UK premier Boris Johnson has wed in secret at Catholic Westminster Cathedral London
#1
This is a Mail on Sunday article. I have not posted further details relating to some of Johnson`s previous activities but they can be found should you wish to read the web page which is linked in at the end of this article.

"Boris Johnson married girlfriend Carrie Symonds in a secret ceremony yesterday morning, the Mail on Sunday can reveal.


Mr Johnson, 56, exchanged vows with Ms Symonds, 33, in Catholic Westminster Cathedral in front of a handful of close friends and family - becoming the first Prime Minister to marry in office since Lord Liverpool married Mary Chester in 1822.


It comes just six days after the couple - who became engaged on the Caribbean island of Mustique in December 2019 and have baby Wilfred, aged one - sent out save-the-date cards to guests telling them to keep Saturday, July 30, 2022 free for a marriage celebration.


Despite sending out the cards, the couple are understood to have been secretly planning the small ceremony for six months.


Under current Covid rules there is a limit of 30 guests at weddings - although the cap is expected to be lifted on June 21st - 'freedom day' - when most restrictions are set to be lifted.


With Mr Johnson pegged to be back at work next week, it looks unlikely the couple - who will make their debut appearance as husband and wife at the G7 summit in June - will have a honeymoon.


One-year-old Wilfred attended the wedding, as did two official witnesses. Ms Symonds shared a picture of their son yesterday in a field of bluebells - which some speculated was a nod to the tradition of 'something blue'.


Mr Johnson's sibling's Rachel, Jo and Leo Johnson are also understood to have attended, along with his father Stanley.




During Covid, many couples have held a small marriage ceremony with just close friends - while arranging a larger celebration for after the end of all restrictions.


The 30 guests were invited at the last minute, with only a handful of church officials involved in the preparations for the service at 2pm yesterday.


Armed police stood guard as visitors were ushered out half an hour earlier by staff who told them the building was going into lockdown.


Ms Symonds wore a white dress, without a veil, for the ceremony and walked down the aisle to the strains of classical music.


They kissed after exchanging their vows for Father Daniel Humphreys, who baptised Wilfred into the faith at the same cathedral last autumn.


He also gave the newlyweds their pre-marriage instructions.


Last night, cathedral chaplain Father Michael Donaghy admitted even he didn't know the identity of the VIP bride and groom until it was all over. He said: 'It's been kept very confidential.' One witness told how the party was 'bundled into a car' after leaving the cathedral


Ms Symonds is a practising Catholic. Mr Johnson has also been baptised as a Catholic - a first for a sitting PM.


A Westminster Cathedral spokesperson told the Sunday Times: 'On Saturday 29 May, the wedding of Carrie Symonds and Boris Johnson took place in Westminster Cathedral.


'The bride and groom are both parishioners of the Westminster Cathedral parish and baptised Catholics.


'All necessary steps were taken, in both church and civil law, and all formalities completed before the wedding.'


Mr Johnson had earlier abandoned his mother's Catholicism, becoming an Anglican while at Eton.


An image of the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus appears above the altar in the cathedral's Lady Chapel, where the couple were wed.


One guest described Ms Symonds as looking 'extremely happy' and Mr Johnson as 'very smart and dapper....he didn't take his eyes of her'.


While their official guest list is still under lock and key, Mr Johnson's father, Stanley, was photographed outside No10 this evening with his daughter Julia, shortly after attending the service.


Northern Ireland First Minister Arlene Foster was the first political figure to send her best wishes, writing on Twitter: 'Huge congratulations to Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds on your wedding day.'


Keir Starmer said: 'Congratulations to Boris & Carrie. Whatever our political differences, I wish them a happy life together'.


Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, said: 'What pleasant news. I wish the Prime Minister and Carrie well, and hope he has time for a honeymoon!'


But Labour former frontbencher Jon Trickett said the wedding was 'a good way to bury this week's bad news' on Mr Cummings' testimony, the spread of the Indian coronavirus variant and the row about funding of the Downing Street flat.


Until yesterday's ceremony, the pair had been the first unmarried couple to reside in Downing Street.


They live in a flat above No.11 Downing Street with their son and a Jack Russell-cross puppy called Dilyn.


Ms Symonds, who becomes the third Mrs Johnson, announced their engagement on social media in February 2020, at the same time as she disclosed her pregnancy.


Friends of the couple say the pandemic interrupted their plans to marry sooner.


It has been suggested in the past that Ms Symonds could not become a fully-fledged 'first lady' until the couple were wed.


Mr Johnson was coy when asked about the subject in 2019, telling reporters that marriage speculation was 'a tiny bit premature'.


The marriage to Ms Symond's is Mr Johnson's third, after he was first married at the age of 23 to Allegra Mostyn-Owen in 1987. They met while they were students at Oxford.


Their union was annulled in 1993 after it emerged he was having an affair with childhood friend Marina Wheeler who he married in 1993.




But they separated in 2018. Their divorce was finalised after he arrived in Downing Street in 2019.


Mr Johnson and Ms Wheeler have two daughters, Lara Lettice, 26, and Cassia Peaches, 22, and two sons Milo Arthur, 24, and Theodore Apollo, 20, together.


Mr Johnson had affairs with three women during their 25-year marriage.


The PM also has a fifth child, Stephanie Macintyre, with art consultant Helen Macintyre. It is now known if his children attended the wedding yesterday.


In 2013 it emerged during another court hearing that Mr Johnson had fathered a daughter during an adulterous liaison while Mayor of London in 2009.


In 2004, he was sacked from the Tory frontbench over a reported affair with journalist Petronella Wyatt.


Claims that Mr Johnson squeezed the thigh of journalist Charlotte Edwardes, at a private lunch at The Spectator magazine's HQ shortly after he became editor in 1999 overshadowed his first Conservative Party conference as PM.


Ms Symonds, a former Conservative Party communications chief, was romantically linked to Mr Johnson just months after the announcement of his separation from Ms Wheeler.


She joined the Tory party media machine in 2009, first as a press adviser, then head of broadcast at Conservative campaign headquarters ahead of the 2015 general election.


Her association with Mr Johnson dates back to the early years, having worked on his successful re-election bid at City Hall in 2012.


But a row that saw police called to their home in the early stages of the Conservative leadership race offered a glimpse into the complicated private life about which Mr Johnson tries desperately to avoid answering questions.


The couple had been living together at Ms Symonds's flat in Camberwell, south London, until the well-publicised row recorded by neighbours in June 2019.


When she announced the news of the engagement she captioned the intimate holiday picture, in which he was kissing her cheek: 'I wouldn't normally post this kind of thing on here but I wanted my friends to find out from me... many of you already know but for my friends that still don't, we got engaged at the end of last year... and we've got a baby hatching early summer.'


Weeks later the couple was thrown into turmoil as the Prime Minister lay in intensive care with Covid and was given a 50-50 chance of surviving.


The Roman Catholic church does not allow divorcees to be married in its churches.


But Catherine Pepinster, Catholic author and broadcaster, explained that as Mr Johnson was himself baptised a Catholic but married previously in non-Catholic settings, the church did not recognise his previous marriages. She said: 'As far as the Church is concerned, this is his first marriage.


'They don't need to be annulled.


'They didn't happen, according to Roman Catholic canon law.'


Downing Street declined to comment last night."


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...edral.html
Reply
#2
I sincerely hope that ''All necessary steps were taken, in both church and civil law, and all formalities completed before the wedding' because the 'Catholic author' obviously has no bloody idea what the hell she's talking about!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#3
I take it Catherine Pepinster isn’t a Canon Law lawyer.
[-] The following 2 users Like FultonFan's post:
  • Ad Jesum Per Mariam, jovan66102
Reply
#4
I'm not a Canon Lawyer, but I do recall it is a classic example of a lack of consent due to substantial error on the nature of marriage if one of the spouses has been from the beginning (or during engagement) unfaithful.

Marriage is an exclusive union, so behavior that shows one does not believe this means a good sign he cannot have consented to "marriage." A legal institution, perhaps, but not marriage.

The error on the author is to think the Church denies the previous natural marriage because non-religious. That's false, but even if valid (and there's a real question there), there's always the Pauline privilege. This is where an unbaptized person who is married in a natural marriage converts, but their spouse does not. Under certain circumstances the new convert can re-marry in order to be able to practice the Faith. If Boris was Baptized in order to marry, then the sacramental marriage dissolves the natural marriage.

I'm quite sure that if a priest married them in England (which reinstated the Friday abstinence) there was at least a semblance of a Canonical process.
Reply
#5
(05-30-2021, 03:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Marriage is an exclusive union, so behavior that shows one does not believe this means a good sign he cannot have consented to "marriage." A legal institution, perhaps, but not marriage.
I know nothing about this, but it seems to me that a person may understand what marriage is and want to enter marriage, and still fail, out of frailty, to do his duty and remain faithful.
Reply
#6
(05-30-2021, 03:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: ... there's always the Pauline privilege. This is where an unbaptized person who is married in a natural marriage converts, but their spouse does not. Under certain circumstances the new convert can re-marry in order to be able to practice the Faith.
How does this relate to what Jesus said in Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Reply
#7
Well, I've cleared something up. The article in the OP gives the impression that BoJo was only recently baptised in the Church. I was confused because if he was an Anglican he would have been baptised in the CofE. Since they use valid form and matter, most Priests today would accept the validity of an Anglican Baptism. Even if they had doubts, he would have only been conditionally baptised.

However, as it turns out, he was baptised in the Church as an infant and later fell away into Anglicanism. Ergo, since his previous 'marriages' were in violation of Canon Law, a Catholic marrying outside the Church without proper dispensation, I would assume they were invalid.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#8
***No edit button*** Such confusion often arises in secular news sources when the writer has no concept of Catholic doctrine or Canon Law.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#9
(05-30-2021, 04:52 PM)AlNg777 Wrote:
(05-30-2021, 03:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: ... there's always the Pauline privilege. This is where an unbaptized person who is married in a natural marriage converts, but their spouse does not. Under certain circumstances the new convert can re-marry in order to be able to practice the Faith.
How does this relate to what Jesus said in Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Sacramental marriages are indissoluable except by death, which is what our Lord is referring to there. Natural marriage can be dissolved by the Church in favour of the faith.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
#10
(05-30-2021, 03:35 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(05-30-2021, 03:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Marriage is an exclusive union, so behavior that shows one does not believe this means a good sign he cannot have consented to "marriage." A legal institution, perhaps, but not marriage.
I know nothing about this, but it seems to me that a person may understand what marriage is and want to enter marriage, and still fail, out of frailty, to do his duty and remain faithful.

Indeed, but in the various cases I recall looking at (from old tribunals, not the modern ones) in my Canon Law class back in seminary, cheating before and soon after marriage is a strong sign (not enough in itself) that the exclusivity of marriage was not understood or intended, thus marriage was not intended.

That is what is called "substantial error" and would make real consent to marriage impossible, thus null.

One failure would not be enough to suggest this, but a consistent patter of cheating before and after marriage, or a pattern soon after marriage. That, coupled with testimony from several witnesses might be enough to convince a tribunal that there was never the proper intention to begin with.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)