Alexander Glasgow

Begin with Alexander and Mary (Molly) McCaughan in the 1851 Lisnagaver census. Both were recorded as 40. The marriage columns give us a second anchor:

Their Lisnagaver household contained Alexander, Mary, Robert (10), James (7) and Ann (4). Church and later civil records identify six children in all:

See the household records and children’s later lives.

What happened to the children?

The Irish relationships are better established than some of the later identifications. Follow each child separately:

Two Jameses, two records. The 1837 and 1843 baptisms name separate children. Reuse of the name suggests the first died young, but no death or burial has been found. The unnamed 1838 child is not established as Samuel; neither a forename nor an exact death date can be supplied. The child is no longer presumed to have died young: the 1851 return also omits the living daughter Mary, who may be this child. The transcription has no entries for 1840–41, so Robert’s missing baptism is a coverage gap alongside positive census and marriage evidence. Baptism transcription · Unnamed child’s assessment.

A later Elder surname conflict

The census really uses Glasgow. These records do not identify Samuel’s father. Inventing a Glasgow father from the surname, then using him to prove the earlier family, would be circular.

The baptisms place the couple at Gortereagh in 1837–38 and Lisnagaver by 1843. Later Elder records lead to Gortahar. These are distinct neighbouring townlands; the sources do not date a move precisely.

1. Named occupier

   1863–78 · Alexander

   The revisions retain Alexander on lot 25, beside other Glasgow holdings. Adjacency does not establish brothers.

2. Change recorded

   1879–88 · Name struck out

   Changes appear in this revision volume. The annotations supply no exact death date or declaration of inheritance.

3. Family continuity

   1889–98 · Robert Elder

   The daughter’s husband occupies the same numbered holding. It was an estate tenancy under Robert Harvey. Valuation books.

Tenancy succession supports the family link. It does not prove freehold ownership, inheritance or a particular father. Full farm analysis.

Which McCaughan family was Mary’s?

The spellings McAughin, McAughern and McCaughan occur in the couple’s records. A compatible surname supplies a lead; each household still needs its own identification.

Sources: Rasharkin baptism transcription, north Antrim tithe material, and the maintained household and index comparison.

The best remaining manuscript target: Kilraughts–Dervock society material, CR5/32A/1, about 1804–1831, includes membership and family events. It could name a household around Mary’s probable birth, but has not been inspected. The society divided in 1831, so both contexts matter. Church-record guide.

A tempting clue is the run of Glasgow households in the census. Read the sequence as separate households, not a family tree:

A death registered at Gortahar on 16 May 1888 names an Alexander Glasgow. Is he the Lisnagaver farmer? Start with the apparent difficulty: the deceased was a labourer.

The occupation change is compatible with this family. Ann’s marriage already calls her father a labourer twelve years before the death. That weakens an objection to the match; it does not establish the deceased’s identity.

Now connect the places and relationships. Alexander’s daughter Mary married Robert Elder. Later Elder records lead to Gortahar, and Mary Glasgow’s 1892 death names her daughter Mary Elder. This makes the 1888 death the best-supported located match, with an inferred final step:

The 1888 informant reads Mary Glasgow, daughter. That fits Alexander’s daughter Mary, who lived at Gortahar, although she was by then Mrs Elder. The register names neither a wife nor a former Lisnagaver address. Read the complete comparison.

A real rival, not just a similar name

The alleged 1882 death of the Glenleslie wife is unverified. Even a verified death would require a remarriage check before the 1888 “married” status excluded her husband. The copied 1852 death belongs to an unsupported Australian reconstruction; a DNA-project ancestor label repeating it is not a death record.

Which Mary reported the death?

The forename was read as Nancy from 13 September to 6 October 2026. Compared with the same registrar’s other entries it reads Mary. Alexander’s daughter Mary lived at Gortahar and is the natural candidate, but she had been Mrs Elder since 1871. She may have been entered under her maiden surname; the informant may have been Alexander’s wife Mary, with “daughter” written in error; or she may have been Mary Ellen Glasgow, born at Lisnagaver in 1867. Each belongs to this family. The local register original has not been viewed.

A burial or notice naming the deceased’s wife or former address would be especially useful. A proved death for Alexander-951 elsewhere, or a proved Glenleslie family at Gortahar with a daughter Mary, would challenge the match. Full candidate comparison.

To look for Alexander’s parents, follow Nancy Glasgow’s New York estate. Her 1892 probate citation names James, Mary and Ann as children of Alexander, formerly of Rasharkin. Those names probably identify the family established above.

Start with Nancy’s own kin words. The will names two relatives. Their Irish records supply the Glasgow mothers behind those names:

Now return to Alexander and John. The probate citation places their children among the heirs. Combining that grouping with the will’s kin words and the Irish records supports a probable sibling network. It does not name Alexander’s father. The argument then uses John’s explicit father statement:

The missing link: no located record names Alexander’s father. Full siblings and half siblings have not been distinguished. The 1796 Desertoghill flax grower and the 1834 Robert Glasgow occupier remain separate, unproved identities. Full parentage tests.

Could the early records require an older Alexander?

The 5 June 1829 Belfast News-Letter extract reads:

“Alex. Glasgow, Lisnagaver”

The alert and archive index derive from one occurrence. The original page was inspected 3 October 2026: it lists freehold applicant 2324, with lands in Kilconway barony, Lisnagaver townland. The heading is now resolved. No age or kin is stated, and applying is not proof of admission. Alexander-951 and older Alexander-3904 remain compatible candidates.

An adult qualification, if established, could affect the birth estimate or support a namesake. It would not automatically identify Alexander’s father. Using the probable death age to identify the 1829 man and then treating him as proof of that same death would be circular.

1834: Alexr Glasgow held 29 acres and Robt Glasgow 35 acres at Lisnagaver. Alexander could have been about 23; an older man is not required. Robert’s age and relationship are absent. 1836: the field book’s house section names Robert and Archibald McCaughan junior; its land section supplies no occupier names. Alexander’s omission cannot establish co-residence or loss of a holding. Tithe material · Field book.

Acreage cannot manufacture an inheritance. The tithe uses Plantation measure; valuation uses statute measure. Lot 25’s 8 acres, 2 roods and 10 perches cannot be directly equated with the earlier 29 acres. Land comparison.

Robert as a father is a separate identity test. The indexed 1868 Robert death, age 71, implies birth c.1796–97. If he were the 1834 occupier, he would be only about 14–15 at Alexander’s c.1811 birth, or 7–8 under the earlier birth estimate. That weakens fatherhood conditional on the identification; it does not identify the occupier. Death index.

1861: the Belfast News-Letter, 7 January, p.4 names Robt. Glasgow as a Lisnagaver neighbour who warned James M’Caughern before a house collapse. Robert-938 and Robert-3449 remain compatible candidates. No age, kinship or connection to a valuation holding is supplied.

Canadian records now prove a sibling group linking Kilrea, Lisnagaver and Prescott. They expand Thomas and Daniel’s family, without yet making Alexander-951 another brother.

Robert’s 1849 will names his siblings. The 1861 deed identifies Daniel, watchmaker of Kilrea, with wife Margaret, and Thomas, farmer of Lisnagaver, with wife Mary Anne, selling the inherited two sixths. Their Irish identities are now established. The will does not call brother James deceased and names no parents.

A father statement for a different Alexander

The 25 March 1868 deed, C114 identifies Alexander Glasco, express agent of Rochester, as son of James Glasco, formerly of Prescott, carpenter. Eliza Jane and Mary’s earlier deeds name that same carpenter as their father. These are three named children; no complete child count follows.

This is a concrete father statement. It belongs to the Rochester man. Applying it to Alexander-951 needs a wife, age, birthplace or migration bridge; none is established. The deed’s 18 August 1868 date is registration, not execution. Power of attorney, C113.

The shares do not form a simple family count

The daughters conveyed interests in the same parcels, but their deeds do not explicitly derive those ninths from Robert’s will. Additional ownership, inheritance or an error could explain the difference. The carpenter’s identity with Robert’s brother James remains a property-based hypothesis. Neither the fractions nor the common name selects Alexander-951’s father.

Mary Glasgow Black’s six named children

The 15 September 1869 deed, C298 expressly calls Mary Black, formerly Mary Glasgow, Robert of Prescott’s sister. It names a real family across three places:

Elizabeth had died unmarried and intestate; the five surviving siblings were her heirs. The deed subdivides Mary’s one-sixth share among her children. It names no parents for Mary and does not make her a daughter of Adam. Mary Glasgow Black is a different person from the carpenter’s daughter Mary Glasco of Rochester.

Witnesses connect people, with identities still to prove

The 1843 Black baptism transcription has a damaged mother’s name and “Thomson Black”. It cannot be changed to Thomasina without the original. A baptism date is also not automatically a birth date. Black branch analysis.

Canadian leads that remain unassigned

The estate index has Samuel Glasgow, 1875, and James E., 1900–09. Younger Samuel-4021 and James E.-4017 are specific alternatives to older same-name relatives; these entries do not identify the merchant or carpenter. The Niagara fonds concerns a farmer who died about 1830 and is excluded as the merchant’s archive.

The reported autosomal connection through Thomas’s daughter Catherine lacks a checked descent, shared-cM total and segment information in the supplied account. It remains a lead, with other shared-ancestor routes to test. Full family and property analysis.

A tested descendant line of Alexander and a tested descendant line of James J Glasgow share R-FT20271. The historical men were not tested. The shared paternal ancestor remains unnamed.

Three STR differences do not mean three generations

The maintained comparison gives genetic distance 3 at Y-111. STR mutations are uneven; this number does not identify a cousin degree or count father-to-son transmissions. Another line is closer on a larger callable Big Y STR panel, and the reviewed Block Tree contains no exclusive named downstream branch joining only Alexander and James J. FTDNA explanation · Wider DNA study.

What the SNP evidence actually says

Historical names label descendant lines. Derived is a changed state; ancestral requires a reliable pre-mutation call. Unresolved is not an ancestral result. Untested means no SNP-level comparison in the supplied evidence.

Source: public FTDNA project, reviewed 13 September 2026, and the maintained August call audit. The private-call summary is not a separately reproducible public genotype dataset. Historical associations remain conditional on the supplied pedigrees. Full dated matrix and provenance.

The useful unresolved signal is FT6135: Alexander’s audited result is ancestral; two reported Robert descendant lines are derived. That is a candidate grouping signal, not an established new branch. Resolve the James M son-lines and check the pedigrees before placing the mutation. A basal FT20271 display or a missing variants-file entry supplies no ancestral call. SNP guidance.

The American route has two missing relationships

Robert’s early-1790s birth fits Archibald’s under-ten boy in 1800; it does not name that boy. James-2439’s Newberry household is another age-compatible father candidate for James J. Compare its 1831 estate. James J’s 1848 Giles County deed proves residence then; its recital of an 1845 bond proves that transaction, not necessarily residence in 1845.

Possible Irish routes now run through John Glasgow, farmer

James-1509 is a real Larne ropemaker in the 1760 ropewalk lease; a 1773 affidavit says he was over thirty. His reported 1737 birth and proposed children require separate proof.

The estate argument makes John Glasgow, farmer, Alexander's probable father, so any Larne connection must join above John. The earlier routes through older Alexander-3904 and younger James-3986 each put a different man in John's place and are withdrawn as routes; they survive only as weaker rival fathers.

No record names John farmer's father, so the diagram cannot replace the missing records. The routes in full.

Chronology prevents an easy graft. Adam’s estimated 1758 birth would make him only 12 at older Alexander’s estimated 1770 birth; Rose’s estimated 1767 birth would make her 3. Changing dates or proposing an earlier mother adds unsupported conditions. James’s reported 1762 marriage to Janet Shutter also postdates Adam’s estimated birth, so Janet is not established as Adam’s mother.

William-3324 is a useful Larne-family comparison: his daughter Jane Shutter provides distinctive naming support. His 1815 will, D300/1/5/49, is a concrete target. Reported STR lines through Robert-1143, James-1144 and John-822 need both SNP calls and audited descent before they can join the FT20271 comparison. Complete Larne reconstruction.

The useful checks target an identity or a relationship, rather than another nearby surname:

• Nancy’s estate: locate the actual 1894 appraisal and any surviving heir papers. The original probate docket records proceedings; it does not itself supply the missing relationships.
• Mary Glasgow Thompson: inspect the Scottish marriage original behind the new index lead, then establish whether that family belongs to Nancy’s Irish kin. It remains a separate, unproved identity.
• The 1888 death: view the local register original of the informant entry and compare the competing Alexander’s family records.

These checks can change the conclusion. Repeating the same family tradition or broad DNA match cannot. Exact references and completed searches.

Other leads have limits: the 1830 John Glassgow–McCaughern witness and the 1831 Black witness supply names, not kinship. The inspected 1829 freehold application could concern this man or an older namesake; registration records and qualification rules could help distinguish them. Witness evidence · 1829 identity test.

The independent routes deserve equal attention

Free newspaper routes now tested

News4Clues’s recommendations supplied two additional collections. Searches on 30 September 2026 found no new parent or sibling statement:

The parentage conclusion is unchanged. These searches refine the available routes; they do not weaken the Irish family reconstruction or prove the Michigan identity. Exact terms, counts and inspection limits.

Read the claim at three different levels

An inaccessible original remains uninspected, not a negative search. An empty exact-name index result is bounded by spelling, indexing and coverage. Reprinted notices or copied family traditions do not become independent evidence by repetition. Evidence method · Precise references, outcomes and completed searches.