Robert Glasco

The National Archives of Ireland copy of Robert Glasgow's will resolves the Young grandchildren and supplies a defensible death estimate. Robert made the will at Glenleslie on 3 February 1851. He directly named his daughter Margaret Glasgow and left her his farm and effects for life; after her death, the property was to pass equally to James Young and Mary Young, the son and daughter of Margaret Glasgow. The copy says Robert died in or about 1852 and that the will was proved on 13 February 1854.

This proves the chain Glasgow-1367 -> Glasgow-3955 -> Young-78755 and the same maternal link for James Young. The will does not name James and Mary's father. The similar Young-23682, born about 1837 in Ireland, remains a possible later identity for James, but no record links him to Glenleslie, so no separate profile or relationship has been added.

Primary source: Robert Glasgow of Glenleslie, will dated 3 February 1851, proved 13 February 1854, National Archives of Ireland copy, FamilySearch image 229.

The live profile now gives Robert's documented County Antrim birthplace and an estimated death about 1852. His parents remain unproved.

Findmypast's Ireland Diocesan and Prerogative Wills & Administrations Indexes lists Robert Glasgow, residence Dunaghy, Kilconway, Antrim, 1854, under Prerogative Indexes to Wills & Administrations (IRE/DIOC/WILL/00186040; index image IRE/DIOC/007246586/00231). The existing PRONI note gives a Connor diocesan index entry for the Glenleslie Robert, also 1854. A Prerogative entry means the grant may also be recorded in Prerogative will books or abstracts (for example the Betham abstracts), which are worth checking even though the original will is lost. Source: Findmypast sweep report.

• New, candidate only: a Glenleslie John Glasgow married in the Catholic chapel, 1835. Glenravel Roman Catholic registers (NLI, via Findmypast IRE/PRS/MAR/0404145/1) record John Glasgow of Glenleslie marrying Ann Reley of Glenleslie on 11 February 1835, and a son Hugh baptised 31 July 1836 (IRE/PRS/BAP/1894487, /1896519; the mother's surname is indexed as Kelay or Kelso). Robert's son John, aged 40 and in America in 1851, was born about 1811 and could be this man. So could John-1022's married nephew of the same age, or another John. Nothing in the entries names John's father. This differs from the Prerogative will index entry added earlier today.

The Robert Glasgow aged 71 in the 1868 Ballymoney death index (table above) has been read from the GRONI register image (D/1868/27/1005/2/324, Ballymoney entry 324; index), viewed on 23 September 2026. He died on 31 March 1868 in Ballymoney Workhouse, a married labourer aged 71, of cancer of a year's standing; the informant was John Stewart, workhouse officer. The entry has its own profile, Glasgow-3449.

He is not this Robert, whose will was proved on 13 February 1854 and who died in or about 1852 (see the current conclusion). The note above that no original image identifies the 1868 man is superseded. Whether he was the separate Robert of the 1834 Lisnagaver tithe remains open: research/Glasgow-3449/findings.md calls the entry a weak fit for that farmer, neither confirming nor excluding him.

Recorded in research/Glasgow-3449/findings.md (23 September 2026); carried into this file on 7 October 2026.

In William Macafee's transcript of Griffith's Valuation for North and Mid Antrim, p. 210, the only Glasgow occupier at Glenleslie is Margaret Glasgow (record 11090), and a Robert Glasgow is listed at Doonbought (record 11015). These were seen as a transcription; the record numbers are the compiler's.

Margaret fits Robert's unmarried daughter, aged 50 in his 1851 Glenleslie household, to whom his will left the farm for life (see the current conclusion). The Griffith's entry is therefore probably that life holding, and it confirms that the elderly Robert did not move to Gortereghy. The Doonbought Robert is possibly the younger Robert (Glasgow-1049) of the 1851 Doonbought household. Both identifications are probable or possible, not proved; the Glenleslie valuation revision books would show the succession.

Recorded in research/Glasgow-1022/agent_gortereghy_cluster.md (5 September 2026); carried into this file on 7 October 2026.

Robert is unsupported and chronologically implausible as Adam and Rose's son. John Glasgow-1022 is only a weak locality candidate: houses 21 and 23 were nearby, but no record states kinship and Robert predates John's reported 1791 marriage. Do not attach either proposed father; leave both parents blank.

The more defensible tree placement is beneath an unknown Dunaghy father, in the same local tenant network as John Glasgow of Ballyboggy, the two James Glasgows at Ballybogy in 1825, and John Glasgow of Glenleslie. John Glasgow-3959 is old enough to be an earlier ancestor rather than Robert's father; no intermediate generation has been identified.

Robert is old enough to be Alexander's father and his reported 1803 marriage is chronologically compatible. That is the full positive case. His 1851 record names sons John and Samuel but not Alexander, though its child list need not be complete. The Coltrim household now belongs to the separate unresolved profile Glasgow-3941, and the 1834 Lisnagaver Robert has no age, wife or relationship identifier. Treat this Robert as a possible older relative only; do not attach him as Alexander's father without an explicit record.

The adjacent Alexr and Robt Lisnagaver tithe holdings keep a brother/cousin relationship between older Alexander Glasgow and this Robert possible. It is not the best placement evidence for Robert: his Antrim birth, Doonbought occurrence, Glenleslie household and 1854 Glenleslie will index form a more coherent Dunaghy-centred sequence. Keep the men in separate working branches unless a lease, church record, will abstract or DNA comparison with documented tester pedigrees supplies the missing bridge.

Best unified working model

The least contradictory present model places Robert and older Alexander in the same broad generation below an unidentified earlier Bann Valley/Dunaghy Glasgow ancestor, probably as brothers or first cousins. This is more coherent than making either a son of John Glasgow or Adam Glasgow, but is not yet a relationship to add.

The separate Alexander Glasgow of Glenleslie adds limited support: his original 1847 marriage names an older John Glasgow, labourer, as father, proving that the Alexander given name also occurred inside the Dunaghy network. His current attachment to John Glasgow of Lisnagaver is chronologically impossible on the recorded ages and must not be used as the bridge.

• Do not merge the 1834 Lisnagaver tithe occupier or 1868 death-index entry into Robert's identity without another identifier.
• Do not infer that Robert was Adam's son from a son also being named Robert.
• Do not treat County Antrim and County Londonderry as interchangeable places.
• Do not attach an American John or Samuel Glasgow using only name, Irish birth and approximate age. The Irish return gives no state or other unique locator.

A search for Robert's son Samuel Glasgow-1052, recorded in the original 1851 return as a linen weaver aged 30 living in America, found one weak candidate: the 1850 US census of Troy Fifth Ward, Rensselaer County, New York, household 2785 (original image) lists Samuel Glasgow, 30, farmer, born Ireland, with Jane, 23, and Martha Glasgow, 17.

Age and Irish birth fit, but the occupation differs from the 1851 return and the schedule gives no County Antrim locator. The same Troy household is already represented on WikiTree by the separate profile Glasgow-2417, whose findings leave him unidentified and attach no family. Grade: possible candidate only. Do not merge Glasgow-2417 with Glasgow-1052 or attach him to Robert on this census alone (see the identity cautions above).

Recorded in handover.md (13 August 2026); carried into this file on 7 October 2026.

The strongest reconstructed collateral relationship comes from Robert's unmarried niece Mary in 1851. Mary's 1862 marriage names her father as Hugh Glasgow, weaver. Her later death at Crankill in 1898, aged 79, is compatible with the niece's census age.

If Mary (Glasgow) Montgomery is the census niece—and the name, age, County Antrim origin, unmarried status, weaving occupation and Ballymena district make her the strongest located match—Hugh was probably Robert's brother. Hugh Glasgow now represents the weaver named as Mary's father; the resolved evidence draft preserves the supporting marriage evidence. Hugh's possible relationship to Robert remains unproved and should not be converted into a sibling attachment without another record naming their parents or relationship.

Best present identity chain

1. Probable: the Robert Glasco at Doonbought in 1825 was this Robert, then about 46.
2. Probable family succession: Robert Glasgow, aged 40 at Doonbought in 1851, was the younger Robert already attached as his son.
3. Certain: this profile was the 72-year-old farmer at neighbouring Glenleslie in 1851 and the Glenleslie Robert in the destroyed-will index of 1854.
4. Unproved: the Robert beside Alexander at Lisnagaver in 1834 may have been this man, but the Dunaghy chain no longer requires that identification.

A final targeted search of publicly indexed 1853-55 newspaper and probate material found no notice naming Robert's parents, origin or heirs. The 1854 Connor diocesan will index is terminal: PRONI states that the original document was destroyed and no further information survives. The negative search does not formally disprove Adam's paternity, but it leaves no positive Inishrush bridge.

Private family details withheld.

The local SAPP model's c.1750 node for Alexander and James J is an uncalibrated estimate and does not include a proved descendant of this Robert. A Big Y test from a documented direct-male descendant of Robert's sons Robert Glasgow-1049, John Glasgow-3140 or Samuel Glasgow-1052 would distinguish whether this Glenleslie household shares Alexander's close FT20271 branch or only the wider surname cluster.

The full 1851 transcription corrects and expands Robert's immediate family. Household 23 explicitly includes Margaret Glasgow, aged 50, unmarried daughter. Earlier extraction that rendered her as a servant or a different surname was wrong.

The proved household children are Margaret, John and Samuel. John and Samuel were both in America. Mary and James Young prove at least one additional child or child-in-law, while Catherine Hume proves another Hume connection.

The current relationship set needs evidential separation:

• Glasgow-1053 cannot be Robert's census daughter: the Canadian woman was married with children before 1851, while the Glenleslie Margaret was unmarried at home.
• Glasgow-3956 belongs as Robert's probable brother, not son, if Glasgow-3957 is the census niece.
• Glasgow-1387 is only a possible son; his Cloughgaldenagh census gives no father.
• Glasgow-1049 is a probable Doonbought succession candidate but no record calls him Robert's son.
• the census directly proves sons John and Samuel, but the spouse-and-child families attached to Glasgow-3140 and Glasgow-1052 remain unproved identity extensions.
• Sarah Ann, wife of Samuel Hume in Glenleslie household 12, is the strongest candidate mother of granddaughter Catherine Hume and therefore a possible missing daughter. Her maiden surname is unproved.

Catherine Hume's census entry says she died of scarlatina in spring 1850; it does not place her death in Scotland.

The claim that Catherine Glasgow was born Anderson derives from an unrelated Virginia Robert-and-Catherine couple and must not be imported into this family.

Robert's coherent sequence remains Doonbought-Glenleslie, not Lisnagaver. This makes him only a weak, locality-discordant father candidate for Alexander Glasgow. The complete relationship matrix and source assessment are in sources/family_audit_2026-08-24.md.

The 35 acres attributed to Robert in the tithe book were Plantation acres, equivalent to approximately 56.7 statute acres. None of the later valuation lots is a direct acreage match. John and Thomas's lots together total 54.5 statute acres, making them the best geographical candidates for land derived from Robert's former holding, but no record calls either man Robert's heir.

The later succession records instead prove separate family continuities: John to son James Garvin on lot 24, Alexander to son-in-law Robert Elder on lot 25, and Thomas to widow Mary Ann and probable son Daniel on lot 26. These were Harvey estate tenancies, not demonstrated freehold inheritances. Robert's 1834 holding was most likely subdivided, reduced or partly re-let outside the surname before Griffith's Valuation. See the full succession assessment.

The 1836 valuation field book names Robert Glasgow as the only Glasgow with a dwelling at Lisnagaver. Its land section does not name parcel occupiers. After converting the 1834 Plantation-acre tithe figures to statute acres, Robert's approximately 56.70 statute acres correspond closely to John Glasgow's later lot 24 plus Thomas Glasgow's lot 26, which total 54.50 statute acres. The strongest current land-continuity hypothesis is therefore that John and Thomas's farms were chiefly carved from Robert's earlier tenancy.

Alexander's later lot 25 probably represents a reduced continuation of the earlier Alexander holding, although the 1834 Alexander may have been an older namesake. Thomas deriving from that Alexander holding remains a competing hypothesis because of the later Alexander-and-Rosanna family tradition.

No record yet proves inheritance or identifies the relationships. The likely legal mechanism was subdivision and regrant by the Harvey estate. See sources/lisnagaver_field_book_1836.md.

Robert Harvey is not merely a valuation-era name. Lisnagaver formed part of the Killoquin estate, derived from the 1760 fee-farm grant by the Earl of Antrim to Richard Bateson. Registry of Deeds memorial 506246 (book 743, p. 511), dated 13 January and registered 12 August 1819, records Sir Robert Bateson Harvey settling his Irish lands through trustees before his son Robert Harvey's marriage to Jemima Jane Collins. This explains the later immediate lessor.

A Killoquin archive sold as Mullocks lot 238 on 18 March 2014 included rent books for 1772–1774 and 1835, tenant correspondence and a tenant petition/list. The 1835 rent book is a priority source for testing the later subdivisions; its present owner is unknown. The land comparison remains a tenancy prediction, not proof of inheritance or relationship.

The Belfast News-Letter of 29 July 1768 advertised Lisnagaver for a 21-year term beginning 1 November 1768. Three principal Cunningham-measure farms were held by Archibald McNeill and partners (70a 1r 34p), James McNeill and partners (106a 0r 12p plus 2a 2r bog), and John Taylor and partners (107a 0r 20p plus 21a 1r 35p bog). No Glasgow was named as a principal tenant.

The term expired about November 1789. PRONI D3209/1, the Killoquin rent roll and arrears account for 1788–1789, is therefore a priority source for when the Glasgow tenancy began. Direct acreage matching is unsafe without the rent roll and maps because Cunningham and statute measure differ and the 1834 tithe did not necessarily cover the whole townland.

This profile is retained as the working profile for the Robert Glasgow who held 35 acres at Lisnagaver in 1834. The Doonbought, Glenleslie and 1854 will-index records are possible later appearances of that man, not a separately proved identity.

The original Griffith map, sheet 26, confirms that the later Glasgow holdings 24, 25 and 26 were contiguous. The 1861 valuation identifies them as John Glasgow (24), Alexander Glasgow (25) and Thomas Glasgow (26), all under Robert Harvey. Together they measured 63 statute acres, 0 roods and 10 perches.

The apparent numerical match with the 64 acres held by Alexander and Robert in the 1834 tithe is invalid. Tithe Applotment acreage was generally recorded in Irish or Plantation measure, while Griffith used statute measure. Sixty-four Plantation acres would be about 103.7 statute acres. The tithe also normally measured tithable productive land rather than necessarily reproducing the later valuation boundaries.

It is not proof of succession. The tithe gives no parcel numbers or map, and no located lease, rental or assignment names the people who replaced the 1834 occupiers. The map proves only that the later three Glasgow holdings formed one contiguous block. It does not strengthen the identification of the 1834 Lisnagaver Robert with the later Doonbought-Glenleslie Robert. No split should be made unless an overlapping record or incompatible family event is found.

Full land assessment: sources/lisnagaver_land_sequence_2026-08-24.md.