I recently reopened some festering old wounds here by suggesting writers who use AmE should prefer 'dived' instead of 'dove'.
My case was essentially, "Why NOT?". 'Dived' and 'dove' mean the same thing in AmE, it does not really matter which is chosen to readers who speak AmE. 'Dove' feels wrong to many readers who speak BrE, and the choice does matter to them (although, admittedly, it seems reasonable to expect most readers who speak BrE would recognise what 'dove' means).
I still think it is at best a discourtesy to non-American readers for American writers to prefer 'dove' over 'dived'. (Exceptions may exist for a character with a particularly regional style of speaking).
I just came across something that felt like a punch in the stomach. I was editing something for a writer who uses BrE. They need the past tense of 'to lean'. This situation is a complete reversal of that with 'dove'. Either 'leant' or 'leaned' mean the same thing to readers who speak 'BrE', but 'leant' feels wrong to many readers who speak AmE.
If I am to avoid being a complete and utter hypocrite I should recommend my writer (who uses BrE) to prefer 'leaned' - on the grounds it is more acceptable to Americans. My attitude should be: Down with all Limey Imperialist Pig-Dogs, too!
My new "rule" (and I use "rule" to automatically imply some exceptions do exist) is ALL writers should prefer regular forms that are valid internationally, in preference to irregular forms have a predominately regional usage. I stress I would only apply this rule to situations where there is absolutely no difference between the meanings of the different spellings for a word.