[gms7777]

I’m currently wedding planning and regularly visit a wedding planning forum. I was left flabbergasted the other day when someone posted if it would be ok to ask guests to not post pictures of the couple on social media. They’re ok with guests posting pictures of themselves or of the venue and decor, they just don’t really want pictures of the bride and groom.

The response ranged from “you can ask but you can’t prevent people from posting” to “it’d be rude and inconsiderate to even ask”. One person even argued that it would be rude and other people would judge them if they went to a wedding and didn’t have a picture of the bride and groom.

I don’t think I ever felt the generational divide as acutely as in reading those responses, and I’m not even that old, I had social media when I was in high school.

[physicsguy]

This gets asked at basically every wedding I've been to in the UK i.e. there is a professional photographer, please don't take photos of the bride and groom in the church and it still gets ignored. At my own wedding, one of the guests (not even someone invited to the whole day, just a neighbour of my wife's parents who knew her growing up) is leaning out of the aisle with their phone taking photos ruining a load of photos.

It's incredibly frustrating. I also think it's really strange that when something happens in public, the default isn't to look to see if the person isn't OK anymore, it's to pull out a camera phone and start filming.

[gms7777]

The thing I've seen at a few weddings recently is that right after the processional, they have a period of like 30 seconds where they allow everyone to take a picture of the couple, then phones away for the rest of the ceremony. I'm sure it's not 100% effective, but it does seem to scratch the itch for most people. I think also by calling such explicit attention to the rule at the beginning of the ceremony, it makes it seem ever more rude to violate it later.

[sarchertech]

I noticed you said “the whole day” I went a wedding once where the bride was from the UK. They said it was a “British style” wedding. It was almost exactly like an American wedding except that everything lasted twice as long (cocktail hour was 2 hours etc…).

I could never find out if this was a common thing in the UK or not.

[TRiG_Ireland]

I believe that it's uncommon in the USA to invite people to part of a wedding, but it's common in the UK. "Not someone invited to the whole day" implies a second-tier guest, who's been invited to the ceremony and the after-party, but not to the meal.

The ceremony is technically open to the public in any case, usually.

[alexriddle]

Usually it would be either the full day (ceremony, meal and ‘evening party’ which we commonly call the reception) or just the reception. No one is being asked to skip the middle part of the event.

Less than 20% of weddings are religious (and a smaller subset of this will be in churches), and I don’t really hear of anyone just turning up at the ceremony of someone they don’t know.

[physicsguy]

> Less than 20% of weddings are religious (and a smaller subset of this will be in churches)

That's a likely a fair underestimate because many religious marriages aren't legally valid because of various requirements that the Church of England doesn't have to follow as the state church. In Catholic churches for e.g. they need to register the building, then either appoint the priest as an authorised person or get a registrar to come to every ceremony as in a civil wedding. They do usually do this but most non-Christian religions don't bother with this at all and so the couple end up just having a civil ceremony first and the religious one after.

[Kye]

I've seen posts from wedding photographers who would pass around cheap/older cameras to guests. This lets people scratch the shutterbug itch while avoiding all the problems that come with a room full of people trying to get a shot.

[GJim]

> please don't take photos of the bride and groom in the church and it still gets ignored

Counterpoint

I've never known such requests be ignored here in Blighty. Ditto requests not to upload photos to social media.

[Braxton1980]

Unrelated to this post but what does it mean when a person isn't invited to the whole day?

[gms7777]

I've been to weddings that had an "open" ceremony and a closed reception. This has generally been at a church, where the wedding itself is announced to the whole church community, but then the reception is a more limited number of family and friends.

More commonly though, I've been to weddings where they had a small private ceremony (just the couple, officiant, and a handful of family), and then a large reception for everyone in the evening.

[physicsguy]

In weddings in the U.K. (or at least in England) anyone can attend a wedding - legally they have to be open.

It’s therefore not uncommon if it’s local for more distant friends of family, neighbours, etc. to pop along to the ceremony at invitation of the couple or their parents as a result, but not to be invited to the party part. Sometimes older guests will just come to ceremony too.

[retrochameleon]

What the fu-

That's an insane legal requirement. I'll do the legal wedding in the most unceremonious, quickest manner possible, and then have my real ceremony in privacy and not tell anyone about it.

[physicsguy]

It's largely historic these days, there's been various proposals to reform it and other mad rules (e.g. can't get married outside, can't get married after 6pm) but it's not really viewed as high priority.

[aerostable_slug]

They're not invited to the ceremony & wedding breakfast (which often isn't actually breakfast), just the evening reception. Unlike US weddings, the evening event is generally not the most expensive part of the affair.

[siva7]

It could be more that those hanging around on wedding planning forums aren't really representative of the younger generation. If it's a wish of the couple, they should clearly communicate this on the invitation.

[abe94]

I went to a middle eastern wedding recently and they gave everyone these phone pouches to keep their phones in that were locked for the event's duration.

Honestly made the whole event better

[insane_dreamer]

I attended my first GenZ wedding a couple of months ago and they (someone on behalf of the couple) announced this request. It applied specifically to the wedding itself, not the post-wedding party (at the same venue).

Certainly the first time it had ever come up, but it made sense to me. If you're invited to someone's wedding, it's only natural to respect their wishes.

Not everything needs to be documented online!

[sdoering]

Anyone finding it rude would find themselves not only on the "formerly invited and definitely not welcome" list. But also on the "good riddance, it was nice having known you once" list.

People with such little respect for boundaries are just not welcome in my life.

[aerostable_slug]

That person might be close family, and many folks aren't as ready to go full no-contact with their mother's sister or whomever it might be.

[sdoering]

Especially if they are close family I would be even more harsh about it. If my family f*ks this much with my borders, I am so getting rid of toxic assholes. I ab-so-f*ing-lute-ly not care about blood relations, when it comes to people ignoring boundaries.

I - for example - ditched every contact to my aunt after she accused my SO of being just a gold digger. At my dad's (her brother's) funeral. So no - I don't care for blood. I care for being a decent human being and treating everybody with the respect they deserve, as long as the reciprocate. If not, I treat them with the interpersonal equivalent of a killfile.

[theyknowitsxmas]

Good luck with that. People like the spectacle, do it in court with a casual dinner, nobody takes pictures.

[squigz]

If someone asks you not to record them at their own event, and you do, you're an asshole.

[literalAardvark]

Not even to not record. Just to treat the pictures as private, which is an entirely reasonable request.

[blitzar]

Anyone breaking the rules would be banned from my next wedding.

[patmcc]

Yes, that's an asshole move.

I think it's also pretty weird to ask people not to take photos though.

edit: "no photos during the ceremony" is different than "no photos the entire event", obviously

[seb1204]

I think the request was to not post them to social media.

[carlosjobim]

A wedding is one of the most fundamentally public events that have ever existed. The purpose is so that as many people as possible should know that these people are taken.

Asking guests to not take photos is such a faux pass that the couple has destroyed their reputation completely.

They can have a quiet and private ceremony instead if they have stage fright.

[justinclift]

> A wedding is one of the most fundamentally public events that have ever existed.

Not sure why you think that?

Although weddings can be in public places, they don't have to be and it's quite common for only invited guests (ie not the public) to be present.

[patmcc]

Historically at least, it's not that weddings are in public places, but that they're inherently a performance for the community. Like the reason for having a wedding is to make a commitment publicly in front of your friends and family. That doesn't mean it needs to be open to all who want to wander in, but it's strange to think of it as a secret event.

I feel like it's pretty strange (and mildly rude) to insist no one take/post photos of a wedding, and also very rude to take/post photos when asked not to.

[justinclift]

> but it's strange to think of it as a secret event.

Not sure why you're using the word "secret" there? Something being not-public (ie invitation only) doesn't mean it's secret or hidden. It just means it's not public.

[Braxton1980]

I think he was talking about weddings from historical perspective. Like, everyone needs to know the couple are married (taken) and through this public knowledge the marriage is confirmed.

[ThrownOffGame]

Weddings held in churches have been public with nobody turned away at the door. Perhaps you are thinking of receptions, where invitations are checked, and accountants are eyeing the attendees accordingly.

An impending wedding is usually one of the most publicized events in any city. The banns must be published, typically in a special section of the newspaper. In order to give notice for anyone who may object or know about a prior bond. Also any hint of duress or urgency that may impede free consent. The banns are the actual execution of the ceremonial “callout” you see in films.

The witnesses of a wedding are not optional. The witnesses serve as representatives of the general public. Typically a clandestine wedding would be invalid without witnesses to verify and vouch for the identity, presence, and consent of bride and groom.

Taking photos for verification is sort of after-the-fact, and it would be most unfortunate for the banns to miss the mark until after the ceremony, or the consummation.

But only crazy people would consider a wedding ceremony “private” or “closed to the public” other than “renting an officiant” and flying off to a Caribbean elopement that only your billionaire girlboss bridesmaids can afford.

[GJim]

> Weddings held in churches have been public with nobody turned away at the door.

Most ordinary weddings *are* invitation only in Blighty. Both church weddings and secular weddings held at registry offices, town halls and the like.

[gms7777]

In the US this is generally true as well. It’s not that there will be security at the door checking invitations, but it’s be very rude to show up to a wedding ceremony you weren’t invited to.

[ThrownOffGame]

You may need to define your terms more precisely.

By “Blighty” are you referring to Great Britain, or a town in NSW, population 326? That seems to be a vast difference!

And I am at a loss to imagine security guards checking invitations at a church door and giving heave-ho to the unworthy. What particular denominations have you polled on this? How many different types of ceremonies have you crashed?

[carlosjobim]

It's still a public event even if everyone is not invited. English lacks the word to differentiate between "public" as "no secret, out in the open" and "public" as in "free for all and gratis".

In this case we're talking about a public wedding as opposed to a secret wedding.

Thus: A normal wedding with a normal amount of invited guests is one of the most non-secret events to exist.

Asking for no photos is like participating in a big sports event as an athlete and demanding nobody takes photos.

[taylorius]

English lacks the word to differentiate between "public" as "no secret, out in the open" and "public" as in "free for all and gratis".

Try using a pair of words. Publicly announced vs publicly accessible.

[dylan604]

> Thus: A normal wedding with a normal amount of invited guests is one of the most non-secret events to exist

private !== secret

You seem to have this concept crossed in your thinking. Just because people know about it doesn't make it not private. Try getting into an event at Davos. Try getting into any well known event without an invitation. You'll see just how not public they are.

The fact that people think it is acceptable to post pictures of other people on their social sites says it all. This couple's request is not egregious. Just because you can't imagine not posting something doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same way. This is just another example to me of how few people think of others first, and only ever think about "me me me"

[carlosjobim]

> Just because people know about it doesn't make it not private.

That's exactly what I adressed in my comment above. You're explaining to me exactly what I've explained to you.

Public can mean something which has been publicized = made known to the general public. In this case it doesn't mean that everybody is invited.

You have a very hostile tone, for no apparent reason. Feel free to blow off steam if you need to, but try at least to understand the argument I'm making.

[watwut]

The traditional purpose of the wedding was meeting and joining of families. The "as many people as possible" knowing about it was not a consideration all that much.

> They can have a quiet and private ceremony instead if they have stage fright.

That would be called "a wedding".

[t-3]

There's definitely very huge cultural differences that might be getting in the way here. Many wedding traditions explicitly invite all and sundry to attend and witness. Most historical traditions around weddings that I'm aware of treat them as a community event at the very least, not a private affair involving only two families.

[carlosjobim]

Of course it was a huge consideration, as adultery was taken very seriously. And still is in some parts of the world.

> That would be called "a wedding".

That would be called a secret wedding, a very popular trope in old romance novels.

[ThrownOffGame]

Clandestine weddings have presented a huge problem for Church and State authorities at various points in space and time.

A clandestine wedding would often leave significant doubt about the facts of the ritual, the participants, and their actual state of mind. In most places it really is not legal to conduct a clandestine wedding without strict regulation and some sort of documentation, before and after the fact.

No officiant: invalid. No witnesses: invalid. Prior bond: invalid. Duress or coercion: invalid. These are all really, really important reasons for public ceremonies attended by, essentially, randos off the street.

[triceratops]

> Asking guests to not take photos

I think they asked guests not to post photos of the couple.

[hamdingers]

> A wedding is one of the most fundamentally public events that have ever existed.

Important context since it seems you have never been to a wedding: they are almost all invite-only.

[bluecheese452]

This is one of the weirdest takes I have ever heard.

[carlosjobim]

[flagged]

[tomhow]

Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[GJim]

> Those include not trying to impress strange rules on guests you invite to an event.

I think you will find it is both good etiquette and very common to make polite requests ("rules") of guests you invite..... whether these be to 'bring a bottle', 'smoke outside', 'wear black tie', 'wear your birthday suit' or 'don't film us'.

If you can't accommodate such requests, don't go.

[carlosjobim]

One of those is different from the others. And yes, it's very common for people to not go to an event if the hosts are making up strange demands.

[ewhanley]

Wedding photographers often ask people to refrain from taking photos during the ceremony. It sucks to have every photo that you hired a professional to take have a sea of people holding up cell phones so they can each take their own photo. In this case it's not rude to request that people not take images, it's a practical matter so people can have photos of their wedding instead of photos of people taking photos of their wedding. Much of this wouldn't be necessary if people could just be present at events instead of rigorously chronicling their every experience.

[vanviegen]

I'm not familiar with this old and cherished tradition of each guest taking photos and videos of a wedding they attend, in order to show them off to anybody who will look in exchange for reputation points.

Your idea of a polite society sounds rather rude to me.

[timeinput]

Okay? Most of my friends don't take videos and post them on the internet when I invite them around for games, or a nice dinner, or a birthday. If they started to I would ask them not to come, or invite them on the condition they don't do that. If they don't come because they have to do that constantly, and I don't want to participate I'm not sure what I'm losing.

Lets replace take videos with something maybe more obviously offensive to most people:

Most of my friends don't insult my mother / wife / husband / partner when I invite them around for games, or a nice dinner, or a birthday. If they started to I would ask them not to come, or invite them on the condition they don't do that. If they don't come because they have to do that constantly, and I don't want to participate I'm not sure what I'm losing.

I personally find not respecting my privacy preference in my home pretty darn insulting.

Also people have been having friends over for dinner 100x longer (probably much longer, but I'm just going with how long things have been written down) than video recording has existed, so I'm unsure what traditions you're trying to uphold.

Also I have guests over for dinner because I enjoy their company, not tradition.

[toolazytologin]

> It seems to be that there's a very strange crowd hanging out on Hacker News, who are not aware of very basic social rules. Those include not trying to impress strange rules on guests you invite to an event. Because people will simply make excuses and not come to your wedding or whatnot.

Are you genuinely suggesting that there is a basic social rule that says no other rules can be impressed on guests at an event? I don’t think that stands up to scrutiny.

Every event has rules — it’s inherent in being “an event” as opposed to pure chaos. Whether or not the rules are strange is open to individual interpretation. If you can’t abide by the rules of an event you are not welcome at the event. People’s polite tolerance of others’ anti-social behavior does not mean the behavior is welcome.

[carlosjobim]

Your comment is confused as to you believing that people would want to come to events with strange rules and not follow those rules. What happens in real life is that people decline to go to those events. Everybody knows how to behave at a wedding and what is proper conduct.

> Are you genuinely suggesting that there is a basic social rule that says no other rules can be impressed on guests at an event?

Absolutely, in the case of strange, unusual rules. If you're invited for dinner to somebody and they ask that you oblige to things which are outside of the norm, would you be very keen to go? Or would you make up an excuse and do something else?

It seems you are trying to say "You're not welcome here!" to people who already declined an invite?

[patmcc]

I think everyone agrees that some rules for guests are fine, and some are silly. "No flash photography or leaning into aisles during the wedding procession" is a reasonable rule, "No taking photos when we're dancing and having fun" seems silly to me.

Just like a dress code for a wedding is fine, but if they said "also you need to wear blue cotton underwear" I'd think that was a bit inappropriate to require.

[ambicapter]

> It seems to be that there's a very strange crowd hanging out on Hacker News, who are not aware of very basic social rules.

This is a hilarious example of pot calling the kettle black.

[mothballed]

It's a result of the law and the state taking the place of morality and ethics. If it is against the law it is bad and wrong. If it is legal it is OK and good.

A large component of society has no particular code of ethics, religion, or internal moral framework. End result is if it's legal I can do it, and I shouldn't feel bad for doing so.

[basisword]

>> Asking guests to not take photos is such a faux pass that the couple has destroyed their reputation completely.

The day is not about you. Just like people are free to exclude children from weddings, if they ask you not to take photos and you take umbrage at that, you need to take a hard look at yourself. It's. Not. About. You.

[patmcc]

I think this is a strange and very modern conception of weddings. Weddings are not just about the bride and groom; they're about the bride and groom and the community of their friends and family. That third part is a key component! It's why we invite people to weddings, so they can witness and help the couple in making and keeping the commitment of marriage.

[basisword]

True, of course, but they're the ones spending a fortune on it. Not only so they can have a memorable day but so their guests enjoy it too. Seems fair that if they ask you to do something really really easy like not take photos, you do that.

[carlosjobim]

Almost every couple manage to arrange their wedding without any unusual rules and demands. So most people seem to have taken your advice at heart. My advice to you is trying to make your argument without tired and boring insults such as "take a hard look at yourself". People have different opinions and perspectives, you can only accept that.

I've never made any strange rules for guests when I host, and I've politely declined the very rare cases when I've received such an invite. Because I know it's not about me.

[basisword]

You're free to dislike the request of the couple. I have no argument with that. People can be over the top. But I can't imagine skipping the wedding of someone I care about because I don't want to adhere to a simple request like not taking photos.

[hahn-kev]

So if you have a quiet and private ceremony is it ok to ask people who come to that not to take pictures?

[seb1204]

Yes, why not?