You continue to argue that I'm saying the exact opposite of what I've said. Are you arguing only for the sake of it? > It does not mean the event is open to th

You continue to argue that I'm saying the exact opposite of what I've said. Are you arguing only for the sake of it? > It does not mean the event is open to the public. I have never said any such thing. It is public in the sense that it is publicized, as I've now mentioned countless times. The word "public" also means something that is "official" and out in the open. It doesn't always mean that it is something which the general public is invited to attend. A good example is the one you gave on the royal wedding. All weddings are public weddings in that very same sense. > You seem to think that more words are needed in English to get the concept across, yet you seem to be the only one with the inability to grasp the concept. Clearly there are more words needed, since you continue to understand the exact opposite of what I'm saying. > Why you think that a wedding needs a public announcement because of regulations is relevant or not is something I cannot see the point of making. Then ponder it.