Any priests/vicars/registrars out there - raising objections at a wedding?

[Fiftyandmore]

Has anyone done this, or had it done to them? Or know of anyone who's done it/had it done?

I can't imagine it happens often, if ever. And what would happen if someone did object?! Be interesting to hear if anyone has experience of this.

I'm a vicar and so far it hasn't happened, although we have training in what to do if someone does object.

[quote premmie09]@purpleboy Why would the groom go through with the wedding until the reception before leaving? That sounds unnecessarily dramatic. [/quote]
It is, but I wonder if he can annul the marriage not he grounds it's not been consummated? (if that still thing?). No need for a costly divorce then!

@Tiggles

I'm a vicar and so far it hasn't happened, although we have training in what to do if someone does object.

Interested to know- what do you do? Do you stop the ceremony and take the person away privately or do you thrash it all out in front of everybody?

Yes, I know of one when a retired minister was being married in our church, and someone piped up that they couldn't get married. The minister for the service took them into the vestry and discussed. Poor woman was in love with him herself. The service continued within about 20 minutes. Felt so sorry for the marrying couple - and church was packed as he was a minister known well in the parish. But sorry for the interruptor too - you don't do that lightly.

At my daughter's wedding rehearsal in the summer the vicar said that if anyone raised an objection that was not a legal reason there would be a two thousand pound fine.

Interesting and educational.

If bad taste or stupidity was allowed as grounds for objection, then it would be form an orderly queue, no doubt.

Just to clarify; its Hardwicke's 1754 Marriage Act. ( In case you want to look it up)

Thanks for all the replies - every day's a school day!

Why does the question still get asked during the ceremony if things like that are covered beforehand? In case some of the guests know something perhaps? Is the introduction of the fine a fairly recent thing?

I've no idea why I'm thinking about this! I woke up this morning with it on my mind for some reason! I've heard stories about marriages ending at receptions or not surviving the honeymoon but never heard of this happening.

I went to a wedding last year (in a hotel not a church) where the registrar said something along the lines of 'if anyone objects and it isn't a genuine objection then you are breaking the law and the police will be called. Please don't object to try and be funny'.

That sounds like the weary voice of experience!

However, there must have been many an unfortunately-timed sneeze during the ceremony that's caught the whole congregation on the hop and left the pews needing a deep clean

It is, but I wonder if he can annul the marriage not he grounds it's not been consummated? (if that still thing?). No need for a costly divorce then!

Makes most sense to me. The best man has a number of important duties to fulfil on the day, but I don't think he's technically allowed to consummate the marriage on behalf of the groom

You can’t object just because you don’t like one of the participants or because you saw one of them cop off with someone on the stag do.

If their wife/husband to be didn't know, this could be a genuine reason to delay the wedding (although, unless you were a complete drama king/queen, you would tell them beforehand).

If their wife/husband to be didn't know, this could be a genuine reason to delay the wedding (although, unless you were a complete drama king/queen, you would tell them beforehand).

For some reason, this reminds me of the Classics thread about weird stuff that happened at weddings, where the bride had been 'having sex with the priest doing the ceremony' and everybody misread 'doing' as 'during'

@Seaglad

Yes, I know of one when a retired minister was being married in our church, and someone piped up that they couldn't get married. The minister for the service took them into the vestry and discussed. Poor woman was in love with him herself. The service continued within about 20 minutes. Felt so sorry for the marrying couple - and church was packed as he was a minister known well in the parish. But sorry for the interruptor too - you don't do that lightly.

Fuck that, I wouldn’t feel one bit sorry for the interrupter. That’s a horrendous thing to do!

Dh and I were stood at the altar facing our priest (who was lovely and funny) when he asked if anyone had any objections. His eyes went wide and he said there are 3 people standing up.

We slowly look over our shoulders expecting to see our 3 ushers on their feet only to find no one standing, our guests are all looking over their shoulders and our 3 ushers shitting themselves because they think, we will think they stood up.

It was a terrifying moment but it was funny. We had a very small wedding 21 years ago, we were the first in our friendship group to get married and our ushers still talk about the "objection" to this today.

But apparently if it does happen they stop the ceremony, separate the bride and groom and interview them.

@premmie09 if I recall correctly he only found out the night before the wedding, he decided it was the best way to humiliate her, and yes it was annulled. It was a bloody shocker though.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll so perhaps Phoebe Waller-Bridge reads MN???

Why does the question still get asked during the ceremony if things like that are covered beforehand? In case some of the guests know something perhaps? Is the introduction of the fine a fairly recent thing?

I think it's in case someone comes from outside the parish and hasn't been able to object to the Banns when they were read. It dates from the days when there was no email, internet or what have you - you might only hear of it at the last minute.

if I recall correctly he only found out the night before the wedding, he decided it was the best way to humiliate her, and yes it was annulled. It was a bloody shocker though.

I know I'm overthinking this, but can a heterosexual marriage be annulled on the grounds of non-consummation if the couple haven't only DTD after the marriage? Can it be counted as 'pre-consummated' if they've already been doing it before the marriage?

I would have thought that the idea of non-consummation was originally based on the assumption that couples wouldn't have had sex at all before marriage, hence there was an issue (physical, psychological, controlling or whatever) preventing them from being able to have a normal full marriage with 'marital' relations. If it's just a matter of timing - i.e. you did it several times in the month preceding the wedding but haven't yet had chance (or the energy) to do it again in the day or two since the wedding, it seems kind of arbitrary and irrelevant.

so perhaps Phoebe Waller-Bridge reads MN???

Ah, did she have that idea before me?!

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

if I recall correctly he only found out the night before the wedding, he decided it was the best way to humiliate her, and yes it was annulled. It was a bloody shocker though.

I know I'm overthinking this, but can a heterosexual marriage be annulled on the grounds of non-consummation if the couple haven't only DTD after the marriage? Can it be counted as 'pre-consummated' if they've already been doing it before the marriage?

I would have thought that the idea of non-consummation was originally based on the assumption that couples wouldn't have had sex at all before marriage, hence there was an issue (physical, psychological, controlling or whatever) preventing them from being able to have a normal full marriage with 'marital' relations. If it's just a matter of timing - i.e. you did it several times in the month preceding the wedding but haven't yet had chance (or the energy) to do it again in the day or two since the wedding, it seems kind of arbitrary and irrelevant.

I think that technically yes. Nonsense really, but the marriage has not been consumated.

I agree it is pretty arbitrary!

I've only heard of it happening in Jane Eyre.

I think if you go for annulment based on non-consummation you have to say whether it's wilful refusal or incapability.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

if I recall correctly he only found out the night before the wedding, he decided it was the best way to humiliate her, and yes it was annulled. It was a bloody shocker though.

I know I'm overthinking this, but can a heterosexual marriage be annulled on the grounds of non-consummation if the couple haven't only DTD after the marriage? Can it be counted as 'pre-consummated' if they've already been doing it before the marriage?

I would have thought that the idea of non-consummation was originally based on the assumption that couples wouldn't have had sex at all before marriage, hence there was an issue (physical, psychological, controlling or whatever) preventing them from being able to have a normal full marriage with 'marital' relations. If it's just a matter of timing - i.e. you did it several times in the month preceding the wedding but haven't yet had chance (or the energy) to do it again in the day or two since the wedding, it seems kind of arbitrary and irrelevant.

And I wonder how they prove it without children to show for the marriage

My mum was at a wedding where the vicar was told to prepare for an objection. I think it was from one of the mothers.
I think it was sorted out fairly quickly and they'd prepared music for the time out.

And I wonder how they prove it without children to show for the marriage

Maybe they send somebody to witness the deed - like in the days when the Home Secretary legally had to be present at every royal birth! I think they only scrapped that requirement sometime after the current Queen was born.