Sailor in Saltcoats; husband of Isobell Gray; father of lawful children Katherine and Agnes
Mentioned person; role not specified
Saltcoats, Ayrshire, Scotland
The testament dative directly defines John's relationship to his widow and children. It does not expressly call Isobell the girls' mother. Glasgow-1030 is excluded because his documented Glasgow-burgh household has no Saltcoats family bridge.
Dated assessments, source transcriptions and earlier working notes remain available in full. Where those disagree, use the current conclusion above and inspect its reasoning.
The testament dative directly defines John's relationship to his widow and children. It does not expressly call Isobell the girls' mother. Glasgow-1030 is excluded because his documented Glasgow-burgh household has no Saltcoats family bridge.
Preserved imported material. It may include superseded assertions; the current display assessment is shown at the top of this dossier.
At a glance
Identity & family
Tree links organise the family; documentary status still varies.
1Mapped records
0Close relations
1Evidence items
2Candidate leads
Birth
c. 1600 · Saltcoats, Ayrshire, Scotland
Death
Not recorded · Saltcoats, Ayrshire, Scotland
Parents
Not recorded
Spouses
Not recorded
Children
Not recorded
Gender
Male
WikiTree
No confirmed WikiTree destination
Research clusters
Saltcoats sailor family
Mapped descendants
Not calculated
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 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.
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.
Duplicate-safe creation
WikiTree profile workbench
No confirmed WikiTree profile is linked.
Live duplicate audit: checked 2026-09-08 across 410 exact-name or surname-variant search results.
Possible existing profiles
These are leads, not matches. Check locations, dates, relatives and source text.
about 1600 · mark as uncertainTaken from the catalogue's birth field.
Paste-ready WikiTree biography
Review the candidate profiles above before creating a new one. Use the suggested vital field above so the periodic matcher can find the finished profile.
Already exists or just created?
No submission is needed. The periodic live WikiTree audit searches the name, suggested vital date and place; a matching profile will appear as a candidate after the next catalogue refresh.