About me
Archive
About me

Church objects to TV royal wedding

close

Hold up! Before you read on, please read this...

This post was published more than 13 years ago

I keep old posts on the site because I often enjoy reading old content on other people's sites. It can be interesting to see how views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have, to put it mildly, mellowed.

I'm not a believer in brushing the past under the carpet. I've written some offensive rubbish on here in the past: deleting it and pretending it never happened doesn't change that. I hope that stumbling across something that's 13 years old won't offend anyone anew, because I hope that people can understand that what I thought and felt and wrote about then is probably very different to what I think and feel and wrote about now. It's a relic of an (albeit recent) bygone era.

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

  • My views may well have changed in the last 13 years. I have written some very silly things over the years, many of which I find utterly cringeworthy today.
  • This post might use words or language in ways which I would now consider highly inappropriate, offensive, embarrassing, or all three.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken, and embedded material might not appear properly.

Okay. Consider yourself duly warned. Read on...

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

Cortado (published 20th February 2019)

Room with a view (published 18th February 2019)

The Nativity × Gaudí (published 17th February 2019)

GMail by any other name… (published 19th October 2005)

Photo-a-day 78: Ikea (published 18th March 2012)

Skype (published 26th February 2005)

The Hypocrisy of Guantánamo (published 17th September 2007)


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.