Do we need wedding regulators to protect our big day?

After a string of recent weddings ended up in front of a judge, we’re wondering if there should be an independent body of regulators to police your big day. Think Judge Judy…with cake!



Regulators. We regulate any stealin’ of his property. We’re damn good too. But you can’t be any geek off the street. You gotta be handy with the steel, if you know what I mean. Earn your keep.

Wedding Regulators, mount up!

As anyone who’s either attended, organised or stepped within the inner sanctum of a wedding day will know that it’s a great day of great love, constantly interspersed with bouts of great stress. As a general rule, Weddings, unless you’re planted on some obscure table, close to the bar and/or exit, are certainly not fun.

This truism holds for weddings that are later viewed as roaring successes, but what, I ask of you, what happens when things truly go awry? Like, criminally awry. Two recent examples makes me wonder if there should be an independent judiciary or roving police force whose jurisdiction is kept at the étouffée table or the expanse of the more desperate bridesmaids. Clip-clopping into the trouble reception on their moral high horses. How elegant it would be. Plus, Vince Vaughn needs a paycheck.

That being said, if you fancy yourself as a Judge Judy in a cummerbund, how would you rule in the two below, entirely real cases of massive big day stupidity.


Case #1 – Texan couple trashes photographer’s business over $125, must pay $1m in damages. Boy howdy.

Now, this went down in the extremely tasteful sounding Petroleum Club in downtown Dallas, which is a fine part of town where extremely not-at-all-horrible things happen. It seems that ridiculousness walks tall over the streets that storied rifle fire once did. It culminated with a couple by the name of Andrew and Neely Moldovan appearing on television to display a box of empty picture frames. Lol.

Three months beyond their wedding, their photographer was holding the Moldovan’s memories hostage. Again, Vince Vaughn. The photographer wanted more cash ($125 whole dollars) and promised to send pictures of cut off wedding digits if their demands were not met. Citation needed.

In return, the acolytes who followed the dated scripture of the Moldovan’s took to spamming the photographer’s website, eventually sinking the studio in a tidal wave of neg vibes, and one can also assume was a grammatically impaired southern-by-the-grace-of-god effort. Again, because Kennedy. The Moldovans are now required to pay the photographer one million dollars in damages. Don’t do

Don’t do vows, kids.


Case #2 – Court catches up with UK wedding shyster, government reinstitutes capital punishment. Sort of.

Not judging, but this informational tidbit was discovered shouting to itself on another publication, replete with an extremely protracted heading that makes my head sore and my wedding vegetables limp. But, nevertheless, wedding planner Lisa Holt Pregnant is a wedding cake fraudster who ruined hundreds of brides’ big days by scamming them out of over £100,000 will give birth to twins in prison after being jailed for three years.

The general vibe from the stone faced victims, is one of gleeful comeuppance, in that Holt’s jail sentence was ‘exactly what she deserved’, which, yes, she apparently ripped off over a hundred people, but it’s hardly worth the level of hate radiating from the brows of her victims. I mean this is the court of public opinion, not the dock at Nuremberg. Although, you could argue that filing an insurance claim for a stolen ham that didn’t exist is a galling crime without peer.

Holt’s shady bonanza culminated in a burning of the bridge (or map of the Ponderosa) in 2015, when she shut down the website for her business, which resulted in an angry mob refusing to leave that place named Bake a Cake. Holt’s husband, Ryan was also jailed for his involvement in the plot, albeit for a lesser sentence, he did, however, get spoken down to by the judge, who said: ‘…you agree that you should have asked more questions, hmm?’, before laying into Mrs Holt: ‘You are a callous and dishonest woman who, rather than robbing Peter to pay Paul, as you suggest, was robbing Peter and Paul to pay yourself without conscience for the misery you caused.’ Your honour, I sentence you for the unprovoked assault on that innocent metaphor.

Lisa Holt is scheduled to be publically hung, drawn and quartered at the next high moon. Citation needed.

So in conclusion, should there be an independent arbiter that rules solely in these matters? Probably yes, but only if the court room is held in a virginal white marquee and tepid love numbers playing the entrance of the judge, as the jury quietly weeps at the beauty of the proceedings.

I love weddings.


Share via