Entertainment media outlets, for months how, have been reporting on – or making up stories about – Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s wedding. As the reported date approaches, the coverage has only intensified. But it was the story in The New York Times earlier this week that took it to the next level, because it’s the paper of record and, presumably, their accuracy is a lot better than the Daily Mail. But even they’ve been hedging, including a line in their story about how Taylor’s known for subterfuge and that it’s possible that all of this talk of Madison Square Garden could be an elaborate misdirection.
What the NYT is hearing, though, is that a small ceremony is supposed to happen on Thursday 2 July, for 100 people, at MSG, followed by a larger celebration the next day, Friday 3 July, also at MSG for up to 1,000 people. The permits have been secured, the streets will be blocked off, privacy will be protected.
What made me laugh, though, is CNN’s story on the wedding rumours, with the headline “A Taylor Swift Wedding at Madison Square Garden? No One Believes It”, with a quote from a policeman stationed outside the arena who said that, “She’s a glamorous girl. She wouldn’t get married here.” LOL forever. Like, if a beat cop even knows that MSG is not the look, how is this even happening?
And yet, if this were almost anyone else, the Occam’s Razor here is that it IS happening. At MSG. Next week. That said, can we actually apply Occam’s Razor to anything anymore in these misinformed social media times when the bad takes outnumber the good takes by at least triple? The internet doesn’t like a simple, straightforward explanation. The internet always chases the wild goose. And Taylor understands this better than most. Only she would have the f-cking energy to design an expensive and complicated ruse to camouflage the real tracks – if that’s really what it is. Nobody knows! But is it fun?
Of course. It’s fun. It’s fun listening to people debate why she WOULD get married there and why she would NOT. One of the reasons people don’t think it’s MSG is because, well, what would the photos look like? I’m sure TNT has hired the best event planner(s) and no expense is being spared but they’re not exactly working with the most wedding aesthetically pleasing place. Unless of course they’ve already taken their photos on the top of a mountain somewhere, which is not uncommon, and will formally exchange vows on the hardcourt, haha.
But if that’s the case, would Taylor deprive herself of the fairytale moment when she walks down the center court line aisle and Travis sees her in her wedding dress for the very first time and gasps?
Mostly, though, do they want the spectacle? Would they really willingly Bat-Signal their own wedding and take over Gotham with this much smoke?
I mean… maybe?
If there is a predecessor to TNT, as we established three years ago when they first started dating, it would be the Beckhams. The Beckhams were married on July 4, 1999…
Coincidence or conspiracy?
The wedding took place at Luttrellstown Castle in Ireland, and all gossips should remember that at one point they posed for photos on thrones. It was extra AF, no complaints. Not British in terms of its ostentatiousness but very British because… thrones, LOL.
MSG is not a castle but it is a crown jewel, an American icon in the heart of America’s cultural capital; a venue for champions, in a country that loves championships and winning, WINNING!, more than any other; which makes it a fitting wedding venue for two Americans who love trophies, are obsessed with trophies, and preoccupied with winning and conquering. MSG itself, you might say, could be their throne. It would be the most bombastic dick-swing of generational upgrade to the Beckhams’ bombast from the last century.
