Marriage Registrar

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 15 Jan 2016 at 11:51

Don't get married, use saved money to go on holiday. Less stressful

Deathjester · 15 Jan 2016 at 12:06

It's made even clearer in section 6:

Religious blessing can take place after a civil ceremony in a register office.

(Please note: the emphasis is mine).

Danger Phoenix · 15 Jan 2016 at 12:27

Ok fine, but why would it be an issue if the religious marriage isn't recognised in the UK?

andicole0 · 15 Jan 2016 at 12:28

Isn't the issue you can't get 'married' twice, so if the morning ceremony is 'registered' the afternoon ceremony is at best unnecessary.
Is the Hindu service inclusive of a marriage registration, can you have a civil service without registration. Surely legally it's only the actual registration that matters and you can't register twice.
Or is it that the civil ceremony asks if you are already married?
Andi.

Danger Phoenix · 15 Jan 2016 at 12:31

The planned morning religious ceremony doesn't include any registry, and in terms of UK law doesn't indicate marriage. Our civil will be our one and only marriage, which is why I am so confused about all this.

cheesyboy · 15 Jan 2016 at 12:33

Danger Phoenix said:
Ok fine, but why would it be an issue if the religious marriage isn't recognised in the UK?

It makes no sense at all - if the religious ceremony is, legally, meaningless, why would it have any relevance to allowing the civil ceremony?

Different religion, but same constraints I suspect:

muslim parliament of great britain said:
http://www.muslimparliament.org.uk/marriage_guidelines.htm

Procedure for Marriage

It is not necessary to have the religious and civil ceremonies together at the same event. Some Muslims might like the two to be performed together, others might not. For example, if the civil ceremony is to be performed the same day, then it must take place between the hours of 8am and 6pm. Civil ceremonies cannot be performed at other times by registrars. Therefore, for example, an evening civil wedding is ruled out.

If you wish to have the two ceremonies separately, the best procedure is to have the civil ceremony and registration first, before the nikah ceremony, although this is not compulsory, and it can be done the other way round. The time between the two ceremonies should preferably be as short as possible.

Alternatively, the nikah ceremony may be organised so that it includes the civil ceremony if the mosque has been officially registered firstly as a place of worship, and secondly as a place for civil marriages.

uvarvu · 15 Jan 2016 at 14:48

Yep my sister had a Greek Orthodox wedding and had to get married at a registry office beforehand. We dressed casually, had a laugh and then repeated (more formally of course).

Danger Phoenix · 29 Feb 2016 at 16:52

Thought I would give you guys an update... turned out that the person I had spoken to was referring to an old law which disallowed the religious to take place before the civil. All that is fine now, so no issues with that registrar.

We were also looking at another venue which falls under the Surrey registrars (namely the Leatherhead office) and now they are being funny as well. As part of the religious ceremony we would have this stage thing (mandap) and whilst its common knowledge that all religious artefacts need to be cleared for the civil, they are claiming that the mandap needs to be removed. Their reasoning is that it cannot be present because the religious ceremony had taken place on it. I swear these people just make up rubbish because there is no such restriction.

FortuitousFluke · 29 Feb 2016 at 17:01

I'm in the process of booking our wedding and we have a similar issue. My partner is very close to a retired vicar and we have to wait until the registrar is off the premises before we have a blessing, (we opted against a church wedding due to me not being religious and falling in love with an alternative venue).

Archaic rules, should just be allowed to conduct whatever ceremony you like, make sure it includes certain requirements (form of vows or something), use a registrar as an official witness and sign the book. Job done.

Rich1988 · 29 Feb 2016 at 18:19

Danger Phoenix said:
Thought I would give you guys an update... turned out that the person I had spoken to was referring to an old law which disallowed the religious to take place before the civil. All that is fine now, so no issues with that registrar.

We were also looking at another venue which falls under the Surrey registrars (namely the Leatherhead office) and now they are being funny as well. As part of the religious ceremony we would have this stage thing (mandap) and whilst its common knowledge that all religious artefacts need to be cleared for the civil, they are claiming that the mandap needs to be removed. Their reasoning is that it cannot be present because the religious ceremony had taken place on it. I swear these people just make up rubbish because there is no such restriction.

We were told no religious articles or music are allowed to be present, assume its a similar thing?

Dunks · 29 Feb 2016 at 18:40

Sounds like it'd be easier to have the civil ceremony beforehand.

Most people I know got married this way.

Danger Phoenix · 29 Feb 2016 at 22:07

Rich1988 said:
We were told no religious articles or music are allowed to be present, assume its a similar thing?

Yes, but the stage isn't actually a religious article. It is just a pretty looking thing with flowers etc. When I mentioned this to them they started claiming that it cannot be used because a religious ceremony would have taken place on it beforehand, which I know is rubbish.

Example mandap (all that would need to be removed is elephants etc):

Dunks said:
Sounds like it'd be easier to have the civil ceremony beforehand.

Most people I know got married this way.

This would be ideal but due to the people we plan to have at each, it makes it very difficult

coolsurfer · 2 Mar 2016 at 09:52

In Harrogate they said the same to us so we ended having civil wedding with family only three weeks earlier. The religious ceremony was the shabang affair in our case.

coolsurfer · 2 Mar 2016 at 09:54

I have attended a wedding in London where they had Hindu ceremony in the morning first and then civil mid afternoon followed by reception

Ricochet J · 2 Mar 2016 at 09:55

Danger Phoenix said:
Looking to book my wedding for next year and one of the prospective venues mentioned that the local registrar (Hertfordshire) doesn't allow the religios ceremony (Hindu) to occur before the civil.

I spoke to Herts Registrars and they claimed that it was UK law and that they would not do any registries where the religious ceremony had taken place prior.

Is that right? I've been looking up about this and all I could find is that you aren't allowed religious symbols in the room etc, but nothing about the order they need to be done in. Can a registrar even impose such conditions if it isn't the law?

At weddings in Gurudwara's (Sikh Temples) the registrar weds the couple legally before doing the religious wedding.

Aldav · 2 Mar 2016 at 13:38

Danger Phoenix said:
Ok fine, but why would it be an issue if the religious marriage isn't recognised in the UK?

Because UK law requires no "just impediments" before the ceremony can proceed. You will be asked about previous events prior to the marriage, under oath. If there are, and you answer yes, the ceremony will not proceed. There's nk way to tell, at that point, if a previous marriage legally prevents the civil ceremony from being valid. If you answer no, and there were, you are committing a criminal offence (remember, the civil ceremony is a legal event and you are under oath) and perhaps worse, it may well render the marriage void, that is, legally, it does not exist.

As daft as it might seem, the easiest way out of this, by far, is simply to do the two events the right way round in the eyes of the law, or all sorts of complications could follow. There's no reason, from the state's side, to do these on the same day. The civil bit is fundamentally non-religious anyway, can be extremely brief, and is little more than swearing an oath, signing a register and getting a certificate. You could do that on a weekday, and have the religious event at the weekend.

If you insist on tne same day, I'd advise doing the civil bit first to avoid potentially very serious unintended consequences. I sympathise with the issue with parents, etc, but perhaps explain the problem and invite them to both bits?

Danger Phoenix · 2 Mar 2016 at 15:13

Aldav said:
Because UK law requires no "just impediments" before the ceremony can proceed. You will be asked about previous events prior to the marriage, under oath. If there are, and you answer yes, the ceremony will not proceed. There's nk way to tell, at that point, if a previous marriage legally prevents the civil ceremony from being valid. If you answer no, and there were, you are committing a criminal offence (remember, the civil ceremony is a legal event and you are under oath) and perhaps worse, it may well render the marriage void, that is, legally, it does not exist.

As daft as it might seem, the easiest way out of this, by far, is simply to do the two events the right way round in the eyes of the law, or all sorts of complications could follow. There's no reason, from the state's side, to do these on the same day. The civil bit is fundamentally non-religious anyway, can be extremely brief, and is little more than swearing an oath, signing a register and getting a certificate. You could do that on a weekday, and have the religious event at the weekend.

If you insist on tne same day, I'd advise doing the civil bit first to avoid potentially very serious unintended consequences. I sympathise with the issue with parents, etc, but perhaps explain the problem and invite them to both bits?

What you are saying doesn't really make sense or apply actually. There is nothing in terms of the law that says "no" to the religious taking place first. It actually doesn't count as a marriage and I am happy to state we had a religious first. In the eyes of the law, it means as much as the Mrs and I going to Pizza Express last week and us mentioning that.

Aldav · 2 Mar 2016 at 16:14

Danger Phoenix said:
What you are saying doesn't really make sense or apply actually. There is nothing in terms of the law that says "no" to the religious taking place first. It actually doesn't count as a marriage and I am happy to state we had a religious first. In the eyes of the law, it means as much as the Mrs and I going to Pizza Express last week and us mentioning that.

Well if you know the law so well, I suggest you carry on as originally intended, explain that there is nothing in law that allows the Registrar to adopt that attitude, that he or she is wrong, and see what happens.

A friend is a registrar, and I rang them, told them what you had asked here and what I said was their response. I'm sure your Pizza Express argument will convince them, though. Good luck on the day.

OllyM · 2 Mar 2016 at 16:24

Aldav said:
Well if you know the law so well, I suggest you carry on as originally intended, explain that there is nothing in law that allows the Registrar to adopt that attitude, that he or she is wrong, and see what happens.

A friend is a registrar, and I rang them, told them what you had asked here and what I said was their response. I'm sure your Pizza Express argument will convince them, though. Good luck on the day.

I just asked my mum who is also a registrar and she said that it doesn't matter which way around the ceremonies are conducted, the religious ceremony isn't relevant and afterwards the couple are still legally 'single'.

Aldav · 2 Mar 2016 at 17:22

OllyM said:
I just asked my mum who is also a registrar and she said that it doesn't matter which way around the ceremonies are conducted, the religious ceremony isn't relevant and afterwards the couple are still legally 'single'.

In which case, he'll have no problem on the day, will he? So what are we all worrying about?

I hope the ceremony goes well.

However, the phone numbers for Herts registry offices are in the phone book. Might be worth a call or two to offices other than the one he originally spoke to.