Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Princess Beatrice Splits from Dave Clark

Monday, August 8, 2016

All quiet on the Cambridge front, but there has been a surprising development for another royal. For some years now we have been waiting for Princess Beatrice to announce that she is engaged to long-time boyfriend Dave Clark. Today, as she celebrates her 28th birthday, the princess is not sending out save-the-dates, rather she has confirmed her split from Clark after ten years of dating. 


Apparently, the two broke up a month ago, which is when Beatrice left the job he held in Manhattan. From the Telegraph:
Beatrice followed Mr Clark to America as he pursued his career with taxi app Ube, enrolling in a finance course in San Francisco, where Uber has its headquarters, before taking an investment banking job in Manhattan. Last week it was reported Beatrice left the company a month ago - around the time she and Dave parted ways. She has remained in New York and is working for friends at a consultancy.
There have been conflicting reports on whether this is a break or a split. I have read more than one source that claims that Beatrice and Dave had passed the point where any proposal would be forthcoming at all, which is odd. Every site I have read states that the break is due to Beatrice's desire to tie the knot and Clark's reluctancy to do so. Even sources claiming there was no ultimatum leave an obvious disagreement about the couple's future as the root cause. From People's report:
The friend denies there was an ultimatum from Beatrice, who turned 28 today, about settling down. The source suggests that the princess and Clark will be talking about whether they have a future together "once they have had time apart....Her family are both open minded and supportive. They both need space and lets see where it goes from here."
Royal reporter Richard Palmer apparently spoke to friends of the princess and said on Twitter:
It's not impossible that Beatrice and Dave, who have dated for 10 years, may get back together after time apart, according to one friend.
It's nice to never say never, but The Telegraph has a darker view of current affairs:
Sources said the princess and Mr Clark still spoke occasionally but said a reconciliation did not appear likely.
Time will obviously tell. The problem with equating this to William and Kate's 2007 split is that their split was earlier in their relationship. They had been rocky up to that point, but once they reconciled it was strong sailing. I think that Dave and Beatrice have been in that committed and confident groove for some years now, which would seem to indicate that there is a deeper problem in their relationship than just the jitters before fully committing your life to another person. That makes this split far more concerning for those who are hoping for a happily ever after.  


152 comments:

  1. I know little about Beatrice, but I feel for her on this ~ to have a breakup be so publicly discussed.

    She probably opened the conversation last month expecting a very different outcome: a bling-ring to celebrate her birthday, and the fun of bumping Pippa Middleton from the front pages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you feeling sorry for Beatrice. One of the down sides of fame. I feel sorry for all of the young royals who are looking for love. How do you know if someone is interested in YOU, or your fame/name/family/money?

      Delete
  2. I do not think this is anything like Wills and Kate's break up. I hate it when they compare anything relating yo the York girls to Kate. Kate has do much more class in her pinky finger then these two girls put together.
    And the comment from Kaye USA regarding bumping Pippa from the front page, why would Pippa care. There again people are pitying these girls against each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a mean comment about the York girls. Being a fan of Kate does it really need to degrade someonw else??? Starchild

      Delete
    2. Kind of funny how in the same comment you decry pitting girls against each other, and then also make a totally unnecessary comment about Kate having more class in her pinky finger than the Yorks!

      Also, after watching the interviews for the queen's birthday documentary, I'm not sure how anyone can question the York princesses' class. Beatrice and Eugenie came off as completely lovely, warm, and well-spoken women

      Delete
    3. For new readers to this blog, Jane had an interesting post in June:

      http://fromberkshiretobuckingham.blogspot.com/2016/06/beatrice-eugenie-and-kate-friends-or.html

      Delete
    4. Forgot to mention, I think this line from the June post is very poetically perceptive:

      "Yet, thanks to the hierarchy of the royal family, from the moment they were born, their royal star has been setting."

      Delete
    5. It's all in the editing. Ask any experienced film actor. (there are interviews-you don't actually have to ask) "My best/worst scenes ended up on the cutting room floor." etc.
      I agree, Starchild. It was a mean thing to say, the little finger remark; but this thread seems a little manipulative to me. Another dΓ©jΓ  vue..."Unnecessary?"

      Delete
    6. I second that, anonymous 6:43. Starchild

      Delete
    7. I have to agree with Starchild and  Anon 6:43. Sometimes it seems if anything positive or even remotely sympathetic is said here about any other female royal (with the possible exception of HM and even that isn't always true) it is seen as a "put down" of Kate or a misunderstanding of her life (which we obviously really and truly know little about.) It seems a little odd on a site where most of us are already positively inclined towards Kate and her activities that others have to fail in order for her to be seen as a complete success. Surely that's not the case!

      Delete
    8. I agree Anon 6.43. Both York girls have qualities that Kate lacks.

      Delete
    9. How would anyone know the qualities that the York girls and Kate have or lack without actually meeting and spending time with them? An accurate judgement can't be made from photographs, titbits of video and media feeding. All speculation otherwise and everyone is so quick to judge on speculation. Surely these three women bring their own individual qualities to the table.

      Delete
    10. I suppose every one of us has an impression of the 3 women and that's what we share with each other. I find nothing wrong with that. Watching these interviews and seeing Kate's, I dared to say the York girls are definitely better speakers. On which Kate can work, if she wants.

      Delete
    11. I assume my replies to anon 1:59, Lizzie, and starchild got lost. I don't see the point in trying to comment again, except- Anon 5:26-as I said earlier, it's all in the editing
      and producing. Perhaps an extra twenty odd years getting situated in the RF helps, too. As was pointed out when this subject was originally presented and debated ad nauseam, Kate's interview was hacked up into bits and pieces, while the Yorks' interview was apparently allowed to flow.


      I'm Not saying the York sisters didn't do a lovely job. I am saying you, or one
      of the other anons don't like comparisons. I agree. If the positions had been reversed, with Kate the "blood princess" with all the cachΓ© that affords one
      and if the York sisters had married in;if their interviews had been chopped into
      sound-bites;the setting and background of the filming less flattering- I would respond the same way.

      I sometimes think the photo editors deliberately select the
      most unattractive shots of Beatrice to publish. Although we can't see Bea's face in
      the above white-dress photo, it proves she is capable of exquisite grooming. I think it is
      possible the media, outside Queen-sanctioned products, transferred all the fun they had at Sarah's expense to her daughter, once Mum was less available as a target.

      You're right anon 2:56-we have all probably gained an impression of the three, based
      upon stories and images that we are force-fed by those who often have goals other than presenting as even-handed, accurate portrayal as possible. I think that is
      something to always keep in mind when discussing them. I think this caveat could also apply to royal PR photos and productions.
      To quote Mark Twain:" All I know. is what I read in the papers." I wonder what he would have said about internet news?
      This comment may also get lost. ha!

      Delete
    12. Anon 1

      I am afraid I disagree. I didn't only mean this video, I spoke in general. I do not know if Kate had been born in the royal family she would have been a better speaker. I think it comes from within, but absolutely can be learnt. I did not mean to mean, simply it is something Kate could work on.

      Delete
    13. I am curious anon 1, what do you consider to be a valid news source?

      Delete
    14. Confidence is key. Being a princess of the blood, whether speaking of one's grandmother the queen in a film sanctioned by the royal family or in another setting
      could be seen as a confidence-builder. I don't think Kate showed any signs of lack of confidence prior to her marriage. Those video clips of her from her teen years show a young woman who was confident and unafraid of speaking in public.
      I don't know if it was the media or some of the members of the RF that got to her, but something did. The royal family members have each had their share of dirty
      laundry airing, but nothing beats having Grannie the Queen in your corner. This
      apparently applies to Sophie as well.
      I have no idea what you meant by "it comes from within;" hopefully, you weren't saying Kate lacks character. Perhaps you were referring to inner confidence.

      Delete
    15. A fear of public speaking (as well as other fears) can develop at any age. It doesn't have to be anyone else's "fault" and may be completely unrelated to confidence in other areas of life. IF (note I said IF) this sort of fear--or others like eating in public-- becomes very personally distressing and/or interferes with daily life, the American Psychiatric Assoc calls it Social Anxiety Disorder. I am not saying Kate has that. But it can develop after adolescence.

      Delete
    16. I totally agree with Anon 1 here. I'm not sure how one can compare B&E's public speaking abilities with that of someone who married into the RF. Mike and Carole raised their children to be confident and happy, but they did NOT raise then to be public figures.

      And might I suggest that even a CEO accustomed to public speaking might find the world stage a bit daunting. Under the circumstances, Kate has done a marvelous job and she continues to improve.

      But there's also something to be said for sincerity and humility and that is something one cannot "work on". It's there, or it isn't. Kate HAS it in spades.

      Delete
    17. Do you think the Queen is not in Kate's corner as well?

      Delete
    18. I took Anon 1:14 to mean skill at speaking comes from within - some people are "a natural" and some can acquire the skill through training or practice

      Delete
    19. Good points, royalfan. When the York girls were five years old, they had parents who were constantly in public and in the news. They spent holidays in palaces. I think
      Kate was in Jordan climbing rocks and in the Berkshire countryside.

      Delete
    20. I think what you say is true,anon 6:43-in part. It is impossible to judge from the outside just how much preparation, either in background and nurturing or in coaching, lessons actually went into the appearance of a "natural born" speaker.

      Harry seems like a natural to me. He has both appeal and raw skill in performing, as well as the sincerity and humility that royalfan mentions that cannot be faked or
      taught.

      Delete
    21. Anon 1 I meant what Anon 6.43 meant of course.:-) I put the rest to rest.

      Delete
    22. Royals news is slow nowadays so I jump in.
      I think it is a bit of a stretch to suggest, royals are better speakers just because of their status, what about King George VI then?

      I agree the Middletons gave their kids a lot, maybe a bit more independence served them more right.

      Delete
    23. Kate is a royal speaker too and she has reportedly had coaching

      Delete
    24. anon 2:27- not what I said. I said "confidence was key" and that being a princess of the blood could bolster confidence. Obviously,George VI, as presented in The King's Speech," did not have confidence speaking-primarily because he had a speech impediment. I'm not aware of any speech impediment of the York sisters.

      Having the support of a loving family can also boost confidence, but not always.
      Also, I was referencing a particular situation and giving my opinion why comparing
      the York sister performance to Kate's in an interview about their grandmother the queen, whom they have spent untold hours with in close association over the years,might not be a fair forum.
      I think I made this clear. Others seemed to understand my meaning.

      Delete
    25. King George VI is an unusual example, to say the least. In childhood, he was faced with very unfortunate circumstances that caused him to develop a stutter and he was not raised to be in the "top job".

      Despite the antics and PR disasters inflicted on B&E by their parents, the sisters WERE loved and supported every step of the way. This, combined with being born royal and raised within the Firm, is an ideal scenario.

      I'd also like to point out that the manner in which B&E spoke about their GRANDMOTHER the Queen and the more "familiar" respect they were able to share is quite different from Kate's position as someone who married into the Firm. She may have the warmest relationship with the Queen behind closed doors, but she cannot speak about her in a such a familiar tone and manner. She may have been seated on a comfortable couch during the interview, but the camera didn't reveal the eggshells beneath her. :))

      Imagine for a moment what the granddaughter of a US President might say to honor him...and compare it with what an in-law might say. Different relationship... different circumstances.

      Delete
    26. I don't really agree that confidence and ease with public speaking are *necessarily* correlated (nor do I think being born royal is necessarily related but I understood Anon1s point) For example, I once had a younger "work friend" (age 33) who exuded confidence socially. She was VERY outgoing and charming and could talk to anyone anywhere about anything. But ask her to do a **formal** presentation (which she did all she could to avoid) and even with plenty of notice and help preparing it was always very bad.  She'd stutter, stammer,  hold onto the podium and her notes for dear life,  mix up words, blush, and once she turned green and fled the room mid-presentation. It was painful to watch and must have been excruciating for her. Otherwise, she projected confidence interpersonally (including with the higher-ups if in a small *unscripted* group) and certainly was competent in other areas of her job. So while Kate does appear to have problems with public speaking,  I don't know that we can judge the origin or scope of those problems based on pre-marriage stuff we know about. Whatever Kate's pre-marriage work experience actually was, clearly it didn't involve much, if any, public speaking nor am I aware of any recorded high-stakes "interviews" from when she was a teenager. But those times could be irrelevant anyway. Maybe Kate's difficulty has existed since adolescence but  in the case of my friend her speaking difficulty was restricted to formal occasions and speeches  (as Kate's may be) and according to her, became a problem in her 30's ONLY as she became more successful professionally. No one at work had "done anything" to her. My friend did seek behavioral therapy and seemed to get over her fear. (I've lost touch with her but saw her online giving a speech to a professional/charitable organization a few yrs ago and she looked and sounded  great!)

      Delete
    27. Lizzie

      Nice example. Let's see whether Kate puts enough energy and time to grow, certainly she has enough space.

      Unusual example or not, being a royal doesn't guarantee that you will be a good public speaker.
      Having issues at young age can cause many deflects in life, it is true, I agree. But one more reason why Kate should be perfect in oral skills, which she is not;-)

      Delete
    28. As with anything, practice is the key. In Kate's relatively short time in "official" speech making as a member of the BRF it's not surprising that she's not quite comfortable. She hasn't really had that many opportunities in the grand scheme of things. I had a friend who would rather die than speak in public. Then her husband was given a position of authority in another country (still English speaking) which required them both to speak fairly regularly. When they returned after three years I was astounded at the difference in her! I do public speaking fairly regularly and am very comfortable in front of a large group. I wasn't always so but the older I got the easier it became.

      My suggestions/advice for Kate would be: Have confidence in your knowledge of your subject. It is essential. I would also suggest that she spend some time memorizing her speeches. Not looking down and relying so heavily on your notes is a key to looking comfortable while you speak. She should construct her remarks more like a conversation than stilted statements of fact. If she approaches her speeches as if she is talking one on one with someone (at which we hear she is brilliant) she will have great success. Until she gets a better grip on her nerves I would also suggest she put her hair back or up. The constant need to move your hair away from your face distracts from your concentration on what you're saying. Putting her remarks in a binder with large type would help immensely instead of a folded piece of paper. She's got Rebecca Deacon (or equivalent) there to carry that for her.

      All that being said, Diana never did sound comfortable when she spoke. Even when she spoke about something with which she was quite familiar (eating disorders come to mind) she sounded stilted. She took all kinds of coaching but the only thing it did for her is that she spoke up so she could be heard and understood. I would imagine that for her, as well as Kate, the scrutiny of the media involved in what they said/say is also an enormous stress.

      As for Eugenie and Bea, I agree with the fact that they were speaking as granddaughters about their grandmother. A lifetime of experience to draw upon as opposed to Kate's relatively short relationship with a woman she grew up to be in awe of as the monarch of her country. Sophie has nearly 20 years of experience with HMTQ and she was in PR professionally.

      Delete
    29. With every speech Kate has given it is evident that she is improving and therefore we can assume that she is putting some time into it. BTW, the queen reportedly hates giving speeches and also gets very nervous. The queen has always read her speeches, albeit from her notes or a Teleprompter when she gives her Christmas broadcast. Nevertheless I think this thread has put too much emphasis on public speaking, when it comes to human characteristics. Great orators can certainly be lacking in other characteristics. Very few people are the complete package and then the complete package is in the eye of the beholder.

      Delete
    30. I agree with both Anon 12:39 and Robin's points. Also, not only does "practice makes perfect" but active avoidance of a feared activity actually increases not decreases anxiety about the activity. So a self-perpetuating, vicious cycle occurs. (Anxiety about speaking events until a particular speaking engagement can't be avoided,  practice sessions for the now-scheduled event MAY be avoided or minimized because of anxiety, less than stellar performance at the event due to anxiety and lack of practice for the specific event as well as lack of practice due to having few events,  awareness of that less than stellar performance leading to more efforts to avoid future events leading to more anxety...)


      One other suggestion I would have....Write short sentences for speeches!  Some of the sentences in written materials released by KP and signed by Kate are horribly "run-on" and hard to understand even in writing.  I don't know that Kate wrote those (in some cases I suspect not and since the writing style is similar across materials, maybe she just proofs.)  But short sentences are easier for the audience to understand PLUS they will provide Kate with multiple natural places to take a breath.

      Delete
    31. Robin, I think you offer some very sound advice. Personally, I'd rather have a root canal that do public speaking. And in Kate's case, her every word and expression goes around the world. I cannot begin to imagine the feeling! :(


      General observations here...


      Kate HAS improved, and she will continue to do so as time goes by; doesn't everyone in whatever task/job/profession? I recently watched a speech given by a Queen whose name I won't mention. The point is, that this is someone who has been on the royal stage for many more years than Kate and had relevant experience prior to her marriage. I watched and noted that she was looking down and reading quite a bit compared to how often she looked up and acknowledged the audience. But I did not think it was a bad speech or that she needed detention to get it right. :) What matters is the sincerity that comes across. A person can deliver a flawless speech and never look down at notes, but if the words are empty, is he/she a better public speaker? I guess it depends on the standards that are important to those listening.

      Delete
    32. Anon 12:39 etc-AGAIN-I don't think anyone here said being royal guarantees being a good public speaker. I said, in the particular circumstance under discussion-HMTQ birthday interviews- good friends and past king's examples aside, in THAT situation, being a BLOOD royal can be a confidence builder.

      I truly don't mind folks disagreeing with me-I only insist that one reads my comment carefully and objects to something I actually said, without taking it out of context
      as well.

      Delete
    33. Robin-if her supposed royal role model, HMTQ,only gives pre-written speeches-which do
      not require any knowledge other than ability to read- if she reads virtually every speech from a paper and very rarely looks up, let alone tries to gain rapport and eye-contact with the audience-as Catherine does- if HMTQ does that, what
      standards really has she set for Kate?

      Delete
    34. HM is a terrible example. However, she's The Queen so I guess she gets a pass. She's not a good speaker and one would think she would be after all these years. She didn't grow up in a time when she was expected to prove that she's just like everyone else but she was taught that her station in life is above everyone else. I think there is a great difference and the younger royals need to be more relatable. Then there is Prince Philip who should never be allowed to stray from his prepared remarks because he blunders so horribly when he does!

      Delete
    35. Anon 1 @3:29. For what it's worth, I understood the point you were making.

      Of course there are no guarantees and there will always be an exception to any given rule, but surely most of us can agree (and have) that there is a difference between being born into a royal family and raised with a public figure mindset, vs. taking on such a role later in life.

      Delete
    36. I agree with the points about HM's public speaking skills. While interesting though, there are lots of differences between when she became Queen and now. The yr she was crowned most people in the US (and I assume in the UK) didn't own TVs and even for those who did, TV coverage of speeches was quite different. Important speeches were heard on the radio where it's not obvious a speech is being read or they were read in the newspaper. These days with 24/7 TV and the internet, like it or not, and "fair" or not, the ability to speak "on camera" without visible anxiety IS more important...and not   only for royals but also for politicians and for anyone who might even remotely be considered to be in "public life." And that isn't the only change. For example, while we claim to be more open-minded and accepting than earlier generations, in many ways a person's physical appearance seems to count more than it might have earlier. But there are many advantages in current times too (for everyone, including British royals.) And as I said before, I am sure Kate can overcome her difficulty with effort. 


      But I don't really agree Kate's model for "public speaking" even informally was EVER the Queen anymore than I'd think the Queen was her model for how to dress or the type of handbag to carry. 

      Delete
    37. royalfan 4:32- I actually think the others knew very well what I was saying but chose to
      conveniently mis-understand for the sake of argument.
      But thanks. I was starting to wonder why I bothered to explain.

      Delete
    38. Good point, Robin... Very different expectations in the Queen's case vs. the younger generation. Once upon a time, respect towards the RF (especially the Queen) was the "default setting", unlike today when there can be an unfortunate shortage in this department.

      Delete
    39. Really? Kate hasn't modeled her official outfits on the queen? coat-dress, keep the coat on etc.Then what were all the dressing "matronly" trying to emulate the queen criticisms all about?

      Delete
    40. I can't answer that Anon 1 because I don't feel Kate looks too matronly so I've never understood that criticism. But I also think her choices in dresses and handbags look nothing like the Queen's.

      Delete
    41. Oh, c'mon anon 1, you really don't think Kate should sleep with that handbag on her arm?! ;-)

      Delete
    42. Read some of the old comment sections for the matronly/ copying the queen comments.I think the handbag is being emphasised now because that IS a queen trademark and to distract from the fact that for quite awhile, Kate was wearing the queen standby-dress/coat-coatdress. She was criticised many times for not removing the coat once inside, which is just what the queen does on official engagements not in one of her homes/palaces.

      HMTQ most definitely has been a Catherine role model, judging by their fashion diplomacy, conservative dress, walkabouts...Kate personalises her approach, but the
      inspiration is obvious. I'm sure William approves, if not encourages it.

      That handbag reminds me of the cutest moment in royal history for me-Mia holding
      the queen's bag with that indescribable expression on her face, while HM acts totally
      oblivious to the by-play.

      Delete

    43. Well, if leaving a coat on indoors is the only evidence of copying the Queen, maybe so (although even there their coat choices seem pretty dissimilar except that they are coats.) But I was thinking a bit more broadly. Certainly a few outfits have been modeled on Diana like the polka dot dress when George was born. But which of Kate's non-jewelry accessories and  clothes--size adjusted-- would be equally at home in the Queen's closet? Kate's many clutch purses? Wedge heels? Fascinator/percher hats? Dresses with exposed zippers? Graphic modern prints? Hems a few inches above the knee? Nude stiletto heels? Suede boots? Clothes with McQueen skulls? Alice bands?  Skinny jeans/pants as worn on tour in India and Canada? I just don't see much similarity.


      I agree Kate's current work wardrobe IS more conservative (but not overly matronly IMO--I guess we disagree there Anon 1) than what she wore as a single, mid-20s woman out clubbing. But shifting towards a more professional look now that she's approaching her mid-30s and HAS a professional role (vs any work behind the scenes she did at her parents' company) is something that many non-royal women do too as they advance in their work lives (and they aren't trying to imitate the Queen!) Women often do look at what higher-level women at a particular workplace wear and I am sure Kate is no different but I just don't see the "Queen modeling" you seem to, Anon 1.




      Delete
    44. Mia and that handbag - definitely cutest royal moment in recent history! I hope you saw my "winkie face" after I made the handbag comment. But, yes, Kate has been criticized for those things and it's one of those things where she can't please all the people all the time. I always wonder if she gets too warm while wearing her coat inside. I would melt!

      Delete
    45. I just pushed "preview" and my comment disappeared. I hope this isn't a repeat.

      Robin-I am hopelessly behind on internet communication devices, despite kind attempts to educate me; but I "heard" the teasing in your voice, even if I missed the winkie
      face.

      Delete
    46. Oh I agree Robin and Anon 1 that Kate has been criticized by some for dressing too matronly. I wasn't disputing that but only meant I've not seen her clothing choices that way. And IMO often the folks posting here who thought that haven't really explained what they thought Kate SHOULD wear except that it WASN'T what she WAS wearing. (Faith was an exception in one thread as I recall and did provide examples of her preferred choices.) But often details weren't given other than to say she was dressing "too old" or "too boring." And I've never seen things that way. She's not a 25 yr old dressing for club life anymore. 


      I've not always liked the buttoned-up-to-the-chin coats she has chosen though, particularly when they seem too wintery/heavy for the season (like at Somme although I liked the hat.) But the Queen's coat choices just don't convey that same buttoned-up winter-coat feel to me. And if I'm looking for a resemblence, it seems Kate's choices resemble some of Carole's choices more than they do the Queen's. But maybe that's just me.

      Delete
    47. I agree Lizzie. Kate's inspiration is certainly her mum. Eyeliners, skinny jeans, jewellery, hats etc.

      Delete
    48. "...official outfits." 16-8, 08:14 Context is everything-unless you would rather
      argue than communicate. Apparently, some would. Not aware of the queen's attending
      Any events-sports, for example,-where Kate wears skinny jeans. Horse racing is
      generally more formal dress and is a spectator sport. Kate takes part. I don't
      recall HM ever being active in team sports, even as a young princess. This is an area that
      shows Kate relates to current times, which are very fitness-oriented. I think the Queen takes her exercise privately, which was common in another time for ladies. Just getting around BP would be a fitness test.I believe she rides daily when at her
      country estates- Balmoral now and Sandringham and Windsor.Sophie said in her interview she rides horses with the queen often at Windsor.
      However, according to photos, she wears her tweed skirts with boots when riding.I think
      the queen could look attractive and appropriate in well-cut trousers when riding.
      So-yes, Kate wears jeans-appropriately.

      I notice my mention of wearing a coat inside, which sets the queen apart from others-was singled out to argue with since one really
      can't logically argue with the dress/coat image. The queen's basic uniform.There were times Kate even wore coats made to match her dress. One of my favorites-the peach maternity outfit. Pure Angela Kelly/queen creation-dress with matching coat.

      Delete
    49. Hmmm...not sure why having a different opinion = trying to argue. I thought this was a discussion blog.  


      But you said in this thread, Anon 1, "HMTQ most definitely has been a Catherine role model..[material omitted for brevity- see thread for full quote]... the inspiration is obvious. I'm sure William approves, if not encourages it."


      I simply don't agree with your opinion about Kate's clothes. And I have no idea about Will's thoughts about Kate's clothes except for the "banana dress." I doubt any of us do. Stating opinions as though they were definitive facts doesn't make them so. 


      If her clothes look like anyone's, **I think** Kate's clothes often look like Carole's (and another poster agreed, for what that's worth.)  For example, the dress and jacket worn to the recent airshow (with W&PG) looked more like Carole to me, not like the Queen. And I notice that Jane's article about "The Other Middleton Girl" notes the three of them often borrowed each other's clothes. So at least 5 yrs ago they had very similar tastes.  

      So far as Kate's skinny jeans/jeggings go,  it is unclear to me why Kate's playing "team sports" earlier in her life is relevant to whether it was "appropriate" (as you say, Anon 1) for her to wear those on an official tour abroad. Nor do I understand why Sophie's supposed comments about HMs riding attire is relevant. A quick image google will reveal the Queen has worn many outfits to ride since she began that sport at about age 4 (and it IS a sport even if not a team sport) She's been photographed wearing jodhpurs, for example. She's ridden "astride" (not sure if that's the term) as well as side-saddle. In any event, it seems your thesis is "times were different (and they were) so HM wore X and Kate wears Y which is different from what HM wore and so that proves Kate is copying HM" 

      Huh?


      So far as the coat reference, I believe you raised that first as evidence that Kate was copying the Queen. I merely responded with my opinion. Many women have worn coat dresses--including Diana as well as non-royals. So I still don't see how Kate is copying the Queen nor do I think Kate dresses "too matronly." But it seems obvious we aren't going to agree on these topics.



      Delete
  3. Is it really still called "dating" after ten years?
    What Kaye says has the ring (ha!) of truth to me.
    Maybe instead of being a W&C redeux, it mimics Pippa's breakup and then alliance with an old friend.
    The stories probably differ depending on whether the source is a Bea friend or a Dave friend.
    Very difficult time for all concerned.I thought maybe the RF wanted her back home, but
    apparently not, if she's still in NYC.
    Beatrice looks quite snappy in the white dress with red accessories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 1, regarding the white dress above ... a picture perfect example of less is more. Bea nailed it with that outfit.

      Delete
    2. This is by far the best outfit I have ever seen her in. Jane do you have an ID on date and location?? Has anyone seen he Harper Bazaar pics of Eugenie?? Another two of the "best" dresses I have seen her in!

      Delete
  4. After dating for 10 years (and steadily), and with another birthday approaching, marriage wouldn't be an unreasonable subject to discuss. At this point, I'd say it's time to set a date...or do some major weeding. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to agree with you here royalfan. After 10 years it's time to put up or shut up. Nobody's biological clock is running backwards so if she wants a family it's time to move on to someone who has the same goal in mind.

      Delete
    2. Agree, royalfan. 10 years is too long to wait for a marriage proposal, if thats what you want--and, in my opinion, Beatrice probably did.

      This brings up a point I have read in several sources; the Queen seems to have instituted a 5-year-dating rule before an engagement will be entertained after the disasters created by Charles, Anne and Andrew. And I rather think it is true, knowing that all future marriages took place well after the five-year point, and it would seem that the younger the partners are, the longer they are made to wait.

      No doubt, the fact that Charlottes birth, over a year ago, meant that Beatrice was pushed down to seventh place in the line of succession, and hence, meant that she no longer required the Queens permission to marry, made her question the lack of a proposal. Thats my take.

      JC

      Delete
    3. I agree, JC, and I believe Edward and Sophie's courtship was unprecedented, with her living at BP prior to being engaged and married.

      We can speculate and never learn the truth about what transpired between Dave and Bea, but I will say this ... People continue to grow and change, especially in their 20's. And, there is a difference between enjoying a smooth dating relationship and the circumstances one faces when a lifelong commitment is on the table.

      Delete
    4. Well, royalfan, I was just 21 when I married, altho my husband was a somewhat wiser 25. LOL I was gently cajoled by my father to rethink ( he had repeatedly told me thru my teens not to marry until I was 25--the year he dubbed females able to make such an important life choice. As for only son, the same age was raised to 30! so hard to qualify him as a misogynist.

      And WHY did my older, wiser hubby propose? I issued an ultimatum, which, somewhat to my surprise worked--a little too well. He insisted upon a short engagement, and that very evening convinced me to set a date just 4 months away. Scared the bejesus out of me, but I agreed.

      My father used the same the same argument that you put forth, royalfan, that at our age we could both change, we still had some growing up to do; I simply stated: So what? This way we get to grow up together. When you know, you know, and if you don't know, and if you don't know after 2-3 years, then you've got the wrong guy/girl and its time to move on. Cant imagine waiting 10 years, nor can I imagine having a granny who insists upon a minimum 5-year courtship. Some very effective brainwashing going on there, eh?

      JC

      Delete
    5. Many a happy couple goes ten years before really deciding on if they are in the one "relationship", especially if you start at 18! For many a couple crunch time occurs as one approaches 30:) So it can be easy to have a lovely relaxed comfortable relationship and then you get near 30 and the alarm bells start going off, eek if I want marriage and kids I really better think if this is the one:) ali

      Delete
    6. JC, I didn't mean to suggest that getting married when one is 20-something is a no-no. Maturity is the key and as you stated, when you know, you know.

      In Bea and Dave's case, and granted this is pure speculation, it is my *impression* that the relationship has been based on "fun dating", with some assumptions (on Bea's part) and avoidance/denial of reality (on Dave's) mixed in. Ten years is a long time! I agree, but that alone wouldn't be terrible if there is a game plan.

      Delete
    7. Royalfan, I didn't really think that you were writing twenty-somethings off, but I needed to be sure, and I wanted to give other readers on this site another POV. And, I would also like to state that some of the best, strongest marriages are made when both partners are young--really think there is something to the idea that you get to grow together. We did.

      You are absolutely correct when you state that twenty-somethings who marry need a certain level of maturity to pull it off, and this can come as a result of many things; in my case, it came as a result of my mothers death when I was a very sheltered 15. I spent a year in hell, screaming WHY, but when I emerged, I was a different girl; I could see without the rose-coloured glasses. It was easy to separate the wheat from the chaff, easy to sort the genuine from the fake.

      Looking back now, I am tempted to think that my mothers death was, in a very strange way, one of her greatest, certainly her last, gift to me, altho it sure didn't feel like that at the time.

      Why was I so inclined to LIKE my future husband? Simple--he made me laugh, he was not materialistic, and somehow, I knew he would be a great Dad.

      The upshot? Well, we are millionaires now--just luck; we aren't geniuses--my good luck continues to surprises me, as does the fact that my crazy husband continues to love me. I feel grateful for that.

      I guess I just don't want readers on this site to get the idea that a long, really long, relationship is ordinary or necessary. It isn't. Not even if, unlike myself, you haven't gone thru a life-changing experience.

      And bearing that in mind, what took William so long to propose? My conclusion is brainwashing, at the hands of both parents, his grandmother, and his great-mother. Horrible family, the stuff nightmares are made of, IMO.

      JC

      Delete
    8. JC, you have a fascinating story to tell. And I truly do appreciate your reference to a loss or tragedy being a gift *in the end*. Very different circumstances here, but I get it.

      I think maturity and commitment can trump many obstacles. It is also worth noting that some people are mature in their 20's, while others remain immature decades later. :)

      Regarding W&K and "the proposal", well, consider the scrutiny that Kate is under as a member of the RF... Consider what Diana signed onto when she was just a few WEEKS past her 20th birthday. I do not know for sure what went on behind the scenes in W&K's relationship, but I do believe a game plan was in place long before they were formally engaged. Given William's other (professional) commitments during his 20's, a longer courtship gave Kate a bit of freedom that she will never be able to duplicate in her lifetime. In my book, not such a terrible thing.

      Delete
    9. royalfan, that isn't what my book is about. Nothing personal about it. It has more to do about my general annoyance with the state of literature.

      JC

      Delete
    10. Understood, JC. I didn't mean to imply... Just meant that you have a worthy message to share.

      Delete
  5. Allie in Churchill, MBAugust 8, 2016 at 6:31 PM

    Beatrice and Dave have always seemed like such a happy, relaxed couple, so I was very surprised to read about their split. It must be incredibly odd and uncomfortable for both of them to have their split so publicly discussed, and to be without each other after a decade of love and friendship.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes the public speculation would be unpleasant. Ten years without some type of commitment is a long time. I would not even attempt to assume which of the two could not commit but they were together over a what is for many a key age range of growth, 18 to 28 for Beatrice. ali

    ReplyDelete
  7. Off comment, but relative to Catherine---where ever they went on holiday they are back, as William was seen landing the Air Ambulance in Sudbury today.
    Re Beatrice--breaking off a romance is hurtful, without seeing it on the front page of all the newspapers. I hope she will soon find happiness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if the trip was related to spending time with the Duke of Westminster, who
      just passed away shortly before their return. The one whose plane,cars they were said to be using, I believe. Do I have the wrong person? They were all apparently very close. Somehow the whole family vacation in Southern France thing didn't ring true to me. I couldn't imagine their going back to France to vacation. At least not for a long while.And taking the babies.
      Thanks for the information, Jean.

      Delete
    2. The Duke of Westminster was at his shooting estate in Lancashire, presumably preparing for the 12th.

      Delete
    3. Thank-you Jean. What a terrible thing to return home to.
      The 12th?

      Delete
    4. You think they didn't actually go on vacation to France anon 1?

      Delete
    5. Anon 1--the 12th of Aug. is the start of the grouse shooting season.

      Delete
    6. If the Duke of Westminster wasn't there, maybe the family flew from France to
      Switzerland? Get together with Pippa and the others? Security must be much tighter this time around.

      Delete
    7. The Glorious Twelfth:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/11/glorious-twelfth-cancelled-at-the-new-duke-of-westminsters-estat/

      Delete
    8. Will and Kate were in Switzerland?

      Delete
    9. Thank-you, Jean.

      Delete
    10. They obviously could have flown anywhere from France. But I'm not sure why,  Anon 1, you think they wouldn't vacation in France. If you are referring to the topless sunbathing photo incident from years ago,  that's really no reason to avoid an entire country. Plus they chose to go to France for their winter ski vacation last yr. And since they took the children this time, Kate might not have been planning to do much "romantic" couples sunbathing  anyway (which can be done at home in summer since they now live at AH and have flight restrictions)

      Delete
  8. Top pic is the BEST picture I have ever seen of Bea! Outfit is perfect and the purse adds a touch of whimsy that is adorable without being too much.

    I am convinced that if the York sisters dressed better they would not be such a target for critics. Sadly, people are mean and they attack the sisters because they think they can.

    Kate followed Will around, that's the truth. She worked less than the Yorks do. Wealthy parents enable adult kids to live like that. As Jane says, there is more to life than working and these three prove it!

    I have asked many times on here about Bea marrying her bf considering their very long relationship, VERY long. I hope she finds a man who is serious enough to commit. I'm sure she wants kids and a family soon (in a few years).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I LOVE that hat Bea is wearing in the top pic - does anyone know who it is by?

      Delete
    2. 6:41, the hat is a design by Laura Apsit Livens, according to the DM.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3130398/Watch-Kate-Eugenie-Beatrice-style-crown-Princesses-wow-crowds-Ladies-Day-Royal-Ascot.html

      Delete
    3. Thanks royalfan!

      Delete
  9. There is a lovely article about Eugenie in the September Harper Baazar. She looks amazing and it is full of lots of tidbits. Great clothes. Plus I wish my TV room looked like Eugenie's πŸ˜„πŸ˜‰

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes :-) The article looks interesting and the pictures beautiful. She looks like the princess she is.

      Delete
    2. Never mind, I found it. The photos of her are lovely. I found a couple of her comments odd. I think that's the first look inside "Southfork" that we've seen - at least for me.

      Delete
    3. http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a16956/princess-eugenie-of-york-interview/

      I agree, Diane. Lovely article, without a doubt. But I admit to being a bit uneasy about some of the details she shared (as it pertains to safety).

      Delete
    4. RobinfromCA - Southyork was the puntastic name given to the Yorks' marital home. A gift from the queen, it was a flashy new build and the contrast between that and the historic palaces and country homes the royals normally prefer led to comparisons with the Dallas home Southfork. Southyork was sold in recent years and left to rot. It wasn't a particularly pleasant house to look at but such as shame that a 30 year old house was allowed to fall apart.

      Delete
    5. Yes she was perhaps not wise to detail her schedule. Security is always a worry especially since she has no PPO.

      The photos have obviously been touched up but I still liked them. The B&W is gorgeous.

      That is not 'Southfork' RobinfromCa. They sold that place years ago. This is at Windsor Park ....the Lodge. I believe Andrew moved there and then Fergie came along of course. What was the name of that place? Sunninghill? Not sure.

      I did not know that she and Beatrice are patrons? That is certainly not widely covered.

      At any rate it seems to be a nice spread. Shame it is in the magazine at the time Kanye and Kim are on the cover (blech) πŸ˜„πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‹

      I have always preferred Eugenie over Beatrice as she seems more centered.

      Delete
    6. I agree the photo portraits are lovely. I agree the revealing of details of her
      life may not have been wise. However, I refuse to believe that Eugenie is the
      self-centered, shallow person that comes through in the interview.
      As far as I know,the few charitable events the sisters have attended have been
      galas for the jet-set. I have not heard of any hands-on, personal contact with
      recipients of their charitable efforts. That's not to say Eugenie is not involved, but mentioning that she of course had her charities to add to her busy schedule, but not elaborating in any way-it seems this would have been an excellent opportunity to
      turn the interview into something other than Eugenie Does London.
      I suspect she has more depth of character than that silly interview would have us
      believe.

      Delete
    7. Somehow I missed that the controversial modern build home had been sold. I so rarely pay attention to Andrew. I think is was called Sunninghill or something similar. Can't believe they let it fall into disrepair but after reading that it was purchased by off shore investors it's not unusual. Flattening is an improvement.

      The opulence of the room Eugenie was photographed in makes sense knowing it was the Queen Mother's former residence.

      I also prefer Eugenie over Beatrice. She seems a slight bit less "entitled" than her sister.

      Delete
    8. Agree with both anon 1 and Robin 😊

      I also notice warmth between Kate and Eugenie. I have never seen a picture of warmth with Beatrice. Maybe I missed those but it seems clear that they are not close. We have been down this thread before so I will not go down it again. As I recall at ens of that thread the eye of the needle broke πŸ˜„πŸ˜‚

      Delete
    9. Trust me, Diane, I share your dismay about the cover of the magazine. Pleeeease! And regarding Eugenie ... I see her as a "sweet soul" type, and not as keen on making us aware of her status.

      Delete
  10. I truly want to know what happened. Sounds like he got tired of her...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or she him? After 10 yrs put a ring on it or ciao baby!

      What would be sad and I doubt there is any truth to this but some say William is not a fan of Dave. Some say his dislike and perhaps sway with Granny makes it difficult. While she does not need permission to wed...she could lose some perks if she did marry him? I think of Margaret and how she was not allowed to marry the man she loved. That was a different time and I do not think the Palace operates like this anymore but who knows? Seems strange to me that William liked Dave and introduced them and then something happened to change it all. And no invite to the wedding? Even if you do not like a person if he has been dating your cousin (who he is said to be very close to) to not give an invite? Makes me think something major happened.

      But I am just speculating. What do I know? Nothing much hahaaha



      Delete
    2. "If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it!"

      Of course we really don't know if the rumors that William doesn't like Dave are true but I would guess that, if they are, there must have been a falling out somewhere along the line. Some line somewhere must have been crossed. William seems very much like his mother in that respect. Absolute loyalty is expected to remain in the inner circle or they would never know whom they could trust.

      Delete
    3. Have there ever been any hints about what that line Dave crossed might have been?

      Delete
    4. Agreed RobinfromCa!

      William is like Diana in this area. It must have been significant. Given how close William is said to be to the York cousins I cannot see him keeping Dave away just because he didn't like "jokes" πŸ˜‰

      Anon 4.44 there is nothing that has been reported per se. The only thing I have read for several years now is that William felt Dave was perhaps not as discreet as he should be? We know William is big on his circle being airtight. Or maybe he feels that Dave might be part of the reason Beatrice is rather "wandering aimlessly" without direction or commitment? We will never know. We can only speculate. Obviously Andrew and Sarah approve of Dave. However as we have discussed in other posts in the past the Yorks while loving parents have not exactly been wise in some choices and the feeling of entitlement seems to have bled over into the girls... methinks Beatrice in particular. This is JMHO. William to me has a sense of duty and giving back and maybe he thinks Dave leads Bea astray..vacay after vacay after vacay.. job hunting yadda yadda

      Robin! I have had so many ppl ask me about my Azuni earrings! How about you?

      Delete
    5. *Supposedly* William considers him to be indiscreet. Who knows if this is true, but I think it's safe to say that Dave never appeared to object to the limelight that came with dating Beatrice. MY impression.

      Delete
    6. I guess I wonder what is meant by "indiscreet" - Prince Harry has certainly been known to "overshare" and generate headlines. Is it a sense that he tried to gain favors through his royal connection? Leaked personal information about royals to the press? Generally acted boorish and obnoxious?

      Delete
    7. Diane, yes! I have had compliments on them as well! I haven't had a chance to wear the second Azuni pair I bought because they're not quite "beach wear" and I spent this past week at the coast. I'm home now so they'll get their debut soon!

      I am confused at the comments that Dave may not have been wealthy enough to support Beatrice. I thought he was known to be quite wealthy in his own right and the son of a very wealthy family. Maybe, as an American, he didn't want to be tied down to the rules and restrictions of the BRF. Ten years is a long time to take to come to that decision.

      Delete
    8. I don't disagree with you, 8:01. All good points. Perhaps it is acceptable for a "blood royal" to misbehave (however it is defined), but not a [potential] spouse.

      Delete
    9. As the old saying goes, "You can't choose your relatives but you can choose your friends." When a relative is indiscreet (Princess Margaret, Harry on occasion, Prince Andrew) what are you going to do? They're still your family. However, when your friends/boyfriends misbehave, that's a completely different situation. Nobody has to include them in anything they don't want to. It makes you wonder exactly what ended up in the press or in the grapevine of their circle that led to William's opinion.

      Delete
  11. To quote Rod Stewart, "the first cut is the deepest." For both Bea and Dave, this was their first adult relationship and will always have significance as they lead their lives whatever the future holds. I wish them comfort and joy as they transition to a new normal (I am sure with the help of family and friends). They may find they can't be without each other or they may find happiness elsewhere. I am grateful that my breakups never entered the public domain. My twenties were a tough decade for me- here's wishing them both well as they move forward the next few weeks....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a wonderful and compassionate comment. Thank you for saying this.

      Delete
  12. Blogger is blocking my attempts to reply, Kaye.Thanks for the link. It was interesting. I wonder if Prince Charles will cut back on the shoot at Birkhall this year, given the
    drop in the grouse population.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What Will & Kate and Bea & Dave share as compared couples is a long courtship and seeming enjoyment in each other's company but that's it.

    Will, as the second heir to the throne, never had to worry about providing for Kate and their family. Dave isn't so lucky and if his earnings aren't fit for a princess then he isn't going to sign up for provider if he will fail as a husband and father.

    Will, unlike Bea, needed a spouse who would give up her life to be a royal consort as well as tolerate the intense scrutiny and miserable harassment his mother endured. Kate showed through her years of loyalty and discretion she was willing to give that.

    In the end, both Will and Bea gave their prospects enough time to meet what standard was needed for a royal spouse. Kate succeeded by being what Will needed. Dave failed because he couldn't provide what Bea needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know, 3:03. I'm not sure it would have taken this long for the couple to consider the financial aspect of a permanent union and, as Robin pointed out, I believe Dave is well off. I doubt that Bea would have dated him for this long if it was a concern on her end. And if it was one on HIS end, well, I think the issue would have come up before the 10 year mark. I, too, wonder if it doesn't have more to do with the baggage that would come with marrying a royal. Beatrice appears to enjoy spending holidays with the RF and participating in other events. It appears that both Andrew and Sarah have encouraged this and perhaps Dave isn't too keen on playing the supportive spouse to a royal princess. When you marry a royal, I think you do need to check your ego at the door.

      Delete
    2. Since Charles seems to want a severe "trim down" of royal funding of peripheral family members, it seems that a marriage to Dave would have benefitted Beatrice significantly. I think her role "representing" the BRF will be severely diminished after her grandmother is gone. Current word from "friends" is that he is keen to move on. Makes me wonder if he checked out of the relationship awhile ago and now has someone else in mind so he finally made the break.

      Delete
    3. Hmm...William may have a point.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/14/princess-beatrice-furious-after-boyfriend-dave-clark-poses-half-naked-with-supermodel-karolina-kurkova_n_7331634.html

      Delete
    4. I think you may be on to something royalfan. Spouses of the more senior royals seem to have to give up their careers upon marriage, and while Bea may not be quite as high on the totem pole as she used to be, unlike the Phillips children she seems intent on holding onto the Princess role. Dave may not want to give up the interesting work he is involved with in exchange for greater restrictions on his privacy and freedom as a royal husband

      Delete
    5. Robin, me thinks he is what was posted. And the fact that he is dating Bea and was aware that a photo was being taken makes it even more foolish and disrespectful. It solidifies my impression that he has not objected to the attention resulting from a high profile relationship; but he does not appear to have what it takes to play the part of a supportive royal spouse.

      8:54, exactly my feeling. Even more so after seeing the link Robin posted in this thread.

      Delete
    6. It seems to me, in reality, the only parts of the royal role the Phillips don't
      share with the Yorks and Cambridges is intense public scrutiny and non-family-centered
      royal duties. Other wise, in the areas of housing, socialising, and influence I see
      little difference. Of course, their Mum probably does enough official duties to
      cover all three of them, if a parent's work counts for them.
      Then we'd have to count Charles's work in Wiliam and Catherine's total.

      Delete
    7. Except the Phillips children have actual careers

      Delete
    8. "Career" might be a bit of a euphemism.
      I was speaking of royal roles-enjoying the perks and trappings without bearing any of the responsibilities.

      Delete
    9. My point was that the Phillips children don't actually have all the perks and trappings and so do not have the same responsibilities or lack of privacy/freedom. Yes they enjoy some aspects of royal life since their mother is the Princess Royal and their grandmother is the queen. But they do not have titles which is no small thing - it is a bit of a stretch to suggest they are somehow living a lifestyle similar to W&K without doing as much Royal work as the futures King/queen. You can try and parse it out and focus on "Royal roles" but other than trying to force an unfair comparison it doesn't make much sense

      Delete
  14. I'm actually quite surprised by this split. I think if people wait forever for the right reasons to do something, it might never happen.

    Also, I felt Eugenie's article in Elle detailing her day was both interesting and of course a bad security move. Perhaps it can be easy to forget of the threat of things being albeit while being protected.

    Interesting news for both sisters recently.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm actually quite surprised by this split. I think if people wait forever for the right reasons to do something, it might never happen.

    Also, I felt Eugenie's article in Elle detailing her day was both interesting and of course a bad security move. Perhaps it can be easy to forget of the threat of things being albeit while being protected.

    Interesting news for both sisters recently.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Now on the tail end of this split the papers have Eugenie splashed on the front of Sunday paper saying she is about to be engaged and marry in 2017 and move into KP. Sarah is denying the story but seems like many on Twitter think it may be true. Seems a bit insensitive to have this 'leaked' (if it is true) just after the break up of Beatrice and Dave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Diane, not the best timing. But my thought was, why on earth does Sarah have to chime in and make it a bigger story? Although, she does like to remind us that she is still around and once married the best looking of the bunch. :))
      This is not like BP or KP issuing a formal statement...I assume the couple is capable of speaking up on their own behalf.

      Delete
    2. Moving into KP seems unlikely but it would be nice if at least one of those "long term" relationships would work out!

      Delete
    3. It is all strange. Apparently they were all together for a family weekend per the tabs. As to KP the article said that they would move into the Ivy Cottage which is next to Harry tucked in a corner from the aerial I saw online.

      Even if it is not true I think the papers should be more sensitive since Beatrice just ended her relationship. But I guess I keep hoping the journalists (coughs) might finallt get a heart ( someone point them to Oz please) *sigh* LOL

      Delete
    4. I don't think it is insensitive. I think he is probably ring shopping, nothing official because of Sarah's comments. But everyone probably knows it is coming. Which makes her sister stop and look at her own relationship and question it. That's what happens, life events, holidays, etc. push people to examine their current loves and question what the future holds. Especially if the relationship has become comfortable but still isn't progressing into something permanent.

      Delete
    5. 1:53, if it is true then, at the very least, the timing is awkward, no? NOT that Eugenie shouldn't be happy and enjoy her life/relationship, but the leak (true or not at this time) is unfortunate. If Eugenie will get engaged in the near future, I don't think she would rub her sister's nose in it the way the leak has...if that makes sense. My two cents, anyway.

      Delete
    6. Why do you think that she and her boyfriend are moving together. I see two different things here. Eugenie may be moving, for lots of reasons, maybe they need her old space for other things, or she wants a change, or she can afford a change:). Two who knows what is going on with her boyfriend. Not sure the move and her boyfriend status are at all related. Ali

      Delete
    7. Ali- I'm not sure the tabs know anything for sure. It was said Bea was still living in NYC with the break-up announcement. Now, we are to believe that she has been living with her sister in St James Palace for some time. The Eugenie interview, Bea breakup announcement, and Eugenie moving news were possibly publicised with strategic timing-to coincide with timely Cambridge news -the Canada tour, Catherine's Anna Freud message- as opposed to delayed York stories.Add those to supposed C&C "exclusives" The release of royal stories has the feel of well planned leaks to me..The whole "royal news" situation seems a bit orchestrated- more than usual. Since CH
      controls the overall release of all W-K-H and other non BP information, I would look there first for the source.

      Delete
    8. I don't think CH has as much control over what happens with the Cambridge/Harry announcements anymore ever since they moved their offices to KP. Things do get coordinated between the three major houses, I'm sure.

      As to the timing of the Eugenie rumors, who knows. Maybe they were timed that way to take the focus off of Bea's breakup in the press. If Eugenie and her boyfriend are talking about an engagement then it would make sense that it made Beatrice reevaluate her own relationship.

      Delete
    9. All correspondence goes through the CH offices. Incoming and outgoing. They may use KP or other letterheads and be dictated by KP staff, , but that CH office clears correspondence.
      KP PR employees work through and are paid through and I believe hired through CH.
      How else would they be paid? KP does not have independent funding. It goes through
      CH.

      Delete
    10. Do the Yorks have their own private secretaries, etc or are they entirely dependent on either CH or BP for their correspondence and PR needs?

      Delete
    11. I believe Andrew and Sarah use their own resources, but all official RF communication

      likely goes through BP or CH. Of course, there are unofficial channels.
      I am relying on memory of press releases at the time the current communication
      set up with Charles and CH was publicised as well as information I've read since in non-tabloid sources.
      I'm not sure who or what is non-tabloid these days, but BBC News and the London Evening Standard are two I read.There are some I've relied on in the past that have
      taken on some tabloid features and methods and I'm not sure about their content.

      Delete
    12. I think the Yorks "official" announcements go through BP but I don't think they have the same kind of staffing CH has. Read Dickie Arbiter's book. It's quite insightful about how the royal PR machine works.

      Delete
    13. Thanks for the suggestion Robin, I will check that book out.

      Delete
    14. When was the book written? Is his experience current?
      Was the book sanctioned by the RF? I seem to remember some issues.I usually take tell-alls from former employees-including nannies and butlers-with a pound of salt.

      I did say BP or CH for official. CH for WCH, C&C, BP for the queen, cousins, Edward,
      and Andrew. Probably Anne, too. As I remember, there was an effort to put it all under one hat, but
      Andrew, for one, disapproved.

      Delete
    15. Anon 1, personally, I would be more inclined to add salt to the sanctioned variety. ;)

      Delete
  17. Yay PG and PC are going in the tour to Canada! This is going to be fabulous! ❤❤❤❤πŸ€—πŸ€—πŸ€—πŸ€—πŸ€—

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it will! So looking forward to it. :)

      Delete
    2. What an unexpected, but lovely, surprise! ( Unexpected from my POV, given that William seems so keen to protect his children from...well, just about everything. I have read, however, that the decision to take the kids had to do with rising republican sentiment in Canada; if that be true, I have to wonder if this was Williams choice or if he needed convincing, hence, perhaps, the delay in letting the public know.

      As a Canadian, and a not-very-fervent royalist, if that is the reason for taking the kids, it won't work. Sure, the children are delightful, and all four will be made welcome, but it won't change minds. The main thing stopping any republican movement from gathering steam is the prospect of having to open the constitution up--a total can of worms, which few politicians would want to tackle.

      Nevertheless, I am very much looking forward to this tour.

      JC

      Delete
    3. Taking the kids to quell rising republic sentiment is, I believe, a media driven angle.The royal family I am sure realize that royal children cannot change sentiment in the long run and the Queen has lost many realms in her reign.I think the intention has always been to take the children, but the reluctance to be forth coming with the announcement is because of their ages. Canada will likely see a lot of the Cambridges in the coming years as I read that Heritage Canada wants to have them visit all areas of Canada.

      Delete
    4. agree, doubt the kids going was anything other than the parents wanting the kids with them.

      Delete
    5. I was happy that it was announced, but I am not shocked that the children will accompany them, to be honest. George traveled with them to Australia and New Zealand and this seems like the logical next step. And I do not see this as a PR move.

      Delete
    6. I agree royalfan!

      They also left them once this year and I am sure W&C said we will have to being the children. Leaving them for extended periods at this age is difficult. Plus they are older and if it is to be more nature themed and family style then bringing the children will be fun. George will probably be full of energy and wondrous expressions.

      I cannot imagine packing for that trip however. Wow! Our family vacays with 3 small ones was ridiculously crazy and we were not traveling such distances when they were 3 and 15 months. I wonder if they might not take more help as this seems quite a task for one Nanny.

      Very excited !

      Delete
    7. Fortunately for them they don't have to do their own packing! Can you imagine the amount of luggage going with them over there? Two adults who have to have day wear, casual wear, and evening wear added to two little ones who not only need their clothing but whatever will make them comfortable. I do hope Nanny Maria has some help with her!

      Delete
    8. W&K had those wonderful color-coded bags on their last trip. I would love to see what adorable luggage they might have for the G&C!

      Delete
    9. LOL! Ladies, me thinks their list of things to pack would not fit on the average "to-do" list. ;)

      Delete
  18. I suspect that George and Charlotte may go to Canada because they were invited and William and Catherine seem to be parents who love to have their children with them.
    I don't suppose their presence will change the mind of any republicans, but it may ease the little ones into some understanding of what the royal family does and means.
    There is no doubt that the visit is at the invitation of the Canadian government, not a request from the British Government.
    William's visit to Germany next week is at the request of the British Government, though doubtless invited by the Germans.
    The visit of William and Catherine to Luton next week is for mental health and Hospice visits---two of their greatest interests, but also to visit a company and give a prize on behalf of HM.
    Just seems to different ways their engagements are initiated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are always the voice of reason, Jean.

      Delete

The rules for commenting are simple: be polite. Please be respectful of the BRF/Middletons, even in criticism; please be respectful of your fellow readers, even in disagreement. Vulgarity will disqualify a comment.

Debate is welcome, direct and personal insults are not. Topics we tend to avoid here: "does Kate work enough?" and "Is Kate too skinny?" Everything is subject to approval.

I (Jane Barr) moderate all comments. If a comment is live, I approved it. If you find something offensive, or think my approval was an error, please email me at princesskateblog(at)gmail.com.

At times, an acceptable comment just goes missing. If you felt your comment should have been approved, but did not show up within five hours, again, pop an email to the above address.

Happy chatting!