Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About The Reliable Source  |  On Twitter: Reliable Source  |  E-mail: Amy and Roxanne  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Chelsea Clinton: No Ring on Her Left Hand


Chelsea Clinton and then-childhood friend Marc Mezvinsky in 1996. (Stephen Jaffe/Reuters)

Chelsea Clinton made a rare public appearance last Thursday at the swearing in of Chief of Protocol Capricia Marshall, a dear friend and confidante of the first daughter during her teenage years in the White House. As Clinton moved around the State Department reception room, it was easy to see that her left hand was conspicuously bare: no engagement or wedding ring.

No, she didn't get married last month. So what was all that buzz about?

Starting in May, a blizzard of published reports -- largely spawned by Martha's Vineyard word of mouth -- suggested that Clinton was about to tie the knot with longtime boyfriend Marc Mezvinsky. Her parents' reps spent the summer issuing increasingly heated denials that there was no engagement, much less a wedding.

Yet the rumors didn't die. In fact, as the summer went on, the published reports got more detailed: Claims that the ceremony was probably scheduled for the last week of August; speculation that it would likely be at the Vineyard estate of Clinton family friends Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen; hints that it might be attended by the Obamas, who were vacationing on the island that week. Our own murkier intel -- including that Clinton had been looking at wedding invitations and that a prominent D.C. couple had been invited to August nuptials -- strongly suggested something could have been in the works. Even a few Clinton insiders were (on deep, deep background) betting on it.

Then -- as had been claimed all along -- August ended with no wedding announcement. What happened?

One family rep bitterly blames a media conspiracy fueled by Bill and Hillary hatred -- which doesn't really jibe with the giddy excitement of all the reports. (Who doesn't love a former first family wedding?) Given the curtain of privacy that has always surrounded Chelsea, the idea of a hush-hush engagement and wedding ceremony sounded plausible, especially because the vogue in VIP weddings is to deny, deny, deny until the deed is done -- all the better to keep paparazzi at bay.

In the end, it may have been a 63rd birthday party for the former president that kept the rumor mill turning: The party was hosted by Danson and Steenburgen, on the Vineyard, at the end of August.


By The Reliable Source  |  September 14, 2009; 1:04 AM ET
Categories:  Chelsea Clinton wedding  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Opera? Oh, Sure, Ted Lerner's Game
Next: Hey, Isn't That . . . ?

Comments

maybe she will never marry...
at least her fame got her a 100,000 plus job...
not marry, would that be so bad for her...

Posted by: DwightCollins | September 14, 2009 7:35 AM | Report abuse

I never believed the rumors. Why should they get married, when doing so will only cost them a lot more money due to the federal marriage-tax penalty?

Both have high-paying jobs, and that situation is the one in which the penalty is highest. And these penalties are pervasive in many federal codes.

For example, the surcharges on Medicare premiums, something I am sure Chelsea and her boyfriend are not focused on right now, are set up in such a way that many married people pay higher Medicare Part B premiums than they would if they just lived together without being married.

So, until there is a baby expected, I can't see why they would get married.

Posted by: jrsposter | September 14, 2009 7:48 AM | Report abuse

They would get married, jr, because thats one way people who love each other consumate their love. (yes, I gagged a little when I wrote that) Marriage is not strictly a financial decision, and while I realize your childish post is just a means of turning an unrelated posting into an opportunity to bloviate about your politics, there are actually romantic considerations that motivate people to do what they do. I understand that this is difficult for people lacking that type of human contact to understand, so your missing it comes as no surprise, but really there is this crazy thing called love. You should try it sometime. Maybe you wouldn't be such a cynical twit.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | September 14, 2009 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I'm confused.

Posted by: Bitter_Bill | September 14, 2009 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Actually wearing the ring would give the whole scheme up, and start a media feeding stampede. Wouldn't it?

The media needn't give up hope for a wedding. But they should give up the intrusions on the Clintons, that go along with their speculations.

Posted by: paultaylor1 | September 14, 2009 9:46 AM | Report abuse

One of the posts brought a smile to my face. They're holding off on marriage because of Medicare Part B? Did you bother reading your own post, jrs, before pressing send?

Given the Clintons' wealth, I have a funny suspicion Medicare won't be a part of Chelsea's life for a long time, if ever.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | September 14, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

I'm engaged and I don't wear a ring all the time.

Posted by: MzFitz | September 14, 2009 10:30 AM | Report abuse

I don't know who would want to marry her knowing they would have to put up with hillary when she wasn't in Europe somewhere telling them what to do.

Posted by: dgurnee | September 14, 2009 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Who cares, besides the ugly busybodies, whether this young lady gets marriage or not? I say put your noses on things that are more important to you, and let her live her private life as she should.

Posted by: hock1 | September 14, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Who Cares? I can't believe at a time when the unemployment rate is 9.7 % and the country is mired in recession you think this deserves even a line of space in the Post. Act like a serious newspaper and maybe people will start reading again.

Posted by: EconGuy | September 14, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Well you have certainly beaten the story to death, rehashing the same tired rhetoric over and over. Isn't there any news in Washington or is the environment at the Post so toxic in the Quinn era that everyone is afraid to leave the office and miss the intrigues that might ensue should someone kneel under the power desk?

I mean you cover gossip, how challenging can that be?

As to Chelsea, as they say, why buy the farm....?

Posted by: SoCali | September 14, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Who cares?

Although it will be interesting to find out if she's going to be a spouse who turns a blind eye to adultery, (like her mother)or the spouse who commits it. (like her father)

Posted by: citizenchick | September 14, 2009 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company