Glasgow Surname Project

Individual research record

John Glasgow

c. 1681 – ?

Glasgow-551 · 1 mapped association

Scotland→County Tyrone, Ireland
View on mapOpen WikiTreeCompareReport a correction

At a glance

Identity & family

Tree links organise the family; documentary status still varies.

1Mapped records
2Close relations
2Evidence items
12Candidate leads
Birth
c. 1681 · Scotland
Death
Not recorded · County Tyrone, Ireland
Parents
William Glasgowunmarked
Spouses
Not recorded
Children
Hugh Glasgow
Gender
Male
WikiTree
Glasgow-551
Research clusters
Descendants of Hugh Glasgow (c.1706)
Mapped descendants
72

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 positionHugh Glasgow (1706)
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 fit24/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1653–1721Generation28 years age gapRecorded placesScotland · Kilbirnie, Ayrshire, Scotland · Scotland — exact locality unprovedIndependent clue breadth · 7Age · Broad Geography · Common Grandparent Birth-Order Naming · Rare Branch-Name Recurrence · Rare Name Bundle · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 28-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 53 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same broad administrative area only (+1; not a locality match)

a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); candidate already has another child named John Glasgow MA (Glasgow-1077) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 28-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 53 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same broad administrative area only (+1; not a locality match)
  • candidate and subject share the given name John (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 278 public profiles)
  • uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Hugh +7 (36 public profiles; subject branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; candidate branch: Hugh Glasgow; +4 repetition bonus); Alexander +3 (59 public profiles; subject branch: Alexander Glasgow; candidate branch: Alexander Glasgow) (+14 total including +4 multi-name bonus)
  • the subject would fill the first son position among the candidate's dated children, and the candidate's linked father John Glasgow shares the subject's common given name (+2; Scottish grandparent-name pattern, John in 278 public profiles; Leading existing-profile placement; low; weak alone)

Deductions and cautions: a different father is already linked but its evidence is unassessed (−15); candidate already has another child named John Glasgow MA (Glasgow-1077) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

Automated fit15/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1649–?Generation32 years age gapRecorded placesKirknewton and East Calder, Midlothian, Scotland · Kirknewton — West LothianIndependent clue breadth · 6Age · Broad Migration · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Spouse · Spouse-Specific Child Window · Two-GenerationSame-spouse child windowMargaret (Currie) GlasgowCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 32-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • known spouse Margaret (Currie) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (31) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate's birth is 57 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), 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 32-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 57 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1676–1686) (+6; other parent Margaret (Currie) Glasgow)
  • known spouse Margaret (Currie) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (31) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate and subject share the given name John (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 278 public profiles)
  • descendant branches share only a broad migration destination country (+1; weak alone): ireland

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

Show 3 lower-scoring possible fathers
Automated fit14/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1650–?Generation31 years age gapRecorded placesKirknewton and East Calder, Midlothian, Scotland · Kirknewton — West LothianIndependent clue breadth · 7Age · Common Grandparent Birth-Order Naming · Household · Indirect Multi-Factor Convergence · Repeated Marriage Surnames · Spouse · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 31-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): collateral network, household chronology, naming
  • candidate's birth is 56 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), 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 31-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 56 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • subject's birth fits within the candidate's overall child-bearing span (1673–1685) (+3; children are not tied to one spouse)
  • known spouse Margaret Glasgow had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (31) at the subject's birth (+3)
  • the subject would fill the first son position among the candidate's dated children, and the candidate's linked father John Glasgow shares the subject's common given name (+2; Scottish grandparent-name pattern, John in 278 public profiles; WikiTree: uncertain parent; weak alone)
  • uncommon spouse surnames recur across the subject and candidate branches: Cunningham +4 (+4 total)
  • 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): collateral network, household chronology, naming

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

Automated fit12/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1661–1750Generation20 years age gapRecorded placesEdinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland · Stevenson, Lanarkshire, Scotland · EdinburghIndependent clue breadth · 6Age · Broad Migration · Household · Rare Branch-Name Recurrence · 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 45 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 6 years of the subject (+1)

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

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 20-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 45 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 6 years of the subject (+1)
  • candidate and subject share the given name John (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 278 public profiles)
  • uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Hugh +9 (36 public profiles; subject branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; candidate branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; +6 repetition bonus) (+9 total)
  • descendant branches share only a broad migration destination country (+1; weak alone): united states

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

Automated fit10/100
Competing Linked Parent
Dates1655–?Generation26 years age gapRecorded placesMidlothian, Scotland · Midlothian — exact locality unprovedIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Spouse · Spouse-Specific Child Window · Two-GenerationSame-spouse child windowIsobell (Duffe) GlasgowCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 26-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • known spouse Isobell (Duffe) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (21) at the subject's birth (+7)
  • candidate's birth is 51 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), 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 26-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 51 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1677–1691) (+6; other parent Isobell (Duffe) Glasgow)
  • known spouse Isobell (Duffe) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (21) 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)

Possible mothers5 leads

Automated fit24/100
Weak Lead
Dates1655–?Generation26 years age gapRecorded placesKilwinning, Ayrshire, Scotland · Kilwinning, Ayrshire, Scotland, United Kingdom · Kilwinning — AyrshireIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Household · Rare Branch-Name Recurrence · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 26-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 51 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 3 years of the subject (+3)

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

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 26-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 51 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 3 years of the subject (+3)
  • uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Hugh +9 (36 public profiles; subject branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; candidate branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; +6 repetition bonus) (+9 total)

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

Automated fit19/100
Weak Lead
Dates1647–?Generation34 years age gapRecorded placesLinlithgow, Linlithgowshire, Scotland · LinlithgowIndependent clue breadth · 5Age · Broad Migration · Household · Rare Branch-Name Recurrence · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 34-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 59 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 6 years of the subject (+1)

same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); candidate already has another child named John Glasgow (Glasgow-1927) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 34-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 59 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • a known child was born within 6 years of the subject (+1)
  • uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Hugh +9 (36 public profiles; subject branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; candidate branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; +6 repetition bonus) (+9 total)
  • descendant branches share only a broad migration destination country (+1; weak alone): united states

Deductions and cautions: same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); candidate already has another child named John Glasgow (Glasgow-1927) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

Show 3 lower-scoring possible mothers
Automated fit17/100
Weak Lead
Dates1674–1701Generationnominally 7 years; approximate dates permit about 15–17 years age gapRecorded placesOld Machar, Aberdeenshire, Scotland · ScotlandIndependent clue breadth · 6Age · Broad Geography · Broad Migration · Household · Rare Branch-Name Recurrence · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • the nominal 7-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–17 years) (+4)
  • candidate's birth is 32 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • a known child was born within 6 years of the subject (+1)

parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction)

Show complete scoring
  • the nominal 7-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–17 years) (+4)
  • candidate's birth is 32 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • same broad administrative area only (+1; not a locality match)
  • a known child was born within 6 years of the subject (+1)
  • uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Hugh +9 (36 public profiles; subject branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; candidate branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; +6 repetition bonus) (+9 total)
  • descendant branches share only a broad migration destination country (+1; weak alone): united states

Deductions and cautions: parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction)

Automated fit12/100
Weak Lead
Dates1632–?Generation49 years age gapRecorded placesMusselburgh / InvereskIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Broad Migration · Rare Branch-Name Recurrence · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • candidate's birth is 74 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • less typical 49-year parent-child age gap (+2)
  • uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Hugh +9 (36 public profiles; subject branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; candidate branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; +6 repetition bonus) (+9 total)

locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); candidate already has another child named John Glasgow (Glasgow-1057) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

Show complete scoring
  • less typical 49-year parent-child age gap (+2)
  • candidate's birth is 74 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Hugh +9 (36 public profiles; subject branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; candidate branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; +6 repetition bonus) (+9 total)
  • descendant branches share only a broad migration destination country (+1; weak alone): united states

Deductions and cautions: locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction); candidate already has another child named John Glasgow (Glasgow-1057) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

Automated fit5/100
Weak Lead
Dates1674–1699Generationnominally 7 years; approximate dates permit about 15–17 years age gapRecorded placesKilbirnie, Ayrshire, Scotland · Kilbirnie — AyrshireIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Rare Branch-Name Recurrence · Rare Name Bundle · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • the nominal 7-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–17 years) (+4)
  • candidate's birth is 32 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Hugh +7 (36 public profiles; subject branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; candidate branch: Hugh Glasgow; +4 repetition bonus); Alexander +3 (59 public profiles; subject branch: Alexander Glasgow; candidate branch: Alexander Glasgow) (+14 total including +4 multi-name bonus)

parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); candidate already has another child named John Glasgow MA (Glasgow-1077) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict)

Show complete scoring
  • the nominal 7-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–17 years) (+4)
  • candidate's birth is 32 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1706), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Hugh +7 (36 public profiles; subject branch: Hugh Glasgow, Hugh Glasgow; candidate branch: Hugh Glasgow; +4 repetition bonus); Alexander +3 (59 public profiles; subject branch: Alexander Glasgow; candidate branch: Alexander Glasgow) (+14 total including +4 multi-name bonus)

Deductions and cautions: parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); candidate already has another child named John Glasgow MA (Glasgow-1077) 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

John GlasgowGlasgow-2539

Automated fit52/100
Similar Person
Dates1771–?PlacesCounty Tyrone, IrelandParent comparisonNo shared parent is indexed
Why it may fit
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • shared recorded place (+20)
  • matching child name: Hugh Glasgow

record-derived birth estimates differ by 90; retained without deduction

Full comparison detail
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • shared recorded place (+20)
  • matching child name: Hugh Glasgow

Conflicts: record-derived birth estimates differ by 90; retained without deduction

Open side-by-side comparison

Same-name candidate

John GlasgowGlasgow-3161

Automated fit43/100
Similar Person
Dates1680–?PlacesWest Kilbride, Ayrshire, ScotlandParent 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

Latest case researchThe current conclusion from the durable research case file.Updated

Current conclusion

Glasgow-551 · updated 2026-08-09

The claimed descent from William-591 remains late family tradition. A newly identified contemporary Irish John is recorded in 1728: John Glasgow, gentleman, of Gortigillagh/Gortaggle, County Leitrim. He is a competing same-generation candidate, not an identification of John-551; the residence and status do not closely match the later County Tyrone tradition.

Life and record timelineChronological mapped occurrences and their underlying sources.1 record
Case-file source findingsSource extracts and analysis regenerated from findings.md.1 section(s)

Source findings

Glasgow-551 · updated 2026-08-09

SourceFindingAssessment
Registry of Deeds memorial 38,213, vol. 57, p. 235John Glasgow, gentleman of Gortigillagh, County Leitrim, witnessed a Johnston-network agreement dated 30 May 1728.Genuine contemporary candidate, but no relationship, age or Tyrone connection. Keep separate as Glasgow-3960.
Registry of Deeds memorial 71,498, vol. 101, p. 337A 1725 Cavankilgreen, County Tyrone lease names an occupier only as [—] Glasgow in the volunteer abstract.Potentially decisive for John-551 if the omitted forename is John, but the original has not been read and no identification can yet be made.
Evidence assessmentWhat is supported, uncertain or disputed in the current case model.3 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.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.2 sources

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

  1. tree_only Family history document written by William Melanchthon Glasgow [https://www.wikitree.com/photo/pdf/Glasgow-590]
  2. tree_only WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-551
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-551 was captured 2026-08-07T09:48:56+00:00; WikiTree profile revision 2022-11-11.

Profile location claims

EventDateLocationStatus
birth—ScotlandWikiTree profile field
death—County Tyrone, IrelandWikiTree profile field

Immediate relationship snapshot

RelationshipPersonWikiTree IDDates and places returned
ParentsWilliam GlasgowGlasgow-5911656-00-00 · Glasgow, Scotland · 0000-00-00 · Ireland
ChildrenHugh GlasgowGlasgow-5481706-00-00 · County Tyrone, Ireland · 0000-00-00

Profile categories

Estimated_Birth_Date

Record-bearing passages

  • BiographyResearch Notes John's birth year is roughly estimated as 1681 based on the assumption that he was about 25 years old when his son Hugh was born. He was probably born sometime between 1656 an 1688.
  • The reference document by William Melanchthon Glasgow said John "found a home in County Tyrone". He was probably born in Scotland.

  • Although he would need to be 58 years old when William was born, here is another John Glasgow, son of William (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Glasgow-2452). Sources

Profile source citations

  1. Family history document written by William Melanchthon Glasgow [https://www.wikitree.com/photo/pdf/Glasgow-590] source link 1

Other external links in the profile

Full captured biography text
BiographyResearch Notes
John's birth year is roughly estimated as 1681 based on the assumption that he was about 25 years old when his son Hugh was born. He was probably born sometime between 1656 an 1688.

The reference document by William Melanchthon Glasgow said John "found a home in County Tyrone". He was probably born in Scotland.

Although he would need to be 58 years old when William was born, here is another John Glasgow, son of William (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Glasgow-2452). 
Sources
* Family history document written by William Melanchthon Glasgow [https://www.wikitree.com/photo/pdf/Glasgow-590]
Raw WikiTree biography markup
{{Estimated Date}}
== Biography ==

== Research Notes ==
John's birth year is roughly estimated as 1681 based on the assumption that he was about 25 years old when his son Hugh was born. He was probably born sometime between 1656 an 1688.

The reference document by William Melanchthon Glasgow said John  "found a home in County Tyrone". He was probably born in Scotland.

Although he would need to be 58 years old when William was born, here is another [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Glasgow-2452 John Glasgow, son of William]. 
== Sources ==
<references />
* Family history document written by William Melanchthon Glasgow [https://www.wikitree.com/photo/pdf/Glasgow-590]