Wedding without marriage

The legal contract is what makes it a marriage and not a relationship. 'Married' has a definition, legally and in society.

There are a myriad of ways of being together and that's great. The ones that are married are the ones that have made that legal contract.

It comes up a lot that those who don't wish to get married can set up the same legal contracts. Whilst that may be true is it really the same? For example what's to stop one party changing a will without informing the other?

It’s really nothing to do with the op having rigid views, it’s pretty much the societal definition of marriage that it involves a legal commitment but it’s also about a lot more ,same sex couples fought long and hard to achieve same sex marriage in the uk and part of it because it is that extra layer of commitment to those who believe in the value of marriage. Just ask my friend who went through a Muslim marriage ceremony but no legal ceremony and then found 25 yrs & 2 kids later her “husband “ was planning another “marriage” with someone else. If you don’t believe in marriage then fair enough, you won’t see the value or importance or why relatives might feel the couple is acting duplicitously.

But the OP already knows they are not doing the legal ceremony on the same day so presumably the other guests know as well (awaits drip feed). Where is the duplicity?

I don't think the other guests do know @C8H10N4O2. The OP has said: "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 agree with you that if everyone was made aware, that would be more reasonable, but at the moment guests are making the decision whether to attend or not (and what to give as gifts) based on false information. So that's the duplicity.

But someone who goes to pains to get a contract that specifically isn't a marriage is unlikely to want a big white wedding? The legal contract at a wedding is the marriage, otherwise it's just a party and social traditions.

What are the chances that these 'legal contracts' have been put in place and why pass it off as a wedding? One of this couple wants to be married and is being duped into thinking a legal ceremony is going to happen at some point in the future when it most likely isn't. What is there to celebrate here?

You are completely focused on the legal contract and not the marriage.

It is possible to put in place legal contracts between people which provide everything that a state marriage contract provides (even covering a large chunk of the inheritance tax exemptions). People have done this since forever, the fact that you don't like your cousin who doesn't conform to your rigid definition of marriage doesn't make their commitment less valid.

But the OP already knows they are not doing the legal ceremony on the same day so presumably the other guests know as well (awaits drip feed). Where is the duplicity?

They still plan to do the legal contract but at a later date than originally planned - maybe due to overspend on costs, maybe something else, who knows. Its not unusual to do the state legal part separately from the public commitment ceremony.

As I said upthread I've been to weddings in the past which had no legal component - they were still public statements of commitment celebrated with family and friends. That is the wedding traditionally - the public statement of commitment and intent to share their lives in front of people we care about. The contract part historically was separated from the marriage ceremony and still is in most countries.

Calling that a sham wedding because it doesn't conform to the OP's rigid views on what a wedding should look like is pretty insulting to the many couples who choose a different legal route to celebrate the life long commitment (which is what should be the focus here). All the speculation about it being an evil man with a secret past is based on nothing factual. All that matters is that both parties agree and make a free choice on how they manage their affairs.

I really feel for Anna but she is making a fool of herself. How awful for her that after all that time she thinks he is going to commit then he kicks it off down the road again. I wonder who's name the loan is in? He doesn't want to marry her and I would bet good money that he never will.

As a guest I would want no part in it, there is nothing to celebrate here, just another man leading a woman on and wasting her fertile years.

@LilySLE we'd already been through the details of the ceremony weeks beforehand with a different registrar from the same registry office. We'd confirmed readings, music and content of the vows. The day before our wedding the registrar who was going to conduct the ceremony called us and asked to go throught it all again and wanted us to drive over to her office with all the information. We were a tad busy as we were marrying next day so we faxed her the details (yes it's that long ago!) but she was not happy that we would not come over even though it was an hour away. Then she wasn't familiar with one the pieces of music so said we couldn't have it despite the fact that the previous registrar had approved it. She was not happy with our additional vows, again previously agreed. As the afternoon went on she got more and more difficult and in the end we just decided to cancel her. We had to fax her our cancelation with a copy of our passports as she seemed to think we were just trying to get her to back down. In actual fact she had annoyed me so much even if she had accepted our choices I did not want her at our wedding! When we did the local RO we used the same vows and music just not the same readings as we didn't have my Dad & daughter there, the registrar could not understand why they wouldn't be allowed.

If some haven’t gone the paperwork at all then they aren’t married though? The legal bit is the marriage.
Why would anyone do this? They won’t have any rights under law that you get when married.

I'm surprised at the hostility at being invited to the ceremony and party whilst the legal part is done separately

I think the hostility is around the duplicity @C8H10N4O2 – this couple are pretending the occasion is something it is not. Guests are travelling (when they otherwise might not) and are giving gifts (when the otherwise might not) under false pretences.

As I said upthread, I might well travel to Scotland for a cousin's party but I would still be mightily pissed off at being told it was a wedding when it wasn't.

James has got cold feet and persuaded Anna that the party is ‘the important bit’ and ‘of course’ they’ll do the legal bit further down the line. A baby will arrive and the legal bit will be forever postponed and eventually he’ll leave her for whatever reason it is that he’s got cold feet now. Not surprised your aunt is beside herself - she can probably see this clear as day.

yes that's partly what the research shows! nothing to do with "posh" as there's nothing posh about being educated but being of higher education level (half of married women have a degree as opposed to a third of cohabiting women and twice as many cohabiting mums have no qualifications compared to married mums )and higher income both show a positive correlation with getting married ( as are for eg. being christian or another religion, having parents who are still together and also influenced by your race/ethnicity). I know people accuse mumsnet of being biased around marriage issues but that might be because of the demographic who is posting on marriage topics. So there's a good proportion who really do think marriage is important. The sad thing may be is that the op's female relative may think marriage is important but her OH may be far less keen.

I feel for your Aunt OP. If it was my daughter I'd be frogmarching the two of them to the registry office the week before.

It's ridiculous - they have taken out a loan to pay for this sham party and the actual wedding is sometime in the future if it ever happens. Could it be the groom has come up with this scheme to purposely avoid the legal commitment. Maybe he was given an ultimatum and found a way to wriggle free?

This is exactly what happened to Jerry Hall.

Maybe it depends which version you read but my understanding was that Mick knowingly pulled a fast one on her.

Can't get past people actually asking for money.

Weddings used to be fun but they seem to have become overblown and the point of it all lost amongst huge events. Taking out a loan for one day seems a challenging way to start out but I wish anyone starting out nothing but the best. You have been generous and I rather agree with your thinking . Hope it all goes well

Only if the humanist celebrant is also a legal registrar (in England and Wales).

Not all church weddings are automatically legal weddings either - only CofE priests and buildings are automatically registrars and registered marriage buildings. Other ministers may be registered additionally to being a minister of religion or have a member of staff who is registered or you may need to do the two separately.

I'm surprised at the hostility at being invited to the ceremony and party whilst the legal part is done separately (which is the norm in many countries). I've been to "sham" weddings which continued happily to 20 plus years at which point some were made legal very quietly and with no fuss. Others took the view that they would make their own contractual arrangements which was all the legal marriage would have provided.

I am not marrying due to having assets abs not wanting to take that legal step.

We still celebrate our anniversary each year and get congrats from our parents on Facebook when we post an anniversary message (sane as a married couple)
We may even have a party for 20 or 40 years.

Just won't have a wedding as don't want the legal connection. So yes we are less legally committed than married couples.

The OP did say that the couple had intended to do the legal part separately but are now putting it off to some unspecified time in the future.

This is not a wedding.

One couple I knew, she only found out that he had been married before, had a child and had had a vasectomy at the point where they gave notice at the register office (one revelation led to another). His hand had been forced when it was made clear that his name was going on nothing unless they were married.

Unsurprisingly the marriage lasted less than a year.

He would no doubt have much preferred a sham wedding if it meant he could get his hands on the money without his past being revealed.

Just to straighten things out - a humanist ceremony is a legal marriage with absolutely NO religious elements, while a celebrant ceremony is just a celebration but can include anything. If, as you say, the wedding will be humanist then it is as legal as church or registry office.