My 4xgreat-grandfather, John Common, was baptised in Longhorsley, Northumberland (north of Newcastle), on 30 Aug 1779.1 By 1805 he was resident in Red Lion Street, Wapping and on 27 July 1806 he married Mary Oldfield, daughter of a Yorkshire-born coal-ship owner.2,3,4
 |
| Figure 1: The Ruins of St Helen, Longhorsley, photographed by Susan Law, 27 June 2019. |
The couple lived around the Wapping waterfront producing children at regular intervals up to 1815 (William Oldfield 1808 at 115 Wapping St, Frances born 1809 at Wapping Wall, Mary born 1811 at 64 Wapping Wall, Henry born 1813 at 64 Wapping Wall, Ann Maria born 1815 at 64 Wapping Wall). In the baptism records for these children, John is listed as a grocer, not very different from the “victuallers” who organised the work gangs who unloaded the coal ships.5,6,7
The production of children continued in 1817 with Sarah Barbara Common but she was born and baptised in St George in the East. Two final children followed: Robert Robinson born 1819 in Wapping and Jane born 1822 in St George in the East. In these baptism records, John is stated to be a “Coal Undertaker”.5,7 Note that Robert, Robinson, Sarah and Barbara are all names in the pedigree of the Commons family in Longhorsley (see Figure 2).
 |
| Figure 2: Ancestors and siblings of John Common of Longhorsley (generated from Legacy Family Tree). |
However, there were changes made to the baptism entry: William John’s surname had originally been entered as “Sheffield” but this was struck through and replaced with “Common”, then “Sheffield” added as a third given name. The handwriting on the correction is different from that of the original entry.9
 |
| Figure 3: Baptism entry of John William Sheffield Common. |
Note that the marriage took place in Bethnal Green, where the first John would have been unknown, but the baptism took place in Shadwell, the area in which he had been living for nearly twenty years. The modified baptism entry could support possible bigamy because if it was the same John Common the Shadwell clerics would have known of the pre-existing marriage. There is no indication of when the correction was made.
In 1826 the last two children of John & Mary (Robert, 1819 and Jane, 1822) were baptised at St John of Wapping and the 1829 the Post Office Directory lists a single John Common as a silk hat manufacturer of 48 High Street Shadwell.5,10
In 1830 Elizabeth Common age 34 of High Street was buried at St Paul, Shadwell.11 This is the right age for the wife of the 1815 marriage. In 1834 Mary Common of Spring Street Shadwell died age 50 and was buried in the Ebenezer Chapel, Shadwell.12 This is the right age for the wife of the 1806 marriage. On 18 July 1836 John Common witnessed the marriage of William John Sheffield Common.13 The signature is similar to the other John Common signatures.
 |
| Figure 4: Signatures of "John Common" from: Marriage Licence Allegation 1806; Marriage entry 1806; Marriage entry 1815; Marriage entry of W. J. S. Common 1836 (witness). |
So between 1815 and 1836 we apparently have two Johns with two families. Unfortunately from this point on the records indicate the existence of only one John Common. Apart from his death registration, the age is correct for the John from Northumberland, but the records are inconsistent with regard to his occupation:
- 24 July 1840: John Common of Shadwell, widowed, disabled labourer born c. 1781 admitted to the Mile End Workhouse at Ratcliff.14
- 23 October 1840: John Common of Shadwell, widowed, disabled hatter, born c. 1780 admitted to the Mile End Workhouse at Ratcliff.14
- 6 June 1841: Census, John Common, age 60, hatter, not born in Middlesex resident in the Mile End Workhouse in Ratcliff.15
The age in these records is consistent with John from Northumberland. The crucial piece of evidence is the 1851 Census where John Comnon is listed as a widowed pauper, age 69 (i.e. born c. 1782), a journeyman hatter born Northumberland/Newcastle.16 This information combines the occupation of the second John with the age and rough birth place of the first.
The death and burial entries in 1858 which form a series with the workhouse and census records give John’s age as 71, but this could be a transcription error for 77, consistent with the earlier information from the Workhouse.17,18
So was John Common from Northumberland a bigamist? If so it was a risky thing to do because at this period in time bigamy was a criminal offence which carried a jail term (though there is no record of this happening to John Common). This is one case where a genetic link would be helpful.
