Open consultation

Tying the knot: reforming weddings law in England and Wales: consultation document

Published 16 July 2026

Applies to England and Wales

Forward

Few days matter more than a person’s wedding day. It is the moment two people make a lifelong commitment to one another before their family, friends and community. It should be joyful, personal and a reflection of who they are, what they believe and the life they want to build together. But for too many couples that simply isn’t possible.

Current weddings law is still built on rules dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries. It belongs to a different age and no longer reflects the diverse society we are today. The result is a system that is complicated, inconsistent and sometimes unfair, treating different groups in different ways.

The Anglican, Jewish and Quaker faiths each have their own legal framework, while every other religious group must fit within a single set of rules, which often fail to reflect their traditions. Civil weddings are governed by another set of rules altogether. And non-religious belief organisations, including Humanists, cannot conduct legally binding weddings at all.

The law also places outdated restrictions on where people can marry and how their ceremony can be conducted.

This complex mix of laws can cause real problems for couples, particularly those who want a religious wedding. Some feel forced to pay for two different ceremonies, one legal and one belief based. Some enter into a marriage that isn’t legally recognised. Others feel they have little choice but to marry in a way which doesn’t reflect their beliefs, marring what should be a joyous occasion.

For a lot of couples, the rising costs of weddings means they choose not to get married. The average amount spent on weddings today is over £20,000, which is simply unaffordable for many families when the cost of living is higher and there are competing financial priorities.

Non-religious couples also face unnecessary challenges, including being confined to choosing a location from a limited range of approved buildings. Yet there is no reason a wedding taking place on a beach, in a forest, or in a family garden can’t carry the same dignity and importance of a wedding held in a more traditional venue.

These unnecessary barriers push up costs, reduce choice and create unnecessary complexity. In some cases, they discourage couples from marrying altogether.

Marriage is one of our most important social institutions – providing stability for families, strengthening communities and contributing to higher levels of satisfaction in life. That is why the Government wants to support more couples to get married when they feel it is the right choice for their family, making it easier – not harder – to do so in a way that is right for them and reflects who they are as people. 

That’s why, last October, I announced plans for the most significant reform of weddings law in over two centuries, building on the Law Commission’s comprehensive 2022 report Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law.

These reforms will create a modern framework that reflects our society today – giving couples more choice over who officiates over their wedding, where they can marry and how they celebrate one of the most important days of their lives.

The plans would also reduce many of the inconsistencies in the current law, and allow non‑religious belief organisations, including Humanists, to conduct legally binding weddings for the first time.

But we are also clear that reform must not come at the expense of safeguards. Our proposals preserve the dignity and significance of marriage. As greater freedoms are introduced, the Government is clear that a wedding day must always reflect the serious and life-long commitment that marriage represents. We will also strengthen protections against forced, predatory and sham marriages – to ensure marriages are always entered into freely, with informed consent, and are not used to exploit vulnerable people or gain unfair advantage.

Beyond the benefits for society, these proposals will also benefit our economy. The Law Commission predicts our changes could increase the number of weddings by 3%, generating almost £140 million more in annual spending, supporting businesses across the UK’s thriving weddings sector.

Most importantly, these reforms will benefit couples – who will be able to have the wedding they want, in the way they want and in the place they want. It will likely also bring down the costs of getting married, so that couples can make the choice to marry no matter their budget.

This consultation marks the next step in shaping these important reforms, and we would encourage anyone with an interest to share their views.

Marriage is an incredible institution. Every couple deserves to start their journey together with an unforgettable day that reflects their beliefs, their personalities and the lives they plan to build together.

This Government’s changes will bring weddings law into the twenty-first century, ensuring every couple can begin married life with a ceremony that is both legally recognised and truly their own.

Rt Hon David Lammy MP

Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

Glossary

• “Anglican”: the Church of England and the Church in Wales.

• “Anglican clergy”, “clergy” or “Clerk in Holy Orders”: a bishop, priest or deacon of the Church of England or the Church in Wales. Only Anglican clergy can solemnise Anglican weddings.

• “Anglican preliminaries”: the preliminaries (see definition of “Preliminaries”) conducted by the Church of England and the Church in Wales, to authorise Anglican weddings. It refers to the publication of banns and the issuing of common licences and special licences.

• “Approved premises”: under the current law, premises at which civil weddings can take place, following approval by a local authority under the Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005.^{[footnote 1]}

• “Authorised person”: under the current law, a person appointed by the trustees or governing body of a registered building to be present at and register the marriages that take place at that registered building, meaning that a registrar does not need to be present.

• “Banns”: a form of Anglican preliminaries for weddings in Anglican churches or chapels, involving an announcement in church of an intended marriage.

• “Belief ceremony” or “belief wedding”: in this consultation, it is a ceremony officiated by a belief officiant (a member of the Anglican clergy or nominated officiant). A belief ceremony could either be a religious ceremony or a non-religious belief ceremony.

• “Belief officiants”: Anglican clergy and nominated officiants from religious or non-religious belief organisations.

• “Civil ceremony” or “civil wedding”: under the current law, weddings conducted in a register office or on approved premises.

• “Civil officiants”: The person who would be legally responsible for ensuring that a civil wedding complies with the law and who oversees the legal formation of the marriage under proposed reforms. This includes registration officers, independent officiants and maritime officiants.

• “Civil partnership”: a legal status formed by two people who register as civil partners under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 which provides substantially the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage.

• “Civil preliminaries”: all non-Anglican weddings must be preceded by civil preliminaries. Under this process, each party must give notice of their intention to marry in person in the registration district where they reside. Each party is interviewed separately by a registration officer and must provide supporting documentation to show they can freely and legally marry.

• “Common licence”: a document issued by the Church of England or Church in Wales, as part of one of the three types of Anglican preliminaries. A common licence authorises a wedding in an Anglican church or chapel with no waiting period.

• “Cruise ship”: A passenger ship certified to carry more than 200 passengers and which is engaged on international voyages of over 600 nautical miles.

• “Deck officer”: Deck officers comprise the captain, chief mate and other officers who take charge of a navigational watch on board a ship.

• “Established church”: the church recognised by the law as the official church of state. The Church of England is the established church of England. The Church in Wales is not an established church in Wales but retains vestiges of having been an established church within Wales.

• “Forced marriage”: a marriage which one or both of the parties entered into without free and full consent due to violence, threats or any other form of coercion, or without the mental capacity necessary to consent to the marriage, as under section 121 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, or before their 18th birthday in accordance with the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age Act 2022). ^{[footnote 2]}

• “General Register Office”: the offices and staff of the Registrar General which oversees the civil registration of births, deaths, marriages and civil partnerships in England and Wales.

• “Humanism”: Humanists UK defines a Humanist as someone who:
  • trusts the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic);
  • makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals;
  • believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.^{[footnote 3]}

• “Independent officiant”: officiants (see definition of “Officiant”) that will be neither state appointed registration officers, nor officiants acting on behalf of a religious or non-religious belief organisation, under the proposed reforms.

• “Inland waters”: bodies of water landward of the baseline, such as bays, rivers, lakes and canals that are generally under the jurisdiction of a coastal State. Coastal states have sovereignty over these waters, including the right to establish and enforce laws and regulations.^{[footnote 4]}

• “Interfaith”: an interfaith wedding is one that combines elements from different religious (and sometimes non-religious) traditions.

• “International waters”: the high seas (also known as international waters) are comprised of all sea areas beyond the other maritime zones (such as territorial seas) and are beyond the sovereignty of any single State.

• “Legal impediment”: a legal reason why two people cannot validly marry each other, including that either of the couple is under 18 years old^{[footnote 5]}, is already married, lack of valid consent or capacity to marry or that the couple are related to each other within the “prohibited degrees” under section 1 of the Marriage Act 1949.

• “Maritime officiant”: an officiant (see definition of “Officiant”) who can conduct legally binding weddings on a UK-registered cruise ship in international waters.

• “Marriage document”: the document issued after Anglican preliminaries and returned for registration after the ceremony, introduced under the schedule system under the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019.

• “Marriage register”: an official record of marriages in England and Wales legally recognised by the state.

• “Mixed faith couples”: couples where the individuals follow different religious traditions, or when one partner is non-religious while the other practices a faith.

• “Nominated officiant”: officiants (see definition of “Officiant”) nominated by religious or non-religious belief organisations.

• “Non-qualifying ceremony”: a ceremony that does not create either a valid or a void marriage because the wedding ceremony is outside the scope of the Marriage Act 1949.

• “Notice”: a notice of marriage is a formal public notice that a couple intend to marry which they must make at least 29 days before their ceremony.

• “Officiant”: in this consultation, it is a person who is legally responsible for ensuring that a wedding complies with the law and who oversees the legal formation of the marriage. This includes registration officers, Anglican clergy, nominated officiants, independent officiants and maritime officiants.

• “Open doors”: under the current law, a statutory requirement applicable to weddings in registered buildings or register offices, generally interpreted to mean that the public must have access to witness the wedding and make objections before or during the ceremony. A similar requirement applies to weddings on approved premises which must be open to the public without charge.

• “Port of choice”: the specific port that a cruise line selects to hold its registry.

• “Predatory marriage”: used to describe weddings in circumstances where one person marries another, often a person who is elderly and vulnerable or lacks capacity to gain financial or other advantage.

• “Preliminaries”: the steps that must be completed before legal authority is granted for a wedding to proceed.

• “Prescribed words”: under the current law, they are the set words currently used by couples to express consent to marry, under section 44(3) of the Marriage Act 1949.

• “Register Office”: the office of a superintendent registrar in each registration district. One of the two categories of locations at which a couple may have a civil marriage.

• “Registered building”: a certified place of worship which is also registered for weddings to take place there.

• “Registrar” or “registrar of marriages”: an officer appointed by a local authority, who registers civil weddings and religious weddings in registered buildings (except where an authorised person is present).

• “Registrar General”: the head of the General Register Office.

• “Registration officer”: either a registrar of marriages or a superintendent registrar.

• “Relevant national”: defined in section 62 of the Immigration Act 2014 as a British or Irish citizen; a person with settled status or pre-settled status granted under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS); or a person with a decision or appeal pending on a valid application to the EUSS submitted before 1 July 2021. ^{[footnote 6]}

• “Religious-only marriage”: a marriage that is recognised by a religious community or organisation but not by the state, because the wedding did not engage the legal requirements.

• “Registered place of worship”: a place of worship certified under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. Once certified as a place of worship, a building can also be registered to solemnize marriages under the current law.

• “Required words”: under the proposed reforms, the words that each of the couple must use to express their consent in a civil ceremony.

• “Schedule”: a document issued by the registration service as part of civil preliminaries, which authorises the couple’s wedding and is used to register their marriage.

• “Sham marriage”: where one or both of the parties is not a relevant national, either or both of the parties enter into the marriage or civil partnership for the purpose of circumventing UK immigration controls or there is no genuine relationship between the parties.^{[footnote 7]}

• “Special licence”: a document issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury which permits an Anglican wedding to take place at any location named in the licence.

• “Superintendent registrar”: an officer appointed by a local authority, who conducts civil preliminaries and attends civil weddings.

• “Territorial sea”: The territorial sea is measured from a line drawn around the coast called the baseline, extending 12 nautical miles outwards from the baseline.^{[footnote 8]}

• “Void marriage”: a void marriage is invalid meaning the marriage is treated as never having come into existence.

• “Voidable marriage”: a marriage is voidable if specific criteria, for example, non-consummation of the marriage, can be established. Unlike a void marriage, a voidable marriage is a valid marriage until it has been annulled by a nullity of marriage order.

Executive summary

Overview

This consultation seeks views on reforming weddings law in England and Wales. It follows the Law Commission’s 2022 report, Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law^{[footnote 9]} and the Government’s announcement in October 2025 of its intention to reform the law when parliamentary time allows.^{[footnote 10]}

The framework governing weddings law dates back to the 18th and 19th centuries. It consists of a myriad of rules that apply inconsistently to different groups. In its 2022 report, the Law Commission concluded that the law was “inconsistent and complicated, inefficient, unfair and needlessly restrictive”.^{[footnote 11]}

The current law creates unnecessary barriers to marriage and limits choice. While some groups can marry freely according to their traditions, others must adapt to fit a framework that does not align with their beliefs. Non-religious belief organisations, such as Humanists, cannot conduct legally binding weddings at all.

To address this, the Government committed in October 2025 to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. It also committed to reform being underpinned by two key features recommended by the Law Commission. Firstly, a move away from a system based on the building in which a wedding takes place towards one focused on the officiant responsible for the ceremony. Secondly, the introduction of universal rules applying across different types of wedding (with the exception of Anglican weddings), reducing disparities between groups.

This consultation builds on those commitments by developing a fuller picture of how the key elements of weddings reform should operate in practice.

Principles underpinning the consultation

The Government’s approach to reform is guided by four principles, which underpin all the proposals in the consultation:

1. Providing a simple, fair and inclusive framework: Establishing a clear, coherent and consistent legal structure for weddings, ensuring fairness across different groups through a common set of rules and enabling non-religious belief organisations, including Humanists, to conduct legally binding ceremonies.

2. Expanding choice as to how and where couples marry: Allowing greater flexibility over the location and form of weddings, so ceremonies can better reflect couples’ beliefs and circumstances.

3. Upholding the dignity and significance of marriage: Ensuring all weddings meet clear and consistent standards of dignity through a comprehensive framework governing ceremonies and locations, supported by oversight of officiants and clear criteria for organisations to preserve the integrity of marriage.

4. Protecting against forced, predatory and sham marriages: Strengthening safeguards through a more effective system of checks and greater transparency to ensure marriages are entered into freely, with informed consent and are not used to gain unfair advantage.

Core proposals

This consultation builds on recommendations made by the Law Commission in its 2022 report on weddings law reform, which was informed by extensive stakeholder engagement and over 1,600 responses to its consultation.^{[footnote 12]} The Government does not intend to repeat that detailed and thorough work but instead focuses on the following areas:

Chapter 1: The current law and case for reform

Here the Government sets out an overview of the current framework governing weddings law in England and Wales, why there is a need to reform and to modernise this framework and who stands to benefit from these changes. Finally, it summarises the Government’s approach to these reforms and the principles that underpin them.

Chapter 2: Preliminaries

The Government proposes a modernised two-stage preliminaries process, separating the administrative giving of notice (to be completed online) from a mandatory in-person interview focused on safeguarding.^{[footnote 13]} This approach would strengthen protections against forced, predatory and sham marriages, including by publishing notices online (with appropriate exemptions), improved signposting and requiring registrars to ask a core set of questions to identify risks.

Chapter 3: The legal formation of marriage

The Government proposes allowing consent in religious and non-religious belief ceremonies to be expressed through actions or rituals. For civil ceremonies, it proposes retaining a short, standardised form of words of contract, with some flexibility through “words to the same effect” to balance personalisation (e.g. saying the words in other languages such as Cornish) with legal certainty.

Chapter 4: The dignity framework

The Government proposes introducing a structured dignity framework placing a legal responsibility on officiants to ensure they uphold the dignity and significance of marriage, guided by an overarching standard, supporting standards for locations and ceremonies and a set of factors to inform decision-making. The consultation seeks views on the content and application of this framework.

Chapter 5: Specific wedding locations

The Government seeks views on whether wedding venues should be able to apply for voluntary pre-authorisation, including how such a system should operate and be maintained. It also seeks views on permitting weddings in private homes and what additional safeguards may be required, as well as on allowing weddings on inland and territorial waters and on UK‑registered cruise ships in international waters, subject to appropriate conditions.

Chapter 6: Role of officiants

The Government seeks views on introducing a clear set of legal duties for all officiants, including responsibility for ensuring legal requirements are met and for upholding the dignity and significance of marriage. It also seeks views on the criteria religious and non‑religious belief organisations must meet in order to nominate officiants to conduct legally binding weddings. The Government also proposes allowing independent officiants to conduct legally binding weddings and establishing a distinct category of maritime officiants for weddings at sea.

Chapter 7: Regulation of officiants

The Government seeks views on strengthening the regulation of officiants through clear entry requirements, including a “fit and proper” test and conflict of interest rules for independent and maritime officiants. It also seeks views on how officiants should be monitored, trained and held accountable. The consultation proposes the role a central regulator could play in overseeing officiants and how oversight could be delivered through nominating or membership organisations subject to regulatory oversight.

Civil Partnerships

This consultation focuses on reforms to the framework governing weddings law and therefore does not discuss the application of these proposals to civil partnerships. However, in line with our aims to creating a more consistent and straightforward framework for forming legal relationships, the Government is committed to considering the implications of these proposals for civil partnerships as reform progresses, to ensure that no new disparities or complexities are introduced into the law.

Next steps

Responses to this consultation will inform the development of legislation to reform the law of weddings in England and Wales. Any legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.

Introduction

This paper sets out for consultation the Government’s proposals to reform weddings law in England and Wales. The proposals follow the Law Commission’s 2022 report on weddings law and the Government’s announcement in October 2025 of its intention to modernise wedding law. The proposals seek to strengthen the institution of marriage by ensuring the process of getting married is made simpler, clearer and more accessible to all.

The consultation is aimed at parliamentarians, religious and non-religious belief organisations, academics, independent celebrants, support organisations, local registration services and members of the public with an interest in the weddings law of England and Wales.

An Impact Assessment indicates that couples marrying, existing registrars, authorised persons, religious and non-religious belief organisations and the General Register Office are likely to be particularly affected.

The proposals are likely to lead to additional savings for businesses and couples getting married.

Chapter 1 – The Current Law, Case for and Approach to Reform

The Current Law

Weddings law sets out the legal requirements couples must meet to become legally married. The current framework governing weddings law is primarily set out in the Marriage Act 1949, although its underlying structure dates back to the 18th and 19th centuries.

In England and Wales, entering into a legally binding marriage involves three distinct stages.^{[footnote 14]} Firstly, a couple must obtain legal authority for the wedding to proceed (the “preliminaries”). Secondly, they must take part in a legally recognised ceremony. Thirdly, the marriage must be properly registered following the ceremony.

Under the current law, couples must choose between a civil wedding and a religious wedding. Religious weddings are further divided into categories, each subject to different provisions. Anglican, Jewish and Quaker weddings operate under distinct, bespoke rules, while all other religious weddings are subject to a separate, common framework. There is currently no legal provision for weddings conducted by non-religious belief organisations, such as Humanists.

The summary below is not intended to be comprehensive, but to provide an overview of the process.

Stage 1: Preliminaries

Preliminaries are the steps that must be completed before legal authority is granted for a wedding to proceed. Their purpose is to ensure that both parties in a couple are legally able to marry each other, are freely consenting to do so and are not entering into a marriage to circumvent immigration controls (a “sham marriage”).^{[footnote 15]} The Marriage Act 1949 provides for two types of preliminaries: civil and Anglican.

Civil Preliminaries

All non-Anglican weddings must be preceded by civil preliminaries. Under this process, each party must give notice of their intention to marry in person in the registration district where they have lived for the previous 7 days.^{[footnote 16]} Each party is interviewed separately by a registration officer and must provide supporting documentation to show they can freely and legally marry.^{[footnote 17]}

Once notice has been given, it is publicly displayed at the register office for a statutory period (usually 28 days) to allow objections to be raised. Where objections are made, superintendent registrars must investigate. In certain cases, including where one or both parties are subject to immigration control, the marriage may be referred to the Home Office and the waiting period extended to 70 days.^{[footnote 18]}

If no objection is upheld and all requirements are met, a marriage schedule is issued. This provides the legal authority for the marriage and will usually be signed at the ceremony before being returned for registration.

Anglican Preliminaries

Couples marrying in the Church of England or the Church in Wales may use civil preliminaries but most will usually proceed through Anglican preliminaries.

In most cases, this involves the calling of banns. Banns are public announcements made during a church service of a couples’ intention to marry.^{[footnote 19]}They are read on three Sundays before the wedding in the parish where each member of the couple resides, as well as the parish where the wedding takes place, if this is different.^{[footnote 20]}The calling of banns provides an opportunity for objections to be raised and, once called, the wedding may proceed provided no legal impediment has been raised.

In some circumstances, a couple may obtain a common licence instead of banns, for example where there is a genuine need to marry before the publishing of banns can be completed.^{[footnote 21]} In rare cases, a couple may apply to the Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury for a special licence. A special licence permits an Anglican wedding to take place in any location named in the licence. There is no formal waiting period in the case of common or special licences.^{[footnote 22]}

Stage 2: Ceremony

All couples must have a wedding ceremony to become legally married. The legal requirements governing the ceremony, both in terms of location and form, depend on the type of wedding.

Location

The current law primarily regulates where weddings take place by reference to the building in which they take place, rather than the individual who conducts the ceremony. The system is therefore often described as “buildings-based”.^{[footnote 23]}

Under this framework, civil weddings must either take place in a register office or on approved premises which, since 2021, includes approved areas of outdoor grounds.^{[footnote 24]} Before being approved, a location must be deemed to be “seemly and dignified” and regularly available for weddings.^{[footnote 25]}

Religious weddings (other than Jewish, Quaker and some Anglican weddings) must take place in a registered place of worship.^{[footnote 26]} Anglican weddings are generally required by the Marriage Act 1949 to take place in a church or chapel. Where a special licence is granted, however, the marriage may take place in any location.

Jewish and Quaker weddings are long-standing exceptions to the buildings-based framework. These date back to the Clandestine Marriages Act 1753 which exempted these groups from the Act’s provisions. As a result, Jewish and Quaker weddings may take place according to the usages (that is, their customs and practices) of those groups, with no statutory restrictions on location.     

Form

The form that a ceremony must take also varies depending on the type of wedding.

Civil weddings require the presence of both a superintendent registrar and registrar, alongside two witnesses.^{[footnote 27]} They must be open to the public (“open doors”) and not include religious material beyond incidental reference.^{[footnote 28]} To express consent to marry, couples must say the declaratory and contracting words (collectively known as “prescribed words”), which establish that a person is both free to marry and wishes to establish a legal contract of marriage.^{[footnote 29]}

Anglican weddings must be conducted by an ordained member of the clergy and in the presence of two witnesses.^{[footnote 30]} There is no statutory requirement for “open doors” or the need for specific prescribed words, although in practice marriage is treated as a public event and authorised service texts are used such as the Book of Common Prayer.^{[footnote 31]}

Jewish and Quaker weddings may be conducted according to their usages. As such, there are no statutory requirements regarding the form of ceremony, including requirements relating to witnesses, prescribed words or open doors.

Stage 3: Registration

Following the ceremony, the marriage must be registered in order to complete the legal process and create an official record.

For weddings using civil preliminaries, a “marriage schedule” is issued by the superintendent registrar in the district in which the wedding will take place. This is signed at the ceremony by the appropriate person, either registrar or superintendent registrar for civil weddings, a Jewish synagogue secretary, a Quaker officer or an authorised person for other religious weddings. With the exception of Jewish and Quaker weddings, this is done in the presence of witnesses.^{[footnote 32]}

For weddings using Anglican preliminaries, the officiating member of the clergy issues a “marriage document”. This must be signed as soon as reasonably practicable after the ceremony has taken place by the couple and two witnesses.

The completed marriage document or schedule must then be delivered to the registrar for the district within 21 days of the wedding, after which the details are entered into the marriage register.^{[footnote 33]}

Failure to comply with requirements

Where a couple complies with the required legal formalities set out in the Marriage Act 1949, their marriage will be legally valid. A valid marriage confers a range of legal rights and responsibilities on to the couple, including inheritance rights, certain tax benefits and access to financial remedies on divorce, where property and assets can be divided.

Where there is a “knowing and wilful” failure to comply with one or more of the key legal requirements, the marriage may be treated as void. In such cases, the marriage is treated in law as having never existed, although the parties may be eligible to apply for financial relief as if they were divorcing.

In circumstances where the formalities set out have been met, but an individual did not consent to the marriage, the marriage may be held to be “voidable”. In these circumstances, the marriage continues to be valid but can be made void through obtaining a decree of nullity.

Where none of the key requirements of the Marriage Act 1949 are met, the ceremony may be classified as a “non-qualifying ceremony”. This not only does not create a legally recognised marriage but also means the couple will not have any of the legal rights associated with marriage, or to remedies upon breakdown.

The Case for Reforming the Law

Marriage is a serious and lifelong commitment, carrying significant legal, social and personal consequences. The decision to marry is not a trivial one. It is a major life decision through which two people enter into a formal union, with the expectation that the commitment will endure for life.

Marriage can bring important benefits for both couples and their children. Research published in the British Medical Journal found that married couples are 10-15% less likely to die prematurely than the wider population, while the National Bureau of Economic Research found that married couples reported higher life satisfaction on average than non-married couples.^{[footnote 34]} For children, evidence suggests that marriage is associated with greater family stability, with married parents less likely to separate.^{[footnote 35]}

Given these benefits, the Government believes that those who wish to make this commitment should be encouraged to do so. However, the number of marriages has fallen by a quarter in the last 30 years.^{[footnote 36]} The Law Commission suggested that weddings reform could help reverse this trend, predicting a three per cent increase in the number of weddings.^{[footnote 37]}

Weddings mark the beginning of the union of marriage. They are a celebration of love, creating lasting memories and strengthening a couple’s bond. Allowing couples to mark this commitment in a way that is meaningful to them reinforces both the significance of the occasion and the enduring nature of marriage, strengthening the institution of marriage in doing so.

The current legal framework has not kept pace with modern society. The fundamental structure of weddings law has remained largely unchanged for almost 200 years and has become increasingly complex and inconsistent. Different rules apply to different types of wedding. Anglican, Jewish and Quaker weddings operate under bespoke rules. All other religious weddings must follow a single set of rules and a further set of rules govern civil weddings. The framework also excludes non-religious belief organisations, such as Humanists, from conducting legally binding weddings entirely.

This fragmented approach produces stark disparities in practice. Some groups can marry freely according to their beliefs and traditions, while others must adapt their ceremonies to fit a framework that does not align with their beliefs. For example, Jews and Quakers can legally marry anywhere with no requirements as to who attends or how the ceremony is conducted. Muslims, by contrast, must marry in a registered building and use prescribed words, despite the fact that traditional Muslim ceremonies do not take place in mosques or use words from a civil ceremony. Couples with different religious affiliations or couples where one partner has no religion, estimated at 21% of relationships, may also face challenges in having a wedding that accommodates their beliefs. ^{[footnote 38]}

A key driver of these issues is that the current law regulates weddings primarily by the building in which they take place, rather than the person conducting the ceremony. This creates barriers for groups whose beliefs do not associate their place of worship with marriage, or who do not have many (or any) places of worship. As a result, for example, only 12.2% of Buddhist temples are registered for marrying and, in Wales, the only options for a legal Muslim wedding are in Bangor or Cardiff.^{[footnote 39]}

More broadly, the Government considers that there is no principled reason why a wedding should be confined to a limited category of approved buildings when a ceremony could take place safely and with dignity in other settings such as a beach, a forest, a family garden or a canal boat. Moving away from a buildings-based approach would allow the law better to reflect the variety of ways in which couples may wish to mark one of the most significant commitments of their lives.

Where individuals are unable to marry in accordance with their beliefs, there are practical consequences, as they may instead choose to have a religious or belief-based ceremony that is not legally recognised. Those who undergo “religious-only” weddings can be left financially vulnerable if the relationship breaks down, as they are treated in law as unmarried and do not benefit from the legal rights and protections available on divorce. Evidence suggests that in practice this is a significant issue, with a 2017 Channel 4 survey finding that 6 in 10 women who had had religious-only Muslim weddings had not also undergone a legally recognised marriage and almost 3 in 10 of those in religious marriages did not realise they only had limited legal protections.^{[footnote 40]}

The current system also increases cost and therefore limits access to marriage. Half of unmarried men and a third of unmarried women cite cost as a reason for not marrying, with the average wedding costing between £20,600 and £21,990.^{[footnote 41]} These costs are partly driven by requirements for civil weddings to be publicly accessible and limited to approved premises or register offices, which reduce competition and choice. In addition, couples who cannot marry in a way that is meaningful to them may feel compelled to pay for two ceremonies: a civil wedding to obtain legal recognition and a separate ceremony that reflects their beliefs. This creates additional expense and unequal treatment between different groups.

Taken together, these issues demonstrate that the current law has not kept pace with how people form relationships or how they wish to marry. The Government considers that reform is needed to create a framework that is fairer, more inclusive and better able to enable couples to marry in a way which reflects modern society while maintaining the dignity and integrity of marriage.

That is why, in October 2025, the Government announced plans to reform weddings law in England and Wales when parliamentary time allows.^{[footnote 42]} The Government confirmed that these reforms will be underpinned by two key features, which were recommended by the Law Commission’s 2022 report Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law:

1. An officiant-based system: moving away from regulating the building in which a wedding takes place towards the officiant responsible for the ceremony. This change will remove restrictions on where weddings take place, provided ceremonies meet strict requirements ensuring that they remain dignified. In doing so, it will allow weddings to take place in a wider range of locations, making it easier for couples to marry in a way that reflects their beliefs and circumstances.

2. Universal Rules: introducing a single set of universal rules for all weddings (with the exception of Anglican weddings) in order to simplify the process of getting married and create a level playing field for all groups. This would include enabling Humanists to be able to conduct legally binding weddings for the first time.

The Government is launching this consultation as part of a wider programme intended to modernise family law. These proposals sit alongside our plans to reform the law of financial remedies on divorce and introduce rights for cohabitants on separation and death, following the Government’s manifesto commitment to “strengthen the rights and protections for women in cohabiting couples”. The Government issued a consultation, “A fairer end to relationships” in June inviting views on these proposals.^{[footnote 43]}

The Approach to Reform

The Government’s overarching objective in reforming weddings law is to strengthen the institution of marriage by ensuring that the law supports, and does not frustrate, couples who have chosen to enter into this serious and lifelong commitment. In achieving this objective, the Government’s approach to reform is guided by the following principles:

The principles underpinning the consultation

1. Providing a simple, fair and inclusive framework

2. Expanding choice as to how and where couples marry

3. Upholding the dignity and significance of marriage

4. Protecting against forced, predatory and sham marriages

1. Providing a simple, fair and inclusive framework

A central aim of the proposed reforms is to establish a clear, coherent and consistent legal framework for weddings, ensuring that the law operates fairly across different groups and is straightforward to understand and apply.

A consistent set of core rules will apply to all weddings, ensuring that they are all, with the exception of Anglican weddings, subject to the same overarching framework. This will address current disparities. The reforms would also make the system more inclusive, by enabling non-religious belief organisations, including Humanists, to conduct legally binding weddings for the first time.

To support this, the Government proposes that there should be a consistent approach to the regulation of officiants. With the exception of state-employed registrars, officiants would be accountable to their organisation and subject to oversight by an independent regulator, in order to strengthen accountability and public confidence.

2. Expanding choice as to how and where couples marry

The reforms would provide greater choice and flexibility, enabling couples to marry in ways that reflect their beliefs, backgrounds and personal circumstances.

Under a reformed framework, there would be no fixed restrictions about where weddings can take place, provided dignity and safety requirements are met. As a result, couples will be able to marry in a much wider range of meaningful locations, including beaches, cruise ships and private homes.

The reforms would also allow greater flexibility in how ceremonies are conducted. Consent could be expressed through actions, in line with belief practices. Civil weddings may be conducted by independent officiants and could potentially include belief content, provided they remain identifiably civil. Together, these changes will allow more personalised ceremonies and better meet the needs of mixed faith and interfaith couples.

3. Upholding the dignity and significance of marriage

Marriage is one of society’s most important institutions. The proposed reforms will ensure that expanding choice about how and where couples marry does not come at the expense of its integrity.

To achieve this, the Government proposes a comprehensive dignity framework that will apply across all weddings. This framework would set clear expectations for both the location of the wedding and the form of ceremony in order to ensure that they remain dignified. Officiants would be required to take this into account when approving locations and conducting ceremonies. Failure to uphold these standards could result in sanctions, including deauthorisation.

These arrangements would be supported by clear criteria which religious and non-religious belief organisations must meet in order to nominate officiants to conduct legal weddings. This would help safeguard against insincere, undignified or poorly governed groups conducting legally binding weddings.

4. Protecting against forced, predatory and sham marriages

The law must continue to ensure that all marriages are entered into freely and with informed consent and are not used to gain an unfair advantage. The Government proposes to strengthen protections against forced, predatory and sham marriages through a more effective and modernised system of preliminaries.

A two-stage process for giving notice will allow checks to be made at both the online stage and at the in-person interview. The administrative stage would be completed online so that registrars can focus on assessing whether someone is free and willing to marry during the interview. As part of this process, registrars would be required to ask a core set of questions designed to identify indicators of forced, predatory or sham marriages.

This will be supported by greater transparency, including displaying notices online, making it easier to identify potential impediments to a marriage and reinforcing the public nature of marriage.

Civil Partnerships

This consultation focuses on reforms to the framework governing weddings law and therefore does not discuss the application of these proposals to civil partnerships. However, in line with our aims to creating a more consistent and straightforward framework for forming legal relationships, the Government is committed to considering the implications of these proposals for civil partnerships as reform progresses, to ensure that no new disparities or complexities are introduced into the law.

Chapter 2 – Preliminaries

The Government’s proposed reforms to weddings law are intended to give couples in England and Wales greater choice about how they marry, making the process simpler and fairer, while continuing to protect the dignity and integrity of marriage. In increasing choice, it is imperative that reform does not increase the risk of forced, predatory or sham marriages taking place.

The Law Commission has made extensive recommendations which would make preliminaries more robust. Given its focus on ensuring protection against forced, predatory and sham marriages, the Government broadly agrees with the Law Commission’s proposed recommendations about preliminaries. The Law Commission’s analysis of preliminaries proceeded on the basis of a dual system, whereby two preliminaries’ processes operate: civil preliminaries and Anglican preliminaries. The Government agrees with a dual preliminaries approach, having already committed to retaining Anglican preliminaries as an essential component of marriage through the established church.

This chapter focuses specifically on ways in which the Law Commission’s recommendations in relation to civil preliminaries could be bolstered, in order to provide an additional layer of protection against forced, predatory and sham marriages over and above the Law Commission’s proposals.

The two-stage preliminaries process

The current system provides an important safeguard by requiring an in-person appointment, which enables registrars to carry out both administrative checks and safeguarding functions. The Government is clear that these reforms will not weaken or alter the existing protections against sham marriages. The current safeguards will remain in place, including requirements for certain couples to attend in person and the continued referral of certain cases to the Secretary of State to determine whether a sham investigation is required, with the option of extending the waiting period from 28 to 70 days where appropriate.^{[footnote 44]}

However, the Government considers that these safeguards could be strengthened further by enabling registrars to focus more clearly on identifying risk, while ensuring administrative checks continue to be completed effectively.

The Law Commission has recommended introducing a two-stage approach to civil preliminaries. This approach separates the administrative aspects of the process from the safeguarding-focused interview. It is the Government’s view that this two-stage approach will both improve efficiency and provide improved protections against forced, predatory and sham marriages. The reasons for this are set out below.

Stage 1: Giving notice

At this first stage, couples would give notice by submitting the required personal information and uploading documentary evidence to demonstrate identity, nationality, residence and their eligibility to marry. This would be done remotely, through an online system.

The details provided would then be reviewed by a registrar. This would enable any issues to be identified at this earlier stage, rather than relying on a single, in‑person appointment to gather and verify all information. Once notice has been given, it would be subject to publication online.

The Government agrees with the Law Commission that separating this administrative stage from the interview would allow registrars to focus their time more effectively at the interview stage, including preparing for and conducting safeguarding discussions. The Government will ensure that those who are unable to get online will still be able to give notice. The Government also agrees with the Law Commission that the current requirement that each of the couple should have been resident in England and Wales for seven days before giving notice should be abolished.

Displaying notice online including exemptions

A notice of marriage is a formal public notice that a couple intend to marry. The notice process serves an important safeguarding function by enabling third parties to identify and raise objections where there may be a legal impediment to the marriage. This may include concerns about bigamy, lack of capacity or other issues that mean the marriage should not proceed.

Under the current system, notices are displayed in register offices for the statutory notice period. The Law Commission said that this approach may limit the effectiveness of the safeguard, as notices displayed in register offices are unlikely to be seen by many people. It therefore recommended that notices given through civil preliminaries should instead be published online. The Government agrees that publishing notices of marriage would make the notice system more accessible and would strengthen its role in identifying legal impediments to the marriage.

The Government recognises that publishing notices online may create risks for some individuals, particularly those who may be vulnerable to abuse and that protections would be needed in such cases. The Government therefore considers that any move to online publication must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards.

The Law Commission recommended that an exemption should be available where publication would give rise to a risk of specific and identifiable physical or psychological harm. This might be where a person intending to get married has been a victim of domestic abuse, coercive control or ’honour’‑based abuse. For example, a person may be at risk of specific and identifiable physical harm from an abusive ex-partner if a notice is published online that shows they intend to marry someone else. The Government agrees that an exemption process should be introduced in accordance with the Law Commission’s recommendations. The Government also agrees that such an exemption should be subject to appropriate evidential requirements. Evidence might include a court order or a statement from a professional such as a social worker, police officer or specialist support worker.

This consultation seeks views about types of evidence that should be required to support an exemption from online publication. The Government is particularly interested in how best to strike the balance between the need to protect individuals at risk, the importance of safeguarding and the publicity function of notices.

Information and support at the online notice stage

The Law Commission considered that the online notice system could provide an opportunity to support those at risk of forced or predatory marriage, by providing information about capacity and consent and signposting to information.^{[footnote 45]} The Government agrees and proposes that the online notice stage should act as a key safeguarding gateway. This could include clear and accessible information in order to help individuals recognise potential indicators of coercion or control, such as pressure from family members or others, threats, intimidation, isolation or financial control. It could also direct individuals to the Forced Marriage Unit and explain how concerns may be raised during the preliminaries process, including at the in-person interview. ^{[footnote 46]}

The Government also proposes that the online notice process should signpost couples to wider relationship support and guidance. This could include information about the legal nature and consequences of marriage, the rights and responsibilities it creates and access to relationship education resources.

Stage 2: In‑person interview

At the second stage, each party would be required to attend a compulsory separate in‑person interview with a registrar.^{[footnote 47]}

The Government agrees with the Law Commission that this is a very important safeguard. Registrars already play a central role in checking that the legal requirements for marriage are met and in identifying concerns that may arise during the preliminaries process. A separate in-person interview would preserve and strengthen that safeguard by ensuring that each party has a private opportunity to raise concerns or disclose that they are being forced, pressured or otherwise coerced into marriage.

The Government considers that an in-person interview, after notice has been given online, would better support registrars in carrying out this important role. By allowing information to be provided in advance through an online notice process, the interview could provide a more focused opportunity to consider safeguarding issues and verify and assess whether there are indicators of coercion.

The Government considers that additional layers of protection can also be built into the in-person interview, beyond the Law Commission’s recommendations. In particular, the Government proposes that registrars should be required to ask a set of questions aimed at identifying forced, predatory or sham marriages. The Government further proposes that there should be a requirement for registrars to provide information in respect of forced and predatory marriages at the in-person appointment, aligning with safeguards protecting against sham marriages.

Question 1

Should information and signposting be provided on the online notice platform in order to support and safeguard couples, including in relation to forced marriage, consent and capacity?

• Yes
• No
• Undecided

If you answered ‘Yes’ please set out what information and signposting should be provided?

• [Free text]

Question 2

Do you agree with the type of information the Government proposes should be provided at the online notice stage? This includes material to help individuals recognise potential indicators of coercion or control, as well as any information about how to seek help through the Forced Marriage Unit, how to raise concerns during the preliminaries process and signposting to relationship support and guidance. Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Question 3

What are your views about the type of evidence that should be required for the harm-based exemption from online publication of a notice? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• [Free text]

Question 4

Do you agree that at the in-person interview, registrars should be required to ask a specific set of questions aimed at identifying forced, predatory or sham marriages? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Chapter 3 – The Legal Formation of Marriage

The beginning of a marriage is not only a major personal commitment but also the start of a new legal relationship between a couple. A wedding ceremony is the point at which that legal status is formed. This chapter seeks views on the legal requirements for wedding ceremonies, including the words or actions used to express consent in different types of ceremony.

The Government is seeking to ensure that the law is clear about the core requirement for couples to express consent to marry while allowing them to have a ceremony that is meaningful to them and reflects their beliefs, traditions and wishes.

The Law Commission recommended a simpler framework under which all weddings would require both parties to express consent to marry in the presence of each other, an officiant and two witnesses. The Government agrees that the point at which consent is expressed should be the point at which the marriage is legally formed. The Government therefore proposes that the only core legal requirements of the ceremony should be:

• both parties expressing consent to marry each other in the presence of each other, the officiant and two witnesses; and
• signing the schedule or marriage document.^{[footnote 48]}

The Government considers that this approach would provide greater consistency and legal certainty. It would establish a clear and observable point at all weddings at which both parties confirm that they freely agree to marry. This will reduce the risk of disputes about whether a couple entered into a legal marriage freely and will strengthen safeguards against forced, predatory and sham marriages.

Consent in religious and non-religious belief ceremonies

Under the current legal framework, the way in which consent must be expressed varies for different types of ceremony. In most, this requirement is met through the use of prescribed words. This is how the couple express their consent to marry each other and confirm that there are no legal impediments.

The Law Commission highlighted a number of issues with prescribed words. For many religious groups, expressing their consent using the prescribed words is an imposition and out of place with their practices. For instance, the Hindu ritual of the couple walking seven times around the Agni, the sacred fire, or the Muslim ritual of the exchange of ijāb (offer) and qubūl (acceptance) are understood within these religions to be a central act by which the couple enter into marriage. Under the current law, these acts are not recognised as a lawful expression of consent to a legally valid marriage and similar concerns may arise for non-religious belief organisations whose ceremonies may express consent through actions, including rituals, rather than by set words.

The Government agrees with the Law Commission that, in religious and non-religious belief ceremonies, consent should be capable of being expressed through actions as well as words. This would mean that actions or words could be recognised as the moment that a marriage is legally formed, provided that the couple, the officiant and the witnesses share an understanding of the meaning and significance of the action or words. The Government considers that this would better reflect the diversity of traditions and practices used in wedding ceremonies.

Question 5

Do you agree with the proposal to allow consent to be expressed through the performance of actions in religious and non-religious belief ceremonies? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Consent in civil ceremonies

Different considerations apply to civil ceremonies. Civil ceremonies do not need to accommodate the same range of religious or non-religious belief practices when a couple expresses consent to marry. That said, the Law Commission found that the prescribed words can feel inauthentic and impersonal for some couples and can limit their ability to use words that reflect cultural or family traditions or the couple’s identities.

The Government recognises these concerns. However, it believes that civil ceremonies should continue to have a clear, standardised and identifiable expression of consent. This protects the state’s interests in ensuring that both parties have freely agreed to marry and provides certainty in law for civil ceremonies where there are no established non-verbal practices and traditions for expressing consent. We propose that required words of consent should be used in civil ceremonies as the means by which consent can be expressed, but that these words should be limited to the core elements of the commitment of marriage. This is in line with the Law Commission’s proposals.

The Government proposes that the required words should take the form of a short statement of contract, such as:

“I [name] accept you [name] as my [husband / wife / spouse]”

The Government considers that this wording is simple, clear and easy to understand. It also includes an option (“spouse”) for couples who do not identify with the terms “husband” and “wife”.

The Government also considers that limited variation should be permitted through the use of “words to the same effect”. This would allow appropriate flexibility provided that the expression of consent by both parties remains clear. For example, this could include words spoken in a language other than English or Welsh such as Cornish or variations in delivery of the words arising from disability or medical conditions, such as Tourette’s syndrome.

The Government proposes that the officiant should be responsible for determining whether any variation is acceptable, supported by guidance provided by the regulator. This would help avoid any uncertainty over whether consent has been given and ensure that the legal moment for the expression of consent remains identifiable.

Although this approach would mean there are different rules about how consent is expressed in civil and belief ceremonies, the Government believes that this is justified. It would accommodate different belief practices, while improving consistency and legal clarity in all marriage ceremonies.

Question 6

Do you agree with the proposed required words for civil weddings? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Question 7

Are there any specific variations to the required words that should be considered acceptable and to which “words to the same effect” should apply? Please explain your reasoning and/or give examples in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Chapter 4 – The Dignity Framework

Marriage is a significant legal and personal commitment and should be entered into as a serious and lifelong obligation. The Government’s proposals are concerned with giving couples greater choice about the ceremony through which they enter into marriage, while upholding the solemnity, legality and social importance of the marriage itself.

Greater flexibility as to how a wedding ceremony may take place should not be understood as diminishing the gravity of the commitment being made. The dignity framework is therefore intended to ensure that, while couples may have more choice about the form and setting of their ceremony, the act of entering into marriage remains solemn, deliberate, safe and legally certain.

This chapter seeks views on a proposed dignity framework and how it should apply to wedding locations and ceremonies. It also discusses the difference between belief and civil ceremonies.

Preserving dignity under a reformed scheme

Under the current law, the dignity of weddings is protected unevenly. For civil weddings, it is secured principally through the regulation of premises. A civil wedding may generally only take place in a register office or on approved premises, but it is only in relation to approved premises that the law expressly requires the setting to be “seemly and dignified”. These current rules therefore attach dignity primarily to the location in which the wedding takes place, rather than to the conduct of the ceremony or the responsibilities of the person officiating.

Religious weddings are not regulated in the same way as civil weddings and some religious groups have greater flexibility than others about where and how weddings may take place. The result is an inconsistent framework in which dignity is protected for some weddings, but not in the same way across all types of ceremonies.

Under the Government’s proposed officiant-based model, the legal responsibility for upholding the dignity and significance of marriage would sit with the officiant. This reflects the Law Commission’s recommendation, which also said that officiants should be supported by guidance to help them discharge that role.^{[footnote 49]} However, given the greater flexibility that reform would introduce, the Government considers that general guidance alone would not provide sufficient clarity or consistency.

To address this, the Government proposes creating a dignity framework in order to support officiants in their assessment of whether a wedding, taken as a whole, upholds the dignity and significance of marriage. The framework is intended to provide a clear basis for decision-making, by providing clear standards setting out what constitutes a dignified wedding (including in relation to the ceremony and location) together with more specific factors which officiants should take into account when assessing whether the duty to uphold dignity and significance has been met in practice. Together, these elements are designed to help officiants in exercising their judgement in a consistent and transparent way.

The Dignity Framework

Dignity will be most directly relevant in two aspects of an officiant’s role: approving the location of the wedding and agreeing the conduct and content of the ceremony itself. The proposed framework therefore includes specific standards and factors for both wedding locations and wedding ceremonies.

The Government recognises that dignity is to some extent subjective and may be understood and expressed differently by different couples, communities and traditions. The framework therefore does not seek to prescribe every feature of a dignified wedding. Instead, it provides standards and factors to guide and support officiants in making consistent, well-reasoned decisions, while providing discretion in order to reflect the particular circumstances of each wedding.

In applying the framework, officiants will need to take account of the varied traditions and cultures of couples as reflected in civil, religious and non-religious belief weddings. The framework sets out three core stages that officiants would be expected to consider as part of their legal duty to uphold the dignity and significance of marriage, when assessing each individual wedding.

The first two stages set out standards describing what constitutes a dignified wedding, while the third stage provides a set of factors in order to assist officiants in applying those standards in practice:

The three stages of the dignity framework

Stage 1: An overarching standard for dignity against which the wedding should be assessed as a whole;

Stage 2: Two supporting standards covering the location and the ceremony;

Stage 3: A list of factors which the officiant must take into account when deciding whether the proposed location and ceremony are appropriate.

Stage 1: An overarching dignity standard

The Government proposes an overarching standard for preserving dignity against which the suitability of a wedding should be assessed as a whole by an officiant. There are three elements to this proposal.

• The wedding will enable the couple to express free and informed consent to marry, in a manner that is intelligible.

The officiant has a legal duty to ensure the couple freely express consent to marry each other and therefore should consider how this should be done in a way that upholds the overall dignity of the wedding.

• The dignity of the occasion will not be undermined by distraction or trivialisation.

Trivialisation refers to elements which would undermine or diminish the significance or seriousness. This could include, for example, where the setting or activities distract to the extent that the act of marriage becomes incidental or where the ceremony is presented in a way that reduces it to a novelty or performance without meaningful recognition of the commitment being made. 

• The wedding will reflect the significance and seriousness of marriage as a major life event and lifelong commitment. 

Seriousness in this context does not preclude weddings from being joyful and celebratory occasions or from reflecting the personal wishes and preferences of the couple themselves. Rather, it refers to the need for the ceremony, taken as a whole, to give appropriate weight to the legal and social significance of marriage.

This overarching standard reflects the key elements the Government considers necessary to underpin a dignified wedding in practice, including the central importance of free and informed consent and the expectation that marriage is recognised as a serious and meaningful commitment. Taken together, these elements are intended to ensure that all weddings are conducted with the respect and attention required for the formation of a lifelong legal commitment. 

Proposed overarching dignity standard

A dignified wedding will enable the couple to express free and informed consent to marry, in a manner that is intelligible. The dignity of the occasion will not be undermined by distraction or trivialisation. The wedding will reflect the significance and seriousness of marriage as a major life event and lifelong commitment.

Stage 2: Supporting standards to ensure a dignified location and ceremony

As set out above, dignity will most often come from the location in which a wedding takes place and the way in which a ceremony is conducted. While the overarching standard provides the core principles against which a wedding is to be assessed, the Government believes officiants would benefit from more specific standards to support them in making consistent decisions.

The Government therefore proposes two supporting standards: one relating to the location of weddings and one relating to the conduct of the ceremony. These standards translate the overarching concept of dignity into the two key contexts in which it must be applied in practice.

Dignified Location

The Government proposes that a dignified location is one which:

•  permits participants to attend safely

The officiant should be satisfied that all those required to be present, including the couple, witnesses, other attendees and the officiant themselves, are able to both access and remain at the location with a reasonable degree of safety. This will be a particularly relevant consideration in outdoor, remote or otherwise non-traditional locations.

• permits participants meaningfully to participate in the ceremony

The location should allow those required to be present to engage with the ceremony, including being able to understand the proceedings, in particular the expression of consent to marry. Locations in which this is materially impeded will not be compatible with a dignified wedding.

• minimises risk of any distraction that could have reasonably been foreseen and prevented.   

The location should ensure that the focus remains on the commitment to marriage that is being made by the couple. It should, therefore, take place in an environment which is not subject to undue distraction or interruption.

Proposed supporting standard to ensure a dignified location

A dignified location is one which permits participants to attend safely, permits participants meaningfully to participate in the ceremony and minimised risk of any distraction that could have reasonably been foreseen and prevented.

Dignified Ceremony

The Government proposes that a dignified ceremony is one which enables those involved to:

• focus on the proceedings

The ceremony should be structured in a way that allows the couple, witnesses and the officiant to focus on the core elements of the ceremony, in particular the expression of consent to marry.

• treat the occasion with respect

The form and conduct of the ceremony should reflect the seriousness of marriage as a lifelong legal and personal commitment. It does not require the ceremony to be sombre or lacking personalisation, but it should support an understanding of the importance of the commitment being entered into.

• avoid the risk of making marriage appear trivial or lacking in significance.  

The ceremony should not include elements that risk undermining or subordinating the act of marriage to other activities. While ceremonies may include light‑hearted or personal features, these should remain consistent with the overall dignity of the occasion.

Proposed supporting standard to ensure a dignified ceremony

A dignified ceremony should allow those involved to focus on the proceedings and treat the occasion with respect. It should not risk making marriage appear trivial or lacking in significance.

Stage 3: Factors which the officiant must take into account

Factors for assessing whether a location is dignified

To support officiants in discharging their legal duty, we propose that they should have regard to the following list of factors when assessing whether a location is dignified. These are intended to guide, but not determine, the officiant’s decision would rest with the officiant on a case-by-case basis.

Proposed factors for assessing whether a location is dignified

• Separateness from other activities: whether the location can be sufficiently controlled so that the ceremony is distinct from other simultaneous activities and protected from interruption or distraction, so the couple can focus on the proceedings.

• Privacy: whether the setting provides an appropriate level of privacy and allows the couple to focus on the ceremony without undue intrusion.

• Supporting the officiant’s professional duty: the extent to which the location enables the officiant to conduct their work to a high professional standard, reflecting the social, cultural and legal significance of marriage.

• Personal significance: the personal meaning of the location to the couple, which may support, but not determine, the assessment of whether a location is dignified.

These factors are intended to help officiants distinguish between locations that can support a dignified wedding and those that are unlikely to do so. To ensure that the location is capable of reflecting the dignity and significance of marriage, the Government is seeking views on whether these factors achieve this aim and whether there are any additional factors that should be considered by officiants. In particular, we consider that the ordinary use of the location will be relevant to whether the ceremony can be conducted with the focus and respect required for marriage.

Locations characterised by unavoidable interruption or distraction, such as nightclubs during normal operation or stadiums during live sporting events, will not meet the proposed standard. Settings that require participants to focus on another activity during the ceremony, such as skydiving, white-water rafting, rollercoasters or other amusement rides, will also fall short of the standard. In these circumstances, participants would not be able to engage properly with the ceremony, meaning that the legal requirements for marriage might not be met, such as expressing consent to marry in the presence of two witnesses. It is non-negotiable that the location should enable the couple clearly to understand each other when expressing consent to marry and for this to be witnessed, in order for the officiant to fulfil their duty to ensure the ceremony meets the legal requirements.

The framework is not, however, intended to exclude all non-traditional locations. For example, a tethered hot-air balloon or a busy public beach may require careful consideration but could be permitted provided the officiant is satisfied that the ceremony can be conducted safely, seriously and without avoidable distraction.

Factors for assessing whether a location is safe

In addition to the duty to uphold the dignity and significance of marriage and in line with the Law Commission’s recommendations, the Government proposes that the officiant must consider the following factors when assessing the suitability of a location in order to ensure the safety of the environment.

Proposed factors for assessing whether a location is safe

• Personal safety, accessibility and physical condition: any safety risks or practical constraints arising from the condition and site of the location.

• Environmental risks: any foreseeable risks which could disrupt proceedings, including weather or unsuitable terrain and the extent to which these risks can be mitigated through appropriate contingency measures.

• Legal compliance: whether all necessary permissions have been obtained from the landowner or relevant authority and that they have met any legal obligations they may have under the general law.

The officiant should approve a location only where they are satisfied that it supports the dignity of the ceremony, is safe for participants and allows the legal requirements for marriage to be met. Where those requirements are not met, the officiant should help the couple to identify a more suitable location or decline to officiate at the proposed location.

Factors for assessing whether a ceremony is dignified

As with wedding locations, the Government proposes a list of factors to help officiants when agreeing the form of the ceremony with the couple.

Proposed factors for assessing whether a ceremony is dignified

• Presentation: whether the personal presentation, including the attire, of the officiant and the couple upholds the dignity of the occasion.

• Behaviour: the expected behaviour both of the officiant and/or another person leading the service and of the couple themselves during the ceremony.

• Control of the environment: whether the officiant is able to maintain appropriate control over the immediate environment, including preventing interruptions or distractions during the ceremony.

• Personal meaning: whether elements of personal meaning support the ceremony.

These factors are intended to help officiants distinguish between ceremonies that uphold the dignity of marriage and those that do not. The Government is seeking views on whether they achieve this aim and whether there are any other factors that officiants should consider when assessing the form of a ceremony. For example, if a couple wanted the ceremony to be performed as a parody or comedic sketch, with the expression of consent treated as part of the performance, this would not meet the proposed standard. In those circumstances, the ceremony would not reflect the seriousness required for the legal act of marriage. The factors are intended to support officiants in making that judgement on a case-by-case basis.

Finally, the Government is considering whether specific restrictions should apply to the ceremony to help preserve the dignity and significance of marriage. In particular, views are sought on whether the framework should impose the following:

Proposed restrictions to apply to the ceremony

• That no food or drink, including alcohol, is to be casually/recreationally consumed during the ceremony. This would not preclude ceremonial, belief or religious rituals that involve food and drink, nor would it apply to necessary food or drink for children and infants, or for those who require food or drink to manage medical needs.

• The ceremony must not include elements that are gimmick-based or trivialising and which would detract from the significance of marriage as a legal act. This would not preclude the inclusion of light-hearted elements such as a reading from Shakespeare, a sing-along to Sweet Caroline or other similar contributions, so long as these remain within the bounds of dignity and do not amount to excessive or inappropriate displays.

Question 8

Do you agree with the Government’s proposed new dignity framework to support officiants in their legal duty to ensure that weddings are dignified? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Question 9

Do you agree with our proposed overarching dignity standard?

• The wedding enables the couple to express free and informed consent to marry, in a manner that is intelligible.
• The wedding is not undermined by distraction or trivialisation.
• The wedding reflects the significance and seriousness of marriage as a major life event and lifelong commitment. 

Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Question 10

Do you agree with the proposed supporting standard that will support the officiant to agree a dignified wedding location?

• The wedding location permits participants to attend safely.
• The wedding location permits participants meaningfully to participate in the ceremony.
• The wedding location minimises risk of any distraction that could have reasonably been foreseen and prevented.

Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Question 11

Do you agree with the proposed supporting standard that will support the officiant to agree a dignified wedding ceremony?

• The ceremony should focus on the proceedings
• The ceremony should treat the occasion with respect
• The ceremony should avoid the risk of making marriage appear trivial or lacking in significance.  

Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Question 12

Do you agree with the proposed factors that an officiant should consider when making a decision about whether a location is dignified? Please give reasons or suggestions for additional factors, in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Question 13

Do you agree with the factors that officiants should consider when determining whether a wedding ceremony will be dignified? Please give reasons or suggestions for additional factors, in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Question 14

Do you think there should be restrictions on the consumption of food or drink, including alcohol, during a wedding ceremony? Please explain your reasoning in the text box, including where any restrictions should apply and whether any such restrictions should distinguish between “recreational” consumption and food or drink used for religious, non-religious belief, ceremonial or medical reasons.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Question 15

Do you think there should be specific restrictions on gimmick-based or trivialising acts or elements within a wedding ceremony? Please explain your reasoning in the text box, including how any such restrictions should be balanced against personal expression and light-hearted or culturally meaningful elements.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Ceremony content

Distinguishing between belief and civil ceremonies

Under the current law, religious content in civil ceremonies is tightly restricted. Religious services are prohibited and couples may only include songs, music, or readings that contain incidental references to a god or deity where these are used in an essentially non-religious context.

The Law Commission found that this rule can be difficult to apply in practice. Registrars may be required to identify religious content with which they are unfamiliar, including in songs, readings or cultural material. This can lead to inconsistent decisions and may prevent couples from including content that is culturally or personally meaningful.

The Law Commission recommended relaxing the current restrictions on religious content in civil ceremonies. In particular, the Law Commission recommended that:

• Officiants leading civil ceremonies must clearly identify themselves or the ceremony as civil;
• The expression of consent should not include religious or non-religious belief elements;
• Civil officiants should not be required to participate in religious or non-religious belief elements; and
• Civil ceremonies should be permitted to include individual religious or non-religious belief elements but should not include a full religious or non-religious belief service.

The Government welcomes the Law Commission’s desire to enable civil ceremonies to reflect more fully the beliefs, cultures and personal identities of couples. This may be particularly relevant for couples from different faith or belief backgrounds and same-sex couples. The Government recognises that there may be merit in allowing greater flexibility within civil ceremonies, while maintaining a clear distinction from religious and non-religious belief ceremonies. However, the Government considers that further views are needed on how this distinction should operate in practice, including how individual belief elements might be accommodated without changing the essential character of a civil ceremony.

Permissible belief content

There is a need to distinguish between a full belief service, which should not be permitted and individual elements of belief content, which may be. This can be understood as allowing individual “ingredients”, but not the full “recipe”, or a combination of elements that, taken together, would amount to a recognisable religious or non-religious belief service. Any such content should be included at the discretion of the officiant, who will be responsible for ensuring that the ceremony remains clearly identifiable as civil and does not amount to a recognisable belief service. For example:

• A civil ceremony could include the exchange of rings or a Bible reading, but it should not replicate the full structure of an Anglican wedding service, such as following the service in the Book of Common Prayer.
• A couple could incorporate elements such as breaking the glass or sharing wine, but should not recreate a full Jewish wedding ceremony, including the structured sequence of blessings or a rabbi-led service.
• A civil ceremony could include the exchange of garlands but should not replicate a full Hindu wedding ceremony involving a sacred fire and a structured sequence of ritual steps.

The Government is committed to ensuring that views from all faith and belief groups are heard and reflected throughout this consultation and subsequent reforms. The Government is therefore seeking views from religious and non-religious belief organisations, in particular, on how this distinction could potentially operate in practice. We welcome views about which elements may appropriately be included in a civil ceremony and which elements should remain outside the scope.

These views will inform the development of clear standards to support civil officiants in possibly exercising this discretion. The Government recognises, however, that it will not be possible to define this exhaustively. This reflects the diversity of religious and non-religious belief practices, as well as the potential for new or evolving belief groups to emerge over time.

State-appointed officiants

The Government is aware of concerns that registrars, as employees of the state, should not be expected to lead or participate in religious or non-religious belief elements within a civil ceremony. Such participation could also be perceived as state endorsement of particular beliefs. The Government therefore proposes going further than the Law Commission’s recommendation. While the Law Commission proposed that registrars should be able, but not required, to participate in belief elements, the Government considers that a stronger restriction is appropriate for registrars employed by local authorities.

The Government therefore proposes that registrars should not lead or participate in religious or non-religious belief elements in a civil ceremony. Couples would still be able to include permitted belief elements, provided they are led by the couple, a guest or a third party. This restriction would not apply to independent officiants or maritime officiants, who would not be state appointed.

Question 16

Should religious or non-religious belief content be permitted in a civil ceremony, provided that the ceremony does not replicate, or amount to, a full religious or non-religious belief service? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided

If you have answered “yes”, the Government has given examples of individual religious or non-religious belief elements, such as the exchange of rings or a Bible reading, that may be suitable for inclusion in a civil ceremony and examples of combinations of elements that may amount to a full religious or non-religious belief service. Are there any further examples that you think would help illustrate this distinction between service and belief elements in practice? Please provide reasons where possible.

• [Free text]

Question 17

Do you agree that state-employed officiants, i.e., registrars, should not be permitted to lead or participate in religious or non-religious belief content? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Chapter 5 – Specific Locations for Weddings

The reforms proposed in this consultation would allow couples to marry in a much wider range of locations than is currently possible in England and Wales. The dignity framework discussed in the previous chapter would apply to all weddings, regardless of where they take place. The Government considers, however, that some types of location raise additional practical and regulatory issues which warrant further consideration.

This chapter therefore seeks views on pre-authorisation of venues, weddings in private homes and weddings on water. As part of the proposed reforms which seek to allow weddings to take place in a wider range of locations, the Government agrees with the Law Commission that the existing requirement for “open doors” is impractical, unnecessary and not in line with the objective of these reforms to expand the locations where couples can choose to marry.

Pre-authorised venues

Under the current framework, local authorities maintain lists of premises that have been approved to host civil wedding ceremonies. Approval is granted in accordance with the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005 and the Registrar General’s guidance.^{[footnote 50]} It lasts for a minimum of three years and is subject to conditions, including that the premises must be available for inspection by the authority at all reasonable times. Approval may be withdrawn where the approval period has expired or conditions are no longer being met. Civil weddings at register offices do not require location approval.

Places of worship that are not Anglican, Jewish or Quaker must also seek approval if they wish to host legally binding weddings, although the process is different from that for approved premises for civil weddings.

The Law Commission recommended that, as weddings law would no longer be based on regulating buildings, there should no longer be a requirement for venues to be pre-approved. Under their proposed model, officiants would decide whether the location of each wedding they conduct is suitable, including considering the safety and dignity of the location.

The Government agrees that the law should no longer require weddings to take place in pre-approved venues. However, it considers that there may be value in allowing venues to apply voluntarily for pre-authorisation as suitable wedding locations.

This would enable a list of established venues to be available. It could support couples who do not have a specific or unique location in mind and improve the efficiency of the system by avoiding the need for repeated assessments of the same venue, particularly where that venue hosts weddings on a regular basis (subject to the officiant retaining discretion to conduct a site visit if required).

The Government proposes that should venues choose to apply for pre-authorisation, they would need to conform to the dignity standard and be safe. The officiant would still have the option to visit and assess the pre-authorised venue if they wanted to. In keeping with the current guidance for the approval of premises for marriages and civil partnerships, we propose that authorisation should be granted for a fixed period, with renewal required and that the regulator should have the power to revoke authorisation where the criteria are no longer being met.

Question 18

Do you agree that wedding venues should be able to apply for pre-authorisation should they choose to? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Question 19

Do you agree that venue pre-authorisation should be subject to a fixed period and to renewal requirements and revocation where the conditions of approval are no longer being met? You may wish to give reasons in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided

If you answered “Yes”, what should the fixed period be? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• 1 year
• 2 years
• 3 years
• Longer than 3 years
• [Free text]

Weddings in private homes

Under the current law, weddings may take place in private homes only in limited circumstances. Jewish and Quaker weddings may take place anywhere, including in private homes. Anglican weddings are generally required to take place in a church or chapel, although they can take place in a private home by special licence. Civil weddings and most other religious weddings can only take place in a private home in specific exceptional circumstances, such as where one party is housebound or at the end of life. Otherwise, weddings in private homes are not generally permitted.

The Law Commission recommended that weddings should be permitted to take place in all private homes, provided the location is safe and dignified. It considered that this would increase choice and flexibility for couples, reflecting the fact that, for some couples and communities, the home may be a meaningful, accessible or affordable place to marry.

The Government understands the significant reasons why some couples may wish to marry in a private home. For some, the home may be a place of particular personal or family meaning. For others, it may offer a more accessible, practical or affordable setting, particularly where one person has a disability or would otherwise face difficulties attending another venue.

The Government also recognises that many religious and non-religious belief organisations may wish to conduct weddings in private homes according to their beliefs, including some Christian denominations, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans and Humanists. Allowing these groups to do so may reduce the circumstances in which couples have a “religious-only” wedding that is not legally recognised.

At the same time, the Government is mindful of the varying nature of private homes. A private home may not always be a neutral environment and may not offer the same visibility as a public or commercial venue. This could make it harder to identify forced, predatory, sham marriages or wider abuse. The Government notes that the Law Commission did not find evidence of increased forced, predatory or sham marriages in contexts where weddings in private homes are already permitted, including Jewish and Quaker weddings and in jurisdictions such as Scotland and Guernsey. Nevertheless, the Government is clear that increasing choice for couples must not come at the cost of the safety of those getting married.

The Government is therefore minded to permit weddings in private homes, but only if it is satisfied that robust safeguards are in place to protect those getting married. These would sit alongside the protections already proposed elsewhere in this consultation, including the dignity framework, the new two-stage preliminaries process and the proper authorisation, training and accountability of officiants.

In particular, the Government welcomes views on whether further protections are needed to guard against forced, predatory and sham marriages or abuse and to ensure that private homes are safe and suitable locations for wedding ceremonies.

Permitting ceremonies in private homes would not require religious or non-religious belief organisations to conduct weddings in those settings. While the law would become less restrictive to meet the needs and wishes of a wider range of groups, religious and non-religious belief officiants would remain able to impose their own requirements on their ceremonies, in accordance with their beliefs.

Question 20

Are there other safeguards required to (1) protect against forced, predatory, or sham marriages and (2) ensure the safety of ceremonies conducted in private homes? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free Text]

Weddings on Water

Under the current law, weddings cannot generally take place on moving vessels or in open water. Civil weddings may, however, take place on board permanently moored vessels, where those vessels have been confirmed as approved premises under the Approved Premises Regulations.^{[footnote 51]} This means that some vessels, such as permanently moored historic ships, may already host legally binding civil weddings where they meet the requirements for approved premises.

In relation to legally binding religious weddings under the current law, only Jewish and Quaker weddings are not subject to any location requirements or restrictions, which means that they can take place anywhere in England and Wales. On the other hand, most Anglican weddings must take place in a church or chapel and other religious weddings must take place in registered buildings, this means both rules effectively exclude weddings on vessels. ^{[footnote 52]}

The Law Commission recommended that, as part of wider reform to allow weddings to take place in a broader range of locations, weddings should be permitted in the territorial seas and inland waters, as well as aboard cruise ships in international waters.

Weddings in territorial seas / inland waters

Territorial seas are those that extend 12 nautical miles outward from the coast of England and Wales.^{[footnote 53]} Inland waters include any water within the coast of England and Wales, such as rivers, lakes and bays. England and Wales have sovereignty over these waters, including the ability to make and enforce laws governing weddings. Other countries, such as Italy, Australia and New Zealand already offer legal weddings in their territorial seas and inland waters.

The Law Commission considered that permitting weddings in the territorial sea, coastal waters and inland waters would be consistent with its wider recommendation that weddings should be able to take place in any location. The Law Commission considered that weddings in these settings may be personally meaningful for some couples, including those with connections to the sea or to particular waterways.

If permitted, weddings in territorial seas and inland waters would include weddings on, for example (but not limited to) canal boats, narrowboats, river cruise boats (such as those on the Thames) and historic or decommissioned ships. It could also include larger vessels on coastal waters, such as chartered passenger ferries and yachts or sailing boats, which are popular in many coastal areas such as Cornwall, Anglesey and Merseyside.

The Government agrees in principle that weddings should be permitted to take place in inland waters, the territorial sea and other coastal waters adjacent to England and Wales. The Government is clear, however, that weddings taking place on water should be subject to the same core legal requirements as weddings taking place on land, including completion of the preliminaries process, safeguards against forced, predatory and sham marriages, attendance by an authorised officiant and compliance with the proposed dignity framework.

Marriage is a significant legal and personal commitment. The Government does not consider that permitting weddings on inland waters or in the territorial sea should in any way trivialise the act of entering into a marriage, or diminish its seriousness, legal status or social importance. These proposals are to give couples greater choice about the setting in which they solemnise their marriage, not to undermine the gravity of the commitment being made. The dignity framework is therefore central to the Government’s approach. The Government seeks views on whether any additional safeguards are needed to ensure that weddings taking place on water are safe, accessible and consistent with the dignity of marriage.

Question 21

Do you agree that weddings should be able to take place in territorial seas and inland waters, subject to the assurance that safety and dignity are maintained? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Weddings in international waters

International waters are areas of the sea beyond any country’s territorial waters, generally more than 12 nautical miles from the coast and are not under the jurisdiction of any single state. Some cruise ship companies already offer weddings in international waters. These weddings are possible where the ship is registered in a country whose law permits weddings at sea, such as Malta, Bermuda or the Bahamas. Under the law of England and Wales, weddings in international waters are not permitted at present.

The Law Commission recommended that civil weddings in international waters should be permitted only on-board cruise ships. It also recommended that these weddings should take place in the presence of a maritime officiant, which is a new type of officiant who would be authorised to conduct weddings in international waters. Further detail on maritime officiants is set out in Chapter 6.

Their proposal is that couples could marry on a UK-registered cruise ship (with a port of choice in England and Wales) in international waters anywhere in the world and such marriages would be valid under the law of England and Wales. ^{[footnote 54]} The Law Commission considered that weddings in international waters should be limited to cruise ships because these vessels have professional crews, appropriate safety arrangements and the ability to confirm the location of the vessel.

The Government agrees in principle that civil weddings should be permitted in international waters on board cruise ships. As with weddings on land and in inland or territorial waters, weddings in international waters would be subject to the same core legal requirements. This would include completion of the preliminaries process, including safeguards against forced, predatory and sham marriages, giving notice in-person in England or Wales, attendance by an authorised officiant and compliance with the proposed dignity framework.

The Government also agrees with the Law Commission that weddings in international waters should be limited to cruise ships for the reasons outlined above. The Government considers that this proposal would increase choice and flexibility for couples, while being capable of maintaining appropriate safeguards, safety and dignity. It may also contribute to the wider economic benefits anticipated from weddings law reform.

Question 22

Do you agree that weddings should be permitted in international waters on UK-registered cruise ships with a port of choice in England and Wales, provided they abide with the civil preliminaries process? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Chapter 6 – Role of Officiants

This chapter considers the role of officiants under the proposed new officiant-based system and the types of officiants who should be able to conduct legally binding weddings.

The Government proposes that the reformed framework should recognise two broad categories of officiant:

• Civil officiants, including registration officers, independent officiants and maritime officiants.
• Belief officiants, including Anglican clergy and officiants nominated by religious or non-religious belief organisations (referred to as “nominated officiants”).

This chapter seeks views on the proposed legal duties of officiants, including the role of officiants in upholding the dignity and significance of marriage, the eligibility criteria for organisations seeking to nominate belief officiants and whether independent and maritime officiants should be able to conduct legally binding weddings. The authorisation, regulation, monitoring and training of officiants is considered in the next chapter.

The role of officiants

Under the current buildings-based system, the role of the person overseeing the marriage and ensuring that it is properly registered varies significantly between different groups and types of wedding. Anglican weddings are overseen by a “Clerk in Holy Orders”. ^{[footnote 55]} Jewish and Quaker weddings are legally recognised, but do not require a specific person to officiate under the law. In religious weddings that are not Anglican, Jewish or Quaker weddings, for the first year after a place of worship is registered, a registrar must oversee all weddings held there. After the first year, weddings may be overseen either by a registrar or by an authorised person appointed by that place of worship.

Civil weddings must be overseen by a superintendent registrar and a registrar. Registrars and superintendent registrars are local government officials who conduct legally binding marriage ceremonies and ensure that all statutory requirements are met. Authorised persons or registrars are currently responsible for ensuring that the legal requirements of marriages that take place in a registered building are met. This includes the marriage preliminaries, the signing of the marriage schedule and the return of the marriage schedule to the local register office.^{[footnote 56]}

Building on the Law Commission’s recommendations, the Government proposes that all officiants should agree the form of ceremony with the couple, while being subject to a clear set of legal duties. Under the reformed system, all officiants would be required to:

• Ensure that both parties freely express consent to marry each other;
• Report suspicions of a sham marriage;
• Ensure that the other legal requirements of the ceremony are met;
• Ensure that the schedule or marriage document is signed;
• Uphold the dignity and significance of marriage; and
• Consider the guidance issued by the regulator in exercising their duties.

The Government considers that these duties largely reflect responsibilities already carried out by those who solemnise or register marriages under the current framework. However, setting them out clearly will make the role of officiants more transparent and support greater consistency across different types of wedding.

The officiant’s role in upholding dignity

The Government proposes that all officiants should have a specific legal duty to uphold the dignity and significance of marriage. This is an area where the Government proposes to depart from the Law Commission’s recommendations.

The Government considers that this duty is necessary because, under an officiant-based system, weddings would be able to take place in a wider range of locations and in a wider range of forms. Currently, safeguards relating to dignity only exist for weddings on authorised premises. The Government proposes to extend these safeguards, placing clear responsibilities on officiants conducting weddings of all types and in all locations. The proposed duty would require officiants to apply the dignity framework discussed in Chapter 4.

As these reforms would move the focus of the law towards the officiant, rather than the venue where the wedding takes place, officiants would be responsible for ensuring that the proposed location is suitable before the wedding takes place. Where the location is not pre-authorised, the Government proposes that officiants should ordinarily conduct a site visit or take appropriate steps to assess whether the location upholds the dignity and significance of marriage referring to the dignity framework. Where the officiant is satisfied that the chosen location is suitable, they would be able to conduct the wedding there.

The officiant would also agree the form of ceremony with the couple, applying the dignity framework to those plans. The officiant would need to be satisfied, before the ceremony takes place, that the proposed ceremony complies with the legal requirements for the relevant type of wedding. Further detail on the rules relating to ceremony content is set out in Chapter 7.

The Government recognises that the overwhelming majority of weddings currently take place in a dignified manner. It does not expect concerns about the dignity or significance of wedding ceremonies to arise routinely under the reformed system. However, where reforms allow weddings to take place in a wider range of locations and in more flexible forms, it is important that the legal framework contains proportionate safeguards.

In practice, the Government expects that many weddings will continue to take place in established venues commonly used for weddings, such as register offices, approved premises and places of worship. In those cases, the assessment required of an officiant is likely to be straightforward. A more detailed assessment is more likely to be needed where a couple proposes a new, unusual or highly personal location or ceremony, or where the officiant has not previously conducted a wedding at that place.

The Government therefore considers that the proposed legal duty would operate as a measured safeguard rather than a routine requirement.

Question 23

Do you agree that all officiants should have a legal duty to uphold the dignity and significance of marriage? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Types of Officiant

Belief Officiants

Under the current law, different types of religious organisations are subject to different rules about how their officiants can conduct legal weddings:

• Anglican clergy can conduct legally binding weddings automatically by virtue of their office as Clerks in Holy Orders.
• Jewish and Quaker weddings do not require a specific individual to be authorised to solemnise a marriage, with the only requirement being that weddings proceed according to their respective usages (i.e. their customs or practices).
• Other religious organisations may only conduct legally binding weddings where an authorised person has been appointed, or in the presence of a registrar, in respect of a registered place of worship.^{[footnote 57]} The place of worship must have been registered for at least one year before such an appointment can be made.^{[footnote 58]}
• Non-religious belief organisations are not currently able to conduct legally binding weddings.

This section sets out the Government’s proposed changes to these rules to allow religious and non-religious belief organisations (i.e. nominating organisations) to nominate officiants to conduct legally binding weddings.

To start with, all belief officiants (covering religious and non-religious belief organisations) would be required to act as nominated officiants on behalf of a nominating organisation in order to conduct a legally binding wedding.

Anglican Clergy

The Government agrees with the Law Commission’s recommendation that Anglican weddings should continue to be conducted as they are now. It recognises the unique role of the Church of England and the Church of Wales in relation to marriage and has no plans to alter with these roles.

Nominated Officiants

The Government is moving from a system based primarily on registered buildings towards one based on authorised officiants. Under this system, a clear and consistent framework is required to determine how organisations may nominate officiants to conduct legally binding weddings.

In line with the Law Commission’s proposals, the Government proposes that religious and non‑religious belief organisations should be able to nominate officiants where they meet a set of defined criteria. These criteria are intended to ensure that genuine belief organisations can nominate suitable officiants while preventing inappropriate or poorly governed organisations from conducting legally binding weddings.

This section considers, in turn, the proposed definitions of religious and non-religious belief organisations, the required connection between an organisation’s beliefs and the solemnisation of marriage, minimum establishment and household requirements and whether any express exclusions should apply.

Under these proposed reforms, places of worship would no longer need to be registered for weddings under the Marriage Act 1949.^{[footnote 59]} As a result, certification by the Registrar General under the Places of Worship Act 1855 would no longer be needed to allow religious weddings (other than Anglican, Jewish or Quaker weddings) to take place in those buildings.^{[footnote 60]}

The Government recognises that the proposals in this consultation remove the core modern day purpose for the Registrar General to certify places of worship. Therefore, the Government will review the Registrar General’s certification role and the Places of Worship Act 1855 as work on reform develops.

Definition of “religious belief organisations”

The current definition of religion for the purposes of solemnising marriages derives from the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in R (Hodkin) v Registrar General.^{[footnote 61]} This described religion as:

“a spiritual or non-secular belief system, held by a group of adherents, which claims to explain mankind’s place in the universe and relationship with the infinite, and to teach its adherents how they are to live their lives in conformity with the spiritual understanding associated with the belief system… Such a belief system may or may not involve belief in a supreme being, but it does involve a belief that there is more to be understood about mankind’s nature and relationship to the universe than can be gained from the senses or from science.”

The Government believes retaining this description would provide continuity with the current law and give certainty about the types of organisations that would fall within its scope. As the Law Commission noted, this description has proved capable of accommodating a wide range of religious belief organisations under the existing law. For example, smaller Pagan and interfaith groups have been able to register places of worship under the current framework.^{[footnote 62]}

There is also evidence that the description is not overly permissive. The Charity Commission has applied Hodkin’s principles, alongside other considerations, to determine whether organisations meet the definition of religion for the purposes of charity law. In doing so, it has excluded a number of groups. For example, in 2016 it concluded that Jediism (a group based on the “Star Wars” film series) lacked “the necessary spiritual or non-secular” element to constitute a religious group.^{[footnote 63]}

Definition of “non-religious belief organisations”

Given that the proposed definition of religious groups refers to “spiritual or non-secular belief systems” it cannot be applied directly to non-religious belief organisations. In addition, feedback to the Law Commission’s consultation indicated that replicating the features of the definition of a religion would be neither appropriate nor desirable for non-religious belief organisations, which may operate differently from religious groups.

The Law Commission proposed that eligibility for non-religious belief organisations to nominate officiants should be limited to those:

“whose sole or principal purpose is the advancement of a system of non-religious beliefs which have a level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance that brings them within the meaning of article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The Government agrees with the Law Commission’s recommendation to use this definition for non-religious belief organisations. Although it differs from the proposed definition of religious groups, it performs a similar function by accommodating genuine non-religious belief organisations without creating an overly permissive test.

The requirement that beliefs demonstrate “cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance” reflects criteria established in case law (known as the “Grainger criteria”) for determining what constitutes a protected philosophical belief in the workplace under the Equality Act 2010.^{[footnote 64]} This requirement will safeguard against parody or insincere organisations from being able to conduct legally binding weddings.

In addition, the “sole or principal purpose” requirement would exclude organisations established primarily for other purposes, such as one set up solely for the provision of commercial wedding services. Similar approaches are reflected in the law of other jurisdictions, including Scotland and Ireland.^{[footnote 65]}

Connection between beliefs and marriage

The Law Commission proposed that, in addition to meeting the relevant description, belief organisations should only be eligible to nominate officiants where “it would be a manifestation of an individual’s religion or beliefs to have a wedding officiated at by an officiant nominated by that organisation.” ^{[footnote 66]}

The Government considers that this requirement provides an important safeguard, as recognised by the Law Commission, because it would act as a “further important filter against joke or bogus organisations”.^{[footnote 67]}

In practice, this would require a “close and direct connection” between the organisation’s belief system and the solemnisation of marriage.^{[footnote 68]} This would help ensure that only organisations for whom marriage is a meaningful expression of their beliefs are able to nominate officiants. It would also exclude organisations established primarily to provide commercial wedding services and organisations whose beliefs do not meaningfully encompass marriage, such as animal welfare charities or sports clubs.

Minimum Establishment Period and Number of Households

Minimum Establishment Period

The Law Commission recommended that organisations should be required to have been established for a minimum time before nominating officiants, leaving the length of that period for the Government to determine.

The Government considers that a minimum establishment period would help ensure that organisations have demonstrated sincerity, stability and proper governance before being able to nominate officiants. It would also give newer organisations time to develop arrangements for nominating, training, supporting and, where necessary, removing officiants. The Government proposes that organisations must have existed for a minimum of three years before being able to nominate officiants.

Under the current law, a building must be registered as a place of worship for one year before an authorised person or registrar may conduct a legally binding wedding there.^{[footnote 69]} Internationally, in  Australia an organisation must have existed for three years, while in Ireland the requirement for “secular bodies” to be in existence is five years.^{[footnote 70]}

The Government considers that a period of three years strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring organisations have sufficient time to demonstrate sincerity, stability and proper governance without creating an undue barrier for newer organisations.

Question 24

Do you agree that organisations should have to be established for a minimum of three years before nominating officiants to conduct legal weddings?

• Yes
• No
• Undecided

If you disagree with the three-year minimum period suggested above, what period would you propose having instead?

• None
• 1 Year
• 2 Years
• 4 Years
• 5 Years
• More than 5 Years

If you disagree with the three-year minimum period and chose a different period, please explain why below:

• [Free Text]

Minimum Number of Households

Under the current law, a religious building must have at least 20 households certifying that the building is their usual place of worship for it to host a legally binding religious wedding.^{[footnote 71]} The Law Commission proposed retaining this figure as the minimum number of households that must be members of a belief organisation before it can nominate officiants to conduct legally binding weddings. It considered this would underline the importance of community and continuity, given that requirement has been the law since 1837.^{[footnote 72]}

The Government agrees, in principle, that there should be a minimum number of households. However, it shares concerns raised by stakeholders, including the Church of England and Humanists UK, that 20 households is too low in the context of a reformed system.

Under the proposed reforms, meeting the threshold would allow an organisation to nominate officiants who would have the ability to conduct weddings anywhere in England and Wales, rather than in a single registered place of worship. The Government considers that, in this context, 20 households no longer represents a sufficient level of support. The population of England and Wales is around four times larger than it was in 1837, when the current threshold was introduced, meaning that 20 households now represent a much lower relative level of support.^{[footnote 73]} In a digital age it is also considerably easier for small numbers of individuals, with no geographical proximity, to organise quickly around a single idea or belief.

For these reasons, the Government provisionally proposes a minimum threshold of 100 households. The Government is open to views on a different figure and would be particularly interested in the potential impact of this threshold on smaller belief organisations, including those whose membership is in decline.

The Government also agrees with the Law Commission that falling below the threshold should not automatically result in the loss of an existing authorisation. However, where an organisation no longer meets the threshold, it would not be able to nominate or re‑appoint officiants. ^{[footnote 74]} Transitional arrangements would be put in place to allow organisations that can conduct weddings under the current law time to make the necessary changes to meet the new requirement.

Question 25

Do you agree that for a belief organisation to be able to nominate officiants to carry out legally binding weddings the minimum number of households who are members of that organisation should be 100?

• Yes
• No
• Undecided

If you disagree with the minimum number of households being 100, what number would you propose having instead?

• 1-19 households
• 20-49 households
• 50-74 households
• 75-99 households
• 100+ households

If you chose a different number, please explain your reasoning in the text box:

• [Free Text]

Express Exclusions

The Law Commission did not recommend creating an explicit list of organisations that would be excluded from being able to nominate officiants. It considered that bodies such as political parties and trade unions would fail to meet the definitions proposed above and therefore already fall outside the proposed eligibility criteria.

The Government is considering whether express exclusions would nevertheless be helpful. It is clear that organisations should not be excluded solely because they hold minority views or support particular political causes. However, express exclusions may provide clarity in edge cases, for example where the boundary between political ideology and a belief system is unclear.

The Government is interested in views on whether express exclusions should be included in new laws stating which organisations can nominate officiants to carry out legally binding weddings. If they were introduced, they could include exclusions for political parties, trade unions, chambers of commerce and organisations that promote unlawful purposes (such as terrorist organisations). While the Government agrees with the Law Commission that such organisations would not meet the definition and eligibility criteria being proposed, it is open to views on whether express exclusions could nevertheless provide additional clarity and reassurance.

Question 26

Should the Government have express exclusions on certain groups being precluded from being able to nominate officiants as belief organisations?

• Yes
• No
• Undecided

If yes, please tick which of the following groups should be expressly excluded. Please explain your reasoning in the text box:

• Political Parties
• Trade Unions
• Chambers of Commerce
• Organisations that promote unlawful purposes
• Other (please state)
• [Free Text]

If you disagree that there should be express exclusions, please explain your reasoning in the text box:

• [Free Text]

Civil Officiants

As outlined earlier in this chapter, the Law Commission proposed two main categories of officiant: civil officiants and belief officiants. Within the category of civil officiants, there are registration officers and, if permitted, independent officiants and maritime officiants. This section seeks views on independent and maritime officiants specifically.

Registration Officers

The role of registrars and superintendent registrars in relation to conducting legal weddings will not be significantly changing. The main changes would be that they will be able to offer services in a broader range of locations; and that only one registration officer will be required to officiate at a civil wedding. The Law Commission proposed that they should continue to be authorised and regulated by local authorities as per the current arrangements. The Government agrees with this proposal.

Independent officiants

Independent officiants would be neither state-appointed registration officers nor officiants acting on behalf of a religious or non-religious belief organisation. Evidence suggests that currently around 1,000 independent celebrants conduct approximately 10,000 non-legally binding wedding ceremonies each year.^{[footnote 75]} These independent celebrants currently conduct wedding ceremonies that may be meaningful to couples but are not legally binding under the current law. Couples must therefore complete a separate legal ceremony to be married in law.

The Law Commission considered how independent officiants could fit within a reformed weddings system but did not make a specific recommendation on whether they should be able to conduct legally binding weddings. It estimated that, if independent officiants were able to, they could conduct around 50,000 weddings each year, representing 22.6% of the market.^{[footnote 76]} Ultimately, the Law Commission concluded that this was a matter for Government.

Government position

The Government has taken the initial view that independent officiants should be permitted to conduct legally binding weddings as part of a reformed weddings framework. This would create a more flexible and inclusive system, provide greater choice for couples and support a level playing field between different types of ceremony. The Government considers that there are strong reasons for permitting independent officiants to conduct legally binding weddings.

Firstly, doing so would align England and Wales with a number of other jurisdictions. Australia, some Canadian provinces and some states in America already permit independent officiants to conduct legal weddings. New Zealand introduced independent officiants in 1976. In Australia, there are currently over 10,000 Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants and in New Zealand there were 4,445 independent celebrants in 2024–25.^{[footnote 77]}

Second, independent officiants would support the Government’s objective of enabling couples to have weddings that are meaningful to them and reflect their values, beliefs and circumstances. This may be particularly important for mixed faith and interfaith couples, who represent around a fifth (21%) of all couples.^{[footnote 78]} Under the current law, religious weddings are generally tied to registered places of worship, although some religious groups already permit interfaith or mixed faith weddings in their buildings. Independent officiants may therefore provide an important option for couples who wish to have a ceremony that incorporates elements from more than one faith or belief tradition, while also being legally recognised.

Thirdly, independent officiants could benefit couples with non-religious, spiritual or personal beliefs who want a meaningful ceremony without affiliating with a specific religious or non-religious belief organisation. The 2021 Census showed increases across England and Wales in the proportion of the population reporting “no religion” from 25.2% in 2011 to 37.2% in 2021.^{[footnote 79]} Independent officiants would therefore provide an additional option within the legal framework, alongside civil weddings and belief ceremonies, reflecting the increasing diversity of the population in England and Wales.

The Government is aware of concerns that independent officiants would be commercial celebrants, rather than state officials or officiants acting on behalf of a religious or non-religious belief organisation.

The Government understands these concerns. However, it does not consider that permitting independent officiants would, in of itself, introduce undue commercialisation into weddings law. Weddings already take place within a largely commercial environment. In 2023, 90% of civil weddings (171,930 weddings) took place within private approved premises and the average cost of a wedding was around £20,000, largely driven by optional services chosen by couples. ^{[footnote 80]} Evidence from a 2020 study found that fees charged by independent officiants for non-legally binding ceremonies are broadly comparable to the charges made by registrars conducting civil weddings in approved premises or Humanist celebrants.^{[footnote 81]}

The Government recognises concerns that independent officiants could lead to inconsistent standards or affect the dignity and significance of marriage. However, independent officiants already conduct many meaningful ceremonies for couples and the sector includes established professional bodies with which the Government has engaged.

Furthermore, under the reformed framework, independent officiants would be brought within a clear system of legal duties and regulation. They would be required to uphold the dignity and significance of marriage, apply the dignity framework and meet the relevant authorisation, training, monitoring and regulatory requirements. They would also not be able to act where there is a conflict of interest such as where they are financially incentivised to recommend a certain location to couples. These safeguards are considered in Chapter 7.

Question 27

Do you agree with allowing independent officiants to conduct legally binding weddings? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Maritime Officiants

As set out in Chapter 5, the Government proposes that legally binding weddings should be able to take place in international waters on board UK-registered cruise ships. This section considers the role of maritime officiants under that framework.

A distinct category of officiant

The Law Commission recommended that weddings in international waters should be conducted by a new category of officiant, known as maritime officiants. The Government agrees that a distinct category of officiant is needed for these weddings, given the specific legal and practical requirements that apply where a wedding takes place at sea.

Maritime officiants would be responsible for ensuring that the legal requirements of the wedding are met. This would include ensuring that the couple has completed the required civil preliminaries, that the parties freely express consent to marry each other, that the marriage schedule or document is signed and that the ceremony is conducted in accordance with the law.

The requirement to ensure that the wedding takes place in international waters is specific to maritime officiants. It means that the officiant would need to have sufficient authority and navigational knowledge to confirm the ship’s location at the time of the ceremony.

Who should be able to act as maritime officiant

The Law Commission recommended that only deck officers should be able to act as maritime officiants, as they have the authority and knowledge needed to meet these requirements. The Government agrees with this approach.

In practice, this would mean a senior crew member responsible for the ship’s operation and navigation. The Government’s preference is that the ship’s captain should act as the maritime officiant wherever possible. However, the Government considers that other deck officers, such as the deputy captain or chief mate, should also be able to act as maritime officiants where necessary for safety or operational reasons. This would provide flexibility while ensuring that the officiant has the required authority and expertise.

They also recommended that maritime officiants should also be able to be authorised as independent officiants should they choose to be. The government agrees with this recommendation as they will be subject to the same oversight.

Legal duties and safeguards

Maritime officiants would be a distinct category of civil officiants responsible for conducting weddings that take place in international waters. They will also be subject to the same requirement to avoid conflicts of interest as independent officiants (see above). Apart from this, maritime officiants will be subject to the same legal duties, dignity framework and safeguarding regime as other officiants.

As with weddings in England and Wales, civil preliminaries would still need to have been completed before the couple could marry. This would include the relevant in-person interview and checks to help identify forced, predatory or sham marriage.

The Government recognises that there may be concerns about forced, predatory and sham marriage on cruise ships given their isolation as a location. However, the reformed system’s checks alongside the proposed officiant duties and training should ensure the right safeguards are in place. The Government would also ensure that this training covered how to identify and respond to suspicions of forced, predatory and sham marriage.

Question 28

Do you agree with allowing maritime officiants to conduct legally binding weddings on international waters on cruise ships registered in the UK? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Question 29

Do you agree that only deck officers should be authorised as maritime officiants, but with a preference for ships captains? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Chapter 7 – Regulation of Officiants

As set out in the previous chapter, it is vital that clear and robust standards are put in place to ensure that weddings are conducted in a safe and dignified manner.

Moving from a buildings-based to an officiant-based system places a greater reliance on the practice and judgement of officiants, given their responsibility to ensure the legal requirements for a wedding are met and that dignity is upheld. Appropriate and proportionate oversight and regulation of officiants is therefore a crucial element of these reforms to ensure high standards are maintained for all weddings.

The Law Commission made several proposals for requirements for the regulation of officiants under the reformed system, which include the following measures:

• High entry requirements to ensure that only “fit and proper” persons are authorised to conduct legally binding weddings.
• Legally binding duties on officiants, including responsibility for upholding the dignity and significance of marriage, covered in Chapter 4.
• Robust enforcement powers, including giving the regulator the ability to suspend or deauthorise officiants who fail to meet required standards.
• Retention of the 28-day notice period to prevent “quickie” weddings.

The Government agrees with these overarching proposals and is seeking views on how regulation could be enhanced in the new system to ensure it is sufficiently robust, such as what is required of officiants and the role of the regulator in providing oversight and training.

The Law Commission proposed that registration officers should continue to be authorised and regulated through local authorities, as per the current arrangements, which the Government is minded to maintain with the addition of the oversight of the central regulator as per the requirements for other officiants.^{[footnote 82]} They also recommended no changes to the oversight of Anglican clergy, with which the Government agrees.

Authorisation of Officiants (Entry Requirements)

The Law Commission recommended that only “fit and proper” persons should be authorised to act as officiants and conduct legally binding weddings. They defined a “fit and proper” person as someone who is of good character, has not been convicted of any offence that the regulator considers incompatible with the role, is at least 18 years old, has undertaken training on the legal aspects of being an officiant and who understands the legal requirements for conducting a legally binding wedding and performing the role.

The Government agrees that these proposals should be adopted as the baseline for all officiants. They are consistent with the approach used in other common law jurisdictions, emphasise the importance of the officiant’s role and provide a clear and uniform standard for nominating organisations which will be responsible for applying the “fit and proper” person test and nominating appropriate officiants to the regulator.^{[footnote 83]}

By way of comparison, in New Zealand independent officiants are required to provide supporting documentation and pass an online test to demonstrate good character, as well as provide four signed letters of support and two separate character referees.^{[footnote 84]} They must also make their services publicly available, thus preventing individuals from marrying only for friends or family. The Government is seeking views on whether the checks to ensure a person is ‘fit and proper’ as part of these reforms should be expanded to include further elements such as these.

A requirement proposed by the Law Commission is that independent and maritime officiants must not act where there is a conflict of interest. The Government agrees with this proposed additional safeguard as it could further address concerns that they might, for example, require a couple to use a particular venue or service (e.g. catering) or accept payments to recommend other services.

Question 30

Do you agree with the definition of ‘fit and proper’ outlined above? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

If you answered “No”, how should the definition of ‘fit and proper’ be expanded to ensure only suitable officiants are nominated? Please explain your reasoning in the text box

• [Free text]

Regulation and Oversight of Officiants

Monitoring of Officiants

The Law Commission proposed that, once authorised, all officiants (excluding Anglican clergy) should be monitored to ensure they remain “fit and proper” and conduct their duties correctly. This would include monitoring compliance with training requirements and providing clear routes through which concerns about conduct can be raised. The Law Commission recommended that the primary responsibility for monitoring nominated officiants should lie with the nominating organisation, although the regulator should have the power to deauthorise nominated officiants where appropriate and if the nominating organisation failed to act.

The Law Commission proposed that there should be a way for complaints about nominated, independent and maritime officiants to be made directly to the regulator, to enable it to be alerted to any problems with their work. It also recommended against requiring periodic renewal of authorisation, on the basis it could create uncertainty for couples about an officiant’s future availability and undermine the potentially lifelong nature of the role.

While the Government agrees with the Law Commission’s broad approach, it considers that there is a need to explore whether additional measures could strengthen oversight in order to identify poor practice quickly and effectively. International approaches suggest a range of additional mechanisms that could be considered in order to support this. For example, in Australia, marriage celebrants are required to complete ongoing professional development each year and are subject to a formal complaints and disciplinary framework. In New Zealand, celebrants are subject to periodic renewal of their authorisation and are expected to engage in ongoing training and professional development, often supported through professional associations.

The Government therefore proposes that all officiants (excluding Anglican clergy) should be required to be re-authorised every five years. This will include confirmation of completion of necessary training and professional development to ensure they remain able to comply with their legal duties and meet their responsibilities as officiants.

Question 31

Do you think there are further measures the Government could introduce, in addition to the monitoring requirements proposed by the Law Commission, to help identify poor practice?

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

If you answered “Yes”, please explain what mechanisms could be implemented.

• [Free text]

Question 32

Do you agree that all officiants (excluding Anglican clergy) should be required periodically to renew their authorisation every 5 years?

• Yes
• No
• Undecided

If you answered “No”, what renewal period do you think is appropriate for officiants’ authorisation?

• [Free Text]

Enforcement and regulation of dignity in weddings

To ensure that the dignity framework, set out in Chapter 4, is properly applied, the Government considers it essential that it is underpinned by a clear approach to monitoring and enforcement. This will ensure that officiants uphold their duty to maintain dignity and safety.

We therefore suggest that officiants would be required to record their decisions relating to the wedding location and the form of ceremony and the reasons for those decisions, with reference to the dignity framework, to support consistency and transparency. We propose that those decisions would then be subject to oversight by the nominating organisation.

Ensuring that the wedding is dignified will be a legal duty and therefore officiants who fail to apply the framework would be at risk of sanctions via their nominating organisation or the regulator, including deauthorisation, and the Government would expect proportionate action to be taken by the nominating organisation and/or regulator where standards are not met.

Question 33

Do you agree that officiants who fail to apply the dignity framework, the fit and proper person standards and their other duties and responsibilities should be subject to sanctions, including deauthorisation? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Complaints and Appeals

There was broad consensus in the Law Commission’s consultation that nominating organisations should have the primary responsibility of monitoring and deauthorising their officiants but that this should be subject to oversight by a central regulator.

The Law Commission recommended that complaints about nominated, independent and maritime officiants should be handled by the central regulator, which would have the power to investigate concerns and take appropriate action, including deauthorisation where appropriate. This approach was strongly supported in their consultation.

Giving the regulator the power to deauthorise officiants who fail to comply with the fit and proper standards or their duties and responsibilities as an officiant was supported by a very substantial majority of consultees. The Government agrees that a centralised complaints function for most officiants is an important safeguard against poor practice and encourages fairness and consistency. The Government also agrees that there should be a procedure for officiants to appeal to the relevant Secretary of State against a decision by the regulator not to authorise them, or to withdraw their authorisation.

Question 34

Do you agree with having a central regulator oversee complaints for nominated, independent and maritime officiants? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Nominated Officiants

The Law Commission recommended that the primary responsibility for overseeing nominated officiants should sit with the nominating organisation. A central regulator would oversee those organisations and retain ultimate enforcement powers, including the ability to deauthorise officiants where necessary. To support this approach, the Law Commission proposed that belief organisations should be required to have clear policies for nominating and monitoring officiants as a condition of being authorised to nominate them. This requirement would sit alongside other eligibility criteria for belief organisations seeking authorisation to nominate officiants to conduct legally binding weddings.

The Government agrees with this approach. It provides a clear and proportionate line of accountability through established organisations with existing governance arrangements, while ensuring a regulator can intervene where standards are not met. This avoids the need for routine direct supervision of individual officiants while setting in place effective regulatory oversight in order to maintain high standards.

Independent Officiants

By contrast, the Law Commission proposed that independent and maritime officiants (who, as discussed in Chapter 6, would be responsible for weddings on cruise ships in international waters) should be directly overseen by a regulator, rather than through an intermediate organisation. They considered that accountability to a single regulator would support consistency and noted that, unlike belief organisations, these officiants are not bound together by a shared set of values.

The Government considers that this approach creates an unnecessary two-tier oversight system. The potentially large and growing number of independent officiants could also create significant complexity for the regulator, making effective direct oversight of the practice of a large number of individuals more difficult to sustain at scale. ^{[footnote 85]} We therefore recommend an alternative approach under which independent officiants would be required to belong to a recognised, regulator-approved membership organisation similar to the approach proposed for belief groups.

Under this approach, membership organisations would take on responsibility for assessing whether applicants are “fit and proper”, provide or facilitate training, monitor compliance and handle complaints. The regulator would approve and oversee these bodies with powers to monitor compliance and intervene directly where necessary. This would ensure consistent standards while avoiding the need for the regulator directly to oversee a large number of individual officiants.

We consider that clear eligibility criteria would be necessary for membership organisations to become approved, both in relation to the organisation’s structure and to how it appoints and oversees officiants. These requirements would include, as a minimum:

• Organisational Structure: being a legally registered UK body with an established governance structure, including named responsible officers, clear accountability and decision-making arrangements and the ability to demonstrate financial sustainability and operational capacity;
• Appointing and Overseeing Officiants: operating a robust application process for officiants, requiring completion of recognised training (for example, Ofqual approved courses), providing continuing professional development, maintaining a clear code of conduct and disciplinary framework, re-authorising officiants every five years and ensuring officiants have appropriate liability insurance.

Maritime Officiants

For maritime officiants, the Government proposes that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), which already holds the responsibility for overseeing deck officers, would take on this role. This would avoid requiring maritime officiants to join an additional membership organisation beyond their existing maritime work (unless they chose also to act as an independent officiant) while still enabling effective oversight through a single, specialist body.

Currently, the MCA does not have a direct regulatory role in relation to deck officers. It sets competency standards, issues “Certificates of Competency” (CoCs) to deck officers serving on UK-flagged ships and accredits training and exams, such as those provided through maritime colleges. The MCA also ensures ongoing compliance and enforces the above requirements, conducting inspections and audits to ensure that ships are crewed by properly qualified officers.

Question 35

Do you agree that membership organisations should be responsible for monitoring independent officiants, subject to oversight by the central regulator? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Question 36

Do you agree that the proposed eligibility criteria (relating to organisational structure and their role in appointing and overseeing officiants) is sufficient?

• Yes
• No
• Undecided

If not, do you have any proposals to expand these requirements?

• [Free text]

Question 37

Do you agree that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) should act as the membership organisation for maritime officiants? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

• Yes
• No
• Undecided
• [Free text]

Training of Officiants

The Law Commission recommended that, for officiants of belief organisations, the regulator would oversee training that is provided by the organisations themselves. The Law Commission did not explicitly set out the training requirements and instead made suggestions about what should be covered. For example, training on how to conduct legal weddings for religious and non-religious belief officiants, which would be approved by the Registrar General.^{[footnote 86]} They also recommended that all officiants should be provided with training on capacity and consent.

They recommended that the regulator should act as the primary direct provider of training for independent and maritime officiants, or belief organisations where they are unable to provide their own training. The Government agrees with the importance of a universal and high standard of training and with the regulator having a key role in ensuring standards are met, particularly for independent officiants.

In line with the proposed approach set out above, the Government is of the view that approved membership organisations for independent officiants should be responsible for providing training, subject to regulatory oversight to ensure the training is of the necessary high standard.

This would avoid the need for the regulator to develop and provide training directly, allowing it instead to focus on overseeing the training provided by others. Oversight could include, for example, ensuring training was Ofqual approved and that organisations provide sufficient training to ensure officiants can identify forced, predatory and sham marriages. The Forced Marriage Unit currently provides training to registrars and has free online courses on spotting the signs of forced marriage. The current training could possibly be extended or replicated, together with the proposals in Chapter 2, to enhance safeguards and ensure that officiants are sufficiently trained.

Question 38

Do you agree that, as with belief groups, membership organisations should be responsible for delivering training, subject to the central regulator establishing the standard for training?

• Yes
• No
• Undecided

If you answered “No”, who should be responsible for delivering training?

• [Free text]

Central Regulator

The Law Commission identified the General Register Office (GRO) as the most appropriate regulator, given its existing responsibility for registering legal marriages in England and Wales and for maintaining a record of authorised registrars. The Law Commission did not identify an alternative regulator. The GRO does not currently hold a regulatory role and regulating officiants as described above would represent a significant expansion of the GRO’s remit and would require significant additional resource to allow it to properly fulfil those duties.

An alternative would be to establish a new organisation to act as the regulator. This option was not considered by the Law Commission and would be a considerable undertaking, requiring time and resource to set up, but would allow a bespoke organisation designed to focus on weddings regulation to be established to take on this responsibility.

The Government is seeking views on what organisation would be best placed to take on the role of the central regulator and will set out plans in more detail once responses have been reviewed and analysed.

Question 39

Do you agree with the Law Commission that the GRO would be the organisation most suited to undertake the role of central regulator?

• Yes
• No
• Undecided

If you answered “No”, please explain who should take on this role?

• New regulatory body
• Other (please specify below)
• [Free text]

Questionnaire

You can respond online to the consultation.

We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper.

Chapter 2: Preliminaries

1. Should information and signposting be provided on the online notice platform in order to support and safeguard couples including in relation to forced marriage, consent and capacity?

2. Do you agree with the type of information the Government proposes should be provided at the online notice stage? This includes material to help individuals recognise potential indicators of coercion or control, as well as any information about how to seek help through the Forced Marriage Unit, how to raise concerns during the preliminaries process and signposts to relationship support and guidance. Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

3. What are your views about the type of evidence that should be required for the harm-based exemption from online publication of a notice? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

4. Do you agree that at the in-person interview, registrars should be required to ask a specific set of questions aimed at identifying forced, predatory or sham marriage? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

Chapter 3: The Legal Formation of Marriage

5. Do you agree with the proposal to allow consent to be expressed through the performance of actions in religious and non-religious belief ceremonies? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

6. Do you agree with the proposed required words for civil weddings? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

7. Are there any specific variations to the required words that should be considered acceptable “words to the same effect” should apply? Please explain your reasoning and/or give examples in the text box.

Chapter 4: The Dignity Framework

8. Do you agree with the Government’s proposed new dignity framework to support officiants in their legal duty to ensure that weddings are dignified? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

9. Do you agree with our proposed overarching dignity standard?

• The wedding enables the couple to express free and informed consent to marry, in a manner that is intelligible.
• The wedding is not undermined by distraction or trivialisation.
• The wedding reflects the significance and seriousness of marriage as a major life event and lifelong commitment. 

Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

10. Do you agree with the proposed supporting standard that will support the officiant to agree a dignified wedding location?

• The wedding location permits participants to attend safely.
• The wedding location permits participants meaningfully to participate in the ceremony.
• The wedding location minimises risk of any distraction that could have reasonably been foreseen and prevented.

Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

11. Do you agree with the proposed supporting standard that will support the officiant to agree a dignified wedding ceremony?

• The ceremony should focus on the proceedings
• The ceremony should treat the occasion with respect
• The ceremony should avoid the risk of making marriage appear trivial or lacking in significance.  

Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

12. Do you agree with the proposed factors that an officiant should consider when making a decision about whether a location is dignified? You may wish to give reasons, or suggestions for additional factors, in the text box.

13. Do you agree with the factors that officiants should consider when determining whether a wedding ceremony will be dignified? You may wish to give reasons, or suggestions for additional factors, in the text box.

14. Do you think there should be restrictions on the consumption of food or drink, including alcohol, during a wedding ceremony? Please explain your reasoning in the text box, including where any restrictions should apply and whether any restrictions should distinguish between recreational consumption and food or drink used for religious, non-religious belief, ceremonial or medical reasons.

15. Do you think there should be specific restrictions on gimmick-based or trivialising acts or elements within a wedding ceremony? Please explain your reasoning in the text box, including how any restrictions should be balanced against personal expression and light-hearted or culturally meaningful elements.

16. Should religious or non-religious belief content be permitted in a civil ceremony, provided that the ceremony does not replicate, or amount to, a full religious or non-religious belief service? Please explain your reasoning in the text box. If you have answered “Yes”, the Government has given examples of individual religious or non-religious belief elements, such as the exchange of rings or a Bible reading, that may be suitable for inclusion in a civil ceremony and examples of combinations of elements that may amount to a full religious or non-religious belief service. Are there any further examples that you think would help illustrate this distinction between service and belief elements in practice? Please provide reasons where possible.

17. Do you agree that state-employed officiants, i.e., registrars, should not be permitted to lead or participate in religious or non-religious belief content? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

Chapter 5: Specific Locations for Weddings

18. Do you agree that wedding venues should be able to apply for pre-authorisation, should they choose to? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

19. Do you agree that approval for pre-authorised venues should be subject to a fixed period, renewal requirements and revocation where the conditions of approval are no longer being met? You may wish to give reasons in the text box. If you answered “Yes”, what should the fixed period be? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

20. Are there other safeguards required to (1) protect against forced, predatory or sham marriage and (2) ensure the safety of ceremonies conducted in private homes? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

21. Do you agree that weddings should be able to take place in territorial seas and inland waters, subject to the assurance that safety and dignity are maintained? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

22. Do you agree that weddings should be permitted in international waters on UK-registered cruise ships with a port of choice in England and Wales, provided they abide with the civil preliminaries process? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

Chapter 6: Role of Officiants

23. Do you agree that all officiants should have a legal duty to uphold the dignity and significance of marriage? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

24. Do you agree that organisations should have to be established for a minimum of three years before nominating officiants to conduct legal weddings? Please explain your reasoning in the text box. If you disagree with the three-year minimum period suggested above, what period would you propose having instead? If you disagree with the three-year minimum period and chose a different period, please explain why below.

25. Do you agree that for a belief organisation to be able to nominate officiants to carry out legally binding weddings the minimum number of households who are members of that organisation should be 100? If you disagree with the minimum number of households being 100, what number would you propose having instead? If you chose a different number, please explain your reasoning in the text box.

26. Should the Government have express exclusions on certain groups being precluded from being able to nominate officiants as belief organisations? If yes, please tick which of the following groups should be expressly excluded. Please explain your reasoning in the text box: - Political Parties - Trade Unions - Chambers of Commerce - Organisations that promote unlawful purposes - Other (please state)

If you disagree that there should be express exclusions, please explain why below.

27. Do you agree with allowing independent officiants to conduct legally binding weddings? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

28. Do you agree with allowing maritime officiants to conduct legally binding weddings on international waters on cruise ships registered in the UK? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

29. Do you agree that only deck officers should be authorised as maritime officiants, but with a preference for ships captains? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

Chapter 7: Regulation of Officiants

30. Do you agree with the definition of ‘fit and proper’ outlined above? Please explain your reasoning in the text box. If you answered “No”, how should the definition of ‘fit and proper’ be expanded to ensure only suitable officiants are nominated? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

31. Do you think there are further measures the Government could introduce, in addition to the monitoring requirements proposed by the Law Commission, to help identify poor practice? If you answered “Yes”, please explain what mechanisms could be implemented.

32. Do you agree that all officiants (excluding Anglican clergy) should be required periodically to renew their authorisation every 5 years? If you answered “No”, what renewal period do you think is appropriate for officiants’ authorisation?

33. Do you agree that officiants who fail to apply the dignity framework, the fit and proper person standards and their other duties and responsibilities should be subject to sanctions, including deauthorisation? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

34. Do you agree with having a central regulator monitor complaints for nominated, independent and maritime officiants? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

35. Do you agree that membership organisations should be responsible for monitoring independent officiants, subject to oversight by the central regulator? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

36. Do you agree that the proposed eligibility criteria (relating to organisational structure and their role in appointing and overseeing officiants) is sufficient? If not, do you have any proposals to expand these requirements?

37. Do you agree that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) should act as the membership organisation for maritime officiants? Please explain your reasoning in the text box.

38. Do you agree that, as with belief groups, membership organisations should be responsible for delivering training, subject to the central regulator establishing the standard for training? If you answered “No”, who should be responsible for delivering training?

39. Do you agree with the Law Commission that the GRO would be the organisation most suited to undertake the role of central regulator? If you answered “No”, please explain who should take on this role?

Thank you for participating in this consultation exercise.

About you

• Full name
• Job title or capacity in which you are responding to this consultation exercise (e.g. member of the public etc.)
• Company name/organisation (if applicable)
• If you are a representative of a group, please tell us the name of the group and give a summary of the people or organisations that you represent.

Contact details/How to respond

You can respond online to the consultation.

Alternatively, please send your response by 24 September 2026 to:

Family Justice Policy Team
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ

Email: weddingslawconsultation@justice.gov.uk

Complaints or comments

If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process you should contact the Ministry of Justice at the above address.

Extra copies

Further paper copies of this consultation can be obtained from this address and it is also available on-line at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/

Confidentiality

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA), the General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004).

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Ministry.

The Ministry will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA and in the majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

Impact Assessment, Equalities and Welsh Language

Impact assessment

The impact assessment is being published alongside this consultation paper on GOV.UK

Equalities

The equalities statement is being published alongside this consultation paper on GOV.UK

Welsh Language Impact Test

We have considered the implications for Welsh language. A Welsh language version of the consultation will be published alongside this version at: XXX

Consultation principles

The principles that Government departments and other public bodies should adopt for engaging stakeholders when developing policy and legislation are set out in the Cabinet Office Consultation Principles 2018 that can be found here.

---

1. SI 2005 No 3168; The Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005. ↩

2. Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, s.1. ↩

3. Humanists UK, ‘Humanism’ (Humanists UK). https://humanists.uk/humanism/ ↩

4. Maritime and Coastguard Agency ‘Inland waterways and categorisation of waters’ (Gov.Uk, 30 October 2023). https://www.gov.uk/guidance/inland-waterways-and-categorisation-of-waters ↩

5. Marriage Act 1949, s.2. ↩

6. Immigration Act 2014. s.62. ↩

7. Home Office, ‘Suitability: Sham Marriage or Civil Partnership’ (Gov.uk, 11 November 2025) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/suitability-sham-marriage-or-civil-partnership/suitability-sham-marriage-or-civil-partnership-accessible ↩

8. Territorial Sea Act 1987, s.1. ↩

9. Law Commission, Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law (Law Com No 408, HC 557, 2022); Ministry of Justice. ↩

10. Major boost to economy through wedding law reform’ (Press Release, 2 October 2025) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/major-boost-to-economy-through-wedding-law-reform. ↩

11. Law Commission, Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law (Law Com No 408, HC 557, 2022) para 1.23. ↩

12. Law Commission, Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law (Law Com No 408, HC 557, 2022) para 1.92. ↩

13. The Government will ensure that access to giving notice is available for those who are unable to get online. ↩

14. Law Commission, Getting Married: A Consultation Paper on Wedding Law (Consultation Paper No 247, 2020) para 2.1 ↩

15. Law Commission, Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law (Law Com No 408, 2022) para 3.1 ↩

16. The Marriage Act 1949 (s.27(1)) requires residence by each party for a period of 7 days immediately before the giving of notice. People who are housebound or detained make other arrangements and do not attend the register office. ↩

17. Under the Marriage Act 1949 (s.26(1)(dd)), additional evidence must also be provided in relation to the marriages of those who are either housebound on account of their illness or disability or detained in a prison or hospital. ↩

18. Marriage Act 1949 s28H and Schedule 3A. ↩

19. Church of England, Reading Banns ↩

20. Law Commission, Getting Married: A Consultation Paper on Wedding Law (Consultation Paper No 247, 2020) para 2.72 ↩

21. Faculty Office, ‘General information about marriage in the Church of England’ https://www.facultyoffice.org.uk/special-marriage-licences/couples/general-information-about-marriage-in-the-church-of-england/ https://www.facultyoffice.org.uk/special-marriage-licences/couples/general-information-about-marriage-in-the-church-of-england/; Getting Married - A Consultation Paper on Wedding Law para 2.79 ↩

22. Law Commission, Getting Married: A Consultation Paper on Wedding Law (Consultation Paper No 247, 2020) para 2.90. ↩

23. Law Commission, Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law (Law Com No 408, 2022), para 6.13. ↩

24. The Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 ↩

25. Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005, reg 5(1)(b) & Sch 1 Para 1. ↩

26. Marriage Act 1949, s.41(1). ↩

27. Marriage Act 1949 ss.45(1) and 46(1)(b). ↩

28. Marriage Act 1949 ss.45(2) and 46(b)(4) and The Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No 3168), Sch 2 Para 11. ↩

29. Marriage Act 1949 s.44(3a) ↩

30. Marriage Act 1949 s.22. ↩

31. Law Commission, Getting Married: A Consultation Paper on Wedding Law (Consultation Paper No 247, 2020) para 2.100-2.102. ↩

32. Law Commission, Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law (Law Com No 408, 2022), para 7.8 ↩

33. Marriage Act 1949 s.53D ↩

34. ‘Marriage and health’ (2011) 342 BMJ d404 https://www.bmj.com/content/342/sbmj.d404 ; Richard E Lucas Jr and others, ‘Marriage and Subjective Well-Being’ (2014) NBER Working Paper No 20794 https://www.nber.org/papers/w20794 ↩

35. W Bradford Wilcox and Wendy Wang, The Millennial Success Sequence: Marriage, Kids, and the ‘Success Sequence’ Among Young Adults (Institute for Family Studies 2017) https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/reports/wfm-2017-fullreport.pdf ↩

36. Office for National Statistics, Marriages in England and Wales: 2013 (ONS, released 27 April 2016) https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/marriagesinenglandandwalesprovisional2013 ↩

37.   Office for National Statistics, Marriages in England and Wales: 2013 (ONS) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/marriagecohabitationandcivilpartnerships/datasets/marriagesinenglandandwales2013; Ministry of Justice, Weddings Law Reform     ↩

38. Brian Collisson, ‘Interfaith Relationships Are Becoming Common. Do They Work?’ (Psychology Today, 7 October 2022) https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/dating-toxic-or-tender/202210/interfaith-relationships-are-becoming-common-do-they-work ↩

39. Rebecca Probert, Rajnaara C Akhtar and Sharon Blake, Belief in Marriage: The Evidence for Reforming Weddings Law (Bristol University Press 2023) https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/4735f8aa-bc1d-432f-aa3e-3741d40002ed/9781529230499.pdf ↩

40. Channel 4, ‘New Channel 4 survey reveals The Truth About Muslim Marriage’ (20 November 2017) https://www.channel4.com/press/news/new-channel-4-survey-reveals-truth-about-muslim-marriage ↩

41. Bridebook, Wedding Report, 2026 https://partners.bridebook.com/uk/wedding-report-2026; Marriage Foundation, Cheaper Weddings Could Bridge the Marriage Gap (January 2021) https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MF-briefing-note-Cheaper-weddings-bridge-marriage-gap.pdf; Hitched, ‘How Much Does a Wedding Cost in 2026? Average UK Wedding Now Costs £21,990’ (12 January 2026) https://www.hitched.co.uk/wedding-planning/organising-and-planning/the-average-wedding-cost-in-the-uk-revealed/ ↩

42. Ministry of Justice, ‘Major boost to economy through wedding law reform’ (2 October 2025) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/major-boost-to-economy-through-wedding-law-reform ↩

43. Ministry of Justice, A Fairer End to Relationships (Consultation, 5 June 2026) https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/a-fairer-end-to-relationships ↩

44. “Certain couples” refers to where either or both are not: i) relevant nationals (see Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 s19(1A)) ii) are not exempt from immigration control (see Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 s19(1B)); “certain cases” refers to where each of the parties to the proposed marriage is not an exempt person (see s28H Marriage Act 1949). ↩

45. Law Commission, Getting Married: A Scoping Paper for Reform (2022), Chapter 3 (Preliminaries) para 3.61 ↩

46. The Forced Marriage Unit is a joint initiative by the Home Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that leads efforts to combat forced marriage both domestically and internationally. It provides support and advice for victims, those at risk and professionals. ↩

47. Unless, certain couples are required to attend together (for example, where one or both parties are subject to immigration controls). ↩

48. This must contain a declaration signed by each of parties, in the presence of each other, two witnesses and the officiant that confirms they have legally expressed consent to marry. ↩

49. A-new-weddings-law-LC-report.pdf, page 119; See Chapter 6 – Officiants for more discussion of the officiant’s role and duties. ↩

50. The Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005; HM Passport Office, Registrar General’s guidance for the approval of premises as venues for civil marriages and civil partnerships (accessible version) (GOV.UK, 29 August 2025) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-registering-a-venue-for-civil-marriage-and-civil-partnership/registrar-generals-guidance-for-the-approval-of-premises-as-venues-for-civil-marriages-and-civil-partnerships-accessible-version ↩

51. The Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005 ↩

52. The Marriage Act 1949 ↩

53. A nautical mile is 1,852 metres, about 1.2 regular land miles. It’s used in navigation because it corresponds to one minute of latitude on the Earth’s surface. ↩

54. A port of choice is defined as the specific port that a cruise line selects to hold its registry. ↩

55. The Marriage Act, s.78(1). ↩

56. General Register Office, A Guide for Authorised Persons (May 2025). ↩

57. Marriage Act 1949, s.44(2)(a). ↩

58. Marriage Act 1949, s.43B(3). ↩

59. s.41 Marriage Act 1949. ↩

60. Places of Worship Registration Act 1855; Marriage Act 1949, ss41 & 43. ↩

61. R (on the application of Hodkin and another) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC 77. ↩

62. Law Commission, A New Weddings Law (Law Com No 408, 2022) para 4.137 ↩

63. Charity Commission for England and Wales, The Temple of the Jedi Order: Application for Registration – Decision of the Commission (16 December 2016) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f1b5c40f0b62305b851d9/Temple_of_the_Jedi_Order_FINAL_DECISION.pdf ↩

64. Grainger plc and others v Nicholson UKEAT/0219/09 ; Patrick Brione, ‘Employment Tribunal rulings on gender-critical beliefs in the workplace’ (House of Commons Library, 7 December 2022) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/employment-tribunal-rulings-on-gender-critical-beliefs-in-the-workplace/ ↩

65. Law Commission, A New Weddings Law (Law Com No 408, 2022) para 4.142 ↩

66. Law Commission, A New Weddings Law (Law Com No 408, 2022), Recommendation 20 ↩

67. Law Commission, A New Weddings Law (Law Com No 408, 2022), para 4.161 ↩

68. R (Harrison & Ors) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 ↩

69. Marriage Act, ss43 & 43B; s44(2)(a)-(b) ↩

70. Law Commission, A New Weddings Law (Law Com No 408, 2022) https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250109115755mp_/https:/cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/30/2022/07/A-new-weddings-law-LC-report.pdf para 4.154 ↩

71. Law Commission, Getting Married: A Scoping Paper (17 December 2015), para 2.46 ↩

72. Law Commission, A New Weddings Law (Law Com No 408, 2022), para 4.146 ↩

73. Office for National Statistics, ‘England and Wales Population Estimates 1838 to 2014’ (Ad hoc release 004358, 6 July 2015) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/adhocs/004358englandandwalespopulationestimates1838to2014 ↩

74. Law Commission, A New Weddings Law (Law Com No 408, 2022), para 4.157 ↩

75. Association of Independent Celebrants, AOIC White Paper: Wedding Reform (July 2022) https://web.archive.org/web/20221026072900/https://independentcelebrants.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/AOIC-White-Paper_Wedding-Reform_July-22.pdf https://independentcelebrants.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/AOIC-White-Paper_Wedding-Reform_July-22.pdf ↩

76. Law Commission and Ministry of Justice, Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law – Impact Assessment (IA No LAWCOM0079, 19 July 2022) https://cdn.websitebuilder.service.justice.gov.uk/uploads/sites/54/2025/12/Weddings-IA-final.pdfhttps://cdn.websitebuilder.service.justice.gov.uk/uploads/sites/54/2025/12/Weddings-IA-final.pdf ↩

77. Attorney-General’s Department (Australia), ‘Become a marriage celebrant’ https://www.ag.gov.au/families-and-marriage/marriage/become-marriage-celebrant; Department of Internal Affairs (New Zealand), ‘Independent Marriage & Civil Union Celebrants – Number of Ceremonies Performed’ https://catalogue.data.govt.nz/dataset/independent-marriage-civil-union-celebrants-number-of-ceremonies-performed/resource/90554172-dc22-4881-a13f-bab5543bdf4b ↩

78. Brian Collisson, ‘Interfaith Relationships Are Becoming Common. Do They Work?’ (Psychology Today, 7 October 2022) https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/dating-toxic-or-tender/202210/interfaith-relationships-are-becoming-common-do-they-work ↩

79. Office for National Statistics, ‘Religion, England and Wales: Census 2021’ (29 November 2022) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021 ↩

80. Office for National Statistics, ‘Marriages in England and Wales: 2023 (provisional)’ (18 November 2025) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/marriagecohabitationandcivilpartnerships/bulletins/marriagesinenglandandwalesprovisional/2023; Zoe Burke, ‘How much does a wedding cost in the UK? The average is £20,604’ (Bridebook, 10 June 2026) https://bridebook.com/uk/article/how-much-does-a-wedding-cost-the-uk-averagehttps://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/marriagecohabitationandcivilpartnerships/bulletins/marriagesinenglandandwalesprovisional/2023 ↩

81. Stephanie Pywell, ‘Beyond Beliefs: A Proposal to Give Couples in England and Wales a Real Choice of Marriage Officiants’ (2020) 32(3) Child and Family Law Quarterly 215 https://oro.open.ac.uk/72503/3/72503.pdf https://oro.open.ac.uk/72503/3/72503.pdf ↩

82. Registration Service Act 1953 ↩

83. Office of the Superintendent Registrar (Jersey), Code of Practice for Authorised Civil Celebrants https://www.gov.je/sitecollectiondocuments/life%20events/code%20of%20practice%20for%20celebrants.pdf & Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 ↩

84. New Zealand Government, ‘Become a marriage celebrant’ https://www.govt.nz/organisations/births-deaths-and-marriages/information-for-marriage-celebrants/become-a-marriage-celebrant/https://www.govt.nz/organisations/births-deaths-and-marriages/information-for-marriage-celebrants/become-a-marriage-celebrant/ ↩

85. Evidence suggests that around 1,000 independent celebrants deliver approximately 10,000 such ceremonies each year. ↩

86. The Registrar General (RG) currently provides written guidance to authorised persons and a certified Nationally Assured Programme (NAP) to train local authority registrars. ↩