?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Marriage Lines - Eroticdreambattle — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tony Grist

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Marriage Lines [Jun. 29th, 2019|01:26 pm]
Tony Grist
Apparently it's illegal to get married outdoors in England and Wales. (Scottish law is different- and- as so often- more liberal). I didn't know this.

"What about Him and Her (friends of ours who are no longer together) who got married at Castlerigg?" I asked Ailz.

"They went to the registry office first," she said. "And the Castlerigg ceremony was a Druidic handfasting."

This arose because Theresa May has just announced she wants to bring the rules up to date. There'll be a review by the Law Commission- and it'll report in two years time.

Why so long? What's to stop this being fixed in a week? Everyone can see it's a matter of government playing catch-up with public attitudes. Inform the Archbishop of Canterbury and other interested parties you're doing it- but don't ask for their opinions because they'll only raise difficulties. It's hardly controversial. Do it now.

Apparently venues will still have to be vetted for "solemnity and dignity". But why?
If people want to get hitched on top of the helter skelter at Alton Towers let them. They're the ones who are going to have to live with the embarrassing wedding pix.

Besides, solemnity is no guarantee of ever-lastingness. I once went to a wedding in a cathedral; a very important cleric officiated; the choir sang; it cost a bomb. And did the marriage last? Actually, no.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: heleninwales
2019-06-29 04:40 pm (UTC)
I'm sure my brother (ordained Anglican, works as a chaplain/RE teacher) has done a wedding in the ruins of an abbey, which was outdoors in the sense that there was no roof and no doors! But perhaps that's a fudge that's acceptable?

I don't see why weddings shouldn't be outdoors if people want to risk getting rained on.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2019-06-30 07:40 am (UTC)
Probably- as you suggest- a fudge. Though it's possible- as with our Casterigg wedding-that the religious rite followed on from a separate legal wedding at the register office.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: heleninwales
2019-06-29 04:44 pm (UTC)
Re the solemnity/cost thing. I've never been able to find any correlation between the price and elaborateness of a wedding and whether it will last or not. I sort of wanted there to be an inverse correlation, that is that the smaller simpler weddings lasted better than the extravagant ones, but I haven't been able to observe a link.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2019-06-30 07:41 am (UTC)
It would make a nice research project for someone.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lblanchard
2019-06-29 06:25 pm (UTC)
I was so sure, seeing the post title, that this was going to be about The Cloister and the Hearth!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2019-06-30 07:43 am (UTC)
Funnily enough I was thinking about The Cloister and the Hearth only this morning.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: madman101
2019-06-30 04:14 pm (UTC)
Getting married in the dark inside seems like a vestige of shutting out the heathens, and all that. But, thinking about it, on what authority is god inside, (and not out)?

Essentially, if one gets married outside, (sans registration), then one isn't really married. Getting married inside, one magically acquires the married state. Sounds like a lot of superstition to me. Unlike those heathens, of course.

And May's approach, offering popular change and then stalling out, sounds like the approach she took on some other major issue, like, um....
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2019-06-30 04:32 pm (UTC)
Some other major issue- now what on earth could that be?

May is suddenly engaging in a blizzard of activity- committing future governments to action and expenditure on issues she neglected because of Brexit.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)