Page 2 | Wedding without marriage

DelythBeautyQueen · 2024-05-27T12:37:12+00:00

My cousin who lives in North East England was supposed to be getting married next month. Attending won't be cheap, but we were looking forward to celebrating Anna's and James' special day. They will have all the trappings of an extravagant wedding. They are not wealthy and have taken out a large loan to pay for for it. The bride and groom asked guests to give them money for their honeymoon in the Caribbean instead of gifts. We were happy to do that and sent them £300 a few weeks ago. They originally intended to have the legal marriage ceremony in their local registry office a day or two before the wedding celebration and a non-legal humanist ceremony on the day. I know this is a fairly common thing nowadays and had no problem with it. I found out last night Anna and James have decided to have the legal ceremony while on honeymoon, not before the "wedding". I wouldn't see this as too much of a problem if they were going straight on honeymoon from the wedding, but they are not. It turns out that they haven't even booked the honeymoon yet and intend to go "sometime next year". The "wedding" next month will go ahead exactly as planned. The bride and groom do not intend to tell guests that they won't actually be married. The only reason I know is because my aunt is very upset and told her sister (my mum). I know that a few members of the family are stretching financially to attend this "wedding" for a couple that will not be married at the end of it and probably won't be married for as much as 18 months after it. Am I being unreasonable for being angry about this. That we have been deceived into attending a sham wedding?

BillyWhitney · 31/05/2024 15:14

Springchickenonion · 31/05/2024 10:37

But @BillyWhitney you are missing the point.... the ops invite was to a legal ceremony. After people gave their gifts they changed what was happening.... I wouldn't be happy either.

As for people questioning you... that's strange. I was never questioned or sad comments before or after marriage. Maybe it's the company you keep.

The part of my post you said you didn't understand.... you said the event without the legal part was so your friends etc treated you with the same civil rights. I literally have never heard of something like this.

Edited

I wasn’t responding to the op, I was responding directly to another poster who said that ceremonies and what they represent is meaningless without the legal section.

The op’s situation is different, and is odd (although personally I wouldn’t get upset about it - but I love weddings/parties and am happy for any excuse!).

Maybe it's the company you keep.

??? People? Lots of different ones, like most people.

The part of my post you said you didn't understand.... you said the event without the legal part was so your friends etc treated you with the same civil rights. I literally have never heard of something like this.

No I didn’t. That would be silly.

whyhavetheygotsomany · 31/05/2024 11:13

So they are having a scam wedding to get a holiday basically

innerdesign · 31/05/2024 11:11

@BoudiccaOfSuburbia They had no chance of the legal protections or liabilities , and no one dissed their ceremony as meaningless - even though it had no legal basis.

Yes, because they had no chance of the legal protections or liabilities, as you said. Therefore it would have been awful to dismiss their ceremony as meaningless (although I suspect you're not correct when you say no one did, I'm sure some people did, incorrectly). That's the difference. People seem to be trying to paint OP as a homophobe, when the situation she refers to is completely different as the couple have freedom to legally marry, and indeed told their guests that was what they were doing.

Springchickenonion · 31/05/2024 10:37

But @BillyWhitney you are missing the point.... the ops invite was to a legal ceremony. After people gave their gifts they changed what was happening.... I wouldn't be happy either.

As for people questioning you... that's strange. I was never questioned or sad comments before or after marriage. Maybe it's the company you keep.

The part of my post you said you didn't understand.... you said the event without the legal part was so your friends etc treated you with the same civil rights. I literally have never heard of something like this.

BillyWhitney · 31/05/2024 10:35

Springchickenonion · 31/05/2024 10:23

@TheBottomsOfMyTrousersAreRolled actually I agree. If there's no legal side to it, it is a pretend marriage at best. Marriage is a legal contract not a show of love.

It's lovely to have a ceremony, but that's not to show people you are together to receive the same civil rights @BillyWhitney. That's not a thing. People you know treat you the same regardless as to whether you are married or not.

A marriage is a legal ceremony to enter a legal contract. We just like to make them pretty and fancy so they are enjoyable for everyone.

It's lovely to have a ceremony, but that's not to show people you are together to receive the same civil rights @BillyWhitney. That's not a thing

I don’t understand this.

People you know treat you the same regardless as to whether you are married or not.

They actually don’t- every bugger seemed to have an opinion one way or another on my marriage- people refused to come, people said it wasn’t real because it isn’t biblical, people said we had sold out to heteronormative beliefs etc etc. I’m still (a decade on) regularly asked about it, especially by straight people.

BillyWhitney · 31/05/2024 10:31

BoudiccaOfSuburbia · 31/05/2024 10:23

Marriage is a legal contract. That's a fact.

However, when people attend weddings I doubt many have in mind "This will be useful for avoiding inheritance tax" or "He could get half her house if they divorce".

Most people are celebrating the public demonstration of love and commitment and their desire to be a unit.

I attended may humanist ceremonies between gay and lesbian friends before civil partnerships and same sex marriage became legal, and the point of public vows of love and commitment was important and moving. They had no chance of the legal protections or liabilities , and no one dissed their ceremony as meaningless - even though it had no legal basis.

Exactly.

Yes marriage is a legal thing, but it isn’t ONLY a legal thing- otherwise you would have mates getting married in order to have favourable tax, pension and inheritance rights.

The love, commitment and attraction to each other are fundamental to the relationship (even if it doesn’t last).

When someone’s husband cheats on them are they upset ONLY because they will loose pension rights if they divorce? Or are they upset because someone they trusted and built a life with has betrayed them?

BoudiccaOfSuburbia · 31/05/2024 10:23

Marriage is a legal contract. That's a fact.

However, when people attend weddings I doubt many have in mind "This will be useful for avoiding inheritance tax" or "He could get half her house if they divorce".

Most people are celebrating the public demonstration of love and commitment and their desire to be a unit.

I attended may humanist ceremonies between gay and lesbian friends before civil partnerships and same sex marriage became legal, and the point of public vows of love and commitment was important and moving. They had no chance of the legal protections or liabilities , and no one dissed their ceremony as meaningless - even though it had no legal basis.

Springchickenonion · 31/05/2024 10:23

@TheBottomsOfMyTrousersAreRolled actually I agree. If there's no legal side to it, it is a pretend marriage at best. Marriage is a legal contract not a show of love.

It's lovely to have a ceremony, but that's not to show people you are together to receive the same civil rights @BillyWhitney. That's not a thing. People you know treat you the same regardless as to whether you are married or not.

A marriage is a legal ceremony to enter a legal contract. We just like to make them pretty and fancy so they are enjoyable for everyone.

Springchickenonion · 31/05/2024 10:19

Don't send the gift until the evening next time! Then you could have given it when they got married. It's basically a glorified party and holiday

BillyWhitney · 31/05/2024 10:15

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

“Pretend marriage”?! Wow.

TheBottomsOfMyTrousersAreRolled · 31/05/2024 10:04

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

BillyWhitney · 30/05/2024 22:38

TheBottomsOfMyTrousersAreRolled · 30/05/2024 19:59

I mean, you even put marriages in speech marks yourself. So you know it isnt the same thing.

Marriage is a legal ceremony, not a show of a loving relationship.

if a ‘wedding’ is the same as a wedding, there would have been no need to fight for equal rights.

if ‘wedding’ is indeed the same as a wedding as you believe, why fight for equal rights in marriage? What is the difference?

Show quote history

Of course I know it isn’t the same in the legal sense, that’s why I said No, they weren’t ‘marriages’ in the legal sense… what an odd thing to try and ‘gotcha!’ me with.

My point is that if it was only about the legal bit, why would people have bothered to do it since we couldn’t have the legal bit?

The fight for equal legal marriage rights WAS NOT because we felt our relationships were less valid, loving, committed or real than straight people's just because we didn’t have a legal contract- we always know they were- it was about other people recognising that and affording us the same civil rights as everyone else.

TheBottomsOfMyTrousersAreRolled · 30/05/2024 19:59

BillyWhitney · 30/05/2024 18:43

That’s a bit reductionist.

Gay couples have been having ‘weddings’ for a long time before we were allowed to get civil partnered or married.

No, they weren’t ‘marriages’ in the legal sense, but in every other sense they were- the motivation to do it, and the commitment and love they represented were just as real as those of straight couples.

Show quote history

I mean, you even put marriages in speech marks yourself. So you know it isnt the same thing.

Marriage is a legal ceremony, not a show of a loving relationship.

if a ‘wedding’ is the same as a wedding, there would have been no need to fight for equal rights.

if ‘wedding’ is indeed the same as a wedding as you believe, why fight for equal rights in marriage? What is the difference?

crenellations · 30/05/2024 19:58

BillyWhitney · 30/05/2024 18:43

That’s a bit reductionist.

Gay couples have been having ‘weddings’ for a long time before we were allowed to get civil partnered or married.

No, they weren’t ‘marriages’ in the legal sense, but in every other sense they were- the motivation to do it, and the commitment and love they represented were just as real as those of straight couples.

Show quote history

True, but those people weren't choosing between legally wedding and publicly committing, and specifically choosing the latter over the former.

It makes me wonder if anything would be different if 'informal weddings' were more common with everyone, actually! Less money going to divorce lawyers!? More people thinking about what they actually wanted to agree to and drawing up bespoke contracts?! I guess the equivalent still sort of is 'an engagement party'.

BillyWhitney · 30/05/2024 18:43

BananaLambo · 27/05/2024 14:52

The whole point of a wedding is the legal bit. That’s the bit that creates a legal partnership between two people with rights and responsibilities in terms of property and joint children. The rest is just fluff. Once you strip away the flowers and cars and party and dresses and all the rest of the gumph, the only thing that’s important is the legally binding marriage certificate. If that’s not happening then there’s no point in going, unless you’re desperate to go to a big, expensive, party.

That’s a bit reductionist.

Gay couples have been having ‘weddings’ for a long time before we were allowed to get civil partnered or married.

No, they weren’t ‘marriages’ in the legal sense, but in every other sense they were- the motivation to do it, and the commitment and love they represented were just as real as those of straight couples.

Bugbabe1970 · 30/05/2024 18:30

I would ask for my gift back and regift it when they actually get married - they’re taking the piss and when people fined out - which they will - it’s all going to kick off!

Norisca · 30/05/2024 07:13

mindutopia · 27/05/2024 14:29

It’s weird. The point of a wedding is to celebrate the marriage. If the marriage isn’t happening for maybe another 2 years, it’s bonkers to have a wedding.

Fwiw, we had a humanist wedding that wasn’t legally binding, but we had our actual legal registry wedding the same day in the morning. We wanted the humanist ceremony, but needed to sort the legals out too. Our wedding party came to the registry one, then we had our humanist ceremony with everyone and the party celebrated both.

That said, I know someone who has had not one, not two, but THREE weddings without a marriage. Her partner won’t marry her for financial reasons (concerned about protecting his assets), so they have somehow over the years thrown three ‘weddings’ white dress, bridesmaids, reception, dancing, the lot! She’s anxious I think about her image as an unmarried woman and keeps doing these big showy weddings to make a point about how committed they really are to each other. I think everyone is pretty fed up after the third one though.

Edited

Makes this CF seem like much less of a CF to be fair!

personally if it is a party you’d be sorry to miss, an opportunity to see family etc then I’d just go and enjoy it! That’s what weddings are as well, an opportunity to see family and to make memories.

GrannyRose15 · 29/05/2024 22:24

There’s nothing wrong with what they are doing providing they tell everyone the situation. It is the deception that is wrong. It shows that they think there is something sly about the arrangements otherwise why don’t they come clean.

2chocolateoranges · 29/05/2024 20:24

Sennelier1 · 28/05/2024 20:09

Oh come on, what makes them married is that they commit themselves to each other. That piece of paper is not about commitment, on the contrary, it's about what to do when you divorce.

Show quote history

It really doesn’t! It’s just a farce if they pretend to get married in front of guests who have gone out their way to attend, buy a gift etc but they aren’t married. They can be committed without the pretence of a pretend wedding!

last wedding we went to between hen day/stag day wedding outfits , gifts cost approx £1000.

id be mighty oussed off to have spent that amount of money to go to a pretend wedding!

burnoutbabe · 29/05/2024 20:01

I'd be very worried for her and consider her fairly foolish-likely to be pregnant soon but no Legal protector if he just ups and leaves after a bit.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 29/05/2024 19:46

Hadalifeonce · 28/05/2024 15:07

When they do the 'legal' bit, at some unspecified date in the future, will they remember that their guests have already given wedding presents, or will they expect more?

Take a guess ...

fashionqueen0123 · 29/05/2024 19:26

DelythBeautyQueen · 29/05/2024 17:17

No. According to my aunt, they have decided that they would like a private ceremony in the Caribbean. Apparently, the country they plan to go to conducts ceremonies that are legally recognised in the UK.

Like you, I would have no issue with them marrying a few days ahead of the wedding celebration. That seems a fairly common thing, especially when the wedding is being held in a venue that isn't licensed for marriage ceremonies.

It just seems ridiculous and dishonest to be "celebrating" something that hasn't happened and might not happen.

Whether the change of plan it is due to a romantic notion on the part of the bride and groom, or because one of them has cold feet, I don't know.

I doubt it was my cousin's idea to postpone. She was so excited about being married and keen to start a family that it would be a remarkable turnaround to decide to wait what could be as much as 18 months. I understand her fiance is keen to start a family too, although he has always been less excited to be married.

At the moment, I don't want to ask, because she doesn't know I know. When she is ready, I'm sure she will tell me.

Show quote history

I wonder why they don’t just go on the honeymoon after the wedding party then!

HundredMilesAnHour · 29/05/2024 19:10

Albatrossing · 27/05/2024 14:34

hmmm... this is interesting. My fiance and I are having a wedding this year, and saying vows and having a celebration, even though we aren't going to be able to be legally married until a good 9 months after that (for very boring, practical reasons -- nothing to do with divorces or anything!). For us, we want to say the vows in front of our families and make a commitment, even though we won't be able to do the 'legal' bit for a while. I hope none of our friends or family feel upset or angry or deceived about this... we want them to celebrate with us, even though the legal bit will happen a while after. Could this be the case here?

I wouldn't go to your 'celebration'. It's certainly not a wedding if you won't do the 'legal bit' for another 9 months.

crenellations · 29/05/2024 19:09

I really don't understand why you are bothered about this. They will still be getting married.

If you read all OP's posts it sounds like the issue is that that's what is in doubt... they're leaving it up to 18 months and sounds like at least one of them is having second thoughts about committing to it. So it's not like it's booked and imminent - they're essentially saying they will have a wedding at some point in the future - so similar to an engagement party.

INeedToClingToSomething · 29/05/2024 19:04

I really don't understand why you are bothered about this. They will still be getting married. The legal bit just won't have been done. I got married in a field by a humanist celebrant and "legally married" a few days afterwards. The celebrant marriage was as far as we were concerned the marriage date and that's the day we celebrate as our wedding anniversary. That's the date all our friends and family came to see us married. For all intents and purposes we were married on that date and had a proper ceremony. It's only because of England's restrictive marriage laws that we couldn't make our humanist ceremony legal and had to marry again for the paperwork and legal status. I'm not sure why friends and family would be bothered about that, I certainly wouldn't be.