It was actually a sweet situation. An elderly couple had lived together for 20 years, but never married. Both were terminal and being married would make things more convenient. A friend got me involved, and wedding bells ensued. The groom had an episode of shortness of breath while we “rehearsed” ten minutes before showtime. He recovered, we did a short ceremony, and their final year was a bit better.
I don’t think the Book of Common Prayer is used much for many modern weddings in the Church of England (the stuff about carnal lust is not really appreciated), but the “series one” marriage service in the Common Worship book keeps this portion exactly as it was in the BCP.
And the more modern service in Common Worship still asks, but doesn’t use the traditional language:
I always thought myself, that the important part of that phrase, was the “or forever hold your peace” segment.
To emphasize that the entire community should SUPPORT the marriage, and that everyone who may have wanted another reality, should grow the Eff up and adjust to this one.
As already pointed out, the exhortation is not to object to a marriage that you think is unwise or ill-starred; it’s to object to a marriage that’s illegal, because (e.g.) one of the couple is already married to someone else, or the couple are within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity.
If there is such an objection, but it isn’t raised at the time of the ceremony, the objection doesn’t go away. The marriage is still void, and the objection can be raised at any future time.
The “forever hold your peace” bit, therefore, doesn’t really hold water. If you do raise the objection at a later point, people will ask why you didn’t raise it right away, but if what you are pointing to is a real impediment to a valid marriage, well, it’s still a real impediment.
I suspect what it may refer to is the position of the celebrant/minister. You can’t later accuse or penalise the minister for purporting to celebrate an invalid marriage if, at the time, you didn’t point out the invalidity to him.
Back during my Catholic life this is how it was done.
I think posting banns of marriage is a dying custom in the Episcopal Church. I haven’t heard of it being done for many years.
Back to the Book of Common Prayer, right after asking the parishoners of any reason the pair cannot be married, it asks the bride and groom to confess any marriage impediment. In the 1928 American version (which a few traditional Episcopal churches still use), it also adds the lines
If the minister had any reason to doubt the lawfulness of the marriage, the older version allows him to ask for proof that the marriage is legal before going through with the ceremony.
(BTW, at the half dozen Episcopal services I’ve been to in the northwestern U.S., they use the 1979 BCP with the exception of one that used the 1928 BCP.)
As a wedding minister in Japan, I’ve officiated somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand ceremonies, and have only said it once. And that was at the specific request of a couple where the groom was American and the bride had spent a lot of time overseas.
Since the ceremonies don’t have any legal standing here (if you have the money, you and your friends can grab names out of a hat and have a new set of weddings each week if you want), the question doesn’t really have any meaning, so it’s left out.
Incidentally, in that one case, nobody spoke up.
As others have said, it comes from the Anglican/Episcopal tradition.
Here’s that tradition in all its glory at the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton at Westminster Abbey.
Link to the point where the phrase is used:
And here’s the start of the wedding ceremony. Every woman’s dream wedding!
This is how it has been done at the 20+ weddings I have been to in the UK, ‘lawfully’ being the key word. Celebrants vary in how much of a dramatic pause they then allow, always followed by a bit of a smile and jokey comment before continuing with the service. I have never witnessed anyone speaking up, either seriously or as a prank.
I believe reading the banns three times is still a requirement in the UK, it certainly happened when we got married six years ago.
The old practice of posting banns is very significantly related to all this.
Remember, women didn’t have much say as to who they were betrothed to. And being betrothed was a big deal. The actual ceremony was just the completion of the marriage ritual.
Often times a father might promise a daughter to another guy’s son. Basically a business deal, a contract. And it sometimes happened that a better offer would come along. The banns would allow the original groom’s father to raise objections. It was considered not all that different from bigamy. The “… forever hold your peace” part denoted the last moment such an objection could be raised.
Twenty seven years ago, my wife and I were married by our Rabbi in Pittsburgh. Because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania required a blood test pre-marriage, my wife and I had actually had a civil ceremony in Baltimore County, MD, about 10 days before the “real wedding.” (Maryland did not have the blood test nonsense.)
We waited in a room in whatever government building it was, and the Justice of the Peace, or whatever he was, entered. He read the ceremony from a script, which included the line about anybody objecting. And he stopped . . . and waited 30 seconds. It was only the 3 of us in the room - whom did he think was going to object?
I so want to do this, but you have to know your audience and it’s just not the kind of prank that will work well at most weddings.
I also wanted to do this at a wedding where I was sure it wouldn’t work out, and it didn’t, but it’s just none of my business. Nobody stopped me from marrying my wife even though I’m sure someone must have thought they knew better. Our anniversary was Sunday, and I’m pretty sure this won’t last another 39 years, but we’ll just have to wait and see.
It was totally different from bigamy. The most that could be done if an engagement was broken by a man was a civil-law ‘breach of promise’ action. If an engagement was broken by a woman any legal action would have been laughed out of court, as it was held that ‘a woman has the right to change her mind’. Many women got large payouts this way, especially in the 19th century.
The idea that women had little say about who they were married to is exaggerated. Sometimes in wealthy and royal families this was the case, but far less so the lower down the social scale you went.
Also, after age 21 the parent or guardian’s consent for marriage was not needed.
Husband and I included this line, because we knew our friends are a bunch of smartasses, and that they would feel tempted to speak up, but that they wouldn’t.
So basically just to troll our friends.
Well, sure. You don’t want to rush into anything.
kayaker:
You’d have a perfect record if only you’d left out the “till death do us part” line as well.
I always thought it was “forever hold your piece”.
Betrothals were a big thing. Couples would oftentimes move into together and start working on producing a family between betrothal and the marriage ceremony. A woman left by a man during that phase could find herself in a terrible situation. No longer a virgin, possibly with child, sometimes even estranged from her family. Breaking off a betrothal had consequences. The groom would not be left off lightly. So, for example, him running off to marry another was something consider Not A Good Thing. Something that the original bride’s family would be allowed to object to at the other wedding.
Keep in mind that dowries and such were often a part of a betrothal arrangement. So what happens to all that is tied up in this.
As to women choosing. I know living, young women from Indian families who have lived all or most of their lives in the US who had no say in their choice of husband.
Not only was a woman’s right to choose a husband often limited in most countries back then it still is the norm in many countries right now.
Vs. pulling it out and plugging the groom?