1 marriage and a fake wedding.

[Weonlyhavealoanofit]

My daughter is attending a wedding of an old school friend which is taking place at a stately home with all the trimmings. The big dress, the 120 guests and multiple bridesmaids and groomsmen. They’ve even gone to the bother of having a vicar and a full wedding service in the chapel attached to the stately home (which hasn’t been consecrated), however the bride and groom are already married. They married earlier this year, before about 25 members of their families in a RC church, having complied with all the requirements of that church. My daughter tells me that everyone who knows about the real wedding is supposed to pretend that they are unmarried and doing this for the first time, because otherwise ‘it’ll spoil the big day’. I understand that the groom’s mother, is a very forceful personality who wasn’t happy about the RC wedding and is determined to have a big Instagram wedding, but AIBU in thinking this makes a mockery of religious weddings as a sacrament? My husband thinks it’s just another shakedown by entitled offspring with overly indulgent parents, but it’s the deceitfulness of it all that bothers me. Of course parents want help their children celebrate their ‘big day’ but what is happening here seems so insincere, why would anyone want to start their married life with a fake wedding? Are people really so shallow?

But are you telling people about both ceremonies? Thats the difference. This couple is deceiving people close enough to them to be invited to their wedding.

This really isn't 'deceit' or anything like it. I'd be very surprised if guests stayed away if they'd been made aware that the couple had already legally married. It's a deeply ordinary thing to do these days. This is the real event for this couple.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "bees" 🐝 it is to do with showing respect to your guests, not being dishonest. If guests want to attend a "lovely party" they will, but they should be allowed to make an informed decision, either way, for themselves.

Do you have a problem with the being honest part? If not then we agree 🤷‍♀️

There isn’t anything ‘wrong’ per se but it is weird unless it is a separate civil legal ceremony and a religious second ceremony (for those religious which are not recognised legally).

Even then, a wedding is the act of getting married. If you have got married the second ceremony, by definition, can’t be a wedding. It can be a celebration party but no one is actually witnessing the contract happening which is the point of everyone getting together . The party bit seems to have nowadays taken over from the actual point of the ceremony.

I have been to a wedding abroad where they had the civil ceremony before they went and I have to admit it wasn’t as emotional or special watching them say their vows as we knew it had already been done before and this was just for ‘show’

How is it not deceit? The 25 who attended the first wedding have been specifically told not to tell anyone about that ceremony? Its not just not been mentioned

I assume the vicar is giving a blessing as they are already married. I think many couples have a wedding like this sometimes they go to a register office afterwards for the official marriage this couple have just done it first. Personally i think its better to do it all in one but in this case where they wanted both a Catholic and a Cof E ceremony it makes sense

Can you explain further?

Over invested? This is a thread discussing the topic and posters opinions.

I agree I would judge people who lied to their guests. But nothing else, if people want this setup for their wedding and a subsequent party/pretend thing (no idea what to call it - I'll call it whatever you suggest) that is entirely up to them and no judgement if they are honest with their guests what it is they are inviting them to.

We got married in what used to be the chapel for a castle, it was unconsecrated.
It was ideal for us as we didn't want a religious wedding but it was a beautiful space.
Anyway, I hav eno issue with what this couple are doing, its not hurting anyone

Surely it's quite common to have a small ceremony for legal or religious reasons that is separate from the big wedding?

aren't all weddings just a big show? couldn't pay me to get married @Weonlyhavealoanofit

How do you know the family will be actively lying? So if they were asked a direct question about if they are already married, they would reply ‘no’’? If so, that’s deceitful and looks silly. Otherwise it is up to them how they spend their time and money. I think fancy weddings are a waste of money. Particularly with the cost of housing to think of. Marriage is foremost a contract and an important one - that is the part that matters. The religious part really is old fashioned and isn’t important to people nowadays tbh.

I went to a wedding once where I was told not to mention that the bride has been married before. It was a short mistake marriage but it was seen as shameful because her husband’s family were from another country and a more conservative religion let’s say. I thought it was odd but as long as it was a question if not mentioning it as opposed to actually lying, I didn’t see the problem. If anyone cared to look her up on ancestry they would have seen the first marriage.

It's a bit daft having two ceremonies. People of mixed dominations I know just had both the Catholic and protestant priests there in the one ceremony. If the new mil dislikes Catholics that much how is she going to react to the inevitable baptisms, first holy communions and confirmations of any kids? Part of the Catholic marriage (already done) is promising to bring your kids up Catholic. They probably need to manage her expectations.

AIBU in thinking this makes a mockery of religious weddings as a sacrament?

YABVU - they had a small wedding, with 25 guests - now this is the big "party wedding" with a blessing. No different to a 10000 other weddings either done abroad with a party at home or weddings which have the "legal" small ceremony one then the "party" one with everyone invited.

Making a mockery... what difference does it make to you how many parties this couple have to celebrate their union.

2 weddings to the same person seems like overkill. Doing it for placating the inlaws seems like the in-laws are the boss of them and that doesn't bode too well for a happy marriage.

Hopefully they're not going into debt for multiple ceremonies.

I think I may have expressed myself poorly, of course couples want to have a lovely wedding day with their friends and family, and for some people this will involve a religious ceremony as well as a legal ceremony, and hopefully those making such a commitment do so with sincerity. IMO it’s a huge step in anyone’s life and it isn’t something to be ashamed of or to lie about. There maybe circumstances where there is a legal ceremony abroad and a party at home or visa versa, but that is rather different to pretending that a wedding/marriage has not taken place. My daughter tells me that she’s had ‘her orders’: there is to be no reference to the earlier ceremony because it would make the ‘big wedding’ look a little fake. The vicar knows they’re already married but has agreed not to reference it in the service, and he’s going to take them through their marriage vows . ‘I ….do take ….I now pronounce you’ etc etc
As some commentators have pointed out, I’m not invited, and I do wish this couple many years of happiness, I’ve known the bride since she was a little girl. I just wanted to know what others think, I suspect my views maybe represent a generational thing. The vicar of my own church would not conduct a service without first explaining that the couple have already married.

I can't imagine being bothered about what other people are doing for their wedding. They aren't harming anyone. Just focus on your own life.

It must be a consecrated chapel this is taking place in then. No vicar would perform such a ceremony otherwise.

When I got married (over 30 years ago) we had a very small ceremony in the local registry office (3 guests) followed by a church blessing and reception the following day. We could not have a church wedding because my husband was divorced.

The vicar made it very clear that the service would differ from a normal marriage to make sure that no one was fooled into thinking it was the actual wedding. I’d be very surprised if the vicar in this case was prepared to ‘pretend’ to marry them.

Having said that, I think I am right in saying that if the first ceremony was in a Catholic church it wouldn’t have been legally binding unless a registrar was present. It is therefore possible that this new service will actually be the legal wedding, in which case obviously the vicar can use the traditional words.

Either way, there should be no excuse for deceit. In our case, the invitations and orders of service made very clear that they were being invited to/at a church blessing (and a reception) rather than to a wedding.

I wore a traditional wedding dress and veil and I had bridesmaids and a bouquet, but I don’t see that that made it a “fake wedding”. We were very clear about it was, and anyone who was paying attention to the written and spoken words would have realised that the vicar wasn’t marrying us.

IHRTHT, but lots of people have two 'weddings'. Catholic priests aren't registrars in the UK, so if you have a Catholic wedding, you'd have to also go to register at a Registry Office to do the legal bit. Church of England vicars, on the other hand, usually are, so they can read Bans and do the legal but as well as the spiritual bit. It's entirely possible that whilst the couple were married in a Catholic church (the bit that counts for the in laws), they may not be legally married. The CofE vicar may be performing the legal requirements (bans in advance and then signing of legal documents). If not, this might actually be the third part of their weddings process. There are interesting laws around religious weddings in the UK. I'm not sure why any part of it should be perceived as 'fake' or 'deceitful'. Marriage for most people is some assortment of a spiritual arrangement, a legal arrangement and a declaration of love in front of friends and family. I don't see why all of those need to be performed in one ceremony and, in fact, if you aren't being married by a registrar, they often won't be

seeing the couple make the one time genuine, official, binding commitment to each other.

Not up to you to decide what is the "genuine" commitment. Some couples find the legal documents important, other couple believe it's the religious or personal ceremony that matters - especially in places where they can't happen at the same time. Neither are fake.

To me and many people, the difference between a wedding and a party later is very significant. It is not up to anyone to decide the difference of importance (or lack of) for others.
Actually, it's not up to YOU to decide what is important and significant in somebody else's wedding. They are gracious enough to invite you to what is important for them and it's all that matters, or what should matters.

You organise your own wedding the way you like.

That's why I find you over-invested and judgemental. You have very strong opinion on something that is absolutely none of your business.

I think it is appalling to be deceiving people like this. By all means have a catholic wedding then a party with a CofE party but to lie to people that the second is the legally binding ceremony is dreadful.

Bloody hell, they’re not bigamists, or lying to their child that they’re not adopted. Get a grip!

Have they asked for money as presents? At least this would pay for part of one of their‘weddings’. Sound a classy bunch!

I would like to now why you're so bothered?

@ThisPithyJoker I had a Catholic marriage. You don't need to go to the registry office separately. The priest does that bit in the back room after the wedding ceremony.