Individual research record
Archibald Glasgow
c. 1769 – 1818-07-22
Glasgow-2304 · 2 mapped associations
At a glance
Identity & family
Tree links organise the family; documentary status still varies.
- Birth
- c. 1769 · Newberry District South Carolina (estimated)
- Death
- 1818-07-22 · Newberry, South Carolina, United States
- Parents
- James GlasgowsupportedMary (Crosier) Glasgowsupported
- Spouses
- Mary Glasgow Spence
- Children
- James GlasgowNaomi GlasgowRachel Keller GlasgowRobert GlasgowSarah Glasgow
- Gender
- Male
- WikiTree
- Glasgow-2304
- Research clusters
- Descendants of James Glasgow (1731)
- Mapped descendants
- 44
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 · 1 conflict. Ordinals retain unnamed children and recognise reused names.
Estimate and relationship notes
- Estimated from the earliest mapped residence record (1800).
- The export reports 2 children but 5 named child profiles are recoverable from this export.
Relationship comparison
Potential parents or duplicates
Compare scored leads with the subject details above—not proof.
Possible fathers5 leads
Possible Father
Robert GlasgowGlasgow-12
- plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Robert Glasgow → Robert Glasgow; Wilson Crossier Glasgow → Robert Glasgow (+6)
- candidate's birth is 41 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); descendant-name recurrence has no independent household, record, migration or specific-locality anchor (score capped at 39); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 41 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- a known child was born within 7 years of the subject (+1)
- known spouse Peggy (Wright) Glasgow had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (21) at the subject's birth (+3)
- candidate's name matches the first dated son Robert Glasgow, the expected father position for a male subject (+4; catalogue rarity 0, Robert in 165 profiles)
- family naming controls: 0 supporting and 1 conflicting known positions (already reflected in naming weight)
- the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Robert Glasgow → Robert Glasgow; Wilson Crossier Glasgow → Robert Glasgow (+6)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Edward +12 (13 public profiles; subject branch: Edward Buchanan Glasgow; candidate branch: Edward Lincoln Glasgow); Eliza +10 (23 public profiles; subject branch: Eliza A Glasgow; candidate branch: Eliza Jane (Glasgow) McNeil, Eliza Jane (Glasgow) Nelson; +2 repetition bonus); Rachel +8 (25 public profiles; subject branch: Rachel Keller; candidate branch: Rachel Ramsey (Glasgow) Graham) (+38 total including +8 multi-name bonus)
Deductions and cautions: a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); descendant-name recurrence has no independent household, record, migration or specific-locality anchor (score capped at 39); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Father
James Glasgow IIGlasgow-1024
- possible 48-year parent-child age gap (+10)
- the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Robert Glasgow → James Glasgow; Wilson Crossier Glasgow → James J Glasgow (+6)
- candidate's birth is 69 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- possible 48-year parent-child age gap (+10)
- candidate's birth is 69 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- known spouse Mary (Harkness) Glasgow had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (44) at the subject's birth (+3)
- 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)
- family naming controls: 0 supporting and 1 conflicting known positions (already reflected in naming weight)
- the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Robert Glasgow → James Glasgow; Wilson Crossier Glasgow → James J Glasgow (+6)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Eliza +8 (23 public profiles; subject branch: Eliza A Glasgow; candidate branch: Eliza Jane (Glasgow) McNeil); Rachel +8 (25 public profiles; subject branch: Rachel Keller; candidate branch: Rachel Ramsey (Glasgow) Graham); Joseph +7 (39 public profiles; subject branch: Joseph P Glasgow; candidate branch: Joseph Glasgow, Joseph Montgomery Glasgow; +4 repetition bonus) (+31 total including +8 multi-name bonus)
Deductions and cautions: a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show 3 lower-scoring possible fathers
Possible Father
Hugh GlasgowGlasgow-540
- plausible 30-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): collateral network, household chronology, naming
- candidate's birth is 51 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 30-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 51 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Archibald +14 (9 public profiles; subject branch: Archibald Glasgow, Archibald C Glasgow; candidate branch: Archibald Glasgow; +2 repetition bonus); Joseph +3 (39 public profiles; subject branch: Joseph P Glasgow; candidate branch: Joseph B Glasgow) (+21 total including +4 multi-name bonus)
- uncommon spouse surnames recur across the subject and candidate branches: Thompson +6 (+6 total)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): collateral network, household chronology, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Father
James GlasgowGlasgow-804
- plausible 34-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate has only broad or undated birth-locality overlap: newberry, south (+6)
- the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Robert Glasgow → James Glasgow; Wilson Crossier Glasgow → James J Glasgow (+6)
a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 34-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 55 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- candidate has only broad or undated birth-locality overlap: newberry, south (+6)
- 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)
- family naming controls: 0 supporting and 1 conflicting known positions (already reflected in naming weight)
- the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Robert Glasgow → James Glasgow; Wilson Crossier Glasgow → James J Glasgow (+6)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Father
James GlasgowGlasgow-3484
- plausible 39-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- known spouse Mary (Barber) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (39) at the subject's birth (+7)
- the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Robert Glasgow → James Glasgow; Wilson Crossier Glasgow → James J Glasgow (+6)
a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 39-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 60 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- known spouse Mary (Barber) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (39) at the subject's birth (+7)
- 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)
- family naming controls: 0 supporting and 1 conflicting known positions (already reflected in naming weight)
- the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Robert Glasgow → James Glasgow; Wilson Crossier Glasgow → James J Glasgow (+6)
Deductions and cautions: a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible mothers5 leads
Possible Mother
Rachel GlasgowGlasgow-1501
- plausible 31-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 52 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- candidate's given name recurs among another recorded child (+3; Rachel occurs in 25 public profiles)
a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; combined direct transcription); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 31-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 52 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- candidate's given name recurs among another recorded child (+3; Rachel occurs in 25 public profiles)
- candidate's sibling and niece/nephew network repeats names in the subject's descendant line (three rarest at most): Archibald +12 (9 public profiles; niece/nephew Archibald Glasgow); Rachel +8 (25 public profiles; niece/nephew Rachel McCrackin Glasgow); George +3 (61 public profiles; niece/nephew George Glasgow) (+23 total)
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; combined direct transcription); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Mother
Mary (Harkness) GlasgowHarkness-1149
- possible 44-year parent-child age gap (+10)
- candidate's birth is 65 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- a candidate spouse matches the first dated son James Glasgow, the expected father position (+3; James in 224 profiles)
a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; combined direct transcription); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- possible 44-year parent-child age gap (+10)
- candidate's birth is 65 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- a candidate spouse matches the first dated son James Glasgow, the expected father position (+3; James in 224 profiles)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Eliza +8 (23 public profiles; subject branch: Eliza A Glasgow; candidate branch: Eliza Jane (Glasgow) McNeil); Rachel +8 (25 public profiles; subject branch: Rachel Keller; candidate branch: Rachel Ramsey (Glasgow) Graham); Joseph +7 (39 public profiles; subject branch: Joseph P Glasgow; candidate branch: Joseph Glasgow, Joseph Montgomery Glasgow; +4 repetition bonus) (+31 total including +8 multi-name bonus)
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; combined direct transcription); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show 3 lower-scoring possible mothers
Possible Mother
Rosannah (Barclay) GlasgowBarclay-56
- the nominal 13-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–23 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 34 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
- a known child was born within 7 years of the subject (+1)
a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; combined direct transcription); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); 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 (15–23 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 34 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
- a known child was born within 7 years of the subject (+1)
- a candidate spouse matches the first dated son Robert Glasgow, the expected father position (+3; Robert in 165 profiles)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Edward +12 (13 public profiles; subject branch: Edward Buchanan Glasgow; candidate branch: Edward Lincoln Glasgow); Eliza +10 (23 public profiles; subject branch: Eliza A Glasgow; candidate branch: Eliza Jane (Glasgow) McNeil, Eliza Jane (Glasgow) Nelson; +2 repetition bonus); Rachel +8 (25 public profiles; subject branch: Rachel Keller; candidate branch: Rachel Ramsey (Glasgow) Graham) (+38 total including +8 multi-name bonus)
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; combined direct transcription); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Mother
Ann Taggard GlasgowGlasgow-1500
- plausible 36-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 57 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- candidate's sibling and niece/nephew network repeats names in the subject's descendant line (three rarest at most): Archibald +12 (9 public profiles; niece/nephew Archibald Glasgow); Rachel +10 (25 public profiles; niece/nephew Rachel McCrackin Glasgow, sibling Rachel Glasgow; +2 repetition bonus); George +3 (61 public profiles; niece/nephew George Glasgow) (+25 total)
a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; combined direct transcription); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 36-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 57 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- candidate's sibling and niece/nephew network repeats names in the subject's descendant line (three rarest at most): Archibald +12 (9 public profiles; niece/nephew Archibald Glasgow); Rachel +10 (25 public profiles; niece/nephew Rachel McCrackin Glasgow, sibling Rachel Glasgow; +2 repetition bonus); George +3 (61 public profiles; niece/nephew George Glasgow) (+25 total)
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; combined direct transcription); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Mother
Sarah (Blair) GlasgowBlair-3693
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): collateral network, household chronology, naming
- the nominal 12-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–32 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 33 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; combined direct transcription); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- the nominal 12-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–32 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 33 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1790), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Archibald +14 (9 public profiles; subject branch: Archibald Glasgow, Archibald C Glasgow; candidate branch: Archibald Glasgow; +2 repetition bonus); Joseph +3 (39 public profiles; subject branch: Joseph P Glasgow; candidate branch: Joseph B Glasgow) (+21 total including +4 multi-name bonus)
- uncommon spouse surnames recur across the subject and candidate branches: Thompson +6 (+6 total)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): collateral network, household chronology, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; combined direct transcription); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); 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
James Glasgow's will and the 1817 equity case strongly support Archibald as a son of James and Mary. Gilders Creek gravestones name three children of Archibald and Mary: James Glasgow-3981 (1806-1824), Neomi Glasgow-3979 (1797-1831), and Rachel Glasgow-3980 (1801-1855), wife of Isaac Keller. Their parentage is direct gravestone evidence rather than merely inherited tree structure.
The 1818 estate index names Mary Glasgow as administrator of Archibald's estate, which strongly corroborates the household but does not itself print “wife.” Sarah Glasgow-3042's current father link is tree-only; her stone names her spouse, not her parents.
Robert Glasgow-2769, later of Tennessee, is now the leading named candidate for an additional son. Archibald's 1800 Newberry household contained exactly one male under ten. None of the three gravestone-proved children fills that slot: Neomi was female, Rachel was born in 1801 and James in 1806. Robert's combined census evidence places his birth about 1790, within the 1800 category if he was born after the census date or if his later reported age was approximate. This is a genuine household fit, not proof of parentage.
The fit has one important weakness. The only adult female in Archibald's 1800 household was aged 16–25. If she was Mary and Robert was born close to 1790, she would have been at the extreme young end—or too young—to be his mother. A slightly later birth for Robert, a previous wife, a step-relationship, an age error, or a different identity for the boy could explain the return. Archibald should therefore be treated as a possible father, not attached as certain.
Life and record timelineChronological mapped occurrences and their underlying sources.2 records
Head of household with one boy under ten
Newberry District South Carolina
The household contained one male under 10, one male 26–44, four females under 10, one female 16–25 and two enslaved people; only Archibald was named.
Source and mapping detail
Candidate matched on record type, year, place; inspect before treating it as the underlying record.
Precision: District-level representative point
Head of household indexed as Archald Glasgow
The public index confirms Archibald in Newberry; the original age columns remain uninspected.
Source and mapping detail
1810 United States census: Archald Glasgow, Newberry, South Carolina
Candidate matched on record type, year, place; inspect before treating it as the underlying record.
Precision: District-level representative point
Evidence assessmentWhat is supported, uncertain or disputed in the current case model.17 claims
Documented or strongly supported
Archibald Glasgow was recorded in Newberry District South Carolina (1800).
Head of household with one boy under ten
Archibald Glasgow was recorded in Newberry South Carolina (1810).
Head of household indexed as Archald Glasgow
Archibald Glasgow was son of James Glasgow
James's will and the equity complaint both list Archibald among James's children.
Archibald Glasgow was son of Mary (Crosier) Glasgow
The equity complaint calls James the father of the complainants and Mary his widow; Robert's answer calls Mary his mother and admits the listed siblings.
Glasgow-2304 and a Mary Glasgow had children James (1806-1824), Neomi (1797-1831), and Rachel Glasgow Keller (1801-1855).
Three Gilders Creek inscriptions independently name Archibald and Mary as parents; Rachel's also names husband Isaac Keller.
Working hypotheses and conflicts
Sarah Glasgow was possible daughter of Archibald Glasgow
Sarah's stone proves her marriage to James but does not name a parent. Other stones name three children of Archibald and Mary, none Sarah. The present father attachment therefore remains unproved.
Robert Glasgow was possible son of Archibald Glasgow
Archibald's 1800 Newberry household has exactly one male under 10, not accounted for by his three gravestone-proved children. Robert's census-derived birth about 1790 and South Carolina origin fit. The schedule names no child, and its only adult female aged 16–25 makes maternity by Archibald's known wife chronologically tight.
The present Glasgow-3042 daughter relationship to Glasgow-2304 is unproved.
Sarah's cemetery inscription identifies husband James but no parent; the estate packet has not been inspected.
Research questionsOpen problems, missing bridges and the next records to inspect.1 open
Which children of Archibald and Mary are directly supported?
Three children are strongly supported by stones; Sarah Glasgow-3042 remains tree-only.
Missing bridge: Three children are strongly supported by stones; Sarah Glasgow-3042 remains tree-only.
Next records to inspect
- Newberry estate 647 box 27 package 57 — Prove Mary's capacity and name all heirs, including or excluding Sarah Glasgow-3042.
- Newberry guardianship 646 box 27 package 57 — Determine which deceased Glasgow parent and children the guardianship concerns.
- census — 1810 United States census, Newberry, South Carolina, entry for Archald Glasgow; Ancestry record 585568 (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/7613/records/585568), image 4433429_00206.
Sources and provenanceStructured citations and source-quality classifications.17 sources
Source or provenance: quality describes the record layer, not every conclusion drawn from it.
- derivative Newberry County, South Carolina, Will Book A, p. 194, will of James Glasgow, proved 1793; transcription (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_JGlasgowWill.html).
- derivative Newberry District, South Carolina, Glasgow family equity complaint, 1817; transcription (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_Complaint.html).
- derivative "United States Census, 1800," Archibald Glasgow household, Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 75, NARA microfilm publication M32, roll 50; FamilySearch record XHRC-7BG (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHRC-7BG) and public household transcription (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/1800nbycensusG.htm).
- unknown 1810 United States census, Newberry, South Carolina, entry for Archald Glasgow; Ancestry record 585568 (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/7613/records/585568), image 4433429_00206.
- unknown Gilders Creek Cemetery survey and photographs (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm), Newberry County, South Carolina, entries for Archibald and the Glasgow family.
- unknown , memorial for Archibald Glasgow.
- derivative Newberry County estate index (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm), 1818 entry for Archibald Glasgow, Mary Glasgow administrator, estate 647, box 27, package 57.
- unknown Find a Grave memorial 33531779 (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33531779/mary-glasgow), Mary Spence Glasgow.
- unknown Find a Grave memorial 33531784 (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33531784/neomi-glasgow), Neomi Glasgow.
- unknown Find a Grave memorial 33531790 (), Sarah Glasgow
- tree_only FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow Surname Project, Y-DNA results (), kits B580327 and 1002232; project-admin comparison supplied August 2026
- derivative 1800 United States census: Archibald Glasgow household, Newberry District
- derivative 1810 United States census: Archald Glasgow, Newberry, South Carolina
- derivative James's will
- unknown Controlled relationship assessment
- unknown https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm
- unknown https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm
Technical profile and raw captureDataset metadata, machine dossier and captured WikiTree biography.Advanced
WikiTree profile information
Glasgow-2304
Archibald Glasgow
Updated 2026-08-19
Dataset: ONT_Glasco_2026-08-18T16_05.json · generated 2026-08-20
WikiTree biography, citations and relationship snapshot
Glasgow-2304 was captured 2026-08-19T09:47:48+00:00; WikiTree profile revision 2026-08-19.
Profile location claims
| Event | Date | Location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| death | — | Newberry, South Carolina, United States | WikiTree profile field |
Immediate relationship snapshot
| Relationship | Person | WikiTree ID | Dates and places returned |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parents | James Glasgow | Glasgow-1144 | 1731-05-24 · Kilwaughter, Larne, County Antrim, Ireland · 1793-00-00 · Newberry, South Carolina |
| Parents | Mary Glasgow | Crosier-512 | 1737-00-00 · Ireland · 1822-10-10 · Newberry, South Carolina, United States |
| Children | Robert Glasgow | Glasgow-2769 | 1790-00-00 · South Carolina, USA · 1860-00-00 · Giles County, TN, USA |
| Children | Sarah Glasgow | Glasgow-3042 | 1794-00-00 · 1847-01-24 · South Carolina, United States |
| Children | Naomi Glasgow | Glasgow-3979 | 1797-00-00 · 1831-00-00 |
| Children | Rachel Keller | Glasgow-3980 | 1801-00-00 · 1855-00-00 |
| Children | James Glasgow | Glasgow-3981 | 1806-00-00 · 1824-00-00 |
| Siblings | John Glasgow | Glasgow-1146 | 1756-00-00 · County Antrim, Ireland · 1826-12-11 · Gilder's Creek, Newberry Co., S Carolina |
| Siblings | Robert Glasgow | Glasgow-1983 | 1763-00-00 · Ireland · 1835-01-17 · Newberry, South Carolina, United States |
| Siblings | Wilson Crossier Glasgow | Glasgow-1982 | 1772-00-00 · Kilwaughter, Larne, County Antrim, Ireland · 1817-09-11 · Newberry, South Carolina, United States |
| Siblings | Margaret Kinard | Glasgow-3977 | 1773-00-00 · 0000-00-00 |
| Siblings | Rachel McCrackin | Glasgow-3978 | 1775-00-00 · 0000-00-00 |
| Spouses | Mary Glasgow | Spence-8850 | 1773-00-00 · 1844-00-00 · 0000-00-00 |
Profile categories
Estimated_Birth_Date Glasgow Name Study Glasgow_Name_Study
Record-bearing passages
- Biography Archibald Glasgow was born about 1769. His birthplace has not been established. He was a son of James Glasgow and Mary Crosier. James's will named Archibald among his sons, and the later family equity proceedings again placed Archibald among the children of James and his widow Mary. Newberry County, South Carolina, Will Book A, p. 194, will of James Glasgow, proved 1793; transcription (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_JGlasgowWill.html). Newberry District, South Carolina, Glasgow family equity complaint, 1817; transcription (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_Complaint.html).
- In 1800 Archibald was enumerated in Newberry District, South Carolina. His household contained one male under ten, one male aged 26–44, four females under ten, one female aged 16–25 and two enslaved people. "United States Census, 1800," Archibald Glasgow household, Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 75, NARA microfilm publication M32, roll 50; FamilySearch record XHRC-7BG (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHRC-7BG) and public household transcription (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/1800nbycensusG.htm). The schedule named only Archibald, so the identities and relationships of the other household members are not stated.
- The 1810 census again records him in Newberry, indexed as Archald Glasgow. 1810 United States census, Newberry, South Carolina, entry for Archald Glasgow; Ancestry record 585568 (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/7613/records/585568), image 4433429_00206.
- Archibald died on 22 July 1818, aged 49, and was buried in Gilders Creek Cemetery in Newberry County. Gilders Creek Cemetery survey and photographs (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm), Newberry County, South Carolina, entries for Archibald and the Glasgow family. , memorial for Archibald Glasgow. The Newberry estate index identifies Mary Glasgow as administrator of his estate, numbered 647 in box 27, package 57. Newberry County estate index (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm), 1818 entry for Archibald Glasgow, Mary Glasgow administrator, estate 647, box 27, package 57. Research Notes Wife and children The cemetery inscriptions directly name three children of Archibald and Mary. They do not give Mary's maiden surname. A Find a Grave memorial identifies her as Mary Spence Glasgow. Find a Grave memorial 33531779 (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33531779/mary-glasgow), Mary Spence Glasgow. The memorial is a useful identity lead, but the name Spence is not visible in the photographed Glasgow inscriptions and has not yet been confirmed by a marriage or probate record.
- {| class="wikitable sortable" style="padding: 5px; width:100%;" |+ Children and candidates |- ! style="background-color:#E1F0B4;" | Person ! style="background-color:#E1F0B4;" | Assessment ! style="background-color:#E1F0B4;" | Evidence |- | Neomi Glasgow, about 1797–1831 || Proved daughter || Her inscription calls her a daughter of Archibald and Mary. Find a Grave memorial 33531784 (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33531784/neomi-glasgow), Neomi Glasgow. |- | Rachel (Glasgow) Keller, 1801–1855 || Proved daughter || Her inscription calls her a daughter of Archibald and Mary and consort of Isaac Keller. |- | James Glasgow, 1806–1824 || Proved son || His inscription calls him a son of Archibald and Mary. |- | Sarah Glasgow, about 1793–1847 || Uncertain daughter || Sarah's own inscription identifies her husband but not her parents. Her present attachment remains a working hypothesis. Find a Grave memorial 33531790 (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33531790/sarah-glasgow), Sarah Glasgow. |- | Robert Glasgow, born about 1790 || Possible son; not attached || Archibald's 1800 household had one unidentified boy under ten. Robert's estimated age and South Carolina origin fit that slot, but no record names him as Archibald's son. |}
- The possible identification of Robert has a chronological caution. The only adult female in Archibald's 1800 household was aged 16–25. If she was Mary and Robert was born close to 1790, she would have been at the extreme young end—or too young—to be his mother. Robert may have been born later than the 1850 census implies; Archibald may have had an earlier wife; the boy may have been another relative; or one of the reported ages may be wrong.
- Archibald's original estate packet and the household columns of the 1810 census are the most likely records to confirm or exclude Robert. Until a kinship record is found, Robert remains unattached and Archibald's presently proved children are Neomi, Rachel and James. Sources
Profile source citations
- Newberry County, South Carolina, Will Book A, p. 194, will of James Glasgow, proved 1793; transcription (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_JGlasgowWill.html). source link 1
- Newberry District, South Carolina, Glasgow family equity complaint, 1817; transcription (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_Complaint.html). source link 1
- "United States Census, 1800," Archibald Glasgow household, Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 75, NARA microfilm publication M32, roll 50; FamilySearch record XHRC-7BG (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHRC-7BG) and public household transcription (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/1800nbycensusG.htm). source link 1 source link 2
- 1810 United States census, Newberry, South Carolina, entry for Archald Glasgow; Ancestry record 585568 (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/7613/records/585568), image 4433429_00206. source link 1
- Gilders Creek Cemetery survey and photographs (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm), Newberry County, South Carolina, entries for Archibald and the Glasgow family. source link 1
- , memorial for Archibald Glasgow.
- Newberry County estate index (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm), 1818 entry for Archibald Glasgow, Mary Glasgow administrator, estate 647, box 27, package 57. source link 1
- Find a Grave memorial 33531779 (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33531779/mary-glasgow), Mary Spence Glasgow. source link 1
- Find a Grave memorial 33531784 (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33531784/neomi-glasgow), Neomi Glasgow. source link 1
- |- | James Glasgow, 1806–1824 || Proved son || His inscription calls him a son of Archibald and Mary. |- | Sarah Glasgow, about 1793–1847 || Uncertain daughter || Sarah's own inscription identifies her husband but not her parents. Her present attachment remains a working hypothesis. Find a Grave memorial 33531790 (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33531790/sarah-glasgow), Sarah Glasgow. source link 1
- |} The possible identification of Robert has a chronological caution. The only adult female in Archibald's 1800 household was aged 16–25. If she was Mary and Robert was born close to 1790, she would have been at the extreme young end—or too young—to be his mother. Robert may have been born later than the 1850 census implies; Archibald may have had an earlier wife; the boy may have been another relative; or one of the reported ages may be wrong. Robert's proposed son James J Glasgow is the documented ancestor of Big Y kit 1002232, R-FT20271. Alexander Glasgow's Antrim line is the kit's closest reported basal FT20271 match at Y-111, genetic distance 3. FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow Surname Project, Y-DNA results (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Glasgow?iframe=ydna-results-overview), kits B580327 and 1002232; project-admin comparison supplied August 2026. source link 1
Full captured biography text
Biography
Archibald Glasgow was born about 1769. His birthplace has not been established. He was a son of James Glasgow and Mary Crosier. James's will named Archibald among his sons, and the later family equity proceedings again placed Archibald among the children of James and his widow Mary. Newberry County, South Carolina, Will Book A, p. 194, will of James Glasgow, proved 1793; transcription (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_JGlasgowWill.html). Newberry District, South Carolina, Glasgow family equity complaint, 1817; transcription (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_Complaint.html).
In 1800 Archibald was enumerated in Newberry District, South Carolina. His household contained one male under ten, one male aged 26–44, four females under ten, one female aged 16–25 and two enslaved people. "United States Census, 1800," Archibald Glasgow household, Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 75, NARA microfilm publication M32, roll 50; FamilySearch record XHRC-7BG (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHRC-7BG) and public household transcription (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/1800nbycensusG.htm). The schedule named only Archibald, so the identities and relationships of the other household members are not stated.
The 1810 census again records him in Newberry, indexed as Archald Glasgow. 1810 United States census, Newberry, South Carolina, entry for Archald Glasgow; Ancestry record 585568 (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/7613/records/585568), image 4433429_00206.
Archibald died on 22 July 1818, aged 49, and was buried in Gilders Creek Cemetery in Newberry County. Gilders Creek Cemetery survey and photographs (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm), Newberry County, South Carolina, entries for Archibald and the Glasgow family. , memorial for Archibald Glasgow. The Newberry estate index identifies Mary Glasgow as administrator of his estate, numbered 647 in box 27, package 57. Newberry County estate index (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm), 1818 entry for Archibald Glasgow, Mary Glasgow administrator, estate 647, box 27, package 57.
Research Notes
Wife and children
The cemetery inscriptions directly name three children of Archibald and Mary. They do not give Mary's maiden surname. A Find a Grave memorial identifies her as Mary Spence Glasgow. Find a Grave memorial 33531779 (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33531779/mary-glasgow), Mary Spence Glasgow. The memorial is a useful identity lead, but the name Spence is not visible in the photographed Glasgow inscriptions and has not yet been confirmed by a marriage or probate record.
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="padding: 5px; width:100%;"
|+ Children and candidates
|-
! style="background-color:#E1F0B4;" | Person
! style="background-color:#E1F0B4;" | Assessment
! style="background-color:#E1F0B4;" | Evidence
|-
| Neomi Glasgow, about 1797–1831 || Proved daughter || Her inscription calls her a daughter of Archibald and Mary. Find a Grave memorial 33531784 (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33531784/neomi-glasgow), Neomi Glasgow.
|-
| Rachel (Glasgow) Keller, 1801–1855 || Proved daughter || Her inscription calls her a daughter of Archibald and Mary and consort of Isaac Keller.
|-
| James Glasgow, 1806–1824 || Proved son || His inscription calls him a son of Archibald and Mary.
|-
| Sarah Glasgow, about 1793–1847 || Uncertain daughter || Sarah's own inscription identifies her husband but not her parents. Her present attachment remains a working hypothesis. Find a Grave memorial 33531790 (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33531790/sarah-glasgow), Sarah Glasgow.
|-
| Robert Glasgow, born about 1790 || Possible son; not attached || Archibald's 1800 household had one unidentified boy under ten. Robert's estimated age and South Carolina origin fit that slot, but no record names him as Archibald's son.
|}
The possible identification of Robert has a chronological caution. The only adult female in Archibald's 1800 household was aged 16–25. If she was Mary and Robert was born close to 1790, she would have been at the extreme young end—or too young—to be his mother. Robert may have been born later than the 1850 census implies; Archibald may have had an earlier wife; the boy may have been another relative; or one of the reported ages may be wrong.
Robert's proposed son James J Glasgow is the documented ancestor of Big Y kit 1002232, R-FT20271. Alexander Glasgow's Antrim line is the kit's closest reported basal FT20271 match at Y-111, genetic distance 3. FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow Surname Project, Y-DNA results (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Glasgow?iframe=ydna-results-overview), kits B580327 and 1002232; project-admin comparison supplied August 2026. This supports a shared paternal ancestor somewhere above the tested lines, but it cannot prove Robert's father or connect Archibald to Alexander's line.
Archibald's original estate packet and the household columns of the 1810 census are the most likely records to confirm or exclude Robert. Until a kinship record is found, Robert remains unattached and Archibald's presently proved children are Neomi, Rachel and James.
SourcesRaw WikiTree biography markup
{{Estimated Date}}
[[Category:Glasgow Name Study]]
== Biography ==
'''Archibald Glasgow''' was born about 1769. His birthplace has not been established. He was a son of [[Glasgow-1144|James Glasgow]] and [[Crosier-512|Mary Crosier]]. James's will named Archibald among his sons, and the later family equity proceedings again placed Archibald among the children of James and his widow Mary.<ref name="JamesWill">Newberry County, South Carolina, Will Book A, p. 194, will of James Glasgow, proved 1793; [https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_JGlasgowWill.html transcription].</ref><ref name="Equity">Newberry District, South Carolina, Glasgow family equity complaint, 1817; [https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_Complaint.html transcription].</ref>
In 1800 Archibald was enumerated in Newberry District, South Carolina. His household contained one male under ten, one male aged 26–44, four females under ten, one female aged 16–25 and two enslaved people.<ref name="Census1800">"United States Census, 1800," Archibald Glasgow household, Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 75, NARA microfilm publication M32, roll 50; [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHRC-7BG FamilySearch record XHRC-7BG] and [https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/1800nbycensusG.htm public household transcription].</ref> The schedule named only Archibald, so the identities and relationships of the other household members are not stated.
The 1810 census again records him in Newberry, indexed as ''Archald Glasgow''.<ref name="Census1810">1810 United States census, Newberry, South Carolina, entry for ''Archald Glasgow''; [https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/7613/records/585568 Ancestry record 585568], image 4433429_00206.</ref>
Archibald died on 22 July 1818, aged 49, and was buried in Gilders Creek Cemetery in Newberry County.<ref name="Cemetery">[https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm Gilders Creek Cemetery survey and photographs], Newberry County, South Carolina, entries for Archibald and the Glasgow family.</ref><ref name="ArchibaldFindAGrave">{{FindAGrave|33531767}}, memorial for Archibald Glasgow.</ref> The Newberry estate index identifies Mary Glasgow as administrator of his estate, numbered 647 in box 27, package 57.<ref name="Estate">[https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm Newberry County estate index], 1818 entry for Archibald Glasgow, Mary Glasgow administrator, estate 647, box 27, package 57.</ref>
== Research Notes ==
=== Wife and children ===
The cemetery inscriptions directly name three children of Archibald and Mary. They do not give Mary's maiden surname. A Find a Grave memorial identifies her as '''Mary Spence Glasgow'''.<ref name="MaryFindAGrave">[https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33531779/mary-glasgow Find a Grave memorial 33531779], Mary Spence Glasgow.</ref> The memorial is a useful identity lead, but the name ''Spence'' is not visible in the photographed Glasgow inscriptions and has not yet been confirmed by a marriage or probate record.
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="padding: 5px; width:100%;"
|+ '''Children and candidates'''
|-
! style="background-color:#E1F0B4;" | Person
! style="background-color:#E1F0B4;" | Assessment
! style="background-color:#E1F0B4;" | Evidence
|-
| [[Glasgow-3979|Neomi Glasgow]], about 1797–1831 || Proved daughter || Her inscription calls her a daughter of Archibald and Mary.<ref name="Cemetery" /><ref name="NeomiFindAGrave">[https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33531784/neomi-glasgow Find a Grave memorial 33531784], Neomi Glasgow.</ref>
|-
| [[Glasgow-3980|Rachel (Glasgow) Keller]], 1801–1855 || Proved daughter || Her inscription calls her a daughter of Archibald and Mary and consort of Isaac Keller.<ref name="Cemetery" />
|-
| [[Glasgow-3981|James Glasgow]], 1806–1824 || Proved son || His inscription calls him a son of Archibald and Mary.<ref name="Cemetery" />
|-
| [[Glasgow-3042|Sarah Glasgow]], about 1793–1847 || Uncertain daughter || Sarah's own inscription identifies her husband but not her parents. Her present attachment remains a working hypothesis.<ref name="Cemetery" /><ref name="SarahFindAGrave">[https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33531790/sarah-glasgow Find a Grave memorial 33531790], Sarah Glasgow.</ref>
|-
| [[Glasgow-2769|Robert Glasgow]], born about 1790 || Possible son; not attached || Archibald's 1800 household had one unidentified boy under ten. Robert's estimated age and South Carolina origin fit that slot, but no record names him as Archibald's son.<ref name="Census1800" />
|}
The possible identification of Robert has a chronological caution. The only adult female in Archibald's 1800 household was aged 16–25. If she was Mary and Robert was born close to 1790, she would have been at the extreme young end—or too young—to be his mother. Robert may have been born later than the 1850 census implies; Archibald may have had an earlier wife; the boy may have been another relative; or one of the reported ages may be wrong.
Robert's proposed son [[Glasgow-2738|James J Glasgow]] is the documented ancestor of Big Y kit 1002232, R-FT20271. [[Glasgow-951|Alexander Glasgow]]'s Antrim line is the kit's closest reported basal FT20271 match at Y-111, genetic distance 3.<ref name="FTDNA">[https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Glasgow?iframe=ydna-results-overview FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow Surname Project, Y-DNA results], kits B580327 and 1002232; project-admin comparison supplied August 2026.</ref> This supports a shared paternal ancestor somewhere above the tested lines, but it cannot prove Robert's father or connect Archibald to Alexander's line.
Archibald's original estate packet and the household columns of the 1810 census are the most likely records to confirm or exclude Robert. Until a kinship record is found, Robert remains unattached and Archibald's presently proved children are Neomi, Rachel and James.
== Sources ==
<references />