Glasgow Surname Project

Individual research record

Michael Glasgow

1815 – 1883-06-21

Glasgow-3595 · 1 mapped association

County Tipperary, Ireland, United Kingdom→Huron Tract, Ontario, Canada
View on mapOpen WikiTreeCompareReport a correction

At a glance

Identity & family

Tree links organise the family; documentary status still varies.

1Mapped records
4Close relations
2Evidence items
10Candidate leads
Birth
1815 · County Tipperary, Ireland, United Kingdom
Death
1883-06-21 · Huron Tract, Ontario, Canada
Parents
Thomas GlasgowunmarkedJohanna (Ryan) Glasgowunmarked
Spouses
Bridget Donovan
Children
John T Glasgow
Gender
Male
WikiTree
Glasgow-3595
Research clusters
Rathdowney County Laois profile family
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 positionJohn T Glasgow (1835)
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 fit26/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1784–1871Generation31 years age gapRecorded placesCounty Tipperary, Ireland · County Tipperary — exact locality unprovedIndependent clue breadth · 5Age · Indirect Multi-Factor Convergence · Sex-Aware Ordered Naming · Two-Generation · Undated LocalityCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 31-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • same specific indexed locality despite wider place-label differences: county tipperary exact locality unproved (+10)
  • 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming

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

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 31-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 51 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same specific indexed locality despite wider place-label differences: county tipperary exact locality unproved (+10)
  • candidate's name matches the first dated son John T Glasgow, the expected father position for a male subject (+4; catalogue rarity 0, John in 278 profiles)
  • 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming

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

Automated fit14/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1780–?Generation35 years age gapRecorded placesBaronyIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 35-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • known spouse Jean (Lang) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (35) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate's birth is 55 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), 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 35-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 55 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • known spouse Jean (Lang) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (35) 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 fit14/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1780–1817Generation35 years age gapRecorded placesCalliaqua, Saint George, Saint Vincent and the GrenadinesIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Household · Sex-Aware Ordered Naming · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 35-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 55 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), 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 35-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 55 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), 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)
  • candidate's name matches the first dated son John T Glasgow, the expected father position for a male subject (+4; catalogue rarity 0, John in 278 profiles)

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–?Generation36 years age gapRecorded placesLocation not supplied — profile holding pointIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 36-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • known spouse Janet (Thomson) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (32) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate's birth is 56 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), 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 36-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 56 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • known spouse Janet (Thomson) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (32) 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 fit12/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1790–?Generation25 years age gapRecorded placesLocation not supplied — profile holding pointIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Household · Sex-Aware Ordered Naming · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 25-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 45 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 4 years of the subject (+1)

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 25-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 45 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 4 years of the subject (+1)
  • candidate's name matches the first dated son John T Glasgow, the expected father position for a male subject (+4; catalogue rarity 0, John in 278 profiles)

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
Dates1788–1867Generation27 years age gapRecorded placesFranceIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Spouse-Specific Child Window · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 27-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 47 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), 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 27-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 47 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), 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–?Generation20 years age gapRecorded placesGlasgowIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Household · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 40 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 5 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 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 40 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 5 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
Dates1795–1854Generation20 years age gapRecorded placesLocation not supplied — profile holding pointIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 40 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), 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 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 40 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), 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–?Generation24 years age gapRecorded placesLocation not supplied — profile holding pointIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 24-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), 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 24-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), 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–?Generation32 years age gapRecorded placesLocation not supplied — profile holding pointIndependent clue breadth · 2Age · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 32-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 52 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), 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 32-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 52 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1835), 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.

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

Life and record timelineChronological mapped occurrences and their underlying sources.1 record
Evidence assessmentWhat is supported, uncertain or disputed in the current case model.5 claims
2Tree 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. tree_only https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/sources/LX3W-XKN
  2. tree_only WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-3595
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-3595 was captured 2026-08-07T09:54:35+00:00; WikiTree profile revision 2025-07-08.

Profile location claims

EventDateLocationStatus
birth—County Tipperary, IrelandWikiTree profile field
death—Huron Tract, Ontario, CanadaWikiTree profile field
marriage1831-10-09Fethard, Cashel, County Tipperary, IrelandWikiTree relationship field

Immediate relationship snapshot

RelationshipPersonWikiTree IDDates and places returned
ParentsThomas GlasgowGlasgow-35921777-05-01 · Rathdowney, Queen's County, Ireland · 0000-00-00
ParentsJohanna GlasgowRyan-237701780-00-00 · County Tipperary, Ireland · 0000-00-00
ChildrenJohn T GlasgowGlasgow-35961835-05-30 · Tipperary, County Tipperary, Ireland · 1923-03-23 · Crawford, Kansas, United States
SpousesBridgetDonovan-54811814-00-00 · Fethard, County Tipperary, Ireland · 1860-01-22 · Huron, Ontario, Canada · 1831-10-09 · Fethard, Cashel, County Tipperary, Ireland

Record-bearing passages

Profile source citations

  1. https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/sources/LX3W-XKN source link 1
Full captured biography text
Biography
Michael was born in 1815. He was the son of Thomas Glasgow and Johanna Ryan. He passed away in 1883.
Sources
* https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/sources/LX3W-XKN
Raw WikiTree biography markup
== Biography ==

Michael was born in 1815. He was the son of [[Glasgow-3592|Thomas Glasgow]] and [[Ryan-23770|Johanna Ryan]]. He passed away in 1883.
== Sources ==
<references />
* https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/sources/LX3W-XKN