Why is Taylor Swift getting married at Madison Square Garden? Our theories and much more

We don't talk about anything else on Twitter. Taylor Swift is getting married (to Travis Kelce, but this is a minor detail) at Madison Square Garden, in New York City. You got it right: a stadium in Midtown Manhattan completely blocked for the wedding ceremony, and with it many of the streets (and subway stations) surrounding it. Security at the highest levels, policemen at every corner, barriers and helicopters, more than a thousand expected guests and speculations about dress codes and guest lists. The weekend, then, is a party. The popstar's love party, of course, but also the weekend of July 4th, very important for Americans, in which the independence of the United States is celebrated, which this year celebrates 250 years. The question arises: why there and why now?

Theory 1: Taylor Swift is an egocentric bride and wants all the attention on herself

The first theory is the easiest and also the most misogynistic, in fact it is the one adopted largely by what the press likes to call the web-people. In fact, it is assumed that all the decisions regarding this marriage belong to the bride, a finished bridezilla, who wants all the attention on what she considers to be the event of her life, the desired, the very desired, the very hasty, the cringe-wedding. If that were the case, it would have worked. Swift is not a newbie, and she knows very well how to attract attention, for better or for worse. Aware of his power, he would have given the press and the public the Americanata of the Century, the Event with a capital E, the one to remember over the years. CNN, for example, organized a live broadcast on the stadium, complete with hourly updates on the movements of the bride and groom. In short, it worked, and there wasn't much doubt about it.

Theory 2: It's a matter of security and privacy

If this is the common opinion (and theory) of the detractors of the singer of Style (good times), another version finds space among fans. Being a stadium - already run for large matches and concerts - it would be a secure option, easily controllable in the flow of people and in security, and for this reason it would also be the option that would guarantee more privacy, at least as far as what is happening inside it is concerned. Swift, after all, has a very sad story about stalkers and individuals who, thinking they could claim some right over her, showed up at one of her residences around the world, and were then removed by law enforcement. It's easy to see why security can be a sensitive issue for her and for her guests. It is, perhaps, more difficult to believe in the issue of privacy. Also because we can imagine - but we are not sure - that the photos will be given exclusively to a magazine and the like. Finally, the hard-hating ones point out: if she wanted to get married in private, couldn't she have been like Zendaya and Tom Holland? Very famous, very popular: yet we have not yet seen a single frame of the wedding. This is privacy and safety!

Regardless of everything: is it right for a billionaire popstar to block a city?

Both theories have strengths and weaknesses. The first, as already mentioned, is a bit caricatural and misogynistic. Is it really possible that the decisions are all made solely and only by the woman of the couple, who, by the way, has a very well-documented history of public polarization? If it turns out that it was Kelce's idea, could we expect different reactions? And then: is it really a woman's fault if she obsesses with what has been instilled in us to be the only (or almost) important moment in her life, even in spite of global success? For theory number 2, the cracks are in plain sight. A continuous live broadcast on the venue is not exactly privacy, and perhaps even from a security point of view, attracting this amount of international attention to marriage is not exactly the best.

Apart from everything, however, one wonders: is it right that a millionaire popstar should decide to block a part of a big city during a weekend of national celebration just because she can? In a world where not only general discontent with the economy and the ruling class is widening ever stronger, but also an objective decrease in the quality of life and a seemingly unstoppable increase in the gap between rich and poor, people are a bit tired. Of the overwhelming power of money, of fame and power, of suffering the eccentric decisions of public figures and then of hearing about them obsessively for weeks. Perhaps, therefore, the point lies here: in the progressive privatization of public space and in what we are willing to undergo. In the discomfort that normal individuals who want to take the subway on a national holiday must tolerate for the benefit of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce, combined net worth 2.9 billion dollars.