Fol­low­ing the ‘Wed­ding Saga’

Cyprus Today - - LETTERS -

I HAVE been try­ing to fol­low the St An­drew’s, Girne, “Wed­ding Saga” through your col­umns but am be­com­ing in­creas­ingly con­fused.

It is be­gin­ning to read like an episode of Yes Min­is­ter! Was this a le­gal wed­ding con­ducted il­le­gally? Or an il­le­gal wed­ding con­ducted legally?

In her March 31 di­a­tribe, Mrs Hough “re­jected claims that pa­per­work for sev­eral wed­dings had not been prop­erly com­pleted” but then says that she has of­fered to re­im­burse one cou­ple, Craig Har­ri­son and Lakin Rosse, for a re­turn trip to Cyprus to cor­rect the non-ex­is­tent er­rors by re-run­ning the com­plete wed­ding. Par­don?

Ev­ery­one else is to blame, rem­i­nis­cent of Frankie How­erd in Up Pom­peii – “In­famy! In­famy! Every­body’s got it in­famy!”

Of course, the [South Cyprus­based] “Kyre­nia Mu­nic­i­pal­ity” may also have a view, since I un­der­stand that the first at­tempt was made without any of the pre­lim­i­nary pa­per­work or pay­ment of the nec­es­sary fees.

It has since been said that the “happy cou­ple” were “mar­ried in the eyes of God”, so there is no prob­lem — which is a bit naïve. My un­der­stand­ing is that a prop­erly con­ducted Church wed­ding is still a con­tract in civil law, al­beit a con­tract blessed by God. Con­se­quently, any breach con­sti­tutes an of­fence un­der that same civil law. Try­ing to pin the blame on God is very bad form.

So, dear Cyprus To­day, keep on the case. I’m sure we have not heard the last of it. James Gibbs, Al­san­cak

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Cyprus

© PressReader. All rights reserved.