Thomas Boswell m Rachel Firat, Sirat or Pirat?? 1773 in Tarvin.

[amberly]

I can't go any further back in my Tree than this couple above as I can't really read the wife's surname.  Any ideas anyone please?    Also I cannot determine where either of them were born as they had both died before the 1841 census which at least would have told me if they were born in Cheshire.
Thomas' birth date was established from his age at death, aged 79 in 1825 & died as Thomas Boswell of Kelsall.  He married Rachel 25 April 1773 in Tarvin as Thomas Betwizel. Rachel died in 1803 as Rachel Boswell of Tarvin.    They had 5 children I believe.  Sarah born 1773 as Sarah Betwezel dau/of Thomas & Rachel of Kelsall, James Betwesel 1775 but signed his name on his marr cert as James Boswell. Then Thomas 1780, on his marr cert as Thomas Barswell [probably sounded like this when he said it??] but could write & signed it as Boswell. Then Mary b 1783 on birth cert as Bettweasel & lastly Hannah b 1788 as Betweasel.
Also can anyone explain please why Boswell was written in so many different spellings, apart from possibly pronunciation & minister' s spelling???
Any suggestions would be gratefully received to any of this post.    Thanks.     Amberly

[maddys52]

Maybe try putting a snip of the parish record showing the bride's name on the deciphering board? Lots of experienced and helpful people to give suggestions. 

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/handwriting-deciphering-recognition/

[garstonite]

it is Sirat
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FQFH-PWR

Thomas Betwizel
England, Cheshire Parish Registers, 1538-2000

Name:   
Thomas Betwizel
Event Type:   
Marriage
Event Date:   
25 Apr 1773
Event Place:   
, Tarvin, Cheshire, England
Gender:   
Male
Spouse's Name:   
Rachel Sirat

[BumbleB]

Looking at the BT's for Tarvin, I wonder if her surname was either Tirat or Terat, although this "T" doesn't appear to exactly match the "T" in "Thomas". 

Attached = from parish register entry

[garstonite]

I went on Geneanet - no results for Betwizel at all
but many many records for Rachel Sirat - 95% are Algeria - but sadly none as early as 1750 period .

https://gw.geneanet.org/dbarkat?n=sirat&oc=&p=rachel  - as an example

[goldie61]

I have been looking at the parish register, and I think it is possibly T at the beginning.
It looks remarkably similar to the T at the start at Thomas Betwizel's name above it.
I think you have to assume any transcription on any of the sites could be wrong until you see it for yourself. (We all know many, many, wrong transcriptions!).
I've compared the capitals with others on the pages written by the same man.
'F' is on the next page for 'Frodsham', and that would seem to have the horizontal bar across it.
S is written several times ('Seven hundred'), and is a very plain letter.
P is written lower down the page for 'Peter', and that is again different.

I'm afraid searching, albeit quickly, for 'Tirat' doesn't get very far though. Perhaps it too was actually something quite different!

Added:
Ha! You must have gone back and added the clip from the parish regs BumbleB! Good idea. 

As to the somewhat strange spellings amberley, you just about hit the nail on the head. As many people couldn't write even their own names at this point, it came down to how the vicar, or whoever was writing it down, to spell it as they thought they heard it. Regional accents would have been still strong in many areas, which would have made it more difficult.

Just to be clear, these are not marriage 'certificates' as you have said in your post several times. They are entries in the parish registers. There were no marriage certificates until 1837 when Civil Registration came into force. They should not be called 'marriage certificates'.

[Rosinish]

Related thread...

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=762208.9

Annie

[amberly]

Lots of answers & suggestions, thanks to all of you. 
Rosinish, thanks for returning to the initial thread of 4 years ago.  I really like to go back to brick walls & see if I can climb over them sometime, & in this case 4 years, later. 
Goldie, like you I went through all the possible letters it could be but to no avail & came to the same conclusion as you that it could have been something quite different. 
Garstonite thank you for finding a Rachel Sirat, that was quite a surprise & even more of a surprise that she was from Algeria. I'm disappointed it didn't go far enough back though.  Then the one from FS gives it on the page you referred to as Sirat BUT if you click on similar historic records on the same page it then gives it as Firat!!
So I'm really no further forward than I was 4 years ago but I don't like giving up so no doubt will have another try 4 years from now again!
Once again thank you all for your efforts, much appreciated.     Amberly.

[Rosinish]

For what it's worth, the letter looks more like the 'T' in Thomas than to any other letter & that's on an original document not a transcription.

People who transcribe are humans like we are & depending on their experience of documents/scribes/eras etc. there will always be conflicting thoughts.

Annie