Talk:Wedding travel

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Legal problems[edit]

The section Wedding away from home should give some advice about arranging a wedding abroad in a way that is recognized at home. As long as the destination is in the home country of the couple or at least one of them, I suppose arranging it would not be too hard, although there certainly are some issues in the latter case (a bridegroom I know had to pay for the bride to get the local priest to cooperate, the issues may be much more severe). I suppose getting a wedding in a third country recognised may be much harder. (I suppose Cyprus as a destination is not meant for the Cypriots)

One possibility is of course to arrange the wedding party abroad, after having been married in a small scale official act at home (in many countries the two are clearly separate anyway). This should probably be the standard (last resort?) advice. Somebody getting married in a way recognised in some countries, but not at home, would be terrible. Later finding out the marriage is not recognised at all is better, but not fun either.

The page may attract couples where the bride and bridegroom are from different countries (or where both are living in a country where neither is citizen), possibly with families of different religions. It may be good to try to give some specific advice for these cases.

Even when marrying just in another city there may be some problems; the local priests or civil servants may not have any obligation or even mandate to unite outsiders in wedlock, and those in the home town will probably not be very fond of travelling.

--LPfi (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The persons being married are usually required to provide proof that they're not already wed (or still wed, for divorcé(e)s). British and Commonwealth common law allowed banns of marriage to be read for a few consecutive weeks in a church "If anyone dost know any just cause or impediment why these two shalt not be joined in holy acrimony, thou art to declare it or forever hold thy peace." That only works if the local community knows the people - and then just for a first wedding. Hence the need for marriage licences, which in some jurisdictions must be obtained a certain amount of time in advance. Rules vary between jurisdictions, and I doubt that WV is well-placed to offer legal advice in any case. K7L (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Similar announcements where read in the parish of both the bride and the bridegroom over here, regardless of where the wedding was to take place. Yes, we abandoned it as a legal prerequisite, for the reason cited (not everybody in the parish is known by the others). But having the marriage licences is hardly enough in all cases, and will do nothing about getting the marriage recognized afterwards.
I agree we cannot give definite legal advice, but mentioning some of the things to look out for is hardly problematic.
--LPfi (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cyprus is a place where Israelis of different religions go to get married. Such marriages are then recognized in Israel Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IIRC the Cyprus loophole I'd the only way for Israelis to get a secular wedding. And I may have read of foreign same Sex marriages being recognized in Israel, but of that I am not sure. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Captains and ships at sea[edit]

How much detail do we want on this? It seems that most of the major powers (such as the UK and US) don't allow captains ex officio to solemnise marriage (as used to be traditional in the era of sailing vessels which took a few months to cross an ocean) but this is a mess of exceptions - and many of the arbitrary regulations will vary, depending on whether a ship is in a country's territory or in international waters, as well as the flag under which the ship is registered. Cunard has been known to fly the Bermudan flag of convenience on ocean liners and cruise ships recently, as that jurisdiction is one of the few to still recognise "captain" as one class of officiant. By contrast, the United States of America is the sort of silly place where "captain" doesn't confer much per se, but it's often trivial to find a captain who holds some other credential (a few states might even recognise preachers of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on 1st amendment religious freedom grounds, holders of civil titles like justice of the peace certainly qualify, and then there's the Universal Life Church in Modesto and its offshoots eagerly ordaining the entire flock - a meaningless credential in Canada but often valid stateside).

Certainly a redneck wedding isn't valid unless her dad has a licence for the gun, for instance. We have cruise ships linked once in == Destinations == so I didn't link it again in == Pitfalls == but yes, in fiction even "Captain of the USS Enterprise" has been portrayed as a valid credential, even though the reality is both more restrictive and much more bizarre. Spaghetti, anyone? K7L (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"If anyone dost know any just cause or impediment..." looks like it might not be an easy alternative to a marriage licence, if the wedding will take place in another country from the home parishes of the participants (per Toronto city clerk office) or if it crosses other borders, such as a UK wedding where one partner comes from somewhere outside the EEA [1]. Even where it is available, it's not an option for remarriage after divorce and only likely to be an option if both spouses are actively attending their local parish (per Ontario Mennonite Brethren church). These also look to be more common in the UK (and her colonies, such as Canada) than in the US or other jurisdictions - and the laws vary widely between nations and provinces. Given that this is a travel guide, and presumably promoting destination weddings or travel of some form, does it make any sense to open the "banns of marriage" can of worms? Reading them in the temple as a tradition is one thing, relying on them as an alternative to the civil licence from City Hall quite another. 01:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, true. A licence is much more likely to be of any use abroad, and asking whether local or documented banns would do is probably more trouble than it is worth. Somebody might wish to use banns when they cannot get licences, but the reason not to get licences would possibly later get their marriage declared invalid. The only legitimate case I can think of is one where you cannot get a licence from your country of residence, and getting it from your country of origin would require a visit to a country where you are in danger (or its embassy, likewise possibly dangerous; cf Jamal Khashoggi) – an issue for many refugees. –LPfi (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The refugee issues should of course be handled by the asylum country regarding getting any documentation from the country of origin impossible, if the refugee so declares, and handling things as were the archives destroyed and the region covered in ash. –LPfi (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A couple would not necessarily get the licence from their country of origin, unless it also happens to be the place the ceremony will be held. For instance, if someone from Ottawa (Ontario) were to plan to wed someone from Gatineau (Québec) by holding a ceremony at Boldt Castle (NYS), they could get the licence license from any city hall in NYS. Bill de Blasio could issue it. Jim Watson or John Tory or Valérie Plante or whomever runs City Hall back in Canada could not ― because the intended wedding venue is abroad. The choice of officiant would also have to match same-state to the wedding venue.
The usual prerequisite documents for a City Hall licence or license are the two birth certificates, which are usually issued by federated states or provinces. A couple can choose their wedding venue fairly easily, or at least they used to be able before COVID. They can't choose their respective birthplaces. That's inconvenient at times.
And then there's divorce, which would make using "banns of marriage" as an alternative to a city hall licence pretty much impossible anywhere.
Khashoggi's case is complicated by a prior marriage and divorce. That requires additional documentation, which makes life difficult. According to his newspaper, Washington Post: "The journalist had gone to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to get a document declaring he was divorced as required by Turkish law since he planned to marry a Turkish citizen, scholar Hatice Cengiz."
There is always a risk of home countries withholding documents, whether they be birth certificates or passports. Eritrea in particular is infamous for trying to tax its expatriates (who no longer live there) by withholding all manner of documentation and consular assistance as a dubious collection tactic. In a refugee situation this only gets worse.
I'm not sure what happens if your original birth record (of which the birth certificate is a "certified extract") is sitting at the bottom of a heap of volcanic ash in Plymouth (Montserrat). Send away to Brades, the de-facto capital on the north side of the island, and hope someone in this tiny place knows or remembers you?
It seems this varies a lot by jurisdiction (which shouldn't come as a big surprise). Here, due to old Swedish tradition (among the oldest continuous census records on earth), the records are held by the parishes (for the Lutheran and Orthodox), and I think there would be no problem getting the licence. Whether the licence would be accepted by an officiant in Boldt Castle (supposing you didn't bring your own, which might be possible), is another question. For the Plymouth case, I suppose authorities would make a best effort, were the island Finnish. I'm afraid in the actual case, they would insist on an official statement from Montserrat, not being content with them explaining they cannot provide one. –LPfi (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]