Thanks for the link Annie I'll have a good look through that, see if anything turns up.
It's back to the question of why they said they were British Subjects. I wonder if it means they were naturalised here or that they were from British fathers who had emmigrated to the USA? I've had the same question with Emma Alcocks first husband, George Daniels from the West Indies, in 1851 he said he was a 'British Subject'. None of them had named fathers on the wedding certs. I've come across a few USA census with various Benjamin Wiggins listed as farm hands, wasn't everybody though? and they have mainly been 'mulatto', which I've sinced learned means of mixed race. This is the big question, and taking the origins back further with little to go on, at this stage seems like a mammoth task.
Thanks Mary for trying again with the witnesses. It's actually one of the clearer records, the writing is legible for once, it's definately Freisby. This was a second marriage and at the register office, could they have stood in on that day? Sarah is not a name I recognise at all with the brides family. If she had connections with Benjamin Wiggins, well it's not obvious is it? And yes I agree I bet he was quite a character, American, a sort of authority on healing when doctors were in short supply and beyond means, I'd love to know what went on there. All this new info is an absolute bonus. When they say surprizes turn up, they're not kidding!
