Married twice?

[Erato]

Did they get married twice and, if so, why?

[majm]

I suggest the wording of the newspaper report has the confuddlement.   Afterall '22d inst' indicates the marriage was celebrated on the twenty second day of that month (instant) ... but...   the newspaper is dated 1 January 1876.... 

If it had been '22d ult' that would be indicating 22nd of the month immediately before (ultimo) .... so it was not 22nd December 1875.   

If the newspaper copied from a newspaper from a different town/state,  it may well be that it was drawing on a report from July 1875.

Do you have the date in July 1875 for that marriage .... could it be 22 July 1875?

One of the suburbs of Sydney, NSW, was named Ultimo due to a legal mix up in the Latin between Ult and Inst.   

JM

[Erato]

The newspaper was published in Portage, Wisconsin which was about ten or twelve miles from the bride's home in Moundville and the groom's home in Buffalo.  Portage was the nearest town of repectable size and was the place where the Chapmans and the Reids did their shopping, so it's certainly plausible that they got married there.  On the other hand, there was a small church in Buffalo that was founded by Andrew Reid's father, Andrew Sr., so it is also plausible that they got married in Buffalo [though that would have meant a longer trip for the bride and her family and they'd have to get across the river which was still a fairly major impediment in the 1870s].

As for the "22d inst," I'm not convinced that they were conscious of such niceties in Portage, Wisconsin or, perhaps the announcement was written in December but didn't appear in the weekly paper until the first of January.

[majm]

Mr Google just found this for me,  hope it helps re "Inst" and historic newspapers... 

https://blog.genealogybank.com/understanding-terms-found-in-historical-newspapers.html

JM

[Erato]

I understand the term and, for all I know the editor of the Wisconsin State Register did, too, and used it correctly.  But that doesn't explain why he reported a marriage some six months after the event.  It's not as if the two parties lived far away; both families were long-time, well known residents of the area and their comings and goings in Portage were frequently noted in the press.  My fist thought was that they applied for the license in July and then finally sealed the deal in December but that doesn't work because Buffalo and Portage are in different counties. They couldn't use a Marquette County license to get married down in Columbia County.  It's not critical; they got married in 1875.  Still, I can't help but be curious.

[By the way, I came across a bizarre example of late reporting of a marriage in Australia and no one ever came up with a truly satisfying explanation of it.  See:

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=448162.msg3104716#msg3104716]

Your thoughts?]

[majm]

 

There was no real rule as to if a marriage needed to be announced in a newspaper at all, but I am aware of marriages in NSW in the 1800s and 1900s and now in the 2000s that were never announced in any newspaper at all.    My parents marriage was not ever announced, nor were the marriages of any of my mother's siblings.  My father was one of 15 who survived to adulthood, and of those 15, all but 1 married.  Of those 14, only one marriage was announced in newspapers.  ADD ... I forgot to add that my rellie says that Wisconsin newspapers would likely follow similar practices, as many other USA papers seemed to him to do so throughout much of the era of newspapers bringing social history to their readers.

But,        one of my ancient rellies has phoned to say (he is a retired clergyman),  that often families in NSW would not need to seek to announce marriages in the newspapers as 'everybody' was already invited, but some would delay announcing any marriage if there was a period of mourning for anyone significant in the family...  I asked 'who would be significant' and it could be that a sibling for either the bride or groom or witness, or for any of the parents/aunts/uncles or grandparents/great aunts/uncles of the bride or groom, or step/half siblings or step/half parents/aunts/uncles etc ... or anyone who would have been expected to attend the ceremony but died after the engagement of the couple.   

Also, he mentioned that in his experience as a clergyman, and as a genealogy buff since the mid 1930s, that ultimo, instant and their abbreviations were as 'common around the English speaking countries as Ditto and Do' .  He sends regards to Ecuador including Cuenca.  (he will be on the phone if I have mis-spelled that).   

JM. 

[Erato]

Really, majm?  Published twenty years after the event?  Maybe that seems unremarkable to an Australian but it seems curious to me.

[majm]

Hi,

Here's an announcement for a marriage    https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/113761070

So the announcement was published 27 Feb 1892.  The marriage, as per the announcement - 6 April 1862.   

See the 11 pages of the following thread from the Australia board ...https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=661335.0

Thirty years ... it had me confuddled at the time,     great teamwork on that thread.

JM

[shellyesq]

Have you seen the actual marriage record?  It's possible that the Family Search transcription was wrong.