The MAFS Australia 2025 couples who are still together and those who have split after final vows
The MAFS Australia 2025 couples who are still together and those who have split after final vows
As the 2025 series of Married at First Sight Australia comes to an end on E4, we take a look back at the final vows and which couples are still together today
Awhina and Adrian from Married at First Sight Australia
(Image: Channel 4 )
It's time to say goodbye to the enthralling 2025 series of Married at First Sight Australia, leaving fans eager for the final outcomes as the experiment draws to a close.
Tune in on E4 for Wednesday (May 7) and Thursday (May 8) to catch the much-anticipated reunion episodes bringing the dynamic 12th series of MAFS Australia to its conclusion. As this season's rollercoaster journey of MAFS Australia 2025 comes to an end, it appears not all the romantic tales were destined to endure.
Out of the three duos who succeeded in their final vows, just a singular couple has managed to extend their on-screen chemistry into a lasting relationship off-screen. For the latest TV and showbiz gossip sign up to our newsletter .
Fans are keen to discover which MAFS Australia pairs have sustained their partnerships, reports OK!. Viewers have been enchanted by Rhi and Jeff's narrative, and it's heartening to hear that they remain together following their commitment in the final vows.
These two had the unique twist of knowing each other before the show – a fact they initially kept to themselves.
Opting for a gradual approach seems to have reaped benefits for the duo, as they shared with 9Entertainment: "I know we did live together in the experiment, but moving in outside really just cemented our strong relationship."
Article continues below
They both agreed, "I think that was a big step for our relationship. We came out of the experiment, and in such a short space of time, we decided to move in with each other.
"We moved into a new place that neither of us had lived in before, so it was starting fresh. I think we probably undervalue with how important that moment was, how big that moment was for our relationship."
Are Jamie and Dave still together after their journey on the show saw them hit a rough patch during feedback week?
The couple, who initially maintained their positive energy, faced challenges as Jamie sensed a change in her husband's feelings.
Despite these struggles, Jamie and Dave reached the final vows ceremony, only to ultimately decide to go their separate ways.
Jamie disclosed: "After final vows, for me it became quite clear that Dave just wasn't fully into me. I want someone who's going to love me and show up without asking. If I had not broken up with him last week, we would've been going to the Reunion together."
In another storyline, Awhina and Adrian made the decision to break up before their final vows ceremony, primarily due to Awhina's motherly duties and the long distance between them. Yet, in an unforeseen twist, they confessed at the ceremony that they were willing to try again.
With a heartfelt kiss and arm-in-arm departure, Adrian shared his intentions post-ceremony: "We're just going to go back home and see where we stand and how we go. Awhina's a lucky woman."
Awhina changed her outlook during the final vows, expressing a wish to make their relationship work. However, the reunion marked the end of their romance.
Article continues below
In a moment of honesty, Awhina admitted that the relationship became unmanageable mainly because Adrian didn't show her the affection she desired.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
'I was as famous as Zoe Ball and Sara Cox but then I was cut out of fame for no reason'
Former Top of Pops host and huge 90s presenter Sarah Cawood has a very different life 20 years on after 'TV gave up on here' One of the biggest TV hosts of the 90' s Sarah Cawood was one of the key Top of The Pops presenters as she rose to fame but 20 years after her big break her life looks very different. The former presenter got her first big break in the '90s working on kids TV for Nickelodeon and two years later she landed herself a job presenting Channel 4's The Girlie Show alongside Sara Cox. The show ran for two series and followed a magazine format, floating from features to interviews to live music and stunts. The show took the later 'post-pub' slot of 11pm on a Friday and was branded as being more edgy than its rivals and tried to cash in on the 'ladette' that swept through the decade. She then came aboard the revamped Live and Kicking programme for its final two years on the air. It was then she landed her biggest role on Top of The Pops. After her spell finished she would go on to present various mini-series and one offs including co-commentating the Eurovision semi-finals in 2007, 2009 and 2010. But it was around that time that many of the big presenting gigs dried up with Cawood joining the team for Heart East Anglia's breakfast show for a year in 2014 before leaving to focus on looking after her children. Earlier this year the star shared her health battle on social media after raising concerns about her breast cancer returning. She was initially diagnosed in 2022, received successful treatment and was given the all-clear. But posting to her fans she revealed the nerves of it coming back never left. In a candid Instagram post, she wrote: "This is the reality of anyone who has had any kind of cancer. I never struggled with health anxiety before but post-breast cancer it's all-consuming and it wears me out a bit tbh. "I have been feeling tired since the new year began and although it's probably just life-ing, there's always a niggling worry that it's back. "All I can do is carry on doing healthy things, moving my body, practising mindfulness and living each day with gratitude that I got to breathe again this morning. "So on we go! Batting away those intrusive thoughts and getting on with it. To anyone either going through a cancer diagnosis or anyone who has recovered from cancer and feels like this: I've got you, and my inbox is always open. "And remember, anything that doesn't feel right: get it checked out. Early detection is key." In her Instagram, she also shared with fans how she's made peace with being "unsuccessful" on TV. In another post, she added: "Do I miss telly? I miss the money! And yes, sometimes I wonder what went wrong, but I'm here now so I'm going to make the most of it, however, that looks
South Wales Guardian
3 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Ladbrokes ads banned over use of ‘Ladbucks' likely to appeal to under-18s
The TV ad, seen in December, featured a voiceover that stated: 'This is a Ladbuck, the new way to get rewarded at Ladbrokes, and these are some of the 100 million Ladbucks that will be dropping weekly. 'Collect them on our free to play games and choose rewards like free spins, free bets and more … Plus you can even use them to play your favourite games for free in our Ladbucks arcade. Like Fishin Frenzy and Goldstrike.' A Video on Demand ad, seen on Channel 4 around the same time, was the same as the TV ad. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received two complaints that the term 'Ladbucks' was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s. Ladbrokes said the term 'Ladbucks' was chosen as a play on the word Ladbrokes, and because it referenced, through the use of the term bucks, that it had value on the Ladbrokes website. They said the word had no origins in youth culture and believed that it was not of inherent strong appeal to under-18s, and highlighted that both ads had targeting restrictions to reduce the likelihood of children viewing them. The firm said it believed that the term was not associated with any coins from video games which were popular with under-18s, adding that 'V-Bucks' from Fortnite and 'Robux' from Roblox were in-game currencies that had to be purchased before being used to buy in-game items. Further, it did not believe the term 'lad' referred to a boy or young man and said its brand had never been used in that context. The ASA said several online games popular with under-18s, such as Roblox and Fortnite, had their own in-game currencies, which were called Robux and V-Bucks respectively. These currencies, which could be both bought and earnt through gameplay, were depicted as coins, and spent within in-game stores, usually on cosmetic items that enhanced gameplay. According to Ofcom's 2024 report into media use and attitudes, 60% of children aged between three and 17 years gamed online, while 89% of 11 to 18-year-olds gamed online weekly, with categories of games that were most popular including building games, such as Roblox, followed by games played against others, such as Fortnite. The ASA said it considered the term 'Ladbucks', through the suffix 'bucks', had strong similarities to the in-game currencies Robux and V-Bucks. It said the name 'Ladbucks', when considered alongside the imagery and the application of the coin in the ads, was 'depicted in a manner which was similar to features in video games popular with children'. 'We therefore considered the term in the ads was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s and breached the Code,' it said. The watchdog ruled that the ads must not appear again in their current form, adding: 'We told Ladbrokes not to include content in ads that was reflective of youth culture or which had strong appeal to those under 18 years of age.' A spokesman for Entain, which owns Ladbrokes, said: 'We are disappointed by the ASA's ruling on our 'Ladbucks' advertising campaign, and we are seeking an independent review of what we consider to be a flawed decision. 'For example, it is based on an inaccurate comparison with games such as Fortnite or Roblox and their in-game currencies. Entain works extremely carefully to ensure that its advertising does not target or appeal to under-18s. 'We maintain that this was a responsibly created and targeted campaign, pre-approved by Clearcast and only shown after the watershed.'
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
When did we become so boring?
Recently, I found myself trying to explain to a much younger colleague who Oliver Reed was. We'd got on to the subject of the hell-raising actor because I was bemoaning the fact – perhaps rashly – that today's world is completely anodyne. Fear of offending others means it's better to keep your thoughts to yourself; after all, who needs the police investigating them for a non-crime hate incident? Brave is the person who brings their whole self to work, as many of us are encouraged to do. The government's Employment Rights Bill, which some are calling the 'banter ban', may mean we're even more reluctant to speak our minds. This prohibition against saying anything even vaguely controversial extends to all walks of life – including television. So, I cited Reed's legendary appearance on the late-night Channel 4 discussion programme After Dark as an example of a time when we didn't have to weigh every word before uttering it. During an episode on men, Reed got hammered on the free booze, became argumentative and gave horrified feminist author Kate Millett an unsolicited peck on the cheek. Eventually, after being told off by Helena Kennedy, he was asked to leave. Some may think he confirmed masculine stereotypes with his boorish behaviour, but it was one of the funniest things ever broadcast and went down in the annals of television history. From today's vantage point, it seems almost unthinkable that an unscripted debate – where guests were plied with free booze – could ever be broadcast on terrestrial television. Instead, we're fed a diet of inoffensive pap featuring vacuous individuals with perfect hair, unblemished skin and 'Turkey teeth'. Intellectually challenging television is a thing of the past. Now, we have to endure endless crime dramas and cookery programmes, which are little more than chewing gum for the mind. God forbid we be allowed to view anything that jolts us from our collective stupor. I hanker after moments like 1985's Live Aid when Bob Geldof jabbed the table and said: 'Fuck the address, let's get the numbers!' when emphasising the urgency of getting donations by phone rather than giving out postal addresses. Interviewed on Sky News in 2014 about critical reactions to the re-recording of Do They Know It's Christmas, he said: 'I think they're talking bollocks.' Asked not to repeat the word, he responded to another of the presenter's assertions with: 'Complete load of bollocks.' The interview ended abruptly. Absolute comedy gold. I, for one, am sick of today's bland entertainment. We need TV programmes fronted by louche characters with several days' beard growth who look like they've come straight from a nightclub. Their rasping voices should suggest a 40-a-day habit. And the news would be far more interesting if presented by people who'd clearly enjoyed a good lunch on expenses. Broadcaster and journalist Reginald 'Reggie' Bosanquet often appeared worse for wear while fronting the News at Ten. One of his co-presenters, Anna Ford, recalled: 'Reggie was a dear. I mean, you wouldn't have chosen a man who had epilepsy, was an alcoholic, had had a stroke and wore a toupée to read the news, but the combination was absolute magic.' Just imagine how ratings would soar for any channel brave enough to put a modern-day Bosanquet in front of the camera. It would be compulsive viewing. Forget the daily diet of doom – you'd tune in to see how pissed they were. And if we must suffer never-ending food programmes, at least let the chef have a fag planted in the corner of their mouth (Marco Pierre White is the only living cook I know to have done this). Then we could watch transfixed as the inch of ash hanging precariously from the tip threatened to drop into whatever they were preparing. It would be even more compelling if they were helping themselves to liberal amounts of alcohol like the late Keith Floyd. Sadly, because everything's now so carefully choreographed, there's no danger of anything spontaneous and, therefore, interesting happening. Gone is the era when a group of young musicians like the Sex Pistols could appear on live TV and turn the air blue. When challenged to say something outrageous by host Bill Grundy, guitarist Steve Jones responded by calling him a 'Dirty bastard' and a 'fucker'. It caused outrage, but the nine-year-old me was delighted. It just couldn't happen now. Neither the producers nor the band's management would allow it. We need TV programmes fronted by louche characters with several days' beard growth who look like they've come straight from a nightclub I like to imagine that, in the unlikely event I'm ever invited on to Today, I'd say something that would have the punters choking on their cornflakes: 'Sorry, Emma… [prolonged sniffing] Feeling a bit liverish. I'm afraid I had a couple of grams of Bolivia's finest washed down with a bottle of Jack D. Never a good idea on a school night.' Raffish laughter. But in reality, I'd be utterly craven. Anyway, I've switched to Radio 3. As for comedy, fuhgeddaboudit! I recently watched the first episode of Tina Fey's Four Seasons and nearly wept at the banality. Anything from yesteryear seems to have to carry a health warning. Can you imagine a new series of Little Britain making it past the morality police? Neither can I. Comedy from the 1970s and 1980s? Don't even go there. There is some hope: The White Lotus – a satire about the entitled rich – has produced some sublime moments. But it's a drama. We need more real-life characters in the media: rakish individuals and loose cannons, preferably those with charm, intellect and wit. Give John Lydon, aka Johnny Rotten, his own show. He may have mellowed with age, but he could be relied on to ignore the script. This isn't a rallying cry for bad behaviour for its own sake – or an argument against common courtesy, which is already in decline – but rather a call to loosen the fetters that mean, in today's world, it's easier and safer to say nothing at all. Our fear of opprobrium means public debate is the poorest quality I can ever remember. Rather than reasoned discourse, we have facile comments or pure vitriol. So come on, commissioning editors, instead of rendering us insensible with unmitigated twaddle, bring back cerebral discussion programmes whose participants aren't censored. Invite bon viveurs, intellectuals, raconteurs and wits. Mix it up occasionally with a disreputable character or two, supply the guests with a heavily laden drinks trolley and something contentious to debate, and you'd have an explosive cocktail – as well as the makings of brilliant television. Sadly, Oliver Reed died while filming Gladiator. He met some off-duty sailors in a bar and challenged them to a drinking match but fell ill and collapsed with a heart attack. My God, what an epic way to go. Of course, I could never say that to my younger colleague because the age of giants is over, and the unexceptionable are now in charge.
