JAF  writes:

> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:25:14 +0200, "John of Aix" 
> wrote:
>
>>August West wrote:
>>> JAF  writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:36:06 +0100, August West 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about Scottishland, but in England the church wedding
>>>> has
>>>> no legal standing at all.
>>>
>>> Er, surely that's simply not true; othersie you'd have to have a civil
>>> one as well, as they do in France.
>>
>>I think he means it in the sebse that the church wedding itself has no 
>>legal statius but as there is always someone there with an officialising 
>>delegation, the vicar or a parishioner, it is they that make it legal 
>>when the approprtiate papers are signed by all after the ceremony/ 
>>
> I thought that's what I said -"Dispensation is given to the incumbent for
> the register to be signed in the vestry,"

That bit I wasn't arguing with, but your claim that that was the only
legal bit; the incumbent also has witness (along with the legal
witnesses) an exchange of vows, to a set, legal, template within the
religioous service - the same vows that are made in a civil
ceremony. All the rest is optional, and, as you say, no legal
status. But without the set wording, no marrriage.

-- 
Rarely has anyone betrayed his talent so completely