Marriage recorded in both bride's and groom's towns, which is more likely place of the actual marriage?

Question

In working on colonial New England profiles, I sometimes run across a marriage that has been recorded in two towns: apparently the town where the groom had resided and the town where the bride had resided. The towns were generally quite close together. Absent additional evidence, would it have been more likely for the marriage to have actually occurred in the bride's town or the groom's? Based on modern practice, I am guessing the bride's, even though the couple settled in the groom's town.

Answer 1

I believe in this case it must be Salisbury, because the printed Haverhill records do not list this marriage. I wonder what Reference ID 66 used by family search is.

This happens a lot in Massachusetts, but usually one or the other record will say where it actually took place.

Answer 2

Both places were in the same county.  One record is from the County Court, and the other is from Salisbury Town Hall.

You'd need to know why the same marriages were recorded at two levels.  But I don't think it's a bride/groom thing.

Answer 3

I believe that The county level record of their intention and the other is the record of the actual marriage. So both would be sources for the marriage.

Comments

If one was their intention and one the actual marriage, why do they both have the same date?

Separate question: were marriage intentions filed in the bride's town or the groom's or both?

---

I do not know, but one possibility is that there was no waiting period and they could have filed their intention and had the ceremony performed later the same day. There are places that even today you can do just that. When I got married we got the license in Chardon, Ohio at the court house and married in Munson Township, Both in Geauga County, Ohio and within 5 miles of each other.