Accidental CC from wedding planner to couple reveals thriving English class snobbery

A couple in England have gone public with the news that a wedding planner at the Stoke Park country resort (used as a location in James Bond: Goldfinger) accidentally cc'ed them on an email where she advised her colleagues that they were not the "type of people that we would want" to get married at the hotel. The couple are presumably too petit-bourgeois for the resort: she's a drug counsellor, he's a Ministry of Defense engineer with an eyebrow piercing.

61 Responses to “Accidental CC from wedding planner to couple reveals thriving English class snobbery”

  1. knoxblox says:

    ” It’s Bouquet! B-U-C-K-E-T!”

  2. robuluz says:

    We are an extremely welcoming and friendly hotel and we are inclusive of everyone. Everyone is welcome.

    Heh heh. Yeah, bullshit.

  3. Cactaur says:

    “she’s a drug counsellor, he’s a Ministry of Defense engineer with an eyebrow piercing.”

    They fight crime.

  4. We need more creative trouble-makers and intelligent rabble rousers in this bloody country. Time to reclaim the media narrative…

  5. unit_1421 says:

    The English still think they have class? I thought all that went way when they elected Tony Blair as PM. If not that then certainly Oasis, Crikey!

  6. EH says:

    Well LA-DE-DA.

  7. nixiebunny says:

    Time to get a couple with a good assortment of piercings and tattoos to show up, asking to do their wedding there. They’d want to discreetly film the reaction of the hostess.

    • Lemoutan says:

      It wasn’t ‘being an engineer‘ that was objectionable? Oops. I just assumed …

    • Boundegar says:

      I do hope there’s still time before the wedding to take their reception elsewhere.  If I was on the receiving end of this, I would forfeit my deposit and have my reception at the landfill before I would ask my guests to attend a function there.  Ever again.

      EDIT: Oh good they did.

  8. test spam says:

    get the full story, she also works for Red Light Central TV, where she encourages viewers to ring in to speak to her while partially clothed

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      The wedding planner or the bride?

      • test spam says:

        the proposed bride.    latest from bbc

        A wedding planner at a luxury hotel has been disciplined for describing a couple as not the “type of people that we would want” to get married there.

        Pauline Bailey and fiance Paul Carty had wanted to hold their wedding at Stoke Park, Buckinghamshire.

        But Miss Bailey said she had felt “crushed” after an email from wedding planner Michele Connelly was sent to her by mistake.

        The hotel said it had apologised and Ms Connelly had been disciplined.

    • EH says:

      Crucial information, thanks for sharin’.

    • grimc says:

      So the Daily Mail had a story on this too?

    • GoatLordMessiah says:


    • Rindan says:

      If that is true, who gives a shit?  

      I think you missed the point.  The point was NOT that these are two people of the proper class and breeding and so should have been allowed to have their wedding.  The point is that the wedding planner was a classist asshole snob.

      She could be a prostitute who works for hamburgers and Moxie, and her husband could be a star in gay porn whose shtick is interracial double penetration bukkaki gang bangs, and so long as they can pony up the money and follow whatever rules the club lays out, they should be able to have their damned wedding.

      • peterkvt80 says:

        Quite right. Plebs should be allowed to get married where they want.

      • IronEdithKidd says:

        Money speaks louder than any other trait in the US.  YMMV anywhere else on the planet.

        • acerplatanoides says:

           True. But we learned that from the English.

          • Rindan says:

            No, the US really didn’t.  The point of the article was that this was the reminiscent of that very nasty classist hereditary society that used to rule England.  Americans can barely understand this concept.  We are talking about “class” divorced of money.  That isn’t the suggest that America doesn’t have some level of this, just that in the US, the all mighty dollar speaks far far louder than any other considerations.  

            Put another, way if a dude in a cow boy hat wanders into a fancy place and looks like he is going to spend, he is going to get treated like a rock star.  The US has some vague concept of old money in some very small circles, but for the most part, new money spends just as good as old money.  

            I suppose this is more virtuous than a hereditary society, but I probably would still live it on the back page of the welcome brochure.

          • acerplatanoides says:

            new money spends a lot more than old money.

    • chgoliz says:

      And this forfeits her right to spend her money like any other citizen of the country?

  9. Steeevyo says:

    Ah the accidental CC. I know it will happen to me one day

  10. gumbowing says:

    Who would want anything to do with a place run by such despicable UC twits?
    The couple is way better off getting married at city hall and having a lovely reception at a local pub. 

  11. They should have gotten a free wedding out of that.

  12. Max Allan says:

    I wonder if it’s because she is almost half his age (27 vs 51). Some people get really freaked out over relationships where one half is young enough to be a child (not far off grandchild) of the other.
    Or maybe it’s because they’ve got a thing about people with similar names getting married : Paul and Pauline.

  13. Brad Bell says:

    I fear the class war is more serious than this. Look at the economy – 1% thriving, 99% continuing the long decline. This wedding incident is mere tribalism. The hotel don’t like anyone who clashes with the decor. No goths, no metalheads, no rastas, no cutoffs, no jeans, no baseball hats, no sneakers, no orthodox jews, no track suits, no birkas, no cyclists, no obese people, no  children, and so on. The class war is about running the corporation that owns the government – not running the snooty hotel.

  14. jon cg says:

    not condoning the behaviour but just to add to the discussion she does work as a host for an soft core channel
    the bbc left it off their article. I still think it’s ridiculous

  15. pineapplecharm says:

    I’m going to a wedding at Stoke Park in December.  I am pretty sure I can persuade all the stag party attendees, at least, to wear earrings and Babestation name badges to the reception.

  16. AlexG55 says:

    Stoke Poges is part of the list of chores in the A40 roundabouts: Hoover Building, Polish War Memorial, Stoke Poges…

  17. oasisob1 says:

    Notice the hotel didn’t say why she was disciplined, just that she was…

    “In the future, do take care not to copy such emails to the couple in question. Also, good catch they weren’t the type for our establishment/”

  18. Mr Mallon says:

    So the hotel don’t want their business…  It’s a tricky one. 

    If they were saying that they didn’t want the business because the customers were black, I would definitely have a problem.

    If they were saying that they didn’t want the business because the customers were gay, I would probably have a problem (I’m being honest. The religious rights of the owners vs human rights of the customers argument is something my head hasn’t settled as yet, but I’m leaning towards the human rights trumping religious rights).

    What if they were saying that they didn’t want the business because the customers were meat eaters, and this was a vegan establishment?  Is that OK?  How does that line up with the religious argument, above?

    They seem to be saying that they don’t want their business because they are ‘common’. Is that OK?  I’m asking because I really don’t know.

    • mindysan33 says:

      Well, I don’t think so but then again, I’m quite common. ;-) They may have the right to discriminate based on class, but that doesn’t make it moral or cool or good for society. Having federal laws here which ban discrimination based on skin color does not mean people can’t be racist asshats–it just means that they have to abide by federal law regarding hiring, firing, and serving customers, etc.

      Incidentally, segregationist made the “it’s private property, so we can discriminate” argument in the heat of the civil rights movement. Rand Paul made that argument back last year, in fact. But, supremacy clause, so federal law baring discrimination of broadly described public spaces reins supreme.  Of course, this is the US, and the incident in question is Britain. I’m not as familiar with that ball of wax.  

      I dont’ think the vegan/meat-eater question comes into this at all.  I am quite free to go to a vegan restaurant and eat there, they just won’t serve me meat. If I go and demand a steak dinner and raise a stink about it when my steak is a tofued affair, they can throw me out, because I’m being an asshat.

      EDIT: Damn it! Now I need to go listen to Pulp’s Common People!

  19. howaboutthisdangit says:

    “This is a working-class couple, from the deep end of the gene pool.  They are not sufficiently inbred for our taste.”

  20. mindysan33 says:


    Scratch that… being common just makes him all the better!

  21. Tom says:

    Does this venue receive tax dollars? It did not seem that way from the article, so private property = private rules. Don’t like it? Boycott! Refuse to spend your dollars at this place. Already a member? Quit if you don’t agree with their policy.

    If we try to outlaw being a snobby, classless asshole, then the terrorists have won.

Leave a Reply