|
|
Post by cloudbusting.heights on Sept 15, 2019 12:17:48 GMT
😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍
Idk how else to react haha
(Let me know if the emojis didn't show up)
|
|
|
|
Post by crissyt on Sept 15, 2019 12:52:10 GMT
Quite delightful! Hayley was positively radiating joy, excitement and happiness. I'm so pleased. She is clearly back to her old self again, both in appearance and happiness. Wonderful! A final and unequivocal indicator that the bad time are over and the future beckons. A good choice of the platform sole shoes. Makes kissing the groom easier! Or rather, makes it easier for the groom to kiss the bride without losing his balance! Libby has touched on a point which has occurred to me many times before. Won't go further at the moment, because today, we bask in the metaphorical bright sunshine of the event and send our very best wishes to Hayley, Chris, their families and friends. They've certainly been quick off the mark. By my reckoning, it's only 41 days (4 Aug) since Stan Parish posted the first engagement clue and exactly a month since Hayley posted the same photo with the "I said yes to this one" caption. Of course the actual event could have occurred much earlier, but somehow, I don't thinks so! I do like these informal wedding ceremonies where it's relaxed and everyone is clearly enjoying themselves. The daughter of an old friend married here in the UK a couple of years ago. They held the ceremony in the garden as well. It was conducted by the groom's father who is a lay preacher. However this meant that it was not recognised under UK law, so the couple had actually got married legally the day before at their local registry office. I wonder if Hayley and Chris had to do this, or whether this type of ceremony is recognised in the US? Perhaps our US members could appraise us? The pan round the wedding guests was fast, but despite several re-watches, I, too, couldn't see any of the W family. Significant, I wonder?
No doubt Hayley's choice, but it seemed unusual to me that she had no one to take her arm as she processed into the ceremony. Perhaps I'm just a bit old fashioned in these matters.
Yes, I'd clocked the mirror as well, Comet.
|
|
|
|
Post by crissyt on Sept 15, 2019 13:20:33 GMT
I've just watched it all one more time before we start losing it under the 24 hour cut-off. Chris is clearly taken completely by surprise when Stan appears at the meal and is so happy. Stan is obviously something of a wag! Have a look at his "The long con" permanent video. Also it was joyous to see both Chis and Hayley so obviously happy. During the ceremony, neither of them can keep still and Hayley is chuckling in her unique way. At the point when Andy Baldwin says "… man and wife …", Hayley bends her knees slightly. For someone used to public performance, it's all a wonderful give-away.
Another look at the pan round. Didn't see Chris' dad either. Maybe a friends only ceremony?
|
|
|
|
Post by cloudbusting.heights on Sept 15, 2019 14:47:52 GMT
|
|
Joe
Administrator
Supporting Hayley since 2003!
Posts: 6,715 
|
Post by Joe on Sept 15, 2019 15:43:51 GMT
Hi Crissy,
I researched the marriage guidelines under the state of California. One does not have to be a resident of California to be married there, and the two people may not already be married to each other. So there could not have been a prior ceremony earlier this year...we thought that perhaps there was one already.
Hi devotedfan!
That Insta pic just might be my favorite one yet! Good find and thanks for sharing! And we definitely need some heart emoticons here on the forum!
|
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Sept 15, 2019 20:34:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crissyt on Sept 15, 2019 21:27:45 GMT
Hello Joe, Thanks for the info. I was thinking that maybe the ceremony that we've seen was a non-legal celebration of their own choosing for them and their friends. A sort of party with vows. Thus they would need to have a separate legal ceremony for it to be a marriage recognised under law. Only one could be a legally recognised wedding, or course. I agree with the thinking that everything, whatever "everything" might be, has occurred recently, and certainly since the August anouncements. Maybe it's possible that Andy Baldwin is authorised by the state of California as a marriage celebrant able to conduct legally recognised weddings, just as priests in a church are. Regardless, it was wonderful to see. No one's mentioned the dress yet, at least I think no one has. Elegant, dignified, and quite, quite lovely. Hayley to a T, in fact. I much prefer that style to a more typical wedding "meringue" dress covered in lace and frills. I've been wracking my brains as to where she's worn something similar and it's finally come to me. It was when she sang ALW's Pie Jesu at the 2011 National Memorial Day Concert in Washington. www.youtube.com/watch?v=msQjjAnGjQQ. Detailed differences of course. The wedding dress was somewhat lighter (weight, not colour), less formal, and more summery, but the lines and cut are similar and I think it's a style that just suites her so well. Just had another look at Stan's videos while they're still up. I think I've spotted Chris's dad in the pan round. He's at standing at the back in a white shirt holding a 'phone across his chest. He appears just after the person in the red shirt and black hat. |
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Sept 15, 2019 23:35:16 GMT
My boss' wedding the other night was more than a year after her legal wedding... She already was using her new last name when I started back in April.
Andy lives in New York... and they were in NY not long ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Sept 15, 2019 23:39:37 GMT
😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍 Idk how else to react haha (Let me know if the emojis didn't show up) I know my emojis always show up. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Sept 16, 2019 13:26:14 GMT
My boss' wedding the other night was more than a year after her legal wedding... She already was using her new last name when I started back in April. Andy lives in New York... and they were in NY not long ago. That's nothing Libby. My own church wedding to Sue was 26 years after our legal one! Our grandson was best man. |
|
|
|
Post by cloudbusting.heights on Sept 16, 2019 16:14:32 GMT
Stan has posted a new Instagram story video. I havent been able to listen to it yet. But it is more footage from the ceremony!!!
Edit: it is an oddly timed post, based on our recent discussions here, and answers a couple questions we've had.
|
|
Joe
Administrator
Supporting Hayley since 2003!
Posts: 6,715
|
Post by Joe on Sept 16, 2019 19:08:09 GMT
Stan has posted a new Instagram story video. I havent been able to listen to it yet. But it is more footage from the ceremony!!! Edit: it is an oddly timed post, based on our recent discussions here, and answers a couple questions we've had. OMG yes! Andy's accent is probably Australian, as asks Hayley the big question. Now we know what Gaelan refers to, and the church that Andy is vested in. Now, "nookie heaven" is a bit harsh...it mildly means "great love making"! Here is a screen capture...  |
|
|
|
Post by crissyt on Sept 17, 2019 0:43:44 GMT
Fascinating. I agree that the timing seems to be more than coincidence. A bit of a web trawl, which did not for a moment involve Streetview  , suggests that relying on such an ordination for the marriage to be legally recognised as binding and beyond challenge is somewhat risky. It seems to depend on which state, and indeed which county one is in. California allows a county Clerk Recorder to authorize an individual to be deputized for a day to perform a single civil wedding ceremony. That is, a non-religious ceremony. Maybe that's why the state of California was also cited as vesting power as well as the Church. However there does seem to be something of a contradiction in terms if claiming powers from both the church and the civil ceremony authority granted by the Clerk Recorder. I hope that mentioning the Church does not void any civil ceremony only authorization granted by the Clerk Recorder.
Assuming it isn't voided, then as long as the marriage licence is returned to the issuing office suitably filled in and signed within the time allowed (I think I read 10 days somewhere), it's a legal marriage under California law.
Having read all this, I quite fancy becoming ordained myself, but sadly, UK law would not permit me to perform legally binding marriages. That's only for licenced members of the Church and official Registrars. Pity, might have been a nice little earner in retirement! |
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Sept 17, 2019 13:44:50 GMT
Stan has posted a new Instagram story video. I havent been able to listen to it yet. But it is more footage from the ceremony!!! Edit: it is an oddly timed post, based on our recent discussions here, and answers a couple questions we've had. OMG yes! Andy's accent is probably Australian, as asks Hayley the big question. Now we know what Gaelan refers to, .... ... We do? 🤔🤷♀️ I’m afraid I have no idea, or what it is that supposedly tells me what the answer comes from. Do tell. |
|
|
|
Post by cloudbusting.heights on Sept 17, 2019 14:33:41 GMT
OMG yes! Andy's accent is probably Australian, as asks Hayley the big question. Now we know what Gaelan refers to, .... ... We do? 🤔🤷♀️ I’m afraid I have no idea, or what it is that supposedly tells me what the answer comes from. Do tell. It's his middle name. |
|
, suggests that relying on such an ordination for the marriage to be legally recognised as binding and beyond challenge is somewhat risky. It seems to depend on which state, and indeed which county one is in.