Will Princess Beatrice get engaged to her boyfriend of 6 years any time soon?

Here are some new photos of Princess Beatrice and her boyfriend Dave Clark last night in London. Some of you are always asking me to cover more stuff about Prince Andrew’s daughters, so here you go. I’m not completely “sold” on Beatrice and Eugenie being good for the royal family brand, but they’re blood princesses and they’re trying to do good, and both of them actually have work ethics, so that’s something (side-eye at Kate). I knew Beatrice had a boyfriend, but I didn’t realize that he was A) older, B) introduced to her by William and C) that they had been dating since 2006. Dave Clark is the same age as William – 30. Beatrice is 24 years old right now. And they’ve been together for six years, which means that everybody is assuming that they will eventually get married.

She has to dress conservatively whenever she attends public functions in her role as a royal. So it’s no surprise that Princess Beatrice wants to jazz up her look a little when she’s not fulfilling official duties. The 24-year-old sexed up her style in a mini leather skirt as she enjoyed a night at Nobu with her boyfriend Dave Clark on Thursday evening. The Princess kept her make-up relatively low-key while wearing her red-tinged hair down, showing off just how shiny and healthy looking it is.

Her older boyfriend, Dave who she has been dating since 2006, opted for a smart causal look consisting of jeans with a white shirt left open around the collar and a blazer. As she left she reached out for her boyfriend, who she was introduced to by her cousin and his school friend Prince William, as he chatted on the phone.

The couple looked as loved-up as ever, fuelling speculation that a Royal wedding may be on the cards in the not so far off future. It’s been reported that her parents Prince Andrew and the Duchess of York would be thrilled at the prospect of her tying the knot with the Virgin Galactic businessman.

‘Both Sarah and Andrew would be delighted to call Dave their son-in-law,’ a source told MailOnline. ‘They already think of him as one of the family and aren’t surprised in the least that he wants to ask for her hand.’

Beatrice and her younger sister Eugenie have recently been announced as Britain’s newest trade ambassadors and as part of their new role they visited Germany to help promote the UK abroad.

[From The Mail]

Well, anyone that Sarah approves of is worthy of a side-eye, because Sarah just has awful taste in everything. Sarah is one of the main reasons I worry about Bea and Eugenie – I worry that their mother really messed them up about men, body image, money, the royal family, everything. And Andrew is no prize either, although I think he loves his daughters very much and he’s the one pushing for them to be more involved in the royal family business.

Anyway, this Dave Clark guy is cute enough, and there doesn’t seem to be any notable drama around them. So why not? Let them get married! I would be into it.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

171 Responses to “Will Princess Beatrice get engaged to her boyfriend of 6 years any time soon?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. mln76 says:

    Is he rich?(Why am I asking that of course he is)
    I know that it was announced that she and her sister wouldn’t be getting a royal allowance and we know that they are going to be saddled with taking care of Fergie . Let’s hope he’s got deep pockets.

    • Talie says:

      He works for Branson’s Virgin company, but I do think he has family money. I’m pretty sure his father or mother is American as well. The girls kind of need to marry money if they want to keep up their lifestyle because they aren’t getting big inheritances like William and Harry.

      • Cazzie says:

        The Telegraph – aka the Torygraph – had a series of articles last year about Prince Charles’ plans for The Firm (that’s what the royal family call themselves) after Queen Elizabeth dies and he takes over the throne. Since the Torygraph publishes nonstop flattering articles about Charles and Camilla (they took the subway! he visited his tailor!!), I tend to believe them when they say they have the royal plan.

        In a word, Charles will be downsizing. Charles is planning to cut Prince Andrew off completely and to keep the public working royals to just himself and his children. Princess Anne will be grandfathered in because her children are private citizens making their own way in the world (so to speak).

        Prince Andrew knows this and disagrees with it, and is trying to “lock in” his daughters as working princesses before Queen Elizabeth dies and all the rules get changed.

        I imagine that Waity Katie’s reluctance to be a working royal is helping Andrew’s little project…

      • Alexandra Bananarama says:

        She doesn’t need to marry money. His family is well off and she is earning her own way living a comfortable lifestyle.

        It’s not like she laid around waiting for a man to marry her and take care of her without acquiring skills. She’s building a career and won’t be a burden on anyone.

        EDIT: I’m not directing the “laid around waiting for a man” comment to Kate. It’s a generalization and she kind of fits the bill, but that wasn’t the intention.

      • littlestar says:

        Cazzie, thanks for all the information – very interesting.

        But what I don’t understand is how does Charles thinks he can get away with only his children as the only working royals? Considering we all know how unwilling William and Kate are when it comes to “working”. I know Harry does a decent amount of work, but is Charles actually thinking William and Kate are going to want to do MORE work once the Queen has passed? I find it hard to believe they will. I’m kind of thinking we might be seeing an end to the royals in the next few decades (what tax payer is really going to want to support royals who refuse to make simple appearances for charity work?).

      • Cazzie says:

        Good point. It may well be that the Princesses B and E will end up with more hours logged as working royals than William and Kate have, and that will be weird.

        The article hinted that there was more than a bit of “Mummy always loved you best!” in Charles’ plans to cut Andrew and his daughters off the list of royals…we’ll have to see how the sibling rivalries work out.

        Also, the writer pointed out that Beatice and Eugenie are considered to be nice and hardworking and don’t really care about being on the royals list – that it’s really their Dad’s issue.

      • LAK says:

        Cassie – i can’t wait to see how this pans out too because there is something like 3000+ patronages for the entire family to work through each year. That includes The Gloucesters and The Kents.

        I wonder how he thinks only 6 people [including Harry's future wife] will carry them out. In theory, it can be done if each of the six takes up 500 of them, but given 2 of the 6 are incredibly workshy, with no indication that will go away and 2 of the 6 are already pensioners, he is going to find himself in a very sticky situation.

        Unless they decide to cut the patronages down as each patron retires or dies.

      • My2Pence says:

        @ LAK @ Cazzie

        I posted about this on the most recent Kate Middleton thread

        Number 3 on the thread list

  2. ladybert62 says:

    Her freaky eyes are just like her mothers and just as scary!

  3. littlestar says:

    It really annoys me how Beatrice and Eugenie always have their mouths opened. Close your damned mouth! Maybe they are mouth breathers? *shudder*

  4. hoya_chick says:

    Uh, she looks so surprised? Like seriously, what’s happening. He looks completely normal and I am trying to figure out what is going on with her. Ha. Something nice, I like her hair color.

  5. Feisty says:

    I love that he works for Virgin Galactic. Just a private space program that sounds like it’s from Star Trek, no big whoop.

  6. s says:

    she looks nowhere near as bad as she usually does. vast improvement IMO

  7. lylaooooo says:

    she always looks surprised ..hahaha…

  8. Meredith says:

    I don’t think the Royal Family is too keen on a royal wedding that would put Sarah Ferguson front and center. Imagine the interviews she’d give (and what she’d charge for them!) It’s probably their idea of a nightmare.

    • bluhare says:

      My guess is they would have a very low key wedding in St. George’s Chapel at Windsor if the Queen could get Andrew to agree to it. He’d probably want it at Westminster Abbey like William and Kate. And it might well be, but there would be nowhere near the publicity and media coverage as William and Kate.

      Don’t think they can get around having Sarah there though, although I imagine seating might be arranged so she’s away from the Queen.

  9. Erinn says:

    Eh. I got engaged this past November, we’ve been together for 8 years as of December. He’s 23, and I’ll be 23 in May. It’s not too far off from Beatrice, though her boyfriend is a good bit older than us(which I wouldn’t have guessed just glancing at him).

    I never understood the kind of people who get engaged after a very brief (months) period of dating. It’s kind of scary, really. And there shouldn’t really be any rush to get married… enjoy every stage of the relationship.

    • Nicolette says:

      Wow! Congrats to you and your guy! You’ve been with him since you were 15? That’s amazing. Hope your wedding and your married life turn out great. :)

    • PrettyTarheelFan says:

      Congratulations Erinn! That’s wonderful! I would disagree, slightly, on you perspective. I think it is somewhat tied to age, maturity, stability, and life experiences-being ready to be engaged and married AND finding the right person may coincide nicely after 2-6 years of dating, or you might meet someone, both be ready, and bam, 3 months later, ring on your finger (speaking from experience).

      • Apples says:

        We know people that decided they were getting married two weeks after meeting each other. They were both 30 yrs old at the time and are still in love and happily married over 40 years later. They are like two little love birds– STILL!

      • Erinn says:

        I do get what you’re saying. It clearly works for some people, and it’s awesome when it does.

        My fiances cousin, is on her second marriage, and she’s 25. I think she was dating the guy for about 3 months before she was engaged, and 8 months or so before getting married. I just don’t know how you can get to know someone that fast. They seem to work… but at the same time they’re pretty religious and I really don’t think they’d believe in divorcing even if they were miserable.

    • littlestar says:

      Congrats Erinn! I got engaged this past summer – my fiance and I had dated just over 5 years at that point. We are getting married this November. I agree with you 100% that long-term dating is important. It takes years to really get to know a person! A lot of my family didn’t understand why we’ve been dating so long, but then I look at my cousins who rush into relationships quickly, and they are all single and miserable, and know I did the right thing!

    • Jollytr says:

      Hubby and I were engaged within 6 months of our first date and were married 6 months after that. This June it will be 25 years :-) Our very close friends started dating one week before us and got married one year after us … and divorced two years after that. Go figure – everyone thought they had better odds than us. For hubby and I, we quickly knew the core values of the other person – the unchanging morals & principles – and decided that all of the other stuff would be part of the commitment to work through everything that popped up – the part of our vows with ‘teeth’. Fortunately there have never been any times of abuse or disrespect … but there have been disagreements and HUGE differences in personality, likes, dislikes etc. That personality stuff becomes evident only over time. The character remains constant. Had we been dating vs. married when I discovered all of his quirks I wouldn’t have married him (he drove me NUTS for a couple of years)… but since we had no acceptable choice but to work through them, we did just that. I can honestly say I would have missed out on the best thing in my life and the best man I’ve ever met if we hadn’t married. I don’t think we were lucky – we knew each others’ character and were committed to work it out “in good times and in bad”. I don’t mean everyone should do things the way we did … just that engagement timing is a quirky thing.

    • bluhare says:

      Erinn, I thought the same as you that I would not meet and marry quickly. But then I met Mr. Bluhare, and we were married five months after our first date. And that was 26 years ago. And I still can’t figure it out either.

      Congrats to you on your engagement.

    • aang says:

      Good luck Erin. I met my husband when I was 16 and we’ve been married for almost 20 years. It is great that we grew up together and helped one another become the people we are. Every memory of my adult life includes him and all that history makes the rough patches easier to get through.

    • Eden says:

      Congrats to you! I understand your thoughts on short engagements but it does work for some. I dated my hubby for almost 4 years before we got engaged and I’ve known him since I was 15. My parents knew each other for 6 weeks before they got married. Yep, first date in February, married first week of April. No, she wasn’t pregnant, and yes, they are still married and inseparable. Married 39 years this April. Crazy I know but it does sometimes turn out well :)

      *Edited for horrible spelling at this hour of the morning on a Sunday*

  10. Elly says:

    i´ve seen Beatrice in person, she is a pretty girl / young woman. Sadly in pictures she always looks like a deer in the headlights.

    • Tazina says:

      Perhaps the flashes make her open her eyes even more than usual. People are really shallow to keep mentioning them in such a nasty way. I think she’s done really well in keeping all that weight off she lost a few years ago. That shows she has determination and self-control. Good for her.

      Please don’t blame the sins of the mother on the daughters. They are nothing like her.

  11. The Original Mia says:

    I like both girls. They are working unlike media princess Kate. They may not be bank rolled like Duchess Waity, but they will by no means be struggling for cash.

    Sarah may be crazy & Andrew shifty as all hell, but they raised 2 well-mannered, respectful, hardworking, charitable young women.

  12. Nicolette says:

    I can just imagine what this one will wear on her wedding day. Remember that ridiculous hat she wore to Kate and Williams wedding? Those eyes will make for some interesting wedding photos.

  13. WendyNerd says:

    I wish people would stop giving Beatrice and Eugenie so much shit. It’s not their fault that their parents have a tendency to act like Hot Messes. Yes, Beatrice wore a giant diaphragm on her head, but that was two years ago. Get over it people. The two of them have excelled academically (They had the highest O and A Level scores of the royal family), actually have jobs, and do the royal and charity stuff without being paid to do it. I’ve never heard anything bad about them aside from some poor fashion choices. I seriously do not understand all the vitriol aimed at them.

    From everything I read, their biggest crimes seem to be not being as pretty as Kate. And that pisses me off. It’s insanely superficial, unfair and ridiculous.

    And people act like they’re ugly, too. Um, no they’re not. They’re not as preppy-pretty-traditional looking as Kate, but they’re in no way ugly. They’re quite pretty and seem like all around nice girls.


    Seriously, what is this, High School? I know this is a gossip site, but come on. When I read some of the comments directed at them, all I can think of is how girls like me got treated by the popular crowd. Bitching about people like Lindsay Lohan and CHarlie Sheen, sure. Those people are fame whores who treat others like shit, act like asses, do tons of drugs and fuck their lives up. You can’t say the same for Beatrice and Eugenie. They’re famous because of who their family is, they didn’t have a choice in the matter. We have no real, credible reports of them mistreating anyone or of any drug use or anything like that. I’ve heard more asshole reports of Will and Kate (‘Skyfall’ ring any bells?) than Beatrice and Eugenie.

    Seriously, I can’t believe how immature and vicious people can be.


    • My2Pence says:

      +1 for WendyNerd
      +1000 Team York Princesses

      Women are the ones who tear women down for their physical appearance the majority of the time. And for what? People tear down Beatrice and Eugenie because they don’t fit your Barbie princess model of hair extensions and plastic surgery (hello, Kate Middleton)? Both Yorks have full-time jobs, do charity work on their own, have more patronages then Kate Middleton, and are NOT paid to serve while Kate IS paid and DOESN’T serve. Criticize how people dress, act, live their lives, part their hair, how they work or don’t work, or tie their shoes. But seriously, why criticize people for their genetics? Beatrice is a dead ringer for Queen Victoria, just as Eugenie is the twin of their great grandmother.

    • Alexandra Bananarama says:

      So glad you posted this! I thought I was going to be the only ranting defender.

      She’s genuinely kind and I think all the proof of that is in her actions. She lives a modest lifestyle and pays all her own bills and I think that’s why that gorgeous man is with her.

    • Hmmm says:

      To add to that, neither of the York princesses looks vacuous or soulless unlike you-know-who.

    • j.eyre says:

      I am Team York as well – mostly because I really like the princesses and partially because I think saying “Team York” is one of the coolest things I will say all day.

      I think Beatrice is cute but that is hardly relevant.

      And speaking of irrelevant: I have always had a special place in my heart for Beatrice because she was born on 8/18/88 at 8:18. (I guess in the UK that would be 18/8/88). Anyway, that is a magnificent birth-date.

      • j.eyre says:

        … and the idiot fairy strikes j. again…

        her birth-date is 8/8/88 at 8:18 – not 8/18 which is why it is so magnificent. Not sure how I mixed that up if I think it is so cool.

      • CC says:

        They’re not gorgeous but not ugly either. Kate is the gorgeous kind but let’s face it, that, and constant social climbing is how she landed the “job”. Sure, the York girls, no matter what they earn, will always be taken care of in one way or another, and it will be unrelated to their grades (I’m sure a lot of the uni classmates will struggle to land a job despite far better grades and that will never be a problem for them). But they can’t choose who they were born to any more than we were able to. You might get a bit jealous (of course I am, come on) but I don’t hate them for it.

      • My2Pence says:

        @ CC. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, and my version of beauty isn’t based on being unhealthily thin to the point of skeletal or slathered in makeup. I suggest you look around and find some un-photoshopped pictures of Kate Middleton. Most photos you find, particularly on fan sites, are so altered as to be completely unrecognizable. She is not gorgeous or stunning, she is average and sometimes pretty when she (rarely) acts engaged in what she is doing. I personally think Beatrice is pretty and Eugenie is a natural beauty.

    • Sal says:

      What are their jobs? I’ve never heard of them having careers. Just asking.

    • Reece says:

      OMG Everything you just said! What is with the comments here? You got nothing else, so you pick on things they have no control over? Seriously if people are going to dog pile on them for nothing then TEAM YORK!

    • Mich says:

      Perfectly said!

      I’m always tempted to reply to some comments with the ‘are you in high school??’ line as kind of an insult. Then I remember that I have no idea who the commenters are and that they very well may be in high school.

    • The Original Mia says:

      Excellent post!

      Eugenie & Bea are great girls. Much better role models than she who shall not work for a living.

    • littlestar says:

      I agree. I really like that both Beatrice and Eugenie have actual jobs AND do charity work (unlike lazy Katie). However, I really wish they would close their mouths! I will never understand why some women automatically hang their mouths open when cameras are around (JLo being the worst offender of them all).

    • Angelic 20 says:

      Add another one to team York!

    • Lauren says:

      I agree on all points. Also the double standard for Kate not working vs. them not working is silly. Kate is lauded by the press for being fashion forward and shopping on her own. Any story about the york girls is always put forward on a negative spin. But people seem to forget that the york girls are very very close with William and Harry, especially Harry. I highly doubt the boys appreciate the unfair digs taking at their cousins since they are on the receiving end themselves.

      People also seem to hold it against them that they have princess titles. This was Andrew’s (mummy’s favorite) own doing and the Queen was happy to oblige him. I am also certain that she had no qualms about giving the titles so why should others have so much issue with it.

      The Middleton sisters have been also said to right little witches to the York sisters for years jealous of the close bond they share with Harry and William. Not their fault that Kate is said to have been unnecessarily rude to them on various occasions. If what the papers say are true, that Bea and Eugenie set Harry up recently with the half sister of what was William’s first choice in mate (not Kate but some blonde aristocrat lady) then this must be truly irking to Kate. But I think she may need a little dose of her own medicine since she has never been kind to either girls reportedly.

    • GoodCapon says:

      I would agree, slightly!

      I would give a pass on those who comment on their appearance. God knows I also bitch about how celebrities look like so I’m not going to get on my high horse for that.

      What I don’t like is how people assume that Waity is better simply because a) she’s prettier; b) she married a prince and c) she is popular in the media whereas the York princesses are not.

      Kate may be conventionally prettier but that’s pretty much it. I think Eugenie is far more attractive. Kate only married into the RF; Bea and Eugenie will be princesses forever. The press have built Kate up to be the Second Coming and they will just as gladly soon tear her down if it comes to it.

    • GoodCapon says:

      You know,now that I think about it, the York sisters get the same treatment that Chelsy Davy gets from the press.

      They’re always made out as the ‘inferior’ counterpart to Waity because they’re not prettier/slimmer/taller. But those are only Kate’s selling points: if you take away all the superficial qualities then you will find that Bea/Eug/Chelsy are soooo much better than Waity in all aspects.

  14. BrandNew says:

    Wow…the only compliment she got in the article was regarding her hair. Maybe she has a lovely personality

  15. oliveo says:

    I remember watching an ep of a reality show about Sarah Ferguson a year or two ago, and Princess Beatrice was on it. She was practically counseling her own mother, and it seemed like the mother-daughter relationship was sooo reversed. I guess that growing up with the opportunities afforded by royalty can sometimes off-set the shortcomings of your own wackadoodle parents.

  16. Amy says:

    She always looks like she’s about to get punched in the face–eyes wide open, startled expression, mouth hanging open.

  17. Alexandra Bananarama says:

    So, honest question. Why are these girls a target because the replies here just like making fun of a the princesses natural, physical features and crucify them for the sins of their parents? These girls are great and that man is handsome. I see a lot of names here that are all kate defenders so i’ll take the comments with a lo of salt.

    Attack her because she’s a terrible person. Or that her work ethic sucks. Attack her because she expects handouts for being a blood princess. I suppose since she’s a good person who earns her own money and keeps busy with real charity work you can only attack her physical features. Pat yourselves on the backs guys. well done.

    • bluhare says:

      I don’t trash people for their looks — the looks they were born with that is. Plastic surgery, etc. is fair game, so you won’t hear me say anything negative about how they look.

      I also don’t know much about them, other than they apparently can’t stand Kate.

      • Alexandra Bananarama says:

        bluhare. I never lumped you in with that group.

        You stick to facts and when stating opinions you explain why you think that way with facts.

        You don’t mindlessly comment on a persons natural features like it’s all that matters.

        It’s more towards the people who only praise Kate because she’s so “pretty” and say that Bea is so “ugly”. Never taking into account their personalities.

        Hate people because of their actions if you must. Just don’t bully and attack others because of their looks.

      • Tazina says:

        Nice girls who are never in trouble. Nasty posters who enjoy making cruel comments about a person’s appearance. Could you be any more superficial?

      • Alexandra Bananarama says:

        Tazina is that sarcasm? I’m really asking because your comment doesn’t make sense to me.

      • bluhare says:

        Alexandra: I didn’t think you were lumping me in. It was just my way of agreeing with you. People can’t help their genetics, but they can help their makeup, plastic surgeries and clothing. THAT, I’ll snark on all day!!

        PS And I like your posts too.

        Tazina: Are you saying I’m nasty and enjoy being cruel?

    • mimi says:

      Isn’t it a tad odd to be calling a woman in 2013 “a blood princess”.

      I mean, seriously?!

      • Lauren says:

        Well that’s what she is! She is a “blood princess” they still go on and on about blue bloods and everything else. They still go on about Kings and Queens in the 21st century and I don’t think I hear you saying that’s odd. Perhaps next people will be arguing how odd it is for Anne to have the title of Princess Royal which is of higher rank than all princesses in England. It’s their damn titles people. They have princes of the blood as well.

      • bluhare says:

        mimi: I agree. You’d think they’d be over that medieval way of thinking, but apparently not.

      • MisJes says:

        @Mimi and Bluhare, it is not simply a “medieval way of thinking”, but a matter of fact. As the daughters of Prince Andrew, they are princesses of the royal blood. It does irk me when people tsk tsk and eye roll over British tradition, it is what it is.

      • bluhare says:

        MisJes: I am British and do not sh-t all over British tradition; just the opposite. But I do think “blood princesses” although technically correct, is a bit medieval. The inference is that they are superior to the rest of us, instead of just being part of one genetic gene pool. And a pretty inbred one at that.

      • MisJes says:

        @Bluhare, I can see where you are coming from, but I simply just disagree that it is “medieval”, or inferring that their blood is superior – they ARE princesses, and of the blood of the Royal Family. Not married in. I am not sure how the distinction should be described. It is not intended to appear to say “Na na, you’re common”.

  18. Flora Kitty says:

    I don’t care about her looks. Although the pictures of her with her mouth open remind me of a fish with a hook in its mouth.

  19. Holden says:

    Her eyes are telling me she may be a runaway bride! Also, hat! hat! hat!

  20. KellyinSeattle says:

    Her teeth look better than usual.

  21. JL says:

    I think these girls lie low because of the shnanigans of their parents, namely their mother. After all the drama it would take an extra effort to be taken seriously!

    She’s a nice enough looking girl, well educated, gainfully employed and he seems like a decent young man, so I hope they are happy.

  22. Meerkat says:

    What work do they do? Last I read, they were to be “trade ambassadors” – just like Airmiles Andy.

    • The Original Mia says:

      Then read further. Both girls took a sabbatical to go to Germany at the German’s request. Beatrice has a job already in finance and Eugenie just got hired (art museum, I think).

      • RobN says:

        I have virtually no opinion on these two, at all, but let’s not kid ourselves that there was some sort of request by the German government that they visit. These two have no particular skill that would be of any use to a foreign govt. They maybe lovely girls, but let’s not overstate their importance (none) to international relations.

    • WendyNerd says:

      Eugenie works at an Art Gallery and Beatrice works at an investment firm, I believe. I think one of their jobs is actually an internship, but it’s still work.

    • LAK says:

      B = Investment Firm. She took her financing exams last year and is now gainfully employed.

      E = Art Gallery after a stint interning at various art houses including Christie’s

      That trip was 2 days out of their regular jobs, funded by their father. No tax payer money went into it. Not even security.

    • ZenB!tch says:

      I read in one of the British papers than even B had a tough time in this economy. It took her a year to find a job and she was worried E would get a job before her. I think she barely made it before E was hired. I think E had more practical experience because she always knew what she wanted to do whereas B was more like the average undecided college kid and did not intern in just one thing and had a tougher time.

  23. LAK says:

    After reading most of the comments, I was going to write a long diatribe about what has been posted BUT I think @wendynerd and @Mich and The Baroness have said what I had to say.

    I will add that clearly many of you don’t see that B’s features are a family trait past and present.

    Her eyes are very much a feature of her Hanoverian ancestry. George III, Queens Victoria and Alexandra, Andrew and Frederick Windsor all had/have big eyes.

    Her teeth are shared by Anne, Andrew, William and Zara.

    All in all she’s the spitting image of Victoria just as E is the spitting image of The Queen Mother.

    The rest of the comments are more a reflection of the commentors than B&E.

    They haven’t given us anything to bitch about so instead their physicality is where most people are going.

    And for the record, B doesn’t drink, never has, so those speculations are baseless.

    Fergie may like a drink but she’s not an alcoholic or drunkard as some posters have labelled her.

    B and Dave’s relationship is nothing like WK. They adore each other, no scandals to speak of and I hope they get married. In York Cathedral!!!

    Ps: if a quirk of fate makes B the monarch, as it did the current Queen, then we’ll get an American King consort!!!

  24. DemoCat827 says:

    Don’t hate on her eyes – I’d kill to have such big peepers!

  25. Glasshat says:

    I thought I had read that the Princesses Bea and Eugenie were being rude to Kate – eg. insisting she curtsey to them, even in private…just being real assholes to her, bc they are jealous.

    • My2Pence says:

      LAK, bluhare. Either of you have time to please educate Glasshat about the facts of the roller disco charity incident witnessed by reporters, the Queen determining royal protocol, Middleton as the bully, etc.? You folks know far more about it than I do, plus you have sources to back up what you share!

      • LAK says:

        And that’s just the start. Those particular incidents happened when B& E were teens.

        There are many other incidents that all boiled down to Kate feeling that as William’s GF, she was superior to the Yorks. ditto Pippa by some unfathomable extension.

        The curtseying thing has nothing to do with B&E, and everything to do with Anne and Alexandra’s refusal to curtsey to Camilla.

        The bad feeling between them has built up over the years, and looks permanent.

        I think, given her life goals, it was very short-sighted of Kate NOT to befriend these people. Before AND after marriage. She has to live with them for the rest of her life, assuming no divorce.

      • bluhare says:

        LAK: Totally off topic on this thread, but if the Middletons do get their peerage will Zara and Peter Phillips have to curtsey and bow to them as they do not have titles?

      • Another K says:

        Do Anne and Alexandra not like Camilla? I thought she was popular with the Windsors which always kind of irked me.

      • LAK says:

        @ Another K – They are hyper aware of their status. And refuse to curtsey to non blood Princes.

        That said, Camilla IS liked by most, if not all, of the family so it helps that she isn’t fussy about status and titles.

      • LAK says:

        Baroness, We only curtsey to Royal family only.

        I know they put that suggestion out there to beg for the titles but it would not surprise me at all if they get their wish during William’s reign.

      • Raven says:

        Yeah, let’s all just believe some garbage on Facebook, especially if it makes Kate look bad. I have nothing against the princesses B&E, but this thread was not about Kate. Oh, and then calling it education? No wonder this country is in trouble.

      • Another K says:

        But I’ve never understood these stories. It just makes no sense. Why would Kate, who was so incredibly careful not to put a foot wrong throughout her entire relationship with William, want to antagonize his cousins? Especially since, as you all say, the four cousins are so close. If she disliked the York girls for whatever reason, it seems to me that she would never say a word against them so as to not irritate William and cause trouble in their (William and Kate’s) relationship. Not to mention that the York girls and their daddy would probably tell Granny at the next family get-together and Kate would be toast. I just don’t see it. Simply because Kate strikes me as being too savvy to make a serious mistake like that.

      • LAK says:

        Raven – I am as skeptical as the next person about stuff posted to FB, but the two incidents were reported in the British newspapers because they happened in front of the press.

        Another K – i don’t think she is always careful. She told her work mates that ‘Charles was the problem’ after one of their break ups. She was either ejected from or refused entry to a royal enclosure when she tried to get in without an invitation [don't you know who i am syndrome]. ditto getting freebies like clothing and car [not free but given royal discount] much to RF irritation.

        She knows how to push William’s buttons so he will always protect her. I don’t think he looks beyond what she tells him. Speculation i know, but you have to look at how he reacts to speculate on what version of a story he was given eg She complained that paps harrassed her so she couldn’t work. Her boss, and co-workers say she was more concerned with the relationship and would take vacation time as and when HE required her to. He is adamant that the paps were after her. The bosses said they tried to give her ways to avoid the paps but she refused to take them. He said [in engagement interview] that she was prepared to work hard after the wedding or words to that effect. Has she done anything that can be put in the ‘work hard’ category?

      • GoodCapon says:

        LAK – whatever happened to that royal enclosure incident? I thought she eventually managed to get in?

      • LAK says:

        @goodcapon – thanks for the memory jog. She did get in for a little while, but she was definitely ejected. it wasn’t the royal enclosure But it’s equivalent at that race meet.

      • bluhare says:

        Raven if you read that garbage on Facebook, you will note at the bottom that the writer said both incidents had been widely reported in the media. As google had a zillion pages I was too lazy to scroll through to find something that would meet your specifications.

  26. bELLA says:

    He is a handsome guy!Smart one too…
    She is lucky to be royal… those eyes:(

  27. Another K says:

    I doubt that he would be with her if she weren’t connected to the royal family. She’s good for his career; impresses people. Doesn’t sound very nice, I know, but most probably true.

  28. The Original Mia says:

    @RobN, I didn’t kid myself. That was the information put out there.

    It is entirely possibly Andrew called in a favor, but tell me this…if not Bea & Eug, then who? Because Willy is too busy saving lives in Wales, Kate is too busy puking, shopping and incubating the royal heir and Harry was in Afghanistan. So, really, if not them, then who? And if they went on their father’s dime, who cares? The public didn’t pay for them.

  29. Jane says:

    What in the h*** is wrong with her eyes? I am totally creeped out by them.

  30. bluhare says:

    I can’t stand it any more. I am WAY TOO OLD, because the mere mention of Dave Clark had “Bits and Pieces” in my head all bloody day.

  31. Patrice says:

    Ooooh. Can you just imagine all the drama at this (hypothetical) wedding: Bea & Eugenie taking the reigns and giving old Waity a major side eye throughout the planning process as she’s being pushed to the sidelines and (gasp!) having all of the attention taken away from her-at least for a day *eye roll*; The Queen losing her s**t over Fergie actually being at a royal wedding at all, nevermind helping plan it and having input all while using the Royal Purse to do it; Harry & Fergie getting wated together at the reception and causing a scene (or, at least having the entire family and staff on edge throughout the whole process worrying that they will)!!

    God. Yes. PLEASE let this wedding happen :D

  32. DanaG says:

    Beatrice and Eugenie are nowhere near the amount of Royal Duties Kate has done and never will be. They don’t do Royal Duties at all and never will. Andrew wants them on the royal gravy train and it isn’t going to happen. As for their work ethic it took Bea two years to get a job she started in October then had Christmas holidays and then took two days off for the German trip. Eugenie is doing work experience it isn’t a paid job. Dave Clarke comes from a very wealthy family that is the big attraction for Fergie she has even admitted he has given her money so of course she wants him to marry Beatrice. If you actually followed Beatrice and Eugenie they have as many if not more holidays then Kate and William. In time Kate and Williams lives will be nothing but duties that is inevitable something people seem to forget. Bea and Eugenie can do what they want forever. Lessons were learnt from Diana and Kate is being allowed time to settle she has done a couple of overseas trips and engagements in the UK. It is all with the approval of the Queen because she knows one day they wont have anytime to themselves. It is impossible to compere Beatrice & Eugenie with William and Kate.

    • WendyNerd says:

      Work experience is still work, whether she gets paid or not. Work experience or “internships” as we call them in America, can be extremely hard and taxing, just as much as any paid job. I know from my own “work experience.”

    • LAK says:

      B took about 18mths interning at various financial houses and taking her financial exams that led to a permanent job.

      That shows that even with her connections, she didn’t just waltz into a job. You can’t work in investment if you fail your Finance exams.

      ditto Eugenie.

      As for the accusation about Christmas holidays, i don’t know where you are from, but the UK has a substantial Christmas break tradition. It is 3days-a week, many people take it. So beating B & E over the head for something the entire country does is ridiculous.

      The 2 days for Germany were counted as part of their annual leave so they will not have any extra holiday time off work. Should they embark on any more royal duties, assumption is they will do the same.

      In the long term, assuming Kate and William step up to the plate, they will clock more hours doing royal duties.

      For now, their generation is being asked to help out with charities, which the York sisters have done and are doing.

      They work with more charities than Kate, each and they are involved sponsors/Patrons.

      For now York is winning over Cambridge.

    • Jaded says:

      I don’t know where you get your insider information but I don’t think your source has his/her head on right. Both B & E have done tons of charity work, you can google it, but it hasn’t been as highly publicized as W & K. They both have careers, unlike Kate, and are not on the publicly funded dole for royals. Despite the shortcomings of their parents, they appear to be well-grounded young women who aren’t papped falling piss drunk out of clubs and changing boyfriends every 10 minutes. I’d say they have good careers ahead of themselves and are more self-made women than Kate will ever be.

  33. Robin says:

    Beatrice and Eugenie do NOT have jobs. They party and travel constantly. Beatrice graduated from university two years ago and mulled over her next move for a year and a half before deciding to “train” to be something in the financial planning industry. Eugenie just graduated and also doesn’t have a job. I can’t imagine where anyone gets the idea these girls actually work or support themselves. They drive extremely expensive cars, wearing designer gear–shoes and handbags and all of it is paid for by Prince Andrew. He also paid for their lux apartments in London. So–in what way are they different from the Middleton girls? As for the BS about their being “blood princesses” so what? When Charles is King they’ll be out. Andrew can scheme all he wants but he won’t be able to make the King given his daughters royal jobs.

    • LAK says:

      Given how much the press hates them, do you really think they would hesitate to post reports of their parties/travelling and being general wasters?

      I think everyone on this thread understands that they are trust fund babies. Beyond that, they are getting on with their lives. Just like the Philips kids, who are also trust fund babies despite appearances.

  34. Mario says:

    It’s really pathetic that people care so much about other people just because they’re rich, white, “royals”. Who cares, what have either of them ever done to make the world a better place?

    • bluhare says:

      They entertain us and sometimes that’s all it takes. I read things like this to get away from the ugly reality of the world sometimes.

    • lower-case deb says:

      something or someone to put on a pedestal and tear into, at will, most of the time.
      this is not like some celebrity. while we can gossip and moan about celebrities, they are not accountable to the public. at the end of the day, their money, their choice.

      royals however, especially the lazy ones, give a different kind of satisfaction.

      on the other hand, the good one, if they work properly, they unite the nation. they give a sense of unity, cohesion and identity. through the living, and the institution, there’s such a weight of history. more practically and less romantically, and as a head of state or icon, i think QEII did a damn good job of it, despite the imperfections of her personal life. Charles and William has biiiiig heels to fill.

      one anecdote about how only something with the longetivity/iconic/historicity of royal families (especially the british roya family): the queen’s head on stamps.

      as country promotions go (marketing, etc) even that small stamp is worth a lot. true story: during summers when we were at school, my friend worked in the local post office, while other countries stamps are quite beautiful, they are not memorable (because they change too often). but letters from the UK are immediately known. it was my friend’s dream to go to the UK because of it.

      and even now when he’s travelled the world, he still holds the stamp in good memory, because it connected him to the story of his youth (summertime, etc). odd, how a stamp with the head of a sovereign from many miles away can have such an impact on someone with no connection whatsoever to the UK.

  35. lower-case deb says:

    i heard that B & E had various internships, and i suppose they are in the private sector? how many offices have they worked for? and why haven’t there been any incriminating youtube videos or grainy photos of them yet? why have there not been people coming out selling juicy stuff of B & E coming in sh!t-faced to the office? we know that intra-intern wars can be interesting.

    is it because:
    - they don’t sell? i doubt it
    - the court buys all the videos and pictures before they make it to the press? i doubt it
    - they hunt down these snitch employees and silence them before they can sell their stories to the press? i really doubt it.
    - B & E are just not putting their foot wrong, yet? really? some people seem to not believe they can be good upstanding boring citizens.

  36. LurkeeLee says:

    These two look adorable, fun and dress cute. I would take them any day over Waity and Wills.

  37. truthful says:

    I don’t care what anyone says her eyes are huge and spooky and I do not find it attractive or “romantic”.

    their mouths are always open but I guess, its the huge choppers.

    despite who both of their parents are, they will be just fine, in ther own right, I’m sure.

  38. Amanda says:

    She’s been with the same guy for six years and they aren’t married? I’d never stay in a relationship that long without being married. I don’t understand why so many people do this.

  39. KLC says:

    When I first saw the header pic, I thought it was that Peaches somebody.