nascarlucy
Serene Highness
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,434
- City
- Central Florida Area
- Country
- United States
I was reading about various royal families and thought it was rather interesting that some of these individuals first had a civil ceremony (marriage) then a couple of months later had a church or religious ceremony. In a few cases couples had a civil marriage but didn't have a church wedding until a couple of years later. Still others have a church wedding. Was it a conflict of religion or some other issue the reason why a civil ceremony was performed and then the church wedding later?
My next question is let's say a couple had the civil cermony and the Princess or royal became pregnant within a couple of months after the marriage. Because a church wedding was not performed and because a church wedding usually can't be done quickly, what would be the status be of the child. The child would not be considered out of wedlock by that state or country because a civil ceremony was performed. If this person was an heir to the throne, it might cause a problem especially if someone came in and said that because the parents were not married in a religious ceremony when the heir was born, then he or she is not eligible to be the heir apparent.
My next question is let's say a couple had the civil cermony and the Princess or royal became pregnant within a couple of months after the marriage. Because a church wedding was not performed and because a church wedding usually can't be done quickly, what would be the status be of the child. The child would not be considered out of wedlock by that state or country because a civil ceremony was performed. If this person was an heir to the throne, it might cause a problem especially if someone came in and said that because the parents were not married in a religious ceremony when the heir was born, then he or she is not eligible to be the heir apparent.