Civil ceremony before actual wedding

kellySanFran

Hello, I have seen this question posted a lot, but none of the answers seem quite related to my scenario. My fiance and I met in England and would like to be married in the city we met. However, the legal hurdles of getting married in Oxford are quite strict and I know we will not be able to properly be wed in England (you must get your license no more than one year and no less than two weeks before the wedding, you must be in the city for 9 days prior to receiving the license, etc.). My plan is to have the ceremony the morning before we fly out to England, but I am concerned that people will feel like they missed my "real" wedding. Has anyone had this foreign wedding problem? Or are there any suggestions to make the civil ceremony less important?

AprilH81

The day you get married is your REAL wedding.  You can throw a party whenever you want though, just don't call it a wedding or reception.

short+sassy

There have been a few posts about foreign countries where the civil ceremony literally cannot be held on the same day as the wedding ceremony.  Since the wedding ceremony will be in a part of England that does not allow this, I see no difference in having the civil ceremony ahead of time in the U.S., since it would have to be ahead of time if it was done in England anyway. 

smalfrie19

If its is important to you to actually be married in England, then you will go through the proper channels to do so. Please do not put on a farcical play for you guests. They would be very offended upon finding out they saw an act.

AprilH81

short+sassy said:

There have been a few posts about foreign countries where the civil ceremony literally cannot be held on the same day as the wedding ceremony.  Since the wedding ceremony will be in a part of England that does not allow this, I see no difference in having the civil ceremony ahead of time in the U.S., since it would have to be ahead of time if it was done in England anyway. 

Maybe I misunderstood, but the civil/religious issue was not mentioned in the original post.  The OP just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of going to England early enough to get the license to be legally married over there.

Jells2dot0

kellySanFran said:

Hello, I have seen this question posted a lot, but none of the answers seem quite related to my scenario. My fiance and I met in England and would like to be married in the city we met. However, the legal hurdles of getting married in Oxford are quite strict and I know we will not be able to properly be wed in England (you must get your license no more than one year and no less than two weeks before the wedding, you must be in the city for 9 days prior to receiving the license, etc.). My plan is to have the ceremony the morning before we fly out to England, but I am concerned that people will feel like they missed my "real" wedding. Has anyone had this foreign wedding problem? Or are there any suggestions to make the civil ceremony less important?

I have seen this a lot lately. I'd like to know why people are not considering the paperwork the actual wedding/marriage and why people who have legal complications due to where they are getting married do not wait until AFTER the actual ceremony to do the paperwork??? IMHO, people would feel less slighted if you had the wedding-type ceremony before doing the paperwork than doing the paperwork, becoming legally wed, and then having a wedding re-enactment after having been married for a few weeks/months. 

To the bolded- the civil ceremony is the most important part of any marriage as the paperwork that occurs during it is what actually makes you husband and wife!!!! There is nothing more important in a marriage IMHO!!! To me, I'm very disheartened to see so many people taking this act for granted and treating it as something that doesn't count. 

edit- grammar

lyndausvi

Is your ceremony in England religious based or not?  That would be my deciding factor.

I flew to Austria for a Catholic wedding, which was months after their civil US ceremony.  They had visa issues that required them to get married earlier.  Plus Austria does not recognize Catholic ceremonies as legal.   The Catholic Church doesn't recognize the legal one as being married in the church.  So even without the visa issues they had to have 2 ceremonies anyway.

I would not be thrilled to fly to England to witness a ceremony of 2 people who got married a few days eariler.   However, I would be a little more receptive it was a religious ceremony.

crunchymamaof2

Your situation is not unique. People may feel they missed the real wedding because they did. The civil ceremony is your wedding, regardless of how you personally feel. There are a couple of options for you:

1. Have your wedding in the US and honeymoon in England.

2. Jump through the legal hurdles and have your wedding in England

3. Skip England all together OR just have a kick ass party there to celebrate

4. (My least favorite) Go through with your plan but make sure every single guest knows that you'll already be married and they'll be witness what is essentially a fake ceremony. Just be up front with them so they can decide if spending thousands of dollars to not see your real wedding is worth it to them.

JCbride2015

If you have the wedding before you travel to England, call the party in England a celebration of your marriage. Don't re-enact a ceremony or do other wedding stuff like first dances and cake feeding. And you must tell your guests you will be married before the England trip.

photokitty

kellySanFran said:

Hello, I have seen this question posted a lot, but none of the answers seem quite related to my scenario. My fiance and I met in England and would like to be married in the city we met. However, the legal hurdles of getting married in Oxford are quite strict and I know we will not be able to properly be wed in England (you must get your license no more than one year and no less than two weeks before the wedding, you must be in the city for 9 days prior to receiving the license, etc.). My plan is to have the ceremony the morning before we fly out to England, but I am concerned that people will feel like they missed my "real" wedding. Has anyone had this foreign wedding problem? Or are there any suggestions to make the civil ceremony less important?

Your concerns are valid, bc people will feel this way. If you get married in the USA you will be married and people will miss the real wedding. 

I would suggest deciding what is really important to you. If getting married in the city you met is that important, fly out within a year of the wedding to apply for the marriage certificate.

GL!

short+sassy

AprilH81 said:

short+sassy said:

There have been a few posts about foreign countries where the civil ceremony literally cannot be held on the same day as the wedding ceremony.  Since the wedding ceremony will be in a part of England that does not allow this, I see no difference in having the civil ceremony ahead of time in the U.S., since it would have to be ahead of time if it was done in England anyway. 

Maybe I misunderstood, but the civil/religious issue was not mentioned in the original post.  The OP just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of going to England early enough to get the license to be legally married over there.

Actually, that was my understanding of it.  She says in the original post that this part of England states the wedding ceremony (which I assumed to be the religious part) must be "...no less than two weeks before the wedding".  This situation isn't the typical "oh, we had to have the civil paperwork done early because it was too hard/expensive to file at our fab destination wedding on the Galapagos Islands.  Or oh we had to have the JOP marry us before the real wedding for insurance/insert excuse."

Even if they were to arrive in England two weeks before their wedding ceremony for the civil ceremony to also be in England, it is still taking place two weeks before the religious ceremony because that is the law there.  As such, I don't see a difference between having the civil ceremony in the U.S., which would probably be closer to the wedding ceremony date anyway, than if they did it all in England.  No matter how you slice it, it has to be two different dates if they are getting married in Oxford, England.  At least that is my understanding of the post.

lyndausvi

kellySanFran said:

 Or are there any suggestions to make the civil ceremony less important?

STUCK IN BOX:

I forgot to comment on this.  There are millions of gay and lesbians who are fighting HARD for that civil ceremony.  It's insulting to suggest making it "less important" when legally is the only thing important.

Jells2dot0

short+sassy said:

AprilH81 said:

short+sassy said:

There have been a few posts about foreign countries where the civil ceremony literally cannot be held on the same day as the wedding ceremony.  Since the wedding ceremony will be in a part of England that does not allow this, I see no difference in having the civil ceremony ahead of time in the U.S., since it would have to be ahead of time if it was done in England anyway. 

Maybe I misunderstood, but the civil/religious issue was not mentioned in the original post.  The OP just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of going to England early enough to get the license to be legally married over there.

Actually, that was my understanding of it.  She says in the original post that this part of England states the wedding ceremony (which I assumed to be the religious part) must be "...no less than two weeks before the wedding".  This situation isn't the typical "oh, we had to have the civil paperwork done early because it was too hard/expensive to file at our fab destination wedding on the Galapagos Islands.  Or oh we had to have the JOP marry us before the real wedding for insurance/insert excuse."

Even if they were to arrive in England two weeks before their wedding ceremony for the civil ceremony to also be in England, it is still taking place two weeks before the religious ceremony because that is the law there.  As such, I don't see a difference between having the civil ceremony in the U.S., which would probably be closer to the wedding ceremony date anyway, than if they did it all in England.  No matter how you slice it, it has to be two different dates if they are getting married in Oxford, England.  At least that is my understanding of the post.

I am viewing it as the legal residency requirements. Meaning, how long she has to be in country in order to obtain a license and the time frames in which you are allowed to obtain the license and have it be valid. So, you need to obtain the license to wed no more than a year prior to the wedding date but no less than 2 weeks. If you happen to not be in the city, you have to be there 9 days prior to being able to apply for a license. So, the OP would have to be in the city at least 23 days (assuming a week includes non-business days) prior to the wedding, if she got her license at that two week prior to the wedding mark. 

lyndausvi

short+sassy said:

AprilH81 said:

short+sassy said:

There have been a few posts about foreign countries where the civil ceremony literally cannot be held on the same day as the wedding ceremony.  Since the wedding ceremony will be in a part of England that does not allow this, I see no difference in having the civil ceremony ahead of time in the U.S., since it would have to be ahead of time if it was done in England anyway. 

Maybe I misunderstood, but the civil/religious issue was not mentioned in the original post.  The OP just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of going to England early enough to get the license to be legally married over there.

Actually, that was my understanding of it.  She says in the original post that this part of England states the wedding ceremony (which I assumed to be the religious part) must be "...no less than two weeks before the wedding".  This situation isn't the typical "oh, we had to have the civil paperwork done early because it was too hard/expensive to file at our fab destination wedding on the Galapagos Islands.  Or oh we had to have the JOP marry us before the real wedding for insurance/insert excuse."

Even if they were to arrive in England two weeks before their wedding ceremony for the civil ceremony to also be in England, it is still taking place two weeks before the religious ceremony because that is the law there.  As such, I don't see a difference between having the civil ceremony in the U.S., which would probably be closer to the wedding ceremony date anyway, than if they did it all in England.  No matter how you slice it, it has to be two different dates if they are getting married in Oxford, England.  At least that is my understanding of the post.

Yes, there are  a lot of countries in the world that if you want to have a religious ceremony you must have a civil one also.  I do not think England is one of those countries but I could be wrong.  But the OP hasn't mentioned religion so that is why I asked.  

 It seem to me you have to me you have to be in the country 9 days prior to getting the license .  In addition to that the license has be be gotten between 14 days and 365 days prior to the ceremony.

phira

It would be nice to get some clarification from the OP in regards to what the requirements would entail for her and her partner, and whether or not it's just difficult for them to meet the requirements, or if it's impossible.

Normally, I'd just say, "Suck it up--you get one day," but I'm genuinely curious. And I would love to brainstorm with the rest of the E board on ways to solve her problem so she can get married in England without having a PPD.

JennyColada

This isn't related (as I have nothing to add in terms of help with information), but I met my ex in Oxford (he's from there, I was studying abroad).

photokitty

I was bored and read a little up on the topic:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/visiting/marriage-cp/requirements/

I still stand by the suggestion of flying over to apply for the license within a year of the wedding and before 2 weeks out. If it is that important to wed there, you can budget for the extra trip

You don't need the separate civil and religious marriages in England.

Where can a marriage take place

A marriage can take place in:-

• a Register Office
• a church of the Church of England, Church in Wales, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian or Roman Catholic Church in N. Ireland
• a synagogue or any other private place if both partners are Jewish
• a Meeting House if one or both partners are either members of the Society of Friends or are associated with the Society by attending meetings
• any other religious building provided that the person marrying the couple is registered by the Registrar General - see under  Religious marriage ceremonies (England and Wales only)
• premises approved by the local authority - see under Religious marriage ceremonies (England and Wales only)
• a place where one partner is seriously ill and not expected to recover
• the home of one of the partners if the partner is housebound, for example, has serious disabilities or is agoraphobic
• a hospital, if one of the partners is unable to leave or is detained there as a psychiatric inpatient
• a prison, if one partner is a prisoner.

Local authority approved premises (England and Wales only)

Local authorities in England and Wales may approve premises other than Register Offices where civil marriages may take place. Applications for approval must be made by the owner or trustee of the building, not the couple.

The premises must be regularly open to members of the public, so private homes are unlikely to be approved, since they are not normally open to the public. Stately homes, hotels and civic buildings are likely to be thought suitable. Approval will not be given for open air venues, such as moonlit beaches or golf courses. Generally, the premises will need to be permanent built structures, although it may be possible for approval to be given to a permanently moored, publicly open boat. Hot air balloons or aeroplanes will not be approved.

If you want to get married in local authority approved premises you should obtain a list of premises from the local town hall. Or you can search for approved premises on the General Register Office's website at: www.gro.gov.uk.

Liatris2010

kellySanFran said:

Hello, I have seen this question posted a lot, but none of the answers seem quite related to my scenario. My fiance and I met in England and would like to be married in the city we met. However, the legal hurdles of getting married in Oxford are quite strict and I know we will not be able to properly be wed in England (you must get your license no more than one year and no less than two weeks before the wedding, you must be in the city for 9 days prior to receiving the license, etc.). My plan is to have the ceremony the morning before we fly out to England, but I am concerned that people will feel like they missed my "real" wedding. Has anyone had this foreign wedding problem? Or are there any suggestions to make the civil ceremony less important?

You get one wedding, with one ceremony.

I think that asking your guests to travel abroad to watch you pretend to get married is going to go over like a lead balloon. I would consider it a friendship ending move.

jenniferurs

short+sassy said:

AprilH81 said:

short+sassy said:

There have been a few posts about foreign countries where the civil ceremony literally cannot be held on the same day as the wedding ceremony.  Since the wedding ceremony will be in a part of England that does not allow this, I see no difference in having the civil ceremony ahead of time in the U.S., since it would have to be ahead of time if it was done in England anyway. 

Maybe I misunderstood, but the civil/religious issue was not mentioned in the original post.  The OP just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of going to England early enough to get the license to be legally married over there.

Actually, that was my understanding of it.  She says in the original post that this part of England states the wedding ceremony (which I assumed to be the religious part) must be "...no less than two weeks before the wedding".  This situation isn't the typical "oh, we had to have the civil paperwork done early because it was too hard/expensive to file at our fab destination wedding on the Galapagos Islands.  Or oh we had to have the JOP marry us before the real wedding for insurance/insert excuse."

Even if they were to arrive in England two weeks before their wedding ceremony for the civil ceremony to also be in England, it is still taking place two weeks before the religious ceremony because that is the law there.  As such, I don't see a difference between having the civil ceremony in the U.S., which would probably be closer to the wedding ceremony date anyway, than if they did it all in England.  No matter how you slice it, it has to be two different dates if they are getting married in Oxford, England.  At least that is my understanding of the post.

I think you're confusing marriage license with wedding ceremony.

tammym1001

If you can get your license up to a year before your wedding, then why not take a trip to England several months before the wedding, stay for 9 days and get your license? You wouldn't need to do it right before the wedding. I would just include that extra trip as part of your wedding budget as an extra cost to get your license.

misshart00

tammym1001 said:

If you can get your license up to a year before your wedding, then why not take a trip to England several months before the wedding, stay for 9 days and get your license? You wouldn't need to do it right before the wedding. I would just include that extra trip as part of your wedding budget as an extra cost to get your license.

This is what I was thinking. Just make a vacation out of it and stay at least 9 days and get the license then.

photokitty

jenniferurs said:

AprilH81 said:

short+sassy said:

There have been a few posts about foreign countries where the civil ceremony literally cannot be held on the same day as the wedding ceremony.  Since the wedding ceremony will be in a part of England that does not allow this, I see no difference in having the civil ceremony ahead of time in the U.S., since it would have to be ahead of time if it was done in England anyway. 

Maybe I misunderstood, but the civil/religious issue was not mentioned in the original post.  The OP just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of going to England early enough to get the license to be legally married over there.

Actually, that was my understanding of it.  She says in the original post that this part of England states the wedding ceremony (which I assumed to be the religious part) must be "...no less than two weeks before the wedding".  This situation isn't the typical "oh, we had to have the civil paperwork done early because it was too hard/expensive to file at our fab destination wedding on the Galapagos Islands.  Or oh we had to have the JOP marry us before the real wedding for insurance/insert excuse."

Even if they were to arrive in England two weeks before their wedding ceremony for the civil ceremony to also be in England, it is still taking place two weeks before the religious ceremony because that is the law there.  As such, I don't see a difference between having the civil ceremony in the U.S., which would probably be closer to the wedding ceremony date anyway, than if they did it all in England.  No matter how you slice it, it has to be two different dates if they are getting married in Oxford, England.  At least that is my understanding of the post.

I think you're confusing marriage license with wedding ceremony.

It appears you do not need to have a separate civil and religious ceremony in England. Like the USA, religious marriages are recognized by the government. Some countries require them to be separate, England is not one of the, You need to apply for the license at least 2 weeks before the wedding, but not more than one year before.

If you want to get married in England then you should jump through the hoops…go 2 weeks early or take a separate rip to apply for the license. Bc I would never fly to England to see someone pretend to get married. If they expect me to spend that much money they should at least be getting married for real

A marriage can take place in:-

• a Register Office
• a church of the Church of England, Church in Wales, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian or Roman Catholic Church in N. Ireland
• a synagogue or any other private place if both partners are Jewish
• a Meeting House if one or both partners are either members of the Society of Friends or are associated with the Society by attending meetings
• any other religious building provided that the person marrying the couple is registered by the Registrar General - see under  Religious marriage ceremonies (England and Wales only)
• premises approved by the local authority - see under Religious marriage ceremonies (England and Wales only)
• a place where one partner is seriously ill and not expected to recover
• the home of one of the partners if the partner is housebound, for example, has serious disabilities or is agoraphobic
• a hospital, if one of the partners is unable to leave or is detained there as a psychiatric inpatient
• a prison, if one partner is a prisoner.

Jells2dot0

misshart00 said:

tammym1001 said:

If you can get your license up to a year before your wedding, then why not take a trip to England several months before the wedding, stay for 9 days and get your license? You wouldn't need to do it right before the wedding. I would just include that extra trip as part of your wedding budget as an extra cost to get your license.

This is what I was thinking. Just make a vacation out of it and stay at least 9 days and get the license then.

I agree with this. I'm assuming that the ceremony will have a reception, photographer, flowers, etc, so it's a great time to meet with vendors and finalize plans in person. 

mrs4everhart

OP, if you were my friend or family member that I was close to, I would attend your wedding ceremony regardless of when and/or where you signed your license. I understand making multiple trips to a foreign country may be grossly inconvenient and expensive, especially just to meet legal requirements. FWIW, unlike the rest of the crowd, the satisfying of the civil requirements does not trip my trigger, nor do I consider it THEE pinnacle of importance in two people marrying one and other. Best of luck in your planning! 

lc07

short+sassy said:

AprilH81 said:

short+sassy said:

There have been a few posts about foreign countries where the civil ceremony literally cannot be held on the same day as the wedding ceremony.  Since the wedding ceremony will be in a part of England that does not allow this, I see no difference in having the civil ceremony ahead of time in the U.S., since it would have to be ahead of time if it was done in England anyway. 

Maybe I misunderstood, but the civil/religious issue was not mentioned in the original post.  The OP just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of going to England early enough to get the license to be legally married over there.

Actually, that was my understanding of it.  She says in the original post that this part of England states the wedding ceremony (which I assumed to be the religious part) must be "...no less than two weeks before the wedding".  This situation isn't the typical "oh, we had to have the civil paperwork done early because it was too hard/expensive to file at our fab destination wedding on the Galapagos Islands.  Or oh we had to have the JOP marry us before the real wedding for insurance/insert excuse."

Even if they were to arrive in England two weeks before their wedding ceremony for the civil ceremony to also be in England, it is still taking place two weeks before the religious ceremony because that is the law there.  As such, I don't see a difference between having the civil ceremony in the U.S., which would probably be closer to the wedding ceremony date anyway, than if they did it all in England.  No matter how you slice it, it has to be two different dates if they are getting married in Oxford, England.  At least that is my understanding of the post.

Unless the OP changed her post she does NOT say "the wedding ceremony" must take place she says she has to acquire the license. Which is not the same thing as having a ceremony. It just allows you to have a legal ceremony.

OP, I would either change my plans or suck it up and make it work to do it all at once in England. I spent thousands of dollars to attend a friend's wedding in Ireland once and it was well worth it. I would not have wanted to just go to watch a fake ceremony or just for a reception there.

photokitty

STBMrsEverhart said:

OP, if you were my friend or family member that I was close to, I would attend your wedding ceremony regardless of when and/or where you signed your license. I understand making multiple trips to a foreign country may be grossly inconvenient and expensive, especially just to meet legal requirements. FWIW, unlike the rest of the crowd, the satisfying of the civil requirements does not trip my trigger, nor do I consider it THEE pinnacle of importance in two people marrying one and other. Best of luck in your planning! 

So it's ok to have the guests be "grossly inconvenienced" and pay for an "expensive" trip so you don't have to pay the money to meet the legally requirements???

The OP stated she is concerned that people will feel they missed "real" wedding - her words, not mine. This is a valid and real concern as many have said they would be disappointed or upset. Just bc you think it's ok, doesn't mean everyone will feel the same way. The OP is concerned about her guests' feelings - which is awesome! She had some tough decisions to make, but as long sa she considers how her guests will feel, she is on the right track.

STBMrsEverhart, no comment on the track you chose - we are all too familiar with your plans.)

ashleyep

STBMrsEverhart said:

OP, if you were my friend or family member that I was close to, I would attend your wedding ceremony regardless of when and/or where you signed your license. I understand making multiple trips to a foreign country may be grossly inconvenient and expensive, especially just to meet legal requirements. FWIW, unlike the rest of the crowd, the satisfying of the civil requirements does not trip my trigger, nor do I consider it THEE pinnacle of importance in two people marrying one and other. Best of luck in your planning! 

You know what's also grossly inconvenient and expensive? Flying out to a foreign country to watch someone pretend to get married.

mrs4everhart

ashleyep said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

OP, if you were my friend or family member that I was close to, I would attend your wedding ceremony regardless of when and/or where you signed your license. I understand making multiple trips to a foreign country may be grossly inconvenient and expensive, especially just to meet legal requirements. FWIW, unlike the rest of the crowd, the satisfying of the civil requirements does not trip my trigger, nor do I consider it THEE pinnacle of importance in two people marrying one and other. Best of luck in your planning! 

You know what's also grossly inconvenient and expensive? Flying out to a foreign country to watch someone pretend to get married.

I guess you should choose the "regretfully declines" box on any rsvp card to any wedding you disagree with then. Seems a very easy solution for you.

mrs4everhart

photokitty said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

OP, if you were my friend or family member that I was close to, I would attend your wedding ceremony regardless of when and/or where you signed your license. I understand making multiple trips to a foreign country may be grossly inconvenient and expensive, especially just to meet legal requirements. FWIW, unlike the rest of the crowd, the satisfying of the civil requirements does not trip my trigger, nor do I consider it THEE pinnacle of importance in two people marrying one and other. Best of luck in your planning! 

So it's ok to have the guests be "grossly inconvenienced" and pay for an "expensive" trip so you don't have to pay the money to meet the legally requirements???

The OP stated she is concerned that people will feel they missed "real" wedding - her words, not mine. This is a valid and real concern as many have said they would be disappointed or upset. Just bc you think it's ok, doesn't mean everyone will feel the same way. The OP is concerned about her guests' feelings - which is awesome! She had some tough decisions to make, but as long sa she considers how her guests will feel, she is on the right track.

STBMrsEverhart, no comment on the track you chose - we are all too familiar with your plans.)

To the bolded, then perhaps she should ask them?

JCbride2015

STBMrsEverhart said:

photokitty said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

OP, if you were my friend or family member that I was close to, I would attend your wedding ceremony regardless of when and/or where you signed your license. I understand making multiple trips to a foreign country may be grossly inconvenient and expensive, especially just to meet legal requirements. FWIW, unlike the rest of the crowd, the satisfying of the civil requirements does not trip my trigger, nor do I consider it THEE pinnacle of importance in two people marrying one and other. Best of luck in your planning! 

So it's ok to have the guests be "grossly inconvenienced" and pay for an "expensive" trip so you don't have to pay the money to meet the legally requirements???

The OP stated she is concerned that people will feel they missed "real" wedding - her words, not mine. This is a valid and real concern as many have said they would be disappointed or upset. Just bc you think it's ok, doesn't mean everyone will feel the same way. The OP is concerned about her guests' feelings - which is awesome! She had some tough decisions to make, but as long sa she considers how her guests will feel, she is on the right track.

STBMrsEverhart, no comment on the track you chose - we are all too familiar with your plans.)

To the bolded, then perhaps she should ask them?

It seems like OP is herself concerned that the "real" wedding is the legal ceremony (she is right) and that her guests will feel the same way (they probably will).  She has good reason to be looking for other solutions.  

OP, come back and give us more info!  A wedding in England sounds super fun and I'm sure there's an answer to the dilemma here.  Personally, I'd book a vacation to England sometime within the time frame you need and use that to meet with the vendors.

Maggie0829

OP if you ant to get married in England then go through the right processes. You will most likely (and possibly even want to) have to make a trip over to England when planning your festivities. Well then make a vacation out of it, stay the number of days necessary to obtain the license and then you can have your wedding and celebration where you and your FI want it without issue.