Thread: Licences and C of E weddings outside churches 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=024586

---

Posted by Boadicea Trott (# 9621) on :
 
I was watching Downton Abbey season 2 on dvd with my daughters last night, and the scene where William (mortally injured in WW1 and has come home to die) asks his sweetheart Daisy to marry him so she can be provided for after his death, made me pause for thought. The local vicar appears reluctant to perform a bedside wedding for them *only* on his spoken basis that their marriage may only being undertaken for financial gain (eg so she can get a widow's pension from the Army.)

Question 1: Could he refuse to perform a ceremony on that basis alone?

Also, the wedding has been arranged at incredibly short notice - it appears to be in less than 24 hours. Both are normally resident in that parish.

Question 2: It seemed to me that a licence of some sort would be needed for the wedding to satisfy the legal criteria as banns have obviously not been read in church and the wedding will not be taking place in church.

As this is set in 1918, I thought only a Special Licence was available at that time, and that would be obtained from a diocesan bishop, which must not have been an instantaneous process.

Am I correct or is there another explanation?

Google is not being helpful on this matter, and I am asking the collective wisdom of the Ship's encyclopaedic knowledge of Anglican canon law minutiae for clarification
 

---

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I am certainly not an authority on this subject, but I can see reasons for the vicar to refuse.

Suppose, down the line, someone were to make public the fact that this wedding took place solely for Daisy to receive survivor benefits, and in fact the marriage was never consummated. I can imagine a charge of fraud leveled against Daisy and the vicar.

Of course, we know that Daisy was a reluctant participant; she married William only because he was dying and wanted to marry her. Financial gain was almost certainly not her goal.

By the way, how large would her widow's pension have been?
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
By the way, how large would her widow's pension have been?

---

quote:

---

• At the end of the First World War the standard pension for war widows was 13s 9d (68¾ new pence) a week. See these Parliamentary questions from 1976. DuncanHill (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• The statutory weekly minimum wage for a UK agricultural labourer in 1918 was 30 shillings and sixpence (or £1.52½ in decimal money); so the pension was less than half what one of the poorest workers would earn. Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boadicea Trott:
Thank you!
A widow's pension from WW1 would be 15 shillings per week just for her as of May 1918.
If there were children of the union, one shilling and two pence allowed per child.

Not a huge amount.

---

According to the second post on this thread (the one by Nigel Marshall), a widow would only get 15 shillings if her dead husband was a "Non-Commissioned Officer, Class IV". An addendum follows detailing child support increments.
 

---

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
Re: the bedside wedding. I cannot vouch for such weddings at home but can say they happen in hospital, as I worked on a ward where one took place in the 90s. The patient concerned was terminally ill with days left to live and special permission was given by the doctor signing a form saying that she would not recover from her illness. I believe the chaplain married the couple. I cannot remember any reference being made to getting a license from the Bishop, I'm assuming this special license just required medical confirmation, but to be honest, it was a long time ago and I wasn't Christian so it may have just slipped by me.
It was quite beautiful, but very emotional.
 

---

Posted by Boadicea Trott (# 9621) on :
 
Thank you to *all* for the valuable information and for clarification regarding the widow's pension.

I am still somewhat perplexed about how they managed to get a Special Licence so very quickly, given it was not cheap and only available from the diocesan bishop.
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I expect Lord Downton pulled a few strings. After all, William had just saved Matthew's life... persuading the Bishop to give him a Special Licence was the least they could do.

And William's dad is a fairly prosperous farmer; if Lord Downing didn't want to pay for the licence himself I'm sure he could have afforded to gratify his son's dying wish.
 

---

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
As long as we are at it: how much is Daisy being paid working in the Downton kitchen?
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
As long as we are at it: how much is Daisy being paid working in the Downton kitchen?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
From recollection (i.e. without checking) until quite recently to get married somewhere other than in the appropriate church, such as in a hospital bed, required an Archbishop's Licence and not an ordinary Special diocesan one. I've a sort of memory that C S Lewis married Joy Davidman with one. I've no idea whether even that was possible in the Great War, but there may have been a special scheme for soldiers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I don't think this kind of televisual event is restricted to WW-I era shows. Coronation Street had a death bed wedding in hospital a couple of years ago. Followed by the groom recovering, for which there didn't seem to be a penalty...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I hear from some priests that disabusing Ms. Bride of her ridiculous expectations is a real pain in the ass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I hear from some priests that disabusing Ms. Bride of her ridiculous expectations is a real pain in the ass.

---

Miss not Ms. - oh, unless you are talking of a widow getting remarried...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Where I come from, Ms. means an unmarried woman, Mrs. means a married one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Where I come from Miss means an unmarried woman, Mrs means a married woman and Ms means a woman who does not wish her title (or treatment) to be dependant on her matrimonial status.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Where I come from Miss means an unmarried woman, Mrs means a married woman and Ms means a woman who does not wish her title (or treatment) to be dependant on her matrimonial status.

---

Exactly that. As used in Britain anyway. (Sergius-Melli might be British but he is taking the piss here. His tongue seems to be in his cheek)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I missed the edit button but I meant to say I also use the title Master when sending post to my younger brother and my nephews (who are not of adult age.)

It does seem from a quick look around that there are no sure and fast rules about this except for Mrs. being solely for a married woman (though not excluding divorcees and widows).

and to x-post a little,

I still address envelopes to Mr & Mrs J. Bloggs when sending to a couple.

I must really be old-fashioned in a very young body... but then again I come from one of those kind of families...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I missed the edit button but I meant to say I also use the title Master when sending post to my younger brother and my nephews (who are not of adult age.)

It does seem from a quick look around that there are no sure and fast rules about this except for Mrs. being solely for a married woman (though not excluding divorcees and widows).

and to x-post a little,


I still address envelopes to Mr & Mrs J. Bloggs when sending to a couple.

I must really be old-fashioned in a very young body... but then again I come from one of those kind of families...

---

I am in my 20s and single and go by Ms - the whole point is that it does not disclose my marital status. If I was married and got something addressed to Mr & Mrs HisFirstName HisLastName I'd send it right back! Even if I did take on a husband's last name, I'm not going to take his first name! What do you do for married couples who don't share a last name?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
... What do you do for married couples who don't share a last name?

---

To continue the tangent, when I was faced with this quandary in the case of an old friend, I invented the style (which I will anonymise) for John Smith married to Ann Brown who retains her maiden name: 'John and Ann Smith/Brown'
The couple concerned rather liked the innovation, since, as 'John' observed, Smith did stroke Brown quite frequently. (N.B. To prevent misunderstanding, the usage in my UK-based social context is that a '/' is a stroke sign; therefore my innovation may not be transferable to other social contexts where the '/' is called a slash - which does have unfortunate and inappropriate connotations for this usage.)

As regards titles for women, it is a great pity that the old social convention in letters of a woman putting the title by which she preferred to be addressed (which would have been Miss or Mrs) in parentheses after her name, thus allowing respondents to use the preferred title. Nowadays, in the absence of any clues and an increase in the number of options (Miss/Mrs/Ms) one is faced with a)guessing and causing offence, which is highly likely given that some women hate being addressed by 'Ms' and others hate being addressed by anything else, or b) using a first name and falling into the trap of inappropriate, unwelcome informality. (In case US shipmates are surprised at the problem expressed in the second option, I hate being addressed by my first name by total strangers, and I like to extend the courtesy of formality to to others.)
I suppose that the lack of a cohesive common social attitude to the subject of titles for addressing women explains why the muddle continues. As can be perfectly illustrated by reference to previous posts in this thread...
Angus
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
A.Pilgrim, I'm another who hate the assumption that when you meet a stranger, you should immediately be on first name terms with them. I give people permission to use my first name, unless we're already acquainted. This happens a lot in hospital where, despite years of nagging, nursing and medical staff still often assume that people want to be called by their first name. It's really very rude.

On the main topic, I think a lot of hospital chaplains these days prefer to let the civil Registrar handle the "legal" marriage. So many "end-of-life" marriages are complex (possibly several previous divorces, questions relating to immigration and so on) that the Registrar is a much safer pair of hands. A religious blessing can always be offered afterwards for those who want it. (In fact, in some countries in continental Europe, that's how all weddings happen anyway.)
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
Correction to my previous post. In the sentence starting: 'As regards titles...' insert at the end of the sentence: ', is no longer current practice'

So many subordinate clauses that I forgot to end the main sentence itself. Doh! I blame the winter glooms...

I agree totally with Adeodatus that hospitals are an environment in which over-informality to patients is rife. It's so disrespectful.

[ 01. February 2013, 13:01: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]
 

---

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
Further on the tangent, I spent 12 years as an outpatient Sister and always called out patients' full names as this was the best way of ensuring the correct patient answered their name. But I then called them Sir or Madam, or by their title and surname, when face to face until told otherwise. If in doubt of a female title I used Ms. Addressing strangers by their first name is very presumptious, IMO.
 

---

Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on :
 
And extending the tangent, don't you hate this modern trend in business of people calling themselves, like some five year old in reception class, only by their first name, particularly on the phone?

"Lloyds TSB, Paul speaking."

"Are you the only Paul in the Universe?"

"Er... no."

"Then saying 'Paul' doesn't advance my knowledge, does it?"

I've even had official letters and e-mails from the Methodist Connexional Team, signed "Doug", as if Doug and I were old chums from way back.

I bloody hate it, but when I complained, I was told "But you should address colleagues by their given name."

No you shouldn't - because first, just because we happen to work for the same organisation, that doesn't make us colleagues, and second, as I have no idea who you are, you certainly aren't a friend.

While we're at it, can't someone teach these people the correct use of what I think is called a reflexive pronoun? In other words, they say, "I have prepared a quote for yourself," instead of "you", or "Could you send that to myself and I'll process it."

They usually put some weird emphasis on "for" and "to" in those sentences as well. It's you, and me, you dopes, not "yourself" and "myself"....

Grumble grumble meh...

[ 01. February 2013, 13:33: Message edited by: Ondergard ]
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
If we want to really be traditional, we should only have first names, and maybe add "From..." or "Son/Daughter of..." to the end if we have to be more specific.

Who knows, maybe the first name thing is the result of not really needing surnames anymore. In the United States, wide social circles have basically collapsed, and one is left with only the small circle of friends one really likes to be around. One doesn't have to distinguish between the Fred at church, the Fred in the bowling league, and the Fred that lives two doors down, because the vast majority of people don't go to church or bowling leagues anymore, and our neighbors might as well live in Timbuktu for all we interact with them.
 

---

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
(N.B. To prevent misunderstanding, the usage in my UK-based social context is that a '/' is a stroke sign; therefore my innovation may not be transferable to other social contexts where the '/' is called a slash - which does have unfortunate and inappropriate connotations for this usage.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ondergard:
And extending the tangent, don't you hate this modern trend in business of people calling themselves, like some five year old in reception class, only by their first name, particularly on the phone?

"Lloyds TSB, Paul speaking."

"Are you the only Paul in the Universe?"

"Er... no."

"Then saying 'Paul' doesn't advance my knowledge, does it?"

---

quote:

---

While we're at it, can't someone teach these people the correct use of what I think is called a reflexive pronoun? In other words, they say, "I have prepared a quote for yourself," instead of "you", or "Could you send that to myself and I'll process it."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai
Traditionally I think one can address one's coworkers. more informally than salespeople because one's coworkers are people one has been introduced to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If I was married and got something addressed to Mr & Mrs HisFirstName HisLastName I'd send it right back!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
... What do you do for married couples who don't share a last name?

---

To continue the tangent, when I was faced with this quandary in the case of an old friend, I invented the style (which I will anonymise) for John Smith married to Ann Brown who retains her maiden name: 'John and Ann Smith/Brown'
The couple concerned rather liked the innovation, since, as 'John' observed, Smith did stroke Brown quite frequently. (N.B. To prevent misunderstanding, the usage in my UK-based social context is that a '/' is a stroke sign; therefore my innovation may not be transferable to other social contexts where the '/' is called a slash - which does have unfortunate and inappropriate connotations for this usage.)

---

What is wrong with simply writing MS Y and Mr Z? Which is the preferred style of address in our house.
I get really annoyed when, despite telling people when we got married and despite having address labels printed and used on all correspondence, for nearly 30 years. Close family still insist on using Mr and Mrs Z or Mr and Mrs Firstname Z. Which drives me insane and I won't open.

Yet when they send things to me alone, such as birthday cards they will address it to Ms Y!!! Why is it when we are together I am automatically subsumed into his identity.
We went to a very formal family wedding and there was a member of staff looking at the seating plan and escorting guests to their seats. We got separated as a family and as I approached the staff member, I was asked my name and said without thinking 'MS Y' because it is and always has been my name. There was total confusion and I was told I had no seat on the plan and there was a bit of a kerfuffle, a big queue of guests behind me and I was asked to wait on one side until it was sorted out. I then twigged, my family had insisted in using Mrs Z on the plan and the staff member in looking for Ms Y was looking for, in my families eyes it seems, a non existent person.

Why do it? I give them the respect of calling them by their chosen names, why disrespect me by calling me by a name they chose instead?
 

---

Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :
 
My mother used to send correspondence to me addressed to Mrs (husbands initial) Surname. It drove me bats, but she insisted because, she said, it was "correct". After I was ordained she couldn't very well do that, but she used to use Title First and Second Initial Surname...even though that was not correct!

Mind you, I come from a family who thought it proper to ask a male cousin to give the tribute at my fathers funeral, on the grounds that he was "the oldest male relative". The fact that he hadn't seen my father for years was irrelevant. In the even the read the lesson. It made the day infinitely more upsetting.
 

---

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
Still on the tangent...

Certain UK friends send us a Christmas card addressed to Mr & Mrs Hisinitials X**. Ours to them is addressed to John and Mary Y**. They're good friends and don't complain! A dear friend and ex-colleague there posts to me as Mrs Hisinitial X** – because of his status I don't mind addressing his letter to Mr R Z**. Everyone else gets the John & Mary treatment. And in spite of my age I don't mind being called by my full christian name at the hospital/surgery/dentist's – but I quickly offer them the short form I've been known by for the last sixty-odd years.

GG
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

...
Why do it? I give them the respect of calling them by their chosen names, why disrespect me by calling me by a name they chose instead?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

...
Why do it? I give them the respect of calling them by their chosen names, why disrespect me by calling me by a name they chose instead?

---

Possibly because they find it disrespectful to them that you refuse to conform to their social conventions.

And so we are faced with the quandary that everyone in the world is faced with from the age of about two years (at which age the existence of other people as separate entities impinges on our consciousness): Do I get others to conform to my demands, even if they find my demands objectionable, or do I conform to the demands of others, even though I find those demands objectionable myself? Such is life...

Angus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
It doesn't seem particularly laudable if we dress up our irritation as an issue of principle, and make a scene about it, as by refusing to open letters with what we conceive as the wrong version of our name on the envelope.

---

But of course now we all know how to send cheques to them and know that they will never be cashed!
 

---

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
It doesn't seem particularly laudable if we dress up our irritation as an issue of principle, and make a scene about it, as by refusing to open letters with what we conceive as the wrong version of our name on the envelope.

---

But of course now we all know how to send cheques to them and know that they will never be cashed!

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0