1678 marriage help please

[Bookbox]

Fair enough, Arthur, you make good points, and I think it's probably too unclear to argue.

As regards Tabitham, did you see my alternative suggestion of Tabith ann, added above? Just another thought.

[arthurk]

Fair enough, Arthur, you make good points, and I think it's probably too unclear to argue.

Actually, blown up and looking carefully, there don't seem to be enough minims (vertical strokes for any who are unfamiliar with the term) for Wingtersham.

As regards Tabitham, did you see my alternative suggestion of Tabith ann, added above? Just another thought.

Yes I did - sorry not to mention it. I don't think Maryann (= Mary Ann) would be particularly unusual at that date, so maybe the parents felt creative and tried Tabithann 

[Ruskie]

Thank you very much for all contributions especially Bookbox for interpreting the rest of the the entry.

The groom’s first name looks to end in an s so Thomas seems the most likely, and the shape and number letters seem to support that.

My fourth cousin and myself are working on “a theory” and due to the relatively unusual forename I decided to look for any Tabitha Fordhams and found this. I’m not sure if or how this marriage might fit but it looks promising, so the help is much appreciated. 

teragram, the Porter further down the list appears to be from a different parish (?) so maybe not a relative of “Thomas”?