Future York Weddings

[AuroraB]

David Clark has lived in the UK since 1988. His father, Michael Clark retired in 2005 as chief legal officer for Cadbury Schweppes. The family home in Hampstead, North London is/was worth about 5 million pounds. So Dave is probably not a poor boy.

 

[sliver_bic]

David Clark has lived in the UK since 1988. His father, Michael Clark retired in 2005 as chief legal officer for Cadbury Schweppes. The family home in Hampstead, North London is/was worth about 5 million pounds. So Dave is probably not a poor boy.

Nor is he very American. lol 1988? Unless he's be jumping back an forth the guy has got to be more a English than American at this point. I'm not taking a shot it's just that I thought he was someone who had moved to the UK sometime in the last decade. Any problems assumed because of the country of his birth aren't really an issue, he's grown up in the Kingdom, he knows it.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Interesting that the family moved to the UK the same year that Princess Beatrice was born. I'm guessing that he speaks with a British accent.

Nor is he very American. lol 1988? Unless he's be jumping back an forth the guy has got to be more a English than American at this point.

 

[sndral]

This article gives some information about Dave Clark and speculates about Beatrice's future role.
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Express Yourself :: Is Dashing Dave good enough for new-look Princess Beatrice?

 

[Meadow]

This story makes Dave out to be a real social climber. It will be interesting to see what Bea does next now that she won't be doing royal duties. I think Bea will remember that Dave was with her when she was bigger hopefully they both have a little more substance then what the report is saying.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Mr. Clark works for his living. He has no title. Ergo, he is middle-class and must be brought to heel by the tabloids.

This story makes Dave out to be a real social climber.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This story makes Dave out to be a real social climber. It will be interesting to see what Bea does next now that she won't be doing royal duties. I think Bea will remember that Dave was with her when she was bigger hopefully they both have a little more substance then what the report is saying.

As the reports of her not doing royal duties has been around for the last 6 months and the idea of a smaller royal family for a decade and Dave has remained with her it is clear that it is Bea he is interested in.

 

[rmay286]

Yes, the article seemed to be making some digs at Dave. Not sure if there's any truth to them; Beatrice and Dave always look like a united couple to me, but who knows?

One thing I noticed from the article (this question should probably go in Beatrice's current events thread) is that Beatrice apparently doesn't have any career options lined up yet. I hope she does soon, since it's now September and she finished her degree several months ago. I wouldn't want Beatrice to be labeled as another York freeloader.

 

[Bella]

Certain aspects of "the press" will find fault with anyone Pss B is involved with. If the goal is to judge and criticize, anyone can find anything about anyone to ridicule. They seem like a happy couple that has been together for quite some time. I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

 

[LauraS3514]

Certain aspects of "the press" will find fault with anyone Pss B is involved with. If the goal is to judge and criticize, anyone can find anything about anyone to ridicule. They seem like a happy couple that has been together for quite some time. I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

Y
One thing I noticed from the article (this question should probably go in Beatrice's current events thread) is that Beatrice apparently doesn't have any career options lined up yet. I hope she does soon, since it's now September and she finished her degree several months ago. I wouldn't want Beatrice to be labeled as another York freeloader.

However, "the press" will report that HRH only received any job she may have in the future as a result of who she is, not her qualifications. She will also be seen as "taking away" a job from someone "who really needs it" and Eugenie, James and Louise will deal with the same issue if they don't assume public duties. Back in the day, Viscount Linley was accused of trading on his "royal connections" when he started his now successful business. Somehow, Peter and Zara have escaped most of this, probably due to the fact that they are plain Mr.and Miss (or Mrs.) and not titled in any way - and the press have lauded The Princess Royal for refusing titles for her children (conveniently forgetting that would have entailed giving Mark Phillips a title too!). Grandchildren of a monarch not in immediate succession just can't win: they will be either royal free-loaders or cashing in on their connections - the press will allow no middle-ground.

Again, this should probably go elsewhere...

 

[Diarist]

Not treason at all. You're not swearing allegiance to the Monarch at the expense of the States. The one major thing we have is that it is illegal to create a title a title of nobility. You can't even accept one without permission if you're in government.

"Article 1 section nine of the US constitution:

The question of bowing and curtseying has always been a vexed one where citizens of the United States are concerned.

I can remember that there was press interest on both sides of the Atlantic when President Reagan and his wife Nancy made their State Visit - the 'will they / won't they' bow/curtsey' question was raised for some weeks. IIRC, Nancy executed a subtle bow of the head when meeting the Queen. President Reagan was able to sidestep the issue very neatly because, as he was over 6ft tall, and Her Majesty around 5ft 4in, he naturallyhad to incline his head when meeting her.

End of problem; if it ever really arose in the first place. American citizens traditionally show respect by addressing their Head of State as 'Mr President'; Subjects of Her Majesty generally - or used to - show respect by executing a bow or a curtsey. There is no difference in reality; as we say in England, it is just a case of your tongue doing the work [United States] or your neck/knee [UK].

Historically, there has never been a difficult in American Citizens curtseying. When Joseph P Kennedy [father of JFK] was United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom, some of his daughters were actually presented at Court, which required them to perform formal court curtseys. Which they did and without any complaint. [This is really a story for another thread, but Joseph Kennedy outraged many prominent London-based American Citizens by refusing their requests to allow their own wives and daughters to be presented. [It was one of the roles of an Ambassador's wife to present 'suitably qualified' ladies from her country at court; one of my great aunts had a great American friend, but there was nothing that could be done to secure the presentation of either this lady or her daughters; it was down to the Ambassador and if he was not willing for his wife to present somebody, then there was nothing that could be done].

Hope this is of interest vis-a-vis any 'difficulties' which might be seen in respect of Dave. For well over 100 years, there have been prominent American citizens who have married into the British aristocracy with no difficulty whatsover when these citizens have then become closely involved with royalty. I reckon that he will fit in easily into royal society. Whist it is seems to be the case that neither Beatrice or Eugenie will undertake royal duties, they will always remain members of the Royal family and in my humble opinion, the girls will still be important members of the Royal Family. Take the case of Peter Phillips; he has no title and has a career that is totally independent of the Royal family. Yet he still attends family occasions - visits to Windsor and Sandringham etc. And when he does so, the staff are instructed to call him 'Sir', as is the case with other 'working' 'titled' royals. And so, for this reason, I am fairly sure that Beatrice and Eugenie [and their eventual spouses] will still be treated in a similar way to their working/titled royal relatives.

Hope some of this is of interest

Alex

 

[Daphoenyx]

When Joseph P Kennedy [father of JFK] was United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom, some of his daughters were actually presented at Court, which required them to perform formal court curtseys. Which they did and without any complaint. [This is really a story for another thread, but Joseph Kennedy outraged many prominent London-based American Citizens by refusing their requests to allow their own wives and daughters to be presented. [It was one of the roles of an Ambassador's wife to present 'suitably qualified' ladies from her country at court; one of my great aunts had a great American friend, but there was nothing that could be done to secure the presentation of either this lady or her daughters; it was down to the Ambassador and if he was not willing for his wife to present somebody, then there was nothing that could be done].

Wow, this was very interesting, thanks Alex!!

 

[NGalitzine]

Not treason at all. You're not swearing allegiance to the Monarch at the expense of the States. The one major thing we have is that it is illegal to create a title a title of nobility. You can't even accept one without permission if you're in government.

"Article 1 section nine of the US constitution:

Rose Kennedy was created a Papal Countess which apparently was not a problem.

 

[sliver_bic]

Rose Kennedy was created a Papal Countess which apparently was not a problem.

My apologies, I should've written that those who hold a position in government can't accept one without permission.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

There is no prohibition of a US citizen accepting a foreign title. However, any such title will not be recognized in the United States. The Framers wished to ensure that no such system of heredity developed in the United States and specifically prohibited any state or the Federal government from granting any title of nobility.

If I were made Countess of Jellystone, I could use the title while in Jellystone, but it would not be recognized in the United States.

When I used to be a private banker for a large Swiss bank, I had as a client a gentleman who had been born an Italian Count. He had become an American citizen and upon his taking the Oath of Citizenship, his title was officially dissolved. I called him "count" because that was his preference and my courtesy.

 

[American Dane]

Even though this is completely off topic from a future wedding of Beatrice or Eugenie, there IS A PROHIBITION on accepting a foreign title if you are in a position of power within government (i.e. President, Vice President, Secretary of..., Governor, and so on).
Yes, you and I can accept a title and while it may not officially be recognised within the US, most within the country would call you by your title out of courtesy the same way you called the man "Count".

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Sorry, I must have mis-read your earlier post.

 

[American Dane]

Sorry, I must have mis-read your earlier post.

No worries, but you were replying to sliver_bic not me

 

[sobriquet]

I wasn't sure where to put this, but I was just wondering if Beatrice or Eugenie (or any other BRF member) would be allowed to marry someone in politics. Even someone who isn't a politician, like an aide or a speechwriter.

I was curious because aren't they supposed to be politically neutral?

 

[PrincePatrick]

I wasn't sure where to put this, but I was just wondering if Beatrice or Eugenie (or any other BRF member) would be allowed to marry someone in politics. Even someone who isn't a politician, like an aide or a speechwriter.

I was curious because aren't they supposed to be politically neutral?

In this day and age I'd be surprised if anyone were kept from marrying the person of their choice... Maybe if Bea wanted to marry a Neo-Nazi or something I could see people stepping in, but as long as you're not 3 steps from the throne, I really don't see people caring that much anymore, as long as they're a nice guy/gal.

 

[sobriquet]

Maybe "allowed" is the wrong word. I guess if anything it could be frowned upon.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Maybe "allowed" is the wrong word. I guess if anything it could be frowned upon.

I doubt it would be frowned upon, the royals are supposed to be neutral yes but i'm pretty sure they all have their own personal opinions about the political parties. If anything, it would be the public who would cause a fuss over the marriage as it would be another sign that the girls weren't doing what they're supposed to.

 

[Diarist]

I can remember that certain eyebrows were raised when Viscount Linley was seen voting a few years ago. After a lot of humming and haa-ing from some quarters, the general consensus was that not only was he of course legally entitled to do so, but was from any other standpoint as well.

Alex

 

[Iluvbertie]

I remember reading a story back in the 1960s/1970s about Princess Anne being eligible to note but the article noted that she probably would never do so. It was about the time that the UK lowered the voting age to 18 and they were commenting on the fact that she was now the most senior member of the royal family who could vote (Charles couldn't as a peer of the realm).

I think if either Beatrice or Eugenie fell in love with a politician and the public objected and said that the girls weren't doing the right thing would be just further evidence of how unfair the British public are - you can't command your heart to fall in love with xxxx and not yyyy.

 

[NGalitzine]

It would no doubt cause some comment, but if you think about it in the days when a Princess might marry a Peer of the Realm those Peers were members of the House of Lords and could take part in votes in Parliament if they chose to. The only difference was they did not have to run for a seat in Parliament.

Princess Louise married the Earl of Fife (later created a duke) and he had been a member of Parliament before succeeding his father in the earldom. Princess Victoria was reportedly quite attached to Lord Rosebery, although it did not lead to marriage.

 

[sliver_bic]

Maybe "allowed" is the wrong word. I guess if anything it could be frowned upon.

When you're royalty, having your relationship "frowned upon" is a lot like being told it's not allowed, the Queen's uncle and sister learned that the hard way. One gave up his place in the line the other gave up the man she loved. In today's world it might not be such an issue but it could still cause problems if potential wife/husband is seen the way Wallis Simpson was. Even if they're seen to be a of great character, the family might not agree because of their background.

 

[Lumutqueen]

When you're royalty, having your relationship "frowned upon" is a lot like being told it's not allowed, the Queen's uncle and sister learned that the hard way. One gave up his place in the line the other gave up the man she loved. In today's world it might not be such an issue but it could still cause problems if potential wife/husband is seen the way Wallis Simpson was. Even if they're seen to be a of great character, the family might not agree because of their background.

Wallis Simpson married the King, anyone who marries Beatrice and Eugenie is never likely to see the throne. This was also in 1930s, over 80 years ago. It is very likely that Beatrice and Eugenie will not actual do royal duties and only be seen on the truly family occasions, or so Charles' plans seem to suggest.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It would no doubt cause some comment, but if you think about it in the days when a Princess might marry a Peer of the Realm those Peers were members of the House of Lords and could take part in votes in Parliament if they chose to. The only difference was they did not have to run for a seat in Parliament.

Princess Louise married the Earl of Fife (later created a duke) and he had been a member of Parliament before succeeding his father in the earldom. Princess Victoria was reportedly quite attached to Lord Rosebery, although it did not lead to marriage.

You have of course also highlighted the double standard - as the men, could until 1999, actually take a seat in parliament - and until well into the 19th C were active members of parliament (Edward VII was very upset when advised not to vote on a housing bill as he knew that it wouldn't pass without his vote but would with it - not that his vote would be the difference but that his official support would be - this was in the 1870s - he was right and doing something about the appalling housing conditions of the working class had to wait another generation or so).

 

[sliver_bic]

Wallis Simpson married the King, anyone who marries Beatrice and Eugenie is never likely to see the throne. This was also in 1930s, over 80 years ago. It is very likely that Beatrice and Eugenie will not actual do royal duties and only be seen on the truly family occasions, or so Charles' plans seem to suggest.

They're still part of that family and would still be held to a standards that might make certain men off limits. The chances of one of them falling for such a man is slim, they're dating pool is rather exclusive, but there's bad eggs even in the "nice" families.

 

[Iluvbertie]

They're still part of that family and would still be held to a standards that might make certain men off limits. The chances of one of them falling for such a man is slim, they're dating pool is rather exclusive, but there's bad eggs even in the "nice" families.

There dating pool is rather exclusive - the scions of wealthy, titled families largely - the families that actually do get involved with political matters.

No problem really as princesses have married peers before and they had seats in the House of Lords so it wouldn't matter if they did marry an MP and were even seen voting - they have that right after all - as all commoners do and Beatrice and Eugenie are commoners not peers.