Glasgow Surname Project

Individual research record

James Glasgow

1780 – before 1837

Glasgow-2104 · 1 mapped association

Harford, Maryland, United StatesDeath place unknown

At a glance

Identity & family

Tree links organise the family; documentary status still varies.

1Mapped records
6Close relations
2Evidence items
12Candidate leads
Birth
1780 · Harford, Maryland, United States
Death
before 1837 · Place not recorded
Parents
Robert GlasgowunmarkedApphia (Moores) Glasgowunmarked
Spouses
Not recorded
Children
Deliverance Hanna (Glasgow) LeeGeorge Robert GlasgowJames GlasgowSusanna Pannell (Glasgow) Archer
Gender
Male
WikiTree
Glasgow-2104
Research clusters
Worldwide One-Tree profile leads
Mapped descendants
4

Comparison context

These child positions and checks are the subject details used to rank possible parents below.

Naming sequence used by the parentage model

Paternal grandfather positionJames Glasgow (1818)
Maternal grandfather positionGeorge Robert Glasgow (1822)
Maternal grandmother positionSusanna Pannell (Glasgow) Archer (1812)
Paternal grandmother positionDeliverance Hanna (Glasgow) Lee (1814)

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.

Higher-signal leadReview carefullyWeak lead

Possible fathers5 leads

Automated fit16/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1758–1789Generation22 years age gapRecorded placesCecil, Maryland · Cecil, Maryland.Independent clue breadth · 5Age · Broad Geography · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Sex-Aware Ordered Naming · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 54 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • weak broad-area overlap: maryland (+1; not a locality match)

a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 54 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • weak broad-area overlap: maryland (+1; not a locality match)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • candidate and subject share the given name James (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 224 public profiles)
  • candidate's name matches the first dated son James Glasgow, the expected father position for a male subject (+4; catalogue rarity 0, James in 224 profiles)

Deductions and cautions: a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15)

Automated fit14/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1753–?Generation27 years age gapRecorded placesDublinIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 27-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • known spouse Ann (Duffy) Glasco had a plausible maternal age (24) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate's birth is 59 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 27-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 59 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • known spouse Ann (Duffy) Glasco had a plausible maternal age (24) at the subject's birth (+7)

Deductions and cautions: a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show 3 lower-scoring possible fathers
Automated fit13/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1745–?Generation35 years age gapRecorded placesVirginiaIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Household · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 35-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 67 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 3 years of the subject (+3)

a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 35-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 67 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • a known child was born within 3 years of the subject (+3)
  • known spouse Mary (Stephenson) Glasgow had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (31) at the subject's birth (+3)

Deductions and cautions: a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Automated fit13/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1735–1819Generation45 years age gapRecorded placesMaryland · Tennessee, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 8Age · Broad Geography · Contemporaneous Household Conflict · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Sex-Aware Ordered Naming · Spouse · Spouse-Specific Child Window · Two-GenerationSame-spouse child windowPhereby (Sheppard) GlasgowCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 45-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • known spouse Phereby (Sheppard) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (32) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate's birth is 77 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); candidate's household recorded James Glasgow in North Carolina, United States within 4 years of the subject (−12; no contemporaneous child is indexed in the subject's locality); candidate already has another child named James Glasgow (Glasgow-2492) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 45-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 77 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • weak broad-area overlap: maryland (+1; not a locality match)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1771–1790) (+6; other parent Phereby (Sheppard) Glasgow)
  • known spouse Phereby (Sheppard) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (32) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate and subject share the given name James (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 224 public profiles)
  • candidate's name matches the first dated son James Glasgow, the expected father position for a male subject (+4; catalogue rarity 0, James in 224 profiles)

Deductions and cautions: a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); candidate's household recorded James Glasgow in North Carolina, United States within 4 years of the subject (−12; no contemporaneous child is indexed in the subject's locality); candidate already has another child named James Glasgow (Glasgow-2492) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

Automated fit9/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1749–1834Generation31 years age gapRecorded placesCecil County, Maryland · Millersburg, Holmes County, Ohio, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Broad Geography · Household · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 31-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 63 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 5 years of the subject (+1)

a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 31-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 63 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • weak broad-area overlap: maryland (+1; not a locality match)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • a known child was born within 5 years of the subject (+1)

Deductions and cautions: a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15)

Possible mothers5 leads

Automated fit11/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1749–?Generation31 years age gapRecorded placesMarylandIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Broad Geography · Household · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 31-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 63 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 3 years of the subject (+3)

a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 31-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 63 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • weak broad-area overlap: maryland (+1; not a locality match)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • a known child was born within 3 years of the subject (+3)

Deductions and cautions: a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15)

Automated fit8/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1762–1857Generation18 years age gapRecorded placesCecil County, Maryland · Pennsylvania, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Broad Geography · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 18-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 50 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • weak broad-area overlap: maryland (+1; not a locality match)

a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 18-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 50 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • weak broad-area overlap: maryland (+1; not a locality match)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

Deductions and cautions: a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15)

Show 3 lower-scoring possible mothers
Automated fit8/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1753–1818Generation27 years age gapRecorded placesMaryland · Pittsboro, Chatham, North Carolina, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Broad Geography · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 27-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 59 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • weak broad-area overlap: maryland (+1; not a locality match)

a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 27-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 59 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • weak broad-area overlap: maryland (+1; not a locality match)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

Deductions and cautions: a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15)

Automated fit8/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1750–1816Generation30 years age gapRecorded placesCecil, Maryland, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Broad Geography · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 30-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 62 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • weak broad-area overlap: maryland (+1; not a locality match)

a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 30-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 62 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • weak broad-area overlap: maryland (+1; not a locality match)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

Deductions and cautions: a different mother is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15)

Automated fit7/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1760–?Generation20 years age gapRecorded placesLocation not supplied — profile holding pointIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 52 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), 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); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 52 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

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)

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.

Same-name candidate

James GlasgowGlasgow-3130

Automated fit42/100
Similar Person
Dates1770–?PlacesScotlandParent comparisonNo shared parent is indexed
Why it may fit
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 10 (+10)
  • matching child name: James Glasgow

No indexed conflict

Full comparison detail
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 10 (+10)
  • matching child name: James Glasgow

Conflicts: No indexed conflict

Same-name candidate

James GlasgowGlasgow-1572

Automated fit37/100
Similar Person
Dates1774–1817PlacesKilbirnie, Ayrshire, Scotland → Kilbirnie, Ayrshire, Scotland, United KingdomParent comparisonNo shared parent is indexed
Why it may fit
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 6 (+10)
  • matching child name: James Glasgow

unassessed father attachments differ (−5)

Full comparison detail
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 6 (+10)
  • matching child name: James Glasgow

Conflicts: unassessed father attachments differ (−5)

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

Life and record timelineChronological mapped occurrences and their underlying sources.1 record
b. 1780

Profile-stated birthplace: Harford, Maryland, United States

Harford, Maryland, United States

One-Tree export profile fields are search leads, not sources; relationships are shown only where the export supplies parent links.

One-Tree profile leadunknown
Source and mapping detail

WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-2104

No sufficiently specific citation match found.

Precision: Country-centre fallback for profile locality

Evidence assessmentWhat is supported, uncertain or disputed in the current case model.8 claims
1Tree Only
1Unknown

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.

Research questionsOpen problems, missing bridges and the next records to inspect.0 open

No formal open question is recorded for this person.

Sources and provenanceStructured citations and source-quality classifications.2 sources

Source or provenance: quality describes the record layer, not every conclusion drawn from it.

  1. unknown Baltimore Gazette & Daily Advertiser, Friday, 23 June 1837, Volume 87, Issue 14465, Page 4, Column 5. Image found on
  2. tree_only WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-2104
Technical profile and raw captureDataset metadata, machine dossier and captured WikiTree biography.Advanced

WikiTree profile information

Dataset: ONT_Glasco_2026-08-18T16_05.json · generated 2026-08-20

Machine-readable dossier

WikiTree biography, citations and relationship snapshot

Glasgow-2104 was captured 2026-08-07T09:54:35+00:00; WikiTree profile revision 2021-12-25.

Profile location claims

EventDateLocationStatus
birthHarford, Maryland, United StatesWikiTree profile field

Immediate relationship snapshot

RelationshipPersonWikiTree IDDates and places returned
ParentsRobert GlasgowGlasgow-3951750-00-00 · 1800-00-00
ParentsApphia GlasgowMoores-2841757-00-00 · Harford (then Baltimore) County, Maryland · 1791-00-00 · Harford County, Maryland
ChildrenSusanna Pannell ArcherGlasgow-21061812-03-07 · Harford, Maryland, United States · 1888-12-10
ChildrenDeliverance Hanna LeeGlasgow-1991814-07-07 · Harford, Maryland, United States · 1890-04-10
ChildrenJames GlasgowGlasgow-21071818-00-00 · Harford, Maryland, United States · 1887-09-03
ChildrenGeorge Robert GlasgowGlasgow-21051822-05-13 · Harford, Maryland, United States · 1894-03-09
SiblingsElizabeth ClendeninGlasgow-21031780-00-00 · Harford, Maryland, United States · 0000-00-00

Record-bearing passages

  • Biography James is named as the son of Robert and Apphia (Moores) Glasgow in an 1837 court notice in the Baltimore Gazette & Daily Advertiser. Baltimore Gazette & Daily Advertiser, Friday, 23 June 1837, Volume 87, Issue 14465, Page 4, Column 5. Image found on The notice says that James had died, leaving these children:
  • (Based on the dates for the children, they may have been minors at the time of death but were adults by the time of that newspaper notice.) Sources

Profile source citations

  1. Baltimore Gazette & Daily Advertiser, Friday, 23 June 1837, Volume 87, Issue 14465, Page 4, Column 5. Image found on
Full captured biography text
Biography
James is named as the son of Robert and Apphia (Moores) Glasgow in an 1837 court notice in the Baltimore Gazette & Daily Advertiser. Baltimore Gazette & Daily Advertiser, Friday, 23 June 1837, Volume 87, Issue 14465, Page 4, Column 5. Image found on The notice says that James had died, leaving these children:

* Susanna Pannell Glasgow, adult
* James Glasgow, minor
* Deliverance Hanna Glasgow, minor
* George Robert Glasgow, minor

(Based on the dates for the children, they may have been minors at the time of death but were adults by the time of that newspaper notice.)
Sources
Raw WikiTree biography markup
== Biography ==
James is named as the son of Robert and Apphia (Moores) Glasgow in an 1837 court notice in the Baltimore Gazette & Daily Advertiser.<ref>Baltimore Gazette & Daily Advertiser, Friday, 23 June 1837,  Volume 87, Issue 14465, Page 4, Column 5. Image found on {{FindAGrave|105585399|sameas="no"}}</ref> The notice says that James had died, leaving these children:

* Susanna Pannell Glasgow, adult
* James Glasgow, minor
* Deliverance Hanna Glasgow, minor
* George Robert Glasgow, minor

(Based on the dates for the children, they may have been minors at the time of death but were adults by the time of that newspaper notice.)

== Sources ==
<references />