Glasgow Surname Project

Individual research record

Agnes Glasgow

1813 – 1846-07-03

Glasgow-3544 · 1 mapped association

Manchester, Lancashire, England, United Kingdom→Lancashire, England, United Kingdom
View on mapOpen WikiTreeCompareReport a correction

At a glance

Identity & family

Tree links organise the family; documentary status still varies.

1Mapped records
5Close relations
2Evidence items
12Candidate leads
Birth
1813 · Manchester, Lancashire, England, United Kingdom
Death
1846-07-03 · Lancashire, England, United Kingdom
Parents
William GlasgowunmarkedAnn (Denham) Glasgowunmarked
Spouses
David Glasgow
Children
Isabella (Glasgow) TraillWilliam Robert Glasgow
Gender
Female
WikiTree
Glasgow-3544
Research clusters
England One-Tree profile leads
Mapped descendants
2

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 positionWilliam Robert Glasgow (1836)
Maternal grandfather positionNot identifiable from dated child profiles
Maternal grandmother positionIsabella (Glasgow) Traill (1837)
Paternal grandmother positionNot identifiable from dated child profiles

Known-position checks: 0 support · 1 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 fit14/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1780–?Generation33 years age gapRecorded placesBaronyIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 33-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • known spouse Jean (Lang) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (33) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate's birth is 56 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), 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 56 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • known spouse Jean (Lang) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (33) at the subject's birth (+7)

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

Automated fit14/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1779–?Generation34 years age gapRecorded placesLocation not supplied — profile holding pointIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 34-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • known spouse Janet (Thomson) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (30) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate's birth is 57 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), 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 34-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 57 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • known spouse Janet (Thomson) 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); locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show 3 lower-scoring possible fathers
Automated fit10/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1790–?Generation23 years age gapRecorded placesLocation not supplied — profile holding pointIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Household · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 23-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 46 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 2 years of the subject (+3)

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

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 23-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 46 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 2 years of the subject (+3)

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

Automated fit10/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1780–1817Generation33 years age gapRecorded placesCalliaqua, Saint George, Saint Vincent and the GrenadinesIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Household · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 33-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 56 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • subject's birth fits within the candidate's overall child-bearing span (1810–1816) (+3; children are not tied to one spouse)

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 56 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • subject's birth fits within the candidate's overall child-bearing span (1810–1816) (+3; children are not tied to one spouse)

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 fit8/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1778–?Generationat least 35 years age gapRecorded placesKilloquin electoral divisionIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Spouse · Spouse-Specific Child Window · Two-GenerationSame-spouse child windowRosanna UnknownCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • candidate's birth is 58 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • known spouse Rosanna Unknown had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (35) at the subject's birth (+3)
  • bounded birth date gives a parent-child age gap of at least 35 years (+10; true age remains uncertain)

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
  • bounded birth date gives a parent-child age gap of at least 35 years (+10; true age remains uncertain)
  • candidate's birth is 58 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1796–1815) (+6; other parent Rosanna Unknown)
  • known spouse Rosanna Unknown had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (35) at the subject's birth (+3)

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

Possible mothers5 leads

Automated fit13/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1788–1867Generation25 years age gapRecorded placesFranceIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Spouse-Specific Child Window · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 25-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1804–1827) (+6)
  • candidate's birth is 48 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

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

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 25-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 48 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1804–1827) (+6)

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

Automated fit8/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1795–?Generation18 years age gapRecorded placesGlasgowIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Household · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 18-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 41 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 7 years of the subject (+1)

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

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 18-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 41 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 7 years of the subject (+1)

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

Show 3 lower-scoring possible mothers
Automated fit7/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1795–1854Generation18 years age gapRecorded placesLocation not supplied — profile holding pointIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 18-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 41 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

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

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 18-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 41 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

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

Automated fit7/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1791–?Generation22 years age gapRecorded placesLocation not supplied — profile holding pointIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 45 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

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

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 45 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

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

Automated fit7/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1783–?Generation30 years age gapRecorded placesLocation not supplied — profile holding pointIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 30-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 53 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

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

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 30-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 53 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1836), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

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

How parent leads are calculated

Automated leads use birth surnames—not married surnames—as parental eligibility, role-specific biological age limits, bounded and approximate-date uncertainty, household chronology, specific time-aware localities, mapped distance, tenancy succession, migration destinations and sex-aware Scottish naming positions across generations. People already attached as the subject's parents stay in the identity summary and are excluded from this alternative-candidate list, regardless of relationship confidence. The main calibration uses clues available on disconnected profiles; existing parent and sibling links are retained as comparison context rather than treated as transferable evidence. Common ordered names and grandparent-to-child echoes receive a small non-zero weight, so a John or James match can support several independent criteria without producing a lead alone. Rare names, repeated bearers and bundles across otherwise distinct branches receive substantially more weight according to catalogue frequency. An exact migration place is weighted by its rarity and repetition across both branches; a shared destination country is worth only one point. Extra weight is added only when at least three independent clue types converge: naming, locality, specific migration, household chronology or collateral networks. Sparse profiles retain a clearly labelled chronology-only fallback instead of disappearing. Countries, states, counties and research clusters do not count as a shared locality, and fallback, broad representative or kin-inferred coordinates are excluded from distance scoring. Shared descendant profiles are removed before branch-name comparison. A candidate already recorded as a parent-in-law is excluded. A confident or independently supported parent is treated as settled; uncertain and unassessed attachments remain open to alternative comparison. A different linked parent, an uncle/aunt or grandparent path, and a matching existing child profile prevent an alternative from being classified as a strong direct-parent lead until the underlying tree conflict or duplicate is resolved. Familiar forms such as Bessie are normalised. Surname remains an eligibility filter worth zero points.

Naming customs, shared farms and occupations are circumstantial. Children, spouses and collateral relatives may be missing, and tree-derived family networks are not independent evidence. Scores rank research leads; they do not prove parentage.

Automated fit18/100
Similar Person
Dates1755–?PlacesPlaces not recordedParent comparisonNo shared parent is indexed
Why it may fit
  • same first and last name (+18)

record-derived birth estimates differ by 58; retained without deduction

Full comparison detail
  • same first and last name (+18)

Conflicts: record-derived birth estimates differ by 58; retained without deduction

Open side-by-side comparison
Automated fit18/100
Similar Person
Dates1761–?PlacesKirkliston, West Lothian, ScotlandParent comparisonNo shared parent is indexed
Why it may fit
  • same first and last name (+18)

record-derived birth estimates differ by 52; retained without deduction

Full comparison detail
  • same first and last name (+18)

Conflicts: record-derived birth estimates differ by 52; retained without deduction

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
b. 1813

Profile-stated birthplace: Manchester, Lancashire, England

Manchester, Lancashire, England

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-3544

No sufficiently specific citation match found.

Precision: Geocoded profile locality

Evidence assessmentWhat is supported, uncertain or disputed in the current case model.6 claims
1Derivative
1Tree Only

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. derivative "England, Manchester, Parish Registers, 1603-1954", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2331-GJB : Tue Jan 07 01:38:49 UTC 2025), Entry for David Glasgow and Agnes Glasgow, 1833.
  2. tree_only WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-3544
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-3544 was captured 2026-08-07T09:54:35+00:00; WikiTree profile revision 2025-04-29.

Profile location claims

EventDateLocationStatus
birth—Manchester, Lancashire, EnglandWikiTree profile field
death—Lancashire, EnglandWikiTree profile field
marriage1833-01-17Manchester, Lancashire, EnglandWikiTree relationship field

Immediate relationship snapshot

RelationshipPersonWikiTree IDDates and places returned
ParentsWilliam GlasgowGlasgow-35451787-00-00 · England · 0000-00-00
ParentsAnn GlasgowDenham-21591779-01-24 · Ashover, Derbyshire, England · 0000-00-00
ChildrenWilliam Robert GlasgowGlasgow-35461836-00-00 · 1870-01-08 · Chorlton, Lancashire, England, United Kingdom
ChildrenIsabella TraillGlasgow-28061837-07-06 · Cathedral,Manchester,Lancashire,England · 1877-05-11
SpousesDavid GlasgowGlasgow-35431804-07-26 · Buteshire, Scotland, United Kingdom · 0000-00-00 · 1833-01-17 · Manchester, Lancashire, England

Record-bearing passages

Profile source citations

  1. "England, Manchester, Parish Registers, 1603-1954", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2331-GJB : Tue Jan 07 01:38:49 UTC 2025), Entry for David Glasgow and Agnes Glasgow, 1833. source link 1
Full captured biography text
Biography
Agnes was born in 1810. 
Sources
* "England, Manchester, Parish Registers, 1603-1954", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2331-GJB : Tue Jan 07 01:38:49 UTC 2025), Entry for David Glasgow and Agnes Glasgow, 1833.
Raw WikiTree biography markup
== Biography ==

Agnes was born in 1810. 
== Sources ==
<references />
* "England, Manchester, Parish Registers, 1603-1954", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2331-GJB : Tue Jan 07 01:38:49 UTC 2025), Entry for David Glasgow and Agnes Glasgow, 1833.