The cult of sponsored celebrity weddings - cynical or smart?

Tweet

Today sees the, no doubt, huge and lavish Liz Hurley wedding to Arun Nadir in England. We're told it's been sponsored by a magazine to the tune of £2 million and therefore she'll be hidden from prying eyes and the outside world via tents, walkways and large banks of bodyguards. Her guests will almost certainly be banned from taking casual snaps of the event and, who knows, they may even be 'advised' not to speak about the event to the press. We'll be able to see airbrushed and specially selected photographs of Liz in her gown, her celebrity chums and the general brou-ha-ha of the wedding by buying the magazine on it's publication a week or two afterwards. Now my point is this, a wedding - anybody's wedding - is a public declaration of love - a public announcement by two people that they wish to spend the rest of their lives together in wedded bliss (the word public being key in this). It always used to be the way that if there was a wedding people would crowd around on the pavement for a glimpse of the bride, the neighbours might come out for a look, guests would have their cameras ready to take snaps of the happy day - it was a joyous occasion, a celebration for everyone to share. It was not, until fairly recently, seen as a day to profit financially. My own personal opinion is that this particular phenomenon of selling your big day to a magazine publication for huge sums of money is not only cynical, it's in extremely bad taste and a particularly mean-spirited gesture - especially when one considers that generally speaking these people are not financially strapped for cash. I never buy these magazines on principal - I fail to see why I, in buying the magazine, should help pay for the weddings of the likes of Liz Hurley, Victoria Beckham and all the other grasping celebrities who have gone down this route. What is your viewpoint on this?