Individual research record
Robert Glasgow I
c. 1582 – 1647-01-17
Glasgow-1156 · 1 mapped association
At a glance
Identity & family
Tree links organise the family; documentary status still varies.
- Birth
- c. 1582 · Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Scotland
- Death
- 1647-01-17 · Duddingston, Edinburghshire, Scotland
- Parents
- Archibald GlasgowuncertainIsobell (Newlands) Glasgowunmarked
- Spouses
- Deborah (Ivey) Glasgow
- Children
- James GlasgowThomas Glasgow
- Gender
- Male
- WikiTree
- Glasgow-1156
- Research clusters
- Scotland One-Tree profile leads
- Mapped descendants
- 88
Comparison context
These child positions and checks are the subject details used to rank possible parents below.
Naming sequence used by the parentage model
Known-position checks: 0 support · 0 conflict. Ordinals retain unnamed children and recognise reused names.
Relationship comparison
Potential parents or duplicates
Compare scored leads with the subject details above—not proof.
Possible fathers5 leads
Possible Father
John GlasgowGlasgow-1030
- candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
- the nominal 10-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–20 years) (+4)
a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); subject lies more than 20 years from the candidate's known child-bearing period (−6; children may be missing); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- the nominal 10-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–20 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 43 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
- same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Jonet +12 (15 public profiles; subject branch: Jonet Glasgow; candidate branch: Jonet Glasgow); George +3 (61 public profiles; subject branch: George Glasgow; candidate branch: George Glasgow) (+19 total including +4 multi-name bonus)
- candidate's sibling and niece/nephew network repeats names in the subject's descendant line (three rarest at most): Marion +8 (23 public profiles; niece/nephew Marion Glasgow) (+8 total)
- the subject would fill the first son position among the candidate's dated children, and the candidate's linked father Robert Glasgow shares the subject's common given name (+2; Scottish grandparent-name pattern, Robert in 165 public profiles; WikiTree: uncertain parent; weak alone)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); subject lies more than 20 years from the candidate's known child-bearing period (−6; children may be missing); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Father
George GlasgowGlasgow-1099
- candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
- 4 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+8): collateral network, household chronology, locality, naming
- the nominal 13-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–33 years) (+4)
a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); subject lies more than 20 years from the candidate's known child-bearing period (−6; children may be missing); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- the nominal 13-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–33 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 46 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
- same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
- shared recorded occupation: merchant (+3; weak household-continuity clue)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Jonet +14 (15 public profiles; subject branch: Jonet Glasgow; candidate branch: Jonet Glasgow, Jonet (Glasgow) Stewart; +2 repetition bonus); George +3 (61 public profiles; subject branch: George Glasgow; candidate branch: George Glasgow R.E) (+21 total including +4 multi-name bonus)
- uncommon spouse surnames recur across the subject and candidate branches: Duncan +8 (+8 total)
- 4 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+8): collateral network, household chronology, locality, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); subject lies more than 20 years from the candidate's known child-bearing period (−6; children may be missing); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show 3 lower-scoring possible fathers
Possible Father
Stephen GlasgowGlasgow-1029
- plausible 32-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
- known spouse Margaret (Graham) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (32) at the subject's birth (+7)
a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 32-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 65 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
- same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
- a known child was born within 8 years of the subject (+1)
- known spouse Margaret (Graham) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (32) at the subject's birth (+7)
- candidate's sibling and niece/nephew network repeats names in the subject's descendant line (three rarest at most): Jonet +12 (15 public profiles; niece/nephew Jonet (Glasgow) Pady); George +3 (61 public profiles; niece/nephew George Glasgow) (+15 total)
- candidate's parents' names recur among the subject's grandchildren: Jonet +5 (+5 total; weak multigeneration clue)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Father
Andrew GlasgowGlasgow-3163
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): collateral network, household chronology, naming
- candidate's birth is 75 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- known spouse Jonet Glasgow had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (42) at the subject's birth (+3)
a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); candidate's household recorded James Glasgow in Inveresk, Midlothian, Scotland within 7 years of the subject (−12; no contemporaneous child is indexed in the subject's locality); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- bounded birth date gives a parent-child age gap of at least 42 years (+10; true age remains uncertain)
- candidate's birth is 75 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
- subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1575–1586) (+6; other parent Jonet Glasgow)
- known spouse Jonet Glasgow had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (42) at the subject's birth (+3)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Agnes +5 (46 public profiles; subject branch: Agnes Glasgow, Agnes Glasgow; candidate branch: Agnes Glasgow; +2 repetition bonus); George +5 (61 public profiles; subject branch: George Glasgow; candidate branch: George Glasgow, George Glasgow; +2 repetition bonus); Hugh +3 (36 public profiles; subject branch: Hugh Glasgow; candidate branch: Hugh Glasgow) (+21 total including +8 multi-name bonus)
- candidate's sibling and niece/nephew network repeats names in the subject's descendant line (three rarest at most): Jonet +12 (15 public profiles; niece/nephew Jonet (Glasgow) Pady) (+12 total)
- uncommon spouse surnames recur across the subject and candidate branches: Clerk +8 (+8 total)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): collateral network, household chronology, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); candidate's household recorded James Glasgow in Inveresk, Midlothian, Scotland within 7 years of the subject (−12; no contemporaneous child is indexed in the subject's locality); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Father
William GlasgowGlasgow-3522
- plausible 42-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 42-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 75 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
- same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
- subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1569–1585) (+6; other parent Margaret (Herbison) Glasgow)
- candidate has another child, George Glasgow, born 13 years from the subject in the same specific birth locality (+2; possible sibling-household clue)
- known spouse Margaret (Herbison) Glasgow had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (42) at the subject's birth (+3)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Jonet +16 (15 public profiles; subject branch: Jonet Glasgow; candidate branch: Jonet Glasgow, Jonet (Glasgow) Stewart; +4 repetition bonus); George +3 (61 public profiles; subject branch: George Glasgow; candidate branch: George Glasgow) (+23 total including +4 multi-name bonus)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible mothers5 leads
Possible Mother
Margaret (Herbison) GlasgowHerbison-439
- possible 42-year parent-child age gap (+10)
- same specific indexed locality despite wider place-label differences: glasgow (+10)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- possible 42-year parent-child age gap (+10)
- candidate's birth is 75 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- same specific indexed locality despite wider place-label differences: glasgow (+10)
- same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
- subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1569–1585) (+6; other parent William Glasgow)
- candidate has another child, George Glasgow, born 13 years from the subject in the same specific birth locality (+2; possible sibling-household clue)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Jonet +14 (15 public profiles; subject branch: Jonet Glasgow; candidate branch: Jonet Glasgow, Jonet (Glasgow) Stewart; +2 repetition bonus); George +3 (61 public profiles; subject branch: George Glasgow; candidate branch: George Glasgow) (+21 total including +4 multi-name bonus)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Mother
Jonet GlasgowAnderson-103463
- possible 42-year parent-child age gap (+10)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): collateral network, household chronology, naming
- candidate's birth is 75 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); candidate's household recorded James Glasgow in Inveresk, Midlothian, Scotland within 7 years of the subject (−12; no contemporaneous child is indexed in the subject's locality); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- possible 42-year parent-child age gap (+10)
- candidate's birth is 75 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
- subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1575–1586) (+6; other parent Andrew Glasgow)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Agnes +5 (46 public profiles; subject branch: Agnes Glasgow, Agnes Glasgow; candidate branch: Agnes Glasgow; +2 repetition bonus); George +5 (61 public profiles; subject branch: George Glasgow; candidate branch: George Glasgow, George Glasgow; +2 repetition bonus); Hugh +3 (36 public profiles; subject branch: Hugh Glasgow; candidate branch: Hugh Glasgow) (+21 total including +8 multi-name bonus)
- uncommon spouse surnames recur across the subject and candidate branches: Clerk +8 (+8 total)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): collateral network, household chronology, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); candidate's household recorded James Glasgow in Inveresk, Midlothian, Scotland within 7 years of the subject (−12; no contemporaneous child is indexed in the subject's locality); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show 3 lower-scoring possible mothers
Possible Mother
Margaret (Graham) GlasgowGraham-38221
- plausible 32-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- same specific indexed locality despite wider place-label differences: glasgow (+10)
- candidate's birth is 65 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 32-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 65 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- same specific indexed locality despite wider place-label differences: glasgow (+10)
- same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
- a known child was born within 8 years of the subject (+1)
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Mother
Jonet (Hutcheson) GlasgowHutcheson-1774
- plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- same specific indexed locality despite wider place-label differences: glasgow (+10)
- candidate's birth is 55 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 55 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- same specific indexed locality despite wider place-label differences: glasgow (+10)
- same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Mother
Margaret (Smith) GlasgowSmith-374110
- possible 42-year parent-child age gap (+10)
- candidate's birth is 75 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- possible 42-year parent-child age gap (+10)
- candidate's birth is 75 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1615), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
- subject's birth fits within the candidate's overall child-bearing span (1565–1610) (+3; children are not tied to one spouse)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Jonet +12 (15 public profiles; subject branch: Jonet Glasgow; candidate branch: Jonet (Glasgow) Logan); Agnes +5 (46 public profiles; subject branch: Agnes Glasgow, Agnes Glasgow; candidate branch: Agnes (Glasgow) Logan; +2 repetition bonus) (+21 total including +4 multi-name bonus)
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
How parent leads are calculated
Automated leads use birth surnames—not married surnames—as parental eligibility, role-specific biological age limits, bounded and approximate-date uncertainty, household chronology, specific time-aware localities, mapped distance, tenancy succession, migration destinations and sex-aware Scottish naming positions across generations. People already attached as the subject's parents stay in the identity summary and are excluded from this alternative-candidate list, regardless of relationship confidence. The main calibration uses clues available on disconnected profiles; existing parent and sibling links are retained as comparison context rather than treated as transferable evidence. Common ordered names and grandparent-to-child echoes receive a small non-zero weight, so a John or James match can support several independent criteria without producing a lead alone. Rare names, repeated bearers and bundles across otherwise distinct branches receive substantially more weight according to catalogue frequency. An exact migration place is weighted by its rarity and repetition across both branches; a shared destination country is worth only one point. Extra weight is added only when at least three independent clue types converge: naming, locality, specific migration, household chronology or collateral networks. Sparse profiles retain a clearly labelled chronology-only fallback instead of disappearing. Countries, states, counties and research clusters do not count as a shared locality, and fallback, broad representative or kin-inferred coordinates are excluded from distance scoring. Shared descendant profiles are removed before branch-name comparison. A candidate already recorded as a parent-in-law is excluded. A confident or independently supported parent is treated as settled; uncertain and unassessed attachments remain open to alternative comparison. A different linked parent, an uncle/aunt or grandparent path, and a matching existing child profile prevent an alternative from being classified as a strong direct-parent lead until the underlying tree conflict or duplicate is resolved. Familiar forms such as Bessie are normalised. Surname remains an eligibility filter worth zero points.
Naming customs, shared farms and occupations are circumstantial. Children, spouses and collateral relatives may be missing, and tree-derived family networks are not independent evidence. Scores rank research leads; they do not prove parentage.
No sufficiently similar same-name person is currently indexed.
How duplicate leads are calculated
Dates are eligibility gates, not merely deductions: chronologically impossible people are excluded. Dates, places, spouses, parent certainty and children's profiles and names are then compared. A high score is a prompt to inspect records, not a merge recommendation.
Open only what you need
Research & records
Latest case researchThe current conclusion from the durable research case file.Updated
Current conclusion
Father assessment: Archibald Glasgow (1533) is plausible, not proved. Archibald was recorded alive after 1560; that year is not his death year. His estimated age of about forty-nine at Robert's estimated 1582 birth and their shared Glasgow locality make the relationship workable, but no record names Robert as his son.
Robert is the leading identity candidate for the father of James Glasgow (Glasgow-1150), born before 1641, Wester Duddingston and later Edinburgh. James's 1641 apprenticeship directly names his father Robert at Wester Duddingston. The profiles are already split correctly: Glasgow-1150 is the Edinburgh weaver, while James Glasgow (Glasgow-3923), baptised 1626, Inveresk is the separate son of Alexander Glasgow and Jannet Clerk. No new profile or merge is required. This Robert's 1647 Duddingston burial and compatible generation make the match strong, but the apprenticeship gives no age, spouse or occupation with which to make the father internally unique. Retain Glasgow-1150 only as an uncertain son while stating that the father's name and locality are directly proved.
Life and record timelineChronological mapped occurrences and their underlying sources.1 record
Profile-stated birthplace: Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Scotland
One-Tree export profile fields are search leads, not sources; relationships are shown only where the export supplies parent links.
Source and mapping detail
WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-1156
No sufficiently specific citation match found.
Precision: Settlement centrepoint
Case-file source findingsSource extracts and analysis regenerated from findings.md.1 section(s)
Source findings
| Source | Finding | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Captured WikiTree profile and research note | The attachment is described as tentative placement based mainly on chronology; no primary record names Robert's father. | Unsupported attachment. |
| Francis J. Grant, ed., *Register of Apprentices of the City of Edinburgh, 1583-1666* (Scottish Record Society, 1906), printed p. 71, scan | On 16 June 1641 James Glasgow, son of Robert Glasgow, servant to William Crichtoun in Wester Duddingston, was apprenticed to William Sclaitter, weaver. | Direct proof that the later Edinburgh weaver's father was Robert of Wester Duddingston. This profile is the leading match, not a uniquely proved identity. |
Evidence assessmentWhat is supported, uncertain or disputed in the current case model.7 claims
Documented or strongly supported
No claims in this category have been formally assessed.
Working hypotheses and conflicts
No claims in this category have been formally assessed.
Case-file assessments
Potential-father review — 10 August 2026
Ninian Glasgow (Glasgow-3188) should not be treated as the father of an additional Robert profile until Robert Glasgow (Glasgow-1027) is compared with this profile. Ninian's and Jonet Meik's testaments directly prove that they already had a son Robert; Glasgow-1027 and Glasgow-1156 have nearly identical estimated births and the same stated Glasgow locality. Glasgow-1156, however, is securely identified only by a 1647 Duddingston burial. Resolve the possible duplicate or conflation before using Ninian as this profile's father.
Research questionsOpen problems, missing bridges and the next records to inspect.4 open
Which records prove the subject's identity across events?
No current conclusion recorded.
Missing bridge: Not specified
Which original or indexed records identify the parents?
No current conclusion recorded.
Missing bridge: A contemporary record explicitly identifying the parent or parents.
Which spouses and children are directly supported by records?
No current conclusion recorded.
Missing bridge: Not specified
What conflicts or same-name conflations must be resolved?
No current conclusion recorded.
Missing bridge: Not specified
Sources and provenanceStructured citations and source-quality classifications.7 sources
Source or provenance: quality describes the record layer, not every conclusion drawn from it.
- unknown Church of Scotland, Old Parish Registers, Duddingston deaths and burials, burial of Robert Glasgow, 17 January 1647, parish number 684, reference 60/47, ScotlandsPeople.
- unknown Francis J. Grant, ed., Register of Apprentices of the City of Edinburgh, 1583–1666 (https://archive.org/details/scottishrecordso28scotuoft/page/71/mode/2up) (Scottish Record Society, 1906), printed p. 71: “Glasgow, James, son to Robert G., servitor to William Crichtoun, in Wester Duddingston, with William Sclaitter, weaver 16 June 1641.”
- unknown Charles B. Boog Watson, ed., Roll of Edinburgh Burgesses and Guild-Brethren, 1406–1700 (https://www.tradeshouselibrary.org/uploads/4/7/7/2/47723681/roll_of_edinburgh_burgesses_1406_to_1700.pdf#page=218) (Scottish Record Society, 1929), printed p. 208: “Glasgow, James, B., weiver, as p. to umq. Wm. Sklaitter, weiver, B. (16 June 1641) 20 June 1649.”
- derivative “Scotland, Births and Baptisms, 1564–1950,” database, FamilySearch, James Glasgow, baptised 19 March 1626, Inveresk and Musselburgh (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VQ4V-GQW), son of Alexander Glasgow.
- unknown Robert Renwick, ed., Abstracts of Protocols of the Town Clerks of Glasgow, vol. 1, First Protocol Book of William Hegait, 1547–55 (Glasgow: Carson & Nicol, 1894), protocol 84, 21 May 1551, printed p. 31: Elizabeth Beitht sold a tenement to “Archinbald Glasgw and Isobell Neulands, spouses.” Robert Glasgw was among the witnesses.
- unknown Henry Paton, ed., Register of Marriages for the Parish of Edinburgh, 1595–1700 (https://www.tradeshouselibrary.org/uploads/4/7/7/2/47723681/register_of_marriages_for_the_parish_of_edinburgh_1595-1700_~_1898.pdf#page=278) (Scottish Record Society, 1905), printed p. 268: “Glasgow, Robert, cordiner; Janet Thomsone 1 July 1652.”
- tree_only WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-1156
Technical profile and raw captureDataset metadata, machine dossier and captured WikiTree biography.Advanced
WikiTree profile information
Glasgow-1156
Robert Glasgow I
Updated 2026-08-19
Dataset: ONT_Glasco_2026-08-18T16_05.json · generated 2026-08-20
WikiTree biography, citations and relationship snapshot
Glasgow-1156 was captured 2026-08-19T15:34:20+00:00; WikiTree profile revision 2026-08-19.
Profile location claims
| Event | Date | Location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| birth | — | Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Scotland | WikiTree profile field |
| death | — | Duddingston, Edinburghshire, Scotland | WikiTree profile field |
Immediate relationship snapshot
| Relationship | Person | WikiTree ID | Dates and places returned |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parents | Archibald Glasgow | Glasgow-1097 | 1530-00-00 · Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Scotland · 1560-00-00 · Bridgegate, Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Scotland |
| Parents | Isobell Glasgow | Newlands-647 | 1530-00-00 · 0000-00-00 |
| Children | James Glasgow | Glasgow-1150 | 1620-00-00 · 0000-00-00 |
| Siblings | Isabella Glasgow | Glasgow-3026 | 1560-00-00 · Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Scotland · 1600-00-00 · Briggate, Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Scotland |
| Spouses | Deborah Glasgow | Ivey-2264 | 1589-00-00 · 1635-00-00 · 1611-00-00 |
Profile categories
Glasgow_Name_Study
Record-bearing passages
- Biography Robert Glasgow was buried in the parish of Duddingston, Midlothian, Scotland, on 17 January 1647. Church of Scotland, Old Parish Registers, Duddingston deaths and burials, burial of Robert Glasgow, 17 January 1647, parish number 684, reference 60/47, ScotlandsPeople.
- His date and place of birth have not been identified.
- The burial entry does not state Robert's age, occupation, residence, spouse, parentage or children. It should not be assumed that every contemporary man named Robert Glasgow in Midlothian was the same person. Research NotesProfile identity This profile represents the Robert Glasgow buried at Duddingston on 17 January 1647.
- The burial is the only record presently identified that can be assigned to this profile with reasonable certainty. Other records involving men of the same name are discussed below as possible or rejected identifications.
- Because the record is a burial entry rather than an identified death entry, Robert died on or before 17 January 1647. His precise date of death is unknown. Birth The structured birth year of about 1582 and the Glasgow birthplace are retained as uncertain working estimates.
- No inspected record states Robert's age or birthplace or supports either estimate. They should not be treated as proved facts.
- Although Robert was buried in Scotland, the burial record does not establish that he was born there. Possible identification at Wester Duddingston On 16 June 1641 James Glasgow, son of a Robert Glasgow who was servant to William Crichtoun in Wester Duddingston, was apprenticed to William Sclaitter, weaver. Francis J. Grant, ed., Register of Apprentices of the City of Edinburgh, 1583–1666 (https://archive.org/details/scottishrecordso28scotuoft/page/71/mode/2up) (Scottish Record Society, 1906), printed p. 71: “Glasgow, James, son to Robert G., servitor to William Crichtoun, in Wester Duddingston, with William Sclaitter, weaver 16 June 1641.”
- The record directly proves that:
- The identification is not proved. Neither record supplies Robert's age, wife, occupation beyond the 1641 description, or another distinguishing relationship that securely joins the two entries.
- If James remains attached as a son of this Robert, the relationship should be marked uncertain. James Glasgow the Edinburgh weaver The apprentice named in 1641 was later admitted as a burgess of Edinburgh on 20 June 1649. The burgess entry identifies him as a weaver, names his deceased master William Sklaitter and repeats the exact apprenticeship date of 16 June 1641. Charles B. Boog Watson, ed., Roll of Edinburgh Burgesses and Guild-Brethren, 1406–1700 (https://www.tradeshouselibrary.org/uploads/4/7/7/2/47723681/roll_of_edinburgh_burgesses_1406_to_1700.pdf#page=218) (Scottish Record Society, 1929), printed p. 208: “Glasgow, James, B., weiver, as p. to umq. Wm. Sklaitter, weiver, B. (16 June 1641) 20 June 1649.”
- This evidence strengthens the identification of James but does not provide additional information identifying his father with the man buried in 1647. Distinct from the Inveresk James The Edinburgh apprentice was not James Glasgow, who was baptised at Inveresk and Musselburgh on 19 March 1626 as a son of Alexander Glasgow and Jannet Clerk. “Scotland, Births and Baptisms, 1564–1950,” database, FamilySearch, James Glasgow, baptised 19 March 1626, Inveresk and Musselburgh (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VQ4V-GQW), son of Alexander Glasgow.
- Archibald and his wife Isobell Neulands are documented acquiring a tenement in Glasgow on 21 May 1551. Robert Renwick, ed., Abstracts of Protocols of the Town Clerks of Glasgow, vol. 1, First Protocol Book of William Hegait, 1547–55 (Glasgow: Carson & Nicol, 1894), protocol 84, 21 May 1551, printed p. 31: Elizabeth Beitht sold a tenement to “Archinbald Glasgw and Isobell Neulands, spouses.” Robert Glasgw was among the witnesses.
- The record does not name any children of Archibald and Isobell. It also does not state that Robert Glasgw, one of the witnesses, was Archibald's brother, son or other relative.
- The proposed father-and-son relationship is chronologically possible. Archibald was married by 1551, and Robert's birth date is unknown. A son born later in the sixteenth century could have been the Robert associated with Wester Duddingston in 1641 and buried there in 1647.
- There is presently no direct evidence establishing the relationship. No baptism, testament, sasine, deed or other inspected contemporary record identifies Robert as Archibald's son.
- There is likewise no known record identifying a different father for Robert, and no better-supported profile has been identified as a child of Archibald.
- Archibald may therefore remain attached as Robert's father with the relationship marked uncertain. The relationship should not be described as proved, probable or likely without further evidence. Validator chronology note WikiTree's warning that Archibald Glasgow died before Robert was born is not a valid reading of the structured data. Archibald's death is recorded as after 1560, an open lower boundary rather than a death in 1560. Robert's 1582 birth is an uncertain estimate, and their father-son relationship is itself marked uncertain. No source currently proves when Archibald died or that Robert was his son. Deborah Ivey Deborah Ivey has previously been attached as Robert's wife.
- No Scottish marriage, baptism, testament, sasine, court record or other contemporary source has been found identifying Deborah as Robert's wife or as the mother of James Glasgow.
- The attachment appears to derive from later compiled pedigrees involving Glasgow, Glasco, Glascocke or Glasscock families rather than from records concerning the Duddingston man.
- Deborah should be detached from this profile. Distinct from the Edinburgh cordiner Robert Glasgow married Jonet or Janet Thomsone at Edinburgh on 1 July 1652. The marriage register identifies that Robert as a cordiner. Henry Paton, ed., Register of Marriages for the Parish of Edinburgh, 1595–1700 (https://www.tradeshouselibrary.org/uploads/4/7/7/2/47723681/register_of_marriages_for_the_parish_of_edinburgh_1595-1700_~_1898.pdf#page=278) (Scottish Record Society, 1905), printed p. 268: “Glasgow, Robert, cordiner; Janet Thomsone 1 July 1652.”
- No evidence presently identifies the Edinburgh cordiner as a son of the Duddingston Robert. Daniel Glasco Daniel Glasco, husband of Mary Gamon, is documented in Lower Norfolk County, Virginia, through the will of his father-in-law John Gamon, dated 4 October 1693 and proved 15 March 1694.
- No inspected record identifies Daniel as a son of the Robert buried at Duddingston.
travelled to Virginia;
- had children in colonial America;
- belonged to the Glasco, Glascocke or Glasscock families;
- married Ann Johnson or Johnston; or
- participated in any Scottish-to-Virginia migration. Occupation and social status If the 1641 Wester Duddingston record concerns this Robert, he was described as a servant to William Crichtoun.
- The term does not establish that Robert was a merchant, burgess, property owner or participant in civic government. No evidence presently supports those descriptions.
- There is also no evidence that Robert migrated from the burgh of Glasgow to Edinburgh or Duddingston. His surname alone does not identify his place of origin. Wife and other children No inspected record identifies the wife of the Robert buried in 1647.
- James Glasgow is the only proposed child supported by a contemporary record naming a father called Robert Glasgow in Wester Duddingston. Even that identification remains uncertain because the apprenticeship record does not directly connect the father to the 1647 burial.
inspection and transcription of the original 1647 Duddingston burial entry;
- Duddingston baptism, marriage and burial registers;
- neighbouring parish registers, including Canongate, Liberton and Inveresk;
- Edinburgh Commissary Court testaments;
- Midlothian sasines, rentals and property records;
- records concerning William Crichtoun of Wester Duddingston;
- household, estate or employment records naming William Crichtoun's servants;
- the original apprenticeship papers for James Glasgow;
- records of the Edinburgh Incorporation of Weavers;
- evidence identifying James Glasgow's mother;
- records naming the wife or other children of the Wester Duddingston Robert;
- a testament or estate inventory for the man buried in 1647; and
- evidence directly linking or separating the 1641 and 1647 records. Sources
Profile source citations
- Church of Scotland, Old Parish Registers, Duddingston deaths and burials, burial of Robert Glasgow, 17 January 1647, parish number 684, reference 60/47, ScotlandsPeople.
- Francis J. Grant, ed., Register of Apprentices of the City of Edinburgh, 1583–1666 (https://archive.org/details/scottishrecordso28scotuoft/page/71/mode/2up) (Scottish Record Society, 1906), printed p. 71: “Glasgow, James, son to Robert G., servitor to William Crichtoun, in Wester Duddingston, with William Sclaitter, weaver 16 June 1641.” source link 1
- Charles B. Boog Watson, ed., Roll of Edinburgh Burgesses and Guild-Brethren, 1406–1700 (https://www.tradeshouselibrary.org/uploads/4/7/7/2/47723681/roll_of_edinburgh_burgesses_1406_to_1700.pdf#page=218) (Scottish Record Society, 1929), printed p. 208: “Glasgow, James, B., weiver, as p. to umq. Wm. Sklaitter, weiver, B. (16 June 1641) 20 June 1649.” source link 1
- “Scotland, Births and Baptisms, 1564–1950,” database, FamilySearch, James Glasgow, baptised 19 March 1626, Inveresk and Musselburgh (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VQ4V-GQW), son of Alexander Glasgow. source link 1
- Robert Renwick, ed., Abstracts of Protocols of the Town Clerks of Glasgow, vol. 1, First Protocol Book of William Hegait, 1547–55 (Glasgow: Carson & Nicol, 1894), protocol 84, 21 May 1551, printed p. 31: Elizabeth Beitht sold a tenement to “Archinbald Glasgw and Isobell Neulands, spouses.” Robert Glasgw was among the witnesses.
- Henry Paton, ed., Register of Marriages for the Parish of Edinburgh, 1595–1700 (https://www.tradeshouselibrary.org/uploads/4/7/7/2/47723681/register_of_marriages_for_the_parish_of_edinburgh_1595-1700_~_1898.pdf#page=278) (Scottish Record Society, 1905), printed p. 268: “Glasgow, Robert, cordiner; Janet Thomsone 1 July 1652.” source link 1
Full captured biography text
Biography Robert Glasgow was buried in the parish of Duddingston, Midlothian, Scotland, on 17 January 1647. Church of Scotland, Old Parish Registers, Duddingston deaths and burials, burial of Robert Glasgow, 17 January 1647, parish number 684, reference 60/47, ScotlandsPeople. His date and place of birth have not been identified. The burial entry does not state Robert's age, occupation, residence, spouse, parentage or children. It should not be assumed that every contemporary man named Robert Glasgow in Midlothian was the same person. Research NotesProfile identity This profile represents the Robert Glasgow buried at Duddingston on 17 January 1647. The burial is the only record presently identified that can be assigned to this profile with reasonable certainty. Other records involving men of the same name are discussed below as possible or rejected identifications. Because the record is a burial entry rather than an identified death entry, Robert died on or before 17 January 1647. His precise date of death is unknown. Birth The structured birth year of about 1582 and the Glasgow birthplace are retained as uncertain working estimates. No inspected record states Robert's age or birthplace or supports either estimate. They should not be treated as proved facts. Although Robert was buried in Scotland, the burial record does not establish that he was born there. Possible identification at Wester Duddingston On 16 June 1641 James Glasgow, son of a Robert Glasgow who was servant to William Crichtoun in Wester Duddingston, was apprenticed to William Sclaitter, weaver. Francis J. Grant, ed., Register of Apprentices of the City of Edinburgh, 1583–1666 (https://archive.org/details/scottishrecordso28scotuoft/page/71/mode/2up) (Scottish Record Society, 1906), printed p. 71: “Glasgow, James, son to Robert G., servitor to William Crichtoun, in Wester Duddingston, with William Sclaitter, weaver 16 June 1641.” The record directly proves that: * James's father was named Robert Glasgow; * the elder Robert was associated with Wester Duddingston in 1641; * Robert was then a servant to William Crichtoun; and * James was apprenticed to William Sclaitter. The matching surname, Duddingston locality and compatible dates make the father named in 1641 a plausible candidate for the man buried there in 1647. The identification is not proved. Neither record supplies Robert's age, wife, occupation beyond the 1641 description, or another distinguishing relationship that securely joins the two entries. If James remains attached as a son of this Robert, the relationship should be marked uncertain. James Glasgow the Edinburgh weaver The apprentice named in 1641 was later admitted as a burgess of Edinburgh on 20 June 1649. The burgess entry identifies him as a weaver, names his deceased master William Sklaitter and repeats the exact apprenticeship date of 16 June 1641. Charles B. Boog Watson, ed., Roll of Edinburgh Burgesses and Guild-Brethren, 1406–1700 (https://www.tradeshouselibrary.org/uploads/4/7/7/2/47723681/roll_of_edinburgh_burgesses_1406_to_1700.pdf#page=218) (Scottish Record Society, 1929), printed p. 208: “Glasgow, James, B., weiver, as p. to umq. Wm. Sklaitter, weiver, B. (16 June 1641) 20 June 1649.” The matching master and exact apprenticeship date establish that the 1641 apprentice and the later Edinburgh burgess were the same James Glasgow. This evidence strengthens the identification of James but does not provide additional information identifying his father with the man buried in 1647. Distinct from the Inveresk James The Edinburgh apprentice was not James Glasgow, who was baptised at Inveresk and Musselburgh on 19 March 1626 as a son of Alexander Glasgow and Jannet Clerk. “Scotland, Births and Baptisms, 1564–1950,” database, FamilySearch, James Glasgow, baptised 19 March 1626, Inveresk and Musselburgh (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VQ4V-GQW), son of Alexander Glasgow. The 1641 apprenticeship explicitly names Robert Glasgow, not Alexander Glasgow, as the father of the Edinburgh weaver. The two men should remain on separate profiles. Possible father Archibald Glasgow is attached as Robert's uncertain father. Archibald and his wife Isobell Neulands are documented acquiring a tenement in Glasgow on 21 May 1551. Robert Renwick, ed., Abstracts of Protocols of the Town Clerks of Glasgow, vol. 1, First Protocol Book of William Hegait, 1547–55 (Glasgow: Carson & Nicol, 1894), protocol 84, 21 May 1551, printed p. 31: Elizabeth Beitht sold a tenement to “Archinbald Glasgw and Isobell Neulands, spouses.” Robert Glasgw was among the witnesses. The record does not name any children of Archibald and Isobell. It also does not state that Robert Glasgw, one of the witnesses, was Archibald's brother, son or other relative. The proposed father-and-son relationship is chronologically possible. Archibald was married by 1551, and Robert's birth date is unknown. A son born later in the sixteenth century could have been the Robert associated with Wester Duddingston in 1641 and buried there in 1647. There is presently no direct evidence establishing the relationship. No baptism, testament, sasine, deed or other inspected contemporary record identifies Robert as Archibald's son. There is likewise no known record identifying a different father for Robert, and no better-supported profile has been identified as a child of Archibald. Archibald may therefore remain attached as Robert's father with the relationship marked uncertain. The relationship should not be described as proved, probable or likely without further evidence. Validator chronology note WikiTree's warning that Archibald Glasgow died before Robert was born is not a valid reading of the structured data. Archibald's death is recorded as after 1560, an open lower boundary rather than a death in 1560. Robert's 1582 birth is an uncertain estimate, and their father-son relationship is itself marked uncertain. No source currently proves when Archibald died or that Robert was his son. Deborah Ivey Deborah Ivey has previously been attached as Robert's wife. No Scottish marriage, baptism, testament, sasine, court record or other contemporary source has been found identifying Deborah as Robert's wife or as the mother of James Glasgow. The attachment appears to derive from later compiled pedigrees involving Glasgow, Glasco, Glascocke or Glasscock families rather than from records concerning the Duddingston man. Deborah should be detached from this profile. Distinct from the Edinburgh cordiner Robert Glasgow married Jonet or Janet Thomsone at Edinburgh on 1 July 1652. The marriage register identifies that Robert as a cordiner. Henry Paton, ed., Register of Marriages for the Parish of Edinburgh, 1595–1700 (https://www.tradeshouselibrary.org/uploads/4/7/7/2/47723681/register_of_marriages_for_the_parish_of_edinburgh_1595-1700_~_1898.pdf#page=278) (Scottish Record Society, 1905), printed p. 268: “Glasgow, Robert, cordiner; Janet Thomsone 1 July 1652.” The Duddingston Robert was buried in January 1647 and therefore could not have been the bridegroom in July 1652. The two men are conclusively distinct and should remain on separate profiles. No evidence presently identifies the Edinburgh cordiner as a son of the Duddingston Robert. Daniel Glasco Daniel Glasco, husband of Mary Gamon, is documented in Lower Norfolk County, Virginia, through the will of his father-in-law John Gamon, dated 4 October 1693 and proved 15 March 1694. No inspected record identifies Daniel as a son of the Robert buried at Duddingston. The supposed relationship depends on unsourced submitted pedigrees and should be removed. There is likewise no evidence that the Duddingston Robert: * travelled to Virginia; * had children in colonial America; * belonged to the Glasco, Glascocke or Glasscock families; * married Ann Johnson or Johnston; or * participated in any Scottish-to-Virginia migration. Occupation and social status If the 1641 Wester Duddingston record concerns this Robert, he was described as a servant to William Crichtoun. The term does not establish that Robert was a merchant, burgess, property owner or participant in civic government. No evidence presently supports those descriptions. There is also no evidence that Robert migrated from the burgh of Glasgow to Edinburgh or Duddingston. His surname alone does not identify his place of origin. Wife and other children No inspected record identifies the wife of the Robert buried in 1647. James Glasgow is the only proposed child supported by a contemporary record naming a father called Robert Glasgow in Wester Duddingston. Even that identification remains uncertain because the apprenticeship record does not directly connect the father to the 1647 burial. No other children should be attached without independent evidence. Further research Useful remaining research includes: * inspection and transcription of the original 1647 Duddingston burial entry; * Duddingston baptism, marriage and burial registers; * neighbouring parish registers, including Canongate, Liberton and Inveresk; * Edinburgh Commissary Court testaments; * Midlothian sasines, rentals and property records; * records concerning William Crichtoun of Wester Duddingston; * household, estate or employment records naming William Crichtoun's servants; * the original apprenticeship papers for James Glasgow; * records of the Edinburgh Incorporation of Weavers; * evidence identifying James Glasgow's mother; * records naming the wife or other children of the Wester Duddingston Robert; * a testament or estate inventory for the man buried in 1647; and * evidence directly linking or separating the 1641 and 1647 records. Sources
Raw WikiTree biography markup
{{One Name Study|name=Glasgow}}
== Biography ==
'''Robert Glasgow''' was buried in the parish of Duddingston, Midlothian, Scotland, on '''17 January 1647'''.<ref name="RobertBurial">Church of Scotland, Old Parish Registers, Duddingston deaths and burials, burial of Robert Glasgow, 17 January 1647, parish number 684, reference 60/47, ''ScotlandsPeople''.</ref>
His date and place of birth have not been identified.
The burial entry does not state Robert's age, occupation, residence, spouse, parentage or children. It should not be assumed that every contemporary man named Robert Glasgow in Midlothian was the same person.
== Research Notes ==
=== Profile identity ===
This profile represents the '''Robert Glasgow buried at Duddingston on 17 January 1647'''.
The burial is the only record presently identified that can be assigned to this profile with reasonable certainty. Other records involving men of the same name are discussed below as possible or rejected identifications.
Because the record is a burial entry rather than an identified death entry, Robert died on or before 17 January 1647. His precise date of death is unknown.
=== Birth ===
The structured birth year of about 1582 and the Glasgow birthplace are retained as uncertain working estimates.
No inspected record states Robert's age or birthplace or supports either estimate. They should not be treated as proved facts.
Although Robert was buried in Scotland, the burial record does not establish that he was born there.
=== Possible identification at Wester Duddingston ===
On 16 June 1641 '''[[Glasgow-1150|James Glasgow]]''', son of a Robert Glasgow who was servant to William Crichtoun in Wester Duddingston, was apprenticed to William Sclaitter, weaver.<ref name="JamesApprentice">Francis J. Grant, ed., [https://archive.org/details/scottishrecordso28scotuoft/page/71/mode/2up ''Register of Apprentices of the City of Edinburgh, 1583–1666''] (Scottish Record Society, 1906), printed p. 71: “Glasgow, James, son to Robert G., servitor to William Crichtoun, in Wester Duddingston, with William Sclaitter, weaver 16 June 1641.”</ref>
The record directly proves that:
* James's father was named Robert Glasgow;
* the elder Robert was associated with Wester Duddingston in 1641;
* Robert was then a servant to William Crichtoun; and
* James was apprenticed to William Sclaitter.
The matching surname, Duddingston locality and compatible dates make the father named in 1641 a plausible candidate for the man buried there in 1647.
The identification is not proved. Neither record supplies Robert's age, wife, occupation beyond the 1641 description, or another distinguishing relationship that securely joins the two entries.
If James remains attached as a son of this Robert, the relationship should be marked uncertain.
=== James Glasgow the Edinburgh weaver ===
The apprentice named in 1641 was later admitted as a burgess of Edinburgh on 20 June 1649. The burgess entry identifies him as a weaver, names his deceased master William Sklaitter and repeats the exact apprenticeship date of 16 June 1641.<ref name="JamesBurgess">Charles B. Boog Watson, ed., [https://www.tradeshouselibrary.org/uploads/4/7/7/2/47723681/roll_of_edinburgh_burgesses_1406_to_1700.pdf#page=218 ''Roll of Edinburgh Burgesses and Guild-Brethren, 1406–1700''] (Scottish Record Society, 1929), printed p. 208: “Glasgow, James, B., weiver, as p. to umq. Wm. Sklaitter, weiver, B. (16 June 1641) 20 June 1649.”</ref>
The matching master and exact apprenticeship date establish that the 1641 apprentice and the later Edinburgh burgess were the same James Glasgow.
This evidence strengthens the identification of James but does not provide additional information identifying his father with the man buried in 1647.
=== Distinct from the Inveresk James ===
The Edinburgh apprentice was not '''[[Glasgow-3923|James Glasgow]]''', who was baptised at Inveresk and Musselburgh on 19 March 1626 as a son of Alexander Glasgow and Jannet Clerk.<ref name="InvereskJames">“Scotland, Births and Baptisms, 1564–1950,” database, ''FamilySearch'', [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VQ4V-GQW James Glasgow, baptised 19 March 1626, Inveresk and Musselburgh], son of Alexander Glasgow.</ref>
The 1641 apprenticeship explicitly names Robert Glasgow, not Alexander Glasgow, as the father of the Edinburgh weaver.
The two men should remain on separate profiles.
=== Possible father ===
'''[[Glasgow-1097|Archibald Glasgow]]''' is attached as Robert's uncertain father.
Archibald and his wife Isobell Neulands are documented acquiring a tenement in Glasgow on 21 May 1551.<ref name="Archibald1551">Robert Renwick, ed., ''Abstracts of Protocols of the Town Clerks of Glasgow'', vol. 1, ''First Protocol Book of William Hegait, 1547–55'' (Glasgow: Carson & Nicol, 1894), protocol 84, 21 May 1551, printed p. 31: Elizabeth Beitht sold a tenement to “Archinbald Glasgw and Isobell Neulands, spouses.” Robert Glasgw was among the witnesses.</ref>
The record does not name any children of Archibald and Isobell. It also does not state that Robert Glasgw, one of the witnesses, was Archibald's brother, son or other relative.
The proposed father-and-son relationship is chronologically possible. Archibald was married by 1551, and Robert's birth date is unknown. A son born later in the sixteenth century could have been the Robert associated with Wester Duddingston in 1641 and buried there in 1647.
There is presently no direct evidence establishing the relationship. No baptism, testament, sasine, deed or other inspected contemporary record identifies Robert as Archibald's son.
There is likewise no known record identifying a different father for Robert, and no better-supported profile has been identified as a child of Archibald.
Archibald may therefore remain attached as Robert's father with the relationship marked '''uncertain'''. The relationship should not be described as proved, probable or likely without further evidence.
=== Validator chronology note ===
WikiTree's warning that [[Glasgow-1097|Archibald Glasgow]] died before Robert was born is not a valid reading of the structured data. Archibald's death is recorded as '''after 1560''', an open lower boundary rather than a death in 1560. Robert's 1582 birth is an uncertain estimate, and their father-son relationship is itself marked uncertain. No source currently proves when Archibald died or that Robert was his son.
=== Deborah Ivey ===
'''[[Ivey-2264|Deborah Ivey]]''' has previously been attached as Robert's wife.
No Scottish marriage, baptism, testament, sasine, court record or other contemporary source has been found identifying Deborah as Robert's wife or as the mother of James Glasgow.
The attachment appears to derive from later compiled pedigrees involving Glasgow, Glasco, Glascocke or Glasscock families rather than from records concerning the Duddingston man.
Deborah should be detached from this profile.
=== Distinct from the Edinburgh cordiner ===
'''[[Glasgow-3938|Robert Glasgow]]''' married Jonet or Janet Thomsone at Edinburgh on 1 July 1652. The marriage register identifies that Robert as a cordiner.<ref name="CordinerMarriage">Henry Paton, ed., [https://www.tradeshouselibrary.org/uploads/4/7/7/2/47723681/register_of_marriages_for_the_parish_of_edinburgh_1595-1700_~_1898.pdf#page=278 ''Register of Marriages for the Parish of Edinburgh, 1595–1700''] (Scottish Record Society, 1905), printed p. 268: “Glasgow, Robert, cordiner; Janet Thomsone 1 July 1652.”</ref>
The Duddingston Robert was buried in January 1647 and therefore could not have been the bridegroom in July 1652.
The two men are conclusively distinct and should remain on separate profiles.
No evidence presently identifies the Edinburgh cordiner as a son of the Duddingston Robert.
=== Daniel Glasco ===
Daniel Glasco, husband of Mary Gamon, is documented in Lower Norfolk County, Virginia, through the will of his father-in-law John Gamon, dated 4 October 1693 and proved 15 March 1694.
No inspected record identifies Daniel as a son of the Robert buried at Duddingston.
The supposed relationship depends on unsourced submitted pedigrees and should be removed.
There is likewise no evidence that the Duddingston Robert:
* travelled to Virginia;
* had children in colonial America;
* belonged to the Glasco, Glascocke or Glasscock families;
* married Ann Johnson or Johnston; or
* participated in any Scottish-to-Virginia migration.
=== Occupation and social status ===
If the 1641 Wester Duddingston record concerns this Robert, he was described as a servant to William Crichtoun.
The term does not establish that Robert was a merchant, burgess, property owner or participant in civic government. No evidence presently supports those descriptions.
There is also no evidence that Robert migrated from the burgh of Glasgow to Edinburgh or Duddingston. His surname alone does not identify his place of origin.
=== Wife and other children ===
No inspected record identifies the wife of the Robert buried in 1647.
James Glasgow is the only proposed child supported by a contemporary record naming a father called Robert Glasgow in Wester Duddingston. Even that identification remains uncertain because the apprenticeship record does not directly connect the father to the 1647 burial.
No other children should be attached without independent evidence.
=== Further research ===
Useful remaining research includes:
* inspection and transcription of the original 1647 Duddingston burial entry;
* Duddingston baptism, marriage and burial registers;
* neighbouring parish registers, including Canongate, Liberton and Inveresk;
* Edinburgh Commissary Court testaments;
* Midlothian sasines, rentals and property records;
* records concerning William Crichtoun of Wester Duddingston;
* household, estate or employment records naming William Crichtoun's servants;
* the original apprenticeship papers for James Glasgow;
* records of the Edinburgh Incorporation of Weavers;
* evidence identifying James Glasgow's mother;
* records naming the wife or other children of the Wester Duddingston Robert;
* a testament or estate inventory for the man buried in 1647; and
* evidence directly linking or separating the 1641 and 1647 records.
== Sources ==
<references />