A US magazine has claimed pop star Britney Spears and Kevin Federline faked their wedding.
Us Weekly said it had obtained legal papers, signed by the couple, stating that they planned a "faux" wedding on 18 September.
A spokesman for Spears called the claims "ludicrous" and said the couple had married at the Los Angeles ceremony on Sunday morning.
Spears herself has admitted no marriage licence had yet been submitted.
'Faux' wedding
But she told People magazine - who had exclusive pictures and interviews from the wedding - they were married in "a real sense, a spiritual sense".
They married at a friend's home in the Studio City district, with Spears wearing a white strapless gown and Federline in a tuxedo.
Kathy Treggs, the Los Angeles County recorder's office manager of public records, said the couple had 10 days from the date of the wedding to file the licence.
According to Us Weekly, the four-page legal document said Spears and Federline "intend to participate in a 'faux' wedding on September 18, 2004".
The document supposedly added: "However, they do not intend to and shall not validly marry one another on said date".
Pre-nuptial agreement
The idea was to put the press off the scent so the couple could go ahead with a lavish ceremony as planned next month, the magazine added.
The BBC's Peter Bowes told Radio Five Live that nothing official had been said about the claims.
Peter Castro, of People magazine, told Radio Five Live: "What happened was they moved the wedding up significantly after the tabloids started reporting where it was going to be - which was October 16 - at a very expensive resort.
"As a result, they moved the wedding up and because of that they couldn't get the paperwork done in time for the pre-nuptial agreement.
"They agreed on a pre-nuptial and signed a marriage licence but they will file the marriage licence and sign the pre-nuptial next week."
In January the 22-year-old singer married friend Jason Alexander in Las Vegas. That marriage - described as a "joke" - was annulled 55 hours later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/3682390.stm
Us Weekly said it had obtained legal papers, signed by the couple, stating that they planned a "faux" wedding on 18 September.
A spokesman for Spears called the claims "ludicrous" and said the couple had married at the Los Angeles ceremony on Sunday morning.
Spears herself has admitted no marriage licence had yet been submitted.
'Faux' wedding
But she told People magazine - who had exclusive pictures and interviews from the wedding - they were married in "a real sense, a spiritual sense".
They married at a friend's home in the Studio City district, with Spears wearing a white strapless gown and Federline in a tuxedo.
Kathy Treggs, the Los Angeles County recorder's office manager of public records, said the couple had 10 days from the date of the wedding to file the licence.
According to Us Weekly, the four-page legal document said Spears and Federline "intend to participate in a 'faux' wedding on September 18, 2004".
The document supposedly added: "However, they do not intend to and shall not validly marry one another on said date".
Pre-nuptial agreement
The idea was to put the press off the scent so the couple could go ahead with a lavish ceremony as planned next month, the magazine added.
The BBC's Peter Bowes told Radio Five Live that nothing official had been said about the claims.
Peter Castro, of People magazine, told Radio Five Live: "What happened was they moved the wedding up significantly after the tabloids started reporting where it was going to be - which was October 16 - at a very expensive resort.
"As a result, they moved the wedding up and because of that they couldn't get the paperwork done in time for the pre-nuptial agreement.
"They agreed on a pre-nuptial and signed a marriage licence but they will file the marriage licence and sign the pre-nuptial next week."
In January the 22-year-old singer married friend Jason Alexander in Las Vegas. That marriage - described as a "joke" - was annulled 55 hours later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/3682390.stm
Comment