Glasgow Surname Project

Individual research record

William Glasgow

c. 1670 – ?

Glasgow-2731 · 1 mapped association

Roxburghshire, Scotland→Death place unknown
View on mapOpen WikiTreeCompareReport a correction

At a glance

Identity & family

Tree links organise the family; documentary status still varies.

1Mapped records
2Close relations
4Evidence items
12Candidate leads
Birth
c. 1670 · Roxburghshire, Scotland
Death
Not recorded · Place not recorded
Parents
John Glasgowunmarked
Spouses
Not recorded
Children
Margaret Glasgow
Gender
Male
WikiTree
Glasgow-2731
Research clusters
Scotland One-Tree profile leads
Mapped descendants
1

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 positionNot identifiable from dated child profiles
Maternal grandfather positionNot identifiable from dated child profiles
Maternal grandmother positionMargaret Glasgow (1692)
Paternal grandmother positionNot identifiable from dated child profiles

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 fit7/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1650–?Generation20 years age gapRecorded placesNorfolk, VirginiaIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 42 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), 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 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 42 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

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 fit7/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1648–1690Generation22 years age gapRecorded placesLower Parish, Lancaster, Virginia · Carrituck, North CarolinaIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), 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 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

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 fit7/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1637–1700Generation33 years age gapRecorded placesAccomack, VirginiaIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 33-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 55 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), 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 33-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 55 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

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 fit4/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1630–?Generation40 years age gapRecorded placesCampbeltown, Argyll, Scotland · Campbeltown — ArgyllIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 40-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • known spouse Grizel (Dunlop) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (30) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate's birth is 62 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 40-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 62 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • known spouse Grizel (Dunlop) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (30) at the subject's birth (+7)

Deductions and cautions: a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10)

Automated fit1/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1648–?Generation22 years age gapRecorded placesGlasgow, Lanarkshire, Scotland · GlasgowIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • candidate and subject share the given name William (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 223 public profiles)

Deductions and cautions: a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10)

Possible mothers5 leads

Automated fit22/100
Chronology-Only Fallback
Dates1651–?Generation19 years age gapRecorded placesVirginia · Currituck, North CarolinaIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 19-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 41 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 19-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 41 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

Deductions and cautions: locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Automated fit22/100
Chronology-Only Fallback
Dates1640–?Generation30 years age gapRecorded placesEdinburghIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 30-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 52 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 30-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 52 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

Deductions and cautions: locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show 3 lower-scoring possible mothers
Automated fit22/100
Chronology-Only Fallback
Dates1632–?Generation38 years age gapRecorded placesMusselburgh / InvereskIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 38-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 60 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 38-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 60 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

Deductions and cautions: locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Automated fit22/100
Chronology-Only Fallback
Dates1631–?Generation39 years age gapRecorded placesEdinburghIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 39-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 61 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 39-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 61 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

Deductions and cautions: locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Automated fit18/100
Chronology-Only Fallback
Dates1640–?Generation30 years age gapRecorded placesSouth LeithIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 30-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 52 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); candidate already has another child named William Glasgow (Glasgow-3080) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 30-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 52 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1692), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

Deductions and cautions: locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); candidate already has another child named William Glasgow (Glasgow-3080) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

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

William GlasgowGlasgow-3974

Automated fit38/100
Similar Person
Dates1671–?PlacesKirknewton and East Calder, Midlothian, ScotlandParent comparisonNo shared parent is indexed
Why it may fit
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 1 (+25)

unassessed father attachments differ (−5)

Full comparison detail
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 1 (+25)

Conflicts: unassessed father attachments differ (−5)

Open side-by-side comparison

Same-name candidate

William GlasgowGlasgow-1055

Automated fit29/100
Similar Person
Dates1701–?PlacesStevenston, Ayrshire, ScotlandParent comparisonSame parent name; profile identity unproved
Why it may fit
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • same parent name without a shared profile ID: John Glasgow (+2)
  • matching child name: Margaret Glasgow

record-derived birth estimates differ by 31; retained without deduction; unassessed father attachments differ (−5)

Full comparison detail
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • same parent name without a shared profile ID: John Glasgow (+2)
  • matching child name: Margaret Glasgow

Conflicts: record-derived birth estimates differ by 31; retained without deduction; unassessed father attachments differ (−5)

Open side-by-side comparison
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

Glasgow-2731

The record establishes only that William Glasgo fathered Margaret, baptised at Hawick on 7 February 1692. It does not name his parents, wife or birthplace.

Life and record timelineChronological mapped occurrences and their underlying sources.1 record
b. 1670

Profile-stated birthplace: Roxburghshire, Scotland

Roxburghshire — exact locality unproved

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-2731

No sufficiently specific citation match found.

Precision: County-level representative point

Case-file source findingsSource extracts and analysis regenerated from findings.md.1 section(s)

Source findings

Glasgow-2731

SourceFindingAssessment
FamilySearch, “Scotland Births and Baptisms, 1564–1950,” X11X-46NMargaret Glasgo baptised at Hawick, 7 February 1692; father William Glasgo.Direct index evidence for father-child relationship; silent on William's parents and birthplace.
Live capture captures/20260717T083225Z_Glasgow-2731.jsonProfile attached Glasgow-3331 and proposed a match to Glasgow-1605.Neither is supported by Margaret's baptism.
Glasgow-3331 capture ../Glasgow-591/captures/20260716T214155Z_Glasgow-3331.jsonBiography says no children are confirmed.Conflicts with the father attachment.
Evidence assessmentWhat is supported, uncertain or disputed in the current case model.5 claims
2Derivative
1Tree Only
1Unknown

Documented or strongly supported

William Glasgo was Margaret's father at her 1692 Hawick baptism, but the record does not name his own parents or birthplace.

strongly_supported2 linked evidence items

The FamilySearch index supports only the named father-child relationship.

Working hypotheses and conflicts

No claims in this category have been formally assessed.

Research questionsOpen problems, missing bridges and the next records to inspect.4 open

Which records prove the subject's identity across events?

No current conclusion recorded.

Missing bridge: Not specified

Which original or indexed records identify the parents?

No current conclusion recorded.

Missing bridge: A contemporary record explicitly identifying the parent or parents.

Which spouses and children are directly supported by records?

No current conclusion recorded.

Missing bridge: Not specified

What conflicts or same-name conflations must be resolved?

No current conclusion recorded.

Missing bridge: Not specified

Sources and provenanceStructured citations and source-quality classifications.4 sources

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

  1. derivative "Scotland Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X11X-46N : 12 February 2020), William Glasgo in entry for Margaret Glasgo, 1692.
  2. tree_only WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-2731
  3. derivative https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X11X-46N
  4. unknown captures/20260717T083225Z_Glasgow-2731.json
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-2731 was captured 2026-08-18T15:04:41+00:00; WikiTree profile revision 2025-04-24.

Profile location claims

EventDateLocationStatus
birth—Roxburghshire, ScotlandWikiTree profile field

Immediate relationship snapshot

RelationshipPersonWikiTree IDDates and places returned
ParentsJohn GlasgowGlasgow-33311632-00-00 · 0000-00-00 · Biggar, Lanarkshire, Scotland
ChildrenMargaret GlasgowGlasgow-27301692-02-07 · Hawick, Roxburghshire, Scotland · 0000-00-00
SiblingsJohn GlasgowGlasgow-14981650-00-00 · Cavers, Roxburghshire, Scotland · 0000-00-00

Record-bearing passages

  • Biography William Glasgow's origins, including his precise birth date, location, and parentage, are currently unknown. Based on the christening date of his daughter Margaret in 1692, he was likely born before about 1675, perhaps placing his birth somewhere between 1650 and 1672.
  • He is documented as residing in Hawick, Roxburghshire, Scotland, in early 1692, when his daughter was christened there. Family The name of William's spouse, the mother of Margaret, is not recorded in the available christening record and remains unknown.

  • Known child:

    • Margaret Glasgow (abt.1692-), christened 7 February 1692 in Hawick, Roxburghshire, Scotland. "Scotland Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X11X-46N : 12 February 2020), William Glasgo in entry for Margaret Glasgo, 1692. (Note the spelling "Glasgo" in the record for both father and daughter).

  • It is possible William had other children, but further research is needed to identify them. Death William's death date and place are unknown. Research Notes

    • The estimate for William's birth year is speculative, based solely on being a father in 1692.
    • The spelling "Glasgo" appears in the source record for both William and Margaret. Research should consider variations like Glasgow, Glascoe, etc.
    • Further research is needed to find: ** William's birth/christening record (potentially in Roxburghshire or surrounding counties). ** A marriage record for William Glasgow (likely before 1692, potentially in Roxburghshire). ** Birth/christening records for other potential children in the Hawick area. ** Records placing William in Hawick or Roxburghshire at other times (e.g., kirk session, land, tax records). ** A death or burial record for William Glasgow.
  • William Glasgow (bef.1658-) and William Glasgow (abt.1670-) may represent the same person because; ** William Glasgow (bef.1658-) is based on the Crowne Shipwreck, 1679, it lists William and John from Cavers (same place as Hawick, near Polwarth, Duns) ** William Glasgow (abt.1670-) is based on the birth of his daughter Margaret Glasgow (abt.1692-) in Hawick. Sources

Profile source citations

  1. "Scotland Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X11X-46N : 12 February 2020), William Glasgo in entry for Margaret Glasgo, 1692. source link 1
Full captured biography text
Biography
William Glasgow's origins, including his precise birth date, location, and parentage, are currently unknown. Based on the christening date of his daughter Margaret in 1692, he was likely born before about 1675, perhaps placing his birth somewhere between 1650 and 1672.

He is documented as residing in Hawick, Roxburghshire, Scotland, in early 1692, when his daughter was christened there.
Family
The name of William's spouse, the mother of Margaret, is not recorded in the available christening record and remains unknown.

Known child:
* Margaret Glasgow (abt.1692-), christened 7 February 1692 in Hawick, Roxburghshire, Scotland. "Scotland Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X11X-46N : 12 February 2020), William Glasgo in entry for Margaret Glasgo, 1692. (Note the spelling "Glasgo" in the record for both father and daughter).

It is possible William had other children, but further research is needed to identify them.
Death
William's death date and place are unknown.
Research Notes
* The estimate for William's birth year is speculative, based solely on being a father in 1692.
* The spelling "Glasgo" appears in the source record for both William and Margaret. Research should consider variations like Glasgow, Glascoe, etc.
* Further research is needed to find:
** William's birth/christening record (potentially in Roxburghshire or surrounding counties).
** A marriage record for William Glasgow (likely before 1692, potentially in Roxburghshire).
** Birth/christening records for other potential children in the Hawick area.
** Records placing William in Hawick or Roxburghshire at other times (e.g., kirk session, land, tax records).
** A death or burial record for William Glasgow.

* William Glasgow (bef.1658-) and William Glasgow (abt.1670-) may represent the same person because;
** William Glasgow (bef.1658-) is based on the Crowne Shipwreck, 1679, it lists William and John from Cavers (same place as Hawick, near Polwarth, Duns)
** William Glasgow (abt.1670-) is based on the birth of his daughter Margaret Glasgow (abt.1692-) in Hawick. 
Sources
Raw WikiTree biography markup
== Biography ==

William Glasgow's origins, including his precise birth date, location, and parentage, are currently unknown. Based on the christening date of his daughter Margaret in 1692, he was likely born before about 1675, perhaps placing his birth somewhere between 1650 and 1672.

He is documented as residing in Hawick, Roxburghshire, Scotland, in early 1692, when his daughter was christened there.

=== Family ===

The name of William's spouse, the mother of Margaret, is not recorded in the available christening record and remains unknown.

Known child:
*  [[Glasgow-2730|Margaret Glasgow (abt.1692-)]], christened 7 February 1692 in Hawick, Roxburghshire, Scotland.<ref name="MargaretChr">"Scotland Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X11X-46N : 12 February 2020), William Glasgo in entry for Margaret Glasgo, 1692.</ref> (Note the spelling "Glasgo" in the record for both father and daughter).

It is possible William had other children, but further research is needed to identify them.

=== Death ===

William's death date and place are unknown.

=== Research Notes ===

*   The estimate for William's birth year is speculative, based solely on being a father in 1692.
*   The spelling "Glasgo" appears in the source record for both William and Margaret. Research should consider variations like Glasgow, Glascoe, etc.
*   Further research is needed to find:
**   William's birth/christening record (potentially in Roxburghshire or surrounding counties).
**   A marriage record for William Glasgow (likely before 1692, potentially in Roxburghshire).
**   Birth/christening records for other potential children in the Hawick area.
**   Records placing William in Hawick or Roxburghshire at other times (e.g., kirk session, land, tax records).
**   A death or burial record for William Glasgow.


* [[Glasgow-1605|William Glasgow (bef.1658-)]] and [[Glasgow-2731|William Glasgow (abt.1670-)]] may represent the same person because;
** [[Glasgow-1605|William Glasgow (bef.1658-)]] is based on the Crowne Shipwreck, 1679, it lists William and John from Cavers (same place as Hawick, near Polwarth, Duns)
** [[Glasgow-2731|William Glasgow (abt.1670-)]] is based on the birth of his daughter [[Glasgow-2730|Margaret Glasgow (abt.1692-)]] in Hawick. 


== Sources ==
<references/>