[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?

[knorker]

I've touristed in several countries where the church was closed because of a wedding.

You are at a loss to imagine something that is extremely common worldwide. Though not "security guards". You don't need security guards, because when a little lady tells you to please come back in an hour and a half, people don't push her aside and scream "freedom!".

[johannes1234321]

> And I am at a loss to imagine security guards checking invitations at a church door and giving heave-ho to the unworthy.

Especially with churches in most cases nobody will be shown the door especially as in (Christian) church tradition the wedding is before God and the community, which traditionally is the village. Nonetheless many cultures will see it as somewhat private. Especially the reception or a non-church ceremony.

[lostlogin]

It’s a 326 to 60,000,000 chance they are referring to NSW.

[ThrownOffGame]

Do Englishmen frequently refer to “Blighty” in ordinary conversation?

I refer to my homeland as “The States” out of courtesy to those from Canada, UK, Australia, but I had to rack my brains, and Wikipedia, about “Blighty” because it seems archaic, stilted, and arcane in a tech forum.

I’ve heard England called a lot of things by its citizens, but I was under the impression that “Ol’ Blighty” died out with Queen Victoria.

[justinclift]

> Do Englishmen frequently refer to “Blighty” in ordinary conversation?

At least online, yes.

[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.

[sdoering]

If you only had made the argument you thought you made, but didn’t. And then not even made the effort to understand that the point your discussion partner made was actually in stark contrast to your point in the result they were arguing for.

You ended with:

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

A private, invite only, wedding isn’t comparable to a sports event that you described. Because this is by definition public. Why? Because anyone can buy a ticket to that event. That makes it open to the public. Yes, you need a ticket to enter. But it’s not invite only.

Imagine a big baseball/football/soccer event. The stadium is packed. Anybody can film to their liking. This is the public part. Now imagine the owners box way at the top. Not one of these humans down in the regular seats will be able to get up there. It’s invite only. That makes it private. Even if there are many people in that box.

But the owner (or in case of the wedding the couple getting married) chose who Would be allowed to partake in that event. And so, they also get to make the rules.

If you, with your attitude would be at a private event I was hosting, you wouldn’t be there long. Because you still need to learn the difference between public (in theory anybody can attend and the host doesn’t get to choose) and private (only the host chooses who can attend).

[dylan604]

"It's still a public event even if everyone is not invited."

You are not stating the same thing. You are saying that an invite only is not a private event. You've apparently misread the bit you quoted as it is a double negative; "> Just because people know about it doesn't make it not private". Just because people know about a private event does not mean the event is public. Knowledge of the event is not what makes it private. What makes it private is the host's restriction of who can attend.

Also, I'm not hostile. You're being defensive on an indefensible position and not liking the fact you are being called out for that position. There's a difference.