And there is no residency requirement, nor do we ask if anyone knows of any just impediment - as the legal ones should have been picked up on by the registrar beforehand. I do a fair number of tourist weddings - mainly English tourists, but I have had a wonderful Venezuelan (the groom was from Latvia) wedding (9 shrill bridesmaids), and this year will marry an Italian to a New Zealander.
I think I'm right in saying that, in England and Wales, both officiant and venue need to be legally authorised (and some of the restrictions are quite tight, eg you can't get married on a boat even if it is moored); but that, in Scotland, it is only the officiant who needs to be authorised. I also think that discussions are under way about whether the English system should be loosened in this regard.
By the way, the rule regarding the hours during which a marriage can be solemnised have been done away with. The current rubric is: "Marriages may be solemnized at any hour of the day or night and on any day of the week, including Bank Holidays" - although it's up to the discretion of the "authorised person" who may not want to do a wedding at 2am! The rubric concerning access simply states, "The public must have unrestricted access to the registered building during any marriage ceremony".
Since Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753 ... marriages in England have been subject to very strict rules to ensure openness, publicity, public notification (by banns) and parental consent for minors.
Certainly I have been to a wedding in Scotland, held in a tent and conducted by a sort of all-purpose Druid.
And I have refused to conduct a wedding in a tepee, not because it was a tent, but because it wast big enough to hold all the guests they were planning to invite. I didn’t think they should actually plan for some to come and be left outside. We held it in the church after all!
Certainly I have been to a wedding in Scotland, held in a tent and conducted by a sort of all-purpose Druid.
And I have refused to conduct a wedding in a tepee, not because it was a tent, but because it wast big enough to hold all the guests they were planning to invite. I didn’t think they should actually plan for some to come and be left outside. We held it in the church after all!
It's fairly common here for weddings to be planned for the beach but have the church building as a backup in the event of, well, normal weather.
Yes, I had one local couple who wanted to get married beside a lovely waterfall in the parish. They changed their minds when I pointed out how loud it would be, never mind how wet with spray even if the heavens stayed closed!
I know there are a few C of E rectors / vicars on the site. Have any of you had someone object when banns are read, and if so what action do you take?
Never in my experience. But the vicar when I was a curate said it had once happened to him. The bride's drunk uncle started to object, so several family members jumped on him and dragged him out of church. They were expecting him to play up.
Predictably, at the wedding that was the subject of the OP, the officiant reportedly left a REALLY long pause after the "any lawful impediment" bit. A REALLY long one.
Can we stop discussing the minutiae of marriage laws and procedures and get back to slagging of the carbuncles on th arse of the Body of Christ who are the subject of this thread?
Since Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753 ... marriages in England have been subject to very strict rules to ensure openness, publicity, public notification (by banns) and parental consent for minors.
Banns only apply to Church of England weddings.
That's true now, but any alternative option, with two very limited exceptions, did not exist until 82 years after 1753.
@KarlLB I take your point, but since we all seem to agree these are carbuncles, isn't the minutiae of marriage law in our various countries more interesting and more enjoyable?
Since Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753 ... marriages in England have been subject to very strict rules to ensure openness, publicity, public notification (by banns) and parental consent for minors.
Banns only apply to Church of England weddings.
That's true now, but any alternative option, with two very limited exceptions, did not exist until 82 years after 1753.
I think I'm right in saying that, in England and Wales, both officiant and venue need to be legally authorised (and some of the restrictions are quite tight, eg you can't get married on a boat even if it is moored); but that, in Scotland, it is only the officiant who needs to be authorised. I also think that discussions are under way about whether the English system should be loosened in this regard.
As is the case here. To be a valid marriage, it must be performed by an authorised celebrant. Clergy (in the broadest sense to include all organised religions) get all but automatic authorisation. But there's a booming business in the training of civil celebrants who conduct the vast majority of weddings, somewhere between 75% and 80% at the moment and increasing each year. Even then, many of the religious services are held in parks, gardens, scenic lookouts, beaches .....
There is no need to conduct a service in an authorised location. From memory, at least one has been held in one of the large caverns at Jenolan Caves.
Many of the wedding celebrants double up as civil officiants at funerals, where no authorisation is required.
The English law is interesting, in that it is not necessarily I - the celebrant - who has to be the Authorised Person. In one church I served I was, which meant I had to conduct the wedding and do the paperwork; in my last church and this one I chose not to be; in fact the AP is my wife and it's her presence which makes it all legal. I have often joked with couples that, if I should drop down dead during the service, anyone can pick up the book and keep going. If, on the other hand, my wife should drop dead, we're in trouble, my presence notwithstanding! (Note: a church can have more than one Authorised Person, applications to be one are made to the local Council).
Since Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753 ... marriages in England have been subject to very strict rules to ensure openness, publicity, public notification (by banns) and parental consent for minors.
Banns only apply to Church of England weddings.
Not so. Banns (or notice of intention to marry) are on a noticeboard at the Register Office where the wedding is going to take place or from where a registrar is going to attend and register a marriage at another venue, such as an hotel.
But they are printed out and pinned up, not read out on 3 consecutive Sundays, which is what people understand by Banns. I don't know if there is also a requirement to have them posted at the Register Office closest to your home if you're getting married in a different county, whereas people getting married in a different church to the parish(es) they live in have to have Banns read at the parish church where they live, (and get a certificate to prove it) and at the church where they are getting married.
In England and Wales weddings have to be open to the public, though it would take some chutzpah to exercise the right to attend in the face of a specific disinvitation.
??What?? Does that simply mean there must be people there besides the bridal party? Or it has to be open to anyone who passes by? Or it has to be open to anyone who feels they have a right to be there???
English laws on weddings have accumulated though they may be revised soon. You can only have the legal ceremony at a registered building and the place has to have "open doors" (with the possible exception of Quaker or Jewish weddings). It is the reason that Mormon weddings in England have two parts; the first a legal ceremony outside the temple which everyone can attend and second the temple ceremony which only Mormons in good standing can attend. The idea behind the original law was to prevent secret or forced marriages.
Quaker weddings have to be held in a location accessible to the public
Appointment of meeting for worship for solemnisation of marriage
16.41
On receipt of a request for a marriage (form F) from the registering officer, the clerk of the area or local meeting for church affairs (as the case may be) should bring before it the request for the appointment of a meeting for worship (16.42–16.43). The meeting shall decide whether a meeting for worship (which must be open to the public) may be appointed at the time and place desired by the couple, or at any other time and place which may be mutually convenient, subject to compliance with the law (16.46).
The principle difference between Quaker an most other weddings is that whist we do have an official registrar, there role is to register the marriage not to officiate. The couple getting married just make a public declaration
Declaration
16.52
When the meeting for worship is gathered, the couple at a convenient time shall stand, if able, and, taking each other by the hand, declare in an audible and solemn manner, the one after the other in either order, each saying:
Friends, I take this my friend . . . . . . . . . . . [full name] to be my spouse, promising, through divine assistance, to be unto him/her/[commonly used name] a loving and faithful spouse, so long as we both on earth shall live.
The declaration may be prefaced by ‘In the presence of God’ or ‘In the fear of the Lord and in the presence of this assembly’. The word ‘spouse’ may be replaced by ‘wife’ or ‘husband’ as appropriate or by ‘partner in marriage’. The phrase ‘through divine assistance’ may be replaced by the words ‘with God’s help’. The phrase ‘so long as we both on earth shall live’ may be replaced by the words ‘until it shall please the Lord by death to separate us’. No other changes to the wording may be made. The choice of alternatives shall be agreed in advance by the couple and the registering officer. In any case, both must make their declarations in identical terms (or corresponding terms in the case of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’); their promises must be equal and reciprocal.
The above applies to marriages in England and Wales but things are similar in other places. The extracts above are from "Quaker Faith and Practice" A.K.A "Our Red Book", which is a mixture of a manual on how to do Quaker stuff and an anthology of 370 years of Quaker spiritual reflection. https://qfp.quaker.org.uk/
I've often thought the English names were better than the original ...
Some of the French names, even with the very little French I remember, were also hilarious.
The translations of Astérix into English are among the best examples of any kind of translation anywhere. The translations are an academic field of research in its own right.
In England and Wales weddings have to be open to the public, though it would take some chutzpah to exercise the right to attend in the face of a specific disinvitation.
??What?? Does that simply mean there must be people there besides the bridal party? Or it has to be open to anyone who passes by? Or it has to be open to anyone who feels they have a right to be there???
English laws on weddings have accumulated though they may be revised soon. You can only have the legal ceremony at a registered building and the place has to have "open doors" (with the possible exception of Quaker or Jewish weddings). It is the reason that Mormon weddings in England have two parts; the first a legal ceremony outside the temple which everyone can attend and second the temple ceremony which only Mormons in good standing can attend. The idea behind the original law was to prevent secret or forced marriages.
Quaker weddings have to be held in a location accessible to the public
Appointment of meeting for worship for solemnisation of marriage
16.41
On receipt of a request for a marriage (form F) from the registering officer, the clerk of the area or local meeting for church affairs (as the case may be) should bring before it the request for the appointment of a meeting for worship (16.42–16.43). The meeting shall decide whether a meeting for worship (which must be open to the public) may be appointed at the time and place desired by the couple, or at any other time and place which may be mutually convenient, subject to compliance with the law (16.46).
The principle difference between Quaker an most other weddings is that whist we do have an official registrar, there role is to register the marriage not to officiate. The couple getting married just make a public declaration
Declaration
16.52
When the meeting for worship is gathered, the couple at a convenient time shall stand, if able, and, taking each other by the hand, declare in an audible and solemn manner, the one after the other in either order, each saying:
Friends, I take this my friend . . . . . . . . . . . [full name] to be my spouse, promising, through divine assistance, to be unto him/her/[commonly used name] a loving and faithful spouse, so long as we both on earth shall live.
The declaration may be prefaced by ‘In the presence of God’ or ‘In the fear of the Lord and in the presence of this assembly’. The word ‘spouse’ may be replaced by ‘wife’ or ‘husband’ as appropriate or by ‘partner in marriage’. The phrase ‘through divine assistance’ may be replaced by the words ‘with God’s help’. The phrase ‘so long as we both on earth shall live’ may be replaced by the words ‘until it shall please the Lord by death to separate us’. No other changes to the wording may be made. The choice of alternatives shall be agreed in advance by the couple and the registering officer. In any case, both must make their declarations in identical terms (or corresponding terms in the case of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’); their promises must be equal and reciprocal.
The above applies to marriages in England and Wales but things are similar in other places. The extracts above are from "Quaker Faith and Practice" A.K.A "Our Red Book", which is a mixture of a manual on how to do Quaker stuff and an anthology of 370 years of Quaker spiritual reflection. https://qfp.quaker.org.uk/
That appears to suggest that Quaker weddings can take place anywhere and at any time they feel like.
Only in registered buildings. I don't think there is any provision to get married anywhere other than in specific buildings. Unless it is a Quaker wedding.
It would be unusual for a wedding not to be held in a Meeting House as is detailed below in a further extract from Quaker faith and practice (16.46)
Friends’ marriages may, subject to the conditions set out below, be solemnised on any day and at any time in a meeting house or other place to which the public has access. If, however, it is proposed to solemnise a marriage outside the hours from eight in the morning to six in the afternoon, or in a place where no regular public meeting for worship is held, the area meeting (in consultation with the registering officer and with the Recording Clerk) should satisfy itself that there are adequate reasons for this, that the public will have access, that a sufficient number of Friends will be able to attend at the time and place proposed to ensure that the meeting for worship is rightly held in accordance with our usage, and that there are no legal impediments
Jewish weddings are also exempt from some of the laws. This goes back to the original 1753 act where Jewish and Quaker weddings were specifically excluded from the Act which otherwise required all weddings in England/Wales to be Anglican. Several subsequent acts also explicitly excluded these weddings (though the 1836 act required notifying the registrar of the wedding).
"Provided likewise, That nothing in this Act contained shall extend to that Part of Great Britain called Scotland, nor to any Marriages amongst the People called Quakers, or amongst the Persons professing the Jewish Religion, where both the Parties to any such Marriage shall be of the People called Quakers, or Persons professing the Jewish Religion respectively, nor to any Marriages solemnized beyond the Seas."
Not sure why Jews and Quakers were exempt but it might have to do with them being the two most prominent religious groups in England at that time that did not baptize and the church might have been reluctant to conduct weddings where neither party was baptized. It was also unclear whether this made Jewish or Quaker weddings legal (an 1847 act explicitly removed any doubt).
The issue of legality related to the fact that canon law said Quaker marriages were illegal, but rulings by civil courts recognised their validity. Friends were not willing to get married in front of a priest; and anyone who did would be disowned by the society. However, at the same time were insistent that our marriages be legally recognised.
.It was important to early Friends that their marriages should be recognised in law, and they instituted the witnessing of a certificate by all present. Historically it was argued that Quaker marriage was invalid under canon law, but Friends’ marriages were tested in English civil courts and found to be lawful. The Marriage Act of 1753 explicitly exempted Quakers and Jews from the statutory regulation of all other marriages in England and Wales. This legal validity with separate status and registration for marriages under the auspices of the Society of Friends has been reaffirmed by successive Marriage Acts in England and Wales. Past Scottish law allowed marriage without a priest or minister, so Quaker marriage has always been lawful there;
I do think Quakers are pretty badass. It would be great to marry on the beach and when anyone queried it to show that it was legal under special legislation.
In practice I wonder how many Quaker weddings there are. Not many I'm guessing.
In this instance, I don't see any prima facie evidence so far that the uninviting is at the behest of the church hosting the wedding.
The uninviting statement was explicit it was because they didn't "share beliefs". The two people concerned are both baptised and confirmed members of the CofE, one is considering ordination.
As for it not being "at the behest of the church" - how else to explain that an entire friendship group, numbering some 9 people, have all been dumped and ghosted, all with the same message, all told that the person concerned has "left the church" when we know it is still taking place there. And the church is where the happy couple met, worship and are heavily involved.
I’ve seen people lose all sense of reality in the run-up to their wedding.
One couple turned their reception into a shameless exercise in social climbing with no one who wouldn’t be useful in the future getting an invite to the sit down.
Another wrote their own sub-Biblical mashup vows where God would smite the Bride if she so much as have the Groom the side-eye.
Another had their best man just not turn up and never returned a single phone call.
It’s possible they’ve decided that they no longer want friends who aren’t the “right sort of Christian” after their marriage all on their ownsome. Nothing to do with the church at all.
I’d be tempted to contact the leadership - just in case they’ve had some really dodgy marriage prep. Or their family ... Then leave them to get on with it until they (possibly) reappear.
I went to a Quaker wedding last year. It wasn't a legal ceremony as they'd already done that in Germany, so they didn't have a formal register with witnesses, but we all signed the big marriage certificate, even the children.
As well as their justifiable reluctance to get married according to the BCP, I believe that Quakers and Jews were also exempt from the 1753 act as they kept very good records of who was in their congregations including marriages. (Jewishness being matrilineal, synagogues have tended to keep a close eye on who is married to whom.)
By the way, the rule regarding the hours during which a marriage can be solemnised have been done away with. The current rubric is: "Marriages may be solemnized at any hour of the day or night and on any day of the week, including Bank Holidays" - although it's up to the discretion of the "authorised person" who may not want to do a wedding at 2am!
The between 8 am and 6:00pm rule still applies in a CofE church
I went to a Quaker wedding last year. It wasn't a legal ceremony as they'd already done that in Germany, so they didn't have a formal register with witnesses, but we all signed the big marriage certificate, even the children.
With regard to the carbuncle mentioned in the OP I think they went completely over the top. When it comes to the bride and groom I am a stickler for the rules of my rather conservative tribe. Witnesses on hand just need to be of legal age, somewhat appropriately dressed, and reasonably sober.
I went to a Quaker wedding last year. It wasn't a legal ceremony as they'd already done that in Germany, so they didn't have a formal register with witnesses, but we all signed the big marriage certificate, even the children.
After no-deal Brexit will they still be married?
Yes.
In the CofE, you can't have a wedding if you are already legally married to each other. You have to have a blessing. You also cannot be issued with a marriage certificate.
It is possible that the situation may be slightly different in the Diocese of Europe, provided both ceremonies take place on the same day, but this is hearsay. I don't actually know.
They'd had a civil ceremony in Germany (she is German and I think he's got permanent residency by now.) In terms of legal paperwork it all related to that event. The religious ceremony was then held in England. As I understand it Quakers also have a special large certificate recording the event which everyone present at the wedding signs, and which is designed to be displayed, as they have much nicer calligraphy than the slip of green paper I have from my CofE parish (where weddings were infrequent enough that the pre-printed century required correction).
I expect the Diocese of Europe would have to make local allowances for there being several countries where you have to have a separate civil ceremony, no matter what religion/denomination you are, as a blessing in such circumstances would be a bit of a let-down to anyone wanting to have the religious ceremony as a matter of belief not because it's 'nice'.
Can we stop discussing the minutiae of marriage laws and procedures and get back to slagging of the carbuncles on th arse of the Body of Christ who are the subject of this thread?
I do think Quakers are pretty badass. It would be great to marry on the beach and when anyone queried it to show that it was legal under special legislation.
In practice I wonder how many Quaker weddings there are. Not many I'm guessing.
I am attracted to stillness in prayer and find the Quakers attractive. But I am not a pacifist, and I understand that is a cornerstone for them.
I do think Quakers are pretty badass. It would be great to marry on the beach and when anyone queried it to show that it was legal under special legislation.
In practice I wonder how many Quaker weddings there are. Not many I'm guessing.
I am attracted to stillness in prayer and find the Quakers attractive. But I am not a pacifist, and I understand that is a cornerstone for them.
I thought quite long and hard about it and decided I wasn't ready to be around vegans and other militants. Nothing wrong with these positions in themselves, but it must be quite tiring to a newcomer if everyone tries persuading them of the rightness of their ethical position.
I know that not every Quaker is like the ones I have met, and most of my impressions of Quakerism are based on the stuff I see in the Quaker House where I go for regular (non-Quaker) meetings.
So I decided to join a union instead. I'm probably not going to need to be persuaded of the need to take action on working rights.
Edit: sorry "it" above being looking into joining the Quakers.
They'd had a civil ceremony in Germany (she is German and I think he's got permanent residency by now.) In terms of legal paperwork it all related to that event. The religious ceremony was then held in England. As I understand it Quakers also have a special large certificate recording the event which everyone present at the wedding signs, and which is designed to be displayed, as they have much nicer calligraphy than the slip of green paper I have from my CofE parish (where weddings were infrequent enough that the pre-printed century required correction).
I expect the Diocese of Europe would have to make local allowances for there being several countries where you have to have a separate civil ceremony, no matter what religion/denomination you are, as a blessing in such circumstances would be a bit of a let-down to anyone wanting to have the religious ceremony as a matter of belief not because it's 'nice'.
Having your wedding blessed is a religious ceremony. It makes your marriage a Christian marriage as distinct from just a marriage. Unlike the position in some other ecclesial households, it isn't the normal CofE position to regard those who contract civil weddings as not really married at all. What married the couple was the German ceremony. As the couple are already married, they can't be married to each other again.
The CofE doesn't have such an idealistic approach to how it treats the tension between what ought not to be and what cannot be, as that adopted by at least one other ecclesial household.
Comments
By the way, the rule regarding the hours during which a marriage can be solemnised have been done away with. The current rubric is: "Marriages may be solemnized at any hour of the day or night and on any day of the week, including Bank Holidays" - although it's up to the discretion of the "authorised person" who may not want to do a wedding at 2am! The rubric concerning access simply states, "The public must have unrestricted access to the registered building during any marriage ceremony".
No, it’s never happened to me. If objection is raised you have a duty to make proper enquiry and IIRC tell the couple and the archdeacon.
You mean Panoramix.
And I have refused to conduct a wedding in a tepee, not because it was a tent, but because it wast big enough to hold all the guests they were planning to invite. I didn’t think they should actually plan for some to come and be left outside. We held it in the church after all!
It's fairly common here for weddings to be planned for the beach but have the church building as a backup in the event of, well, normal weather.
Never in my experience. But the vicar when I was a curate said it had once happened to him. The bride's drunk uncle started to object, so several family members jumped on him and dragged him out of church. They were expecting him to play up.
@KarlLB I take your point, but since we all seem to agree these are carbuncles, isn't the minutiae of marriage law in our various countries more interesting and more enjoyable?
Archbishop's licence notwithstanding.
As is the case here. To be a valid marriage, it must be performed by an authorised celebrant. Clergy (in the broadest sense to include all organised religions) get all but automatic authorisation. But there's a booming business in the training of civil celebrants who conduct the vast majority of weddings, somewhere between 75% and 80% at the moment and increasing each year. Even then, many of the religious services are held in parks, gardens, scenic lookouts, beaches .....
There is no need to conduct a service in an authorised location. From memory, at least one has been held in one of the large caverns at Jenolan Caves.
Many of the wedding celebrants double up as civil officiants at funerals, where no authorisation is required.
FYI: That page shows a long list of names for the character in different languages, and "Getafix" is one.
(Apologies if your comment was meant humorously/sarcastically, and I didn't catch that.)
Not so. Banns (or notice of intention to marry) are on a noticeboard at the Register Office where the wedding is going to take place or from where a registrar is going to attend and register a marriage at another venue, such as an hotel.
Ooh! Nice one! And to think that I considered myself a fan!
Quaker weddings have to be held in a location accessible to the public
Appointment of meeting for worship for solemnisation of marriage
16.41
On receipt of a request for a marriage (form F) from the registering officer, the clerk of the area or local meeting for church affairs (as the case may be) should bring before it the request for the appointment of a meeting for worship (16.42–16.43). The meeting shall decide whether a meeting for worship (which must be open to the public) may be appointed at the time and place desired by the couple, or at any other time and place which may be mutually convenient, subject to compliance with the law (16.46).
The principle difference between Quaker an most other weddings is that whist we do have an official registrar, there role is to register the marriage not to officiate. The couple getting married just make a public declaration
Declaration
16.52
When the meeting for worship is gathered, the couple at a convenient time shall stand, if able, and, taking each other by the hand, declare in an audible and solemn manner, the one after the other in either order, each saying:
Friends, I take this my friend . . . . . . . . . . . [full name] to be my spouse, promising, through divine assistance, to be unto him/her/[commonly used name] a loving and faithful spouse, so long as we both on earth shall live.
The declaration may be prefaced by ‘In the presence of God’ or ‘In the fear of the Lord and in the presence of this assembly’. The word ‘spouse’ may be replaced by ‘wife’ or ‘husband’ as appropriate or by ‘partner in marriage’. The phrase ‘through divine assistance’ may be replaced by the words ‘with God’s help’. The phrase ‘so long as we both on earth shall live’ may be replaced by the words ‘until it shall please the Lord by death to separate us’. No other changes to the wording may be made. The choice of alternatives shall be agreed in advance by the couple and the registering officer. In any case, both must make their declarations in identical terms (or corresponding terms in the case of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’); their promises must be equal and reciprocal.
The above applies to marriages in England and Wales but things are similar in other places. The extracts above are from "Quaker Faith and Practice" A.K.A "Our Red Book", which is a mixture of a manual on how to do Quaker stuff and an anthology of 370 years of Quaker spiritual reflection.
https://qfp.quaker.org.uk/
Some of the French names, even with the very little French I remember, were also hilarious.
The translations of Astérix into English are among the best examples of any kind of translation anywhere. The translations are an academic field of research in its own right.
That appears to suggest that Quaker weddings can take place anywhere and at any time they feel like.
And why should they not?
Going back further, the mutual promises you set out are the essential part of any marriage service here, secular or religious.
Well only because you can't under the law in England and Wales if it is anything other than a Quaker wedding. Which does not seem particularly fair.
It would be unusual for a wedding not to be held in a Meeting House as is detailed below in a further extract from Quaker faith and practice (16.46)
"Provided likewise, That nothing in this Act contained shall extend to that Part of Great Britain called Scotland, nor to any Marriages amongst the People called Quakers, or amongst the Persons professing the Jewish Religion, where both the Parties to any such Marriage shall be of the People called Quakers, or Persons professing the Jewish Religion respectively, nor to any Marriages solemnized beyond the Seas."
Not sure why Jews and Quakers were exempt but it might have to do with them being the two most prominent religious groups in England at that time that did not baptize and the church might have been reluctant to conduct weddings where neither party was baptized. It was also unclear whether this made Jewish or Quaker weddings legal (an 1847 act explicitly removed any doubt).
In practice I wonder how many Quaker weddings there are. Not many I'm guessing.
I’ve seen people lose all sense of reality in the run-up to their wedding.
One couple turned their reception into a shameless exercise in social climbing with no one who wouldn’t be useful in the future getting an invite to the sit down.
Another wrote their own sub-Biblical mashup vows where God would smite the Bride if she so much as have the Groom the side-eye.
Another had their best man just not turn up and never returned a single phone call.
It’s possible they’ve decided that they no longer want friends who aren’t the “right sort of Christian” after their marriage all on their ownsome. Nothing to do with the church at all.
I’d be tempted to contact the leadership - just in case they’ve had some really dodgy marriage prep. Or their family ... Then leave them to get on with it until they (possibly) reappear.
As well as their justifiable reluctance to get married according to the BCP, I believe that Quakers and Jews were also exempt from the 1753 act as they kept very good records of who was in their congregations including marriages. (Jewishness being matrilineal, synagogues have tended to keep a close eye on who is married to whom.)
After no-deal Brexit will they still be married?
In the CofE, you can't have a wedding if you are already legally married to each other. You have to have a blessing. You also cannot be issued with a marriage certificate.
It is possible that the situation may be slightly different in the Diocese of Europe, provided both ceremonies take place on the same day, but this is hearsay. I don't actually know.
I expect the Diocese of Europe would have to make local allowances for there being several countries where you have to have a separate civil ceremony, no matter what religion/denomination you are, as a blessing in such circumstances would be a bit of a let-down to anyone wanting to have the religious ceremony as a matter of belief not because it's 'nice'.
I believe the answer to this turned out to be no.
I am attracted to stillness in prayer and find the Quakers attractive. But I am not a pacifist, and I understand that is a cornerstone for them.
I thought quite long and hard about it and decided I wasn't ready to be around vegans and other militants. Nothing wrong with these positions in themselves, but it must be quite tiring to a newcomer if everyone tries persuading them of the rightness of their ethical position.
I know that not every Quaker is like the ones I have met, and most of my impressions of Quakerism are based on the stuff I see in the Quaker House where I go for regular (non-Quaker) meetings.
So I decided to join a union instead. I'm probably not going to need to be persuaded of the need to take action on working rights.
Edit: sorry "it" above being looking into joining the Quakers.
The CofE doesn't have such an idealistic approach to how it treats the tension between what ought not to be and what cannot be, as that adopted by at least one other ecclesial household.