The 1283 Paisley-register receipt defines a distinct associated person and directly proves him as son of the late Richard, messenger of Glasgow. It does not prove that either man bore Glasgow as a hereditary surname. Pre-1500: maintain the individual free-space draft; do not create a person profile.
Relationship labels belong to each link. Partners are not assumed to be parents of every child.
What would move the research forward
Evidence and next steps
Evidence highlighted in the case file
*Registrum Monasterii de Passelet*, pp. 383–384; DEEDS 06190338. Alexander was principal in a burgage exchange and acknowledged receipt of five marks from Gilbert of the bishop's chamber.
Trace the exchanged burgage, its referenced companion instrument, Richard the messenger, Gilbert of the bishop's chamber and later administrative occurrences of Alexander.
Principal in burgage exchange; son of the late Richard, messenger of Glasgow
Mentioned person; role not specified
Glasgow, Scotland
Explicit father-son statement. Glasgow may qualify Richard's office or location rather than a hereditary surname. Possible identity candidate for the 1289/90 escheator; no bridge proves it.
Dated assessments, source transcriptions and earlier working notes remain available in full. Where those disagree, use the current conclusion above and inspect its reasoning.
Latest case researchThe current conclusion from the durable research case file.Updated
Current conclusion
record-medieval-1283-alexander-richard-messenger
The 1283 Paisley-register receipt defines a distinct associated person and directly proves him as son of the late Richard, messenger of Glasgow. It does not prove that either man bore Glasgow as a hereditary surname. Pre-1500: maintain the individual free-space draft; do not create a person profile.
Life and record timelineChronological mapped occurrences and their underlying sources.1 record
1283
Principal in burgage exchange; son of the late Richard, messenger of Glasgow
Explicit father-son statement. Glasgow may qualify Richard's office or location rather than a hereditary surname. Possible identity candidate for the 1289/90 escheator; no bridge proves it.
Case-file source findingsSource extracts and analysis regenerated from findings.md.1 section(s)
Source findings
record-medieval-1283-alexander-richard-messenger
*Registrum Monasterii de Passelet*, pp. 383–384; DEEDS 06190338. Alexander was principal in a burgage exchange and acknowledged receipt of five marks from Gilbert of the bishop's chamber.
Evidence assessmentWhat is supported, uncertain or disputed in the current case model.1 claim
1Derivative
Documented or strongly supported
Alexander, son of Richard the messenger of Glasgow was recorded in Glasgow, Scotland (1283).
proved1 linked evidence item
Principal in burgage exchange; son of the late Richard, messenger of Glasgow
Working hypotheses and conflicts
No claims in this category have been formally assessed.
Case-file assessments
Identity and relationship assessment
record-medieval-1283-alexander-richard-messenger
Richard → Alexander is certain from the text. Identity with the 1289/90 escheator is possible, supported by the Glasgow property setting and six-to-seven-year interval but lacking a shared office, property, associate or explicit alias. Keep him separate from the contemporaneous son of Richard the former constable.
Research questionsOpen problems, missing bridges and the next records to inspect.0 open
No formal open question is recorded for this person.
Case-file priorities and cautions
Recommended next records
record-medieval-1283-alexander-richard-messenger
Trace the exchanged burgage, its referenced companion instrument, Richard the messenger, Gilbert of the bishop's chamber and later administrative occurrences of Alexander.
Sources and provenanceStructured citations and source-quality classifications.1 source
Source or provenance: quality describes the record layer, not every conclusion drawn from it.
These child positions and checks are the subject details used to rank possible parents below.
Naming sequence used by the parentage model
Paternal grandfather positionNot identifiable from dated child profiles
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.
Estimate and relationship notes
Estimated as age 18 at the earliest known adult record (1283).
Estimated from the earliest mapped non-migration life event (1283).
Candidate comparisons and scoring
Relationship comparison
Potential parents or duplicates
Compare scored leads with the subject details above—not proof.
Higher-signal leadReview carefullyWeak lead
No named children are recoverable, so child-naming analysis cannot be run.
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.
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.
Documentary subject
Canonical WikiTree Space page
This evidence is maintained on a supporting free-space page, not forced into a person profile.