It's a seemingly intractable problem.
However, what will happen when Beatrice decides to marry her beau ?
Sarah would be the bride's mother, and there would be a public outcry if Fergie were to be ousted from her own daughter's wedding.
What follows is speculation on my part, but perhaps some of you 'Sarah' experts would like to consider this:
In my humble opinion, there would never be any problem about Sarah attending her own daughters' weddings, which of course she should very properly do as 'mother-of-the-bride'. And the main reason I can think of in support of my contention is two-fold:-
1. BP is expert at managing 'tricky' marital 'situations' in weddings. Of courte, TRF did not exist at the time of course for us to discuss this, but I can well remember how people were very concerned at the time of Diana's wedding as to whether matters would go smoothly because of the fact that Diana's parents were divorced. It all sounds a bit tame 30 years on, but believe me, there was very real concern about how two people [Earl Spencer and the Hon Mrs Shand Kydd] who had had one of the most acrimonious divorces of the 1960's would be able to be placed together in the same room; there was similar concern at the time of the wedding of Sarah and Andrew in view of the very acrimonious parting of her parents. [Both coupled had apparently not even spoken more than a dozen words to each other after their respective partings, even with the welfare of their children to discuss.....] Yet, in both cases, both weddings passed off superbly and without incident.
2. The second reason is this: I would not be surprised if the wedding was structured in such a way as to cause minimal problems, the problem being the 'prominence of Sarah' [as MOB] being in the prescence of Prince Phillip and the Queen. Please read on:
Over the years, if you ask me the ONE thing that I have noted about Royal Weddings over the course of the Queen's Reign, is how they have 'evolved' over the years, with some quite staggering changes but without people realising this: During the first 30 years of Queen's reign, the typical Royal Family Wedding took place in the morning in London, usually at Westminster Abbey, followed by a relatively small 'wedding breakfast' usually in BP and attended by a minority of guests; typically the Royal Family and close members of the bride's/bridegroom's family. Most of the guests at the religious ceremony - even if quite close friends of the bride/bridegroom tended not to be invited to the wedding breakfast. Everything was very formal. [The Duchess of Kent, a proud Yorkshire lass, had her wedding in the very grand York Minster in Yorkshire and of course Princess Michael had to marry abroad because of the fact that she was divorced]. With these two exceptions, everything continued to follow the usual pattern until Edward married Sophie.
I rate this wedding as the most 'important' in the reign of the Queen, because to me it marked an
enormous sea-change: the ceremony took place in Windsor, AND in the late afternoon, many more 'ordinary guests' attended the reception, and the Royal couple even deemed that the guests were NOT to wear hats. At the time, I thought that this was revolutionary. These changes were almost unheard of, although people did not seem to comment on it...
Now look at Catherine and William's bash: it was back to Westminster Abbey for the Church Service, but to me, the Receptions were amazing: first a buffet [not a formal sit-down wedding breakfast] and then an evening party - indeed, the overriding memory for me was that the wedding seemed as close as possible to the typical sort of wedding enjoyed by the couple's [non-royal] friends, albeit very wealthy friends: the emphasis was, for a lot of the time, on C+W 'celebrating' with their friends. And since nothing 'untoward' evidently happened, I should imagine that the Queen will have taken note that a slightly less formal approach works....
And I imagine that pattern of informality is going to mark Zara's wedding in a few weeks' time:
Right, finally to Beatrice. If she marries Dave Clarke, I reckon that it won't take place next year [would clash with Jublilee and indeed the Olympics]. That leaves 2013/2014. NB HM is going to be around 87/88 then and the Duke 93/94.
What we know about Dave is that he works for Richard Branson [Virgin] and is Anglo American:
On this basis, I could well see Richard Branson lending out his Necker Island to Dave and Beatrice for a wedding ceremony. Don't forget that B+D are a cosmopolitan couple. And don't forget that many American weddings take place away from a church, e.g. at the bride's home, although of course a religious ceremony could be held. The young couple's guests could be flown in by Branson from NY and London. [he owns an airline]. Andrew and Sarah would of course be there, and very probably William and Catherine, Harry, Zara and her husband, possibily Camilla [but not Charles - who will be said to be unavoidably committed elsewhere but in reality to minimise any 'embarrasment re Sarah'] and not the Queen or the Duke, who, it could be announced are 'not travelling because of their ages' etc.
And then, a few weeks after the wedding, the Queen could host an Evening Reception for the newlyweds at (say) St James's Palace, and after posing with the newlyweds and close members of the Royal Family for a photo, she and Philip could slip away 'to leave the dancing and merrymaking to the young people'. This would mean minimal exposure to Sarah [if she was still causing 'trouble'] but would enable 'good form' to be maintained.
Ok, all of the above is pure speculation, but do you see what I mean? It's really quite easy to maintain correct form and dignity and give Beatrice and the Yorks their due without causing any undue grief.
Only my thoughts of course, and not meant to offend!
Alex