To think you should get legally married at a wedding?

[Montparnasse]

I need you, oh wise MNers, to tell me if IABU here before I potentially stick my beak in where it's not wanted! Am prepared to be told IABU, I just want to know as don't have a sense either way.

Someone very close to me is getting married soon. The invites are out, RSVPs are in, final stages planning underway. BUT, she said to me that her and her DH to be are thinking of, instead of legally getting married on the day at the event where everyone is going to, they might instead go to a registry earlier that week or even (this is what horrifies me the most) the week AFTER the "wedding".

Where we live you don't have to get married in a church and the wedding/reception would be in the same venue, so the guests would turn up none the wiser beforehand.

We are very close and we have been talking about the wedding A LOT, and she does consider what I have to say. In the past I have played the "voice of reason" role. Of note, she is quite shy and I suspect she is nervous about standing up in front of others.

It's my view that at a stretch it's OK to get married in a registry beforehand and tell the guests when they arrive, but would be very poor form not to get married until the week after the "wedding" - I think if I traveled to a wedding and that happened I'd feel hard done by.

What do you think? Should I just butt out? Or AINBU?

I know a few people who did this. A couple were getting married abroad and it was easier to do the registry office in the UK than sort it out in the countries they were marrying in.

Another is a Muslim and she said it was normal to do the registry office the week before the proper wedding. Then they had a three day extravaganza.

Friends of mine did this. They wanted to marry outdoors, in a place with significance to them. As this wasn't possible, they did the 'paperwork' at the the registry office the day before, then had a proper ceremony at their chosen location.

This also meant that they didn't have to pay for a legal officiant, and I got to do it!

"the legal bit isn't important"

That's true. The important bit is the moment when you vow to be together and you can do that anywhere.

You register a birth, but that isn't the important bit - that's just for the government's records. The important bit is bringing it into the world.

I suppose the part I didn't like, now I reflect on it, isn't so much the 2 stage process, more the fact that guests will come expecting one thing and will then find it's another.

But I don't see how it would make any difference to the guests?
What will the guests not be getting?
Surely the invitation is to celebrate the wedding, and that is what they will be doing.

I went to a family members 'wedding' that wasn't
Her in-laws weren't happy about them having a baby out of wedlock so they got married in a registry office when she was 8 months pregnant with only close family in attendance then 6mths later (summer) we all got invited to her wedding no.2 which was actually a church blessing and big traditional reception, big dress, cake, photographer etc. Most people didn't realise it wasn't the real wedding especially as the food & wine were flowing and her dad managed to make a cringeworthy speech that had us all blushing.

SolidGoldBrass People who are Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Shinto, Vaudun or whatever also have to have a separate legal 'wedding' with a registrar present if they get married in the UK and want their marriage to be legal in the UK.

Jewish weddings have been recognised since the eighteenth century and the same ceremony is the legal and the religious wedding; the Secretary of the synagogue is effectively the Registrar.

Other non-Anglican religious can register their buildings and then they too can celebrate weddings without a separate civil ceremony. The problem is that so few mosques are registered and there are many non-legal Muslim "marriages" in England which are without legal status.

OP I have been to two weddings in the chapels of Oxbridge colleges; beautiful venues but not parish churches. One couple had been before the Registrar the previous day; the other did it a few days later. Nor important to me or anybody else which way round they do it. MYOB.

I have been to several weddings where the couple had got legally married the day before and we only attended the religious ceremony.

One was for my lovely neighbour, she did it with real style and two different dresses (and two outfits for the groom!)

As others have said it's pretty common on the continent.

I know in the catholic faith the priest can't legally marry a couple in the UK so there has to be a registrar present to make it legal and friends and collegues of different faiths have told ie Muslim and Hindu have said they have a religious ceremony and an official ceremony to make it legal one women I know got officially married months before she had her religious ceremony she is Hindu .

I'm finding it difficult to express how I 'feel' in words as it's very much a feeling, rather than anything else.

I guess part of it is 'pedantic'. It's the wording, being upfront about what you are inviting people to & honest about what they are taking part in/witnessing.

Guests are often asked to witness the B&G's commitment to each other and to support their marriage. It seems wrong when you aren't part if the formal process.

As for the people who get married in their home country, to save having to do the legal part overseas, then get married overseas on a beach somewhere... I can see the practicality of it, but to me that then makes it sound like 'spend loads of money on going on holiday with us, to a place we choose' not 'please be at our wedding'...why not get married locally and just have the honeymoon overseas?

I'd have no problem going to an event to celebrate with people who have been married previously, but I might be less willing to take time off work, spend loads of money etc if it's not important to have me there whilst their taking their vows & doing the legal bit. It's not witnessing and taking part in the wedding, it's a party...

Still not sure I've explained that well.

I recently went to a Catholic wedding in France .The priests are not registrants .To be legal it has to happen in a registry office.

I guess this kind of highlights what I mean

Friends of mine did this. They wanted to marry outdoors, in a place with significance to them. As this wasn't possible, they did the 'paperwork' at the the registry office the day before, then had a proper ceremony at their chosen location

this wasn't possible

In my opinion, didn't have 'the proper ceremony' at their chosen location. They'd already HAD the 'proper' bit, they celebrated that in the location of their choice :)

No matter what you do before or after, the legal bit, IS the 'getting married' bit. Everything else is 'frills'

x2boys This is wrong. In England Catholic churches can be registered for marriages and the priest can be authorised so that effectively he is the Registrar. It is only if the priest has not got authorisation that the Registrar has to attend.

The fact is that with a minimum of expense any religious body can so set things up that they can legally marry people. The difference between Anglicans and all others is that others must first give notice to the Registrar and get a certificate which has to be produced to the priest, secretary of the synagogue, or equivalent, while Anglicans can be married by banns or Bishop's or even occasionally and expensively Archbishop's licence.

ChocLover As you say France is quite different. Only M or Mme le maire can marry you, and it has to be at the mairie. All part of the principle of France being a lay republic and all that.

Eh, we're doing this. Getting married in the UK at the registry office with just our parents there, then we're off abroad to have an intimate ceremony and our honeymoon. We can't legally get married abroad so we're doing the legal bit here and the "ceremony" and proper photos etc. there.

I don't much care if other people find it weird. It's not their wedding.

I went to one of my best friend's weddings a few months ago, they had a lovely humanist ceremony and I loved seeing them get married. They didn't sign the register at the end which was odd, and then when they got back from honeymoon I asked when they signed the reg and I found out they'd got married in a registry office the week before!!!!!

I don't really see the point in that second ceremony as they were already married, they weren't getting married in front of all their friends but the thing is, they were passing it off that they were.

Why didn't they just have a registry office ceremony then reception? I still don't get it.

What this shows is that (like it or not) there are two different aspects to marriage. There's a legal bit, which is a formal legal contract that is (only just, now) available to any couple - it's really not very long at all since it was only available to one cisgender man and one cisgender woman with no other permutation permitted (well, theoretically one transman and one transwoman, I suppose).
Then there's the bit that, you know, means a lot to the couple involved and generally to their families and friends. Because the bit with the registrar can be as exciting and emotionally intense as getting a dog license, if you're not bothered. You can literally roll up in your tracksuit, grab a couple of passers by, say the words, sign the forms and you're done, if that's what you want (OK, you do have to book in advance and they may ask a few questions if you don't want any frills at all, but only to ensure that it's not a scam marriage). This is, of course, fair enough: some people want/need the legal aspects of being married in place but don't want a fuss.

But for a lot of people, the wedding is the bit with the music and the flowers and the saying of vows (however they are worded) in front of all the other people they care about. And a party to celebrate. So I do think those of you who are pissing and moaning about not getting to see the couple write their names in a book are possibly missing the point a bit.

No, the legal bit isn't important as it's just the paperwork really. Cultures like the Chinese or Indian, the commitment to each other comes from the ceremony, respect for each other and the elders (or party as you may wish to put it).

We got married twice in one day!

Just before the ceremony the guy from the hotel came running up to me, all flustered, saying he'd found out the room might not be licenced after all!

So we did the ceremony as it was too late to change it... and then during the drinks we went into another room (hotel) that was definitely licenced and redid our vows, just us, the registrar and witnesses.

Completely irrelevant to your post sorry :o YABU though I think :o

When I got married (no 1) in a Church of England church and then (no 2) a Methodist church, both were legal weddings and the registers were signed in the churches. My mother married in 2000 in a catholic church and a registrar had to be present (on the 'stage') with the father).

Chipping as stated up thread I got married/entered a legal contract months before our 'wedding'. I was completely up front about it and explained that ours was a wedding blessing. My family are quite religious and so having our vows blessed in front of our friends and family and confirming our union was just as important to me (not necessarily to atheist DH). It was definitely a joining of two families.

However we needed to get legally wed when we did. Most people invited did attend and brought presents even if they were unsure as to the procedure - it was effectively a wedding without the signing of the contract and the priest asked our congregation to support us as a married couple and we made vows in the eyes of god, if not in law.

However on the morning of the blessing my mum was extremely nervous, in case DH didn't show up - at which point I told her of course he's going to show up, he was already married to me!

^So I do think those of you who are pissing and moaning about not getting to see the couple write their names in a book are possibly missing the point a bit*

Otherwise known as 'having a different opinion' SGB

Exactly Bree. It's the 'pretending'. People can do whatever they want, totally up to them, but be honest about it.

Reindeer at your Mum. Not to mention it's a tad insulting when your own Mum worries the 'groom' (who is actually 'the husband') isn't going to turn up?! Gee, thanks Mum!

See, I'd have loved to have been there, wouldn't have missed it, I'd have brought presents, taken photos, kicked my heels off ASAP, drunk lots & danced. Celebrated with you, because what you were doing was honest, upfront, no pretence.

fluffy, SGB is completely right. The reason that other faith leaders are allowed to perform weddings is that they become associate registrars for their church. I am a Baptist and got married in our church, but our minister had to have done the registrar training so that our church wedding would be legal.

We did the registry the day before with just closest family (parents and sibs) as I didn't really want to do it in front of everyone, or at the venue and am not religious. The party was billed as our "wedding celebration" and everybody knew.

BTW you can get legally married in an Oxford College! I did.
We did have to apply for an Archbishops license - which costs a bit more but is a nice keep sake in its own right.
Lots of people get married at my college this way.