puddingcat: (Default)
puddingcat ([personal profile] puddingcat) wrote2005-02-09 12:19 am

Civil wedding ceremonies question.

From Confetti.co.uk -

"We are advised by the Registrar General that under no circumstances can any religious service, or any words or phrases with a religious connotation, be used during your civil wedding. The items you chose have to be approved by the Superintendent Registrar, usually no later than 1 month before the date of your wedding.

Examples of tracts, which are not appropriate, are extracts from the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Prophet and Howard's End. Moreover the Registrar General considers that the omission or selective reference from any piece would not alter it's religious character.
Having said all that it still leaves lots to choose from, anything from Shakespeare to Winnie the Pooh or W H Auden to Pam Ayres."

Why is "Howard's End" considered inappropriate? Google hasn't helped.

[identity profile] sloanesomething.livejournal.com 2005-02-09 03:06 am (UTC)(link)
Okay, when you find out, I want to know. That's crazy.

[identity profile] puddingcat.livejournal.com 2005-02-09 06:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Almost as crazy as suggesting Winnie The Pooh as an alternative.

Well, unless it's two plushies getting married ;) Or a 100-Acre Wood fanficcer. (Ew. Why did I have to think that?)

[identity profile] nmg.livejournal.com 2005-02-09 09:25 am (UTC)(link)
Quite odd - I've no idea why Howard's End would be on the list of exclusions. For what it's worth, we were thinking of having the Ode to Joy played at our wedding at one point, and the registrar was fine with that even though it contains the phrase "heiligtum"/"holy home" (depending on whether you're using Schiller's lyric or one of the english translations).

[identity profile] whiskeylover.livejournal.com 2005-02-09 05:37 pm (UTC)(link)
Far more obviously, it's Freude schöner Götterfunken. i.e. Joy, beautiful divine spark...

[identity profile] ukporl.livejournal.com 2005-02-09 09:49 am (UTC)(link)
Because it was an appalling piece of mid-80's, yacht-infested pseudo-soap that really should have tried harder. Or preferably not at all.


Oh.
Hang on...that was Howard's Way wasn't it?

Sorry.

[identity profile] whotheheckami.livejournal.com 2005-02-09 09:55 am (UTC)(link)
*thwap* :@)

[identity profile] puddingcat.livejournal.com 2005-02-09 06:40 pm (UTC)(link)
An easy mistake to make :) Now, Howard's End as 80s soap - that would be worth watching...

[identity profile] dunsirn.livejournal.com 2005-02-09 06:20 pm (UTC)(link)
maybe the registrar just plain doesn't like it.

god knows, i'm the same with bernard shaw's "man and superman"...

[identity profile] puddingcat.livejournal.com 2005-02-09 06:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Nope - it's in the Big Book of How To Be A Registrar. Strictly forbidden - unless you wait until the registrars have left the room, and are out of earshot. Then you can have someone stand up & read a bit.

[identity profile] nannyo.livejournal.com 2005-02-10 10:05 am (UTC)(link)
I don't understand.... What? Howard's End? but Shakespeare is OK?
The poem that I read for my friend Alex's wedding had the word love substituted for God, and it was the very well known Love me for Love's Sake from Elizabeth Barrat Browning's Sonnets from the Portuguese, but nobody commented or said anything to me... heh, not as well read as they thought.
N.