|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Private weddings
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
When conducting a wedding, the instructions I am required (by law) to follow, insist that the church door is kept unlocked. This is to allow anyone to come in on the basis that they might have an objection.
How does this apply for the weddings of "celebrities" and "royalty" which have closed guest lists and usually bouncers (or worse, Police), on the door to stop non invitees going in?
Are such weddings legal?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I don't know, and it's a good point. The "Guide to Authorised Persons" says:
At least two witnesses must also be present, and the doors of the registered building must be open. (The doors need not be actually open provided that they are not so closed as to prevent persons from entering that part of the building in which the marriage is solemnized).
And that's that!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
A very literalistic interpretation of the text Baptist Trainfan quoted would suggest that you either need to let people in or have the doors open. But arguably the bit in brackets doesn't apply if the doors are literally open. So if you have the doors open, but security guards blocking people coming through, you're in compliance with the letter of the law.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
seems clear enough for the usual standards of English law tbh. The way that's worded, so long as it's security guards rather than the doors themselves doing the stopping then you can keep out who you like.
Just don't lock the doors and it's all legal and fine...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
seems clear enough for the usual standards of English law tbh. The way that's worded, so long as it's security guards rather than the doors themselves doing the stopping then you can keep out who you like.
Just don't lock the doors and it's all legal and fine...
But what if those restrained by the guards have a valid objection -- preventing entry is contrary to English law.
[ 14. March 2014, 18:47: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We used to do gay and lesbian blessings (some with a much bigger congregation than weddings attracted) with the doors shut because we didn't want the press reporting us.
It's probably contra to canon law to have the doors of any church shut, so as to exclude anyone. You want to keep people out of a church?
Anyway, interesting to have confirmation to my assertions that CofE clergy have been quite prepared to break the law over certain DH issues for quite some time.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
AndyB
Shipmate
# 10186
|
Posted
In Ireland and Northern Ireland, all declarations are now done to the civil registrar, and any licensed minister asking if anyone knows any cause why the people concerned should not be joined in marriage is therefore only doing so for tradition's sake.
I think that the principle remains that marriage is a public ceremony, and in turn a religious service in a church should in principle be public.
Posts: 149 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We used to do gay and lesbian blessings (some with a much bigger congregation than weddings attracted) with the doors shut because we didn't want the press reporting us.
So your doors were locked for fear of the news?
(I'll get me coat...)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We used to do gay and lesbian blessings (some with a much bigger congregation than weddings attracted) with the doors shut because we didn't want the press reporting us.
It's probably contra to canon law to have the doors of any church shut, so as to exclude anyone. You want to keep people out of a church?
Anyway, interesting to have confirmation to my assertions that CofE clergy have been quite prepared to break the law over certain DH issues for quite some time.
Delighted that your church did this Leo. Sad it had to be behinbd closed doors, but for understandable reasons. 'The law's an ass'.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We used to do gay and lesbian blessings (some with a much bigger congregation than weddings attracted) with the doors shut because we didn't want the press reporting us.
So your doors were locked for fear of the news?
(I'll get me coat...)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Love it!
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We used to do gay and lesbian blessings (some with a much bigger congregation than weddings attracted) with the doors shut because we didn't want the press reporting us.
Sure, but these are not "legal" services in the eyes of the State, simply services that churches can do.
There are a few Baptists who don't perform weddings as they don't want to be agents of the State - they will of course bless a marriage that has been contracted civilly.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
OddJob
Shipmate
# 17591
|
Posted
My suspicion is that the doors are left unlocked. But any troublemaker would be intercepted well before they reached them, by a 'builder', 'painter' or 'traffic warden' in the vicinity. I've seen a few such eagle eyed, athletic young men prowling around a local, high profile venue when royalty and the PM have visited. Have you ever seen a builder, perched in an obvious vantage point, take ten minutes to eat a sandwich whilst watching every little movement within his view?
Posts: 97 | From: West Midlands | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We used to do gay and lesbian blessings (some with a much bigger congregation than weddings attracted) with the doors shut because we didn't want the press reporting us.
It's probably contra to canon law to have the doors of any church shut, so as to exclude anyone. You want to keep people out of a church?
Anyway, interesting to have confirmation to my assertions that CofE clergy have been quite prepared to break the law over certain DH issues for quite some time.
We no longer have to break the law because the House of Bishops tells us we can 'pray with' people after civil partnerships as a pastoral response. So the doors remain open now.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
We had a baptism for the child of a VERY FAMOUS ROCK MUSICIAN and were asked if the doors could be locked, bouncers in place (!) etc.
We said no to security but had a solution: we put up the FUNERAL TODAY signs - by-and-large the press are too dim to work out that funerals just don't happen on a Sunday.
Service went off without incident - they even joined in the hymns!
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
We had a baptism for the child of a VERY FAMOUS ROCK MUSICIAN and were asked if the doors could be locked, bouncers in place (!) etc.
We said no to security but had a solution: we put up the FUNERAL TODAY signs - by-and-large the press are too dim to work out that funerals just don't happen on a Sunday.
Service went off without incident - they even joined in the hymns!
Sad that you're seemingly comfortable being party to a blatant lie. Where else is your church prepared to be economical with the actualite?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
We had a baptism for the child of a VERY FAMOUS ROCK MUSICIAN and were asked if the doors could be locked, bouncers in place (!) etc.
We said no to security but had a solution: we put up the FUNERAL TODAY signs - by-and-large the press are too dim to work out that funerals just don't happen on a Sunday.
Service went off without incident - they even joined in the hymns!
Sad that you're seemingly comfortable being party to a blatant lie. Where else is your church prepared to be economical with the actualite?
Surely lying to prevent the paparazzi does much more good than bad? Since when was lying always bad?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
We had a baptism for the child of a VERY FAMOUS ROCK MUSICIAN and were asked if the doors could be locked, bouncers in place (!) etc.
We said no to security but had a solution: we put up the FUNERAL TODAY signs - by-and-large the press are too dim to work out that funerals just don't happen on a Sunday.
Service went off without incident - they even joined in the hymns!
Sad that you're seemingly comfortable being party to a blatant lie. Where else is your church prepared to be economical with the actualite?
Not really a lie. Baptism signifies the death of the old person and the new rebirth in Christ, so in a way is a funeral of sorts. And the font is sort of (almost) coffin shaped.
[ 15. March 2014, 17:40: Message edited by: Spike ]
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I think in this instance, a little white lie is by far the most pastorally sensitive and sensible option.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Since when was lying always bad?
Let your yes be yes and your no be no. If you're happy to admit to lying - then when might you be telling the truth?
There's one or two references to bearing false witness ....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think in this instance, a little white lie is by far the most pastorally sensitive and sensible option.
Tbh I can't think of any instance where any lie white or otherwise [there's no such thing anyway, just lies] - is sensitive or sensible.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chocoholic
Shipmate
# 4655
|
Posted
I think the example of Rahab is a biblical basis for an example of when a lie is justified.
(Autocorrect changed to rehab!)
[ 15. March 2014, 21:15: Message edited by: Chocoholic ]
Posts: 773 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
This thread is about whether weddings can legally be held in private. If you want to debate the ethics of lying, then you can open a new thread in Purgatory. Much obliged.
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
This thread is about whether weddings can legally be held in private. If you want to debate the ethics of lying, then you can open a new thread in Purgatory. Much obliged.
seasick, Eccles host
Thanks for the steer: back on course. Are private weddings legal then?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
In England, Jewish or Quaker weddings have different rules so might be capable of being private and legal (I don't know the laws for them). The other exceptions might be prisoners or people for whom long term disability/illness means they can't leave their house or hospital for whom special permission has been granted so they don't need to be married in a church or other registered place.
Or one could cross the border; does Scotland allow private weddings? Most states in the US certainly allow it.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I've attended two private weddings, which are allowed in Ontario-- the two I attended were front room events. I have only heard of them in non-religious venues. The Liquor Control Board even provides special permits for private weddings, admission to which must be by invitation only.
[ 18. March 2014, 10:30: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I've attended two private weddings, which are allowed in Ontario-- the two I attended were front room events. I have only heard of them in non-religious venues. The Liquor Control Board even provides special permits for private weddings, admission to which must be by invitation only.
Massachusetts is vexingly strict about dispensing liquor. Wifey and I had to get a liquor license and hire a bartender just to serve wine and champagne at our wedding reception in the parish hall. Quite the pain that was.
Fortunately, being an Episcopal church, the parish had the foresight to have the verger trained and certified as a bartender.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I may be misunderstanding this, but I don't think ExclamationMark wants to be able to perform weddings in private. Although objections à la Jane Eyre are rare, most of us accept that weddings must be in public and why. It's the reception that's by invitation only, as you need to be able to know how many to cater for. What I think ExclamationMark is asking about are three things:-
a. How do celebs etc where there are security concerns or even where the right to sell photos to Hello might be a marketable commodity, get round this? Is there any lawful way they can?
b. If a marriage breaks this rule, is it void? Or is there some other penalty in stead, such as imprisoning the celebrant?
c. What does he do if as a Christian Minister gets asked to perform such a wedding?
I think the answer to the third question is the easiest. If EM is CofE ask the Diocesan Registrar. If he's a RC priest or a nonconformist minister, ask the Superintendent Registrar. Either way, do whatever he or she says, to the letter.
Incidentally, have I understood Shipmates correctly that in Canada and in Massachusetts, it is not normal to provide wine at a wedding reception? If so, that's quite a big difference from what wedding guests expect here.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
a. How do celebs etc where there are security concerns or even where the right to sell photos to Hello might be a marketable commodity, get round this? Is there any lawful way they can?
As I understand it (and contra suggestions made in previous posts on this thread), legally the position is that if a couple get married in a C of E church, no-one may be prevented from entering the church. The service must be open to all. How celebs get round that is another issue. Having bouncers at the door would seem to me to be a negation of the legal right of all to enter the church for the wedding. If a journalist wanted to push the matter, it would be interesting to see what would ensue. Legally they would have every right to do so and the couple and their bouncers would be at fault.
Apart from the obvious tactic of secrecy and misdirection, I guess that one legal move would be to ask all people entering the church to hand in their cameras at the door. There is nothing to prevent a minister from making this demand.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
b. If a marriage breaks this rule, is it void? Or is there some other penalty in stead, such as imprisoning the celebrant?
If a marriage breaks this rule, it is NOT illegal or invalid. It is a perfectly valid marriage, with one proviso. IF someone can prove that they were prevented from entering the church AND that had they been able to enter the church they would have made a legal objection to the marriage taking place (ie, one of the couple were already married or the couple were too closely related or were not of the age of consent), then (and only then) would the marriage be looked at and possibly annulled if the objection was found to be valid.
With regards to "punishment" for the minister - I guess the most likely thing is that a complaint under the Clergy Disciplinary Measure could be made. If proved, the minister would most likely receive a rap on the knuckles from the bishop and told not to do it again.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
c. What does he do if as a Christian Minister gets asked to perform such a wedding?
If a celeb wants to get married at their church, the first thing would indeed be to consult the Diocesan registrar for advice. I would also firmly recommend talking to the bishop, the archdeacon and the diocesan director of communications. Make sure that everyone is on board and that any actions and decisions are agreed by the Powers That Be. That way, the minister has no chance of becoming a patsy.
(A few years ago, I got a phone call one Friday from someone claiming to be from the Daily Mail. Was it true, they asked, that a certain Very Famous Footballer and his Very Famous Fiancee were going to get married in my church on the Saturday? As we DID have a wedding that day, and as I really didn't want to give any assistance to the Daily Mail, I simply replied that, were such a wedding about to take place, I was sure that the journalist would understand that I would be under strict instructions to keep it confidential and so my only reply will be "no comment". I was hoping that they would have sent a photographer to the church on the off chance - which might have been nice for the couple I WAS marrying that day, who were a lovely couple. Sadly, no papparazzi turned up.)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I may be misunderstanding this, but I don't think ExclamationMark wants to be able to perform weddings in private. Although objections à la Jane Eyre are rare, most of us accept that weddings must be in public and why. It's the reception that's by invitation only, as you need to be able to know how many to cater for. What I think ExclamationMark is asking about are three things:-
a. How do celebs etc where there are security concerns or even where the right to sell photos to Hello might be a marketable commodity, get round this? Is there any lawful way they can?
b. If a marriage breaks this rule, is it void? Or is there some other penalty in stead, such as imprisoning the celebrant?
c. What does he do if as a Christian Minister gets asked to perform such a wedding?
I think the answer to the third question is the easiest. If EM is CofE ask the Diocesan Registrar. If he's a RC priest or a nonconformist minister, ask the Superintendent Registrar. Either way, do whatever he or she says, to the letter.
Incidentally, have I understood Shipmates correctly that in Canada and in Massachusetts, it is not normal to provide wine at a wedding reception? If so, that's quite a big difference from what wedding guests expect here.
First, many UCC & PCC outlets will not provide wine at a reception in their halls. For others, it is frequently enough done that I know of church staff and volunteers who have Ontario's required Safe Serve certification (where staff are trained to guard against guests getting blotto or underaged persons being served).
Second, the two weddings I attended were in the front rooms of the couples' houses: the first by a provincial court judge as one of the grooms was at the last stages of cancer and could not leave the house; the other had a retired Anglican priest officiate using the BCP as the couple was quite elderly and felt that a wedding outside was impractical. In both cases, the doors were not open to anyone but invited guests. Excellent champagne was served at both.
I have since heard of a third closed wedding up by Lake Simcoe where the bride was Cypriot Muslim and the groom UCC-- the intent was the viciously (I use the term carefully) bride's family did not interfere with the wedding. A UCC minister of my acquaintance officiated and the church doors were locked after invited guests had arrived.
However, these are all exceptional cases, but given that judges and mainline clergy were involved, I would say that non-public marriages would be quite legal in Ontario.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Not many, most if not nearly all UCCan churches will not allow alcohol on the premises. I don't know of any church in my presbytery or the neighbouring one that does.
Second, I checked the Marriage Act (Ontario) and it does not require a public ceremony or one that requires "general admission"; only the presence of two witnesses and a licensed officiant.
The United Church does require permission of the Session, but we require that for everything.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
b. If a marriage breaks this rule, is it void? Or is there some other penalty in stead, such as imprisoning the celebrant?
If a marriage breaks this rule, it is NOT illegal or invalid. It is a perfectly valid marriage, with one proviso. IF someone can prove that they were prevented from entering the church AND that had they been able to enter the church they would have made a legal objection to the marriage taking place (ie, one of the couple were already married or the couple were too closely related or were not of the age of consent), then (and only then) would the marriage be looked at and possibly annulled if the objection was found to be valid.
Are you sure that is correct? The regulations seem to imply that a "closed door" wedding would be void irrespective of the other concerns you mention, as it would no longer be a "public" ceremony.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Second, I checked the Marriage Act (Ontario) and it does not require a public ceremony or one that requires "general admission"; only the presence of two witnesses and a licensed officiant.
As does the (Federal) Marriage Act 1961 here. That does not really matter, as more and more marriages seem to be celebrated in public parks and reserves, out in the open and visible to many. I don't know offhand of any canon of the Anglican Church here which requires open doors in a church.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
If you're desperate to stay under the radar in England perhaps you could have a downbeat civil ceremony at a register office (the doors might be open, but who gatecrashes a register office other than the police busting an immigration scam?) and then have a blessing or some other non-legal event in a church or somewhere else behind closed doors. I quite like that idea.
[ 18. March 2014, 23:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
SPK is right on this. I've checked with UCC, PCC and Baptist contacts, and none of them know of any of their outlets which serve wine at receptions at their halls. The Ottawa Valley UCC and PCC practice for funeral wakes and wedding receptions is to go outside by the heating oil tanks (where the horse shelters used to be) and there will always be a few stalwarts with mickeys of rye handy to flavour one's tea and wash down the egg salad sandwiches. I can personally attest to this tradition.
My Baptist contact confirmed that private weddings are entirely kosher-- the few which she has done were hospital or hospice and she was in tears after each event.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Episcopalians are drinkers to the extent that the notice from the city that it had every intention of enforcing liquor laws on church property caused WEEKS of consternation.
[ 19. March 2014, 02:12: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
With the relaxation of the residency rules for CofE churches I'd have thought it was relatively simple for a 'celebrity' couple to get married without the attentions of the press.
First, don't get married by banns, get an ordinary licence from the registrar. It is a licence to be married - you can choose where.
Second, choose a church with a family connection but perhaps not the most obvious one.
You and your intended go away, separately, for a few days. While away, you get married.
All the usual things like music, flowers, etc, can all be sorted out by another trusted party - you don't need to do it yourself, or give the name of the bride or groom. Similarly, the reception can be sorted out by a family member or trusted friend with a different surname.
It is perfectly possible for even A listers to do things under the radar if they want - it just needs planning - Keira Knightley managed it.
What should be borne in mind is that in many cases it is the family of celebs who alert the tabloids to events...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
With the relaxation of the residency rules for CofE churches I'd have thought it was relatively simple for a 'celebrity' couple to get married without the attentions of the press.
First, don't get married by banns, get an ordinary licence from the registrar. It is a licence to be married - you can choose where.
If you have a qualifying connection with the church where you are planning to get married, it will be even more discreet if you obtain a Common Licence since, by contrast with civil preliminaries you do not have to publish notice of your intention to marry.
For a Registrar's certificate to marry in a C of E church you will need to give notice of intention to marry - posted on the board at the relevant Registry Office(s), and one of you will need to reside in the parish for a week to establish 'residence'.
It is only possible to marry in a Religious Building in the Registration District where one or both of you reside or in a building outside your district(s) of residence providing it is where either of you usually worship.
There's quite a clear statement of all this on the City of Bradford's website
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
b. If a marriage breaks this rule, is it void? Or is there some other penalty in stead, such as imprisoning the celebrant?
If a marriage breaks this rule, it is NOT illegal or invalid. It is a perfectly valid marriage, with one proviso. IF someone can prove that they were prevented from entering the church AND that had they been able to enter the church they would have made a legal objection to the marriage taking place (ie, one of the couple were already married or the couple were too closely related or were not of the age of consent), then (and only then) would the marriage be looked at and possibly annulled if the objection was found to be valid.
Are you sure that is correct? The regulations seem to imply that a "closed door" wedding would be void irrespective of the other concerns you mention, as it would no longer be a "public" ceremony.
I used to have a really handy publication entitled "Anglican Marriage in England and Wales. A guide to the law for clergy”, which would have been my immediate source for such questions.
Unfortunately, I have recently left the UK and left that booklet behind, on the grounds that I wouldn't need it any more.
One publication that I do still have in electronic format has a small section on this. It simply says:
quote:
The public must have unrestricted access to the building during any marriage ceremony to allow for valid objections against the marriage.
And that's the key issue here - the unrestricted access is to allow for valid objections. If you have not permitted "unrestricted access", it won't ultimately matter if there are no valid objections. The marriage is still kosher and the couple don't have to remarry. The problem only arises if there were valid objections which could have been made and where the failure to provide unrestricted access prevented these objections being heard.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
SPK is right on this. I've checked with UCC, PCC and Baptist contacts, and none of them know of any of their outlets which serve wine at receptions at their halls. The Ottawa Valley UCC and PCC practice for funeral wakes and wedding receptions is to go outside by the heating oil tanks (where the horse shelters used to be) and there will always be a few stalwarts with mickeys of rye handy to flavour one's tea and wash down the egg salad sandwiches. I can personally attest to this tradition.
My Baptist contact confirmed that private weddings are entirely kosher-- the few which she has done were hospital or hospice and she was in tears after each event.
Then again, precious few wedding receptions take place in church halls in the UCC in my experience. Most couples go to a country club or commercial reception hall or somewhere else with a chef and they do of course serve alcohol.
My brother's wedding four years ago took place in a United Church in Peterborough, but the reception was at a Stoney Lake resort with a bar. Though I only had one glass of wine because of the medication I was on, and because I was driving.
Nowadays the greater concern isn't the principle of temperance but the liability costs that alcohol entails. A church would have to pay more for insurance and it places a much more stringent oversight role on the Trustees and Stewards. If there isn't much demand for it, it's easier to just be dry in practice and save money. People can be served elsewhere and they seem happy about this.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
It's hardly unusual to serve booze in CofE churches but we had our whole reception in the nave (buffet plus disco). Very jolly it was too - with an open invitation to the parish in the bulletin.
The legality of private weddings is something I have wondered about before so I am grateful for this thread.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
"Anglican Marriage in England and Wales. A Guide to the Law for Clergy” seems to contain no reference to a public right of attendance at CofE weddings.
"Halsbury's Ecclesiastical Law" says "the actual marriage must take place in the body of the church, in the presence of the congregation" with a footnote to "The "Opinions of the Legal Board" (1973) reading "Tickets may be issued for a wedding (ticket holders being warned to arrive at a certain time in order to receive a seat), but no parishioner can be refused admittance on the ground of his not having ticket".
So it looks as if there is no general public right to attend a wedding nor even a requirement that the doors are open - only a duty not to deny bona fide parishioners entry.
The time for making objjections is during the reading of the banns and "Anglican Marriage in England and Wales' says that "an objection made at the marriage service cannot render ineffective a previously valid publication of banns".
[ 19. March 2014, 20:36: Message edited by: Corvo ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
It's hardly unusual to serve booze in CofE churches but we had our whole reception in the nave (buffet plus disco). Very jolly it was too - with an open invitation to the parish in the bulletin.
The legality of private weddings is something I have wondered about before so I am grateful for this thread.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
As regards Quaker weddings, I know I've been required to read a declaration of intention to marriage in a public meeting for worship so I'm guessing that, in the legal sense, the marriage was public.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
"Anglican Marriage in England and Wales. A Guide to the Law for Clergy” seems to contain no reference to a public right of attendance at CofE weddings.
"Halsbury's Ecclesiastical Law" says "the actual marriage must take place in the body of the church, in the presence of the congregation" with a footnote to "The "Opinions of the Legal Board" (1973) reading "Tickets may be issued for a wedding (ticket holders being warned to arrive at a certain time in order to receive a seat), but no parishioner can be refused admittance on the ground of his not having a ticket".
So it looks as if there is no general public right to attend a wedding nor even a requirement that the doors are open - only a duty not to deny bona fide parishioners entry.
The time for making objections is during the reading of the banns and "Anglican Marriage in England and Wales' says that "an objection made at the marriage service cannot render ineffective a previously valid publication of banns".
The "Guidebook for the Clergy" issued by the General Register Office in 2011/2013 seems to say something different: "The public must have unrestricted access to the building during any marriage ceremony to allow for valid objections against the marriage."
Although this is presented as referring to Anglican weddings, its terminology is broader, and the same as that used for other places where weddings are permitted in England, so maybe 'public' could be construed to mean 'parishioner' in the case of an Anglican wedding.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Actually, Ma Preacher did have an actual objection during a wedding she conducted. I was watching the TV trope of "an objection during the wedding" and asked her if it ever happened in real life.
It happened just the once to her. It was a big wedding, 400 guests, expensive dress, lavish reception, the works. An old boyfriend of the bride's stood up and objected. Ma Preacher turned the organist and said to play as if his life depended on it. The bride had turned as white as her dress. She took the parties out to the sidehalls of the church to get to the bottom of things.
There had been a the bachelor's party the night before and the objector, an old boyfriend of the bride's was still very drunk. He had feelings for her but she did not. The wedding resumed after 30 minutes but as an event, it was emotionally dead.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's probably contra to canon law to have the doors of any church shut, so as to exclude anyone.
But not wrong, presumably, to shut the doors to keep the weather out. Or simply because the door is designed to close, either because it's the door into the lobby of the church, or it's the door directly into the body of the church. I can't think of many churches I know where the doors are actually kept wedged and standing open during services. Don't see the point of it myself. Unless it's really hot in there.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
The "Guidebook for the Clergy" issued by the General Register Office in 2011/2013 seems to say something different: "The public must have unrestricted access to the building during any marriage ceremony to allow for valid objections against the marriage."
Interestingly (maybe), I can't find an authority for this. The Marriage Act 1949 makes it a requirement for other premises but not AFAICT for C of E churches.
Parishioners (i.e. residents in the parish have a legal right at Common Law to attend Divine Worship in the parish church in their own parish (and weddings may be counted as divine worship, I suppose). This would therefore mean parishioners couldn't be excluded, but possibly members of the public who are not parishioners could be excluded. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's probably contra to canon law to have the doors of any church shut, so as to exclude anyone.
But not wrong, presumably, to shut the doors to keep the weather out. Or simply because the door is designed to close, either because it's the door into the lobby of the church, or it's the door directly into the body of the church. I can't think of many churches I know where the doors are actually kept wedged and standing open during services. Don't see the point of it myself. Unless it's really hot in there.
Sorry I did mean shut so as to prevent any access (possibly locked) as opposed to being shut to keep draughts out and heat in.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
The "Guidebook for the Clergy" issued by the General Register Office in 2011/2013 seems to say something different: "The public must have unrestricted access to the building during any marriage ceremony to allow for valid objections against the marriage."
Interestingly (maybe), I can't find an authority for this. The Marriage Act 1949 makes it a requirement for other premises but not AFAICT for C of E churches.
Parishioners (i.e. residents in the parish have a legal right at Common Law to attend Divine Worship in the parish church in their own parish (and weddings may be counted as divine worship, I suppose). This would therefore mean parishioners couldn't be excluded, but possibly members of the public who are not parishioners could be excluded.
Yes, that seems to be the view of the Legal Board (above): "Tickets may be issued for a wedding (ticket holders being warned to arrive at a certain time in order to receive a seat), but no parishioner can be refused admittance on the ground of his not having a ticket".
So unless the fans can show they are parishioners the celebs are safe as there seems to be no general public right to attend a Church of England wedding - nor even a requirement that the doors are open - only a duty not to deny bona fide parishioners entry.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
