In sickness and in health? That’s too religious for a civil wedding

London: It is a phrase used for centuries by couples pledging to be faithful to each other. But as Gary and Louise Lidington made final preparations for their wedding, they received an urgent telephone call from the council registrar warning that they could not legally say the words “in sickness and in health”.

Officials in Tower Hamlets, east London, claimed that the phrase sounded too “religious” for a civil ceremony. The couple were forced to rewrite their vows just hours before the wedding, which took place on Saturday.

The phrase “to have and to hold” was also banned at the last minute because it was deemed too Christian, due to its echoes of the marriage service in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. But, after discussion, the council ruled that to it would be acceptable to say “to hold and to have”. And they were allowed to replace “in sickness and in health” with “in sickness and when we are well”.

The couple said they had no choice but to agree to the change of wording or face having to call off their wedding. The incident shines the spotlight on confusion over the law on civil weddings, in which religious elements such as hymns or Bible readings have been officially forbidden since 1837.

But the rules were relaxed eight years ago, as part of a wider overhaul of the civil weddings system, allowing couples to choose songs with religious references such as Aretha Franklin’s I Say A Little Prayer or Angels by Robbie Williams.

Arrangements for the wedding, held in Wilton’s Music Hall in the East End of London, had been agreed for months. As far as the couple were aware, formalities such as the vows had also been approved at a meeting with registrars in February.

But on Friday afternoon Mrs Lidington, 39, a PR executive, received a message on her mobile phone. “It was the registrar to say that she would not be able to marry us with these words and could I rewrite them over the phone,” she said.

Lidington explained that neither she nor her husband, a barrister, were especially religious and had chosen the vows from a website specifically because they were traditional while still apparently being suitable for a civil wedding.

“They have just stood the test of time, they sound like poetry, they flow beautifully and they are just the form of words that you expect at a wedding.

“Ever since I was 11 I just imagined that they would be the words I would use when I married my husband. It just seems ridiculous that words which don’t mention religion could be so problematic.”

A spokesman for the council said: “We apologise for the short notice that Mr and Mrs Lidington received regarding changes to their chosen vows.

“It was important that their civil ceremony complied with the relevant legality process, and we worked closely with the couple to ensure that the vows they exchanged on their special day were as close as possible to those initially chosen by them.”