About me
Archive
About me

Church objects to TV royal wedding

close

Warning: This post was published more than 12 years ago.

I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!

But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:

  • My views might have changed in the 12 years since I wrote this post.
  • This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.

Many thanks for your understanding.

It has been agreed that the civil ceremony, to be held in the Guildhall at Windsor, will not be broadcast. Informed sources conceded this weekend the prospect of live or recorded coverage of the St George’s service was no better than “50-50”.

This is a mistake. If the service is not shown on television for all to see, then the public will never accept it, and Camilla will never become Queen, no matter how much Charles might want it. Unless we can actually see the romantic wedding, and have the library footage there to dig out at every given opportunity, we’ll never be able to get used to the idea of them as a married couple, no matter how many events they appear at as such.

I can understand the thinking behind not broadcasting the civil ceremony, and I have no problem with that, but the blessing should be a way round that – it should be the fairytale, fluffy, romantic bit of the day that we all remember. A royal wedding which is not shown on TV will scarcely be a wedding at all in the eyes of the public.

This 395th post was filed under: News and Comment.






More posts worth reading

What I’ve been reading this month (published 4th March 2017)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 6th February 2017)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 31st December 2016)

Photo-a-day 126: Cultured birds (published 5th May 2012)

Deciphering illegible addresses on postal items (published 10th May 2013)

TV debate urged for party chiefs (published 10th February 2005)

The trouble with Pat (published 9th March 2006)


Comments and responses

No comments or responses to this article have been published yet.

Compose a new comment



Comment

You may use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> .

If you would like to display a profile picture beside your comment, sign up for Gravatar, and enter your email address above.

By submitting your comment, you confirm that it conforms to the site's comment policy. Comments are subject to both automatic and human moderation, and may take some time to appear.



The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. This site uses cookies - click here for more information.