Glasgow Surname Project

Individual research record

John Glasgow

1860 – ?

Glasgow-3419 · 1 mapped association

Greenock, Renfrewshire, Scotland, United Kingdom→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
1Close relations
2Evidence items
12Candidate leads
Birth
1860 · Greenock, Renfrewshire, Scotland, United Kingdom
Death
Not recorded · Place not recorded
Parents
Not recorded
Spouses
Not recorded
Children
Unknown Glasgow
Gender
Male
WikiTree
Glasgow-3419
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 positionUnknown Glasgow (1884)
Maternal grandfather positionNot identifiable from dated child profiles
Maternal grandmother positionNot identifiable from dated child profiles
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 fit39/100
Weak Lead
Dates1840–?Generation20 years age gapRecorded placesCumbernauld, Dunbartonshire, Scotland, United KingdomIndependent clue breadth · 6Age · Indirect Multi-Factor Convergence · Mapped Proximity · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • known spouse Mary (Marshall) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (20) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming

No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • mapped Cumbernauld, Dunbartonshire, Scotland, United Kingdom is 27.4 km from the subject's birth-period Greenock, Renfrewshire, Scotland, United Kingdom (+1; one or both placements are unproved)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • known spouse Mary (Marshall) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (20) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate and subject share the given name John (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 278 public profiles)
  • 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming

Deductions and cautions: No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Automated fit33/100
Weak Lead
Dates1819–1867Generation41 years age gapRecorded placesGlasgow, Lanarkshire, Scotland, United Kingdom · Airdrie, Lanarkshire, Scotland, United Kingdom · GlasgowIndependent clue breadth · 5Age · Indirect Multi-Factor Convergence · Mapped Proximity · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 41-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
  • candidate's birth is 65 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 41-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 65 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • mapped Glasgow is 10.3 km from the subject's birth-period Greenock, Renfrewshire, Scotland, United Kingdom (+2; one or both placements are unproved)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • candidate and subject share the given name John (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 278 public profiles)
  • 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming

Deductions and cautions: No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Show 3 lower-scoring possible fathers
Automated fit29/100
Weak Lead
Dates1839–1917Generation21 years age gapRecorded placesWinchester, Ontario · Stormont, OntarioIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 21-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 45 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • known spouse Esther Jane (McConnell) Glasgow had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (18) at the subject's birth (+3)

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

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 21-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 45 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • known spouse Esther Jane (McConnell) Glasgow had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (18) at the subject's birth (+3)
  • candidate and subject share the given name John (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 278 public profiles)

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

Automated fit26/100
Weak Lead
Dates1840–1922Generation20 years age gapRecorded placesLocation not supplied — profile holding pointIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • candidate and subject share the given name John (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 278 public profiles)

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 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • candidate and subject share the given name John (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 278 public profiles)

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

Automated fit23/100
Weak Lead
Dates1840–1906Generation20 years age gapRecorded placesMid Calder, Linlithgowshire, Scotland, United Kingdom · Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom · Mid CalderIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • known spouse Janet Grant (Scott) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (26) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • known spouse Janet Grant (Scott) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (26) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate and subject share the given name John (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 278 public profiles)

Deductions and cautions: same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10)

Possible mothers5 leads

Automated fit32/100
Chronology-Only Fallback
Dates1840–?Generation20 years age gapRecorded placesGreenock, Renfrewshire, Scotland, United KingdomIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Two-Generation · Undated LocalityCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

Deductions and cautions: No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Automated fit28/100
Chronology-Only Fallback
Dates1820–1896Generation40 years age gapRecorded placesWashington, Washington County, IowaIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Spouse-Specific Child Window · Two-GenerationSame-spouse child windowRobert Barclay GlasgowCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 40-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 64 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1857–1865) (+6; other parent Robert Barclay Glasgow)

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

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 40-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 64 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1857–1865) (+6; other parent Robert Barclay Glasgow)

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 fit24/100
Chronology-Only Fallback
Dates1841–?Generation19 years age gapRecorded placesNew Kilpatrick, Dunbartonshire, Scotland, United KingdomIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Mapped Proximity · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 19-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 43 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • mapped New Kilpatrick, Dunbartonshire, Scotland, United Kingdom is 6.6 km from the subject's birth-period Greenock, Renfrewshire, Scotland, United Kingdom (+2; one or both placements are unproved)

No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 19-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 43 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • mapped New Kilpatrick, Dunbartonshire, Scotland, United Kingdom is 6.6 km from the subject's birth-period Greenock, Renfrewshire, Scotland, United Kingdom (+2; one or both placements are unproved)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

Deductions and cautions: No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Automated fit24/100
Chronology-Only Fallback
Dates1840–?Generation20 years age gapRecorded placesGlasgow, Lanarkshire, Scotland, United Kingdom · GlasgowIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Mapped Proximity · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • mapped Glasgow is 10.3 km from the subject's birth-period Greenock, Renfrewshire, Scotland, United Kingdom (+2; one or both placements are unproved)

No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • mapped Glasgow is 10.3 km from the subject's birth-period Greenock, Renfrewshire, Scotland, United Kingdom (+2; one or both placements are unproved)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

Deductions and cautions: No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Automated fit24/100
Chronology-Only Fallback
Dates1839–?Generation21 years age gapRecorded placesPort Glasgow, Renfrewshire, Scotland, United Kingdom · GlasgowIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Mapped Proximity · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 21-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 45 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • mapped Glasgow is 10.3 km from the subject's birth-period Greenock, Renfrewshire, Scotland, United Kingdom (+2; one or both placements are unproved)

No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 21-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 45 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1884), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • mapped Glasgow is 10.3 km from the subject's birth-period Greenock, Renfrewshire, Scotland, United Kingdom (+2; one or both placements are unproved)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

Deductions and cautions: No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

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.

Automated fit43/100
Similar Person
Dates1859–1860PlacesJackson Township, Washington, Iowa, United States → Jackson Township, Washington, Iowa, United StatesParent comparisonNo shared parent is indexed
Why it may fit
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 1 (+25)

No indexed conflict

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

Conflicts: No indexed conflict

Open side-by-side comparison

Same-name candidate

John W GlasgowGlasgow-709

Automated fit43/100
Similar Person
Dates1859–1882PlacesNorth Hadley, Hadley, Hampshire, Massachusetts, United States → Hadley, Hampshire, Massachusetts, United StatesParent comparisonNo shared parent is indexed
Why it may fit
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 1 (+25)

No indexed conflict

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

Conflicts: No indexed conflict

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

Life and record timelineChronological mapped occurrences and their underlying sources.1 record
Evidence assessmentWhat is supported, uncertain or disputed in the current case model.2 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 Greenock Telegraph 21.5.1884
  2. tree_only WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-3419
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-3419 was captured 2026-08-07T09:54:35+00:00; WikiTree profile revision 2025-04-23.

Profile location claims

EventDateLocationStatus
birth—Greenock, Renfrewshire, Scotland, United KingdomWikiTree profile field

Immediate relationship snapshot

RelationshipPersonWikiTree IDDates and places returned
ChildrenUnknown GlasgowGlasgow-34181884-02-20 · Greenock, Renfrewshire, Scotland, United Kingdom · 0000-00-00

Record-bearing passages

  • Biography John was born in 1860. Sources

    • Greenock Telegraph 21.5.1884

Profile source citations

  1. Greenock Telegraph 21.5.1884
Full captured biography text
Biography
John was born in 1860. 
Sources
* Greenock Telegraph 21.5.1884
Raw WikiTree biography markup
== Biography ==

John was born in 1860. 
== Sources ==
<references />
* Greenock Telegraph 21.5.1884