Yes but one would ask why the company would pay for the additional ticket for someone who isn't even married to said employee. How many members of the company brought their wives/husbands, let alone their girl/boyfriends to that?
A good point, Silver_bic. I have explored the potential conflicts of interest on this thred earlier; see my posts #136 and #138.
On another thread [about whether Pippa Middleton was 'cashing in' on her royal status] I disclosed the BP test that those close to the BRF were told to 'ask themselves' before accepting lavish treats: basically, if 'X' , girlfriend of Prince Z receives an invitation to an exclusive and expensive occasion funded by a Corporation etc, X has to ask herself 'Am I receiving this because I am now going out with Prince Z, or would I have been sent this anyway [e.g. because I am already a 'London 'girl-about-town?'
Applying this test to the point about
Princess Beatrice and Dave, I've come to the conclusion that if Dave had been dating anyone else e.g. a nice but 'unknown' daughter of a reasonably wealthy London lawyer, I am pretty sure that Dave would not have been able to ask her along. No, it's the Royal connection that does it, I am sure.
Do you know, I have come to the conclusion that our wonderfully wise Queen might really be the one who is behind the wish not to allow
Princess Beatrice and E to become full time 'working royals'. It may well be Charles' eventual wish, but it's the Queen who is on the throne, and although HM has made small cuts in her duties - e.g. she does not do ALL investitures herself now, she has a longer weekend at Windsor now etc etc - she still
'runs the royal show'. I suppose it is quite convenient in one way for people to be saying '
Beatrice and her sister aren't going to be full time working members of the BRF because Charles doesn't want them and is keen to restrict royal duties in the future to his immediate family etc etc', because such a view cleverly keeps the Queen out of the controversy, and as Charles seems
relatively unpopular at the moment anyway, one more bit of controversy attributed to him is not going to significant impact on people's views of him. The Queen herself is, after all, 'quite canny' about the Yorks: each year, we hear that at Christmas '
Beatrice and E and their father are 'at the Big House [Sandringham] on Christmas Day, whilst Sarah is only going to be at a house on the estate'. This view is then usually accompanied by an 'explanatory' statement that Prince Philip 'loathes Fergie'. So in other words, Prince Philip 'draws all the flak'. However, in my circle, the view is that the person who doesn't want Sarah there is actually the Queen [and her advisors], not so much because they 'hate or dislike' Sarah as is sometimes alleged, [actually, I am pretty sure that the queen does NOT hate Sarah, although I have of course no formal proof of this] but because they fear that Sarah might then let slip in her interviews and lectures etc intimate details about the Royal Family Christmas. IMHO opinion, the Queen is a pretty clever and experienced person - she has been reigning for nearly 60 years - and inevitably over the years, she will have picked up the odd 'trick' for keeping herself out of controversies. No, my view is that the reason
Beatrice is not doing too much in the way of royal duties is because that is how the queen wants it.
Just my views, and not meant to offend,
Alex
It is my understanding that she and her sister are no longer protected by the Royal Protection Squad. I guess her father pays the salaries for the witless wonders (Private Protection) that tag along now. Unless, that is, she's ditched them! 
