Pippa Middleton’s exclusive, A-list wedding could be destroyed by peasants

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge arrive at St Marks Englefield with Prince George and Princess Charlotte

Pippa Middleton will marry Moderately Wealthy James Matthews (formerly Terribly Wealthy, but now downgraded) in a few short weeks. I’m not sure if we’re being played with all of the stories about the wedding, but I’m still enjoying it. Like, part of me thinks that there’s so much gossip and drama about the wedding because Pippa and the Middletons want it that way, so they can drive up interest and likely sell the photos to Hello Magazine for big money. Another part of me wonders if Pippa actually wishes there was less drama and she worries that this whole thing has become a giant circus, especially with reality-star beefs and Harry bringing Meghan Markle as his date.

Anyway, you know how everyone has been making a big deal about Pippa’s harsh “no ring, no bring” policy? It’s so strict that Meghan Markle isn’t even allowed to attend the wedding, she can only come to the wedding reception at Middleton Manor. The vibe is supposed to be exclusivity, a small-yet-fancy wedding celebrating Bucklebury’s famous local beauty (like a Jane Austen novel, only it’s 2017). Except now it seems like commoners and peasants have a right to be there too.

With her sister and brother-and-law, the Duchess and Duke of Cambridge, expected to attend, the wedding of Pippa Middleton will be one of the most exclusive events of the year. It is anticipated that the cream of high society will gather to witness Miss Middleton marry James Matthews, a hedge fund manager and heir to a vast Scottish property. But it has now emerged that there could well be some uninvited guests at the Berkshire church of St Mark’s on May 20.

Recently published Church of England guidance on “celebrity weddings” has said that ordinary members of the public could have the right to attend. And that raises the prospect of unknown strangers rubbing shoulders with Prince William and the Duchess as the happy bride and groom make their vows. Indeed, locals are already said to be looking forward to turning up.

Andrew House, chairman of the parish council for the neighbouring village of Bradfield, where Pippa was born and the Duchess of Cambridge spent her early years, told The Telegraph: “It’s a rather nice thought that they might be able to attend. I’m sure there will be interest.”

The guidance, published by the Church of England a few weeks before the big day, states that “a marriage is a public ceremony which at the least all parishioners are entitled to attend”.

The rules mean all residents of the parish of Englefield, which surrounds St Mark’s Church, have – in theory at least –the right to attend the ceremony. According to the document, entitled Celebrity Marriages in Anglican Cathedrals and Churches, produced by the Church of England Synod’s legal advisory commission, members of the public are entitled to attend “as long as there is available seating or standing room unless a genuine question of safety or security arises”.

[From The Telegraph]

Basically, the church’s regular parishioners have a right to go inside their church, even if it’s during a wedding. And it sounds like the Anglicans believe that all church weddings are public events. In America, this dilemma would be solved by simply doing the wedding ceremony at Middleton Manor, a private home where you could control the guest list completely. But even then, I think it’s too late for that. Poor Pippa. Her exclusive wedding is going to be ruined by peasants storming into the church.

Newly engaged Pippa Middleton leaves her West London home

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

87 Responses to “Pippa Middleton’s exclusive, A-list wedding could be destroyed by peasants”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Prince says:

    I doubt that will happen because the Dolittles will be there which means a lot of security.

    • Megan says:

      Five members of the BRF will be in attendance, security won’t be letting in any peasants.

    • Sarah says:

      Yep. Won’t happen.

    • notasugarhere says:

      “as long as there is available seating or standing room unless a genuine question of safety or security arises”.

      She used royal security for her book “tour”, they’ve spend a million of taxpayer funds on security upgrades to Middleton private property. Now this. Cue the taxpayers paying for additional security at this private wedding. Not just RPOs, but full-on security brigade.

      • Khaleesi says:

        How did she manage to get royal security for her book tour? That’s outrageous.

      • Megan says:

        Since two heirs and two spares will be in the church, I think it is extremely reasonable to assume there will be a large security presence.

      • notasugarhere says:

        There’s a difference between having the RPOs there and having full-on taxpayer funded police presence from the local group at a private wedding. If there are such serious security concerns, have it at their private house not in a publicly-accessible church.

      • Megan says:

        @nota Seriously? Pippa and James can’t live their lives as they chose because Pippa’s sister married into the royal family?

        If the Queen were attending would you be equally outraged at the security presence?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Not about RPOs, Megan. About the tricks this family has already pulled, from taxpayer-funded security at her book events to the million in taxpayer money spent on security upgrades at the private residence of the Middletons. And are likely to pull with this event.

        No other royal in-laws get taxpayer-funded upgrades to their homes. But the presumed millionaires of the combined Middleton and Matthews families can’t pay for their own security at this private event?

        The Middleton family is not religious. The didn’t go to church until the first Christmas pap stroll after the engagement was announced. KM wasn’t confirmed until just before the wedding. Logical to assume neither Pippa nor James may have been confirmed either. But all of a sudden, a church wedding is necessary? As said below, maybe CoE issued the statement about celebrity weddings a while ago because they’re tired of this kind of behavior.

      • Megan says:

        @nota like to or not, the Cambridges are public people who are assassination and kidnap targets. I have no idea how serious the threat to them is, but I assume the security professionals who protect them are competent and call the shots when it comes to the level of protection.

        William was born into the role. He has no choice when it comes to protection so I think it is really stretching it to blame him for his security costs. There are plenty of things to complain about when it comes to these two, but security isn’t one of them.

      • bluhare says:

        nas, there was going to be full security anyway. They are not going to let any random Tom, Meghan or Venus in the church. William, George and Charlotte will be there.

        Besides, I think one of us should go and raise our objections. After all James isn’t Terribly Rich any more. That’s practically fraud.

        Now i’m really looking forward to Venus and Spencer posing like their lives depend on it on the church steps. :)

      • Nic919 says:

        The Queen has attended weddings in the past, as has Prince Charles and we don’t hear about all this fuss for security. This is just the Middleton PR machine.

      • MinnFinn says:

        @Megan have you considered changing your username to “Megan, Seriously?”

        And bluhare, I nominate you to crash their wedding and object. Get your Gofundme set up asap.

        I’ve wanted to be in London during a royal wedding week. But royal-adjacent weddings like Pippa’s could be much more fun. Thanks COE for inviting me. I’m having the fish entree. How about you bluhare – chicken, fish, or vegetarian?

      • Anett says:

        Bluhare

        Have I already told you how much I appreciate your sense of humour that you bring to this table every time?:))

      • addie says:

        Didn’t Charles and the Queen attend Amanda Knatchbull’s wedding last year or so? No to do there about security. It was a private family wedding, not a circus like the Middleton’s are pulling. They want the trappings of royalty, the sick buggers; it’s all about ego. If Pippa wanted the intimate family affair as she claims, they would have designed a wedding appropriately. Since they have no history of being religious, it’s actually offensive that they want to be married in a church. Again, it’s all for show. Don’t get me started on the hiring of Beckham’s PR woman.

      • Megan says:

        @minnfinn I reserve the word “seriously” as a response to posts that are working really hard to critique someone about a nothing issue.

      • bluhare says:

        Ha, MinnFinn, if I went I would actually feel obligated to do it. I would also report back on whether Donna Air is allowed to attend and whether Carole has thrones set up at the reception. And I’ll be having the vegetarian. :D

        And thank you, Anett. I do like to have fun. Life’s too serious sometimes.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Charles did attend the Knatchbull wedding, even walked her down the aisle. No stories fed to the press ahead of time, no to-do about security. I’m not blaming them for RPOs, but rather what is likely to be OTT security paid by taxpayers because the Middletons want their PR pap shots without unruly peasants in the picture. Getting their own photos, gasp.

        As others have written, if they wanted quiet and private, it would be at the Middleton home. Wanting the picture perfect country church wedding complete with pre-approved pap shots of the hidden royal children? When this family only goes to church 1-2 times a year for pap strolls as the Real Royal Family? PR.

      • FLORC says:

        This entirely Middleton pr. No doubts.
        And yea there will be loads of security. And yes. Pippa used the rpos for her book signing. And James used them to feel important while he walked a short distance to his car with a few photogs a safe distance away.
        No totals present and that means no rpos needed.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Why would anyone WANT to attend? I can see wanting to attend William’s wedding, as he is the future head of state who — whether they like it or not — will be part of their lives in the future. But who the heck cares about Pippa and her fiance?

      • Llamas says:

        Idk, this wedding had become so drama filled and persnickety thanks to the Middletons that showing up at the wedding with the permission of the church makes me snicker a little.

  2. Elizabeth says:

    Oh, my. Now THOSE are the photos I want to see.

  3. Lainey says:

    Is it wrong I want this to happen just so i can see Carole’s head explode?

    • Snazzy says:

      Hahah right? Though it must pretty close to exploding already considering future Mr Middleton is only moderately wealthy

    • Megan says:

      I attended a wedding at St Pat’s in NYC a few years ago and it was open to tourists during the ceremony. Lots of them took pictures of the bride and groom.

    • Where'sMyTiara says:

      Dangit, I just spit tea all over myself reading this article (and now again with this post).

      I promise, as soon as I change into a dry shirt, I will make some Fancee Popcorn that we can nibble while we wait for Carol-with-an-E to go supernova.

      What should we do when she finally blows? Play new year’s noisemakers? Throw glitter?
      Maybe if I put edible glitter on the popcorn. That’s a two-for-one! Maybe Pippa will steal the idea for her next PippaTips tome…

      I’m going to need a 12 step program for popcorn soon. It’s getting so I start craving it every time I come to read the gossip!

  4. Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

    Not sure why this is a big news deal – thats always been the case in the UK. Anyone can go to a wedding in a church, most people don’t.

    I can’t help but think this is the Middletons trolling us to get some attention for their sponsors for the fake royal wedding. No one has been interested in it, even with the Royals going.

    • Clare says:

      And you can pretty much have any place that has a ‘roof’ approved as a official wedding venue. Do it at home, if you want complete e and utter privacy.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        Yep – or hire out an entire venue and have the whole thing there.

        They just don’t want plebs turning up, there will be a press pen apparently so am sure the Fail and the other rags will have been ‘invited’.

      • Malarkey says:

        One of the conditions for approval is that the venue will be ‘regularly available’ for marriages and civil partnerships. So if you want privacy, the best option is to do what Digital Unicorn suggests and hire a hotel where they can keep uninvited guests out.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Anything to get attention off the France trial. Any news on the May start date for that?

      Expecting 2nd birthday photos of their daughter in a week, taken by KM or Chris Jackson. Or they’ll shake it up this time and photos will be by Mike, since he’s been the invisible man for quite some time now.

      • LizLemonGotMarried says:

        Damn, I didn’t realize that was happening so soon. This family is awfully messy to be so boring… (I don’t mean KM sunbathing with her top off, that’s her business. I mean the way they handle everything…)

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        Not yet – as far as I know its still going ahead.

        Of course there will be – they are doing just what Charles and Diana did and use their children as PR props in the press game.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Even more so than C&D at this point, given the hidden children aspect of this. But I’m curious as to which person will take (or be credited with taking) the photos.

        LLGM, I couldn’t find a date for when it starts, but in January it was delayed until May. No start date that I’ve been able to find.

    • Megan says:

      IDK, it seems like the Daily Mail is the biggest troll when it comes to this wedding. They are so desperate to make it happen I wonder if they haven’t already paid for the rights to “exclusive” photos.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        The Editor in Chief of the Fail (Paul Dacre) is a Middleton family friend – he gave them PR advice during the dating years where there were many stories about Kate being the studious girl while Chelsy was the party girl (the opposite was true). The Fail is the MIddleton’s go to rag when they want to leak a story, undermine someone of promote themselves (james has given several exclusive interviews to them about his marshmallow empire).

    • Sixer says:

      I think it’s trolling as well. Police will attend if there’s a safety issue as they would for any event in a public space that will attract undue attention.

      Didn’t Bouncing Benny’s wedding get the locals narked because police were blocking off access to the church on safety grounds because of all the press?

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        Yes, didn’t it stop an older gentlemen who was trying to visit his wife’s grave. IIRC, he gave some great snark comment to the media about it.

      • bluhare says:

        Who’s bouncing Benny? And I read your post that he got the locals naked. That was most entertaining.

      • Sixer says:

        Benedict Cumberbatch.

        Ha!

        Seriously though, the police will turn out for anything – sporting event, celebrity visit, whatever – that may mean public order is compromised, as for example, it would be with a Middleton wedding press scrum and necessity for royal security.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        @Bluhare – Benedict Cumberbatch.

      • bluhare says:

        Thanks you guys! The only Benny i could think of is Benny Hill, and pretty sure he’s dead. :)

      • LAK says:

        Oh Bluhare….now i have an image of Benny Hill chasing bikini beauties round the church with police doing their best to hold back the public.

      • bluhare says:

        Haha, LAK. Now I’ve got a visual of everyone walking out to that music!

  5. minx says:

    The church isn’t large, right…?

  6. Clare says:

    To be fair, nothing worse that random people turning up to your ceremony…my partner and I were married on a bridge (in our college, where we met). It also happens to be a bit of a tourist attraction where we live….and halfway through the ceremony we had random strangers milling around the sides, whispering and taking pictures. the milling and whispering I perhaps wouldn’t have minded – I mean , what do you expect, it’s not a private space, there may be some strangers fluttering around…but the pictures….UGGHHH

    So yeah, for once I am team Pippa. Shoot me.

  7. Rianic says:

    I agree. That would be uncomfortable. Where I live, people just post a general invitation in the paper asking all friends and family to attend. I couldn’t imagine not knowing who would turn up. We didn’t post anything till after the fact.

  8. Skins says:

    Silly peasants, how dare they

  9. NOLA says:

    How is this even considered “new” information to anyone? I have never considered a church to be anything other than open to the general public. I’m American. I could wander into any church around my city, stumble upon a wedding, and sit down to enjoy the show. But people don’t do that because (1) it’s rude and (2) why would you want to attend the wedding of two strangers? Why on earth would the CoE feel the need to publish this “rule”? It’s bizarre

    • notasugarhere says:

      Maybe CoE is sick and tired of celebrity demands? Celebrities who may or may not attend that local church, but want the PR of a church wedding in the pages of Hello.

      • Maria says:

        Well the church should get paid, unless the Mddleton family are members, then there is no fee, except an honorarium paid to the Minister.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It isn’t the money aspect. It is the idea that the only time the celebrities will be in church is for their picturesque country church wedding. Maybe CoE is tired of being used by people who aren’t active members of their churches. They pushed back with “anyone who wants to attend can, or you can go get married somewhere else. We’re not here for your photo op.”

      • NOLA says:

        I think this is common sense. Dear celebs: churches are open to the public. If you don’t want non-celebs at your wedding, don’t publicize the date and location, and don’t have it in a space that is open to the public (e.g., a church). It’s ridiculous that the Church had to issue the statement in the first place.

        I know celebrities and the Middletons are self-entitled jackasses, but this isn’t rocket science.

      • bluhare says:

        Like it or not, the Middletons are members of the parish, whether or not they are regular churchgoers.

      • Bridget says:

        If the individual parish agrees to it, it’s not our place to criticize someone’s choice of religious observance, or their choice to still want their wedding in a Church. And keep in mind, you’re also describing a vast swath of the people who get married in churches nowadays.

      • notasugarhere says:

        We do get to criticize when it is clearly a PR exercise for this family, pap strolls, media corral, and all their leaks to the press about how they want a simple family wedding.

    • Maria says:

      Nota, I know of some Presbyterian churches who will not marry a couple unless they have been members for at least 6 months and they have been attending church regularly. But churches are losing members and bottom line they need the money. And weddings are part of a church’s income.

    • MinnFinn says:

      I don’t think this is a just-published rule. Media are talking about it to remind Pippa that they are coming to her wedding and they have a right to be there.

    • Malificent says:

      Exactly. I go to a small church that looks very old-fashioned (for the western part of the US) and charming. Consequently, we get lots of requests for weddings by people who are not members of the congregation.

      Everyone has a right to come to our church whenever they want — for prayer or whatever activity. (We don’t keep the doors open 24/7 for security reasons because there is not always someone present, but you can contact the church staff if you want to come in off-hours.)

      However, just because I can, I would never dream of just sitting in on a wedding service for a couple I didn’t know, even if our pastor was officiating the ceremony. I don’t know whether it’s theoretically permitted or not. Even if it is, I would never just invade some couple’s wedding.

      • Maria says:

        I agree. And if a family is renting a church for a fee, then I don’t believe anyone can go. I go to a small, pretty church too, and there are lots of requests for weddings and also for films. And if it’s a rental, then it’s not open to members of the congregation.

  10. Pandy says:

    Don’t be silly – they have the perfect workaround: “as long as there is available seating or standing room unless a genuine question of safety or security arises”.

    The Royals mean security. Of course it will be private. And of COURSE Meghan will be there if Harry wants her there! That snub would not be permitted.

  11. PIa says:

    Wasn’t Lady Mary’s wedding on Downton a bit like this. There were parishoners in that church and a crowd who waited outside?

    • addie says:

      Maybe Pippa and family are wanting crowds to turn up. You know, her ‘fans’ she can wave to? Such a vain tit.

  12. Ollie says:

    What’s with the second pic? Her arm looks so short and somehow wrong. Perspective? Bad photoshop?

    • NOLA says:

      I think it’s the sleeve length. It’s not a good look on her. She looks very broad-shouldered. Yet she also looks like she has T-Rex arms. No bueno

  13. LadyJuliette says:

    I would attend for trolling purposes.

  14. suze says:

    I want to go. So so badly. However, I am pretty sure it will be locked down to all wandering peasants for all practical purposes.

    The is pretty much a non story, though. All church weddings are like this

    What I want to see is a group shot of Wills, Kate, Pipps, James, Meghan, Harry, Venus and Spencer. Gold, right thete.

  15. ickythump says:

    Maybe the locals will turn up with torches and pitchforks? Now that would be worth seeing in Hello! LOL

  16. Bitchy says:

    “as long as there is available seating or standing room unless a genuine question of safety or security arises”.

    They will cite security concerns to shut out the peasants and likely they will block some streets, too. This is the future queen’s sister. Sad but true.

  17. Nikki says:

    I’m surprised by the CoE statement, and many of your comments as well! If the church issued this in some kind of retaliatory spirit because the Middletons haven’t been active members, the time to address that gripe should have been when the arrangements were first proposed, not weeks before the ceremony. And with several key royals in attendance, and notable public interest in the wedding, to me it’s a no-brainer they need a strong security presence. For everyone who compared it to other weddings, I’d question how you know there wasn’t security at the other weddings, or I’d guess they weren’t as high profile either, I mean far less known to the public. I don’t see what’s so terrible about a family wanting to have a wedding at a nearby church, without a lot of strangers intruding. No shade for this; it’s not like Pippa is having her wedding at a huge cathedral packed with society contacts!

    • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      A lot of celebs who don’t go to church want to get married in a church – these guidelines are an attempt to provide local parishes with guidelines and are nowt to do with the Middletons.

      If Pippa wanted a private wedding then don’t plan to have a press pen outside the church and hire Victoria Beckham’s former PR to help ‘promote’ it. Also don’t ask Kensington Palace Press Office to send out a press release about her sister (her husband/kids/BIL) attending giving date and location details if you don’t want strangers turning up.

      • MinnFinn says:

        And said COE statement about the public nature of weddings was made IIRC 10 years ago. Gossip magazines dusted it off to remind Pippa that they will be camped outside the church and they have a right to be there.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I forgot about the hiring of the Beckham’s PR person. Will this be as bad as when the Middletons hired a different one and spun the story about Carole returning the lost dog? Obvious PR.

  18. newmansown says:

    Well Meghan Markle might as well go now if they are letting the peasants in

    • MinnFinn says:

      Pippa’s wedding is good source material for Downton Abbey the movie.

      There could be a flashback scene of Mary and Richard Carlisle discussing their wedding preparations. Richard has invited an American who is also a film star. Cut to Violet’s shocked reaction. Violet to Mary “Will there also be Italians at your wedding?”

  19. weegie warrior says:

    they dont want a private wedding or they wouldve had one on a private estate without giving out locarion, date and who’ll be attending – th worst thing for pipps would be if no- one cared …she must be livid that harrys bringing meghan who will totally upstage her…

    • MinnFinn says:

      This, and Pippa would have not contracted with a PR firm to plant stories about her the month before her wedding.

  20. Sunsetsnow81 says:

    No…@Kaiser. He will always be Terribly Rich James. You can’t switch on us.

  21. When have the Middletons EVER been concerned with privacy? It’s the ILLUSION of wanting privacy they care about. They really do forget that they’re just regular folk, like the rest of us peasants. Aspirational snobbery really is the most tiresome kind of snobbery.