Marriage Laws In The United Kingdom Quiz

Answer: Different jurisdictions of the United Kingdom have different rules

In the United Kingdom, there are no uniform rules regarding the minimum age of marriage, that apply throughout the country. The United Kingdom is a sovereign state consisting of four countries. These countries are: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In each of these countries, the rules regarding the minimum age of marriage are different.

For example, in England and Wales, the minimum age for marriage is 16 for both males and females, although the permission of the parents of both the bride and the groom in such a situation, but the permission of parents is not required if both the bride and the groom are 18 years or above.

In Scotland, the minimum age for marriage is 16, and the permission of parents of the bride and the groom is not required at any age.

In Northern Ireland, the minimum age for marriage is 16 or 17, for females and males respectively, but as in England and Wales, the permission of the parents of the bride and groom is required if they are 16 or 17, but it is not required if they are 18 years of age or above.

Answer: Both Civil Marriages and Religious Marriages are recognised by law

According to the marriage laws of the United Kingdom, both civil marriages and religious marriages are recognised as legal weddings. But the procedures that have to be followed are different in civil marriage ceremonies and religious marriage ceremonies.

If the bride and groom are planning to get married in a civil marriage ceremony, then a notice of at least 28 full days must be given at the local register office, which will be displayed publicly, for the above mentioned timeframe, and give the details of where the couple intends to get married, and an appointment has to be made with the relavent register office. After this, the bride and groom must take the documents required for the civil marriage ceremony, and get married in ther register office, after the 28 day timeframe is over. Civil marriage ceremonies require the presence of at least two witnesses, and the marriage register has to be signed by the couple, the registrar and the witnesses.

On the other hand, if the bride and the groom are planning to get married in a religious marriage ceremony, they can do this in a church, or chapel, and if a couple is planning to get married in an Anglican church, then the marriage can take place only between a man and a woman. Also, the couple is not required to give a notice, if both the partners are citizens of the United Kingdom or the European Union. If two people, who want to get married in the United Kingdom are citizens of a country other than the UK or any EU member state, such as the USA, then a notice must be given regarding the marriage. The authorities of the Anglican church will register the marriage. For marriage ceremonies of other religions and religious denominations, a notice of the marriage must be given, and the officials performing the marriage ceremony can register the marriage. A newly married couple also has the option of getting a religious blessing, after a civil marriage ceremony has taken place.

In this respect, the laws United Kingdom are different from those of countries such as France and Germany where civil marriage is the only form of marriage that is legally recognised. In other words, in France and Germany, a man and a woman will not be considered to be legally married to each other unless they have been married in a civil marriage ceremony.

Answer: The Marriage Act, 1949

The Marriage Act, 1949, is a law that was passed by the British Parliament in 1949 and came into force in 1950. The aim of the law was to regulate marriages in England and Wales, and amongst other issues, it also regulated the hours during which a couple could get married and prohibited people from getting married in the evening and night.

The principle goes back as far as the Marriage Act of 1753. According to this law, people were not allowed to get married before 8 AM and after 6 PM. This restriction was removed in 2012.

Answer: The Marriage Act, 1836

The Marriage Act, 1836, is a law that was passed by the British Parliament on August 17, 1836 and was enforced in 1837. It was the first law that gave legal recognition to civil marriage ceremonies. Before the act was passed, the only way to get married legally was by getting married in a ceremony performed by the Church of England, the Jews or Quakers. The result was that people who belonged to various religions, had to marry in accordance with ceremonies that were legally recognised, otherwise, their marriage was not recognised and valid.

According to the provisions and clauses of the Marriage Act, 1836 people who intended to get married were required to give a written notice of 21 days to the registrar of the district where the couple was planning to get married, and the notice had to be signed by one of the parties. The notice also included details of each party, like their name, surname, address, occupation and also stated that the couple was marrying with each other's consent. A couple could get married only after 21 days of the notice, or before seven days of being granted a marriage license. The Act also introduced a requirement that two witnesses had to present at the marriage ceremony. It also allowed marriages to be legally registered in buildings belonging to other religious groups, provided such religious groups applied for the registration of their buildings to the Registrar General, and could conduct civil marriage ceremonies in the presence of the Registrar General, the bride and groom and two witnesses. The marriages had to be registered and signed by the Minister who conducted the ceremony, the Registrar, the bride, the groom, the witnesses, and certified copies of the registration had to be sent to the Superintendent Registrar. The Act was opposed by the clergy at the time it was introduced.

The Foreign Marriage Act, 1892 established rules regarding the marriage of those British citizens, who married outside the United Kingdom. The Marriage Act, 1955 is a law that was passed by the Parliament of New Zealand to regulate marriages in New Zealand and the The Forced Marriage( Civil Protection) Act, 2007, is an Act that was passed by the British Parliament in order to help people who are victims of forced marriages or people who have been threatened with forced marriages.

Answer: They are not legally enforceable currently, but provide considerable protection to the well off spouse

A pre-nuptial agreement is an agreement that is signed by two partners and clearly states how the assets of the couple may be divided in the event that a divorce occurs. It can also include the post-divorce financial arrangements of the couple. It can also make clear what the couple may own during their marriage and it must be signed at least 21 days befor the couple have actually got married. Pre-nuptial agreements are generally signed by people who are very wealthy, in order to protect their financial assets. If a pre-nuptial agreement is not drawn up, then both the partners will jointly own and have equal rights over each others assets. A post-nuptial agreement serves the same objective, but it is concluded after marriage.

According to the laws of the United Kingdom, pre-nuptial agreements are not legally enforcable automatically, but they are given due weight by the courts and various factors are taken into consideration, such as the interests of children in case a divorce takes place, whether the partners understand the nature and significance of the pre-nuptial agreement, whether the people who have concluded the agreement have their own legal advisor or solicitor, whether or not both the partners have disclosed all their assets, and whether there would be any injustice to the less wealthy partner if the agreement were upheld and approved by the court. However, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom upheld the pre-nuptial agreement in the "Radmacher v Granatino Case" of 2010.

Katrin Radmacher and Nicolas Granatino married in 1998, in England. Katrin was from a very wealthy family in Germany, while Nicolas Granatino was a French investment banker. Before they got married, the two of them had concluded a pre-nuptial agreement in Germany. According to the terms of this agreement, neither of the parties was likely to gain any financial benefits, if they had a divorce. The couple had two children also, but separated eight years later, in 2006. In 2007, the couple divorced. Nicolas Granatino took the case to the High Court, and argued that since his wife was far wealthier than him, and that since he had not tried to seek independent legal advice, and the agreement made no provisions for taking care of the interests of the couple's children, and that the agreement could not be enforced and upheld, since according to the laws of the United Kingdom, pre-nuptial agreements are not legally enforcable he claimed a reasonable settlement. However, Katrin Radmacher offered a very small sum of money, since she was relying on the terms of the agreement. The High Court heard the case and awarded Nicolas Granatino a settelement that was larger than what his wife had offered. The court said in its verdict that since the agreement had not made any provisions for the children, and since Nicolas Granatino did not receive any independent legal advice, it could not be held significant by the court. Katrin Radmacher made an appeal at the Court of Appeal, which heard the case and reduced the settlement that the husband had been awarded by the High Court, in view of the fact that Nicolas Granatino was just a father, and no longer a spouse. The court agreed that the agreement had drawbacks, but it still upheld it, given the circumstances of the case, and so Mr. Granatino appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the agreement, but said that such agreements cannot override the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973, and that its significance should be considered along with other circumstances and factors.

Answer: A Register Office, church or hotel

The Marriage Act, 1994, which was passed by the British Parliament to allow certain types of places for conducting marriage ceremonies, clearly states that the places where a marriage ceremony can be conducted are Register Offices, Churches and hotels. Some other places where marriage ceremonies can be conducted are Synagogues, if both the partners are Jewish, a Meeting House, if one of the partners or both the partners are Quakers and belong to the Society of Friends, any other religious buildings, as long as those buildings have been registered and approved for conducting marriage ceremonies.

Also, in England and Wales local authorities have the power to approve other places where civil marriages can take place. These places must be permanent buildings and structures and must be open to the general public. However, these buildings and structures don't include college and university buildings, police stations and cinema halls, since these are to be used only for academic training, by the police force and for showing films respectively. Marriage ceremonies cannot be conducted on public transport vehicles such as trains, trams and aeroplanes.

Answer: Marriage between a brother and a sister

According to the laws of the United Kingdom, people who are related to each other cannot marry. If they get married, their marriage will be considered invalid automatically as per the provisions of the law. Thus, a man and a woman, who are each other's brother and sister cannot marry as it will automatically become invalid as per the law of the United Kingdom. Other relatives who cannot marry as per the law are parents and children, adoptive parents and adoptive children, grandparents, grandchildren, half-siblings, parents' siblings and half-siblings, uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews or their children.

As regards Second Marriages, people are allowed by the law to marry again in a civil marriage ceremony, as long as both the partners are widowed or divorced and the partners are marrying without any force.

Marriage between a man and a woman who are not related to each other is valid according to the laws of the country as long as they follow the legal procedure for getting married correctly.

A man and a woman who are childhood friends can marry, as the laws of the country don't prevent childhood friends from marrying.

Answer: Regarding housing, different rules apply to married and unmarried or cohabiting couples

In the United Kingdom, if two people are not married, but they are living together in the same house and are in a serious relationship, the term used to describe such a couple is "Relationship akin to marriage" or "Cohabitation". They are also called "Unmarried Partners". Legally, there are some significant differences between the status of couples who are legally married and couples who live together without marriage.

For example, if a couple is legally married, whether in a civil marriage ceremony or in a religious marriage ceremony, and they are tenants or they own a home, then both the partners or spouses have a legal right to stay in the home rented or bought by the couple, irespective of who rented or bought it, unless they receive a court order in divorce or separation proceedings that directs one of the partners not to stay. If the divorce has been granted by the court, and both the partners reach an agreement regarding who can or should stay in the home, then the landlord or landlady can be asked to transfer the tenancy agreement in the name of the partner who is staying. If the tenancy agreement is in the names of both the partners, then the partners can tell the landlord or landlady to remove the name of the partner who will not stay, from the tenancy agreement. If the partners are unable to reach any agreement on who should stay, then the court will decide the issue after considering all the aspects of the case. If the parters own the property, the court can order one of the partners to transfer of the ownership rights to the other partner, if they are divorcing, irrespective of who was the original owner. But if the couple is merely separating, then the court will issue this type of an order only if it feels that it will help to protect the interests of the children, if the couple has any children. If one of the partners is the sole or joint owner of a property, then the other partner cannot sell it without his or her permission. But if one of the partners is not an owner or the owner of a property, and the other partner is the sole owner of the property, then the partner who is not an owner will have to register his or her "home rights" in the property, in order to protect his or her interests in the property.

If on the other hand, an unmarried couple is living together as tenants, and if the tenancy agreement is only in the name of one of the partners, and if the partner in whose name the agreement is, asks the other partner to leave, then in this type of a situation, the other partner doesn't have any option but to leave, since he or she doesn't have any legal right to stay because they are not legally married. For this reason, unmarried couples are advised to take the tenancy agreement in the names of both the partners, since this gives them equal rights and responsibilities in the house or flat. Sole tenancy agreements can be converted into joint tenancy agreements, if the sole tenant and his or her landlord or landlady agree to this arrangement. However a court can grant the unmarried partner of a sole tenant temporary and short-term rights to stay, if he or she applies to the court for such rights. The court can also issue an order to the landlord or landlady of a sole tenant to transfer a tenancy agreement in the name of the partner who is not named in the agreement and also order the landlord or landlady to transfer a joint tenancy agreement in the names of one of the partners. If the partners who are living together are joint owners of a property like a house or a flat, then both the partners have a right to stay in the house or flat, but if the couple has children, then one of the partners can ask the court to transfer ownership in his or her name, and the court will do this only if it feels that it is in the best interest of the children. However the ownership of the property will remain in the hands of that partner only till the children have attained majority. If one of the partners is the sole owner of the house or flat, then he or she can stay in it, but the other partner can claim a "beneficial interest" in the property. On the other hand, if one partner is a sole owner, the other partner may not have any right to stay in the property, if the other partner, who is the owner, asks him or her to leave the house or flat. The partner who doesn't own the house or flat may claim "beneficial interest" or request the court to issue an "occupation order". He or she also may apply to the court to issue an order to transfer the ownership of the property in his or her name, if he or she has children. As in the case of joint ownership, the court will decide whether or not a transfer of ownership will be in the best interests of the children, and decide the issue according to what it thinks will be in the best interests of the children of the couple. If it issues an order to transfer the ownership of the property in the name of the partner who doesn't own the house or flat, the partner who isn't the owner of the house or flat, will become its owner till his or her children attain majority.

As regards the issues of married couples being treated more favourably than unmarried couples in the United Kingdom, now both ways of living together are accepted in the country. Before, during the 1950s and 1960s for example, marriage was the only way in which a man and woman were legally allowed to live together, and if a man and a woman were living together without being legally married to each other, they were looked down upon by society, but now this is no longer the case.

Answer: Divorce, Nullity of marriage, maintenance and other similar issues

The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 is an act that was passed in 1973 by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Act deals with divorce and marriage related issues such as nullity of marriages, maintenance, custody of children and other such issues. It has been amended from time to time.

For example, in 2002, the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act was passed in order to allow one party to submit a petition to a court not to declare their divorce final and absolute unless and until they have received a similar document from a religious authority.

The Act applies only in the jurisdictions of England and Wales. This Act was introduced in the Parliament of the United Kingdom by British MP Andrew Dismore as a Private Members' Bill. The Act became effective from February 2003.

Answer: Theresa May

The "Minimum Income Requirement", is a condition that must be fulfilled by all British citizens who are married to foreign nationals or in a "Relationship akin to marriage" with a foreign national, and the British citizen wants to bring his or her foreign national spouse or partner to the United Kingdom, was introduced by Theresa May in 2012, when she was the Secretary of State for the Home Department, commonly known as the Home Secretary, in the government of David Cameron. Her objective in introducing this provision was to restrict and bring down the number of Non-EU citizens who intended to migrate to the United Kingdom on the basis of their marriage to or relationship with a British citizen. Theresa May officially announced in June, 2012 that the new rules will be applicable to spouses and partners of British citizens who applied for family visas after July 9, 2012.

The government's decision was opposed by many people and political parties, such as the Labour Party which officially stated that it wanted the existing rules to be followed. Before Theresa May announced the new rules, British citizens who were married to or in a "Relationship akin to marriage" with a foreign national who wasn't a citizen of a member state of the European Union, would be simply required to prove that they had sufficient funds or income and a reasonable accomodation to support themselves without having to depend on public funds, and the Labour Party politician Jeremy Corbyn officially stated in the election campaign held for the June 2017 General Elections that if the Labour Party is elected to power, it will remove the "Minimum Income Requirement" and British nationals married to Non-EU foreign nationals, would be required to prove that they and their foreign national spouse or partner could support themselves without needing public funds. In addition, many British citizens married to Non-EU foreign nationals criticised the rules as they felt that the new rules would make it difficult for them to bring their foreign national spouses and partners to live with them in the United Kingdom. The government was taken to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom regarding the validity of the "Minimum Income Requirement" rule in 2017 and the Supreme Court upheld the government's new rule, but modified the order by stating that the interests of children must be taken into consideration, and that the Home Office should also consider sources of income other than the salary of the British spouse while taking decisions on family visa applications, since the existing rules needed to be rectified as those rules forced many such families to live separately and away from each other. The verdict of the Supreme Court provided some relief for British citizens who are married to a Non EU foreign national and have children.