Ship of Fools: Where to marry?

Thread: Where to marry? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023892

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

Two questions. If you could have got married somewhere really unusual, where would you have gone? And for a slightly more serious angle, to what should we attribute the increasing interest in marrying in church ?

[ 22. September 2012, 20:20: Message edited by: Ramarius ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I cynically imagine the increased flexibility to pick the more photogenic churches certainly helps.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
And for a slightly more serious angle, to what should we attribute the increasing interest in marrying in church ?

I think that couples like the idea of a spiritual and traditional dimension to their wedding as well as the beautiful setting and the 'big day' extras.

The C of E is usually happy to marry people regardless of their beliefs, and some of those who don't yet believe like the idea of God blessing their union.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I cynically imagine the increased flexibility to pick the more photogenic churches certainly helps.

Is it cheaper, I wonder, to marry in a photogenic church than a photogenic hotel or castle? I'm sure that many beautiful churches keep an eye on the secular competition, and are careful to price themselves competitively.

I also fancy that in an age of great change and a loss of moorings, a little dose of tradition becomes comforting. There's something strangely old-fashioned about weddings. After all, isn't the now ubiquitous white dress meant to symbolise virginity, even though so few are virgins when they marry? There's the dream of marriage being forever, even though most of us also believe that divorce is reasonable in a range of circumstances. We don't want to cramp our style by being churchgoers, but we kind of like the idea of a close knit community where everyone looks out for everyone else, and where the life of the church creates a certain stability.

We buy into all of these fantasies, just for a short while, when we marry in church.

[ 23. September 2012, 13:32: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Under current charging (it changes next year) the church is the cheapest component. Even with all the trimmings - organ, choir, bells - the whole church service is cheaper than many wedding dresses or the wedding cars and several factors cheaper than reception or honeymoon. Last year we had someone come and enquire if they could change their wedding booking at incredibly short notice to this church from where it was booked because that church had building works. They were quite happy to pay the church fees and could get to the same reception from here. What made it prohibitively expensive to do was the increase in car charges.

Comparing that to weddings in a hotel - the actual service charge booking a registrar to come and officiate will cost the same as the service bit of a church.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

This morning, after we read through Song of Solomon, we were talking about how "sanitized" weddings have become. Pastor pointed out in the year he has been at our congregation no one has asked to be married in our building (we are a "church in the round"--there is no long aisle, something every bride wants) He has performed a number of weddings at other venues this past year, but not in our sanctuary.

Think this might be a reason to push for a new sanctuary?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
This morning, after we read through Song of Solomon, we were talking about how "sanitized" weddings have become. Pastor pointed out in the year he has been at our congregation no one has asked to be married in our building (we are a "church in the round"--there is no long aisle, something every bride wants) He has performed a number of weddings at other venues this past year, but not in our sanctuary.

Think this might be a reason to push for a new sanctuary?

Interestingly enough, I would personally prefer that - but then I have an anxiety disorder which means I find the idea of walking up the aisle unappealing at best. I would rather be already present in the sanctuary with my husband-to-be. I think this is why Quaker weddings have always appealed to me, despite being Anglican myself. In my town there is a church which has a long aisle leading up to the sanctuary but also a smaller, original side-chapel dating from the 1100s and I would much rather get married there than in the main sanctuary.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Jade, I see no problem with using a side chapel for a more intimate wedding, if that would make you more comfortable.

We actually have a smaller chapel for such intimate rites too, though in 20 years of being in this congregation I have yet to see it utilized.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

We were married in church. On balance having recently been to a register office wedding, if I was doing it now that'd be my choice.

I'd quite fancy getting a Scottish blacksmith to do it too (not sure if they're still allowed), that appeals.

Posted by cross eyed bear (# 13977) on :

We got married and had the reception in our regular church, where we have been active members for a number if years. It's not a pretty place, but, as well as the place having meaning to us, it turned out to be the perfect venue.

The main sanctuary is upstairs, with lift. We had the ceremony here, then some strong guests moved the chairs for a ceidlh. The caller and musicians could plug their equipment into the church PA system and use the existing drum kit.

There was enough space downstairs to seat 70 people, and a built in barbecue area for the local butcher to do us a barbecue. Other food was also bought in from a local restaurant; washing up was done by church helpers in the large church kitchen with industrial dishwasher.

Following the extension and renovation of the childrens rooms, the younger visitors had a place to crash out and toys to play with, if it all got too much. There were changing facilities and highchairs for the really small ones.

Photos were taken in the church garden, where 100 guests enjoyed coffee ( brewed on site) and cakes (provided by guests and church members).

In German weddings, guests provide a large amount of the entertainment with games, speeches and jokes. They could use the built in PA system and data projector.

As a city centre church, guests could arrive and leave by public transport at all hours.

It was perfect, the day itself was relaxed with no dashing from place to place, and it was free. I also gained a whole New appreciation of the church building and how lucky we are with the talents and resources the church has.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Jade, there's nothing in the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England which says that the bride has to walk up the aisle. It's custom, that's all; many people adhere to it, but you don't have to. It's not even an ancient custom--in the Middle Ages people were married in church porches. In Dickens's novels people are married early in the morning with nobody present but the vicar and a couple of witnesses (pew-openers, IIRC). I've married a couple in a side-chapel while their two-year old ran his little car up and down the altar rail.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I cynically imagine the increased flexibility to pick the more photogenic churches certainly helps.

I think I've told this story on the Ship before, but a student of mine, from a Catholic family though not particularly religious herself, once mentioned to me that if she ever got married she'd want to be married in the Anglican cathedral. Since our city has an equally old, large and beautiful Roman Catholic basilica, I asked why she would pick the Anglican church. Her reply? "Well, it has that great black-and-white tile floor that would look so good with my dress."

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Mr Liopleurodon and I recently had an extremely simple wedding in the local registry office with no reception because we don't do parties. We were fortunate in that of the two registry offices near to us, one was very pretty and looked beautiful in photos. The other was a soulless concrete block that was one step up from a portakabin. I felt bad for those guys, but I can't imagine anyone would *want* to get married there. As the registry office ceremony was all we had we really wanted to get a few nice photos out of it.

We wouldn't have been comfortable with a church wedding, but many of the secular alternatives were stratospherically priced. Pretty buildings with a licence to conduct weddings will charge thousands of pounds just for a ceremony and toast, and if you want to have a reception in the same place it's a great deal more. My parents would have been prepared to pay for that if it was what we really wanted, but I couldn't get my head around how it could possibly be worth that much money. If you want beautiful photos, and can't get to a beautiful registry office, I can see why you might go to a beautiful church. It would be far and away the cheapest option. It's not something I was prepared to do, but I can understand it.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

We performed a wedding ceremony in the side chapel last year. A couple with strong links to the church who wanted a church wedding but were struggling financially. The side chapel seats 20 and their close family were comfortably seated there. It was one of the nicest weddings I've been to. We (Rector and I did this one as a double act) played them CDs to come in, sign the registers and leave, and spent time chatting to them afterwards. We had the photo albums out to show them photos of their family involvement through the years. And what was charged was the statutory charges for a wedding plus certificates plus banns - so under £300. The reception was a family party.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I cynically imagine the increased flexibility to pick the more photogenic churches certainly helps.
I think I've told this story on the Ship before, but a student of mine, from a Catholic family though not particularly religious herself, once mentioned to me that if she ever got married she'd want to be married in the Anglican cathedral. Since our city has an equally old, large and beautiful Roman Catholic basilica, I asked why she would pick the Anglican church. Her reply? "Well, it has that great black-and-white tile floor that would look so good with my dress."

Those black and white checkerboard floors always make me think that bishops should walk diagonally across them.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

One of the loveliest weddings I went to was held in the main church service on a Sunday. The couple were regular churchgoers and therefore wanted to invite everyone, but couldn't possibly afford a proper reception for 200+ people. Getting married as part of the service meant that everyone was there already, and we all enjoyed coffee and cake at the back of the church afterwards. We all wore our normal Sunday church clothes, including the bride and groom.

And, being a Sunday, there was no problem with parking!

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

me, personally, I would want to be married among my friends and family, in a church with which I have some association. Not necessarily the place I worship most often for various reasons, but not some place that is completely alien to me.

It would be in an Orthodox Church no matter what (not in some more photogenic other type of church.. I don't understand that concept). I might under certain circumstances do it outside (on a beach, in the woods...) but the idea of having a wedding in a church in which I don't worship just seems strange to me. Perhaps if I found myself abroad for some reason (even perhaps specifically to get married), i would either opt for the "outdoor" type wedding, or try to find an Orthodox (in fact, not just Orthodox, but specifically one with a Russian history) church.

I'd love to be able to afford to go to an exotic location.. but I'd want to ALSO be able to afford to take my family and friends with me!

OK, I guess I should add that there might be some set of circumstances where the wedding would be in a church associated with the groom. I think it would be un like that I would marry someone non-Orthodox who had strong enough beliefs to make it an issue, but it's possible that even if the groom didn't, his family might, and I would take that into consideration. but since this is a purely hypothetical exercise (I'm happily married with no plans for another wedding), I think it more illustrative to describe what I would theoretically do without adding in a fictitious groom with different ideas.

Posted by deusluxmea (# 15765) on :

I wanted to get married at the Mortuary Station in Sydney but my mother strongly vetoed the idea! Regent Street Mortuary Station

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
If you could have got married somewhere really unusual, where would you have gone?

My own parish church.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Two questions. If you could have got married somewhere really unusual, where would you have gone?

Not only am I set to marry in my own parish church, the reception will be in the parish hall. Did you know you gotta get a liquor license to serve alcohol at a reception? In an Episcopal church?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Did you know you gotta get a liquor license to serve alcohol at a reception? In an Episcopal church?

This must be a local law. We routinely serve alcohol at receptions in our church.

Moo

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I guess I should add that there might be some set of circumstances where the wedding would be in a church associated with the groom.

My wife and I got married in "my" church, due to particular family circumstances prevailing at the time.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Did you know you gotta get a liquor license to serve alcohol at a reception? In an Episcopal church?
This must be a local law. We routinely serve alcohol at receptions in our church.

Moo

We can serve alcohol at receptions, etc. without a license, but if we sell it at a dinner or event we have to have licenses from the city and the state.

Posted by BessHiggs (# 15176) on :

My second husband and I got married at a pro hockey game. We were both active members at our church, and our regular pastor performed the ceremony, we just happened to be at a sporting event instead of a church sanctuary. It was actually quite nice, with all the proper words said in an informal setting and everyone had a lovely time, including my 80-something year old grandmother.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

One couple asked to be married in my church because they liked the building, but asked if they could have a wedding 'without all that religious stuff'. Actually, very few of the couples at my church who opt for a church wedding are church goers and are usually never seen again.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Very occasionally, a couple get married at our church and do stay. But usually because the vicar spends an inordinate amount of time befriending them. One wonders if this is sustainable church-wide.

The daughter of one of these couples is now in our choir, ten years later. So we obviously didn't put them off when we sang at their wedding [Biased]

Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on :

I'm getting married to Badger Gent next year. I was always very clear it should be a church wedding. The biggest decision was which church. Options were:

Church opposite house (I attend most Sundays)
Badger Gent's parents' church in suburban South London
My mother's church in Oxfordshire
Middle Temple Church

The deciding factor wasn't aesthetic but practicalities. Parent's churches would be difficult for traveling guests. We wanted to get married in the summer and June was ruled out (step daughter exams) as was July (Ramandan)(*)

I quite like the fact that I can sit in church on Sunday and during the dull moments (**) drift off to think about the wedding.

(*) Dad + family are Muslim. It was pointed out that a wedding during Ramandan would have very low catering costs...
(**) obviously such moments are few and far between [Angel]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Oh, I don't know. If weddings are permitted during Ramadan, the Evening Do (as it's called in these parts) could be pretty spectacular.

Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Oh, I don't know. If weddings are permitted during Ramadan, the Evening Do (as it's called in these parts) could be pretty spectacular.

Although iftar (breaking fast) will be after 9pm in July.... I dread to think what state the non-muslim guests would be in by that point. [Two face]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Just musing, as someone very unlikely to get married to a person of either gender... it would be in a church, of course, the more beautiful the better. But more important than the where would be the what and who. In short, I'd want the finest liturgical music possible, and be willing to pay the thousands for it that are usually splurged on a reception. A proper choir of men and boys would be secured if at all possible. If that's not o.k. with my fiancé(e), then of course I've made the wrong choice. [Help]

This thread has a heavenly aroma. I predict that it will be levitated soon. [Biased]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Every joy, Badger Lady, and congratulations to Badger Gent. [Smile]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I work in a church, and it's our requirement that at least one of the couple be baptized. (That might be a requirement set by the Episcopal Church, I don't know.)

But a lot of the weddings we do are "space rental" weddings - we have wonderful spaces (the nave, quire, and a couple side chapels). Many of the couples have only a tenuous connection to our church, or they have a connection to the city we're in. Other times, it's a convenient city for all the family members to converge.

But every now and then, it begins a relationship between the couple and the church, and that's really cool.

My favorite weddings, however, are those of congregation members. They're always beautiful (in the deepest sense) and worshipful.

What I really hate is when wealthy couples choose our church just for the backdrop it provides. They sometimes to expect us to let them do anything they want. It especially irritates me when they're two able-bodied people and refuse to kneel for the blessing just because they don't want to kneel. It's insult to injury, I think. They want the Church's blessing, but they want it completely on their own terms. Kneeling is a gesture (when people are physically capable of doing it) that shows humility, respect, and receptivity, even awe. Why would you not want to kneel (if you're able) when God through the Church is blessing your relationship?

My "favorite," though, was a bride who wanted us to move the high altar (which is in the crossing) for her wedding in the quire. As one staff person said, that could be done, but it would take a bit of dynamite.

Why do we put up with all of this? Two reasons: first, pragmatically speaking, it's a major source of income, so it funds our many ministries and helps us keep our doors open 365 days a year; second, and more importantly, it's an act of practicing God's generosity, and it's our hope that we can welcome not just the couple but all their guests into an encounter with God. So it's a form of evangelism.

We remind everyone that it's a worship service, and we limit photography and do whatever else we can to nurture that worshipful atmosphere. Prayers are said, blessings given, Scripture read and reflected in a homily, and the language and gestures of the whole service reflect a theology of divine love and self-giving to which marriage is supposed to point. So we're happy when even non-religious people choose to marry in church and experience the liturgy of the marriage service.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

When we got married we had next to nothing. We had a simple service in a church with some of our friends providing music, and a bring-and-share buffet lunch in the hall afterwards. Extended family and many friends came, and we had a large gathering that only just squeezed in.

We now have more and could afford so spend on more professional catering and a more salubrious setting. But I doubt we could have bought any more fun for us or our guests, or got any better memories for it.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
What I really hate is when wealthy couples choose our church just for the backdrop it provides. They sometimes to expect us to let them do anything they want. It especially irritates me when they're two able-bodied people and refuse to kneel for the blessing just because they don't want to kneel.

Fr. John Andrew at St. Thomas 5th Ave. had to make clear to outsiders that a wedding there doesn't mean they are just "renting a hall."
I suppose the issue is something of a roller coaster ride regardless, given the dazzling attractiveness of that space.

Perhaps it should even go in a written contract that the wedding party shall show up at the rehearsal sober enough to pay attention to the instructions and at least try to remember them. Doesn't always happen. A wedding rehearsal should precede the rehearsal dinner. The reverse order can be fatal. (Another benefit, of course, is that when people are hungry and looking forward to a banquet, they want to get the job over with and not goof off.)

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Just throwing The Real Live Preacher into the debate.

"Hollowed Be Thy Name", indeed!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0