Woman who celebrated her wedding ALONE gives major update
A woman who celebrated her wedding day alone after being left at the alter has revealed that she found love again with her teenage sweetheart.
Kayley Stead from Portmead, Swansea, Wales, was jilted on the morning of her big day by her partner of almost four years Kallum Norton in 2022.
Just two hours before she was due to walk down the aisle, the now 29-year-old was told that her fiancé had 'gone for a drive' in the early hours of the morning and changed his number so she couldn't contact him.
But Kayley - who paid for the majority of the wedding - decided to celebrate with her friends, family and the groomsmen at her £12,000 reception party instead.
Now, two years after she was brutally dumped, Kayley has found her one true love, Richard Perrott.
The pair first met at university in 2013 where their friendship as teenagers slowly blossomed into love.
Richard asked Kayley out when they first met, but she turned him down as she was fresh out of a relationship.
But now the pair have found each other again and reignited their flame, with Kayley saying that her new beau has made her 'the happiest girl'.
She now credits Kallum leaving her alone on their wedding day as 'one of the best days of my life' because it allowed her to find the person who 'makes me truly happy'.
On September 16 last year, which marked two years since she was left at the alter, Kayley said: 'Happy 2 year anniversary to one of the best days of my life! I forget about this day a lot of the time but my phone's memories reminded me that this crazy day was 2 years ago.
'Looking back now, I can't thank my ex enough for doing what he did because he made the best decision for both of us and its led me back to a person that makes me truly happy. Everything happens for a reason.'
Kayley said that the pair got in contact again after Richard, 30, messaged her after he heard about what she had gone through and said he was 'so sorry' about what had happened.
A year later, she then replied to one of his Snapchat videos and they continued talking until Richard told Kayley that he was taking her on a date.
She told The Mirror: 'I had nothing to lose. I fancied the pants off him when I met him again. He was funny and charming. We didn't really talk about the wedding - he said he knew enough about it.'
'Richard's mum said if you were ever to get married, I would never let him do that to you. I would drag him by the ear. It's been so easy and effortless. This is the relationship I've always dreamed of. I know he's the one. I truly feel so safe with him.
'He said I've always thought of me as being his wife. I know there's going to be a ring one day. I have no fear of what happened at the wedding happening with him.'
Despite the heartbreak, Kayley decided to go ahead with the big day, surrounded by her loved ones around her, on September 15 at Oxwich Bay Hotel in Gower, Swansea, Wales.
Kayley went ahead with her wedding entrance, meal, speeches and dances and even posed for professional photos without her groom.
She even punched off the top tier of her wedding cake and spent her first dance with the groomsmen, her brothers, and her father Brian, 71. She even entered the party singing along to Lizzo's 'Good as Hell' with her bridal party.
She managed to cancel her honeymoon and was pleased she still had the party - so money and effort didn't go to waste.
Speaking about her wedding day, Kayley said: 'I found my phone and saw I had a missed call from his mum. I called her back and she was crying and told me he had gone for a drive in the early hours of the morning, and he was gone.
'At that point, I wasn't nervous, I was still quite hopeful, as throughout our relationship, he had sometimes gone for a walk or a drive to clear his head when he was nervous.
'For a couple of hours, I was saying he was going to be there, and I was reassuring the girls. I honestly believed, hand on heart, that he was going to be there.
'I asked the girls, his family and the groomsmen to continue getting ready, because I honestly believed he was going to be there.'
Kayley said she received a call from the groom's father who said that Kallum would not be attending the wedding which caused her to break down in tears.
Kayley then had to tell her parents, the hairdresser and the videographer the heartbreaking news.
She said: 'As a joke, the videographer said "Why don't you carry on, girls? You've spent all this money, you're not getting it back, all your guests are there, why don't you just go?"
'My sister was redoing my make-up, because at that point it was all just gone, and she said: 'Why don't you do it, Kayley?'
'That's when I was like, I'm going to do it. I'd spent all this money, I'd been looking forward to the food, a dance with my dad, spending time with my family, so why not?'
Kallum refused to comment when approached by MailOnline in 2022.
Speaking to the Mirror two years after she was jilted at the alter, Kayley said that she was 'glad' that it happened in this way and that Kallum 'never spoke to me again' as it gave her the closure she needed to move on with Richard.
After launching her relationship with Richard on Instagram last year, Kayley was met with much support from her followers.
One wrote: 'You deserve all the happiness in the world babe!'
Another penned: 'If anyone deserves it my goodness it's this woman. Grinning for a stranger today.'
A third said: 'Congratulations Beautiful photo Sending you a big hug from Australia.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Government's ill-judged prisoner-release scheme puts the public at risk
SIR – I, along with the majority of my countrymen, am appalled by the Government's decision to release certain prisoners early (' Met chief: Starmer's early release scheme will lead to more crime ', report, May 28). This is to compensate for the shortage of prison spaces, as our population grows ever larger, in part due to poorly controlled immigration. First, the punishment meted out by the courts should match the gravity of the crime. Stricter sentencing would surely act as a deterrent to help reduce criminality, whereas the present system allows certain sentences to be commuted or for the prisoner to be granted parole. This in itself creates too much recidivism, and it is now to be exacerbated by the early release of offenders, many of whom are likely to reoffend. This is not the decision of a sensible government that is weighing up all the facts with balanced judgment. Secondly, we should consider our already overworked police officers, many of whom do a fantastic job and lack the high regard they deserve, particularly given the much wider range of policing responsibilities they are now expected to undertake compared to 20 years ago. Policing the streets is of paramount importance, especially in inner-city areas, where regard for the law is often lax. Presumably the Government will now expect the police to monitor those on early release. What has happened to our once highly regarded system of justice and policing? It appears to be yet another casualty of this ludicrous Labour Government. Tony Millard Redhill, Surrey SIR – Week after week, our local magistrates' court deals with an endless list of people who have been caught driving drunk or high on drugs. At present, they are fined and disqualified from driving for a period. Isn't it time that our society made people wholly responsible for their actions, by imposing a lifetime driving ban on them if caught? It may make them think twice before getting behind the wheel when they are drunk or stoned, and consider the devastating impact that such selfish behaviour could have on others. It would also save the magistrates from having to deal with repeat offenders. The roads are dangerous enough without people who view driving as a right, rather than as a privilege with enormous responsibilities. Andy Breare Plymouth, Devon
Times
43 minutes ago
- Times
One Club Row review — ‘Nowhere on earth could possibly be more fun'
The other day I received a message: 'I beg you not to review One Club Row.' Already, barely a week into service, my friend — who follows restaurant trends the way most men follow their football club —could tell this was going to be the most fashionable place in town. 'I know I'll get sick of hearing about it,' he explained. So I immediately booked a table. What a place. Enjoy this review now because in, ooh, about two weeks' time you really will be sick of hearing about it. What a joy to walk into a little restaurant above a pub, at 6pm on a Wednesday, and instantly feel there's nowhere on earth that could possibly be more fun at this precise moment. Oh, and they have a taxi light outside to show if there are tables available for walk-ins. I love it. I shouldn't have been surprised. James Dye, one of the proprietors, also co-owns the Camberwell Arms — among the best restaurants in south London and the social hub of all those young parents who move to that postcode for a bigger house and a better life, because once you're in Camberwell it's impossible to get out again. The other owner, Benji Liebowitz, used to be the maître d' at NoMad, one of New York's most glamorous cocktail bars. It's the type of pedigree that would have you betting the house on a racehorse. Inside One Club Row We're in east London, of course. But there's something here that feels a little New York. Perhaps it's the seats at the bar kept for walk-ins, or the martinis. There's something of the Jeremy King grand café too: white tablecloths, schnitzel on the menu. But then there's also something new, captured by the stonewashed walls, original fireplaces and ceiling roses back from when this was just a boozer, and the bright, blocky modern art on the walls. It's a glorious mix of classic and modern. I feel a bit giddy — although maybe that's the martinis too. Because obviously we have a martini each. Our waitress makes it clear this is kind of the point. Josh has one with olive oil; I have the house: gin, with the tiniest, delightful hint of sweetness from a dash of Italicus liqueur and a sultry maraschino cherry lounging at the bottom of the glass. We snack on a lobster and ham croquette — perfectly decent. But then come pickled jalapeño cheesy gougères. I gasp as I bite into one. There's mustard in there, lemon too. A sharp sweetness to the chillies. Next, the starters: fat, flavoursome tomatoes on a thin film of stracciatella. Barbecued asparagus on labneh with hazelnut and lemon, the best thing we eat. Oh go on, let's get the tuna crudo. It looks so good on the next table and there's something about this place that urges you to empty your bank account. For mains, pork schnitzel with mustard sauce and — this is inspired — blobs of tangy, salty gorgonzola. Then roasted cod on a thick, decadent buckwheat polenta. Less to write home about but still functional. Again, we start staring lasciviously at the next table. The two women there have a bowl of mussels, accompanied by a plate of something quite majestic-looking. 'Please can we have just one of whatever that is?' we ask. Lobster and ham croquettes JUSTIN DE SOUZA The longed-for item arrives. The industrial term would be 'reconstructed potato', but don't think of it like that. Think of it instead as an incredibly delicate hash brown, formed into a long, thin, crispy chip. Josh takes a bite and his eyes light up. 'I didn't think there was anything new to experience from the potato, but here I am.' Finally, though we definitely don't need it, a Dutch baby pancake — basically a sweet Yorkshire pudding with blueberries, Chantilly cream and smoked maple bacon. American indulgence, European chic. A Dutch baby pancake JUSTIN DE SOUZA It's not cheap. That said, you could pay a lot less than we did, if you don't order a nice bottle of wine in a fit of excitement-induced profligacy, and don't try to eat the whole menu. The problem is, I suspect you will. There's something ineffable about this place that just lends itself to abandon. It makes you want to flirt with strangers, stay for five hours, throw your life up in the air and move to New York. As I head home, I consider each of these options. Instead I book another table for next week, before everyone else does. ★★★★★ 1 Club Row, London E1 6JX;
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Prince Harry sought advice from Princess Diana's brother asking if he should change family name to Spencer
Prince Harry sought advice from Princess Diana 's brother about changing his family name to Spencer, The Mail on Sunday has learned. Sources said the Duke of Sussex actively explored ways to assume his mother's surname – a move that would have involved ditching Mountbatten-Windsor, used by his children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. It is understood he discussed the issue with Earl Spencer – whose family seat is Althorp in Northamptonshire – during a rare visit to Britain, but was told that the legal hurdles were insurmountable. 'They had a very amicable conversation and Spencer advised him against taking such a step,' said a friend of Harry. Nevertheless, the fact that he consulted the Earl over the issue – a proposal that would dismay his brother and father – is a vivid expression of the toxic rift with his family. Mountbatten-Windsor is the surname available to descendants of the late Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. It combines the Royal Family 's name of Windsor and the Duke of Edinburgh 's adopted surname. On their birth certificates, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's children are Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor and Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor. Royal author Tom Bower has claimed that 'Meghan decided her real object in life was to be Diana'. If the name change had succeeded, Meghan's daughter, who is believed to have met the King only once, would have become Lilibet Diana Spencer, a more fulsome tribute to Harry's late mother. The move would be particularly hurtful to King Charles, who cherishes the Mountbatten name just as his father did. A mentor to Prince Philip, the 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma was also a strong influence on his great-nephew, the future King Charles. Philip adopted the Mountbatten name when he became a naturalised British subject and renounced his Greek and Danish royal title in 1947. The Queen and Philip decided in 1960 that they would like their own direct descendants to be known as Mountbatten-Windsor. According to the Government, you do not have to follow a legal process to start using a new name, but it suggests on its official website using a 'deed poll' to apply for or to change official documents such as a passport or driving licence. Names and titles are a highly sensitive subject for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They were given their Sussex titles by Queen Elizabeth on the day of their wedding in 2018. Meghan recently insisted her surname is Sussex, correcting a guest on her Netflix cookery and lifestyle programme. In episode two of With Love, Meghan, which was released in March, the 43-year-old former actress was joined by comedienne Mindy Kaling. Meghan told her: 'It's so funny you keep saying 'Meghan Markle' – you know I'm Sussex now.' As Ms Kaling looked confused, the duchess, who has visited the county of Sussex only once, continued: 'You have kids and you go, 'No, I share my name with my children'. 'I didn't know how meaningful it would be to me but it just means so much to go 'This is OUR family name. Our little family name.' ' The Sussexes used the title princess for their daughter, Lilibet, for the first time after her christening in California was announced in 2023. A spokesman for the couple said: 'The children's titles have been a birthright since their grandfather became monarch. This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with Buckingham Palace.' The children were subsequently officially named as prince and princess on the Royal Family's official website. Archie, now aged six, and Lilibet, who turns four on Wednesday, were named as the Prince and Princess of Sussex on the line of succession page of the official Royal Family website. They are sixth and seventh in line to the throne. Previously they were listed as Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor. The rules governing the titles of royal children were set out by George V – Queen Elizabeth's grandfather – in 1917. Archie and Lilibet were not prince and princess at birth, because they were not grandchildren of the monarch, but they gained the right to these titles when King Charles acceded to the throne. During the Sussexes' explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey in 2021, Meghan suggested to the American chat-show host that Archie had been denied his birthright of the title 'prince' by the Palace and that the decision went against protocol. During an interview with Oprah Winfrey in 2021, Meghan suggested that Archie had been denied his birthright of the title 'prince' by the Palace She spoke of her shock at being told he would not get police protection because he did not have a title, and suggested that the decision was taken because of his mixed race. 'It's not their right to take away,' Meghan said. Asked by Ms Winfrey, 'Do you think it's because of his race?', the duchess replied: 'In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time, so we [had] the conversation of he won't be given security, he's not going to be given a title. And, also, concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born.' At the time the claims caused shock and bewilderment at Buckingham Palace, with the late Queen subsequently publishing a statement including the memorable phrase, 'some recollections may vary'.
