Long overdue, life-changing or frivolous? Your thoughts on wedding rule changes

The day Sam and Courtney Scholey became husband and wife didn't feel like their wedding day.

There was no walking down the aisle, no rings exchanged, no wedding dress, and no music.

That all came several days later, when the pair had a bespoke ceremony led by a celebrant who knew them, at a venue in the Oxfordshire countryside. It was their dream wedding - but it wasn't legal in England and Wales.

And so in April, they forked out hundreds of pounds to quietly sign papers at a library in Buckingham.

"For us, that day was as insignificant as possible," Courtney told the BBC. "It was just the words we had to say to make it legally binding."

The Scholeys are one of a growing number of couples who feel the rigid rules around weddings are making getting married more stressful, more expensive and less meaningful.

But under new proposals announced this month - described by the government as the biggest shake-up of wedding laws in 200 years - couples in England and Wales could have the freedom to hold official marriage ceremonies in a wider array of unconventional locations, from forests to beaches, as long as the location is approved by a registered officiant.

It's welcome news for Nicky Brown, who said she wants to exchange vows in a wildly picturesque corner of Wales, with just her mum and her partner's mum as witnesses.

"I'd be quite happy to get married in a field full of sheep," the 57-year-old told the BBC.

But some say the sacred tradition of marriage is being perverted.

Currently, a marriage or civil partnership ceremony in England or Wales must take place at an approved venue to be legally binding – and many exert control on elements of the wedding such as vows, headcounts or music.

There are also tight restrictions on who can officiate a wedding and how. Authorised religious figures can, but – with few exceptions – only in places of worship.

Registrars can conduct a wedding, but it can't have any religious content. And celebrants can't legally marry people at all.

A Law Commission report in 2022 concluded that these marriage laws, which date back to the 18th and 19th Centuries, were "complicated, inefficient, unfair and needlessly restrictive".

David Lammy, then deputy prime minister, said marriage laws in England and Wales had "not kept pace with the social and cultural changes that have shaped modern Britain".

He added: "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."

Scotland and Northern Ireland relaxed their rules years ago.

Though the exact shape of the new rules is still under public consultation until September, these changes will take regulations from a "buildings based" regulation model to an "officiant based" one.

Brown said she and her partner had put off getting married because there was no legal and affordable version of a wedding that reflects them.

She said she didn't want bells and whistles - or even a wedding dress. "I just want somebody to marry us and in a beautiful setting that isn't just going to cost the earth."

Brown went on to explain that she'd been scared her mum - who is 86 and unwell - would miss out on her wedding day. But these changes had given her hope: "The laws are now, what, 200 years out of date?"

Miranda Allard, 66, also agreed that change is long overdue.

When she got married 40 years ago, she had to jump through hoops to get permission to hold an interfaith ceremony in her parent's garden - and finds it astounding couples today face the same obstacles.

"We applied for a special licence... [and] explained how we did not want to put my Jewish mother-in-law through a church wedding," she said.

"I, on the other hand, was brought up in a Christian family and would not 'feel married' if doing so in a registry office."

It took letters from the couple, their parents, the local bishop, the village vicar and more to convince authorities to allow the ceremony.

"We also combined our legal Christian service with Jewish prayers and tradition, like breaking the glass. Totally unheard of then and ever since," she said, adding the nuptials even made the paper.

Father John, who didn't provide his last name, wrote in to BBC Your Voice to say he'd like to be able to perform ceremonies like this too.

"Marriage is about the lifelong commitment made before God for me, and for some couples the setting can make that sacred moment even more personal and memorable."

Brian Bracher, 65, from Chichester in West Sussex, said he cannot believe the UK is still debating these changes.

"It is ridiculous that, in this modern era, a small minority are still trying to exert control and make decisions about what is frivolous and not acceptable. Just let people, that love each other, marry in a way that suits them."

The proposals will be a welcome change for Christians from the LGBT community, said 33-year-old Isabel Sinagola.

She added: "[They] currently cannot have the wedding they might want, as they cannot marry in the Church of England, but also cannot have religious content in the only option available to them: a civil ceremony."

Others are hopeful this provides more affordable wedding options.

Carl Jones said he and his partner of 20 years haven't wed because even the simplest weddings are too expensive.

"We want to get married but won't, as it costs too much. It's cheaper if we just have two witnesses, but why should our [12-year-old] daughter not be allowed to attend... It's wrong."

But sceptics say this will do little to lower the cost of weddings, which according to wedding planner app Hitched has jumped to £21,990 on average.

Reverend Tom Kennar said it isn't marriage that is expensive, it's the extras most modern couples like to add.

"[It] is the costs of the reception, vehicles, booze, photographers, clothing, food, cars etc," he said.

Other critics of the proposal say they fear it will dilute the significance of marriage.

"Marriage is a gift from God to secure society. Not an opportunity to set new standards and styles," said Donald Tosh, from Glasgow, who wrote to BBC Your Voice.

"It's now not a life decision, it's a temporary decision. And now with this, a very temporary frivolous decision," said Oliver, from Kent.

However, celebrant Zadie Ward told the BBC the changes could enhance the meaning of a wedding for many couples.

"[Critics] are saying it's a solemn promise and it's about the serious commitment, but how can you ask someone to make a serious commitment in words that mean nothing to them and ways that are meaningless to them?"

She says the changes won't take anything from those who still want traditional weddings – it simply gives couples who don't more options.

"You've got blended families, mixed cultures, traditions that are changing even within those cultures.

"Modern relationships deserve modern ceremonies."

The government has stressed there will be safeguards to guarantee the dignity of marriage is preserved.

Ceremonies deemed to be "gimmicks" that risk trivialising the legal act of marriage would not be allowed. Activities "such as skydiving, white-water rafting, roller coasters or other amusement rides" would "fall short of the standard".

"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," Lammy wrote.

"This Government's changes will bring weddings law into the twenty-first century."

Additional reporting by Mary Litchfield and Rozina Sini