As of today the Church of England’s rules on weddings have been relaxed, as the Church Times blog and the BBC report. The result at least for some people is an explosion of choice. For example, if I had got married yesterday, to a woman living in the same parish as me, I would only have been allowed a wedding in just this one parish. But as of today I have the choice of something like 16 parishes where I could be married, quite apart from ones for which my (hypothetical, sadly) bride might qualify:
- where I was baptised: one parish
- where I was prepared for confirmation: one other parish (sadly the location of the confirmation service itself doesn’t seem to count, as that might qualify me for a wedding in Canterbury Cathedral)
- where I have lived for six months or more: about ten more parishes in England (I don’t think overseas locations count)
- where I have regularly attended public worship for six months or more: no more parishes as I have usually attended church in the parish where I live
- where one of my parents has lived for six months or more in my lifetime: two more parishes
- where one of my parents has regularly attended public worship for six months or more in my lifetime: no more parishes as they also attended their local church
- where my parents or grandparents were married: two more parishes plus one overseas location – but this one has the most interesting implication: I think my maternal grandparents were married in Lincoln Cathedral, in March 1912, so (if I can prove it) even nearly a century later I may now have the right to be married there!
The underlying reason for this change of rules is no doubt an attempt to reverse the decline in church weddings in recent years. In connection with this the Church of England has launched a new church wedding website. One major reason for this decline has been the fairly recent change allowing state weddings almost anywhere, except in churches. This has led to a boom in weddings at country houses and other picturesque locations. I suppose that the Church of England hopes that now people whose local church is not photogenic will find a prettier church to which they have some links rather than go for a state wedding. But it may lead to a loss of weddings in less attractive churches as well as a boom in picture postcard villages.
I remember times, nearly 30 years ago, when the attractive old parish church in the parish where I still live was in use for a wedding every hour on the hour on summer Saturday afternoons. This conveyor belt was kept going with threats that if brides arrived more than ten minutes late their wedding would be cancelled. These days far fewer weddings are held there. But the clergy take their responsibility for each couple very seriously, taking them through a meaningful marriage preparation course. They would not now want to be inundated with the extra task of taking numerous weddings for couples whose only interest in the church is as a pretty background for their photos. But then couples like that, faced with the required course, might well look elsewhere. However, it may well be that these new rules will bring to our parish couples who have a genuine desire to make God part of their marriage. If so, there is a real hope that through the preparation course and the service they can be brought closer to God. And if this happens with just one couple it will make the extra hard work worthwhile.
It doesn’t apply to Cathedrals, so Lincoln Cathedral is out of your list I’m afraid. (I’m finding that most of the weddings we’ve booked for 2009 under the new provision are ones in which the couple would have pretended to live at a parental address but now can be honest about the fact that they live outside the parish; almost all the weddings covered by the new provision would have been available previously with a Special Licence but most people didn’t realise this and can now save themselves the large extra fee which this would ahve involved.)
Thanks, Peter. I spotted the cathedrals exception but wasn’t sure what it meant in practice. I am also aware of this parental address issue as I have seen people’s names added to our church electoral roll for this reason.
This subject had the potential to be relevant. My younger daughter, who has occupied various flats in various parishes around here is to be married next July. Under these new rules her options would now seem to include
a) the parish where my wife and I have worshiped for 13 years and where I am now a Reader
b) a nearby parish where she was baptised
c) St Mary’s Harrow where my wife and I were married in 1977 ( her parish at the time)
d) the parish church which covered the Baptist Church where my parents married in 1947
e) the parish in Harrow where my wife’s parents were married in 1947
They actually have linked to our next door parish, been regular worshippers and are now going on the role there. Since she has not had a very active faith, I am glad she and my son in law elect are receiving regular inpput. The curate there has been a positive influence – she takes the opportunities and responsibilities seriously . We pray for them.
The parish which happens to contain the Baptist Church in which a parent or grandparent was married doesn’t count either. It is about having some geneuine link with the parish itself and they have been careful to exclude almost all accidental links such as this one and the one where someone only happens to ahve been confirmed in a church because that is where somehting like a Deanery Confirmation was taking place; the exception appears to be that an Anglican baptism in, say, a Hospital does open up the possibility of being married in a church in the parish in which the Hospital happens to stand.
Who’s the lucky gal?
Peter M
Thanks for clarifying the non applicability of my option “d”. Frankly it would have been absurd if it were allowed. And to be honest, I am not really comfortable with “c & e” either. However, at least none of these apply to us, as my delightful daughter is progressing along the more traditional route of regular worship and electoral role.
Meanwhile my own vicar has just been on a course when all this was explained – sort of.
David, sadly I am still looking for the lucky gal. At least I can now offer any candidate quite a choice of wedding venues to add to all the other attractions I have for her.
Colin, I wouldn’t be comfortable about pursuing most of my 16 or so options, which include some churches that I have never even been inside. I would personally have a strong preference for my own parish – either my own church or the old parish church as both are licensed for weddings. But at least in such matters I would submit to my bride to be.
As an American, I find all of this really fascinating, as this isn’t much of an issue here. I don’t know what the RCC or TEC position is on any of these issues, but neither is very common in the Bible Belt (where I live).