It would seem that Rev Dr Giles Fraser, Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, is concerned that “too many modern weddings have just lost their way”.  That of course is exactly what many of its long-time fans keep saying about the Church of England, but that’s beside the point right now.

What amuses me greatly is that he goes on to say that weddings have ” … become a threat to marriage itself,” then argues that “the idea of self-sacrifice is lost when the ceremony is specifically designed to be all about ‘me’, about being a ‘princess for a day’”.

Now normally I wouldn’t comment on the wafflings of some cleric, however elevated his position or profound his pronouncements, but I can’t let that bit about “when the ceremony is specifically designed to be all about ‘me’” pass by.  Yes Canon, it’s true – some weddings are indeed all about a woman in a big frock being a little princess for a day.  But what is also true is that sadly many C of E wedding ceremonies nowadays are far more about the vicar and/or the churchwarden than they are about the couple getting married.

One thing’s for sure.  If I had a crisp tenner for every wedding photographer in England who in any given year tangles with more self-centred church personnel than self-centred brides, I would be a very happy bunny.

On the same day that we’re shooting a wedding in Kent, a colleague of ours is shooting one in Warwickshire. Both ceremonies are in C of E churches.

Our bride had tried to clarify the situation regarding photos during the ceremony three weeks before the wedding, but got nowhere until with three days to go, she was informed by the churchwarden that her photographer “must not take photos during the service except for the signing of the register”. Then at the rehearsal the day before, apparently the priest said that we wouldn’t be allowed to photograph the signing because that would be illegal.

On the day, it comes as no surprise to find that all we’re allowed to photograph (after last-minute negotiations) is the procession and the recession. Nothing else. And this with a priest who’s a family friend!

Our colleague’s bride was told on the Thursday that photography was fine as long as no flash was used (which any competent photographer wouldn’t need to use anyhow), as was signing the register. On the day though, he was told that the Church of England does not allow photography in any of their churches during a wedding ceremony, and he could not photograph the signing. Not only that, but the churchwarden also told him to stop photographing the bride’s arrival once she was inside the church.

As a devout atheist myself, I obviously couldn’t comment about hypocrisy and lying by people who profess to be devout Christians. However, it does seem to me a strange way to treat a couple who have paid their £313.50 + extras to get married in a church, have sat through the obligatory “marriage preparation” classes, and have dutifully gone to the church on three Sundays to hear their banns read …

Gasp!

Apparently it’s true: the total ban on photography during civil ceremonies in Wiltshire is no more. No longer can wedding photographers expect to be banned from the ceremony room lest they dare to sneak a picture of their clients getting married. No longer are guests likely to be told to leave their cameras outside it either. Now, the only restriction is on pictures during the declarations and the vows (which we never do anyhow), and during the actual signing of the paperwork.

Far be it from me to suggest that perhaps the registration service had noticed a significant drop in revenue since they brought in the ban, but whatever the reason for the about-turn, it’s good news for couples marrying in the county. Good news for us too, because as of now, we’re once again available for civil weddings in Wiltshire!

“We require a Refundable Restriction Adherence Fee of $500 from photographers employed for a wedding here. This should be submitted to the church upon employment by the bridal party and must be in the form of a cashier’s check or money order. We must have this retainer at least two weeks before the wedding. The entire amount will be refunded following strict adherence to the stated restrictions listed above. In the event that these restrictions are not complied with, the total amount will be retained by the church.”

Yes, that is indeed outrageous. But so OTT it couldn’t possibly happen over here.

Or could it? As a matter of fact, off the top of my head I can think of four churches where it’s only a matter of time before they hear of this and as soon as they do, a pound to a penny says they’ll introduce something similar …

Sorry that’s fuzzy – I got it from a colleague who did a very quick scan of it before filling it in and subsequently locking horns with the vicar, who obviously isn’t aware that her employers are allegedly intent upon wooing brides and grooms back into their churches.

Be that as it may, and ignoring the bits about videography, the key points in this little gem are that

1 The photographer agrees to “make arrangements for the bride to be early” if photos of the bride arriving are requested (quite how he or she might do that I can’t begin to imagine, but whatever)

2 And to take photos “from the church path and not the road”

3 And to arrive “at least twenty minutes early to set up and discuss specific requests with the priest”

4 And to keep clear of the aisles and exits at all times

5 And to take no photographs at all during the ceremony

But all is not lost! Woo hoo, there is actually a concession to the photographer! They can take pictures “of the signing of the registers”, after having been “directed to the vestry by the verger or a church volunteer” at the appropriate time!

However, before they get too excited at the prospect, a pound to a penny says that what that means in practice is that after the registers have been signed, the photographer will be invited in to take a posed shot or two of the happy couple pretending to sign the register.

Now I know this is by no means exceptional where the Church of England is concerned. I also know perfectly well how some wedding photographers spoil it for the rest of us and for our clients. But in this case I wonder why the couple had no inkling whatsoever that they weren’t going to get any ceremony pictures until they received this form from their friendly neighbourhood vicar with just 8 weeks to go?

The guidelines also recommend providing “Kodak moments”: “If you restrict photography during the ceremony, why not recreate the moment later? Stand the couple at the front facing each other, and invite the guests out of their pews to take their own shots.”

If that’s not truly pathetic on several levels, I don’t know what is …

We turned out forewarned, because his guidance to the bride had stated:-

1 It is disruptive to take photographs during the signing of the register

4 There is no restriction on photography in the chapel before or after the service

Whilst that probably sounds quite reasonable to many couples, in practice it translates as pictures in the entrance vestibule as you enter and leave the chapel, apart from which you’re limited to whatever your photographer can get from the organ gallery shooting round the very large chandelier which hangs in direct line of sight to where the couple stand before the altar.

Having no choice but to do so, our couple accepted this but were still keen for us to try negotiation on the day, so I introduce myself to the vicar and we get down to business. No we don’t use flash, no we don’t take pictures during the prayers or the vows, no we don’t move around a lot plus all the other stuff that every celebrant loves to hear. Except this one. He’s not impressed.

Neither am I. “Given that you’re basically saying no to everything, how about if I stand in the pews halfway up the aisle and just try to grab a few shots of the bride and her dad as she comes past and as the groom looks round at her, then I retreat discreetly to the back and be good for the rest of the service?”

“No. And anyhow the groom will not look round.”

“Well if we can hardly do anything during the service, how about I take a few from a distance during the signing, no flash, no disruption, no nothing?”

“No.”

And so it came to pass that I shot a few pictures up the aisle from the entrance vestibule with a long lens, Ann grabbed what she could past the chandelier from the organ gallery, and a lot of people sitting in the pews snapped away throughout the ceremony, many of them using flash.

Here’s a picture of a vicar looking up at Ann. He did a lot of that during the ceremony – so much so in fact that a couple of the guests remarked about it to us later.

Apart from anything else though, this chap was the very first priest ever to say that not only could I not take pictures during the signing of the registers, but I could not even set up a picture after it (which is the usual trade-off and which many couples feel makes the best of a bad job).

Very tempting though it is to say more I’m not going to, so here endeth this post.

I’d introduced myself to the registrars as usual. I hadn’t met the woman conducting the ceremony before, but once I’d explained that I don’t move about, don’t use flash and don’t be a distraction, she was OK with me taking pictures during the ceremony.

I then turned to her colleague who would be doing the paperwork, and suspecting that I knew the answer, asked how she felt about me taking pictures of the signing.

“We’ll set the couple up for you after we’ve done the signing”

“Well I can’t understand that. That table over there’s a lot nicer than this one.”

Later in the day I apologised to the bride for the fact that madam wouldn’t budge on the signing pictures. “Not much we could do about it” says she. “Her mate wasn’t much better. We didn’t say our own vows like we were supposed to be doing either.”

Outside the cathedral the wedding couple are welcome to use the cathedral gardens or steps for group and family photographs

… along with all the tourists also using them for the same purpose. OK, the rules don’t actually say that last bit, but you get the picture.

Or rather you don’t …

First. “Of course you can photograph the signing. It’s not part of the service, so as long as you don’t hold the job up it’s fine by me”

Second. “Of course not. It’s illegal. You’ll stay out of the way until we’ve done the signing, then we’ll set the couple up with a blank register and a pen for a nice picture”

“My clients tell me they don’t want to do that”

“They’ll do what I damn well say”

“Whatever”

Now, don’t anybody get me started on that truly pathetic article about register-signing that apparently appeared in the Daily Mail last week …