1678 marriage help please

[Ruskie]

I would be grateful for some help deciphering the third marriage under “Marriages” towards the bottom of this page:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L968-N56R?cc=1465708

Transcribed by Familysearch as Porter and Tabitha? Fordham:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6Z3S-1JSB

Many thanks.

[shanreagh]

I see Thomas, vaguely!

[Ruskie]

Thanks Shanreagh. The only word I think I can make out is “of”. 

I think the beginning of her name may be “Tabitha” but there looks to be something else between that and her possible surname. It’s a bit of a mess isn’t it? 

[arthurk]

Rather tentatively I suggest Tabitha's surname might be something like Wingtersham. It looks to me more like 'gt' in the middle than 'f', and my main doubt is over not spotting any other 's' exactly like that.

For the groom, it looks to me as though Thomas has been crossed out, but I can't make out what's been written instead: Thomas (because deleted in error)? James?

[Ruskie]

Thank you Arthur. I was hoping that the surname was Fordham.

[arthurk]

See what others think - I did say "rather tentatively" 

[Bookbox]

Suggestion ...

Thomas[?] Porter of Benets Parish and Tabitham Fordham of Gratt S^nt Marys married lysence July 4^th

I share arthurk’s uncertainty about Thomas, but it’s probably the best bet, and I can’t offer anything different.

I think after Tabitha’s extended[?] forename there is a double ff, which does suggest that the surname starts F, and Fordham seems to fit.

ADDED
I suppose it could be Tabith ann, but it doesn't sound very 17th-century.

[teragram31510]

I would agree with Bookbox - I see the latin form Tabitham plus the surname Fordham, though the ff is not at all clear...
As for the groom, looks like Thomas to me with the surname Porter or Parker.
Is it his sister Sarah marrying Robert Whitehead (?) in the last row I wonder?

[arthurk]

I know the writing and spellings are all over the place, but I'm still puzzled about Tabitham: why the random use of Latin, and if it is that, why accusative (-am) rather than nominative (-a)?

And in the surname, I'm just not seeing 'ff' (= 'F'). All the other examples I can see of that have two strong vertical strokes, yet here there seems to be just one, and not particularly strong. I accept that my earlier suggestion of Wingtersham involves a lower-case 'w' as the first letter (far from uncommon in old registers), and I could just about take the 'gt' to be lower-case 'f', but that would still leave the Tabitha/m anomaly.