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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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).
Try using a pair of words. Publicly announced vs publicly accessible.
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.
Most ordinary weddings *are* invitation only in Blighty. Both church weddings and secular weddings held at registry offices, town halls and the like.
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?
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.
At least online, yes.
In all my years on the Internet and written forums, as well as watching British TV for 50 years, there has been no notable usage of “Blighty” that caught my attention.
If I had been aware of the usage, (other than archaic slang) I would’ve learned it sooner. But it’s notable that this Anglophile hadn’t been bothered until the Year of Our Lord and Reign of His Majesty Charles III, 2025.
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!".
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.
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.
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.
> They can have a quiet and private ceremony instead if they have stage fright.
That would be called "a wedding".
> That would be called "a wedding".
That would be called a secret wedding, a very popular trope in old romance novels.
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.
I think they asked guests not to post photos of the couple.
Important context since it seems you have never been to a wedding: they are almost all invite-only.
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.
This is a hilarious example of pot calling the kettle black.
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.
Your idea of a polite society sounds rather rude to me.
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.
> 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?
These things are not mutually exclusive.
If you don’t want to abide by the rules, you are not welcome and you should decline. Perhaps the organizer isn’t aware of your preference and your declining helps inform them. If they prefer your presence more than they like their silly rules, they might change them.
Deciding to attend a social gathering where you intentionally ignore the rules that you don’t like is narcissistic and rude behavior.
It's really not about this. Many (most?) people don't want to go to events where the hosts are acting weird against their guests. When it comes to weddings, it's not unusual that you haven't seen the people for several years. And in that time people change.
> Deciding to attend a social gathering where you intentionally ignore the rules that you don’t like is narcissistic and rude behavior.
That's why I've said now about fourteen times here now, that people are going to decline an invite to events with strange "rules". For an adult the normal thing is that events you are invited to do not have any rules at all, because everybody already knows exactly what is appropriate. So real people have a low tolerance for those kind of things. If you're looking for "narcissistic", then maybe look at those people inventing strange rules for what is supposed to be their friends and family?
Maybe it is because HN is a forum for people who work in very corporate settings and are accustomed to having to follow a lot of silly rules without the option to decline?
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.
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.
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.
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.