Glasgow Surname Project

Individual research record

William Glasgow

c. 1788 – ?

Glasgow-3678 · 1 mapped association

Birthplace unknown→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
5Close relations
1Evidence items
12Candidate leads
Birth
c. 1788 · Place not recorded
Death
Not recorded · Place not recorded
Parents
Not recorded
Spouses
Sarah (Patterson) Glasgow
Children
Elizabeth (Glasgow) SuttonLouisa GlasgowNancy Patterson (Glasgow) ChumbleyWilliam P. Glasgow
Gender
Male
WikiTree
Glasgow-3678
Research clusters
Worldwide One-Tree profile leads
Mapped descendants
15

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 P. Glasgow (1813)
Maternal grandfather positionNot identifiable from dated child profiles
Maternal grandmother positionElizabeth (Glasgow) Sutton (1812)
Paternal grandmother positionNancy Patterson (Glasgow) Chumbley (1815)

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 fit43/100
Moderate Lead
Dates1763–1816Generation25 years age gapRecorded placesLarne, County Antrim, Ireland · County Antrim, Ireland, United Kingdom · LarneIndependent clue breadth · 7Age · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Sex-Aware Ordered Naming · Spouse · Spouse-Specific Child Window · Tradition Validation · Two-GenerationSame-spouse child windowElizabeth GlasgowCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 25-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • known spouse Elizabeth Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (23) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), 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 25-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1783–1802) (+6; other parent Elizabeth Glasgow)
  • known spouse Elizabeth Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (23) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate and subject share the given name William (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 223 public profiles)
  • candidate's name matches the first dated son William P. Glasgow, the expected father position for a male subject (+4; catalogue rarity 0, William in 223 profiles)
  • family naming controls: 0 supporting and 1 conflicting known positions (already reflected in naming weight)

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

Automated fit33/100
Weak Lead
Dates1757–1805Generation31 years age gapRecorded placesCurrituck, Province of North Carolina · Currituck, Currituck Parish, North Carolina, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 6Age · Household · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Sex-Aware Ordered Naming · Tradition Validation · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 31-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 55 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), 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 31-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 55 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • subject's birth fits within the candidate's overall child-bearing span (1781–1801) (+3; children are not tied to one spouse)
  • candidate and subject share the given name William (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 223 public profiles)
  • candidate's name matches the first dated son William P. Glasgow, the expected father position for a male subject (+4; catalogue rarity 0, William in 223 profiles)
  • family naming controls: 0 supporting and 1 conflicting known positions (already reflected in naming weight)

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

Show 3 lower-scoring possible fathers
Automated fit31/100
Weak Lead
Dates1768–?Generation20 years age gapRecorded placesKelso, Roxburghshire, Scotland · Roxburghshire — exact locality unprovedIndependent clue breadth · 5Age · Great-Grandparent Name Echo · Household · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • known spouse Isabella (Hunter) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (17) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), 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 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 44 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 7 years of the subject (+1)
  • known spouse Isabella (Hunter) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (17) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate's parents' names recur among the subject's grandchildren: David +1 (+1 total; weak multigeneration clue)

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

Automated fit30/100
Weak Lead
Dates1747–?Generation41 years age gapRecorded placesScotland · Scotland — exact locality unprovedIndependent clue breadth · 5Age · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Sex-Aware Ordered Naming · Tradition Validation · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 41-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 65 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • candidate and subject share the given name William (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 223 public profiles)

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

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 41-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 65 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • candidate and subject share the given name William (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 223 public profiles)
  • candidate's name matches the first dated son William P. Glasgow, the expected father position for a male subject (+4; catalogue rarity 0, William in 223 profiles)
  • family naming controls: 0 supporting and 1 conflicting known positions (already reflected in naming weight)

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

Automated fit29/100
Weak Lead
Dates1778–1853Generationnominally 10 years; approximate dates permit about 16–20 years age gapRecorded placesRockbridge, Virginia, United States · Brush Creek Township, Adams, Ohio, United States · Rockbridge, Virginia, USAIndependent clue breadth · 8Age · Broad Geography · Rare Branch-Name Recurrence · Rare Name Bundle · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Sex-Aware Ordered Naming · Tradition Validation · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • the nominal 10-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–20 years) (+4)
  • candidate's birth is 34 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • weak broad-area overlap: virginia (+1; not a locality match)

parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate already has another child named William Madison Glasgow (Glasgow-1938) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict); no known spouse has a plausible maternal age at the subject's birth (−6; an unknown spouse remains possible)

Show complete scoring
  • the nominal 10-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–20 years) (+4)
  • candidate's birth is 34 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • weak broad-area overlap: virginia (+1; not a locality match)
  • 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)
  • candidate's name matches the first dated son William P. Glasgow, the expected father position for a male subject (+4; catalogue rarity 0, William in 223 profiles)
  • family naming controls: 0 supporting and 1 conflicting known positions (already reflected in naming weight)
  • uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Louisa +14 (5 public profiles; subject branch: Louisa Glasgow; candidate branch: Louisa Pearl Glasgow); Nancy +7 (49 public profiles; subject branch: Nancy Patterson (Glasgow) Chumbley; candidate branch: Nancy Crockett (Glasgow) Black, Nancy Elvira (Glasgow) Rownd; +4 repetition bonus) (+25 total including +4 multi-name bonus)

Deductions and cautions: parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate already has another child named William Madison Glasgow (Glasgow-1938) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict); no known spouse has a plausible maternal age at the subject's birth (−6; an unknown spouse remains possible)

Possible mothers5 leads

Automated fit31/100
Weak Lead
Dates1765–?Generation23 years age gapRecorded placesLocation not supplied — profile holding pointIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Sex-Aware Ordered Naming · Spouse-Specific Child Window · Two-GenerationSame-spouse child windowWilliam GlasgowCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 23-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 47 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), 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 23-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 47 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1783–1802) (+6; other parent William Glasgow)
  • a candidate spouse matches the first dated son William P. Glasgow, the expected father position (+3; William in 223 profiles)

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

Automated fit30/100
Weak Lead
Dates1779–1846Generationnominally 9 years; approximate dates permit about 15–19 years age gapRecorded placesMontgomery, Virginia, United States · Scott Township, Adams County, Ohio, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 6Age · Broad Geography · Rare Branch-Name Recurrence · Rare Name Bundle · Sex-Aware Ordered Naming · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • the nominal 9-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–19 years) (+4)
  • candidate's birth is 33 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • weak broad-area overlap: virginia (+1; not a locality match)

parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate already has another child named William Madison Glasgow (Glasgow-1938) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

Show complete scoring
  • the nominal 9-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–19 years) (+4)
  • candidate's birth is 33 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • weak broad-area overlap: virginia (+1; not a locality match)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • a candidate spouse matches the first dated son William P. Glasgow, the expected father position (+3; William in 223 profiles)
  • uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Louisa +14 (5 public profiles; subject branch: Louisa Glasgow; candidate branch: Louisa Pearl Glasgow); Nancy +7 (49 public profiles; subject branch: Nancy Patterson (Glasgow) Chumbley; candidate branch: Nancy Crockett (Glasgow) Black, Nancy Elvira (Glasgow) Rownd; +4 repetition bonus) (+25 total including +4 multi-name bonus)

Deductions and cautions: parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate already has another child named William Madison Glasgow (Glasgow-1938) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

Show 3 lower-scoring possible mothers
Automated fit25/100
Weak Lead
Dates1761–?Generation27 years age gapRecorded placesLincolnshire, EnglandIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Sex-Aware Ordered Naming · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 27-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 51 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a candidate spouse matches the first dated son William P. Glasgow, the expected father position (+3; William in 223 profiles)

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 51 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a candidate spouse matches the first dated son William P. Glasgow, the expected father position (+3; William in 223 profiles)

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

Automated fit25/100
Weak Lead
Dates1758–1850Generation30 years age gapRecorded placesLanarkshire, Scotland · Lanarkshire, Scotland, United Kingdom · Lanarkshire — exact locality unprovedIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Sex-Aware Ordered Naming · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 30-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 54 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a candidate spouse matches the first dated son William P. Glasgow, the expected father position (+3; William in 223 profiles)

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 54 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a candidate spouse matches the first dated son William P. Glasgow, the expected father position (+3; William in 223 profiles)

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

Automated fit20/100
Weak Lead
Dates1774–1845Generationnominally 14 years; approximate dates permit about 15–24 years age gapRecorded placesHuntingdon, Pennsylvania · Glasgow, Cambria, Pennsylvania, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Rare Branch-Name Recurrence · Rare Name Bundle · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • the nominal 14-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–24 years) (+4)
  • candidate's birth is 38 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

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); subject lies more than 20 years from the candidate's known child-bearing period (−6; children may be missing)

Show complete scoring
  • the nominal 14-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–24 years) (+4)
  • candidate's birth is 38 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1812), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Bertha +14 (6 public profiles; subject branch: Bertha Ann (Glasgow) Hall; candidate branch: Bertha Olive (Glasgow) Troxell); Nancy +3 (49 public profiles; subject branch: Nancy Patterson (Glasgow) Chumbley; candidate branch: Nancy (Glasgow) Brubaker) (+21 total including +4 multi-name bonus)

Deductions and cautions: 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); subject lies more than 20 years from the candidate's known child-bearing period (−6; children may be missing)

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-3545

Automated fit43/100
Similar Person
Dates1787–?PlacesEnglandParent 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

William GlasgowGlasgow-563

Automated fit40/100
Similar Person
Dates1778–1853PlacesRockbridge, Virginia, United States → Brush Creek Township, Adams, Ohio, United StatesParent comparisonNo shared parent is indexed
Why it may fit
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 10 (+10)
  • overlapping locality (+8)

No indexed conflict

Full comparison detail
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 10 (+10)
  • overlapping locality (+8)
  • child given-name pattern overlaps: Nancy, William

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
b. 1788

Profile-stated marriage place: Wythe, Virginia, United States

Wythe, Virginia, United States

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-3678

No sufficiently specific citation match found.

Precision: Country-centre fallback for profile locality

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

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

  1. tree_only WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-3678
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-3678 was captured 2026-08-07T09:54:35+00:00; WikiTree profile revision 2025-09-11.

Profile location claims

EventDateLocationStatus
marriage1810-00-00Wythe, Virginia, United StatesWikiTree relationship field

Immediate relationship snapshot

RelationshipPersonWikiTree IDDates and places returned
ChildrenElizabeth SuttonGlasgow-36801812-00-00 · 0000-00-00
ChildrenWilliam P. GlasgowGlasgow-5591813-00-00 · 0000-00-00
ChildrenNancy Patterson ChumbleyGlasgow-21711815-06-27 · Virginia, United States · 1889-12-19 · Warren, Iowa, United States
ChildrenLouisa GlasgowGlasgow-36791821-00-00 · 1910-00-00
SpousesSarah GlasgowPatterson-138811790-00-00 · Wythe County Virginia · 0000-00-00 · Pulaski County Virginia · 1810-00-00 · Wythe, Virginia, United States

Record-bearing passages

Profile source citations

No structured source citation was recoverable from the profile biography.

Other external links in the profile

Full captured biography text
BiographySources
"United States, Census, 1850", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M8D2-GTK : Mon Jan 20 13:48:41 UTC 2025), Entry for William Glasgow and Sarah Glasgow, 1850.
Raw WikiTree biography markup
== Biography ==

== Sources ==
<references />
"United States, Census, 1850", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M8D2-GTK : Mon Jan 20 13:48:41 UTC 2025), Entry for William Glasgow and Sarah Glasgow, 1850.