Is your Vicar/Priest being a nightmare?

We had a nightmare with our original vicar, we did everything properly went and asked permission he siad yes so went and booked reception, cars, flowers etc etc, only to receive a text 8 months later to say he cant marry us at 12 as now has a booking at 11.30 for another wedding!! Yes by TEXT! so we tried to call him would not answer his phone and turned his mobile of! To cut teh story short we booked seven months before the other couple but because (we found out later) it was his friends he basically bumped us out the church, we tried to fight this from feb till june and in the end went to another church with a nice vicar. As much as i am sure it will be lovely on the day and teh vicar is so much nicer it is not what we wanted we wanted a church that meant something to us, and to say they were rude is a understatement they accused us of just wanting a booze up, the church wardens words!! They lied to us etc and got caught out by leaving a message on my answerphone thinking it was the other bride!! Sorry rant over and hope nobody else had this experience as it was so stressful H2b even ended up going teh doctors as he wasnt sleeping because of it all. I think what shocked me the most that if this was a business we would not accept it but becuase it was a church we have just had to forget it and move on x

Our vicar was lovely but v disorganised which did cause us problems! He doesn't allow any photography or videography during the ceremony as he found it distracted people which I was upset with at the time, but its his decision so thats fine.

My friends vicar insisted that she had a certain hymn that neither they or anyone else in the congregation knew which was slightly painful!

However to state the other side, most vicars have their fair share of nightmare brides and grooms too! Like the couple who sent their invitations out without even meeting / talking to / calling the vicar, and then got abusive when they were told the church was unavailable.

ETA: My Dad is a vicar!

I think you have to face the fact that your profession is treated with waryness by Vicars. I know that Vicars think that videographers generally are a nightmare because of the intrusivness nature of the job. I'm sure you are very very good at your job and are not intrusive at all, but whilst you are generally painting Vicars as rude, then its probably fair enough that videographers are painted as such!

Our vicar was fantastic, very helpful indeed. I think what you are doing is very unfair, as in all walks of life there will be a few bad apples amongst a rich harvest, you're sounding very very bitter indeed and what are you going to do with this report? Doorstep the Archibishop of Canterbury, demanding immediate change?!?

Vicars can get a raw deal from couples, they are treated as just another vendor to a wedding so its no suprise that occasionally they bite. They are also seemed as scary, because of the perceived position in society, as austere people who are old fuddy duddys. Complete rubbish, they are people who want to provide a first rate spiritual service.

What about the Vicars who have to deal with difficult couples? That will be far more the norm than the other way around, of that I'm sure.

Our minister has been nothing but brilliant. When asked about video he said he has no problem at all & doesn't ask for extra cash to do it like some I have heard - he just asked that the person with the camera stays in one place during the service - which I think it absolutely reasonable. He also asked the same of the photographer. Perfectly reasonable as I don't want a camera shoved in my face during the vows and the most special part of the day.

I have spoken to nightmare videographers too who have said that THEY are the most important people of the day as they capture everything forever (I quote!) - bloody awful and as a consequence we're not having a videographer - our friend is doing it for us.

I don't really know what has provoked your post - you have obviously had a tough summer.

Reading my post back I think i should have said more on my post about how nice and helpful our new vicar has been and think i probably just got a bit of bad luck with the first booking x

I don't think there's anything 'unfair' in what the OP is doing. And what exactly is it that you think they are doing. They're hardly trying to destroy the fabric of the Christian faith. I think they have a point and it has been expressed with sympathy for those ministers that are treated equally as bad by suppliers.

As for the type in bold, it's, well, a bold statement. How are you so sure? The OP has between 40 and 60 individual experiences in a year to draw their opinion from.

I think it's certainly worthwile bringing to the church's attention that times have changed and that, while the running of each church is ultimately the responsibility of the individual minister, some sort of official stance and guidelines regarding the use of recording equipment would certainly make things easier for both the minister, the couple marrying and their suppliers. The ambiguity that currently surrounds this subject is the cause of many problems for all involved.

x

I'm not a religious person, never have been, which is why decided that a church wedding was not for me, did not want to make a mockery of the church just by going for 6 weeks before we got married but thought I would add my 2 cents.

IMHO I think it really does depend on the vicar/priest/minister at the time, there are some out there that shouldn't be in the profession at all as they are not "people persons".

I don't understand this whole thing about videoing (SP?) Jesus on the cross or the Virgin Mary or anything in the church/chapel...there are loads of documentaries out there that cover the same "images".

Yes some brides/grooms/guests would get distracted by a videographer but would they not get distracted, if only for a second if someone sneezed, coughed or even if a young child cried out?

I know we all get grief in our jobs but TBH I think that this is just a little bit over the top, having someone video the most important day of your life should be up to the couple, not someone who works in the church/chapel, they do get paid for it after-all, does it really make any difference?

Sorry if what I have said offends people but it really is only my opinion.

My vicar has been excellent - his only rule for the day is no confetti in the porch and his reason for that is that the cleaner will tell him off !

Like any type of job you get people who are good at it and people who are not. And ones who are suited to working with people and ones who are not ! how many people have a doctor or dentist or had a teacher who aren't people persons (if that makes sense !). As for the video/photo thing - it should be up to them if they allow photos or not as that is there place of work they are in charge of. Some venues don;t allow flash photography in some places due to old paintings etc in those areas.

I don;t think you should be making sweeping statements about 'the church' just because of a few bad experiences. My vicar and the ones who have married friends have all been excellent and no rules or making people upset or uncomfortable.

Mine was brilliant too , her only request was like corrie said not to throw confetti in the porch.

She said if it was raining on the day we could go back in the church for any photographs we wanted.

She was actually away staying with friends on the day of our wedding & had said that said wouldn't actually be marrying us , , about a month before she said she would like to make the journey back & marry us.

She was a real gem.

Hi there,

Thanks for the posts so far. In response to those who think I am being unfair...I did make mention of the fact that some ministers have been brilliant so I'm not all one sided, but my post is about those who are not. I am not trying to tar the church with one brush - sorry if it's coming across like that.

I have come across some really totalitarian registrars who are equally rude but I'm not going on about them because while there should be a level of civility with everyone, a vicar holds a post of reverence that people are supposed to be able to look to as an example, so their responsibility in society is greater than that of a legal registrar. I was thinking last night about the aspect of evangelism in the Christian faith. The act of spreading the Word to people etc. If we assume that a vicar does 1 wedding per week throughout the year which in some cases I can imagine is true. If you count the bride and groom that's over 100 individuals (most of whom don't have much experience with church) 104 people that he is charged with spreading the word to. That's what the address is about during the ceremony. If he is rude and arrogant that couple is not going to listen to a word he says so he's failed in that duty. That's before you start counting the family members and then all those people that they will spread their experiences to. It's a huge responsibility.

No one is perfect and I agree that some couples can be a nightmare and I don't necessarily know the background to why the vicar is as is he is, but I deal with difficult couples and difficult photographers, difficult ministers, difficult venues and difficult registrars and while I am FAR from perfect in my response to those things I am NEVER rude, never biting, and would never dream of treating someone with disrespect based on their profession before I had met them. I may half expect them to be rude because of past experience, hoping that they aren't, but I wouldn't pre-empt it by being rude first! I suppose I will need to say that I also deal with fantastic venues and photographers and ministers and caterers and couples and some weddings are a absolute pleasure to film because of it!!

As far as videotaping a wedding being distracting that depends entirely on the videographer. If a videographer or a photographer thinks they are the most important people on the day of a wedding then you've lost a battle. The idea is for everyone to work together to create the best possible experience for the couple. That includes a minister who ministers and supports his couple and their family and can see past the immediacy of the service (ie recording it for posterity so that the service can be shared with even more people), a photographer who is respectful with personal space and aware of his/her surroundings and a videographer who understands that people are uncomfortable around video cameras and is able to keep their distance but still get the shots they need.

Maybe I am bitter, I just think that I can't get my head around people that act this way, it's foreign to me. I don't know who I'm going to speak to about it. I'm not an idiot, I'm not going to go to the archbishop of Canterbury and demand change throughout the church, but does that mean I can't try and do something? People have acted on far less. There is nothing wrong with voicing an opinion even if to a small audience. If anything I'd just like to sit down with someone and say but why?

I do agree with what you are trying to do - I agree that some vicars are giving out the wrong impression of God by what they do! I don't know who you would be best to speak to though - maybe your local bishop? Or a friendly vicar and ask their advice on how to best go about it.

The only reason that our vicar was unhappy to let our ceremony be photographed or recorded was because of his bad experiances so I do totally support his right to do that as his intension was to make the service the best it could be, as is yours!

Corrie, I've read and re-read it and the OP made no sweeping statements about 'the church' at all. I find it interesting that those who have had great experiences with one or a handful of ministers find it hard to believe that there are many who are otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with questioning 'the church' about a fundamental part of it's 'business'. I find the OP's viewpoint interesting in the light of the decline in attendance and society's more cynical view of the church as a whole. I agree that a wedding situation is the perfect moment to capitalise on a captive audience, a perfect PR exercise if you like. Given that the OP is a practicing Christian, I think it's certainly appropriate for them to raise such an issue with someone.

x

Ok, so we're not getting married until next October so we haven't finalised the videoing of photography yet but this was one of the things that I brought up with the vicar when we went to see him to see about booking the church.

He was fine with it aslong as it wasn't at the front or distracting for phtography but doesn't allow videoing during the actual ceremony, we'd also have to apply for the copyright licence thing. Confetti isn't allowed in or around the church, only at the gate at the end of the path. Overall he's ok. H2B thought he wasn't as vicarish as he thought he'd be (I'm still not sure what he thought he was going to be like, probably the old fashioned stereotype of a village vicar) however, I've known several vicars, both as my parish priests (used to be in 2 choirs at the same time) and as friends and they've all been different (although one of the ones that I consider a friend I wouldn't want near me as my priest)

So I found him (the vicar from H2Bs parish where we're getting married) fairly organised and fairly easy to get along with, except with a few things. It's his way or no way kind of thing. The first being for the rehersal. I know it's along way away but my CBM lives in Canada so I didn't want the rehersal to be weeks before so she couldn't be there. Anyway, he said that one me and H2B are needed for the rehersal as everyone else does as he tells them. This upset me as I'd like the bridal party to know when they are supposed to be doing things etc i.e. when CBM takes my bouquet, when the best man gets the ring out, that kind of thing, and I didn't real want them being ordered around. We haven't worked on this one yet.

The other thing that really did annoy me, and this is in the process of being sorted fortunately/hopefully, I was brought up and have a strong Christian faith and was brought up with the Book of Common Prayer, so to me the only service that would feel right is one of the old ones i.e. the Book of Common Prayer services (there's two, one where you obey and one where you don't). H2b has never really thought about the service and jsut assumed that it was the one with the old words in it (thees and thous etc) but this vicar only uses the modern one (Common Worship). He lent us a set of the words and neither of us like it, no do our parents, or any of my family. It seems wishywashy to us (I don't mean to offend anyone if they are having this service but that's just how it feels to us) and doesn't seems to stress the importance of the meaning of it as much (in our eyes anyway). Anyway, I've since rung the vicar and spoken to him but he won't do the one we want as he feels it's out of date, but both H2B and I are quite traditional in alot of ways, so feel that the older traditional services are right for us. Anyway, he's told me he'll ask around to see if anyone else will do the service for us instead of him but he doesn't think he'll find anyone (I know of at least 3 that chances are they would and do use that service). So at the moment we don't know if we're going to get an actual service that means anything to us.

I've since found out from one of H2Bs friends who got married 2 years ago in the neighbouring parish that our vicar has got a bit of a reputation, geez thanks for letting me know.

I'm now dreading what's going to happen next. And I thought that the church would be the easy bit.

C ?

I've heard this a few times. It might be worth finding out from him what the copyright license is actually for, because I hold a license from the MCPS called a Limited Manufacture License which allows me to record any incidental music recorded throughout the day including churches...so hymns, string quartets, choirs etc. If he is charging you for that then he shouldn't be. It's up to the video professional to cover that cost independently.I don't know whether the words in the service are copyright and maybe that's what it's for. Churches have to pay a blanket license to sing hymns and play music so it might just be to cover that but the way you worded it sounded as if you would need the license because if was being taped.

Some couples have to pay for the organist and the choir and then they have to pay extra on top of that for permission to film the organist and the choir even if their music will not be used in the final DVD. Last week a String Quartet charged the couple extra because they found out I was coming but when I showed them my license to film them they couldn't produce one which allowed them to play the music they were playing in public and for profit. Funny that! So as a general rule if people are charging extra for copyright make sure they are legal and paying it forward as well.

That was a bit off topic

As for the service itself, when I got married we brought in two ministers from our own churches into our parish church to conduct parts of the service but the parish vicar was legally bound to perform the actual rite of marriage, so don't know what your solution to that problem would be. Maybe he can't pronounce the words and gets tongue tied trying to do it so he doesn't want to embarrass himself. If you bought other people in to do other parts including the address maybe that's a way of getting the more traditional parts into the service without further stresses?

I'm not a Christian and I'm not a bride, so maybe my views aren't particularly releveant, but maybe they just give a slightly different slant.

I'm sure there are some ministers out there who are grumpy PITAs - unfortunately you get that in any profession. However I think there is growing feeling that a wedding is a bride and groom's big day (which is true!) and that they therefore should get to control all the decisions that are made. And that's the bit I don't necessarily agree with.

A chritian minister is a professional who is following their own beliefs and their own interpretation of their faith and of their religious texts. As such they have to be true to their beliefs and I don't really think it's fair to expect them to abandon this just because a bride and groom want things a different way. If a minister believes that photographing or videoing the ceremony can distract people form the solemnity of what is happening then I believe that they have to stay true to their beliefs and say that they will not allow something they consider to be distracting (whether anyone else agrees or not) to ocur while they perform the marriage ceremony. I think this applies to most decisions a minister might make. If they believe that X or Y does not fit with their beliefs or with their interpretation of their faith then I think they are duty bound to say that they won't do it or won't allow it.

Nobody forces a couple to get married in a specific church. You can get married in any civil ceremony or can ask to get married in a different church. But for me when you select a church to marry in you shouldn't just be looking at which is prettiest or nearest but also be discussing with the minister what their interpretation of their faith is and how that affects their feelings about what should occur during the marriage ceremony. If this isn't compatible with the couple's beliefs then the couple have a choice to make - stick with that church and that minister and his/her conditions or find a different church where the minister's beliefs are more in line with the couple's.

I think maybe brides and grooms think that their day should be perfect and compromise-free. But it is not fair or reasonable to expect someone else to abandon their own beliefs. If you can't live with the beliefs of a professional involved in your day and then I'm afraid you need to choose a different professional. To me this is no different from booking a photographer and expecting them to adopt a completely different style (for example a photographer who does traditional set-up group shots and wanting them to work photo-journalistically) or choosing a dress deisgner who specialises in sleek modern dresses and wanting them to do something frilly and flouncy. It just isn't going to work. Yes this is the bride and groom's day but it is also the profesionals' profession (and for a minister their beliefs) and you can't expect them to just abandon who they are and what they believe. If you can't live with that pick a different professional

[awaits flaming]

*flaaaaaaaames* for lucylu.??

I think you paint a very grim picture of brides and grooms. The suggestion is that they should abandon their own beliefs and for many Christians marrying in their own church is fundamental to their wedding. They may have grown up in that church and therefore their faith is intrinsically tied to it, it is to all intents and purposes their spiritual home. IMO ministers should seriously take this into account when deciding what is and isn't acceptable in that particular church. It is a part of the ministers job to care for their parishoners and to respect them.

I don't believe the church is immune to scrutiny when it comes to their practices. Whilst a minister may have his own beliefs and interpretaions of text, they work under the governing body of the church, therefore there should, like any 'company' be general policies and guidelines. Given that weddings are sometimes the primary income of a church, alienating it's parishoners and essentially sending them to a rival church is bad business. The Minister represents a whole parish not just himself and his individual beliefs. He has a duty to take their thoughts and feelings into account. And he has a duty to make sure that the church in his care doesn't fall to wrack and ruin.

I'm not a Christian. I was brought up in the Roman Catholic church (I'm no longer a member) and I can promise you that autocratic and unresaonable behaviour, coupled with bad business is what gets churches closed down and demolished. The people of a parish are what keep a church funded and standing generation after generation and are in effect shareholders. If the shareholders are mostly saying they want vidographers, then it should be allowed with set conditions, just like any other business.

As an aside, working with as amny couples as I do, I'm bothered by the general assumption that they're all demanding pains ITA. Out of 60 weddings a year I'd say that less than 10% are in any way unreasonable and the majority of them seem to take the actual ceremony very seriously. We often get asked to do things we don't usually do but as a supplier, being paid well, I consider it rude to be completely inflexible. Especially when it's something that we are capable of and it means something to the couple.

It goes against my musical beliefs to perform Simply the Best by Tina Turner *shudder* but if a couple asked for it as their first dance, then I'd have to do it. ?

x

Point well made Braw Wee.

I think Lucylu had a valid "part-point" in saying that no one should have to abandon their beliefs to fit in with the Bride and Groom or anyone else, but it's not like CariA2B is asking a Church of England minister to do a Catholic Mass, or perform a Hindu ceremony and then getting uppity about it when he says no. As for videographers, certain ministers are happy to have videos as long as they don't go behind the alter. This, to them, is sacred and shouldn't be used in that way, and I'm absolutely fine with that...but their reasoning is often nothing to do with their Faith, but more to do with what they find comfortable or the bad experiences they've had with other companies. I had one minister give me a position at the front and then comically moved a lectern and a big flower arrangement to conceal me from the congregation. The position he gave me was great, I just found the camouflage thing amusing. I'm not THAT ugly!

Lucylu, I'm with you again. I am not a christian but I am a bride and I think it is shocking how much people think they can demand/dictate purely because it is their 'special day' - the world still does not revolve around them, however much they would like it to!

I think its definitely true that if you are going to do the church thing you either have to take that church wholeheartedly, vicar and all, or you find the vicar first and then marry at their church - I guess it depends whats more important to you. My SIL2B got married at the pretty local church last year but had the sermon given by a different vicar who was actually a personal friend and the 2 vicars work in the same village anyway so are happy to work together.

We are marrying at the Register Office and if we've been told 'No' on something, we just accept it and move on. At the end of the day, the church is one of the oldest institutions and one of the most hide-bound by rules, regulations and traditions. I also don't understand the way everyopne is commercialising the church ie 'they are charging me I should be allowed to have what I want' - it simply doesn't work like that and if you want to get married in church thats something you have to accept.

I've not read every response in detail.

but just wanted to add my experience. my minister was great. he was welcoming, warm and funny. the sermon he did on our wedding day was personal and he clearly went to a great deal of effort to make the ceremony personal. in the lead up to the wedding, he helped us when we needed it and not once overstepped the mark or "behaved" badly.

but he told us, and we agreed, that the point of the marriage ceremony was not to be photographed and videographed for eternity. the point of getting married in a church was to make this commitment to each other in church. he told us that he would allow a photographer in the church at the start of the service, but they were to stop taking photos once i had reached the altar, and could take photos during the hymns only. the could take photos of us signing the register and leaving the church, and because it was raining he let us use the church for another hour for photos also.

we saw no problem with this at all. who did see a problem? the photographer. she wanted "full access" because SHE wanted to take photos during the ceremony and during the vows. we didn't choose the church because it would make a good setting/backdrop to the photos. we chose it because it was important to my husband that we were married in a church.

if a minister feels that having videographers or photographers doing their job during the service because they feel it would distract from the important part of the day, then the minister is doing their job.

you can get married without a photographer/videographer. you can't get married without a marriage service (religious or civil).

the whole idea of presenting the christian faith with a series of stories of how ministers/vicars wouldn't let videographers do what they want during a marriage service seems, to me, childish and bitter.

Perhaps you need to re-read the original post properly and some of the responses in full rather than skim reading. The post is not about moaning about letting videographers film the ceremony. The post is about how people are treated by SOME vicars, regardless of who they are. I'm not painting the whole church with the same brush, and I'm not simply having a rant because I can't get want I want some of the time. I happen to be a videographer so that is where I am coming from and obviously my stories will relate to those experiences which are closest to me. I didn't specifically ask for stories about people's experiences with vicars that didn't allow videography, it was more to do with their general demeanor and behaviour, in the cases I've witnesses, not befitting the station they hold. I will happily submit to the fact that this is my opinion based on my experiences which is precisely why I asked if anyone else had thoughts or stories. Braw Wee said in a post a while back that it's funny how people with good experiences can't fathom how someone else could have a bad experience...and perhaps that is where you are coming from.

As an aside it sounds as if you're dissing your photographer for wanting to do the best job she can for you. When we stress about not being able to capture something, it's not because our job is made harder. In effect, our job is made easier if there is a part of the day where we are forced to sit down and relax because we aren't allowed to film or photograph. We stress because we are worried about what you (the client) is missing out on. Some of us take a lot of pride in the quality of what we do for people. Did you make it clear to her at the time that you weren't worried about no photos being taken of the vows and exchange of rings. If you had, I don't think she would've worried about getting "full access"

I wasn't saying all brides and grooms are demanding PITA? We work with as many as you and have only had one problem and I agree most take the ceremony very seriously. I also agree that a degree of flexibility is key to working with anyone, but there does come a point where it just won't work. We know of photographers who have ben in wedding photography many years (sometimes 40+ years) who are very good at doing a series of set-up group shots. But if a couple comes along and wants reportage photography or informal low-key shots they just don't have the ability to do that. so rather than attempting it and mucking it up, surely it is better they explain to the couple that this is something they don't do and that if they want someone who does that style of photography then maybe they need to look elsewhere. Surely it is better to give a couple a product that you know is to the best of your ability than to take on something you feel really uncomfortable with and risk getting it wrong?

I just feel that from some posts on here the word "compromise" seems to be a dirty word. If it's suggested that a bride may not be able to get her own way on something there are lots of replies about how awful that is and how they should stand up to whoever isn't giving them their own way. Sometimes life doesn't work like that. Registrars have certain rules about what they are and aren't allowed to include in the marriage ceremony and each interprets those rules their own way. I remember posts about whether songs like Robbie Willaims' Angels would be allowed in a Civil Ceremony. Apparently some registrars allow it and some don't. Unfortunately sometimes you can't get everything you want and if that song is crucially important to you then you may need to choose a different district to get married in, where it will be allowed. It's the same position with churches.

I get your point about churches being a business and needing to include the views of their parishoners. But I feel that this is a decision for the minister (and church hierarchy) to make. I suspect some churches would rather have dwindling congregations than feel that they have "watered down" their beliefs. It's a judgement call. I'd also argue that often (maybe even the majority of the time) brides and grooms getting married in a church are not regular church attenders (or even potential regular church attenders) and while their views may conflict with the minister that does not mean that the regular church attenders don't agree with the minister. I'd also suggest that most people who have grown up in a particular church and attend regularly are likely to be on the same wave-length generally as the minister (or they would choose to attend a different church) so I would suspect that problems and disagreements are less likely between ministers and regular members of their congragation.

Some businesses choose that they would rather take the risk of going out of business than produce what they consider to be an inferior product. It may not be the best business decision but some decisions are taken out of ethics rather than business. And sometimes making an ethical decision turns out to have the opposite effect to what is expected and the business thrives.

The church is only a "business" insofar that they need to make money to maintain the infrastructure of the network of churches, vicarages, etc, and they are wealthy primarily only from their property holding, and this is needed bacuse you are talking about historic property which costs an awful lot to maintain. Beyond that, their primary driving force is religion. They can only do so much to be "popularist", they have guidelines ie. the bible to follow. There is a degree of inflexibility amongst vicars because of these guidelines, and some vicars will be more flexible than others which will be down to their own personal convictions. That is something that must be appreciated and understood, you simply cannot demand a business approach of customer satisfaction above all else, it isn't appropriate for a church's case as it isn't a key driver to them, catering to a community religious/spiritual needs is. You can only demand and expect that from the non-religious wedding venue marketplace Hotels, etc who have to provide complete and utter customer satisfaction because that is how they stay in business. You have to learn to work with the vicar and the church he represents,working around rules, guidelines and things which appear to foibles to some. Vicars are "person people" but some will be better at it than others. Vicars are on duty 7 days a week, what person could be sweetness and light 24 hours a day 7 days a week? My father is a retired vicar, he has battled depression for many years because of the pure stress of the job, trying to keep everyone happy, keeping a smile on his face, dealing with inteference of parishoners who think they know best, dealing with wedding couples who demand the earth, and yes dealing with the occasional pushy wedding vendor. Would you want the job?!?!?!?

I hadn't intended to reply to this thread again as some of the sentiments really send a chill through me "At the end of the day, the church is one of the oldest institutions and one of the most hide-bound by rules, regulations and traditions.", as if this means no-one has a right to question authority and that exact sentiment is the excuse for many an extreme view and action.

Minardi, I sympathise with your fathers situation, I really do. But it's a job he chose (or was chosen for depending on your beliefs). It really bothers me that a number of posters are saying that people on this thread are commercialising the church. The church do a good enough job of commercialising themselves without our help. The simple fact is though that weddings are a core funding element in every church. I'm well aware of the financial structure and that it is all, in theory, with an end to spreading the word of God. But the OP isn't 'demanding' anything, they have started an open discussion and wish to do the same with church figures. I don't see a problem with that. The world has moved on, I know I don't recall there being anything in the bible regarding the use of camera equipment during a wedding ceremony and I also don't see the problem with suggesting that there should be official guidelines regarding what is and isn't allowed, even if it meant no filming at all. If anything it'll save the individual minister a lot of stress and annoyance.

The comment in bold: I don't think anyone should ever expect that in any business. Both the OP and myself have spoken about degrees of reasonability on all three sides, minister, bride & groom and vendor.

As an aside, I spoke to the minister in the church accross the street for me. I'm not a member of the parish and don't intend to be but they do a lot to help the community and I assist them. His take is that official guidelines would be helpful to all. That way he can show the couple the rules, they will know that it is the same whatever church they choose and hopefully stop them calling him every 5 minutes ?

x

Our experience of officiants has been mixed. Some are lovely, state the rules but are generally helpful. Others look down their nose at you and treat us like we just walked off the street with a camera. We have been asked to be there by the couple as have the photographer and the venue/vicar/bishop/registra has. I think most videographers and photographers will stay in their corner and just do their thing as quietly as possible. Some dont like it as they dont want to be on camera, which is fine because were normally zoomed right in on the couple and guests and deliberatly cut out the officiant (there is a reason for this but I wont go into that here). So chances are they wont even be on the movie anyway.

There is no excuse for rudeness, from the couple, suppliers, church or whoever.