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 wonder where you are?

I had my legal ceremony about a month prior to my religious ceremony because of my DH's religion and the place where we got married (complicated issues about church and state).

Our legal ceremony (weirdly the most serious commitment for us, and the oaths were really hardcore -- we had had swear we would bring our children up to be good citizens in the light of the country) was very low-key whereas the religious one was the one with bells and whistles

Horrified?! Seriously?!

Weddings and marriages can take all sorts of forms - and I am often struck by how little I know of the various beautiful ways in which people can and do get married across cultures and the world.

My DH and I hail from absolutely different cultures, countries and races. Our respective families live two continents away from each other. We wanted to register our marriage in the country we live in so we registered it at the office where my parents flew in to witness and his parents too. A week later we all travelled to my home country to have a beautiful, traditional yet non religious wedding complete with decor, flowers, music, and all of what have you in a beautiful ceremony we designed from scratch. People were amazed at the result and the video has been watched many times over!

Please take beak out and insert elsewhere. All the best to the happy couple!

A good friend of mine got married abroad, but didn't even realise it wasn't legal until a few years later!! They thought they'd done it legally!

In the end, it doesn't really matter. I'm sure their families didn't feel short changed when they found out!

Apologies, not RTFT yet.

But based on the initial post, I would be very annoyed if I'd bought a new outfit and paid accommodation (possibly) or possibly taken time off work or paid for childcare for the children to attend someone's wedding, for them then to announce that actually they're already married and it's all for show.

Not good form at all.

If s couple want to do this then fine but they need to upfront about it from the start with their guests.

My ds got married in a registry office, midweek with just immediate family and then had their wedding celebration on the Saturday. The registry office was very low key, we waited in the waiting room with everyone coming in and registering births etc, and the 'ceremony' was very short and didn't feel like a wedding at all. Oh and I think the room could have fit about 20.

The Saturday night celebration was the wedding, dsis wore a fantastic (orange dress), there were vows and speeches and a great dance. I can't imagine anyone felt 'shortchanged' and if they did, well more fool them really as that's the night that was important to the bride and groom (and our family too).

I'd think it very odd to go to a wedding with no vows though, as that to me is the important bit (the signing of the book is pretty boring really, that's just the legal confirmation to me - when I got married it was in a back room with no one to see except for me, dh, the registrar and two witnesses).

the legal bit is basically just a contract. It's less like having a birthday party that isn't on your birthday (not that that matters either) and more like inviting people to a house warming party and not to the signing of the mortgage documents.

People aren't owed a viewing of a particular aspect of it. It's really just about sharing the happiness. You don't need to be being present at the contract signing to appreciate the event.

I've been to two weddings I can think of where the legal ceremony had happened days previously, in both cases the couple were up front with everyone about it and in both cases they had a formal bit with vows, etc. I think people do expect that!

One was because they married in a small family chapel that only held about 15 people but wanted snigger celebration with friends, and one was because they wanted a humanist ceremony carried out a friend who was not licensed by the state, so they got the legal bit done first.

MaryWestmacott:
you know you don't have to have any vows in a civil wedding at all? You just have to confirm your name and that you are free to marry and chose to marry that other person, then sign the register. Anything else, any vows, promises etc is just stuff people chose to do, it's not part of being legally married.

I guess that is so. However, I personally would find it more odd if someone had a "legal" wedding but didn't make any promises to each other than a personalized, possible non-legal, ceremony in which they do.

WonderingWillow - that reminds me of a couple I know who married abroad and didn't realise it wasn't legal until they decided to get divorced and somebody pointed out the paperwork wasn't quite right. They were 'married' for years.

I don't think it's as common in the US, but it is also easier to get married in the US (any venue, any time of day, inside or out, and officiants very plentiful), but I do know of a couple who had a big church wedding planned in the spring, but a few months before the bride lost her job due to cutbacks, which means she also lost her employee health insurance.

In order to be put on fiance's insurance, they had to be married so they got married quietly at the courthouse, told no one but close family and the minister who would be doing the big spring wedding (and of course husband's HR department). They went ahead with the big wedding as planned but the wording of the ceremony varied slightly ("bless" instead of "join") but no one was the wiser. There is no public signing of anything in US weddings so that was not an issue.

Fifty years ago the exemption for married men from the draft in the US was abolished with effect from the next day. And several hundred men managed to get married that day and avoid going to a Vietnam without a tourist visa. Most of them got divorced later. Not possible in the UK where the minimum possible time was one clear day, and then you'd be be lucky to find a spot before the Registrar or another authorised celebrant. Fourteen days nowadays.

Fourteen days currently, due to change to 28 days from the beginning of March.

SolidGoldBrass
I'm a registrar and I actually find your comments above at 18.51 pretty insulting. In our office, I can assure you that the registrars work pretty damn hard to ensure that our couples do not feel as though their wedding is as exciting as getting a dog licence.

Yes, couples can have a very simply ceremony if that is what they wish to do. But it is a myth that is mainly propagated by the BHA that if you want a 'meaningful' ceremony with vows and flowers and music which is full of emotion then it can only be carried out by a humanist celebrant - for some odd reason, the BHA seems to have convinced couples that if they want something meaningful then they have to pay a humanist celebrant to conduct the celebratory ceremony when in actual fact, their neighbour could do it, or a friend or relative.

All of our couples can choose all of the above, have a lot of input into what is said in the ceremony, choose to write their own ceremony if they like. And best of all, they are legally married at the end of it.

The suggestion that couples just have to do the 'legal bits' a couple of days before with the 'real' wedding being the big one in front of their family is also bizarre - it implies that the legal bits are not important. The real wedding is the registry one and it isn't simply a question of turning up and signing a couple of bits of paper however much you might like to wish it was. Oh, and it is perfectly legal for couples who wish to marry in a religious building to do so legally providing there is an incumbent who is authorised to conduct the ceremony (incorporating the legal bits) and do the paperwork on the day (or a registrar can attend).

I have conducted many ceremonies where the couple is 'simply' doing the registry bit because that is the impression they are given of what will happen and they actually end up crying because, you know, it is their real wedding and that moment hits them at that time as the words they say are meaningful to them and we make them feel special. As we should, it is their real wedding day.

TooManyMochas
Yes, I totally agree

BogeyFace
The irony in your post is amusing. The point of having a humanist celebration is that you are a non believer.

We find it amusing in our office that couples are allowed to have religious elements in a humanist ceremony. It does make us smile

How astonishingly patronising you are LaydeeC. You conflate state recognition with meaningfulness which is not only rather a base assumption to make but I am incredulous that you would post here in such a condecending way when people have very patiently and thoughtfully explained their reasons. It is really quite rude. What on earth makes you think you know better about what's important and significant to the people you are marrying than they do?

And why are you so chippy about humanists? Humanist doesnt necessarily mean athesist either. Nor have you even a basic understanding of what BHA is about or why ordinary people would choose to turn in that direction if you think there is any sort of competition there.

Disgusting attitude and I do hope you're not really a registrar if you even hunt at that crappy attitude towards your customers.

Really, I don't think I am patronising or at least I didn't mean to be.

I did find the post I referred to insulting. And I guess I am a little chippy about some humanist comments because many couples I have met have definitely confused wanting to get married in a way that is meaningful to them with thinking that it has to be done as a humanist celebration - even if they are not actually having a humanist celebrant they often refer to the ceremony as a humanist one.

Couples can of course marry in any way that they want and have whatever celebration they want to have and incorporate in that ceremony things that are special to them. Of course they can. But they can often have all those things at the same time as the legal wedding. There is no one size fits all. And civil ceremonies in Town Halls and other buildings (well at least in ours) can incorporate a great deal of meaningful content which has been chosen and written by couples.

There have been many posts on here that have denigrated the legal aspect, the type of wedding held in Town Halls, the attitude of the registrars. I was simply trying to point out that civil ceremonies are not all like that and we work very hard in our offices to make sure that they are not.

I think I have as good an understanding of the BHA as the next person and I do find it a bit odd that a humanist representative has belittled civil marriage or the services that are provided to couples who do not want to have a humanist ceremony on this thread. I also find it odd that couples can have religious elements in some humanist ceremonies - when the very nature of humanism is essentially athiest. But if couples choose to do this, I have no problem at all with it - but I agree with other posters that there should be an openness about it and the celebrants should not try to imply that it is a real wedding. Yes, it is the most important one to the couple but the real marriage (not wedding) took place a couple of days ago.

You are absolutely right, marriage is not about a competition. It is about two people who are making promises to share a future together and that contract also provides legal protection. As a previous poster said, other than the required legal words, the ceremony is just that, words. But those words are meaningful to the couples who say them and it is the role of whoever is conducting that ceremony to ensure that the day is made special and memorable for the couple. And they should be able to do that in whatever way they want - but they shouldn't be made to feel that the legal registry bit is unimportant or that the 'big' day is the only one that matters. Many, many people can afford to only have a simple ceremony - their wedding is still important to them and the team I work in do everything we can to make it the best day possible for them.

Again, I am sorry that you found my post so offensive. I have found yours quite aggressive. I certainly don't have a disgusting attitude. I love my job, and I feel exceptionally lucky that I get to spend my day with happy couples, new parents and even the recently bereaved. It is actually an honour and a privilege. I was simply trying to point out that there are many ways to have a meaningful celebration including in a register office.

And in the many years that I have been a registrar, not one single person has complained or mentioned my attitude in anything other than a positive way. In fact, you are the only person to have ever told me I am disgusting.

It's fine to have the party another day, but don't pretend it's the main event, don't pretend that day is actually your birthday.

Why?!?
What difference does it make to any guest? Why would any guest care?
Either they want to celebrate their friend's event, or they don't.
It is a party to celebrate an event. There are lots of times when it makes sense for the people involved to have the celebration and the actual event on separate days.

DH is from Algeria and his family couldn't have got visas to travel to Europe for our wedding. We went there two months before and we had a small party at his grandparents' house. DH wore a suit, I wore a white dress (not a wedding dress because of the luggage allowance) and his grandmother joined our hands.
Even though it had no legal value whatsoever, I consider this ceremony more binding than the official one that took place later.

I attended a friend's wedding on a tropical isle. It was pretty, beach reception, baby elephant made an appearance, you get the idea. They then had a 'real' wedding a few weeks later in their home country. I had no idea the one I went to wasn't legal but I really didn't feel 'cheated'. They just fancied a beach 'wedding'.

Laydee, my point was not that a register office is like getting a dog licence (I have been to some great weddings in register offices) but that it can be, if a couple just want to get the legal aspect of getting married over and done with.

I have often advised clients not to underestimate the 'legal bit', and suggested they wear something nice and go for a good lunch afterwards. But there are lots of good reasons for having your 'wedding' in a format that doesn't include the legal bit - if you want to have it outside, for instance, or at midnight or sunrise or something.

It's fine to have the party another day, but don't pretend it's the main event, don't pretend that day is actually your birthday

^Why?!? What difference does it make to any guest? Why would any guest care?Either they want to celebrate their friend's event, or they don't.
It is a party to celebrate an event. There are lots of times when it makes sense for the people involved to have the celebration and the actual event on separate days^

I've already explained why, if you read the thread.

Essentially a wedding is one thing, a party to celebrate a wedding is another. I'd like to know which I'm being invited to and make my decision accordingly.

If it's 'perfectly fine' then there's no need to not be upfront about it is there?

Ahhh. This brings to mind that episode of Births, Deaths & Marriages (ITV) , where the groom organised a huge marquee piss up in a field so they had to get married at the registry office beforehand. They assumed it was just paperwork but then the formality and words used made them realise that the 'paperwork' was their real wedding. You could see the changes in their faces when they realised.

I then sobbed my heart out as an entire family came to register the death of their beloved grandmother.

Ahem... As you were.

I have been to several weddings where the actual marriage ceremony has taken place elsewhere, but it has always been before the wedding celebration, never after. I think that is the "oddness" in the OP's relative's case.

I don't think it's a big issue going to only the celebration, but I do agree it would probably be nice to let people know that they're not going to see the actual legal marriage, then that covers all bases and no one is upset on the day. Some people find that the most important part of the wedding - one of my wedding guests only came to the marriage ceremony, as she wanted to see that part but didn't feel up to the celebration part (she was in her 90s, fair enough!)

So while you are being a bit unreasonable, I do think your relative should let people know what they're doing.