Wedding without marriage

[DelythBeautyQueen]

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?

You should absolutely let everyone know. People get very pissed off about things like that. My DH’s cousin got married a month before the ‘wedding’ and didn’t tell many people. Some flew from quite a distance. Once people found out that it wasn’t a real wedding they were very very angry. And it’s not even as ‘provisional’ as a wedding a few months in the future.

The point is they've given their guests the clear impression that they're actually getting married, when they aren't. The OP says as much - they are not telling anyone this fact, and the OP found out by chance.

Weddings = celebration with family and friends = normally attracts some sort of gift/money changing hands.

Thats deceitful. Simple as.

Look, I think it's crazy but it's up to OP at the end of the day. There's a lot to be said for small weddings

However those differences can be down to differences in characteristics of couples such as socio-economic status and education meaning certain types of people are more likely to marry and certain types to co-habit - so it’s not quite so clear cut.

so what you're saying is that "certain types" ie posh well-educated people are more likely to get married that the other "certain types" who live together. Hmmm that's a bit of a give away!

I'd be asking for my money back and NOT attending their party.

It is in Scotland.

Another vote for James having cold feet about a legal commitment. This event is just to give Anna the day she wants. The wedding will keep being kicked down the road and probably never happen. It needs to be a secret so that the money comes in to help pay off the loan.

Anna of course may be convincing herself that the wedding will eventually take place rather than accepting that it's not going to happen. He would seem to be the CF. If Anna is fully on board with a sham wedding and not getting married she equally is a CF. If she doesn't realise what is going on she is to be pitied.

If they were just upfront and said that they have no intention of marrying but wanted to celebrate having been together for so long, I don't think people would have a problem with that but they might find the gifts were much smaller in value.

No, it’s easy for people to stand up and say pretty words to each other, but unless you actually sign the legal papers you are not, in the eyes of the law, married. All you have done is have a ceremony and a big party, but ultimately you haven’t made the commitment - not in the eyes of the law. I suspect there are men who encourage women to have ‘weddings’ like these so that if they want to split up they can just walk away, or kick the woman out of the house he owns when she has 2 kids and nowhere to go.

Thats fine if that’s all you want, but if you actually want the legal rights and protections of being married a big dress and your granny cooing over the cake isn’t going to cut the mustard.

@Albatrossing I went to a wedding years ago that was as you describe. The bride's sister was terminally ill and not expected to live much longer (and she did die shortly after). But the groom was awaiting a change to his visa that would have allowed him to legally marry over here. So they had the wedding / wedding party in, say, May, so that the bride's sister could attend, and then did the legal bit in something like December once the groom's immigration status allowed it.
It was a beautiful ceremony. They didn't make a big announcement that that's what they were doing but they were upfront about it and it came up in enough conversations prior to the wedding that I think all the guests knew. As far as I'm aware everyone was sympathetic to their situation and very happy for them.
Obviously that's world's apart from what the OP's relatives are doing - they've unlocked a whole new level of CFery!

I know several people who have had religious ceremonies that aren’t legal in the UK and then signed the paperwork when they got round to it, some have not done the legal bit at all.

would you also be saying that these are sham marriages?

you are being quite disrespectful to your cousin who you say you are close to at the moment all on hearsay. Talk to her get the full picture before you decide that their marriage is a worthless sham that is just there to dupe guests.

Genuine question - why? Why not just make whatever ceremony you're having legal and get it over with?

I went to Spain for a ‘wedding’ but they actually got married in a registry office here first. Tbh I just feel it’s silly to have an extravagant party when you aren’t actually getting married.

Your aunt (mother of the bride?) must be devastated, knowing she won’t actually be able to watch her child get married.

This sounds more like an elaborate engagement party. Bit of a cheek tbh, but if it were me I’d go and enjoy the food and try and make the best of it.

I would say that the religious ceremony without the legal part is not a marriage.

The danger with religious only ceremonies is that they keep the un-economically active partner (normally the woman) in a subservient, vulnerable role. She can't rock the boat because legally he has all the advantages. If she walks away it is likely to be with very little.

All the handfasting, plighting of troths, declarations of undying love etc get made in a loved up bubble but mean nothing. Without the legal part they trap the gullible, the uneducated, the self-deluding.

At any given moment you can go on the Relationship board and find sad threads where yet another woman is trapped in an awful situation with children but no legal rights to the home she lives in because the legal part didn't seem important at the start.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Can't get past people actually asking for money.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.