Find a person

The printed register identifies John Williamson as a cordiner in the 14 November 1672 Alison marriage. Father John Williamson-14320’s inspected child profiles preserve Kirkcaldy index entries with Christian Turpie in 1674, 1677 and 1680, plus their 1655 marriage and her 1690 death entry. This continuing named-couple sequence conflicts with identifying him as the Edinburgh Alison bridegroom and is a substantive competing-household exclusion, not merely another spouse’s name. Son Williamson-14321, baptised 1657, is still a compatible but young candidate with no child or occupation bridge. Alison remains without a compatible profile; the row’s spouse candidates must not change her own no-profile status. The printed page identifies George Cargill as bookseller and Alison as his bride on 11 March 1651. A nearby George Cargill, printer, marries Elspeth Orme in 1663; it is a second documentary occurrence and is not asserted to be the same husband. Newly completed Allison/Alesoun/Alisoun Glasgow and Alisone/Alice Glesgow API variants returned no historical Open candidate. Neither bookseller’s parentage nor Alison’s father is given here.

• Alisone Glasgow and George Cargill, Edinburgh, 1651 — The printed page identifies George Cargill as bookseller and Alison as his bride on 11 March 1651. A nearby George Cargill, printer, marries Elspeth Orme in 1663; it is a second documentary occurrence and is not asserted to be the same husband. Newly completed Allison/Alesoun/Alisoun Glasgow and Alisone/Alice Glesgow API variants returned no historical Open candidate. Neither bookseller’s parentage nor Alison’s father is given here.
• George Cargill — The printed page identifies George Cargill as bookseller and Alison as his bride on 11 March 1651. A nearby George Cargill, printer, marries Elspeth Orme in 1663; it is a second documentary occurrence and is not asserted to be the same husband. Newly completed Allison/Alesoun/Alisoun Glasgow and Alisone/Alice Glesgow API variants returned no historical Open candidate. Neither bookseller’s parentage nor Alison’s father is given here.

The printed page identifies George Cargill as bookseller and Alison as his bride on 11 March 1651. A nearby George Cargill, printer, marries Elspeth Orme in 1663; it is a second documentary occurrence and is not asserted to be the same husband. Newly completed Allison/Alesoun/Alisoun Glasgow and Alisone/Alice Glesgow API variants returned no historical Open candidate. Neither bookseller’s parentage nor Alison’s father is given here.

The Institution mathematics/student/assistant sequence, Castledawson call and ordination, and Indian missionary family notices converge strongly on the checked career of James McClure Glasgow-1780. The early notices lack his middle name and parents; the Society secretary remains a separate qualified comparison. The current biography’s 6 October 1835 call is corrected locally to ordination; the call had been reported by 10 July. No parent or sibling relationship is upgraded.

This queue is partly matched. Elder-5907 matches the original 12 May 1886 John Elder/Annie Patterson marriage. The 1912 grocer/postmaster remains compatible with Elder-5907. The distinct 1842 John/Peggy marriage remains unresolved, with older Elder-7230 and Elder-4387 as weak candidates. No source proves the 1842 groom to be Elder-5907’s father. The 1886 register explicitly names father John Elder, farmer; that father’s profile identity is unknown.

• Margaret — One documentary marriage/banns account contains both unnamed groom and Margaret. The Glasgow surname is explicitly assumed, the groom has no given name and Margaret has no surname. Consolidate the three queue aliases into one event account. There is no recorded child or named parent to attach; the 1679 Carstairs Thomas event shares the date but has a different parish, parties and reference and remains separate.
• Unnamed Glasgow subject — One documentary marriage/banns account contains both unnamed groom and Margaret. The Glasgow surname is explicitly assumed, the groom has no given name and Margaret has no surname. Consolidate the three queue aliases into one event account. There is no recorded child or named parent to attach; the 1679 Carstairs Thomas event shares the date but has a different parish, parties and reference and remains separate.
• Unnamed Glasgow subject, Strathblane 1679 — One documentary marriage/banns account contains both unnamed groom and Margaret. The Glasgow surname is explicitly assumed, the groom has no given name and Margaret has no surname. Consolidate the three queue aliases into one event account. There is no recorded child or named parent to attach; the 1679 Carstairs Thomas event shares the date but has a different parish, parties and reference and remains separate.

One documentary marriage/banns account contains both unnamed groom and Margaret. The Glasgow surname is explicitly assumed, the groom has no given name and Margaret has no surname. Consolidate the three queue aliases into one event account. There is no recorded child or named parent to attach; the 1679 Carstairs Thomas event shares the date but has a different parish, parties and reference and remains separate.

The Dirleton 1688 index supplies no forename, age or kinship. It is one burial/death occurrence, not evidence for an unnamed child or a separate parent. No distinct-person name search can be made from this entry. It is kept separate from the 1679 Strathblane event. The original page remains required to discover any identifying wording.

The supplied index records ALEXANDER Glasgow and ISSOBELL ANDERSON/FR 991 (FR 991) at Edinburgh on 1665-06-16. Live Glasgow-1152 and Anderson-56713 reciprocally record exactly 16 June 1665 as their marriage date. Their names and Edinburgh family chronology match this entry; Glasgow-3118 is superseded as the leading identification. The register image remains uninspected.

The supplied index records ANNA Glasgow and THOMAS GRAY/FR 49 (FR 49) at Kirknewton and East Calder on 1676-06-16. Glasgow-1439 (Anne) and Grey-2711 (Thomas) are already reciprocally attached as spouses; both are placed at Kirknewton and East Calder, with compatible 1652/1650 birth placements. This is the same named local couple. The supplied entry supplies their 1676 event date, whose banns/marriage distinction still requires the original.

The supplied index records ANNA Glasgow and THOMAS GRAY/FR 49 (FR 49) at Kirknewton and East Calder on 1676-06-16. Glasgow-1439 (Anne) and Grey-2711 (Thomas) are already reciprocally attached as spouses; both are placed at Kirknewton and East Calder, with compatible 1652/1650 birth placements. This is the same named local couple. The supplied entry supplies their 1676 event date, whose banns/marriage distinction still requires the original.

Strong matching name, father, place and date support Glasgow-2898 and her already attached father Glasgow-1780. The notice does not name her mother or birthplace. Mary Wightman-3457 remains a mother hypothesis for this child pending a direct record or documented family bridge; the already recorded father is corroborated, not a new uncertain-to-certain relationship upgrade.

The supplied occurrence records Thomas Gray. These candidate profiles have compatible names, chronology and historical Scottish settings, but the specific spouse/locality bridge remains unproved. Missing extra corroboration does not exclude them; a candidate spouse does not automatically identify the Glasgow party.

Adam Dickie Glasgow-1781 (1815–1863), Presbyterian minister with a documented Belfast period, is the strongest compatible profile. Repeated Adam D. and the Institution setting support a consolidated education/teaching account; continuity into the Berry Street ministry is a supported inference. The inspected notices do not give Dickie in full, age, parents or later migration. The older Inishrush Adams remain separate namesake comparisons; no family link is upgraded.

• Agnas Glasgow, Longformacus, 1666 — Longformacus 1666 Agnas–William Anderson is not combined into a remarriage biography with the Kirknewton Swan/Paul events. Anderson-3493’s cited 1632 Alloa baptism names William Andersone/Margarat Crokit, proving that child’s record parentage, not that of the Longformacus groom. Agnes candidates’ indexed natal households are compared individually; no Longformacus family clause bridges them. Glasgow-2460, Glasgow-993, Glasgow-1562, Glasgow-4151, Glasgow-1312, Glasgow-1408, Glasgow-1441, Glasgow-4123, Glasgow-4133, Anderson-3493
• William Anderson — Longformacus 1666 Agnas–William Anderson is not combined into a remarriage biography with the Kirknewton Swan/Paul events. Anderson-3493’s cited 1632 Alloa baptism names William Andersone/Margarat Crokit, proving that child’s record parentage, not that of the Longformacus groom. Agnes candidates’ indexed natal households are compared individually; no Longformacus family clause bridges them. Anderson-3493

Longformacus 1666 Agnas–William Anderson is not combined into a remarriage biography with the Kirknewton Swan/Paul events. Anderson-3493’s cited 1632 Alloa baptism names William Andersone/Margarat Crokit, proving that child’s record parentage, not that of the Longformacus groom. Agnes candidates’ indexed natal households are compared individually; no Longformacus family clause bridges them.

The Kirknewton 12 May 1666 Agnes–James Swan occurrence is not merged with the 8 July 1670 Agnes–Patrik Paul occurrence. Swan-736’s represented family is with Alisone Peibles at Elie, married 1631; the wife’s estimated 1663 death permits a later marriage, so the different earlier spouse is not an exclusion. Its child William Swan has no inspected connection to this Agnes or Kirknewton. Longformacus 1666 Agnas–William Anderson is not combined into a remarriage biography with the Kirknewton Swan/Paul events. Anderson-3493’s cited 1632 Alloa baptism names William Andersone/Margarat Crokit, proving that child’s record parentage, not that of the Longformacus groom. Agnes candidates’ indexed natal households are compared individually; no Longformacus family clause bridges them. The 1670 Agnes–Patrik Paul event remains separate from the 1666 Agnes–James Swan event, even in the same parish. The supplied births index identifies local Agnes in 1677 to Alexander, which is a different child-record assertion and does not name the 1670 bride’s father. Unrestricted Patrick/Patrik Paul searches from the first audit found no surviving historical match; no new bridge appeared in the cross-record review. The 1681 Carstairs bride is a separate identity question from Agnes with Swan in 1666, Paul in 1670 and Anderson at Longformacus. Inveresk siblings Agnes (1634), Thomas (1637) and Marion (1642) have the indexed father Thomas, but no inspected Carstairs clause joins either Agnes or the 1679 Thomas bridegroom to that family. Thomson-263 has an Edinburgh Peirie household; its attached children add no Carstairs bridge and no dated competing household at 1681. Retain it as a weaker compatible spouse lead.

• Agnes Glasgow, Carstairs, 1681 — The 1681 Carstairs bride is a separate identity question from Agnes with Swan in 1666, Paul in 1670 and Anderson at Longformacus. Inveresk siblings Agnes (1634), Thomas (1637) and Marion (1642) have the indexed father Thomas, but no inspected Carstairs clause joins either Agnes or the 1679 Thomas bridegroom to that family. Thomson-263 has an Edinburgh Peirie household; its attached children add no Carstairs bridge and no dated competing household at 1681. Retain it as a weaker compatible spouse lead. Glasgow-2460, Glasgow-993, Glasgow-3092, Glasgow-1562, Glasgow-1312, Glasgow-1408, Glasgow-1441, Glasgow-4123, Glasgow-4133, Glasgow-4151, Thomson-263
• William Thomsone — The 1681 Carstairs bride is a separate identity question from Agnes with Swan in 1666, Paul in 1670 and Anderson at Longformacus. Inveresk siblings Agnes (1634), Thomas (1637) and Marion (1642) have the indexed father Thomas, but no inspected Carstairs clause joins either Agnes or the 1679 Thomas bridegroom to that family. Thomson-263 has an Edinburgh Peirie household; its attached children add no Carstairs bridge and no dated competing household at 1681. Retain it as a weaker compatible spouse lead. Thomson-263

The 1681 Carstairs bride is a separate identity question from Agnes with Swan in 1666, Paul in 1670 and Anderson at Longformacus. Inveresk siblings Agnes (1634), Thomas (1637) and Marion (1642) have the indexed father Thomas, but no inspected Carstairs clause joins either Agnes or the 1679 Thomas bridegroom to that family. Thomson-263 has an Edinburgh Peirie household; its attached children add no Carstairs bridge and no dated competing household at 1681. Retain it as a weaker compatible spouse lead.

• Agnes Glasgow, Kirknewton and East Calder, 1666 — The Kirknewton 12 May 1666 Agnes–James Swan occurrence is not merged with the 8 July 1670 Agnes–Patrik Paul occurrence. Swan-736’s represented family is with Alisone Peibles at Elie, married 1631; the wife’s estimated 1663 death permits a later marriage, so the different earlier spouse is not an exclusion. Its child William Swan has no inspected connection to this Agnes or Kirknewton. Glasgow-2460, Glasgow-993, Glasgow-1562, Glasgow-4151, Glasgow-1312, Glasgow-1408, Glasgow-1441, Glasgow-4123, Glasgow-4133, Swan-736
• James Swan — The Kirknewton 12 May 1666 Agnes–James Swan occurrence is not merged with the 8 July 1670 Agnes–Patrik Paul occurrence. Swan-736’s represented family is with Alisone Peibles at Elie, married 1631; the wife’s estimated 1663 death permits a later marriage, so the different earlier spouse is not an exclusion. Its child William Swan has no inspected connection to this Agnes or Kirknewton. Swan-736

The Kirknewton 12 May 1666 Agnes–James Swan occurrence is not merged with the 8 July 1670 Agnes–Patrik Paul occurrence. Swan-736’s represented family is with Alisone Peibles at Elie, married 1631; the wife’s estimated 1663 death permits a later marriage, so the different earlier spouse is not an exclusion. Its child William Swan has no inspected connection to this Agnes or Kirknewton.

• Agnes Glasgow, Kirknewton and East Calder, 1670 — The 1670 Agnes–Patrik Paul event remains separate from the 1666 Agnes–James Swan event, even in the same parish. The supplied births index identifies local Agnes in 1677 to Alexander, which is a different child-record assertion and does not name the 1670 bride’s father. Unrestricted Patrick/Patrik Paul searches from the first audit found no surviving historical match; no new bridge appeared in the cross-record review. Glasgow-2460, Glasgow-993, Glasgow-3092, Glasgow-1562, Glasgow-1312, Glasgow-1408, Glasgow-1441, Glasgow-4123, Glasgow-4133, Glasgow-4151
• Patrik Paul — The 1670 Agnes–Patrik Paul event remains separate from the 1666 Agnes–James Swan event, even in the same parish. The supplied births index identifies local Agnes in 1677 to Alexander, which is a different child-record assertion and does not name the 1670 bride’s father. Unrestricted Patrick/Patrik Paul searches from the first audit found no surviving historical match; no new bridge appeared in the cross-record review.

2 linked research notes for one research case. Each person and event remains separately assessed below.

• Alex Hillis — The global Alexander Hillis search returned many automatic Hill/Hallisy variants. No reviewed profile matches the full-age Ballymena merchant, son of John Hillis, at the marriage of 7 July 1857. Alexander Hillis-1005 was born in 1929 and is excluded. The printed source additionally names the groom's father John Hillis, farmer, which should be retained.
• Annie Elder — Anna Elder-5598, born 19 May 1832 in Antrim and died 5 June 1919 in Winnsboro, South Carolina, has compatible age and locality and an unnamed husband in the biography. She is a weak surviving candidate; absence of the Hillis surname or spouse attachment is not an exclusion. Elder-7145 has named father Robert, conflicting with the 1857 bride's father James. The captured profile names Samuel Cathcart-451 as husband; a different later spouse alone does not exclude an earlier Hillis marriage. Tree-derived parent claims are not concrete exclusions. Elder-5598

2 linked research notes for one research case. Each person and event remains separately assessed below.

• Alexander Elder — The original 1901 Alex is explicitly Robert’s son; the 1911 return names brother Robert and sister Margaret. Together with the 1908 Alexander/Mary Anderson marriage extract, these support one sibling family. Retain the actual age differences. Use the same qualified Elder-7144 father hypothesis for Alexander and proved siblings; mother Jane on the memorial is separately evidenced, while Jane Calderwood remains a comparison. No matching Alexander profile was established in full same-name and father-filtered searches.
• Mary Anderson — Mary Anderson-47673 is Neal Anderson-47669's Gortereghy sister, aged 37 in 1901, and daughter of Neal Anderson-41446 and Elizabeth Crawford. The 1908 bride is Mary Anderson of Gortereaghy, daughter of Neil Anderson; the 1911 wife Mary is aged 44. The common locality and father, with an age-compatible birth estimate of 1864, strongly support this candidate. The three-year difference in the 1911 age and absent spouse attachment are not exclusions. Anderson-47673
• Robert Elder — The 1901 return proves younger Robert a son of Robert Elder; the 1911 return proves him Alexander’s brother. Elder-1585 (c 1869, unsourced father Robert/Christina) and Elder-4828 (1871 Inch/Canada, unsourced tree family) remain weak unplaced candidates: unsupported birth and parents alone cannot exclude them. Elder-7303 is concretely a separate simultaneous Gortahar household son of Mary in 1901 and head with mother Mary in 1911. Extend Alexander’s qualified Elder-7144 father hypothesis across the documentary siblings; do not assert certain profile identity. Elder-1585, Elder-4828

3 linked research notes for one research case. Each person and event remains separately assessed below.

• Alexander Glasco — The previously inspected C 114 deed explicitly identifies Alexander Glasco, Rochester express agent, as son of James formerly of Prescott, carpenter. Glasgow-951 remains a qualified candidate; Irish property occupancy does not prove physical presence in 1868. A newly inspected Rochester index card supplies an Alexander Glasgow death lead in the Union and Advertiser of 29 August 1892, page 5 column 6. It gives no age, occupation or parent, so it cannot yet identify the express agent or exclude Glasgow-951, who died in 1888. Glasgow-951
• James Glasgow — Previously inspected deeds B 395, B 601 and C 114 consolidate three expressly named children of one James, formerly Prescott carpenter: Eliza Jane, Mary and Alexander the express agent. Robert Glasgow-4150’s brother James remains a property-based hypothesis, without proved profile identity. Preserve one family draft and the direct father clauses; fractions do not establish a complete child count. The complete Glasgow/Glasco searches identified no supported carpenter profile. Glasgow-3743 remains an unplaced lead rather than an exclusion based solely on geography.

2 linked research notes for one research case. Each person and event remains separately assessed below.

• Alexander Montgomery — The cited Ulster Lees account describes the 1839 groom as a shoemaker, later at Irvine, with a presumed death on 11 August 1850 aged 47. Montgomery-2456, born about 1795 in Tyrone with a sparse GEDCOM biography, and Montgomery-17848, born about 1830 in Antrim and married to Catherine Taylor in 1861, remain weak comparison candidates. Neither provides direct evidence of the 1839 identity. A presumed 1850 death does not prove exclusion of a later-marriage candidate. Montgomery-17848's imported 1830 estimate needs comparison with the original record. The circa 1830 birth on Montgomery-17848 is unsupported and not used alone to exclude the 1839 groom. The 1861 Catherine Taylor marriage does not alone exclude an earlier Jane marriage. Original Scottish records remain required. Montgomery-2456, Montgomery-17848
• Jane McCaughey — No supported Jane profile was identified through Jane McCaughey/McCaughe or the cited Scottish variants Jane McGeachie/McGeachin. The cited account gives Jane's birth as about 1812, father John McCaughey, mother Margaret Lees, husband Alexander Montgomery and death at Kelvin on 27 February 1886 reported by son Robert. Returned McGeachie profiles were born later; McGeachin-31 was born on 7 March 1800 and has a different family context, without a match to this 1839 couple.
• William Hay — Hay-867 represents William of Carrickfergus/Irish Quarter, born about 1808 and married to Elizabeth Walker in 1829. His age is compatible with witness William Hay at Kilraughts in 1839. A different earlier residence and absence of a witness connection do not exclude him. This remains a weak candidate, not proof. Hay-867

3 linked research notes for one research case. Each person and event remains separately assessed below.

• Alison Glasgow and John Williamson, Edinburgh, 1672 — The printed register identifies John Williamson as a cordiner in the 14 November 1672 Alison marriage. Father John Williamson-14320’s inspected child profiles preserve Kirkcaldy index entries with Christian Turpie in 1674, 1677 and 1680, plus their 1655 marriage and her 1690 death entry. This continuing named-couple sequence conflicts with identifying him as the Edinburgh Alison bridegroom and is a substantive competing-household exclusion, not merely another spouse’s name. Son Williamson-14321, baptised 1657, is still a compatible but young candidate with no child or occupation bridge. Alison remains without a compatible profile; the row’s spouse candidates must not change her own no-profile status. Williamson-14321
• John Williamson — The printed register identifies John Williamson as a cordiner in the 14 November 1672 Alison marriage. Father John Williamson-14320’s inspected child profiles preserve Kirkcaldy index entries with Christian Turpie in 1674, 1677 and 1680, plus their 1655 marriage and her 1690 death entry. This continuing named-couple sequence conflicts with identifying him as the Edinburgh Alison bridegroom and is a substantive competing-household exclusion, not merely another spouse’s name. Son Williamson-14321, baptised 1657, is still a compatible but young candidate with no child or occupation bridge. Alison remains without a compatible profile; the row’s spouse candidates must not change her own no-profile status. Williamson-14321

The printed register identifies John Williamson as a cordiner in the 14 November 1672 Alison marriage. Father John Williamson-14320’s inspected child profiles preserve Kirkcaldy index entries with Christian Turpie in 1674, 1677 and 1680, plus their 1655 marriage and her 1690 death entry. This continuing named-couple sequence conflicts with identifying him as the Edinburgh Alison bridegroom and is a substantive competing-household exclusion, not merely another spouse’s name. Son Williamson-14321, baptised 1657, is still a compatible but young candidate with no child or occupation bridge. Alison remains without a compatible profile; the row’s spouse candidates must not change her own no-profile status.

• Andrew Allexander — The 1661 Glasgow Joannet–Andrew Allexander record is compared to the Glasgow 1622 Jonet child of John/Jonet Mathie and 1636 Jonet child of William/Bessie Howie. Their father links are already marked confident (20) and are not new upgrades. Andrew Alexander-7545’s Ulster estate-family segment is an alternative candidate, not evidence for a Glasgow father. The newly captured children are Ulster-family profiles; they provide no Joannet connection. Late upper-bound Janet candidates remain lower-ranked unless an actual incompatible family event is established. Alexander-7545
• Joannet Glasgow — The 1661 Glasgow Joannet–Andrew Allexander record is compared to the Glasgow 1622 Jonet child of John/Jonet Mathie and 1636 Jonet child of William/Bessie Howie. Their father links are already marked confident (20) and are not new upgrades. Andrew Alexander-7545’s Ulster estate-family segment is an alternative candidate, not evidence for a Glasgow father. The newly captured children are Ulster-family profiles; they provide no Joannet connection. Late upper-bound Janet candidates remain lower-ranked unless an actual incompatible family event is established. Glasgow-1522, Glasgow-1089, Glasgow-1104, Glasgow-4112, Glasgow-1407, Glasgow-4130, Glasgow-1432, Glasgow-4137
• Joannet Glasgow, Glasgow 1661 — The 1661 Glasgow Joannet–Andrew Allexander record is compared to the Glasgow 1622 Jonet child of John/Jonet Mathie and 1636 Jonet child of William/Bessie Howie. Their father links are already marked confident (20) and are not new upgrades. Andrew Alexander-7545’s Ulster estate-family segment is an alternative candidate, not evidence for a Glasgow father. The newly captured children are Ulster-family profiles; they provide no Joannet connection. Late upper-bound Janet candidates remain lower-ranked unless an actual incompatible family event is established. Glasgow-1522, Glasgow-1089, Glasgow-1104, Glasgow-4112, Glasgow-1407, Glasgow-4130, Glasgow-1432, Glasgow-4137, Alexander-7545

The 1661 Glasgow Joannet–Andrew Allexander record is compared to the Glasgow 1622 Jonet child of John/Jonet Mathie and 1636 Jonet child of William/Bessie Howie. Their father links are already marked confident (20) and are not new upgrades. Andrew Alexander-7545’s Ulster estate-family segment is an alternative candidate, not evidence for a Glasgow father. The newly captured children are Ulster-family profiles; they provide no Joannet connection. Late upper-bound Janet candidates remain lower-ranked unless an actual incompatible family event is established.

• Ann Glasgow — The original 1867 informant Ann Glasgow of Lisnagaver is compatible with Ann Glasgow-438, Alexander and Mary's daughter aged four in 1851 and later a Lisnagaver spinster at her 1876 marriage. Her age of about 20 in 1867 and repeated address support the candidate. The birth does not call her the mother's sister. Glasgow-438
• Mary Glasgow — The 1867 mother Mary Glasgow and Mary Glasgow-3167, born about 1843 and a 28-year-old Lisnagaver spinster in the original marriage of 14 June 1871, share name, locality and compatible age. An earlier child of an unmarried mother fits the later spinster description. The birth names no father and does not itself establish which Mary she was. Glasgow-3167
• Mary Ellen — The same-record identification is strong. Glasgow-4269 cites the GRONI index for Mary Glasgow, Ballymoney, February 1867, reference U/1867/31/1005/2/214. The inspected original Ballymoney/Dirraw return, printed page 6 and PDF page 1, entry 214, records Mary Ellen at Lisnagaver, mother Mary Glasgow and informant Ann Glasgow. No competing local February 1867 child was found. The original reads fourteenth February, while the index and profile give 17 February. This is a date conflict within the identified registration, not grounds to duplicate the child. Glasgow-4269

3 linked research notes for one research case. Each person and event remains separately assessed below.

• Anne Glasgow — Ann Glasgow-3992, born about 1768, died on 25 May 1832 at Larne and was alive on the 25 February 1832 renewal date. Her armorial inscription names father James and mother Jane, fitting the local generation, but does not identify this lease. Ann and Anne are compatible name forms. The 1832 renewal does not establish Anne or Jane as James’s daughters. Keep the 1768 ropemaker party, farmer witness and 1779 lessee roles separate. Jane, wife of Glasgow-3991, died in 1820 and cannot be the 1832 lessee. Glasgow-3992
• James Glasgow — The live biographies identify two distinct adult Larne men: James Glasgow-1509, ropemaker (1737–1802), and James Glasgow-3991, probable tanner (about 1748–1812). Both survived until the 1779 lease. The separate 1768 messuage names a ropemaker party and a farmer witness, whose roles require separate comparison. Glasgow-1509 is the leading compatible party. No source names the farmer witness's relatives or identifies the 1779 lessee. The 1832 renewal does not establish Anne or Jane as James’s daughters. Keep the 1768 ropemaker party, farmer witness and 1779 lessee roles separate. Jane, wife of Glasgow-3991, died in 1820 and cannot be the 1832 lessee. Glasgow-1509, Glasgow-3991
• Jane Glasgow — Jane Glasgow-4013 is the strongest locality candidate: her live biography describes Larne probate entries in 1844–1846 and birth before 1826, rather than an actual 1826 birth. Jane Glasgow-3929, born 5 October 1802 and later wife of John Gray, is also chronologically compatible. A different husband and missing lease connection do not exclude her. The 1832 renewal does not establish Anne or Jane as James’s daughters. Keep the 1768 ropemaker party, farmer witness and 1779 lessee roles separate. Jane, wife of Glasgow-3991, died in 1820 and cannot be the 1832 lessee. Glasgow-4013, Glasgow-3929

Ann Glasgow-3992, born about 1768, died on 25 May 1832 at Larne and was alive on the 25 February 1832 renewal date. Her armorial inscription names father James and mother Jane, fitting the local generation, but does not identify this lease. Ann and Anne are compatible name forms. The 1832 renewal does not establish Anne or Jane as James’s daughters. Keep the 1768 ropemaker party, farmer witness and 1779 lessee roles separate. Jane, wife of Glasgow-3991, died in 1820 and cannot be the 1832 lessee.

The inspected 1886 register proves Annie Patterson age 20, daughter of David Patterson farmer, marrying grocer John Elder (Elder-5907 exact event match). Family-filtered search recovers Patterson-32389 Anne Jane (baptism-derived 1860, Ballyculter, father David miner) and Patterson-14390 Annie 1858 (unsourced Ontario tree, father David): retain both as weak candidates, with reported ages, father occupations and locality differences explicit. Those differences alone do not prove incompatible life courses.

The 18 January 1581/82 Bridgegait boundary names Archibald Herbertsoun, fisher. His name, craft and street probably identify Herbison-475, the record-proved husband of Isobella Glasgow. The boundary describes property, supplies no new kinship, and does not prove either spouse was then alive. The last proved personal appearance remains 19 December 1573.

The named witness Benjamin Glasgow identifies the late Robert Glasgow as his father, says he managed his father’s mill from 1850, and dates Robert’s death to 1856. Benjamin’s evidence describes a companion as “witness’s uncle, Mr. Glasgow, sen.”; identification as William belongs to the separate case context, not this quotation. Certain documentary father–son relationship; identification of Robert with Glasgow-2656 or Glasgow-3941 remains qualified. Counsel’s reference to Robert’s sons supports a qualified brother inference for co-plaintiff William. The uncle’s paternal or maternal side and all mothers are unstated. No parents are established for John Glasgow-2058. The 1864 marriage names wife Wilhelmina Pike; the 1891 daughter’s notice explicitly bridges Hull and Drapersfield. These strengthen the consolidated family account while existing-profile identity remains HOLD. 4 October 2026 correction: the 1834 surgeon notice makes Glasgow-3412 a strong candidate for a Benjamin who died in 1833, rather than a surviving mill partner. If that surgeon identification is correct, the 1858/1870 mill activity is a concrete death-date conflict. Keep the surgeon and mill documentary accounts separate; Glasgow-3412’s surgeon identity itself remains qualified. The profile remains a conditional comparison because surgeon-profile identity is still unproved.

The inferred death year is 1833. No age or mother is given. The documented father–son relationship is certain; profile identification remains on HOLD. Glasgow-3412 is a strong compatible candidate. The University of Glasgow index lists Benjamin Glasgow’s Master of Surgery in 1826, without father, birthplace or overseas details. This surgeon cannot be the mill Benjamin living in 1858/1870 or John’s merchant son living in 1856.

• Caroline McCaughern — Caroline McCaughern/McCarnagh searches returned zero results. McCaughan returned only other given-name or later-generation variants, without a compatible Caroline born about 1864 and daughter of Sarah. No existing profile was identified within this explicit search scope. The original 1901/1911 returns establish the household’s continuity. Carry Dysart-1893 as the qualified mother identity and John McCaughern-23 as the corresponding uncertain father hypothesis for proved siblings. George’s particular mother remains unproved.
• Geo Mulholland — The completed George Mulholland search identified no supported Gortereghy boy born about 1897 with grandmother Sarah. The household calls Geo a grandson of Sarah, not explicitly a son of Matilda; preserve the relationship actually stated. The original 1901/1911 returns establish the household’s continuity. Dysart-1893 remains the qualified identity of grandmother Sarah. Neither this return nor the earlier return names George’s parents; Matilda as mother is a plausible comparison, not an asserted attachment.
• Jas Alex McCaughern — James McCaughern/McCarnagh/McCaughan queries include McCarnagh-3, born about 1835, and Mc_Caughern-19, born in 1824 and died in 1889. Neither represents Jas Alex, aged 43 and born about 1868, in the 1911 household. No supported existing profile was identified for this son. The original 1901/1911 returns establish the household’s continuity. Carry Dysart-1893 as the qualified mother identity and John McCaughern-23 as the corresponding uncertain father hypothesis for proved siblings. George’s particular mother remains unproved.
• Matilda Mulholland — Mulholland-1040 is excluded from this Gortereghy daughter by two inspected simultaneous 1901 family returns, not by absent parents. The Gortereghy Matilda is age 45 married in 1901 and 52 widow in 1911; the Monkstown Matilda is 32, married Adair, with sons 9/8/3/1. Preserve the reported age disagreement 45→52. Documentary Sarah is her proved mother; Dysart-1893 and John McCaughern-23 may be carried together as an explicitly uncertain family identity. George is Sarah’s grandson, not explicitly Matilda’s son.
• Sara Jane McCaughern — The Sarah McCaughern search returns Dysart-1893, the mother-generation woman, rather than Sara Jane born about 1866. Sarah McCaughan-172 was born on 2 May 1886 to Samuel and Matilda Kirkpatrick. McCaughan-181 died on 31 May 1910, before the 1911 household. No compatible child-generation profile was identified. The original 1901/1911 returns establish the household’s continuity. Carry Dysart-1893 as the qualified mother identity and John McCaughern-23 as the corresponding uncertain father hypothesis for proved siblings. George’s particular mother remains unproved.
• Sarah McCaughern — Original 1901/1911 returns prove household continuity, widowhood and Derry birth. The original 1851 Sarah Dysart/John McCaughern marriage supplies locality and generation compatibility; Sarah’s minor status conflicts slightly with an 1829 birth inferred from census age 82, so treat ages as reported and retain Dysart-1893 as probable-compatible rather than matched. No census names husband or maiden surname. If the identity is retained, carry John McCaughern-23 as the same uncertain father hypothesis across the proved siblings; their mother relationship to documentary Sarah is certain. Dysart-1893

6 linked research notes for one research case. Each person and event remains separately assessed below.

• Daniel Glasco — Daniel Glasco/Glascow, Norfolk planter, and his wife Mary conveyed 100 acres from Henry Slade’s 330-acre patent to Richard Linton. The upper endorsement expressly says Daniel came into court and acknowledged the act on 3 September 1729, proving him alive then. Daneill Glasco and Richard Linton also witnessed Richard Johnson’s will dated 26 February 1729/30; McIntosh’s abstract is printed page 122. Glasgow-3322, Mary Gamon’s husband in 1693, remains compatible, but the two estates have no proved continuous title chain. Glasgow-3322
• Mary — Mary is expressly Daniel Glasco’s wife in the 1729 deed. Gammon-934 remains compatible with the 1693 John Gamon will’s daughter Mary, wife of Daniel Glasco. Her guessed 1699 death and inconsistent imported spouse field are unsupported and do not exclude her. The 1693 record proves that earlier Mary’s father, but no record yet proves that the 1729 wife is the same woman. Keep the candidate and the lifetime identity qualification together. Gammon-934
• Richard Linton — Richard Linton purchased the 1729 land and witnessed Richard Johnson’s will dated 26 February 1729/30 with Daneill Glasco. Linton-898 remains compatible: its estimated 1680 birth, missing death and sparse Virginia family context supply no concrete conflict. Linton-931 also remains a weaker compatible candidate because its 1722 birth is GEDCOM-derived. Linton-494 has cited Lancaster death/probate in 1665, a concrete conflict with the 1729 transaction. Keep the candidate; cite McIntosh’s printed page 122 and do not infer survival to probate. Linton-898, Linton-931

Daniel Glasco/Glascow, Norfolk planter, and his wife Mary conveyed 100 acres from Henry Slade’s 330-acre patent to Richard Linton. The upper endorsement expressly says Daniel came into court and acknowledged the act on 3 September 1729, proving him alive then. Daneill Glasco and Richard Linton also witnessed Richard Johnson’s will dated 26 February 1729/30; McIntosh’s abstract is printed page 122. Glasgow-3322, Mary Gamon’s husband in 1693, remains compatible, but the two estates have no proved continuous title chain.

• David Mathy — David Mathy and Mergaret Androsoune, expressly his spouse, bought a barn at Powdrait, Glasgow, on 3 February 1550/51. David Mathy and Robert Glesgw were expressly fellow burgesses witnessing a sasine on 10 May 1554; David also witnessed an act on 4 July 1554. The name and city make the purchaser and witness probably the same man, but the later acts do not repeat the spouse. No kinship with Robert is stated. David Matthew-330 is a weak compatible variant candidate: its only 1701 death assertion is GEDCOM-derived, so it cannot be excluded. The complete sourced draft remains on HOLD against that candidate, with purchaser/witness identity qualified. Matthew-330
• Mergaret Androsoune — Mergaret Androsoune is expressly David Mathy’s spouse in the 3 February 1550/51 Glasgow barn purchase. No age, birthplace, parents, children or death is stated. Anderson-3241 is a sparse compatible candidate with unknown dates, Scotland locality and an unsupported John Kelman spouse; no record proves identity or a conflict. The spouse clause is certain for the documentary couple, while her existing-profile identity remains unresolved. Anderson-3241

David Mathy and Mergaret Androsoune, expressly his spouse, bought a barn at Powdrait, Glasgow, on 3 February 1550/51. David Mathy and Robert Glesgw were expressly fellow burgesses witnessing a sasine on 10 May 1554; David also witnessed an act on 4 July 1554. The name and city make the purchaser and witness probably the same man, but the later acts do not repeat the spouse. No kinship with Robert is stated. David Matthew-330 is a weak compatible variant candidate: its only 1701 death assertion is GEDCOM-derived, so it cannot be excluded. The complete sourced draft remains on HOLD against that candidate, with purchaser/witness identity qualified.

• Elizabeth Elder — The original 1911 return proves Elizabeth, 50, sister of William, 40. Elder-3950 and Elder-3951 remain compatible together. Original 1901 Lizzie is 25, daughter of James, 80, and Mary, 73; William is 23. These are substantial original-record age conflicts. Retain the shared parent hypothesis at its uncertainty; do not attach the 1911 pair certainly to James Elder-3946 through these records alone. Elder-3950
• William Elder — The original 1911 return proves William, 40, and Elizabeth, 50, a sibling pair. Elder-3951 and Elder-3950 remain compatible together. The original 1901 James/Mary household records William as 23 and Lizzie as 25. These substantial age differences are visible in the originals and must not be forced into agreement. James Elder-3946 and Mary Jane remain qualified parent identities for the 1901 children; continuity with the 1911 pair remains uncertain. Elder-3951

The original 1911 return proves Elizabeth, 50, sister of William, 40. Elder-3950 and Elder-3951 remain compatible together. Original 1901 Lizzie is 25, daughter of James, 80, and Mary, 73; William is 23. These are substantial original-record age conflicts. Retain the shared parent hypothesis at its uncertainty; do not attach the 1911 pair certainly to James Elder-3946 through these records alone.

Elizabeth Glasgow’s supplied death index records 15 November 1893, age 73, Londonderry registration district. Glasgow-3033, born at Gorbals on 23 May 1819 to James Glasgow and Jean Cunninghame, remains compatible. No record yet joins her Scottish family to this Irish death, and the death surname does not establish her birth surname. Keep the candidate and the draft on HOLD; the original death entry remains uninspected.

• Ellen Elder — No supported separate Ellen profile was identified for Joseph's niece aged 38 in 1911. Local Elder-7143 represents Ellen Jane (1823–1879), rather than this younger woman. Global near-age Elder-6578 belongs to a Utah family as a daughter of Claybourne and Mary Pratt, with a different family and locality.
• Joseph Elder — No supported existing Joseph profile was identified for the Gortereghy man aged 79 in 1911. Elder-3002 has a nearby birth year of 1831 but documents an Alabama marriage in 1852, Civil War service and burial in Clay County in 1913, without an Irish household chain. Elder-741 is an undated, unlocated import retained only as a name-only lead. Robert Elder-7144's biography mentions brother Joseph leasing Gortereghy land in 1864, an important compatible earlier record without a Joseph profile ID.

No supported separate Ellen profile was identified for Joseph's niece aged 38 in 1911. Local Elder-7143 represents Ellen Jane (1823–1879), rather than this younger woman. Global near-age Elder-6578 belongs to a Utah family as a daughter of Claybourne and Mary Pratt, with a different family and locality.

The printed Edinburgh register identifies Alexander as a tailor and dates his marriage to Eupham to 8 December 1671. The same-name tailor’s Edinburgh burgess admission on 22 June 1670 records apprenticeship to the late Alexander Thomsone (31 January 1655); this is a strong occupational lead for the groom, not a father clause. Thomsone is a master, not a parent. Eupham Glasgow-3358’s 1651 Edinburgh child index names Robert Glasgow/Eupham Lorimer; Glasgow-1167’s 1634 event has a documented Glasgow/Glassford father conflict. Neither child-to-bride identification is proved. The Channelkirk September event is provisionally one-couple related but stays a distinct register occurrence. Rev. Alexander Hutcheson-361 is retained as a lower-ranked candidate: his estimated 1630–1640 birth and unknown wife do not conflict by themselves, though his 1653 divinity degree and Scottish/Down ministry differ materially from the recorded Edinburgh tailor. A country-only filter was insufficient to reject him; no merger, marriage attachment or father inference follows. Channelkirk 17 September 1671 Effie–Alexander Hutchesone is kept as a distinct event, provisionally associated with the Edinburgh 8 December 1671 Eupham–Alexander tailor event. Same couple is plausible under Effie/Eupham and Hutcheson variants, but the difference of parish and date does not establish banns followed by marriage or identity with a named father. The occupational fact read at Edinburgh is not assigned as a quoted Channelkirk fact. Rev. Alexander Hutcheson-361 is retained as a lower-ranked candidate: his estimated 1630–1640 birth and unknown wife do not conflict by themselves, though his 1653 divinity degree and Scottish/Down ministry differ materially from the recorded Edinburgh tailor. A country-only filter was insufficient to reject him; no merger, marriage attachment or father inference follows.

All sixteen original advertisements were inspected and saved; they repeat the same address change from 5 October 1779 through 4 April 1780. No first name or kin is stated. The address supports continuity with the existing Thomas Glasco trade cluster, but does not identify a WikiTree profile. The listed profiles are compatible or conditional comparison leads, not identifications. Reviewed the public historical catalogue and QMD notes for Dublin watchmakers and the two addresses. Reuse the existing trade cluster; this is not a new person per advertisement. The known Philip junior died in 1770 and elder Philip died in 1772, so neither deceased watchmaker can be this living 1779 advertiser. The Scottish Philip profile identity remains separately unproved.

The 1677 deed index identifies Hugh Glasgow, preacher of the gospel, as grantee in an act recorded on 8 March 1677, Durie Office volume 42, page 148 (RD3/42). Glasgow-1603, Glasgow-1066 and Glasgow-3109 remain compatible; absent ministry details and unsupported imported ages do not exclude them. The original deed must supply the parties, residence or kin before an identity or relationship can be resolved. The recording date is not a death date.

• Hugh Macaw — No compatible infant profile was identified through Hugh Macaw/McCaw/McCaughan searches. McCaw-10 represents the father of John, born about 1833. McCaw-233 represents an adult born about 1812 and father of Eliza, born about 1832. These are older generations, not the 1839 infant. The freshly inspected published baptism transcription, row 125, gives birth on 3 February 1839 and baptism on 3 March, whereas the maintained handoff gave 5 February. The original image is still needed to settle the date. Consolidate Hugh and Jane Matilda with the same named parental couple. Rereading the transcription gives 3 February 1839, with the manuscript still uninspected. Parent profile identities remain uncertain; later spouses alone do not exclude an earlier family.
• Mary Kilpatrick — Kilpatrick-3023 represents Mary, born about 1820 and died in 1870, associated with Larne/Antrim. Her age is compatible with motherhood in 1839; she had a Glenarm child John Black in 1866 by John Black. A later Black relationship does not exclude an earlier Macaw family, and no earlier marital history is documented. Retain her as a weak candidate. The nearer Kilrea Mary Kilpatrick-2163 has a continuing family with William White, married in 1828, distinct from the 1839 William Macaw couple. Consolidate Hugh and Jane Matilda with the same named parental couple. Rereading the transcription gives 3 February 1839, with the manuscript still uninspected. Parent profile identities remain uncertain; later spouses alone do not exclude an earlier family. Kilpatrick-3023
• William Macaw — McCaw-443, born about 1818 in Londonderry and later a Presbyterian minister with Sarah in 1861, and McCaw-216, born in 1821 in Ireland and married to Elizabeth Jane Werden about 1845 in Canada, could chronologically have fathered a child in 1839. A later different wife is not an exclusion without continuous marriage evidence. Both are weak comparisons, without a Lisnagaver connection to named wife Mary Kilpatrick. The Antrim Williams born in 1840 and 1865 cannot be the 1839 father. Consolidate Hugh and Jane Matilda with the same named parental couple. Rereading the transcription gives 3 February 1839, with the manuscript still uninspected. Parent profile identities remain uncertain; later spouses alone do not exclude an earlier family. McCaw-443, McCaw-216

3 linked research notes for one research case. Each person and event remains separately assessed below.

• Isob Glasgow — The 1684 Glasgow Isob–James Coldwell occurrence has candidate women with different indexed natal families. Caldwell-12289 has a before-1670 bound but cites children in Scotland and Maryland in 1691/1692, rather than a secure own birth. Those later records permit a 1684 marriage and do not identify this Isob. No newly read record bridges an Isob baptism father to this bride. Glasgow-2454, Glasgow-1438, Glasgow-1520, Glasgow-3372
• Isob Glasgow, Glasgow 1684 — The 1684 Glasgow Isob–James Coldwell occurrence has candidate women with different indexed natal families. Caldwell-12289 has a before-1670 bound but cites children in Scotland and Maryland in 1691/1692, rather than a secure own birth. Those later records permit a 1684 marriage and do not identify this Isob. No newly read record bridges an Isob baptism father to this bride. Glasgow-2454, Glasgow-1438, Glasgow-1520, Glasgow-3372, Caldwell-12289
• James Coldwell — The 1684 Glasgow Isob–James Coldwell occurrence has candidate women with different indexed natal families. Caldwell-12289 has a before-1670 bound but cites children in Scotland and Maryland in 1691/1692, rather than a secure own birth. Those later records permit a 1684 marriage and do not identify this Isob. No newly read record bridges an Isob baptism father to this bride. Caldwell-12289

The 1684 Glasgow Isob–James Coldwell occurrence has candidate women with different indexed natal families. Caldwell-12289 has a before-1670 bound but cites children in Scotland and Maryland in 1691/1692, rather than a secure own birth. Those later records permit a 1684 marriage and do not identify this Isob. No newly read record bridges an Isob baptism father to this bride.

James Glasgow in Didup is named in the 11 June 1674 Irvine inquest for Robert Hunter of Hunterstoun. The subject and older draft describe the same occurrence. Glasgow-3105, Glasgow-3969, Glasgow-3172, Glasgow-3971, Glasgow-3107 and Glasgow-1496 all remain plausible; the extract gives no age, occupation or kin. Consolidate the queue work and preserve the six candidates. The attempted independent book download failed, so no new original inspection is claimed.

The repeated society and associates support one society account. The same Walter Moffat appears in the 1828 Institution report, making James-1780 a compatible student/ministry-network candidate; this does not prove that the society secretary is the college student. The newspaper does not call James the president, chair or minister.

The repeated name, trade and contact support one seller account. No age or relatives are stated. North Street is the sample/contact location, not explicitly James’s home or owned premises. Do not connect him to William the Belfast grocer or the 1820 plaintiff merely by surname or town. Regional compatible profiles remain unresolved. Former occupancy is explicit; ownership, trade and residence are not. The surname is certain, but identity with the 1822–23 tobacco seller, William the grocer or another James remains unproved.

The court report establishes an accused surname bearer and acquittal, not a conviction, residence, occupation or kinship. Regional James Glasgow candidates remain unassigned. No connection to Alexander or Robert of Lisnagaver is supplied.

This is an application published on 24 December 1830, not proof that registration succeeded. Glasgow-3986 is the strongest compatible local candidate, but the notice gives no age, occupation, relatives or bridge to the 1795 merchant or 1797 junior. It does not connect Larne to Lisnagaver. The older Larne tanner Glasgow-3991 died in 1812 according to a published monument transcription; the ropemaker Glasgow-1509 has a reported 1802 death with probate-index support. These older accounts are not assigned to the applicant. The notice adds no proof to Glasgow-3986’s possible parentage or connection to Alexander at Lisnagaver.

No age, parents, spouse or occupation is stated. Larne describes origin, not necessarily his last Irish residence. The 1830 Larne freeholder and earlier merchant are unproved comparisons. Known Larne profiles Glasgow-3986 (reported death 1831), Glasgow-3991 (1812) and Glasgow-1509 (1802) conflict in death chronology and are not assigned to this death. Check their underlying dates before proposing a correction or duplicate.

Original 1740 shipping passage inspected. Four live Irvine biographies remain compatible; no occupation, age or family bridge identifies the master. Keep one consolidated occurrence on HOLD and do not create or amend a profile from the report alone.

This is a procedural report, not a final judgment or proof of James’s residence. Identity with the Belfast tobacco seller and regional namesakes is unproved. Associates are recorded in context, without inferred kinship. The name is James Glasgow, not the automated index’s combined William James Glasgow. No residence, occupation or kin is stated. This remains an unassigned legal occurrence; identity with the 1820 Exchequer plaintiff is unproved.

• Jane Adams McCaughey — No compatible separate Jane Adams McCaughey profile was identified in the completed Jane McCaughey/McCaughe searches. The similarly aged McCaughey-347 represents a Montreal woman whose profile lacks the named William/Garvaghey connection. It remains a name-only lead, not a proved exclusion.
• Robert Elder — Robert Elder-3949, son of James Elder and Mary Jane McAughin, was born on 21 September 1858 in the local Gortereghy/Ballymoney family. His live biography gives no conflicting spouse or later chronology. He is compatible with the full-age Ballymoney labourer in 1887 whose father James was a labourer; an occupational change does not exclude him. Identification remains unproved without an original marital-status and address chain. James Elder-3946 is a possible father identity for the marriage clause, but that identity and mother Mary Jane are not proved by the 1887 marriage alone. Elder-3949
• William McCaughey — No supported William McCaughey profile was identified for the father named in Jane Adams's 1887 marriage. Completed William McCaughey/McCaughe searches include William McCaughey-350, born in 1860 and son of James, and an unplaced eighteenth-century William McCaughey-204. Neither has a sourced match to a Garvaghey daughter Jane Adams. Unplaced profiles are not excluded merely for absent fields.

3 linked research notes for one research case. Each person and event remains separately assessed below.

The 1675 Polwarth index other-details TOD / WILLIAM GLASGOW leaves William’s role unknown. Todd-7464’s children have estimated birth years, including circa 1680; the inspected child biographies do not establish dated births after Janet’s 1675 burial, so those guesses do not exclude her. Glasgow-1104 and Glasgow-1522 remain possible under a natal-Glasgow reading; their established father links are already confident and William in this death entry is not reassigned as father. No record read links her to the 1656/1658 Polwarth children.

The 1652 St Monance Jeane–Robert Aliesone occurrence predates Glasgow-1163’s documented 1650 Edinburgh childhood and does not fit that represented child as a bride. Existing exclusions remain. New unrestricted Robert Aliesoun/Allisone API variants found no historical Open profile; this is a profile search, not a search of the parish’s full baptism collection. No record read names either spouse’s father. The inspected printed page calls William Mitchell a merchant in his marriage to Jean on 16 December 1675. Mitchell-54981’s attached daughter Mary Mitchell-54795 explicitly questions her own paternal assignment; the Carolina birth placement is estimated and its 1720 deed does not establish this William’s identity. It is not used to exclude an earlier/later marriage. Glasgow-1163’s 1650 Edinburgh child index names Thomas Glasgow/Catharine Weir; it is a compatible local child candidate, not proof that those are the bride’s parents. Woodside-784 is supported as father Robert of James Woodside with Jonet White, baptised 30 January 1676, through the child profile. This is an earlier Ayrshire household, not a concrete exclusion of a 1700 later marriage to Jean. Jean candidates’ individual baptism families remain distinct. No current parent/child or spouse record read connects this couple to the West Kilbride 13 January 1700 event.

• Jean Glasgow and William Mitchell, Edinburgh, 1675 — The inspected printed page calls William Mitchell a merchant in his marriage to Jean on 16 December 1675. Mitchell-54981’s attached daughter Mary Mitchell-54795 explicitly questions her own paternal assignment; the Carolina birth placement is estimated and its 1720 deed does not establish this William’s identity. It is not used to exclude an earlier/later marriage. Glasgow-1163’s 1650 Edinburgh child index names Thomas Glasgow/Catharine Weir; it is a compatible local child candidate, not proof that those are the bride’s parents. Glasgow-1163, Glasgow-3083, Glasgow-3055, Glasgow-4113, Mitchell-54981
• William Mitchell — The inspected printed page calls William Mitchell a merchant in his marriage to Jean on 16 December 1675. Mitchell-54981’s attached daughter Mary Mitchell-54795 explicitly questions her own paternal assignment; the Carolina birth placement is estimated and its 1720 deed does not establish this William’s identity. It is not used to exclude an earlier/later marriage. Glasgow-1163’s 1650 Edinburgh child index names Thomas Glasgow/Catharine Weir; it is a compatible local child candidate, not proof that those are the bride’s parents. Mitchell-54981

The inspected printed page calls William Mitchell a merchant in his marriage to Jean on 16 December 1675. Mitchell-54981’s attached daughter Mary Mitchell-54795 explicitly questions her own paternal assignment; the Carolina birth placement is estimated and its 1720 deed does not establish this William’s identity. It is not used to exclude an earlier/later marriage. Glasgow-1163’s 1650 Edinburgh child index names Thomas Glasgow/Catharine Weir; it is a compatible local child candidate, not proof that those are the bride’s parents.

• Jean Glasgow, West Kilbride 1700 — Woodside-784 is supported as father Robert of James Woodside with Jonet White, baptised 30 January 1676, through the child profile. This is an earlier Ayrshire household, not a concrete exclusion of a 1700 later marriage to Jean. Jean candidates’ individual baptism families remain distinct. No current parent/child or spouse record read connects this couple to the West Kilbride 13 January 1700 event. Glasgow-3088, Glasgow-3364, Glasgow-3528, Glasgow-1163, Glasgow-3083, Glasgow-3055, Glasgow-4113, Woodside-784
• Robert Woodsyd — Woodside-784 is supported as father Robert of James Woodside with Jonet White, baptised 30 January 1676, through the child profile. This is an earlier Ayrshire household, not a concrete exclusion of a 1700 later marriage to Jean. Jean candidates’ individual baptism families remain distinct. No current parent/child or spouse record read connects this couple to the West Kilbride 13 January 1700 event. Woodside-784

Woodside-784 is supported as father Robert of James Woodside with Jonet White, baptised 30 January 1676, through the child profile. This is an earlier Ayrshire household, not a concrete exclusion of a 1700 later marriage to Jean. Jean candidates’ individual baptism families remain distinct. No current parent/child or spouse record read connects this couple to the West Kilbride 13 January 1700 event.

• Jeane Glasgow, St Monance, 1652 — The 1652 St Monance Jeane–Robert Aliesone occurrence predates Glasgow-1163’s documented 1650 Edinburgh childhood and does not fit that represented child as a bride. Existing exclusions remain. New unrestricted Robert Aliesoun/Allisone API variants found no historical Open profile; this is a profile search, not a search of the parish’s full baptism collection. No record read names either spouse’s father. Glasgow-3083, Glasgow-3055, Glasgow-4113
• Robert Aliesone — The 1652 St Monance Jeane–Robert Aliesone occurrence predates Glasgow-1163’s documented 1650 Edinburgh childhood and does not fit that represented child as a bride. Existing exclusions remain. New unrestricted Robert Aliesoun/Allisone API variants found no historical Open profile; this is a profile search, not a search of the parish’s full baptism collection. No record read names either spouse’s father.

2 linked research notes for one research case. Each person and event remains separately assessed below.

• John Aiton — Cambusnethan 1693 Margrat–John Aiton is separate from Walston 1690 Margaret–John Tailzer. Ayton-398 represents the Fawside/West Herrington Durham estate family and has an unnamed wife and a 1702 will; child Samuel Ayton-399 supplies no wife-name bridge. Distant residence alone does not exclude it. The direct 1643 Glasgow child index supports William/Bessie parentage only for that child record, not the Cambusnethan bride. Ayton-398
• Margrat Glasgow, Cambusnethan, 1693 — Cambusnethan 1693 Margrat–John Aiton is separate from Walston 1690 Margaret–John Tailzer. Ayton-398 represents the Fawside/West Herrington Durham estate family and has an unnamed wife and a 1702 will; child Samuel Ayton-399 supplies no wife-name bridge. Distant residence alone does not exclude it. The direct 1643 Glasgow child index supports William/Bessie parentage only for that child record, not the Cambusnethan bride. Glasgow-1524, Glasgow-3050, Glasgow-3366, Glasgow-3112, Glasgow-1160, Glasgow-3365, Glasgow-3186, Glasgow-1154, Glasgow-4119, Glasgow-4111, Ayton-398

Cambusnethan 1693 Margrat–John Aiton is separate from Walston 1690 Margaret–John Tailzer. Ayton-398 represents the Fawside/West Herrington Durham estate family and has an unnamed wife and a 1702 will; child Samuel Ayton-399 supplies no wife-name bridge. Distant residence alone does not exclude it. The direct 1643 Glasgow child index supports William/Bessie parentage only for that child record, not the Cambusnethan bride.

• John Bruce — The printed marriage register adds John Bruce’s trade of smith, independently of the generic OPR index. Glasgow-3143 is already supported as Marion who married the Edinburgh weaver William Calder in June 1686; that established life segment is not transferred into this 1684 event. Bruce-6113 represents Sir John Bruce of Kinross with the 1687 Christian Leslie marriage, whereas Bruce-3507 has only a speculative Clackmannan son whose own profile explicitly leaves his baptism/parentage open. Neither inspected family supplies this smith-and-Marion couple. Different spouses alone are not exclusions; keep both candidate husbands qualified and the events separate. Bruce-6113, Bruce-3507
• Marion Glasgow and John Bruce, Edinburgh, 1684 — The printed marriage register adds John Bruce’s trade of smith, independently of the generic OPR index. Glasgow-3143 is already supported as Marion who married the Edinburgh weaver William Calder in June 1686; that established life segment is not transferred into this 1684 event. Bruce-6113 represents Sir John Bruce of Kinross with the 1687 Christian Leslie marriage, whereas Bruce-3507 has only a speculative Clackmannan son whose own profile explicitly leaves his baptism/parentage open. Neither inspected family supplies this smith-and-Marion couple. Different spouses alone are not exclusions; keep both candidate husbands qualified and the events separate. Glasgow-3143, Glasgow-3025, Glasgow-3049, Glasgow-4095, Glasgow-1428, Glasgow-3062, Bruce-6113, Bruce-3507

The printed marriage register adds John Bruce’s trade of smith, independently of the generic OPR index. Glasgow-3143 is already supported as Marion who married the Edinburgh weaver William Calder in June 1686; that established life segment is not transferred into this 1684 event. Bruce-6113 represents Sir John Bruce of Kinross with the 1687 Christian Leslie marriage, whereas Bruce-3507 has only a speculative Clackmannan son whose own profile explicitly leaves his baptism/parentage open. Neither inspected family supplies this smith-and-Marion couple. Different spouses alone are not exclusions; keep both candidate husbands qualified and the events separate.

The Times reports John Glasco, Esq., self-described officer on the Staff, charged with wounding a patrolman and committed at Bow Street in 1799. Allegation and committal are not conviction; origin and identity remain unknown. The listed profiles are compatible or conditional comparison leads, not identifications. Bounded local review covered the public people catalogue and early Irish target inventory, including John Glasgow, Glasco and Glascow variants and London links; no unique profile match was established. This was not an exhaustive live WikiTree audit. Do not join this record to the 1779 chairman. Retain the listed Irish namesakes as compatible or conditional search leads, not identified people. Their catalogue birthplaces and missing London fields do not exclude a later London period. Dates derived from profile/tree leads require original-source checks.

The original Derby Mercury passage names John Glascow, described as a chairman, giving evidence after the Martha Ray shooting in Covent Garden. The provider label of 19 March 1779 is incompatible with the shooting on 7 April 1779, independently dated in the Old Bailey original. Exact publication date and personal identity remain unresolved; no Irish origin is stated. The listed profiles are compatible or conditional comparison leads, not identifications. Bounded local review covered the public people catalogue and early Irish target inventory, including John Glasgow, Glasco and Glascow variants and London links; no unique profile match was established. This was not an exhaustive live WikiTree audit. Retain the listed Irish namesakes as compatible or conditional search leads, not identified people. Their catalogue birthplaces and missing London fields do not exclude a later London period. Dates derived from profile/tree leads require original-source checks. Glasgow-1657 has a recorded 1766 birth, implying about 13 in 1779: weaker fit for the apparent adult chairman context, subject to verification of that birth-date basis.

John Glasgow’s supplied death index records 30 September 1871, age 56, Omagh registration district. Glasgow-3140, the reconstructed Armagh husband of Elizabeth Fee born about 1813, remains compatible; the 1882 Armagh death is a competing candidate. The American Robert/Catherine-family John is separately Glasgow-4055 and cannot exclude Glasgow-3140 through the earlier conflation. Compare original death residence, occupation and informant before attaching either death.

The independently inspected testament index confirms John Glasgow in Rashlie, parish of Kilbryde, on 17 April 1643, but supplies no age or family. Glasgow-1030, Glasgow-1561, Glasgow-1084 (redirecting to Glasgow-3015), Glasgow-1088 and Glasgow-1604 (redirecting to Glasgow-3145) remain compatible. Keep this separate from the 1637 Saltcoats sailor and the 1685 Boog/Steivinstoun John. Original CC9/7/28 remains uninspected.

Glasgow-2058 is compatible by name, Cookstown district and the merchant occupation independently recorded in Benjamin-2059’s 1856 marriage. None of these advertisements names relatives, age or street address. Repeated agent lists are advertisements for one trading role, not independent family proofs. John’s parents remain unknown. Glasgow-1968 remains a weaker comparison: his family histories give migration to Michigan in 1844 or 1848; the Drummeen tithe and 1850/1851 probate leads are not securely assigned to him, and probate year is not a death date.

Occupation and police station are explicit; age, birthplace, relatives and exact service dates are unstated. Glasgow-2056, Glasgow-2537 and Glasgow-867 are adult chronology comparisons only, with no checked constabulary connection. An administrative Drogheda probate label on a different John lead is not evidence of Drogheda residence or police service. Royal Irish Constabulary service records and local directories are the next identity tests.

The list supplies no age, occupation, exact address, relatives or individual subscription amount. Dundrum identifies the collection context; it is not an explicit statement of John’s residence. Glasgow-2058, Glasgow-1968 and Glasgow-2056 survive as chronology comparisons only; none has a checked Dublin or Dundrum bridge. No identification or religious affiliation is inferred from the political subscription.

Glasgow-1968 is a compatible chronology comparison, but the 1827 Drummeen tithe subject is itself unproved as that profile. Glasgow-2058, Glasgow-3927 (an indexed freeholder with uncertain locality), Glasgow-2990 and Glasgow-4090 remain adult regional comparisons. No same-name co-signature establishes descent, brotherhood or identity with the Cookstown merchant. The declaration concerns a holding in the barony, not necessarily residence there.

A signed 1760 advertisement names John Glasgow in a Cecil County vendue and planned Nottingham store. Glasgow-2870 and Glasgow-2871 remain compatible; Glasgow-2871 has the stronger merchant fit. No kin or origin is stated. The listed profiles are compatible or conditional comparison leads, not identifications. Bounded public catalogue search (4797 records) and live biography review of Glasgow-2870 and Glasgow-2871 completed 4 October 2026; not exhaustive. Both candidates remain compatible; missing fields do not exclude either.

• John Gray — The Carriden 30 September 1686 Marion–John Gray occurrence remains separate from the Edinburgh 29 June 1686 Marion–William Calder marriage. Glasgow-3143 is already supported as the Calder wife by her 1657 baptism and the Calder burgess admission naming James Glasgow, weaver, as father. A later September marriage would require a further event, but no husband death is established, so this alone is not a concrete exclusion. Gray-27691 and Gray-32439 have Fife family placements without a Marion/Carriden bridge; retain qualified candidates. Gray-27691, Gray-32439
• Marion Glasgow, Carriden, 1686 — The Carriden 30 September 1686 Marion–John Gray occurrence remains separate from the Edinburgh 29 June 1686 Marion–William Calder marriage. Glasgow-3143 is already supported as the Calder wife by her 1657 baptism and the Calder burgess admission naming James Glasgow, weaver, as father. A later September marriage would require a further event, but no husband death is established, so this alone is not a concrete exclusion. Gray-27691 and Gray-32439 have Fife family placements without a Marion/Carriden bridge; retain qualified candidates. Glasgow-3143, Glasgow-3025, Glasgow-3049, Glasgow-4095, Glasgow-1428, Glasgow-3062, Gray-27691, Gray-32439

The Carriden 30 September 1686 Marion–John Gray occurrence remains separate from the Edinburgh 29 June 1686 Marion–William Calder marriage. Glasgow-3143 is already supported as the Calder wife by her 1657 baptism and the Calder burgess admission naming James Glasgow, weaver, as father. A later September marriage would require a further event, but no husband death is established, so this alone is not a concrete exclusion. Gray-27691 and Gray-32439 have Fife family placements without a Marion/Carriden bridge; retain qualified candidates.

The inspected Gray heading corrects the former Glasgow attribution. John Gray is expressly son of deceased Thomas Gray, maltman and burgess of Glasgow. Gray-42340, Gray-16804, Gray-25428 and Gray-32315 remain compatible candidates, with different strengths. Gray-44891 is a qualified father lead; its identity is unproved. Neither this profile identity nor a Glasgow father-confidence upgrade is proved.

• John Tailzer — Walston 1690 Margaret–John Tailzer is separate from the Cambusnethan 1693 Margaret–John Aiton event. The 1643 Glasgow baptism names William Glasgow/Bessie Howie and belongs to Glasgow-1524; the same date imported on Glasgow-3050 does not prove Thomas Glasgow/Agnes Thomsone parentage. Keep these as two profile identities. Taylor-32027 has an unsourced Fife placement and no wife/child bridge to this event. Taylor-32027
• Margaret Glasgow, Walston, 1690 — Walston 1690 Margaret–John Tailzer is separate from the Cambusnethan 1693 Margaret–John Aiton event. The 1643 Glasgow baptism names William Glasgow/Bessie Howie and belongs to Glasgow-1524; the same date imported on Glasgow-3050 does not prove Thomas Glasgow/Agnes Thomsone parentage. Keep these as two profile identities. Taylor-32027 has an unsourced Fife placement and no wife/child bridge to this event. Glasgow-1160, Glasgow-3112, Glasgow-3366, Glasgow-1524, Glasgow-3050, Glasgow-3186, Glasgow-1154, Glasgow-4119, Glasgow-4111, Taylor-32027

Walston 1690 Margaret–John Tailzer is separate from the Cambusnethan 1693 Margaret–John Aiton event. The 1643 Glasgow baptism names William Glasgow/Bessie Howie and belongs to Glasgow-1524; the same date imported on Glasgow-3050 does not prove Thomas Glasgow/Agnes Thomsone parentage. Keep these as two profile identities. Taylor-32027 has an unsourced Fife placement and no wife/child bridge to this event.

The original 1911 Lisnagaver teacher is Derry-born John Wallace, 55, with Antrim-born wife Mary Anne, 52, married 26 years, and six resident children. This strongly identifies the 1912 directory teacher. Wallace-17947 and Wallace-3457 remain weak candidates; unsupported birthplace fields are not sole exclusions. Wallace-26687 is excluded as a living 1911 teacher because his cited death entry records a single student who died in 1880. That candidate death original was not freshly inspected.

• Johne Rait — The printed register preserves surname Rait (Raite/Rate), John’s trade as tailor and the 28 June 1659 marriage to Marion. Reid-24609 represents the Edinburgh Reid–Helen Henderson family, with son George Reade-97 in Maryland; the surname is a weaker phonetic lead and no tailor/Marion bridge is established. The unrestricted Raitt search and full biographies identify Raitt-2 as the 1806 Captain and Raitt-360 as the 1866-born Western Australian butcher, excluding both concretely. Other printed Rait entries do not identify this husband’s father. Reid-24609
• Marione Glasgow and Johne Rait, Edinburgh, 1659 — The printed register preserves surname Rait (Raite/Rate), John’s trade as tailor and the 28 June 1659 marriage to Marion. Reid-24609 represents the Edinburgh Reid–Helen Henderson family, with son George Reade-97 in Maryland; the surname is a weaker phonetic lead and no tailor/Marion bridge is established. The unrestricted Raitt search and full biographies identify Raitt-2 as the 1806 Captain and Raitt-360 as the 1866-born Western Australian butcher, excluding both concretely. Other printed Rait entries do not identify this husband’s father. Glasgow-3049, Glasgow-4095, Glasgow-3062, Glasgow-3143, Glasgow-1428, Reid-24609

The printed register preserves surname Rait (Raite/Rate), John’s trade as tailor and the 28 June 1659 marriage to Marion. Reid-24609 represents the Edinburgh Reid–Helen Henderson family, with son George Reade-97 in Maryland; the surname is a weaker phonetic lead and no tailor/Marion bridge is established. The unrestricted Raitt search and full biographies identify Raitt-2 as the 1806 Captain and Raitt-360 as the 1866-born Western Australian butcher, excluding both concretely. Other printed Rait entries do not identify this husband’s father.

The 23 August 1641 Duddingston burial indexes Jon Glasgow without an inspected parent clause. Glasgow-1559, baptised 4 April 1639 to John and Margaret Sluman, and Glasgow-3014, baptised 11 January 1638 to John and Helene Patoune, remain candidates. A suspected 15 January 1638 infant burial has not been proved to concern Glasgow-3014. Do not exclude or attach a death on that uncertain association.

Cambusnethan 1693 Margrat–John Aiton is separate from Walston 1690 Margaret–John Tailzer. Ayton-398 represents the Fawside/West Herrington Durham estate family and has an unnamed wife and a 1702 will; child Samuel Ayton-399 supplies no wife-name bridge. Distant residence alone does not exclude it. The direct 1643 Glasgow child index supports William/Bessie parentage only for that child record, not the Cambusnethan bride. Walston 1690 Margaret–John Tailzer is separate from the Cambusnethan 1693 Margaret–John Aiton event. The 1643 Glasgow baptism names William Glasgow/Bessie Howie and belongs to Glasgow-1524; the same date imported on Glasgow-3050 does not prove Thomas Glasgow/Agnes Thomsone parentage. Keep these as two profile identities. Taylor-32027 has an unsourced Fife placement and no wife/child bridge to this event.

Betham’s manuscript pedigree of Archibald Glasgow, Rathmalton clerk, whose will was dated April 1673, expressly names Margaret as his only daughter, married to an unnamed Cairns, with son Thomas Cairns. This proves the documentary father–daughter pair. Glasgow-3186, wife of George Lyell in South Leith in 1633, remains a candidate because a later Cairns marriage is possible, but no marriage or household bridge is proved. The Scottish Archibald profile identity remains qualified; no profile father upgrade follows. Glasgow-1523’s cited 1638 baptism names father William Glasgow, a concrete father conflict; its guessed 1642 death is not evidence.

The independently inspected index confirms Margaret Glasgow in Byris, Kilwynning, on 8 November 1636, without an age, husband or parents. Glasgow-1100, Glasgow-3598 and Glasgow-3186 remain compatible. Glasgow-1100’s father George was already directly proved by the 1633 burgess clause; this index is not a father upgrade. Original CC9/7/27 remains uninspected, and its recording date is not an exact death date.

The Carriden 30 September 1686 Marion–John Gray occurrence remains separate from the Edinburgh 29 June 1686 Marion–William Calder marriage. Glasgow-3143 is already supported as the Calder wife by her 1657 baptism and the Calder burgess admission naming James Glasgow, weaver, as father. A later September marriage would require a further event, but no husband death is established, so this alone is not a concrete exclusion. Gray-27691 and Gray-32439 have Fife family placements without a Marion/Carriden bridge; retain qualified candidates. The printed register preserves surname Rait (Raite/Rate), John’s trade as tailor and the 28 June 1659 marriage to Marion. Reid-24609 represents the Edinburgh Reid–Helen Henderson family, with son George Reade-97 in Maryland; the surname is a weaker phonetic lead and no tailor/Marion bridge is established. The unrestricted Raitt search and full biographies identify Raitt-2 as the 1806 Captain and Raitt-360 as the 1866-born Western Australian butcher, excluding both concretely. Other printed Rait entries do not identify this husband’s father. The printed marriage register adds John Bruce’s trade of smith, independently of the generic OPR index. Glasgow-3143 is already supported as Marion who married the Edinburgh weaver William Calder in June 1686; that established life segment is not transferred into this 1684 event. Bruce-6113 represents Sir John Bruce of Kinross with the 1687 Christian Leslie marriage, whereas Bruce-3507 has only a speculative Clackmannan son whose own profile explicitly leaves his baptism/parentage open. Neither inspected family supplies this smith-and-Marion couple. Different spouses alone are not exclusions; keep both candidate husbands qualified and the events separate.

• Mary Glasgon Thomson — The 1860 marriage index names the bride’s mother Mary Glasgon Thomson. Glasgow-4093, Nancy’s daughter Mary Thompson in the 1892 New York probate, remains a candidate without an Irish–Scottish household bridge. Glasgow-1351, Glasgow-1353, Glasgow-1453 and Glasgow-1531 also remain candidates; their Scottish baptismal families have no proved Robert Thomson marriage connection. Do not transfer a Tannybrake widow’s age or identify Nancy as this mother. The original marriage image requires a FamilySearch center or affiliate library and was not inspected. Glasgow-4093, Glasgow-1351, Glasgow-1353, Glasgow-1453, Glasgow-1531
• Mary Thomson — Mary Thomson, age 37, married William Sneddon on 9 November 1860; the fresh index names her parents Robert Thomson and Mary Glasgon Thomson. Thomson-3009 remains a disputed candidate because its estimated 1826 birth and James/Helen GEDCOM parents are unsupported. Thomson-13010 has record-based Andrew Thomson/Elizabeth Waddell parents and a distinct Abercrombie household, a concrete conflict with the indexed bride. Index parentage is not an existing-profile father upgrade, and the restricted original remains uninspected. Thomson-3009
• William Sneddon — The fresh 1860 index identifies William Sneddon, age 45, widower and collier, with parents Robert Sneddon and Mary Gray Sneddon. Sneddon-710 remains a candidate: its Pencaitland coal-mining household and wife Mary Wilson allow a later widowed marriage. However, age 30 in 1841 normally means 30–34, implying birth about 1806–1811 rather than the 1860 estimate of 1815. This is a material discrepancy. No record joins the indexed parents to Sneddon-710. Obtain the 1851/1861 census, first wife’s death and accessible original; do not attach Sneddon-92, whose recorded wife was Mary Snaddon, daughter of Richard Snaddon and Mary Hoggan. Sneddon-710

The 1860 marriage index names the bride’s mother Mary Glasgon Thomson. Glasgow-4093, Nancy’s daughter Mary Thompson in the 1892 New York probate, remains a candidate without an Irish–Scottish household bridge. Glasgow-1351, Glasgow-1353, Glasgow-1453 and Glasgow-1531 also remain candidates; their Scottish baptismal families have no proved Robert Thomson marriage connection. Do not transfer a Tannybrake widow’s age or identify Nancy as this mother. The original marriage image requires a FamilySearch center or affiliate library and was not inspected.

The source documents support for scholars, not attendance at the school. “Master” is not an exact age. The later Cookstown merchant and mill accounts are possible comparisons but remain unassigned; the surgeon who died 1833 is excluded.

McCarnagh-4 represents Agnes, born about 1837 at Gortereghy, daughter of John McCarnagh and Mary Gormley in 1851. Agnes/Nancy and McCarnagh/McCaughern are compatible forms; an age of about 75 in 1912 is possible. No cited biography supplies a death or contradictory publican household. This is a weak compatible candidate, not proof of occupational identity.

Stuart-11578 remains an undated Antrim candidate; father James in that profile is a lead, not proved by the witness James Stuart in 1842. Stewart-53456 is now concretely excluded: her original 1848 marriage calls her SPINSTER, inconsistent with being John Elder’s 1842 wife. Preserve the separate 1842 subject.

The original 1911 Dreen return names Peter McCaughern, 48, single Roman Catholic farmer, and his sister Agnes, 55. This is a concrete family comparison for the 1912 grocer/farmer and later Dreen probates. Directory-to-census continuity remains probable; the probate original was not inspected. Searches for McCaughern, McCaughan, McCarnagh and McCahern identified no supported profile. No father is evidenced.

Elder-7144 remains compatible for the living 1901 father of Alex/Robert/Eliza/Margaretta; its 1827 birth is tree-derived and differs from reported age 65, so retain uncertainty. Elder-7251 represents Mary Glasgow’s separate Gortahar family: she is a widow there in 1901 while the Gortereghy Robert is alive. Do not exclude Elder-7251 globally from Sarah’s 1893 father clause merely because a father can be deceased at marriage. Sarah and Isaac’s father occurrences remain unproved bridges to the 1901 family. The original 1881 Jane birth proves Robert/Jane Calderwood as a parental couple, not the mother identity of all later siblings.

This is a connected father–son evidence draft, not an invented parent. “Late” dates Robert’s death only before publication, not necessarily before his son’s death. Robert-2656’s 1856 death and the 1858 testimony naming a father who died 1856 conflict with this father’s 1834 death bound. Coltrim Robert-3941 remains possible by chronology but unidentified. John-2058’s parents and any uncle relationship are not established.

Consolidated same-name locality account; the two roles may belong to one man, but no direct identifying bridge is present. Do not call the letting contact the owner or innkeeper, or substitute “Sunday school” for Academy. Association with the mill partner remains qualified; the 1836 contact is distinct from the father already described as late in 1834.

Robert Glasgow-3941, the Coltrim land occupier documented in 1820–1831, is a strong compatible regional candidate; the newspaper lacks a townland or family bridge to prove it. Glasgow-2656 of the Cookstown district remains another adult comparison. Glasgow-12 has an Ohio record sequence and is a weaker comparison despite Moneymore origin; the newspaper does not resolve his travel or retained Irish property. No Robert is identified as John’s father or brother, or as the surgeon’s father, from this signature.

The original 1911 Lisnagaver return names Robert McCaughern, 54, farmer, and wife Mary Anne, 58, married 28 years. This strongly identifies the 1912 directory farmer. McCaughan-13 remains an unplaced, undated name-only lead, without an exclusion based on missing fields. Exact McCaughern, McCarnagh and McCahern searches returned zero. Mary Anne may be compared with McCaughern-24, but age and name alone neither identify nor exclude her.

Moneymore is the place of examination; it does not establish his home. The quoted “last twelvemonth” is relative to an unspecified examination date. Samuel-2054 and Samuel-1698 fit farmer/Cookstown comparisons; the regional Lisnagaver weaver Samuel-2908 is a weaker possibility, not a proved match. No family relationship is stated.

• Sarah Elder — Sarah is explicitly the wife named in Anderson-47669's citation to the marriage of 28 September 1893, but no separate compatible Sarah Elder profile was identified in the live cohort. The nearby County Antrim Sarah Elder-6116 was born in 1899, after the marriage.
• Neal Anderson — Anderson-47669 explicitly cites the exact marriage to Sarah Elder on 28 September 1893, naming her father Robert, and the 1901/1911 Gortereghy households with brothers Abraham (Ebby) and Robert. Its 1911 ages of 65, 60 and 50 reproduce the queue evidence. The profile's birth estimate of 1851 follows age 50 in 1901, while the 1911 age implies 1846. This reported age difference does not split the same named household. Anderson-47669

2 linked research notes for one research case. Each person and event remains separately assessed below.

• Thomas Glasgow — The Carstairs 1679 Thomas–Gyles Spence entry is separate from the Strathblane unnamed event on the same day. Thomas Glasgow-1449 is newly excluded by his represented later family: father Glasgow-1382 is explicitly born about 1766 and dies 1851; mother Christine Davidson has documented motherhood of Nathaniel in 1774, incompatible with being the mother of a 1679 adult. Glasgow-1226 remains a weaker possibility because fatherhood through 1735 would imply an older father but is not impossible. Graduate Glasgow-3413’s 1670 degree does not establish his assumed Thomas Glasgow-3187 father, and the 1660 burgess entry gives no father. Newly searched Gellies/Gilles/Giles Spence/Spens/Spense yielded no historical woman; the Tudor male Spencer lead remains excluded. Glasgow-2461, Glasgow-3091, Glasgow-3413, Glasgow-3187, Glasgow-1226
• Thomas Glasgow, Carstairs, 1679 — The Carstairs 1679 Thomas–Gyles Spence entry is separate from the Strathblane unnamed event on the same day. Thomas Glasgow-1449 is newly excluded by his represented later family: father Glasgow-1382 is explicitly born about 1766 and dies 1851; mother Christine Davidson has documented motherhood of Nathaniel in 1774, incompatible with being the mother of a 1679 adult. Glasgow-1226 remains a weaker possibility because fatherhood through 1735 would imply an older father but is not impossible. Graduate Glasgow-3413’s 1670 degree does not establish his assumed Thomas Glasgow-3187 father, and the 1660 burgess entry gives no father. Newly searched Gellies/Gilles/Giles Spence/Spens/Spense yielded no historical woman; the Tudor male Spencer lead remains excluded. Glasgow-2461, Glasgow-3091, Glasgow-3413, Glasgow-3187, Glasgow-1226
• Gyles Spence — The Carstairs 1679 Thomas–Gyles Spence entry is separate from the Strathblane unnamed event on the same day. Thomas Glasgow-1449 is newly excluded by his represented later family: father Glasgow-1382 is explicitly born about 1766 and dies 1851; mother Christine Davidson has documented motherhood of Nathaniel in 1774, incompatible with being the mother of a 1679 adult. Glasgow-1226 remains a weaker possibility because fatherhood through 1735 would imply an older father but is not impossible. Graduate Glasgow-3413’s 1670 degree does not establish his assumed Thomas Glasgow-3187 father, and the 1660 burgess entry gives no father. Newly searched Gellies/Gilles/Giles Spence/Spens/Spense yielded no historical woman; the Tudor male Spencer lead remains excluded.

3 linked research notes for one research case. Each person and event remains separately assessed below.

The original 1901 Gortereghy return describes Thomas Ross, 34, as farmer and flax miller, with Scotland-born wife Mary Jane and children. This strongly supports the 1912 mill-owner occurrence. The 1911 household reports 24 years of marriage. Ross-13124 remains compatible, with differing reported census ages. Ross-29596 has severe chronology tension if his cited 1874 birth is correct: he would be about 12 at marriage and 11 when Jeannie was born. The birth image returned HTTP 403, so this remains a conditional conflict rather than a fresh original-based exclusion. Ross-25888 has a separate Gransha/Ann Jane family; Ross-29600 is Robert T Ross, who died in 1909.

1848 is inferred from the contemporary notice’s February date. Neither child nor mother is named. The notice cannot alone make Annie’s exact birth date/place certain or establish Mary Wightman’s motherhood of another child. Her existing father/mother connections are not changed.

The named witness Benjamin Glasgow identifies the late Robert Glasgow as his father, says he managed his father’s mill from 1850, and dates Robert’s death to 1856. Benjamin’s evidence describes a companion as “witness’s uncle, Mr. Glasgow, sen.”; identification as William belongs to the separate case context, not this quotation. Certain documentary father–son relationship; identification of Robert with Glasgow-2656 or Glasgow-3941 remains qualified. Counsel’s reference to Robert’s sons supports a qualified brother inference for co-plaintiff William. The uncle’s paternal or maternal side and all mothers are unstated. No parents are established for John Glasgow-2058. The separately named Cookstown collector/donor in the 1846 Claggan notice remains unassigned between same-name men; no age, trade or relatives are supplied.

This entry is a research question, not a proposed new person. The existing profiles are linked as subjects or qualified candidates; their presence does not resolve the stated relationship or record-identity question.

This entry is a research question, not a proposed new person. The existing profiles are linked as subjects or qualified candidates; their presence does not resolve the stated relationship or record-identity question.

This entry is a research question, not a proposed new person. The existing profiles are linked as subjects or qualified candidates; their presence does not resolve the stated relationship or record-identity question.

This entry is a research question, not a proposed new person. The existing profiles are linked as subjects or qualified candidates; their presence does not resolve the stated relationship or record-identity question.

This entry is a research question, not a proposed new person. The existing profiles are linked as subjects or qualified candidates; their presence does not resolve the stated relationship or record-identity question.

This entry is a research question, not a proposed new person. The existing profiles are linked as subjects or qualified candidates; their presence does not resolve the stated relationship or record-identity question.

This entry is a research question, not a proposed new person. The existing profiles are linked as subjects or qualified candidates; their presence does not resolve the stated relationship or record-identity question.

John Glasgow-2952 and Anne Glasgow-2874 represent the named Montgreenan son and Robertson wife: current biographies explicitly identify their father and the same trust/succession. Amelia Wilson-Glasgow-3789 is John’s sister and is distinct from his housekeeper Theobalds-120. The identification of the trust’s Emilia remains qualified; original trust and maternal claims still require review.

This entry is a research question, not a proposed new person. The existing profiles are linked as subjects or qualified candidates; their presence does not resolve the stated relationship or record-identity question.

This entry is a research question, not a proposed new person. The existing profiles are linked as subjects or qualified candidates; their presence does not resolve the stated relationship or record-identity question.

The person is already identified with Glasgow-951. The outstanding item is a sourced WikiTree amendment, not an unmatched identity; no live edit was made in this review.

The person is already identified with Glasgow-1101. The outstanding item is a sourced WikiTree amendment, not an unmatched identity; no live edit was made in this review.

The person is already identified with Glasgow-567. The outstanding item is a sourced WikiTree amendment, not an unmatched identity; no live edit was made in this review.

The person is already identified with Glasgow-548. The outstanding item is a sourced WikiTree amendment, not an unmatched identity; no live edit was made in this review.

The person is already identified with Glasgow-822. The outstanding item is a sourced WikiTree amendment, not an unmatched identity; no live edit was made in this review.

The person is already identified with Glasgow-4093. The outstanding item is a sourced WikiTree amendment, not an unmatched identity; no live edit was made in this review.

The person is already identified with Glasgow-4070. The outstanding item is a sourced WikiTree amendment, not an unmatched identity; no live edit was made in this review.

The person is already identified with Glasgow-4150. The outstanding item is a sourced WikiTree amendment, not an unmatched identity; no live edit was made in this review.

The person is already identified with Glasgow-4010. The outstanding item is a sourced WikiTree amendment, not an unmatched identity; no live edit was made in this review.

The person is already identified with Glasgow-3556. The outstanding item is a sourced WikiTree amendment, not an unmatched identity; no live edit was made in this review.