Ship of Fools: Private weddings

Thread: Private weddings 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=027873

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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!

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

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.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

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...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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 ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

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.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

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...)

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

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'.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

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...)

Love it!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

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?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

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 ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I think in this instance, a little white lie is by far the most pastorally sensitive and sensible option.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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 ....

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :

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 ]

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

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

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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?

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

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.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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 ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.)

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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 ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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 ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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...

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

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

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

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

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

"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 ]

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

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.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

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.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

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]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

I knew an English church that locked or bolted the doors once the morning service had started. If you were a latecomer you had to knock to be let in. I thought this was very strange and I've never come across another church with the same custom.

[ 20. March 2014, 18:14: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Net Spinster:

quote:
Or one could cross the border; does Scotland allow private weddings?

I'm not an expert, but I've always thought the answer was yes. Lists of forthcoming marriages are available in the district Registrars Office, and so presumably objections could be made ahead of time, assuming someone was keeping an eye on the list.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

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.

What, then, if someone has an objection? Presumably it's included in every service as it is still required by law. Seems daft asking if anyone has an objection when "anyone" can't get in.

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

Banns have to be called publicly in the main parish service for three weeks beforehand and objections are requested them. May not be the three weeks immediately before the wedding, we built in a spare week or two, but has to be within a certain number of weeks of the wedding. (3 months? )

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I knew an English church that locked or bolted the doors once the morning service had started. If you were a latecomer you had to knock to be let in. I thought this was very strange and I've never come across another church with the same custom.

Usual practice in Scotland well into the 20th century, I understand - but I've never heard of it in England.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

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.
What, then, if someone has an objection? Presumably it's included in every service as it is still required by law. Seems daft asking if anyone has an objection when "anyone" can't get in.

The only grounds for objection are the legal impediments of age/consanguinity/existing marriage, and the reading of the banns should be enough to establish that none of these exists. Parents or guardians could withhold consent in the case of 16/17 year olds.

According to Anglican Clergy. A Guide to the Law for the Clergy the marrage service is too late for parental dissent so what it calls the "invitation to the congregation to declare impediments" can only apply to the former. According to the Prayer Book rubric any objector must give security for the costs that the parties may sustain as a consequence of his intervention and provide evidence of his claim.

In other words it's almost a matter of locus standi: the people who have a right to object are those with knowledge of the partners i.e. parents, guardians, neighbours (parishioners) and the 'congregation'. The public generally appear to have no right to attend - and perhaps in the case of celebs this turns out to be a good way of preventing frivolous 'objections'.

[ 21. March 2014, 09:00: Message edited by: Corvo ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
... In other words it's almost a matter of locus standi: the people who have a right to object are those with knowledge of the partners i.e. parents, guardians, neighbours (parishioners) and the 'congregation'. The public generally appear to have no right to attend - and perhaps in the case of celebs this turns out to be a good way of preventing frivolous 'objections'.

Sorry, that's a non sequitur. Even if they know the couple, even if they are close relatives, even if they are parents or guardians, those who someone thinks might object are unlikely to have been invited.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Presumably it's included in every service as it is still required by law. Seems daft asking if anyone has an objection when "anyone" can't get in.
1. The only grounds for objection are the legal impediments of age/consanguinity/existing marriage,

2. The reading of the banns should be enough to establish that none of these exists. Parents or guardians could withhold consent in the case of 16/17 year olds.

3. The public generally appear to have no right to attend - and perhaps in the case of celebs this turns out to be a good way of preventing frivolous 'objections'. [/QB]

1. You must include capability here - are the parties mentally capable of entering into the legal contract marriage (partly) represents in English law.

2. What if I don't know that the banns are being read? What if I become aware that there impediment after the reading?

3. I'm not sure the text supports this, though some readings might. In the case of 1 and 2 above, surely the event must be open to all? If it isn't why do the instructions from the Registrar I have, insist that access to the church can't be prohibited? Is the law different for the CofE????

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Is the law different for the CofE????

Well, of course, the law behind marriages in the CofE and Nonconformists is different - as well you know.

What is interesting here is the insistence on "the doors being open" which is certainly enshrined in the 1949 Act as far as Nonconformist "chapels" are concerned, and is also included in the official "Guide to Clergy" issued to Anglican priests.

What is strange, however, is that there is indeed no reference to this with respect to Anglican churches in the 1949 Act as promulgated - I checked.

So: was this a drafting error (and, if so, has it been corrected)? Or was it already covered by earlier legislation? Or has the assumption been made, even by the General Register Office, that this proviso applies to all when, in fact, it does not?

By the way, I don't think the distinction between "parishioners" and "other public" holds any water here ... the Guide to Clergy strongly implies that anyone has the right to enter.

(Anglicans please note: we do not call banns in Nonconformist churches. What happens is that the relevant paperwork is displayed at the Registry Office for a couple of weeks, this is considered sufficient as "public notice". And the residence requirements centre on Registration Districts, not Parishes).

[ 21. March 2014, 12:58: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I knew an English church that locked or bolted the doors once the morning service had started. If you were a latecomer you had to knock to be let in. I thought this was very strange and I've never come across another church with the same custom.
Usual practice in Scotland well into the 20th century, I understand - but I've never heard of it in England.

St.Matthew's Moorfields, Bristol locked its doors after its solemn mass started at 9.30 - because it is a supposedly tough neighborhood. It took me a long time to persuade someone to let me in.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Is the law different for the CofE????
Well, of course, the law behind marriages in the CofE and Nonconformists is different - as well you know.

What is interesting here is the insistence on "the doors being open" which is certainly enshrined in the 1949 Act as far as Nonconformist "chapels" are concerned, and is also included in the official "Guide to Clergy" issued to Anglican priests.

What is strange, however, is that there is indeed no reference to this with respect to Anglican churches in the 1949 Act as promulgated - I checked.

So: was this a drafting error (and, if so, has it been corrected)? Or was it already covered by earlier legislation? Or has the assumption been made, even by the General Register Office, that this proviso applies to all when, in fact, it does not?

By the way, I don't think the distinction between "parishioners" and "other public" holds any water here ... the Guide to Clergy strongly implies that anyone has the right to enter.

(Anglicans please note: we do not call banns in Nonconformist churches. What happens is that the relevant paperwork is displayed at the Registry Office for a couple of weeks, this is considered sufficient as "public notice". And the residence requirements centre on Registration Districts, not Parishes).

I would suggest that the GRO's "Guide to the Clergy" is 'less official' than "Anglican Marriage in England and Wales. A Guide to the Law for Clergy”. Indeed I seem to remember being told it included 'other errors'. I think, as you suggest, that an assumption has been made by the GRO that the 'doors open' rule applies to Anglican churches when in fact it does not.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

According to the wording of the BCP "the persons to be married shall come into the body of the Church with their friends and neighbours". It is presumably to these people that the question about objections is addressed. There is no reference in the Prayer Book to the service needing to be being 'public' in any other way.

Furthermore those who might "shew any cause' why the couple cannot be lawfully married are told they should do so now or forever hold their peace. But if the objection is on the basis of an impediment such as age, consanguinity or existing marriage the marriage would be void in any case. Surely the duty to report this should continue after the service? The couple themselves are told that if they are concealing an impediment they will not be lawfully married. The only people I can think of who might object at the service but not afterwards are the parents of a 16 or 17 year old bride or groom.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
According to the wording of the BCP "the persons to be married shall come into the body of the Church with their friends and neighbours". It is presumably to these people that the question about objections is addressed. There is no reference in the Prayer Book to the service needing to be being 'public' in any other way.

Aah but in the BCP the understanding of "neighbour" may well, given the date of compilation, be more like the biblical understanding as in "who is my neighbour"

What we seem to have established is that

1. No one really knows the legality of a private marriage

2. We non Anglicans seem to be jumping through more hoops - we have to have the doors open (i.e. unlocked) as per the Registrars instructions. I've checked this very recently - we had to re register in 2011 when we moved to a new building, 50 yards away from the old, registered one.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
We non Anglicans seem to be jumping through more hoops.

True - but at least we don't have quite the same responsibility for checking the legal paperwork as our Anglican colleagues do.

As you will know, we get pink and blue forms back from the Registrar for the bride and groom - or usually! Once I received two pink forms (because they'd temporarily run out of the blue ones). Now, if Equal Marriages start happening in churches, this will have another significance altogether!

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

I think Church of England marriages are by definition ‘public’ because of the reading of the banns. No thought is given to people missing the banns or turning up late at the ceremony with objections, nor to whether the building should be ‘open to the public’ during the solemnization – parishioners always have a right of entry in any case. This is the understanding found in the 1949 Marriage Act and in ‘Anglican Clergy A Guide to the Law’.

When the 1836 Marriage Act made it possible to register marriages in Dissenters’ Chapels it was made a condition that the building should be open to the public at the time of the ceremony to prevent clandestine marriages – always the real concern of the lawmaker.

When people started talking in a general sort of way about “church weddings" the ‘open door’ requirement was a simple way of summarizing the Anglican parishioner-access requirement and the Dissenting public-access one. This is reflected in the wording of the GRO ‘Guide to the Clergy’.

A marriage taking place in a Dissenting chapel without public access would presumably be unlawful, in the same way as would an Anglican one without the reading of banns (or a Licence).

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
I think Church of England marriages are by definition ‘public’ because of the reading of the banns. No thought is given to people missing the banns or turning up late at the ceremony with objections, nor to whether the building should be ‘open to the public’ during the solemnization – parishioners always have a right of entry in any case. This is the understanding found in the 1949 Marriage Act and in ‘Anglican Clergy A Guide to the Law’.

When the 1836 Marriage Act made it possible to register marriages in Dissenters’ Chapels it was made a condition that the building should be open to the public at the time of the ceremony to prevent clandestine marriages – always the real concern of the lawmaker.

When people started talking in a general sort of way about “church weddings" the ‘open door’ requirement was a simple way of summarizing the Anglican parishioner-access requirement and the Dissenting public-access one. This is reflected in the wording of the GRO ‘Guide to the Clergy’.

A marriage taking place in a Dissenting chapel without public access would presumably be unlawful, in the same way as would an Anglican one without the reading of banns (or a Licence).

So then, by being denied access to the wedding of William and Kate, that wedding is invalid?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I knew an English church that locked or bolted the doors once the morning service had started. If you were a latecomer you had to knock to be let in. I thought this was very strange and I've never come across another church with the same custom.
Usual practice in Scotland well into the 20th century, I understand - but I've never heard of it in England.
St.Matthew's Moorfields, Bristol locked its doors after its solemn mass started at 9.30 - because it is a supposedly tough neighborhood. It took me a long time to persuade someone to let me in.

Wimps - I've taken services in Corby alongside razor wire and compounds with an open door

[ 25. March 2014, 10:50: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
We non Anglicans seem to be jumping through more hoops.
True - but at least we don't have quite the same responsibility for checking the legal paperwork as our Anglican colleagues do.

As you will know, we get pink and blue forms back from the Registrar for the bride and groom - or usually! Once I received two pink forms (because they'd temporarily run out of the blue ones). Now, if Equal Marriages start happening in churches, this will have another significance altogether!

I've never had pink and blue - only 2 blue ones and before that 2 green ones. As for pink well ... not exactly my colour from many pov's.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
I think Church of England marriages are by definition ‘public’ because of the reading of the banns. No thought is given to people missing the banns or turning up late at the ceremony with objections, nor to whether the building should be ‘open to the public’ during the solemnization – parishioners always have a right of entry in any case. This is the understanding found in the 1949 Marriage Act and in ‘Anglican Clergy A Guide to the Law’.

When the 1836 Marriage Act made it possible to register marriages in Dissenters’ Chapels it was made a condition that the building should be open to the public at the time of the ceremony to prevent clandestine marriages – always the real concern of the lawmaker.

When people started talking in a general sort of way about “church weddings" the ‘open door’ requirement was a simple way of summarizing the Anglican parishioner-access requirement and the Dissenting public-access one. This is reflected in the wording of the GRO ‘Guide to the Clergy’.

A marriage taking place in a Dissenting chapel without public access would presumably be unlawful, in the same way as would an Anglican one without the reading of banns (or a Licence).
So then, by being denied access to the wedding of William and Kate, that wedding is invalid?

No no no.

At the very most, a "private" wedding might be deemed to be "irregular". The only time a legal problem would arise would be if there was a reason why the wedding should not have proceeded.

In the case of William and Kate, there is no suggestion that either of them were too young to make their vows; were already married; or were too closely related. Therefore, there is no way that the validity of their wedding could be brought into question.

"Invalid" means that the marriage shouldn't have taken place and doesn't legally exist. I can't see any argument that this would apply in this specific case.

Let me come at this from another angle - one which is slightly less murky. It is not unknown for a wedding to take place in a C of E Church without the reading of banns or issue of a licence.

To take one example of which I know - an hour before a wedding was to take place, the curate of a parish (who was taking the service) realised that the incumbent (who had just gone away on Sabbatical) had failed to arrange for the banns to be read.

They couldn't get hold of anyone to ask advice and so crossed their fingers and carried on regardless.

Afterwards, they contacted the Archdeacon, whose advice was that the wedding was legal, but irregular. The couple would have to be informed that if someone came forward with a legal objection to the wedding, which could/should have arisen during the reading of banns, then their marriage would have to be investigated and possibly annulled. But if no such objection was made, then their marriage was perfectly fine.

This is - of course - not a course of action to be undertaken lightly. And where it happens, the parish priest deserves to get a rocket. But I suspect it happens more often than you may think. Some priests are notoriously poor at administration and things get forgotten on a regular basis. Whilst they ought to get the couple to swear an affidavit with the Surrogate, I suspect that some prefer to keep quiet and hope for the best, rather than make the couple go through extra stress just before their wedding (and also save the church the cost of paying for the licence!).

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
. . .

A marriage taking place in a Dissenting chapel without public access would presumably be unlawful, in the same way as would an Anglican one without the reading of banns (or a Licence).
So then, by being denied access to the wedding of William and Kate, that wedding is invalid?

Unlawful not invalid. The minister in question might be liable to proceedings, but the marriage would still be valid.

[ 25. March 2014, 17:30: Message edited by: Corvo ]

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
I think Church of England marriages are by definition ‘public’ because of the reading of the banns. . . .

A marriage taking place in a Dissenting chapel without public access would presumably be unlawful, in the same way as would an Anglican one without the reading of banns (or a Licence).
So then, by being denied access to the wedding of William and Kate, that wedding is invalid?

I am also suggesting there is apparently no legal requirement for 'public access' to Church of England weddings provided the necessary preliminaries have been correctly carried out.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
So then, by being denied access to the wedding of William and Kate, that wedding is invalid?

But we all had access - by television!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
I am also suggesting there is apparently no legal requirement for 'public access' to Church of England weddings provided the necessary preliminaries have been correctly carried out.

I must say that your analysis upthread makes a great deal of sense. Thank you.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But we all had access - by television!

"If you know any cause or just impediment why these two should not be joined ...etc... Press your red button now - Or for ever hold your peace.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
So then, by being denied access to the wedding of William and Kate, that wedding is invalid?
But we all had access - by television!

If we had one ... tbh we were away on holiday in Madeira at the time. Most people including Mrs M seemed to be inside watching it - had a lovely stroll through the town pretty much on my own while the service was on. But, why should I be excluded from the church in question just because of the people involved?

[ 26. March 2014, 08:37: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Because letting everyone in would constitute a safety hazard? If the guest list alone filled the church, then there is no more room. You have to watch the live relay instead.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
So then, by being denied access to the wedding of William and Kate, that wedding is invalid?
But we all had access - by television!
If we had one ... tbh we were away on holiday in Madeira at the time. Most people including Mrs M seemed to be inside watching it - had a lovely stroll through the town pretty much on my own while the service was on. But, why should I be excluded from the church in question just because of the people involved?

Perhaps if you had had, and wished to make, a valid objection, then you would not have been excluded. Presumably you neither had nor wished to make such an objection, or you wouldn't have gone off to Madeira.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Perhaps if you had had, and wished to make, a valid objection, then you would not have been excluded. Presumably you neither had nor wished to make such an objection, or you wouldn't have gone off to Madeira.

That gets two of them.
[Overused]

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

Do cathedrals, abbeys etc, which don't have parishioners, have different rules from CofE parish churches?

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Do cathedrals, abbeys etc, which don't have parishioners, have different rules from CofE parish churches?

Some cathedrals are also parish churches so the usual rules apply.

Those which are not need to be licensed by the bishop for mariages. This also applies to any other extra-parochial church.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Sort of tangent, well not quite, alert
The law changed overnight permitting same-sex weddings. It was in the news this morning that the first ones had taking place shortly after midnight. Leaving aside all DH questions, I thought that weddings had to take place between fixed hours during the daytime.

Does any shipmate know:-
Was there a special exception made for 29th March 2014 only?
Did registrars issues some secular equivalent of an Archbishop's Licence?
Is my understanding of the normal rules out of date? Or
Are same-sex weddings entitled to a freedom that other weddings don't enjoy?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I wondered about that too.

Is the timing rule for churches only?

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I wondered about that too.

Is the timing rule for churches only?

No it was for all weddings but Quaker or Jewish ones (or I presume special license); however, the law changed in late 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-allow-couples-to-tie-the-knot-at-any-time Not sure whether it applies to CoE weddings or not.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I wondered about that too.

Is the timing rule for churches only?
No it was for all weddings but Quaker or Jewish ones (or I presume special license); however, the law changed in late 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-allow-couples-to-tie-the-knot-at-any-time Not sure whether it applies to CoE weddings or not.

The Faculty Office advises: "Notwithstanding the change in the secular law (the repeal of MA s.4 by s.114 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) . . . The Church of England's Canons (Canon B 35) require an Anglican marriage to take place between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.

The whole marriage ceremony must be completed by 6 p.m.

The registration of the marriage is required to be made immediately after the solemnization of the marriage (MA s.55(1)) but there is no other restriction on the timing for signing the registers. This may take place after 6 p.m."

A marriage by Special Licence could take place at any time.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Does that mean a church wedding at 6.05pm is still void, or valid but lay the incumbent open to some sort of disciplinary procedure from the bishop?

If so, would it be a really serious breach like using an illegal creed, or what seems to be regarded as a minor one that bishops would prefer not to know about, like not having a psalm at a Service of the Word, or taking a service on a parish retreat without getting the permission of the bishop of the diocese where the retreat house is.

Checking the national legislation, it has removed the criminal offence of performing a wedding outside permitted hours.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Do cathedrals, abbeys etc, which don't have parishioners, have different rules from CofE parish churches?
Some cathedrals are also parish churches so the usual rules apply.

Those which are not need to be licensed by the bishop for mariages. This also applies to any other extra-parochial church.

I think most, if not all cathedrals are parish churches, but in many of them the parish doesn't extend beyond the cathedral close.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Do cathedrals, abbeys etc, which don't have parishioners, have different rules from CofE parish churches?
Some cathedrals are also parish churches so the usual rules apply.

Those which are not need to be licensed by the bishop for mariages. This also applies to any other extra-parochial church.
I think most, if not all cathedrals are parish churches, but in many of them the parish doesn't extend beyond the cathedral close.

I think I am right in saying there are 42 English cathedrals of which 14 are also parish churches. The parishes of the latter are all 'full-size' as it were, but often have small populations. At one time Newcastle Cathedral parish had no residents - not even clergy.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

I think strictly speaking only part (south aisle?) of Truro Cathedral is a parish church.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Norwich has a parish church in one of the side-chapels, although I imagine the cathedral is also a parish church in its own right...

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Norwich has a parish church in one of the side-chapels, although I imagine the cathedral is also a parish church in its own right...

Norwich Cathedral is not a parish church. I'd be interested to hear more about the church in tthe chapel.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Do cathedrals, abbeys etc, which don't have parishioners, have different rules from CofE parish churches?
Some cathedrals are also parish churches so the usual rules apply.

Those which are not need to be licensed by the bishop for mariages. This also applies to any other extra-parochial church.
I think most, if not all cathedrals are parish churches, but in many of them the parish doesn't extend beyond the cathedral close.

Aren't the others collegiate churches? So, like college chapels, guild churches, monastic chapels, and a few other oddities, they have a membership, and those members have the right to be married, buried, whatever, in them. Before the Reformation most such members would have been vowed to celibacy, but not nowadays.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Do cathedrals, abbeys etc, which don't have parishioners, have different rules from CofE parish churches?
Some cathedrals are also parish churches so the usual rules apply.

Those which are not need to be licensed by the bishop for mariages. This also applies to any other extra-parochial church.
I think most, if not all cathedrals are parish churches, but in many of them the parish doesn't extend beyond the cathedral close.
Aren't the others collegiate churches? So, like college chapels, guild churches, monastic chapels, and a few other oddities, they have a membership, and those members have the right to be married, buried, whatever, in them. Before the Reformation most such members would have been vowed to celibacy, but not nowadays.

I don't think being a 'member' of a collegiate church establishes any right to marry there if the place is not already licensed by the bishop under MA s. 21 Some one who actually lived 'in' such a place could marry there.

Most college chapel weddings, I think, are by Special Licence. The college can presumably make its own rules about for whom it will apply for a Special Licence.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

Apologies, I don't think my last answer was very clear.

Church of England marriages may only take place in parish churches or places licensed by the bishop for marriages.

Cathedrals which are not parish churches need to be so licensed.

One of the partners always has to show an entitlement to marry in the place. In the case of a licensed building this might be residence in the precincts or other associated area defined in the licence.

Marriages of those associated with, but not resident in, a non-parochial place, such as members of a college or guild, usually take place by Special Licence.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I wondered about that too.

Is the timing rule for churches only?
No it was for all weddings but Quaker or Jewish ones (or I presume special license); however, the law changed in late 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-allow-couples-to-tie-the-knot-at-any-time Not sure whether it applies to CoE weddings or not.
The Faculty Office advises: "Notwithstanding the change in the secular law (the repeal of MA s.4 by s.114 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) . . . The Church of England's Canons (Canon B 35) require an Anglican marriage to take place between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.

The whole marriage ceremony must be completed by 6 p.m.

The registration of the marriage is required to be made immediately after the solemnization of the marriage (MA s.55(1)) but there is no other restriction on the timing for signing the registers. This may take place after 6 p.m."

A marriage by Special Licence could take place at any time.

Thank you - interesting.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0