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?

To be properly married in the UK (where my cousin is having her "wedding") you have to have a legally recognised ceremony for it to be a marriage of any sort. They have no actual plan at the moment to have a legal ceremony.

So, to answer your question, the non-legal religious (or non religious) ceremonies that are not preceded or followed by a legal ceremony are not real marriages. They are sham marriages.

It is neither disrespectful nor incorrect to say so, it is a simple statement of fact.

I do not need to speak to my cousin to know that if she doesn't follow up her "wedding", or fancy party with a legal ceremony she won't be married. Her "marriage" won't even be a "worthless sham marriage" it won't be a marriage at all.

No fancy dresses, big party and declarations of love in front of friends and family will make them any more married than they were before the day.

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.

@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.

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.

It seems that a few people (and I mean a very small number) who have responded to this thread genuinely think a declaration of love in front of their families and friends with all the trappings of what we traditionally call a wedding means they are married. Even without a legal ceremony.

The offence that a small number of posters have taken at the suggestion that these events are not proper weddings resulting in marriage is extraordinary.

I realise legal marriage is not important for some couples, even when they have children, but I am surprised that anyone would pay for and go through the process of what superficially looks like a wedding with no intention of being legally married.

Weddings are so expensive nowadays, it seems like the ultimate folly.

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.

Thank you. This is exactly the kind of post I was referring to above.

No legal ceremony. No marriage.

Nothing to do with my "rigid views of what a wedding should look like".

Simple facts. Facts are not insults.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

This. Why are people in this day and age still trying to blur the line of what marriage is? You can have pretty much any relationship you want. If you dont want marriage dont pretend you are married. If you are with someone who doesnt want marriage, address it. Dont pretend like a child.

The legal contract of marriage is the marriage. Without it, there is no marriage.

The definition of marriage is written in the law. It is not an opinion.

What you call my rigid definition of marriage is the actual definition of marriage. Honestly. I didn't make it up, I promise.

I like and love my cousin. Her definition of marriage is the same as mine (the actual definition of marriage). The same as the vast majority of people. The ceremony she will go through at her "wedding" is entirely invalid. She knows that. That's why they plan to have a legal ceremony next year.

Everyone except you seems to understand that.

If the hoo haa the information has caused on this thread is anything to go by, I'm not surprised they haven't told anyone. Why would you want that kind of ridiculous hassle?

You can’t pretend to be married or draw up contracts to get around inheritance tax for spouses

Next time I go to a wedding, I'm going to insist on verifying the legalities before handing over any gifts. I went to one six months ago and one of the couple had been married before. Dammit, I should have asked for a copy of his decree absolute first.

And if the couple get divorced I will ask for a refund.

Apparently that is the correct way to behave.

Utterly fucking batshit bonkers if you ask me, but hey, apparently it's the done thing.

YANBU. That is utterly ridiculous.

Well said. I don't know what it is about weddings and marriages that have a small number of people utterly confused by what they mean but it's bizarre.
Of course anyone is free to feel love towards anyone and express that and promise to be with them, and that is fine, but it is an alternative to marriage. No less real, no less worthy, just a different thing.

Like the holding of a driving licence has no bearing on the quality of your actual driving compared to someone who hasn't passed their test but is competent - but you can't describe them as a legal driver.

I went to one six months ago and one of the couple had been married before.

Do you mean they had informally committed to each other before, or are you using "married" to describe a legal state?

Married to another person for 30+ years.

You are quite right about one thing. What you are suggesting is completely batshit bonkers, so why would you do it?

Literally no one has suggested it's "the done thing"?

If that is what you have taken from this thread you either, haven't read it properly, or your powers of comprehension are very poor.

Next time I go to a wedding, I'm going to insist on verifying the legalities before handing over any gifts.

Well if you're going to the same one as OP @shearwater2, you don't need to concern yourself as it isn't actually a wedding at all 😉