Future York weddings

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by scooter

IMO, it is always a bad thing to marry the first person you date. She's been with him since she was a teenager.

You don't know Dave is the first person she dated.

[Osipi]

Sometimes people meet and fall in love with their life partners very early on and it endures and grows. I guess it depends on the people involved. If Beatrice and Dave have something that works for them and they're happy, they'll let the relationship progress as they want it to go. We really don't see Dave spotlighted too much when he is out and about with Beatrice and there's not been a lot the gossip rags can put a finger on so that tells me they've made it work between them for all this time and I do believe he is with her because he cares for her and not because of who she is.

[Biri]

Originally Posted by scooter

IMO, it is always a bad thing to marry the first person you date. She's been with him since she was a teenager.

Tell that to Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter...They were first love for each other, married aged 22 and 19 respectively and they have been already 66 years together...

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Biri

Tell that to Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter...They were first love for each other, married aged 22 and 19 respectively and they have been already 66 years together...

Oh I can beat that story! (Just to make a point). My girlfriend met her Norm in the 6th grade (11 years old I think) and that was it. They've been a couple ever since enduring so far over 50 years of a relationship.

Each relationship is unique to the two people in it. Thanks Biri for that blip about Jimmy and Rosalynn. I didn't know that.

[Iluvbertie]

We also know that Beatrice had at least one boyfriend before Dave - the guy with the criminal record.

[Biri]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

We also know that Beatrice had at least one boyfriend before Dave - the guy with the criminal record.

Really???What has he done?

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Biri

Really???What has he done?

Paolo Liuzzo - an American socialite - was convicted of assault and battery in 2004 for his part in a violent fight which left a teenage student dead. In 2006 he breached his probation by going on holiday with Beatrice and her family.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Biri

Really???What has he done?

As I wrote in this post, Beatrice's first boyfriend was Paolo Liuzzo. They split after a year of dating, after it emerged he had been charged with the manslaughter of a fellow student. A couple of years later, he was charged with cocaine possession.

[Meadow]

How about the Queen and Prince Phillip? The Queen was what 13 when she met him and that was pretty much it for her. They seem very happily married. Beatrice was 17 or 18 when she met Dave and he certainly isn't her first boyfriend. It can happen and does.

[AdmirerUS]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

As I wrote in this post, Beatrice's first boyfriend was Paolo Liuzzo. They split after a year of dating, after it emerged he had been charged with the manslaughter of a fellow student. A couple of years later, he was charged with cocaine possession.

Does anyone know if it went beyond charges. Was he tried, convicted, found not guilty, charges dropped, or etc.?

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

You don't know Dave is the first person she dated.

OK, let me rephrase. It is virtually always a mistake, in my opinion and experience, for a young person (as in under 25) to get married. Especially, IMO, if party A has pretty much only dated party B.

Is that better?

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by scooter

OK, let me rephrase. It is virtually always a mistake, in my opinion and experience, for a young person (as in under 25) to get married. Especially, IMO, if party A has pretty much only dated party B.

Is that better?

I married at 20 and no he wasn't my first serious relationship. He was 23. The marriage lasted 20 years. Each relationship is unique and age nor the number of others dated don't really matter IMO. When it comes to what works or doesn't work depends on how two people work it.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS

Does anyone know if it went beyond charges. Was he tried, convicted, found not guilty, charges dropped, or etc.?

I believe he was fined; there was some controversy about that at the time.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS

Does anyone know if it went beyond charges. Was he tried, convicted, found not guilty, charges dropped, or etc.?

As Mirabel said, he was just paid a fine.

Paolo Liuzzo was fined $5000 after leaving a Casino without paying his hotel bill, crashing a hired $80,000 Audi car into traffic lights, not returning his hire car on time, possessing cocaine and entering a casino in Brisbane after being excluded from it.

His lawyer addressed the charges in this way:
- Mr Liuzzo was not under the influence of drugs at the time of the crash and instead he was confused about driving on the left side of the road.
- Unpaid hotel bill was the result of his client providing an imprint of his American Express card to the hotel, which he later cancelled after his wallet was stolen.
- The small amount of cocaine was for personal use and not distribution.

In regards to the incident in which a fellow student was killing, he was originally charged with manslaughter. However, after a deal with prosecution, Liuzzo pleaded guilty on lesser charges of assault and battery. He was sentenced to 100 hours of community service and 3 years of probation. When he spent the holidays with Beatrice and her family in Verbier, he violated the terms of his probation (which allowed travel through Europe for business purposes only) and there was some trouble over it but his lawyer managed to successfully wriggle Liuzzo out of that one too.

[royal-blue]

As long as neither York wedding is paid for with taxpayers money I don't see a problem with them being as grand as they like.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by royal-blue

As long as neither York wedding is paid for with taxpayers money I don't see a problem with them being as grand as they like.

York weddings, in some way, will be paid for by taxpayers money. It's a certainty.

[Iluvbertie]

Unless they were to marry with no forewarning there will need to be security due to who will be attending the wedding e.g. some members of the BRF will probably attend (not convinced that The Queen, Philip and any of the Wales would - due to Sarah being there and in a prominent position as the mother of the brides) but some will and that will mean some public needing some level of security.

I would love for Beatrice to announce one day - 'I was married to xxxx last Saturday - no press allowed and no photos will be released - granny gave her consent on Friday'.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Unless they were to marry with no forewarning there will need to be security due to who will be attending the wedding e.g. some members of the BRF will probably attend (not convinced that The Queen, Philip and any of the Wales would - due to Sarah being there and in a prominent position as the mother of the brides) but some will and that will mean some public needing some level of security.

I would love for Beatrice to announce one day - 'I was married to xxxx last Saturday - no press allowed and no photos will be released - granny gave her consent on Friday'.

Do you really think the Queen is going to miss her grandaughters wedding...not likely.

Neither would she of missed Williams wedding if Diana had been living and there.

I'm certain William and Catherine would also attend the York's weddings.


LaRae

[vkrish]

Originally Posted by royal-blue

As long as neither York wedding is paid for with taxpayers money I don't see a problem with them being as grand as they like.

The public will "take it for granted" that the weddings are paid for by taxpayers money, whatever be the real source.

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Unless they were to marry with no forewarning there will need to be security due to who will be attending the wedding e.g. some members of the BRF will probably attend (not convinced that The Queen, Philip and any of the Wales would - due to Sarah being there and in a prominent position as the mother of the brides) but some will and that will mean some public needing some level of security.

Are you sure Iluvbertie? I dont think The Queen, DoE and PoW will shun the wedding just bcos Sarah will be there. No way. It is inevitable they have to cross paths with her at the wedding of her daughters. How much ever they dislike (if at all..You think they would let Andrew take her in in the Royal Lodge if they 'loathed' her?)..They will definitely attend the wedding, receive the greetings and curtsey from Sarah, and well, its done.

Of course its another thing that Sarah may put up all the theatrics during the pre-, post- and the actual wedding and related photo-ops, interviews, talk shows and all, but then we have to bear it.Afterall that one thing is her own occasion..

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Do you really think the Queen is going to miss her grandaughters wedding...not likely.

Neither would she of missed Williams wedding if Diana had been living and there.

I'm certain William and Catherine would also attend the York's weddings.


LaRae

I don't see Philip going as Sarah will be there and he has refused to allow her to attend any events or if she is there then he isn't such as Bea's 18th and Eugenie's 21st birthdays. The Queen paid for Bea's 18th at Windsor but then didn't even attend.

The Queen and Philip managed to attend the older four grandchildren's coming of age parties but not Bea's or Eugenie's because Sarah was there. They didn't attend either of their graduations either but went to William's.

The evidence is very clear - if Sarah is there then don't expect The Queen and Philip. Charles has also made his feelings towards Sarah clear.

I would hope they could put their feeling aside but I actually think the girls will do something like the Bransons and marry overseas simply because they know that their royal relatives won't accept the invitation.