To think it’s not possible to get married in your back garden in England??

[Bootlebride]

Everything I have read about the law on weddings in England and Wales suggests it’s not possible to get married in your back garden (unless you own a stately home or a castle or something). (The law is slightly different in Scotland).

However, I was reading a thread on Facebook yesterday where a handful of people were saying they had got married in their back garden, by a registrar (so, not just a symbolic ceremony with a celebrant and then doing the legal bit at the registry office later, but actually getting officially married by the registrar in their own back garden).

But I just cannot see how it’s possible… is there something I’m missing here? Or are some local authorities just a bit more lax than others in what they’ll allow? Can someone explain it to me?

From the citizens advice website:

”Where can a marriage take place
A marriage can take place in:-

• a Register Office
• premises approved by the local authority such as a hotel
• a church of the Church of England, Church in Wales
• a synagogue or any other private place if both partners are Jewish
• a Meeting House if one or both partners are either members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) or are associated with the Society by attending meetings
• any registered religious building (England and Wales only)
• the home of one of the partners if the partner is housebound or detained, for example, in prison
• a place where one partner is seriously ill and not expected to recover, for example, in hospital
• a licensed naval, military or air force chapel

Local authorities in England and Wales may approve premises other than Register Offices where civil marriages may take place. Applications for approval must be made by the owner or trustee of the building, not the couple.
The premises must be regularly open to members of the public, so private homes are unlikely to be approved, since they are not normally open to the public. Stately homes, hotels and civic buildings are likely to be thought suitable. Approval will not be given for open air venues, such as moonlit beaches or golf courses. Generally, the premises will need to be permanent built structures, although it may be possible for approval to be given to a permanently moored, publicly open boat. Hot air balloons or aeroplanes will not be approved.”

Other websites, including .gov websites, seem to back that up.

An important consideration when conducting an outdoor wedding - and why a permanent structure is required to be licensed if a venue wishes to offer them - is that it is imperative that the marriage register (and other paperwork) does not get wet.

When I was conducting weddings, it was a condition of our local authority that venues also had an indoor space set up and ready to go in case of bad weather. The British climate being what it is, we had many anxious occasions where the decision had to be literally last minute, with the bride and groom desperate to be outside and the venue not keen to change, as often they'd need to whip all the chairs inside again. It was a nightmare and very stressful for the Registrars.

A close family member was legally married in their garden by getting their beautiful and large house and garden approved for weddings

They had to advertise for a while but surprisingly were always unavailable when an interested couple tried to book.

In fact the only wedding that took place there was his 😆

NI and Scotland are wetter than England and the same law does not apply.

The bit about permanent structures just reminded me of a friend's wedding - beautiful meadow with wildflowers, but for it to be legal they had to marry in the doorway of this old tower thing on the the property which was the registered building. So they had to cram into this old stone doorway with the celebrant/registrar/whatever haha - it was a beautiful wedding though.

🤷‍♀️ It is the law in England and Wales - rightly so in my opinion for the reasons I've given. I didn't write it.

I work in family law. You’d be surprised at the number of people who think they’ve legally married when the ceremony was nothing of the sort. Sometimes there are very sad consequences. So it doesn’t surprise me in the least if people think they’ve “married” in their gardens.

So mind boggling! Such a big decision to get married why don’t people know the difference?

I think also that if your wedding is outside, the vows must be said under a canopy of some sort - it can't be under open skies.
I know of a civil ceremony in a hospice recently, whereby the couple had to change their plan of being out in the garden and be just inside the open windows instead.

Are they Jewish? If not, they cannot have officially got married in their garden. I expect they want to trick people into thinking the garden ceremony was an actual wedding, but it can't have been, they must have gone to the register office previously, and probably not told anyone.

But there are ways to make it not stressful? Most Scottish outdoor weddings I've been to, there'd be a few chairs for elderly relatives, everyone else just stood. It's only 15-30 minutes.

For those wondering about the different rules for Jewish couples-

Prior to the mid-18th century weddings could take place wherever an ordained CoE clergyman would perform them in England. In 1753 a law was passed restricting this and adding additional requirements (the goal was to stop secret marriages, marriages to underage brides, bigamous marriages, etc) that required all marriages to take place in a church or chapel of the CoE. An exemption to this law was carved out for Jewish and Quaker couples (but it also didn't explicitly validate Jewish or Quaker marriages under the law - remember that Jewish emancipation was still a century away at this point). So Jewish couples have never been restricted in where they can marry.

Since then changes have been limited to adding on specific exemptions or allowances but no full overhaul so it's not a cohesive, consistent structure. Catholics and other non-Anglican religious groups were granted the right to register to perform marriages in their buildings alongside Anglican churches, a civil marriage option was added, and changes were made to who could marry who... but that original exemption for Jewish couples was left alone.

It all needs to be overhauled IMO. There is no need for the state to require anyone to marry in a specific physical location in modern day.

Nearly all weddings we did were fully seated. Most venues were fairly to extremely formal. That was the decision of the bride and groom in each case, not the Registrars.

In addition, a lot of the stress came from wanting to deliver the ceremony the couple wanted, where possible, and feeling under pressure to do so, while balancing other important considerations.

As an aside, one venue had a fountain which would swing around if the wind got up. One section of the seating came with optional waterproof capes, like the splash zone in a water park. It was quite amusing to see guests dressed up in their finery and hats sitting swaddled there, but they took it in good part! 😂

Ach... In Scotland we are well accustomed to weddings in the rain and the wind. We know how to protect the important paperwork.

I always ask for a plan b, but if the couple are happy for everyone to be wet and cold on a mountain, then so be it.

However, most often, we are on glorious beaches, or tiny bluebell woodlands, or indeed in people's cosy front rooms.

How so? I mean, given that they can have the chuppah in a synagogue? Or in any number of secular venues that are licensed for weddings? Why the need for the "any private place" as well?

Doesn’t the fact that lots of people think they’ve got married when actually their ceremonies were not legally binding suggest that widening the venue options has been a disaster? It was exactly this kind of confusion that opponents of the widening warned about.

We got married at my parents' (very nice) house. They got a licence and then gave it up the day after we got married. Kent was actively trying to promote people getting married in the area and were happy to grant the licence. It was a very lovely ceremony.

Celebrants can be very good at making their ceremony seem like the 'real thing'. I don't mean in an underhand way, but guided by the couple. There are very few things that celebrants can't say (like "I now pronounce you man and wife").
Reckon that could have happened here, that the guests couldn't distinguish between the legal and the purely ceremonial.

Of course it doesn't mean that. Aside from the part where no one has suggested that this is a new or worsening phenomenon, the "widening" of the venue rules in 2022 only allows couples to marry outdoors at the same non-religious venues that could already host weddings.

A surprising number of people not knowing if they're legally married is a reflection of a surprising number of people whose brains can't seem to process anything related to paperwork or legal steps and requirements and a terrible number of people who defraud their overly trusting or controlled partners.

If people cant tell the difference if they are legally married or not should indicate they are not capable of being of sound mind enough to get married in the first place?

Could be an indication of the lack of intelligence that seems to be arund these days and how people should really use their brains more

Thank you for that response, so it is possible it did happen! And it seems some local authorities are more lenient than others...

Was there a fee for the marriage licence, and was it a lot of faff to get, or not?

Well, Prince Harry and Meghan apparently had their "real wedding" in their back garden...

I was coming on to say this. My uncle did the same.

Did these people specify they were in the UK? If not, they likely were in other countries where the laws aren't so restrictive.

simply it’s not a voting question! So, confused as to why OP did a poll. How people got married actually has no effect on her personally!

I believe in Scotland you can get married wherever as long as it is accessible to anyone who might want to object to the union.