at some point.)

Silver-tongued silver fox. Is that 30 pieces of silver I hear jangling in your pocket?

Finally, social media took the story fully viral. Giles Coren tweeted and deleted his now infamous confirmation, and Nicole Cliffe expounded her theory of L'Affaire Hanbury in an eye-popping (since deleted) Twitter thread.

And lo, the deed was done. So while I believe Meghan has enthusiastically weaponized L'Affaire Hanbury via the Sussex Squad (classic Sunshine Sachs tactic), I believe the story emerged and gained traction independently of Our Lady of Perpetual Victimhood.

That conclusion in turn begs an obvious question. If not Meghan, then who?

My best guess is the story was planted by some faction within the Turnip Toffs, possibly but not necessarily by Rose herself. Indeed, I think the original Sun article contains a critical clue:

The tension between the future Queen [Kate] and Meghan along with the imminent split of the royal households has emboldened the Duchess, who is growing more comfortable with her public role.

That's the key word right there. Emboldened. It seems Kate had been feeling her oats lately, and attempted to assert her dominance over her aristocratic social set by exiling two of their own - two very, very high-ranking members, no less. But the powerful jaws of the British class system clamped shut on Kate. This story was planted to remind her that her future role as Queen Consort doesn't wash out her past as a social-climbing, Wisteria-sistering, middle-class parvenu. And social-climbing arrivistes don't get to exile blood members. (I believe that to be the Turnip Toff perspective, and must stress that it is certainly not mine! If you're interested in further reading on this theme then I highly recommend this post from Royal Foibles.)

And yes, I do believe the affair is real. If a single one of these Windsor men is faithful then I will eat my damn shoe. Fin.

____________________