Research material · Alexander Glasgow · Glasgow Surname Project

Suggested profile text

For WikiTree editors

Suggested update to the WikiTree profile

This study has prepared revised text for the public WikiTree profile. WikiTree editors can compare it with the current profile and copy it; the research account above is the study's own.

Correct the 1888 death informant from Nancy to Mary Glasgow and add the 6 October source audit: James Anderson’s Gortahar death, Robert’s survival in January 1892 and the living daughter omitted in 1851. Also add the inspected Nancy death notice, original 1829 freehold application and qualified 1861 Lisnagaver occurrence; retain competing identities, date readings and approximate ages without changing family links.

Application review, 2026-10-06: Complete effective replacement compared line by line with the replacement audited on 3 October. 20 existing lines are changed and 6 lines inserted (4 of them blank); no line is removed. The changes correct the 1888 informant’s forename from Nancy to Mary wherever it was stated, withdraw the comparison with Ann, and add James Anderson’s 1888 Gortahar death, Robert’s survival at the January 1892 citation and the daughter omitted from the 1851 return. Every reference definition, profile link and source URL of the earlier replacement remains; four references are added. The saved current biography fingerprint is unchanged. The register image was read against the same registrar’s adjacent entries; the local original was not viewed. No fresh live capture or live save is claimed.

Current captured WikiTree biography

Read-only capture used for the comparison above.

{{Estimated Date}}
[[Category:Glasgow Name Study]]
{{Ireland Native}}
{{Occupation|image=Wikimedia_Commons_photos-3.jpg|text=was a farmer}}

== Biography ==
=== Alexander’s life in its local setting ===

Alexander’s records describe a family rooted in a small part of County Antrim, with children whose later lives lead beyond it. His clearest surviving household is at Lisnagaver in 1851: an Antrim-born farmer, his wife Mary, and three children. Earlier baptisms recover the beginnings of that family; later marriages and the Elder tenancy connect it to the next generation. The probable Gortahar death completes the broad outline, with the last identity link still open.



==== The places in his life ====


Gortereghy<ref name="Evidencec9d92bcd01">[https://www.townlands.ie/en/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin-upper/gortereghy/ Gortereghy].</ref>, written Gortereagh in the baptism transcription, adjoins Lisnagaver<ref name="Evidence7d988f87c8">[https://www.townlands.ie/en/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin/lisnagaver/ Lisnagaver].</ref> to the south. Gortahar<ref name="Evidence10a9c7be48">[https://www.townlands.ie/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin/gortahar/ Gortahar].</ref> lies northeast, beyond Moneyleck. They are distinct townlands within the same parish. The map shows approximate modern townland locations, not reconstructed houses or field boundaries.


Both spouses reported first marriage in 1836. Their children’s baptisms place them at Gortereagh in 1837–38 and Lisnagaver by 1843. That suggests a change in the family’s recorded residence between neighbouring townlands; it does not date a move precisely or establish a return to a paternal home. Mary’s possible local family connections deserve investigation in their own right.


The census’s farmer and literate household, the small assessed tenancy and the children’s marriages recover part of Alexander’s circumstances. Later records call him a labourer, and his son-in-law succeeds him on the holding. These changes are compatible with an altered working role as he aged, but their cause is unknown. No inspected source establishes eviction, poverty, or illness-induced retirement. The record sequence and farm analysis distinguish those observations from assumptions about his life.


The following account traces marriage and children, examines the surviving household, then follows the farm, probable death and paternal connections. Missing parentage is one question within that family history.



=== Marriage, Mary’s family and the children ===

Alexander Glasgow and Mary/Molly McCaughan are a documented couple. Their 1851 household reports first marriage in 1836, but no original marriage entry has been located. Rasharkin Presbyterian’s surviving marriage register begins in 1845; First Kilraughts material (Coleraine Family History Society film 197, marriages from 1831) remains a focused alternative.


The marriage-year statement fits the first directly located record sequence. The published transcription of the original Rasharkin Presbyterian register, PRONI MIC1P/292, records the same parental couple at Gortereagh: James Glascaw was born 17 January and baptised 9 February 1837 to Alex and Mary McAughin; an incomplete 1838 entry records a Glascow child of Alex and Molly McAughern; and a later James Glascow was born 9 October 1843 and baptised 7 January 1844 to Alex and Molly McAughern at Lisnagaver. The named transcription can be checked at Rasharkin Presbyterian baptisms<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/Baptisms_1834.html Rasharkin Presbyterian baptisms].</ref>. The register transcription preserves Mary/Molly and McAughin/McAughern. The repeated parental names and residences support their identification with Mary McCaughan while retaining the spellings actually recorded.


The Gortereagh residence is meaningful maternal context, but it is not a parentage proof. The 1834 tithe list includes William and James McCaheran there, a spelling compatible with the recorded McAughin/McAughern/McCaughan forms. This makes a McCaughan family connection a reasonable explanation to test for the newly married couple’s residence, perhaps through Mary's people or a subtenancy. It does not prove that either man was Mary's father, nor that the first son James was named for a maternal grandfather. The 1851 Lisnagaver evidence supplies a more concrete lead: Mary McCaheren, 22, lived with farmer Archibald McCaheren, 60, and Elizabeth in house 31. She is the strongest currently located candidate for the later 1855 bride who named her father as Archy, but that is a separate McCaughan problem. It does not establish Mary Glasgow’s parentage. Likewise, the household of widowed Sarah McCaghrin and grandchildren beside widowed Margaret Elder and children is evidence of a local network of families and neighbours, not an expressed kinship.


The Gortereagh names are recorded in the 1834 Rasharkin tithe book, PRONI '''FIN/5/A/236'''; the 1851 McCaheren and Elder groupings are in Lisnagaver houses 31 and 5. These are separate record observations, not confirmed maternal relatives. See the National Archives census collection<ref name="Evidence0b09d5bb14">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/ National Archives census collection].</ref> and PRONI tithe-book guide<ref name="Evidenceb39783b2e9">[https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/tithe-applotment-books PRONI tithe-book guide].</ref>.

An authenticated FamilySearch search adds a useful comparison lead: a John McCaughan marriage at Rasharkin on 18 March 1851 names '''Jas McCaughan''' as his father, while a separate 1836 Lisnagaver valuation entry names '''Archibald Mccaughan Junr'''. The same search returns Archey and John McCaheran in the 1822–1840 tithe collection. These entries strengthen the conclusion that several similarly named families occupied the area, but their original images and townlands still need checking; none currently proves Mary's parents.<ref name="EvidenceFamilySearchMcCaughan">[https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&amp;q.anyPlace=Rasharkin&amp;q.surname=McCaughan FamilySearch Rasharkin McCaughan search], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

A separate public Geneanet tree repeats the John McCaughern–Sarah Dysart marriage and proposes a 1872 death for John and a daughter, Mary Anne Jane Rea McCaughern, at Crushybracken about 1858. This supplies a useful descendant-search route, but it is user-submitted derivative material and remains a collateral branch, not evidence for Mary's parents.<ref name="EvidenceGeneanetDysart">[https://pt.geneanet.org/fonds/individus/?go=1&amp;niveaux_1___3869569569__=arbres&amp;niveaux_2___3645179592__=arbres%23utilisateur&amp;nom=MCCAUGHERN&amp;sourcename__0__=bobspree Geneanet McCaughern public tree index], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>



==== Six children, with different kinds of evidence ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Child !! Dates supported by records !! Evidence and what remains uncertain
|-
| [[Glasgow-3939|James Glasgow (Glasgow-3939)]] || Born 17 January 1837; baptised 9 February || Rasharkin entry 75 names Alex and Mary McAughin at Gortereagh. Reuse of James in 1843 suggests this child died young; no death or burial has been found.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3940|Unnamed Glasgow child (Glasgow-3940)]] || Entry in the 1838 baptism sequence || Entry 106 names Alex and Molly McAughern at Gortereagh. The parent relationship is documented; the forename and precise birth/baptism dates are not preserved in the transcription. No death date is proved.
|-
| [[Glasgow-938|Robert Glasgow (Glasgow-938)]] || Born about 1840–41 || Aged 10 in 1851 and 25 at his 1866 marriage. Both records name Alexander as father. The imported exact date 6 November 1840 has no identified supporting record.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3167|Mary Glasgow, later Elder (Glasgow-3167)]] || Aged 28 at marriage in 1871; birth year uncertain || Her marriage names Alexander Glasgow, farmer, and gives Lisnagaver residence. Husband Robert Elder’s later occupation of Alexander’s lot and her role at her mother’s 1892 death strengthen the family identification. She is not listed in house 35 in 1851.
|-
| [[Glasgow-973|James Glasgow (Glasgow-973)]] || Born 9 October 1843; baptised 7 January 1844 || Rasharkin entry 203 names Alex and Molly McAughern at Lisnagaver. The seven-year-old son in 1851 fits this child. His later life remains under investigation.
|-
| [[Glasgow-438|Ann Glasgow, later McCracken (Glasgow-438)]] || Born about 1846–47; married 13 October 1876 || Four-year-old daughter in 1851; her 1876 marriage independently names Alexander Glasgow, labourer. Her identity with the 1888 informant Nancy is possible but unproved.
|}


Sources: Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription, entries 75, 106 and 203<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />, from PRONI '''MIC1P/292'''; 1851 household image<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/view-pdf/?doc=007246523_00175&c19=true 1851 household image].</ref>; the civil marriages linked in the record table below. The baptism evidence is a named transcription; the original incomplete 1838 entry still needs inspection. The two James entries represent separate children, not a duplicate caused by a date discrepancy.



==== What the gaps mean ====


The early children are documented separately from their inferred deaths. The table’s reuse-of-name argument does not supply an exact death date. Nor does the incomplete 1838 transcription identify its child as Samuel: an original copy of '''MIC1P/292, entry 106''' is needed to read the missing name and dates.


The transcription has no entries for 1840 or 1841, around Robert’s likely birth. Failure to find his baptism in that transcription is therefore weak evidence against the known parentage: the census and marriage positively establish his father. The missing original marriage, incomplete baptism entry and missing burial records are different gaps and need different searches.


The unnamed child would have been about twelve or thirteen in 1851. No resident, absent-person or household-death entry records that child in the maintained return audit. That omission weighs against an uncomplicated survival-and-emigration reconstruction, but cannot fix a death date or guarantee that the return was complete. The candidate Samuel Glasgow in Michigan was rejected because no American record supplied the required Antrim/parent bridge and the proposal also had to explain this omission. An impossible February date in a later cemetery transcription cannot name the child. The [[Glasgow-3940|child’s assessment]] preserves the comparison.



=== New parentage research: Mary’s McCaughan/McAughern network ===

The current evidence still does '''not''' prove the parents of [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]. The new research separates several local families that had previously risked being merged by surname and locality alone.

* The complete 1851 Rasharkin-derived return contains several relevant households: the older Archibald McCaheren family at Lisnagaver; William McCaheren; Sarah McCaghrin; Mary McCaheren, age 70, recorded as mother-in-law in the John and Margaret Taylor household; and an 11-year-old John McCaughern recorded as a servant/apprentice. None identifies Mary Glasgow, born about 1811, or names her parents.
* The Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription shows distinct McAughern/McAughin households: Eliza McAughern with Thomas at Carnfinton; Archy McAughern with Elizabeth Kilpatrick at Lisnagaver; and James McAughern, son of John and Jane McAuly, at Ballydonly. These records establish a local network, not a single extended family.
* The 1834 tithe material adds Alexr. McCaughan at Unchenagh in Finvoy, while the Drumadarragh family reconstruction identifies John McCaughey/McCahan, farmer, with children including Jane, Margaret, Nancy, James and Sarah. The Gortereghy William and James McCaheran group remains another candidate cluster. None is linked directly to Mary Glasgow.
* A separate National Archives census-search-form result documents Thomas McCaughern/McCaughan of Gortahar with father John McCaughern and mother Mary Gormley. This is a later-generation, parent-documented local family and does not prove Mary’s parentage.
* Authenticated FamilySearch searches for Mary McCaughan, McAughin, McAughern and McCaheren in the relevant Antrim period returned no indexed result. The apparent Alexander–Mary McCaughan hits belong to a different Catholic Culfeightrin/Ballycastle family, including Mary M’caughan’s 7 April 1867 baptism to Alex M’caughan and Cath Quinn. A separate Mary McCaughern–William Marks cluster is also later and unrelated.

The strongest new route is the pre-1831 '''Kilraughts–Dervock Reformed Presbyterian society material''', PRONI '''CR5/32A/1''' (also appearing in related catalogue references as '''CR5/32/1/1/1–2'''). The PRONI guide describes member-by-society lists, baptisms, marriages, deaths, removals and emigrations from about 1804–1831. Since Mary was probably born about 1811, a household or society entry could name her parents. The Kilraughts and Dervock societies operated together until their 1831 division, so both localities must be searched. This manuscript has not yet been inspected; it is a high-priority evidence target, not proof.

'''Current conclusion:''' Mary’s parents remain unknown. The local McCaughan/McAughern network is now better defined, and the Kilraughts–Dervock family lists are the highest-value unresolved route. No parent should be added to Mary’s profile until an original record explicitly connects her to a named household or parent couple.

Sources: [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/Baptisms_1834.html Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription]; [https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionorder.pdf North Antrim tithe material]; [https://ulsterlees.azurewebsites.net/families/co-antrim/ballymoney-area/ Ulster Lees Ballymoney-area study]; [https://censussearchforms.nationalarchives.ie/search/cs/results.jsp?applicantAddress=&applicantFirstname=&applicantSurname=&barony=&censusExtractYear=&city=&county=&fatherFirstname=&fatherSurname=&motherFirstname=&motherSurname=&pageSize=10&pager.offset=56160&parish=&search=Search&sort=residence_parishSort&townland= National Archives census-search forms]; [https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&q.givenName=Mary&q.surname=McAughern&q.birthLikeDate.from=1780&q.birthLikeDate.to=1840&q.birthLikePlace=Antrim%2C%20Ireland FamilySearch search]; [https://www.americanancestors.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Guide-to-Church-Records-October-2019.pdf PRONI Guide to Church Records]; [https://rootsireland.ie/antrimdown/online-sources.php RootsIreland County Antrim source list].

=== 1851 census: the complete household ===

The original return for Lisnagaver house 35<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0" /> contains these '''five completed person rows'''. It is the strongest single record of Alexander’s immediate household: relationships, ages, occupation, birthplace, literacy and marriage year appear together. The National Archives catalogue record<ref name="Evidenced9460690a2">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#census_year=1851&surname__icontains=glasgow&firstname__icontains=alexander&county=Antrim&limit=30&id=43294 National Archives catalogue record].</ref> identifies the return; image reference '''007246523_00175'''.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Person !! Relationship; age !! Occupation !! Birthplace !! Literacy; marital information
|-
| Alexander Glasgow || Head; 40 || Farmer || Antrim || Reads and writes; married; first marriage 1836
|-
| [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]] || Wife; 40 || None entered || Antrim || Reads; married; first marriage 1836
|-
| [[Glasgow-938|Robert Glasgow]] || Son; 10 || At school || Antrim || Reads; unmarried
|-
| [[Glasgow-973|James Glasgow]] || Son; 7 || At school || Antrim || Reads; unmarried
|-
| [[Glasgow-438|Ann Glasgow]] || Daughter; 4 || None entered || Antrim || Literacy blank; unmarried
|}


'''What this establishes.''' Alexander and Mary were recorded as spouses, with Robert, James and Ann as their children, in one Antrim household. It supports the approximate births and reported 1836 marriage year. It does not name Alexander’s parents, or locate every child born to the couple. In particular, Mary’s absence from this return does not outweigh her later father-naming marriage and family evidence.


The remaining person rows are blank. The maintained return audit and the published transcription, page 183<ref name="Evidence26281d6bb1">[https://durrushistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1851irishcensusreturnscommadelimitedtextfilejul24_071.pdf published transcription, page 183].</ref> record no absent-person or 1841–51 household-death entry for house 35. That is a statement about this return, not proof that no child or other relative had died. The transcript is another rendering of the same census, not independent corroboration.



==== Neighbouring households ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | House !! Recorded household !! What it establishes
|-
| 34 || [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow]], 50; wife Margaret, 30; daughter Ann, 3; [[Glasgow-2908|Samuel Glasgow]], 60, brother and unmarried linen weaver || John and Samuel are expressly brothers. Neither is called Alexander’s brother.
|-
| 35 || Alexander, Mary, Robert, James and Ann || The household transcribed above.
|-
| 36 || John Watters, blacksmith, and family || A separate household intervenes between Alexander and Thomas.
|-
| 37 || [[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]], 35; Mary Ann and daughters || A nearby Glasgow family of compatible generation. Proximity supports investigation, not siblinghood.
|}


Sources: National Archives 1851 Lisnagaver returns 34<ref name="Evidence2c97cf113b">[https://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/34/ 34].</ref>, 35<ref name="Evidencedea66e5c28">[https://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/35/ 35].</ref> and 37<ref name="Evidence6c8cd27a9f">[https://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/37/ 37].</ref>, original-image audit maintained in the case findings. John’s reported census age conflicts with his later gravestone age; it should not be used to force a generation gap between him and Alexander.



=== Following the children into adult life ===


==== Robert: the recorded son and the Scottish continuation ====


Robert, aged ten in 1851, is directly recorded as Alexander and Mary’s son in the same Lisnagaver household. His 5 April 1866 marriage to Jane Graham<ref name="Evidence05c8c53b0b">[https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1866/11531/8240963.pdf 5 April 1866 marriage to Jane Graham].</ref> independently calls him a Lisnagaver farmer and names his father Alexander Glasgow, farmer. Those two records make Robert Glasgow-938 the documented child, with estimated birth about 1840–41 from the census and marriage ages. The often repeated exact 6 November 1840 birth date has no identified supporting original. His probable identification with a later Gortereghy valuation occupier is useful local continuity, but that identification is separate from the proved father–son relationship.


Robert’s later family is followed into Glasgow, Scotland, in the maintained account, which cites a 1871 Scottish census index for Robert<ref name="Evidencea991c3602f">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QV9Y-71S6 1871 Scottish census index for Robert].</ref> and an 1881 index for the younger Alexander<ref name="Evidencecfab144f27">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VQQ8-5MB 1881 index for the younger Alexander].</ref>. [[Glasgow-937|Alexander Glasgow (Glasgow-937)]], born about 1871, is the next historical generation in that family reconstruction. The Irish census and marriage provide the direct father–son argument for Alexander-951 and Robert; the Scottish continuation relies here on the maintained census references, not newly inspected original images. The copied exact birth date for the younger Alexander had been cited to the same index used for the census, so it is not adopted as an independently verified birth in this account. Exact Scottish address chronology and Robert’s reported 1902 death remain checks on their own originals.


This carries the story beyond the Antrim farm without making every copied detail equally secure. The tested descendant’s confirmed paternal ancestry reaches Alexander-951; the Y-DNA section explains the genetic comparison without listing living generations.


The precise Scottish birth-image leads and the misplaced 1902 death citation are assessed in the next research tests. Neither has yet been inspected; the direct Irish father–son evidence remains secure.



==== James: a strong Michigan candidate, still an open identity ====


The second James, Glasgow-973, has an unusually clear Irish identity: the 1843–44 baptism and his age seven appearance in the 1851 household establish him as Alexander and Mary’s child. His subsequent association with the James Glasgow buried at Tecumseh, Michigan is strong but still unproved. The Michigan household is well reconstructed: the original 1884 Michigan census image<ref name="Evidence13cf3f6b80">[https://michigan.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_eb4d3f94-3c2f-4701-b5bb-c3ecee9ef9b9/ the original 1884 Michigan census image].</ref> gives a forty-year-old Irish-born baggage agent, and the Brookside register identifies the associated wife and daughters. His daughter Minnie’s 1941 death certificate<ref name="Evidence8b5b1f0905">[https://michigan.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_3dab599e-1093-473c-be85-eee5e9b49154/ 1941 death certificate].</ref> reports James as born in County Antrim. That narrows the comparison materially but names neither Alexander nor Mary and gives no Lisnagaver detail. The 1869 original marriage return, naturalisation papers, or a passenger record is still required before the Michigan life becomes Alexander’s son’s biography.



==== Ann: a later marriage and the Nancy problem ====


Ann, Glasgow-438, is likewise direct family evidence. She was aged four in 1851 and her 13 October 1876 marriage to Robert McCracken<ref name="Evidence157ee58a9a">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1876/11181/8097170.pdf 13 October 1876 marriage to Robert McCracken].</ref> calls her a full-age spinster of Lisnagaver and names Alexander Glasgow, labourer, as father. The occupational wording matters because it independently makes the 1888 Gortahar death’s “labourer” compatible with the former Lisnagaver farmer; it is not grounds to split the two men. Ann’s later married surname also means Nancy Glasgow, who reported Alexander’s 1888 death, cannot simply be equated with her. A separate daughter, or another explanation, remains possible.



==== Mary: the daughter whose records connect the households ====


Mary Glasgow-3167 is not in the 1851 return but is securely added by her 14 June 1871 marriage to Robert Elder<ref name="Evidence5782477e56">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1871/11341/8162804.pdf 14 June 1871 marriage to Robert Elder].</ref>: aged 28, resident Lisnagaver, she named Alexander Glasgow, farmer, as father. Her marriage, Robert Elder’s succession to lot 25, and the Gortahar deaths create the high-confidence bridge between the Lisnagaver couple and Mary McCaughan’s later identity. Mary Glasgow’s 17 February 1892 death return<ref name="Evidence6f1ed437a9">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1892/06049/4723532.pdf 17 February 1892 death return].</ref> records daughter Mary Elder as informant. It does not state a maiden surname or husband, and its reported age 89 conflicts with the retained c.1811 estimate; those limits belong beside the identification, not beneath it.


Mary’s later household also contains an instructive name conflict. Her granddaughter’s 1908 birth<ref name="Evidencebe365902e1">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/birth_returns/births_1908/01647/1657700.pdf 1908 birth].</ref> records '''Samuel Elder''', son of Jane Elder, with no father named; the 1911 household<ref name="Evidenceb4f7bd3ba5">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#id=490671&c20_year=1911 1911 household].</ref> calls him '''Samuel Glasgow'''. The surname is genuinely present in the census, not merely a modern transcription mistake. These records help reconstruct the continuing family, but neither identifies his father. It would be circular to invent a Glasgow father and then use that invented relationship to strengthen Alexander’s ancestry.


Mary’s absence in 1851 is consequently an unresolved location question within a well-supported later family identification. It does not erase the 1871 father statement. Nor does it establish that she was the Maryan in John of Glenleslie’s household: the roughly nine-year conflict between their implied birth years requires explanation, and no located record joins those two identities.



=== The complete record sequence and the farm ===

The sequence follows the named couple and their children across church, census, land and civil records. A father named on an adult child’s marriage is evidence of parentage; it does not by itself prove that he was alive on the marriage date.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Date !! Record and recorded detail !! Identification and evidential value
|-
| 5 June 1829, derivative extracts || Belfast News-Letter, page 4, article 015<ref name="Evidence2721035739">[https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.com/image-viewer?issue=BL%2F0000038%2F18290605&page=0004&article=015 Belfast News-Letter, page 4, article 015].</ref>: “Alex. Glasgow, Lisnagaver” in the inspected alert; independently located by townland in the newspaper index || Earlier local identity lead. Registration context suggested by heading OCR; full image, qualifications and identification unresolved. See the comparison below.
|-
| 1834 || Rasharkin tithe book<ref name="Evidenceb707c32b1e">[https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionorder.pdf Rasharkin tithe book].</ref>, PRONI FIN/5/A/236, folio 17: Alexr Glasgow, 29 acres at Lisnagaver; Robt Glasgow separately, 35 acres || Plausible early occurrence of this Alexander, who would have been about 23. No age or kinship distinguishes him from a possible older namesake.
|-
| 1836 || Lisnagaver valuation field book, pp.194–197<ref name="Evidence4804bc98c4">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-994J-9HD6 Lisnagaver valuation field book, pp.194–197].</ref>: Robert Glasgow and Archibald McCaughan junior named in the house section; Alexander absent || The land section has no occupier names. This is not proof that Alexander held no land or lived in either named household.
|-
| 1836, reported in 1851 || Both spouses give 1836 as first-marriage year in the census image<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0" /> || A contemporaneously recorded retrospective statement; an original marriage entry is still missing.
|-
| 9 February 1837 || Baptism entry 75<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />: Jas Glascaw, born 17 January; Alex and Mary McAughin; Gortereagh || Direct transcribed parent names, residence and child’s birth/baptism dates.
|-
| 1838 sequence || Baptism entry 106<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />: unnamed Glascow child; Alex and Molly McAughern; Gortereagh || Repeated couple and locality. The personal name and exact dates remain missing, separately from the documented parents.
|-
| 7 January 1844 || Baptism entry 203<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />: James, born 9 October 1843; Alex and Molly McAughern; Lisnagaver || Establishes the later James and places the family at Lisnagaver by his birth.
|-
| 1851 || Original house 35 census, transcribed above || The principal household identity, approximate ages and reported marriage year.
|-
| Griffith’s Valuation and 1863–78 revisions || Alexander on Lisnagaver lot 25, house, offices and land; PRONI VAL/12/B/4/16A–B || Continuing landholding beside John and Thomas Glasgow. An occupier’s name can outlast his actual occupation; it is not a continuous life certificate.
|-
| 5 April 1866 || Robert Glasgow–Jane Graham marriage<ref name="Evidence05c8c53b0b" />: Robert, 25, farmer of Lisnagaver; father Alexander Glasgow, farmer || Connects the 1851 son to his adult family. Jane’s Gortereghy residence also links the adjoining locality.
|-
| 14 June 1871 || Mary Glasgow–Robert Elder marriage<ref name="Evidence5782477e56" />: Mary, 28, spinster of Lisnagaver; father Alexander Glasgow, farmer || Father-naming record for an additional daughter. Robert, 40, farmer of Gortereghy, names father Nathaniel Elder. Witnesses William Graham and John Collins state no kinship.
|-
| 13 October 1876 || Ann Glasgow–Robert McCracken marriage<ref name="Evidence157ee58a9a" />: Ann, full-age spinster of Lisnagaver; father Alexander Glasgow, labourer || Supports the 1851 daughter’s later identity and shows that “labourer” was used for her father before the probable 1888 death.
|-
| 1879–88 revision volume || Alexander struck from lot 25 in VAL/12/B/4/16C; changes annotated 1881, 1882 and 1886; Robert Elder in possession by VAL/12/B/4/16D, 1889–98 || Supports the daughter/son-in-law land connection. No annotation establishes an exact death date or says that the transfer was inheritance.
|-
| 16 May 1888 || Gortahar civil death, entry 348<ref name="Evidencee25dc06500">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1888/06179/4766466.pdf Gortahar civil death, entry 348].</ref>: Alexander Glasgow, married labourer, 84; daughter Nancy present || Best-supported death identification, assessed separately below.
|-
| 17 February 1892 || Gortahar death of Mary Glasgow, entry 234<ref name="Evidence6f1ed437a9" />: widow, reported age 89; daughter Mary Elder informant || Strong indirect link between Alexander’s documented daughter and the elderly Glasgow couple at Gortahar. The register does not name Mary’s deceased husband.
|}



==== The reported 1829 occurrence: an age and identity test ====


The original newspaper alert of '''12 September 2025''' was inspected directly on 13 September 2026. Its MyHeritage result, 12021-100828509<ref name="Evidenceb9eaffcccc">[https://www.myheritage.com/research/record-12021-100828509-/alexander-glasgow-in-united-kingdom-names-stories-in-newspapers-from-oldnewscom MyHeritage result, 12021-100828509].</ref>, does quote '''“Alex. Glasgow, Lisnagaver”''' from the '''Belfast News-Letter, 5 June 1829'''. The British Newspaper Archive issue index<ref name="Evidence2721035739" /> independently locates the Lisnagaver entry in '''page 4, article 015'''. Its OCR mangles Glasgow, explaining why a surname search missed the article while a townland search found it. These are two derivative extracts of one newspaper occurrence, not two independent historical records.


The archive’s damaged heading excerpt appears to concern persons applying to register, with special sessions at Ballymoney, under '''County of Antrim'''. That makes a registration notice the specific working context, but the full image and governing columns remain unread: MyHeritage now presents a subscription paywall and the archive viewer requires sign-in. The extract cannot yet establish an adult qualification, successful registration or the man’s identity. The earlier claim that even the alert was uninspected is superseded; the historical interpretation remains open.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Identity being tested !! Approximate age on 5 June 1829 !! What the original could distinguish
|-
| Alexander-951 using the 1851 census age || About 18 || A general subscription, petition or resident list might accommodate him. An entry requiring a particular adult qualification would need that requirement and its date checked.
|-
| Alexander-951 using the probable 1888 death age || About 25 || Fits an adult occurrence more comfortably, but depends on both the death identification and the reported death age being correct.
|-
| An older Alexander, possibly the man represented by [[Glasgow-3904|Glasgow-3904]] || About 59 if the estimated 1770 birth is used || A senior/junior label, occupation, related party or other identifying detail might support an older namesake. Name and townland alone do not establish one.
|}


The important distinction is between '''an older birth date for the same man''' and '''a second, older man'''. Even if the notice proves adult status, it would not automatically make the subject Alexander's father. Conversely, identifying the subject from the 1888 age and then using him to validate that same death identification would be circular. No birth estimate or parent ranking changes on the extract alone.


If the subject is Alexander-951, the occurrence would support a premarital Lisnagaver association before the couple's Gortereagh baptisms of 1837–38 and their documented Lisnagaver residence by 1843. That would make a temporary residence near Mary's possible family a more focused hypothesis; it would not prove a move, tenancy or inheritance.


The supplied extract also lists Robert Elder of '''Gortaragh''', Arthur O'Neil of Tehorney, Henry and James Wallace of Culmore, James Tomb of Ballymaconly and James Elder of Drumcon. Their combined names and literal place spellings are useful for locating the correct column despite imperfect OCR. They must not yet be treated as neighbours, fellow freeholders or relatives. The 1829 Robert Elder cannot comfortably be the later son-in-law whose 1871 marriage<ref name="Evidence5782477e56" /> gives age forty and father Nathaniel; the corresponding 1894 death<ref name="Evidencea1cad7ff9e">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1894/05952/4691448.pdf 1894 death].</ref> gives age sixty-four. Those dates place that Robert's birth around 1830–31. A different Elder generation is therefore the appropriate comparison, and '''Gortaragh''' is left unnormalised pending the page.


The next test is the full image of page 4 and the heading governing this entry, with adjoining columns. The earlier PRONI freeholder-search negative does not dispose of this newspaper occurrence. The surname-search failure is now demonstrably an OCR limitation: the exact townland retrieves article 015. Neither search outcomes nor damaged heading text determine the qualification or age of the named man.



==== What the land records can establish ====


Alexander could have been the 1834 occupier at about twenty-three. An older namesake remains possible, but the name alone does not require one. In the 1836 field book, the house section names Robert Glasgow and Archibald McCaughan junior; the land section supplies no occupier names. Alexander’s omission cannot prove he held no land, lived with Robert, or had not yet formed a household.



==== The farm and the Elder connection ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Lisnagaver lot !! Occupier !! Area in valuation !! Immediate lessor
|-
| 24 || [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow]] || 21 acres, 2 roods, 25 perches || Robert Harvey
|-
| 25 || Alexander Glasgow || 8 acres, 2 roods, 10 perches || Robert Harvey
|-
| 26a || [[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]] || 32 acres, 3 roods, 15 perches || Robert Harvey
|}


Source: General Valuation of Ireland and PRONI valuation revision books<ref name="Evidence5c88fa9a83">[https://apps.proni.gov.uk/Val12B/Search.aspx PRONI valuation revision books].</ref>, Lisnagaver, VAL/12/B/4/16A–D. The 1834 tithe’s Plantation acreage and the valuation’s statute acreage cannot be directly equated to reconstruct an inheritance. The earlier near-equality argument is superseded. Adjoining holdings do not establish three brothers or a particular father.


Robert Elder’s succession to the '''same numbered holding''' is more specific than two surname occurrences in one parish. It supports continuity between Alexander’s family and his daughter’s husband. The immediate lessor was Robert Harvey: this is an estate tenancy, not evidence of freehold ownership. Neither succession nor the annotated revision years prove inheritance or an exact death date. The independent civil records that carry the Elder family to Gortahar are set out once, in the death-identification chain.


The later 1901<ref name="Evidencee493b88786">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#id=4575739&c20_year=1901 1901].</ref> and 1911<ref name="Evidenceb4f7bd3ba5" /> Gortahar Elder households are supporting family continuations, '''not censuses of Alexander'''. Their contribution to Alexander’s family account is explained above; complete household details remain on [[Glasgow-3167|Mary’s page]].




== Research Notes ==
=== Testing the 1888 death identification ===

'''The death at Gortahar on 16 May 1888 remains the best-supported located match for [[Glasgow-951|Alexander Glasgow of Lisnagaver (Glasgow-951)]], but its identification is probable rather than uniquely proved.''' The case rests on a connected family and landholding sequence. The register supplies an exact death date; uncertainty concerns the deceased’s identity, not the precision of that date.



==== The record and its limits ====


Original death entry 348<ref name="Evidencee25dc06500" /> supplies the following details. Nancy’s age and marital status are not recorded; no wife, parent, birthplace or former Lisnagaver address identifies the deceased more narrowly.



==== The register at a glance ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Field !! Entry 348
|-
| Registration || Dirraw registrar’s district, Ballymoney union, County Antrim
|-
| Death || 16 May 1888, Gortahar
|-
| Name and status || Alexander Glasgow; male; married
|-
| Age and occupation || 84 years; labourer
|-
| Cause || Gangrene, three months, certified
|-
| Informant || Nancy Glasgow, her mark; daughter; present at death; '''Gortahar'''
|-
| Registration date || 25 May 1888
|}



==== The identity chain, in dependency order ====


# The 1851 Lisnagaver house-35 return<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0" /> establishes Alexander and wife Mary, both reported aged 40, with children Robert, James and Ann. This is the starting household; its identity does not depend on either Gortahar death.
# Mary Glasgow’s 14 June 1871 marriage<ref name="Evidence5782477e56" /> identifies a 28-year-old Lisnagaver spinster, daughter of Alexander Glasgow, farmer, marrying Robert Elder, 40, farmer of Gortereghy. It directly establishes the bride’s father. Linking that father to the established Lisnagaver household uses name, residence and occupation; the marriage does not name her mother.
# PRONI valuation revisions<ref name="Evidence5c88fa9a83" />, VAL/12/B/4/16C–D, follow Alexander’s removal from '''Lisnagaver lot 25''' and Robert Elder’s subsequent occupation. Succession to the particular holding strengthens the identification of Robert with the daughter’s husband. The book neither declares an inheritance nor records Alexander’s destination or exact death. It supplies a separate administrative connection, not another explicit statement of kinship.
# The 16 September 1878 birth of Jane Matilda Elder<ref name="Evidence5aecbbb88b">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/birth_returns/births_1878/02945/2078820.pdf 16 September 1878 birth of Jane Matilda Elder].</ref> places Robert Elder and Mary, maiden surname '''Glass''', at Gortahar. The spelling is retained as written. The parents and later household continuity support identification with the 1871 couple; the shortened surname alone would be insufficient.
# Mary Glasgow’s death on 17 February 1892<ref name="Evidence6f1ed437a9" />, entry 234, records a widow aged 89 at Gortahar, with '''daughter Mary Elder''' present. That named relationship supplies the strongest connection between the elderly Glasgow woman and the Elder family. With the preceding marriage and household evidence, it supports the high-confidence identification of the widow as [[McCaughan-222|Mary McCaughan (McCaughan-222)]]. It does '''not''' name her deceased husband.
# The 1888 death of a married Alexander Glasgow in the same townland fits the husband of that widow. This last step remains inferential: neither death expressly identifies the other deceased as spouse, and Nancy has not yet been connected independently to the Lisnagaver family.


The 1901<ref name="Evidencee493b88786" /> and 1911<ref name="Evidenceb4f7bd3ba5" /> Elder households strengthen the family continuation. They are not independent sightings of Alexander. Likewise, the two civil deaths cannot first be assumed to concern a married couple and then cited as independent proof of that assumption. Their combined value depends on the independently established Elder connection.



==== Ages and occupation: compatibility with genuine conflicts ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Person !! 1851 reported age !! Later death age !! Approximate discrepancy
|-
| Alexander || 40, implying c.1811 || 84 in 1888, implying c.1804 || Seven years older than expected
|-
| Mary || 40, implying c.1811 || 89 in 1892, implying c.1803 || Eight years older than expected
|}


The two death ages describe near-contemporary people, as does the census, and both imply births several years earlier. This parallel is compatible with one elderly couple whose ages were reported differently across records. It does not prove shared identity: the informants may have had incomplete knowledge, the census ages may be inaccurate, or a namesake could be involved. Neither age should silently replace the maintained approximate birth estimate. The paired pattern becomes relevant only after the family connection has been established.


Alexander’s change from farmer to labourer is less problematic. Ann Glasgow’s 13 October 1876 marriage to Robert McCracken<ref name="Evidence157ee58a9a" /> already calls her father Alexander a labourer. Thus the 1888 occupation is compatible with the known father twelve years earlier; it does not require a different man. Conversely, labourer is too common an occupation to identify him by itself.



==== Nancy and the competing Alexander ====


[[Glasgow-438|Nancy’s possible identification with Ann (Glasgow-438)]] remains open. Ann had married in 1876 and would ordinarily appear as McCracken. No inspected record calls her Nancy or places her at Gortahar in 1888. Use of Glasgow does not establish that Nancy was unmarried, but it is a real obstacle to equating the two. Another daughter, absent in 1851 or born later, remains possible; no such birth or relationship should be invented.


[[Glasgow-2385|Alexander of Glenleslie (Glasgow-2385)]] is a genuine competing labourer. His 1847 marriage to Mary Anne Martin<ref name="Evidence4dd66ea875">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1847/09322/5375567.pdf 1847 marriage to Mary Anne Martin].</ref> and 1851 household<ref name="Evidence3f5ed7a43f">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#id=32216&census_year=1851 1851 household].</ref> distinguish a coherent family with wife Mary Ann and son John. A reported age of 35 in 1851 implies about 72 in 1888, twelve years below the death age. No located record connects this household to Nancy, Gortahar or the Elder succession. He is weaker, not excluded.


The reported 1882 death of his wife is '''unverified'''. Her current [[Martin-93219|WikiTree biography]], checked through the live API, supplies no identifiable original death registration and includes an 1848 Sydney marriage description concerning Mary Ann Cupid. That material cannot establish the Irish wife’s death. Even a verified death would require checking remarriage before using the 1888 married status to exclude her husband.



==== Comparing the named candidates ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Candidate !! Fit to the Gortahar death !! Present assessment
|-
| Alexander of Lisnagaver, Glasgow-951 || Known family reaches Gortahar; father described as labourer by 1876; widow and daughter fit the Elder network || '''Best current fit; probable.''' Age and Nancy’s identity remain unresolved.
|-
| [[Glasgow-2385|Alexander of Glenleslie (Glasgow-2385)]], born about 1816; husband of Mary Anne Martin || A real Antrim labourer namesake. He would have been about 72, a worse age fit to 84. No located Gortahar, Nancy or Elder connection identifies him with the death || '''Weaker alternative, not conclusively excluded.''' Trace his later household and wife independently before any reassignment.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3904|Older Alexander (Glasgow-3904)]], estimated birth c.1770 in the parent tradition || Would have been about 118 in 1888; neither the reported generation nor family history fits || '''No plausible claim on present chronology.''' His own estimated identity is not an original death identification.
|}


Thomas’s daughter [[Glasgow-1362|Nancy Glasgow (Glasgow-1362)]] is another local name, but the death expressly calls its informant Alexander’s daughter. Substituting Thomas’s daughter would require a relationship error or further evidence; she is not an equally straightforward identification.


The old 22 May 1852 death belongs to an unsupported Australian reconstruction of a different family. The submitted DNA-project ancestor label repeating “d.1852” is not a death record.



==== What would change the conclusion? ====


A record linking Nancy to Alexander and Mary of Lisnagaver, or a burial or notice naming the Gortahar man’s wife or former residence, would strengthen the leading identification. A securely identified death of Alexander-951 elsewhere, or an independently documented Glenleslie-to-Gortahar household with daughter Nancy, would challenge it. Tracing the Glenleslie son’s reported 1870 marriage offers a specific next step toward later family residence; that profile-derived lead still needs its original. Present evidence supports retaining '''16 May 1888, Gortahar, probable identification''', with the identity chain and its dependencies visible.


Original excerpts shown here were checked against the saved images. The Mary–Robert Elder 1871 marriage and Mary Glasgow 1892 death remain linked above and supported by the earlier maintained readings; fresh image retrieval returned an access error during this illustration pass, so no new excerpt or fresh reading is claimed for them.



=== Y-DNA: the connection and the competing histories ===

[[Glasgow-951|Alexander Glasgow (Glasgow-951)]] is the project owner’s '''oldest confirmed direct paternal ancestor'''. The documented descent reaches Alexander; his parents remain unknown. A tested male-line descendant has '''Big Y-700 placement R-FT20271''', also found in a tested descendant of [[Glasgow-2738|James J Glasgow (Glasgow-2738)]], born about 1809–10. These are historical ancestors represented by descendant results, not people who were themselves tested. The shared branch establishes paternal genetic kinship between the tested lines. It does not extend either documentary pedigree automatically. FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow project results<ref name="Evidencedb3c53b8e9">[https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Glasgow?iframe=ydna-results-overview FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow project results].</ref>, checked 13 September 2026.


This gives the parentage investigation a concrete family network. Alexander’s connection to James J’s line is established genetically even though the bridge between their families is missing. James J’s proposed father [[Glasgow-2769|Robert Glasgow (Glasgow-2769)]] and proposed earlier connection to [[Glasgow-2304|Archibald Glasgow (Glasgow-2304)]] remain hypotheses. Inserting them into a proved descent would assume the answer. See [[Glasgow-2738|James J’s evidence and open parentage question]].



==== What close STR matching can tell us ====


The maintained comparison gives '''genetic distance three at Y-111''' between the Alexander and James J descendant lines. That makes their connection a valuable research priority. It does not mean three generations: STR changes accumulate unevenly, and observed distance is not the number of father-to-son transmissions. FTDNA’s explanation of genetic distance<ref name="Evidencee3eb9bbee5">[https://blog.familytreedna.com/ftdnatip-report/ FTDNA’s explanation of genetic distance].</ref>.


Another Glasgow line is closer on the larger callable Big Y STR comparison. Consequently James J is the nearest comparison on the specified Y-111 panel, not demonstrably Alexander’s nearest genealogical cousin. The inspected August 2026 Block Tree contains no exclusive named downstream branch joining only these two lines. Wider Y-DNA study and comparison evidence.


Brothers, paternal cousins and descendants of more distant collateral branches remain distinguishable historical hypotheses; the present DNA cannot choose among them. Their similar estimated birth years do not locate their common ancestor. A connection through an earlier generation, followed by migration in one branch, remains compatible with the results. A specific migration route is not established. An exact ancestor, date or cousin degree requires evidence connecting the named people, supported where possible by additional independent descendant comparisons.



==== The SNP evidence matrix ====


The abbreviated branch path is '''R-FT4811 → R-FT32941 → R-FT25406 → R-FT20271''', with FTE32242 downstream. Historical names below label descendant lines, not tested historical people.


'''State key:''' '''D''' = derived, the changed state; '''A''' = ancestral, the pre-mutation state supported by a direct call; '''U''' = unresolved in the reviewed evidence; '''UT''' = untested at SNP level in the supplied comparison. A '''no-call''' means an attempted call was inconclusive and remains unresolved. '''Not independently reviewed''' describes the evidence or pedigree audit, not a genotype. No row is labelled no-call without evidence of an actual no-call.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Historical paternal line !! FT20271 !! FT6135 !! FTE32242 !! Provenance and pedigree qualification
|-
| [[Glasgow-951|Alexander Glasgow (Glasgow-951)]] || '''D''': direct audit and public placement || '''A''': direct reliable call || '''U''': basal display is insufficient to prove ancestral || Public project, 13 Sep 2026; private call audit, 11 Aug 2026. Established descendant line in this case; Alexander's parents remain unknown.
|-
| [[Glasgow-2738|James J Glasgow (Glasgow-2738)]] || '''D''': public placement || '''U''': direct state not independently reviewed || '''U''': basal display only || Public project, 13 Sep 2026; Aug administrator mapping. Descent to James J is distinguished from his uncertain attachment to Robert-2769 and Archibald-2304.
|-
| Reported [[Glasgow-591|William Glasgow (Glasgow-591)]], c.1655 || '''D''': reported public placement || '''U''' || '''U''': basal display only || Aug 2026 project evidence; early pedigree not independently established here.
|-
| Reported [[Glasgow-12|Robert Glasgow (Glasgow-12)]], through [[Glasgow-1965|John M (Glasgow-1965)]] || '''D''': reported public placement || '''D''': supplied comparison || '''U''': basal display only || Aug call comparison; maintained Y-DNA study maps this result through John M with a probable private continuation. This is a reported son-line of Robert, not an independently verified earlier root.
|-
| Reported Robert Glasgow, through [[Glasgow-563|William (Glasgow-563)]] || '''D''': reported public placement || '''D''': supplied comparison || '''U''': basal display only || Aug call comparison; the maintained pedigree audit identifies William’s line. The older James c.1700 ancestor label is not an independent test of Robert’s father or grandfather.
|-
| [[Glasgow-193|James M Glasgow (Glasgow-193)]], through [[Glasgow-2182|William Allen (Glasgow-2182)]] || '''D''': upstream of displayed child || '''U''': direct call required || '''D''': public child-branch association || Aug 2026 project and Block Tree evidence; historical association conditional on the supplied father-to-son pedigree.
|-
| James M Glasgow, through [[Glasgow-192|Samuel Lyle (Glasgow-192)]] || '''D''': upstream of displayed child || '''U''': direct call required || '''D''': public child-branch association || Same dated evidence; independently documented descent still needs checking at the relevant joining generations.
|-
| Reported [[Glasgow-1143|Robert Glasgow of Kilwaughter (Glasgow-1143)]] || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || Aug 2026 Y-111 comparison only. The ancestor label is a candidate identification; STR grouping does not establish FT20271 membership.
|-
| Reported [[Glasgow-1144|James of Kilwaughter, later South Carolina (Glasgow-1144)]] || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || Maintained historical mapping and Y-37 comparison, reviewed 13 Sep 2026. Public broad haplogroup/STR grouping does not establish FT20271. Audit the descendant path before assigning its result to this ancestor.
|-
| Reported [[Glasgow-822|John of Inishrush, later Ohio (Glasgow-822)]] || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || Maintained historical mapping and Y-67 comparison, reviewed 13 Sep 2026. Public broad haplogroup/STR grouping does not establish FT20271. Audit the descendant path before assigning its result to this ancestor.
|}


Public source: FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow project<ref name="Evidencedb3c53b8e9" />. Safe study context: Y-DNA research. Private-call results above are a summary of the maintained August audit, not an independently reproducible public genotype dataset.


The maintained pedigree audit places the two FT6135 comparison results through Robert’s sons William and John M, with different confidence in their later continuations. The older James c.1700 label must not be counted as an independent test above Robert.


The FT6135 difference is real in the audited Alexander result and the two supplied comparison results. Its position outside the currently accepted child-branch display makes it a '''candidate grouping signal''', not an established new branch. Resolve FT6135 in both James M son-lines first: derived results would support inheritance at or above Robert under the reported pedigrees and a simple inheritance model; ancestral results would contradict that simple model and require checking pedigrees, recurrence or reversion. Inadequate coverage would leave the issue open. Neither outcome alone identifies Alexander's father.


The two FTE32242-positive son-lines associate that branch with James M's descendants, conditionally on their pedigrees. To locate it below Robert generally requires a reliable ancestral result in a separately documented Robert line. A basal FT20271 label supplies no such result. Missing entries in a variants-only file likewise do not prove ancestral states. FTDNA SNP and match guidance<ref name="Evidence4dd87788ef">[https://help.familytreedna.com/hc/en-us/articles/4402696079887-Big-Y-Matching-Matches-Guide FTDNA SNP and match guidance].</ref>.


For Alexander and James J, compare existing consented calls at named and private variants with coverage and pedigree checks. A shared additional derived state could refine their genetic grouping; it would not make the historical men brothers or identify the mutation's generation. A separately documented Alexander son-line could distinguish variants inherited through Alexander or earlier from changes arising later in one descendant line. STR distance and rounded private-variant averages reuse existing observations: they do not independently date the common ancestor. No narrow common-ancestor date is justified here.


One Robert-associated line and one James M descendant are identical at Y-111 despite different displayed SNP branches. STR similarity therefore cannot recover every branching event. The previous STR reconstruction’s approximate 1750 horizon also reuses marker evidence and has unconstrained dates conflicting with known genealogy; it is not an independent historical date.


The table is available as CSV and JSON, with its dated provenance and unresolved states. A public branch placement can be rechecked at the project; the private-call summary requires the underlying consented files for replication.


The Larne reconstruction connects these genetic comparisons to the actual American and Irish family hypotheses, with each missing generation assessed separately.



=== The wider family: proved links and open bridges ===

The Lisnagaver evidence supports a local Glasgow network; it does not yet yield a single reconstructed pedigree. The starting point is the 1851 sequence. House 34<ref name="Evidence2c97cf113b" /> contains John Glasgow, farmer, with wife Margaret and his unmarried brother Samuel, a linen weaver. House 35<ref name="Evidencedea66e5c28" /> contains Alexander and Mary with their children. House 37<ref name="Evidence6c8cd27a9f" /> contains Thomas Glasgow and Mary Ann. A Watters household separates Alexander and Thomas. The layout establishes a small same-surname farming cluster and useful geographic proximity; enumeration order is not a kinship statement or a property map.


John Glasgow-867 and Samuel Glasgow-2908 belong to a specific '''father-John branch'''. John’s original 16 November 1846 marriage<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view/?record_id=cima-3156063 original 16 November 1846 marriage].</ref> names his father as John Glasgow, farmer. The 1851 household expressly calls Samuel John’s brother. That chain directly establishes the brotherhood and names John-867’s father and his occupation. Extending that father statement to Samuel assumes they shared a father; the census does not distinguish full from half brothers. It does '''not''' identify that father with John Glasgow-1022, the older Glenleslie man, and it does not make Alexander another son. The younger John’s memorial says he died in 1895 aged 78, which implies a birth about 1816–17 and makes the candidate Glasgow-1022 less comfortable than an earlier census-age reading alone. Any maintained attachment to John-1022 is an uncertain identification of the father, not an additional record and not evidence for Alexander’s parentage.


The distinction matters because the neighbouring tenancy pattern is tempting but not decisive. The 1834 tithe names Alexander and Robert Glasgow at Lisnagaver, while later valuation lots 24, 25 and 26 are associated with John, Alexander and Thomas under Robert Harvey. Acreage, field-book and adjacency arguments can suggest tenancy succession or a broader network. They cannot establish a biological descent, and Plantation-measure tithe acreage cannot be numerically matched to statute-measure valuation acreage to manufacture an inheritance. The 1836 field book names Robert Glasgow and Archibald McCaughan junior in the house section but does not name Alexander; its land section does not supply occupier names. It therefore cannot decide who lived together, who inherited, or whether Alexander was a brother of John or Thomas.


Thomas Glasgow-987 and Daniel Glasgow-3896 have a stronger relationship argument than Alexander has with either. Daniel’s 1871 will, indexed through the PRONI Wills Calendar<ref name="Evidence968b317eb1">[https://apps.proni.gov.uk/willscalendar_ie/willssearch.aspx PRONI Wills Calendar].</ref>, calls the late Thomas his brother and identifies Daniel Neely Glasgow as nephew; Daniel Neely’s 28 June 1888 marriage<ref name="Evidence47f7d35ebe">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1888/10763/5925382.pdf 28 June 1888 marriage].</ref> in turn names Thomas Glasgow, farmer, as his father. Those two records establish Daniel and Thomas as brothers. Thomas’s PRONI calendar administration<ref name="Evidence9c6dade023">[https://apps.proni.gov.uk/WillsCalendar_IE/WillsSearch.aspx PRONI calendar administration].</ref> adds that the Lisnagaver farmer died 21 June 1870 and administration went to widow Mary Anne on 7 September. It was an intestate administration, not a will, and it names no parent, sibling or heir beyond the widow. It cannot be used to extend the proved brotherhood into a parentage for Alexander.


Alexander may be a brother or cousin of Thomas and Daniel. Shared locality, associated land, church context and descendant testimony make that a worthwhile research model. No confirmed Y-DNA comparison with an independently documented Thomas or Daniel descendant is supplied in this case. None of those sources says that Alexander was their brother, so the three men are not a proved sibling set. The 2020 correspondence records the older Alexander-and-Rosanna belief, but provides no demonstrably independent parentage source: the correspondent said she ''believed'' Thomas’s parents were Alexander and Rosanna, separately wondered whether the user’s Alexander was Thomas’s brother, and supplied neither a record citation nor usable autosomal-match data. The later FamilySearch Pedigree Resource File entries derive from an Ancestry member tree and conflict even on Rosanna’s reported death day. They show the circulation of a tradition, not its verification.



==== The Irish–Canadian family: what the original deeds establish ====


The Canadian connection is now supported by an explicit transaction. In the registered deed of '''30 July 1861''', B465<ref name="Evidence6e02c4a48a">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWB8-D registered deed of '''30 July 1861''', B465].</ref>, '''Daniel Glasgow of Kilrea, County Londonderry, watchmaker''', and '''Thomas Glasgow, farmer of the County Antrim townland written Lislagaver/Lisnagaver''', sell Samuel Glasgow of Prescott two undivided sixths of the Centre Street property. Their wives are '''Margaret''' and '''Mary Anne''', and the deed expressly derives the interests from Robert Glasgow's will. Place, occupation, wives and the already proved Daniel–Thomas brotherhood identify these men with [[Glasgow-3896|Daniel-3896]] and [[Glasgow-987|Thomas-987]]. This resolves the former uncertainty about whether the will's Irish brothers were the known Kilrea and Lisnagaver men.


Robert's will of '''9 October 1849''', B12<ref name="Evidence8bdc36c751">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWY9-S will of '''9 October 1849''', B12].</ref>, registered in 1856, gives one sixth each to brothers '''Daniel, Samuel, John and Thomas''', one sixth to sister '''Mary''', and one sixth collectively to '''the children of brother James'''. Combined with B465, this places Daniel and Thomas in the same documented sibling group as [[Glasgow-4010|Samuel of Prescott-4010]] and Robert. The original does '''not''' call James deceased: the earlier death-before-1849 inference is withdrawn. It names no parents.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Original record !! People, property and transaction !! What it establishes
|-
| B12, 9 October 1849; registered 13 November 1856<ref name="Evidence8bdc36c751" />, DGS 008200419, images 35–36, pp.9–10 || Robert's six shares, including one collectively for brother James's children. Executors Alexander McWilliam and Samuel Glasgow. || Direct sibling wording. Alexander Glasgow witnesses the 1856 registration request; that is a different role from beneficiary. James's death is not stated.
|-
| B13, 30 October 1856<ref name="Evidencea817cfef9a">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWYM-6 B13, 30 October 1856].</ref>, image 36, pp.10–11 || '''John Glasgow, Prescott watchmaker, and wife Jane''' sell Samuel, merchant, '''one sixth for £125'''; Jane releases dower. Registered 13 November. || An actual acquisition of a share. John's trade also gives a specific occupational comparison with his brother Daniel.
|-
| B395, 23 November 1860<ref name="Evidence28cf19c59e">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWR4-5 B395, 23 November 1860].</ref>, image 208, pp.336–337 || '''Eliza Jane Glasco''', Rochester, New York, spinster, eldest daughter of '''James Glasco, formerly of Prescott, carpenter''', sells Samuel '''one ninth for £33 6s 8d'''. Registered 22 December. || Explicit father–daughter relationship and residence. No explicit derivation from Robert's will. The copied registration signature says James although the grantee is Samuel.
|-
| B465, 30 July 1861<ref name="Evidence6e02c4a48a" />, images 240–241, pp.397–398 || '''Daniel and Margaret of Kilrea; Thomas and Mary Anne of Lisnagaver'''; two sixths to Samuel for '''$1,000 Canadian currency''', expressly under Robert's will; executed at Coleraine. || The direct Irish identification and inheritance link. The official abstract gives registration 7 October 1861. The deed opening and closing copy differ on the July day; the opening date is used here.
|-
| B601, 27 June 1863<ref name="Evidenceb3d6546218">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWBS-7 B601, 27 June 1863].</ref>, image 316, pp.542–543 || '''Mary Glasco''', Rochester spinster, second eldest daughter of '''James, formerly Prescott carpenter''', sells Samuel '''one ninth for £33 6s 8d'''. '''Alexander Glasgow of Prescott, gentleman''', witnesses. Registered 3 August. || Identifies a second daughter of the carpenter. It does not identify the witness as Alexander-951 or explicitly describe the interest as a share under Robert's will.
|}


These deeds concern '''Lot 12 south of Dibble Street and a 3,400-square-foot part of Lot 11''', the house at '''388 Centre Street'''. The municipal designation report<ref name="Evidence4107280a3f">[https://www.prescott.ca/media/3dtiztjk/council-agenda-june-16-2025.pdf municipal designation report].</ref>, printed pp.31–32, and the 2017 property account<ref name="Evidence57849ff728">[https://www.theresataylor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Auction-all-for-others-Brockville-Recorder.pdf 2017 property account].</ref> agree on 388. The former 280 reference was a project citation error. OnLand's official parcel search<ref name="Evidence43bc477d8f">[https://www.onland.ca/ui/15/property/address OnLand's official parcel search].</ref> identifies PIN '''68159-0153''', Plan 19, Block 2; the historical abstract, p.71<ref name="Evidence675d9ee4bd">[https://www.onland.ca/ui/15/books/48793/viewer/998408458?page=97 historical abstract, p.71].</ref>, connects the same Lot 11 strip to Robert's '''5 April 1841''' purchase from Susannah Jessup. Samuel's '''251 Water Street West''', Plan 19, Block 2, part Lot 16, remains a separate property.



==== James's family: a promising identification with an unresolved title problem ====


Eliza Jane and Mary are explicitly sisters and daughters of '''James the Prescott carpenter'''. Identifying that James with Robert's brother is a strong property-based hypothesis, because both daughters convey interests in the same two parcels to Samuel. It is not yet proved by an express kinship or inheritance clause. Each daughter's '''one-ninth''' interest is also recorded in the official abstract. Together they exceed the '''one-sixth''' collective share given to James's children in Robert's will. Earlier ownership, additional inherited interests or a record error must be examined before treating these as a simple distribution of that sixth. The fractions cannot responsibly supply a child count.


The '''1868 Alexander deed has now been inspected'''. C114, 25 March 1868<ref name="Evidence1f5003a1e5">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LQRC-Y C114, 25 March 1868].</ref>, DGS 008200420, image 120, pp.164–165, identifies '''Alexander Glasco of Rochester, Monroe County, New York, express agent, son of James Glasco formerly of Prescott, carpenter'''. Through attorney Macneil Clarke he conveys '''one eighteenth''' for '''$166.66''' to '''Mary Eno Glasgow, widow of the late Samuel Glasgow'''. The accompanying C113 power of attorney<ref name="Evidenceff75c70d0d">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LQRK-B accompanying C113 power of attorney].</ref> was made at Rochester on '''28 December 1867'''; both instruments were registered on '''18 August 1868'''. The abstract's August date is therefore registration, not the deed's execution date.


This positively identifies a son of James the carpenter alongside Eliza Jane and Mary. It supplies '''three named children''', without claiming a complete family or resolving how their title shares arose. It identifies a Rochester express agent, not a Lisnagaver farmer: linking him to Alexander-951 would require an independent wife, age, birthplace or migration bridge. No such bridge was found in this inspection, so this father statement is not assigned to Alexander-951. The earlier Prescott witness named Alexander is a relevant comparison, but the shared name does not prove he was the express agent either. '''Mary Eno''' is the widow's recorded name; the document does not establish Eno as a maiden surname.



==== Mary Glasgow Black and the Drumoolish connection ====


The original '''C298 deed of 15 September 1869'''<ref name="Evidencea11558442b">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LQTY-K original '''C298 deed of 15 September 1869'''].</ref>, registered '''1 July 1870''', explicitly identifies '''Mary Black, formerly Mary Glasgow, as sister of the late Robert Glasgow of Prescott'''. It names her six children and conveys the family’s interest to Samuel’s widow for '''$800'''. This is another direct Irish bridge: two of the children reside at '''Drumoolish, County Londonderry'''. The deed gives a record-based family to compare with the wider Bann Valley and Inishrush evidence; it does not name Mary’s parents or make her a daughter of Adam.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Child of Mary Glasgow Black !! Residence and description in the deed !! Spouse or estate detail
|-
| John Black || Drumoolish, County Londonderry; yeoman || Wife Martha joins.
|-
| Rose Ann Black || Drumoolish; spinster || Living party.
|-
| Jane Miller || Newburgh, Orange County, New York || Wife of Robert Miller.
|-
| Agnes Black || Newburgh; spinster || Living party.
|-
| Thomasina Montgomery || Legrand, Marshall County, Iowa || Wife of Mathew Montgomery.
|-
| Elizabeth Black || Newburgh; spinster || Had died unmarried and intestate; the five named siblings are described as her heirs.
|}


The six child interests are expressed as '''six sixth-parts of Mary’s one-sixth interest'''; the five surviving siblings also account for Elizabeth’s part. This explains a subdivision within this particular branch. It does not resolve the Rochester daughters’ ninths. Mary Black, Robert’s sister, is distinct from Mary Glasco of Rochester, James the carpenter’s daughter. The deed names '''Mary Eno Glasgow''' as Samuel’s widow, but does not establish Eno as her maiden surname.



==== Consequences for Alexander's parentage ====


The Canadian records now expand '''Daniel and Thomas's documented family''', which makes their brothers' and sister's records directly relevant to this enquiry. They still do not name Daniel or Thomas's parents, and they do not establish Alexander-951 as another brother. The Alexander-and-Rosanna tradition remains a hypothesis about Thomas's parents. Alexander's possible place among James's children now has named family and property records to test, but the carpenter's identity with Robert's brother and any connection between his Rochester son and Alexander-951 must each be demonstrated.


The 1861 deed also places wives '''Margaret''' and '''Mary Anne''' in the recorded family transaction. It strengthens the identification of the existing Irish couples and gives a later dated occurrence of Daniel's wife before his widowed death in 1871. It does not supply either woman's maiden name or establish the mother of every child. No new Y-DNA result was obtained: documentary linkage to the Prescott brothers expands the family that can be compared with Alexander's paternal line, without proving a genetic match or the joining generation.

==== The Black branch and a possible witness at Robert's marriage ====

The original civil return for [[Glasgow-938|Robert Glasgow]] and Jane Graham, 5 April 1866, records Robert's father as Alexander Glasgow, farmer, and names '''John Black''' as a witness. The return gives John no address or relationship. A plausible candidate is the John Black of Drumoolish who married Martha Savage on 13 March 1862, son of Robert Black, farmer; this remains a hypothesis, not a profile identification.

The 1862 marriage return<ref name="EvidenceBlackSavage1862">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1862/10945/5491449.pdf John Black–Martha Savage marriage return], page 178, entry 136, image 5491449.</ref> gives John as a full-age bachelor, farmer of Drumoolish, son of Robert Black; Martha was daughter of William Savage. Churchtown's baptism transcription records Elizabeth Black on 31 July 1845, daughter of '''Robert Black and Mary Glasgow''', resident Drumoolish<ref name="EvidenceBlackElizabeth1845">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/TamlaghtP/Baptisms.html Churchtown baptism transcription], page 7, entry 116.</ref>. This supplies a named parental couple for the Black branch and makes the deed-based John a specific person to investigate. It does not name Alexander's parents.

The 1831 Tamlaght O'Crilly census transcription lists Robert Black at Drumolish, house 57, with two males and one female, but the occupants are unnamed and other Black households occur in the same townland<ref name="EvidenceBlack1831">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/Tamlaght/1831census_2.html 1831 census transcription], row 643.</ref>. The December 1862 report of twins born to John's wife at her father William Savage's home and the 5 November 1863 Churchtown baptisms of Robert and William Black, children of John and Martha, support the couple's continuity<ref name="EvidenceBlackChildren">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/TamlaghtP/Baptisms2.html Churchtown baptism transcription].</ref>. The newspaper's 20 December birth and the baptism transcription's nine-month age conflict; both remain reported rather than reconciled.

The 1866 witness fact is established, but identifying him with this John Black remains unproved. Shared congregation and local geography could explain contact without kinship. Even a confirmed identification would not prove that Alexander and Mary Glasgow belonged to the same parental couple. The Elizabeth and 1843 baptism images, Robert Black and Mary Glasgow's marriage, and further Churchtown witness occurrences are the next discriminating checks. The 1843 transcription's “Thomson Black” and illegible mother reading must not be changed to “Thomasina” or “Gear” without the original image.

==== Concrete connections to other Glasgows ====

On 18 February 1875 at Finvoy Parish Church, [[Glasgow-1371|Ann Glasgow]], daughter of [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow]], married Francis Bellingham. The witnesses were Thomas Bellingham and '''Mary Anne M‘Caughern'''.<ref name="Bellingham1875">[[https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/McCaughan-222#_note-BellinghamGlasgow1875 WikiTree source note for the 1875 Bellingham–Glasgow marriage].</ref>

This is a useful record-level link between John's Glasgow family and a McCaughern surname form. The witness is unidentified and must not be equated with [[McCaughan-222|Mary/Molly Glasgow]]: the record says Mary Anne, uses M‘Caughern, and does not establish that Alexander's wife was living in 1875. It is a network observation, not proof that [[Glasgow-867|John]] and [[Glasgow-951|Alexander]] were related.



==== 1892 New York probate citation: Nancy Glasgow's next of kin ====

The most informative parentage evidence located so far is not an Irish record but a legal notice published in New York. On 14 January 1892 the Clinton County Surrogate issued a citation on the petition of Hiram Walworth to prove the will of '''[[Glasgow-4070|Nancy Glasgow]]''' of Plattsburgh, an unmarried Irish-born woman who had described herself in January 1889 as "about 68 years" old.<ref name="NancyWill1889">Clinton County, New York, Surrogate's Court, ''Records of wills, 1807–1902'', vol. Q, pp. 255–259, will of Nancy Glasgow of Plattsburgh dated 15 January 1889, admitted 9 May 1892; [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GYC4-66V?view=fullText FamilySearch image 159].</ref><ref name="NancyCitation1892">''The Plattsburgh Sentinel'' (Plattsburgh, New York), 26 February 1892, p. 6, legal notices, citation in the estate of Nancy Glasgow, deceased, dated 14 January 1892; [https://www.nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=plts18920226-01.1.6 New York State Historic Newspapers].</ref> The notice addresses heirs, next of kin and legatees. Its reference to both real and personal estate matters: the old restriction on collateral representation in personal property cannot by itself determine every relative's standing in this proceeding.<ref name="DeVoe1905">''Matter of De Voe'', 107 A.D. 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1905), discussion of pre-1898 personal-property representation and the different treatment of real property; [https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division/1905/107-ad-245.html published judicial opinion]. This later case explains the distinction; it is not a decree concerning Nancy's family.</ref>

The citation names no brother or sister directly. It lists only children of named people: '''James G. Glasgow, Ann and Lizzie''', children of John Glasgow, late of "Baladonly" (Ballydonnelly, Rasharkin parish); '''James Glasgow, Mary and Ann''', children of Alexander Glasgow, formerly of Rasharkin; '''Mary Jane and Ann''', children of Robert Glasgow; the Dysart children of '''[[Glasglow-11|Jane (Glasgow) Dysart]]''' in Rasharkin, Ballymena, New Zealand and West Troy; '''David, James and Samuel Anderson of Gortahar''', identified through separate household records as sons of '''[[Glasgow-4071|Elizabeth (Glasgow) Anderson]]'''; and the unnamed children of '''Ann McClelland''' and '''Mary Thompson'''.<ref name="NancyCitation1892" /> Nancy's will independently calls Margaret (Dysart) Kennedy her niece and Robert Anderson her nephew,<ref name="NancyWill1889" /> and the Rasharkin Presbyterian register records both as children of Glasgow mothers — Jane Glascaw at Granagh and Betty Glascaw at Drumack.<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" /> Together these records support a probable network of deceased sibling branches: John, Alexander, Robert, Jane, Elizabeth, Ann and Mary. Elizabeth is identified through the baptism and household records, not named as a parent in the notice. The list's completeness and each person's exact relationship remain to be checked in the underlying petition.

The Alexander of this citation is probably Alexander of Lisnagaver. His daughters' marriages of 1871 and 1876 each name Alexander Glasgow of Lisnagaver as father, his son James was baptised at Lisnagaver in 1843, and he died in May 1888 — "formerly of Rasharkin" in the citation's language. Nancy, born about 1820–21, was roughly ten years his junior: probable sisterhood fits these ages; daughterhood does not. He spent his last years at '''Gortahar''', where the citation places his sister Elizabeth's Anderson sons in 1892. His son [[Glasgow-938|Robert]] is not named. The proposed Scottish continuity and alleged survival to 1902 need original-record verification; this potential omission prevents treating completeness as already demonstrated.

The John of the citation is probably '''[[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow of Lisnagaver]]'''; Lizzie and the Ballydonnelly residence remain identity checks. His documented children were Ann (born 1848; married Bellingham in 1875, naming father John) and '''James Garvin Glasgow''' — the "James G." of the notice; the "Lizzie" of the notice is an otherwise unrecorded daughter (the Elizabeth Ann on the family memorial, died 1933, was James Garvin's widow).<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4" /> A John Glasgow of Lisnagaver died on 24 June 1885 with son James as informant, which agrees with "late of".<ref name="JohnDeath1885">General Register Office of Ireland, civil death return, Ballymoney superintendent registrar's district, Dirraw district, entry 2: John Glasgow, Lisnagaver, 24 June 1885; [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1885/06280/4799372.pdf register image].</ref> John's original 1846 marriage return names his father as '''John Glasgow, farmer''', and the 1851 census makes Samuel Glasgow, born in County Londonderry about 1790, John's brother.<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4" /> If Alexander and John shared a father, that father would be John Glasgow, farmer. Probable siblinghood alone does not distinguish a shared father from a shared mother or more complex half relationships.

The same document tells against the alternatives. '''[[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]]''' of Lisnagaver, whom earlier research treated as Alexander's possible brother, died in 1870 leaving children who were adults at Lisnagaver in the 1880s; had he been Nancy's brother they would have been her next of kin, yet none is cited while nieces in New Zealand are. This omission weighs against a simple reconstruction only if expected inclusion and completeness are established. It does not exclude Thomas or his proved brother [[Glasgow-3896|Daniel]] as Alexander's brothers or collateral relatives: Alexander could also share a parent with Thomas without Thomas being Nancy's sibling. The tradition naming [[Glasgow-3904|an older Alexander]] and Rosanna concerns Thomas; its extension to Alexander of Lisnagaver remains unproved. Likewise no member of the Glenleslie family of [[Glasgow-1367|Robert Glasgow]] and Catherine, previously attached as Alexander's parents, appears among Nancy's next of kin; [[Glasgow-1049|Robert of Doonbought]]'s daughters were Catherine, Margaret, Maria, Netta and Jane, not the Mary Jane and Ann of the citation. The Robert of the citation is more likely the second Lisnagaver tithe occupier of 1834 — 35 acres entered immediately after Alexander's 29 — and perhaps the Robert Glasgow of Gortereghy in Griffith's Valuation who died in Ballymoney district in 1868 aged 71; his daughters have not yet been found.<ref name="Evidenceb707c32b1e" /><ref name="GriffithRasharkin">[https://www.failteromhat.com/griffiths/antrim/rasharkin.htm Griffith's Valuation, Rasharkin parish], Glasgow occupiers at Lisnagaver (Alexander, John, Thomas), Gortereghy (Daniel, Robert) and Dromore (James).</ref><ref name="Evidenced078ae5073" />

The reconstructed family of John Glasgow, farmer, runs from Samuel (about 1790, County Londonderry) through Robert (about 1797), John (about 1801, County Antrim), Jane (about 1804), Alexander (about 1811), Elizabeth (by about 1816), Ann and Mary, to Nancy (about 1820–21) — a span that warrants checking estimated ages, identities and possible multiple unions; it does not establish two marriages of a particular parent. If these identities and a shared household are correct, their different birth counties suggest a possible movement from County Londonderry to Rasharkin parish; the John Glasgow recorded as a Desertoghill flax grower in 1796 ([[Glasgow-4090|Glasgow-4090]]) is a plausible but unproved identity for the father, and John of Lisnagaver later married a Desertoghill woman at Garvagh. No record yet names Alexander's father in his own right, and the citation cannot distinguish full from half siblings. The decisive record is Nancy's underlying Clinton County probate petition, which should state each cited person's relationship to her.

Sources: ''The Plattsburgh Sentinel'', 26 February 1892, p. 6; Clinton County Will Book Q, pp. 255–259; Rasharkin Presbyterian baptisms, entries 04, 63, 82, 133, 176, 271; John Glasgow–Margaret Garvin marriage, 16 November 1846; 1851 census, Lisnagaver house 34; civil death of John Glasgow, Lisnagaver, 24 June 1885; Griffith's Valuation, Rasharkin; 1834 Rasharkin tithe applotment, Lisnagaver.


==== Separate Canadian estate leads ====


The bare estate index<ref name="Evidence886dbd1025">[https://www.ontariogenealogy.com/uppercanadaontariopioneerwillsestatefiles/leedsgrenvillecountieswillssurrogaterecords/leedsgrenvillecountieswillestateindex.html bare estate index].</ref> entries '''Samuel Glasgow, 1875''' and '''James E., 1900–09''' remain unassigned. [[Glasgow-4021|Younger Samuel-4021]], two at his next birthday in the 1851 household, is an alternative to the merchant; [[Glasgow-4017|James E.-4017]], five at his next birthday, is a specific comparison for the later James E. entry. These are separate from James the carpenter and the Centre Street deeds.


The 1851 Prescott census<ref name="Evidence9d10d7d2c7">[https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item/?app=Census1851&op=img&id=e002351566 1851 Prescott census].</ref> contains '''eight household members, six probable children'''. With two later sons reported by local history, eight possible children are accounted for, leaving two of the reported ten unaccounted for by those sources. Library and Archives Canada fonds R6229-0-0-E / MG24-I39<ref name="Evidence3488d83655">[https://recherche-collection-search.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/home/record?IdNumber=98738&app=fonandcol Library and Archives Canada fonds R6229-0-0-E / MG24-I39].</ref> concerns a Niagara farmer who died about 1830 and is excluded as this merchant's archive.


The remaining distinct family groups are Alexander's household; John-867 and Samuel-2908's father-John branch; and the now connected '''Kilrea–Lisnagaver–Prescott sibling group'''. No record yet joins them under a common parent. The new Irish bridge is established; Alexander's position within that wider family remains the question.


The 2020 correspondent identified a descent through Catherine, described as Thomas and Mary Ann’s sixth daughter, and reported an autosomal match. The supplied message contains no shared-cM total, segment information, checked descent or source for the parent names. Her belief about Thomas’s parents and her separate question about Alexander’s brotherhood are two claims that require separate tests. The reported match is a lead to evaluate for other shared ancestral routes as well as this paternal hypothesis. The correspondence is summarised without publishing the private message or correspondent’s identity.



=== The Larne connection: a working family reconstruction ===

'''The Larne–Kilwaughter family is a priority origin hypothesis for Alexander's paternal line.''' The useful model connects an Irish branch with a branch that moved to South Carolina in the 1770s. [[Glasgow-2769|Robert of Tennessee]], born in South Carolina about 1790–94, is proposed as [[Glasgow-2738|James J's]] father. He is not proposed as the father of Alexander, Thomas or Daniel. Their ages therefore supply no objection to that American parentage.


There are two questions to solve together: which older Larne household supplied the Irish branch, and which man in that branch fathered Alexander. [[Glasgow-1509|James Glasgow of Larne (Glasgow-1509)]], reportedly born in 1737, is a concrete candidate for the earlier generation. Identifying him with [[Glasgow-3905|Glasgow-3905]] means testing whether he was '''Adam of Inishrush's father''': 3905 represents that unidentified parental role, rather than a second man established by records. Its placeholder status neither supports nor disqualifies James.



==== The American branch has a coherent chronology ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Connection !! Evidence and present assessment
|-
| [[Glasgow-1143|Robert of Kilwaughter (1143)]] → [[Glasgow-1144|James (1144)]], born 1731 || Strongly supported by the congregation-register transcription and the sworn Wilson inheritance evidence. The 1738 lease<ref name="Evidence3639771d35">[https://www.irishdeedsindex.net/mem.php?memorial=74015 1738 lease].</ref> independently associates Robert, wife Rachel and James junior; it does not itself call James a son.
|-
| James → [[Glasgow-2304|Archibald (2304)]], about 1769–1818 || James's 1775 will<ref name="Evidence7be752e583">[https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_JGlasgowWill.html 1775 will].</ref> and the 1817 equity complaint<ref name="Evidence6cd9fd682a">[https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_Complaint.html 1817 equity complaint].</ref> name Archibald among his children. This is a record-supported connection, not merely a tree attachment.
|-
| Archibald → Robert of Tennessee (2769) || A substantive missing-son hypothesis. The 1800 Newberry household<ref name="Evidencee062f1f75c">[https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/1800nbycensusG.htm 1800 Newberry household].</ref> contains one boy under ten. Archibald's monument-named son James was born about 1806 and cannot be that boy. Robert's early-1790s birth fits.
|-
| Robert → James J (2738), born about 1809/10 || Both report South Carolina origins; Robert's 1820 household<ref name="Evidencebaa474cb6d">[https://archive.org/details/populationsc18200124unit/page/n21/mode/1up 1820 household].</ref> has a boy aged 10–15, and James later has a documented Giles County land trail. No located record names Robert as James's father.
|}


The Kilwaughter chronology<ref name="Evidencea2434e090d">[https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Kilwaughter/Timeline.html Kilwaughter chronology].</ref> associates James's family with the 1772 Irish petition; his 1775 will places him in South Carolina. These fit the reported 1772/73 migration without proving an exact voyage. If Robert was James J's father, their South Carolina births followed by Robert's 1814 Tennessee militia service<ref name="Evidenceeac4e8f870">[https://scout.lib.utk.edu/repositories/2/resources/4000 1814 Tennessee militia service].</ref> fit a later move within America. The Irish collateral branch can have remained in Ireland throughout.


The age fit is stronger when calculated properly. Robert's 1820 and 1840 brackets, combined with Archibald's under-ten boy in 1800, allow '''5 August 1790–7 August 1794''', if all three returns concern him and their age bands are accurate. His 1850 age of sixty requires a modest discrepancy; it favours the older end of the working range. That older end also gives a more comfortable fatherhood age for James J around 1809/10. The woman aged 16–25 in Archibald's 1800 household could have been about sixteen to twenty at an early-1790s birth if near the older end of her range. Her age is a constraint to check, not a general exclusion of the family. Census dates: 1800<ref name="Evidence023fccd184">[https://www.archives.gov/research/census/1800 Census dates: 1800].</ref>, 1820<ref name="Evidence4b42eb2ce0">[https://www.archives.gov/research/census/1820 1820].</ref>, 1840<ref name="Evidenceb15556cf00">[https://www.archives.gov/research/census/1840 1840].</ref>.


This makes Archibald a worthwhile leading named candidate for '''Robert's''' father. It does not make Robert the uniquely established father of '''James J'''. [[Glasgow-2439|James Glasgow (2439)]], born about 1787, and Sarah form another age-compatible Newberry household. Its 1831 estate should be compared with Archibald's. Robert's Bradshaw Creek associates and James J's district-six land trail still need joining. The 1848 deed<ref name="Evidenceeb34fedf89">[https://tngenweb.org/giles/deed-noah-hancock-to-james-glasgow/ 1848 deed].</ref> proves James's residence then; its recital of an 1845 title bond proves the earlier transaction, not necessarily residence in 1845.



==== James of Larne fits the missing older generation ====


James was a '''Belfast ropemaker''' when he took the 1760 Larne ropewalk lease<ref name="Evidence02ef2f94d9">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSH3-S7XZ-8 1760 Larne ropewalk lease].</ref>. That gives the hypothesis a real adult and a property trail near Adam's estimated birth, rather than a name supplied only by a pedigree. The 1773 affidavit<ref name="Evidence3d5dde76bc">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSH3-M72W-M 1773 affidavit].</ref> says he was over thirty. It supports the older James identity, although the especially good generational fit below depends on his reported 1737 birth.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Person to compare with James's household !! James's approximate age at the reported birth !! Evidence for the proposed connection
|-
| [[Glasgow-3902|Adam of Inishrush (3902)]], about 1758 || 21 || A normal father–son interval. Adam's monument<ref name="Evidenceb277bf57fc">[https://www.oneirishrover.com/tamlaght-graveyard/ monument].</ref> names a son James, providing modest naming support. The full child order is unknown; James cannot be called Adam's first son. No record yet joins Adam to the ropemaker.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3324|William (3324)]], about 1763 || 26 || The strongest existing child hypothesis: William's daughter '''Jane Shutter''' supplies distinctive support for descent from James and Janet Shutter. William's own household is established by the published monument<ref name="Evidence2451376d60">[https://archive.org/stream/ulsterjournalofa06ulstiala/ulsterjournalofa06ulstiala_djvu.txt published monument].</ref>.
|-
| [[Glasgow-822|John of Inishrush, later Ohio (822)]], 1767 || 30 || John and Adam have a substantial Inishrush family association and may be brothers. Making James their common father is an additional hypothesis; John's own naming sequence also supports an alternative older Adam.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3904|Older Alexander (3904)]], estimated about 1770 || 33 || A coherent possible brother of Adam. His own existence and family are reconstructed principally from the later Thomas-parent tradition; no record names James as his father.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3986|Younger James of Larne (3986)]], about 1773 || 36 || An already identified possible son, associated with the 1795 merchant and 1797 junior records. He supplies an alternative route to Alexander's generation without inventing another unnamed James.
|-
| [[Glasgow-1367|Robert of Glenleslie (1367)]], about 1779 || 42 || Fits chronologically as another possible child in the broader reconstruction. No record makes him James's son, and he is not securely identified with the Lisnagaver tithe occupier.
|}


'''The 1762 marriage is the main household condition.''' It postdates Adam's estimated birth by about four years. If James fathered Adam, Adam could belong to an earlier relationship, a premarital birth, or a chronology needing correction. None is established. Janet Shutter must not acquire maternity merely because she was James's later reported wife. The original marriage and earlier Belfast records could distinguish these possibilities.


Nor does James have to move to Inishrush himself. His 1768 sale<ref name="Evidence2f70b79715">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSJW-DDXW 1768 sale].</ref> transferred the ropewalk interest, but Holmes's 1799 will<ref name="Evidence0b4b961c56">[https://holmes-history.com/antrim/ Holmes's 1799 will].</ref> still names a James Glasgow, roper, in Larne. An adult son could have moved independently. The ropemaker, the younger [[Glasgow-3991|tanner James (3991)]], and the younger merchant must remain distinct record groups; selling a workshop is not evidence of a family migration by itself.



==== Two routes to Alexander deserve explicit comparison ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Working reconstruction !! Why it fits !! What would distinguish it
|-
| '''James-1509 → older Alexander-3904 → Alexander-951''', with Adam-3902 a possible brother of the older Alexander || It gives ordinary generation intervals and accommodates the tradition naming Alexander and Rosanna as Thomas's parents<ref name="Evidenceae0615ab1c">[https://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards/board/general_topics/thread/465937 tradition naming Alexander and Rosanna as Thomas's parents].</ref>, if younger Alexander belonged to that sibling family. It is much cleaner chronologically than making older Alexander a son of Adam and Rose. || A record linking older Alexander to the Larne family, and an independent record or family register joining younger Alexander to Thomas and Daniel. The tradition supplies a name, not the missing Larne connection.
|-
| '''James-1509 → younger James-3986 → Alexander-951''', with Adam in a collateral branch || The younger James's estimated birth about 1773 gives an ordinary fatherhood age around 1804–11. Alexander's use of James for his sons is compatible with this route. It uses a known candidate of the appropriate generation. || Larne succession records naming James's children, or a Lisnagaver record naming Alexander's father James. If Thomas and Daniel were also made his sons, that would be an alternative to the testimony naming their father Alexander. They need not be assigned to him merely to test Alexander's own parentage.
|}


The first route better preserves the existing Thomas-family testimony; the second tests the documented merchant and junior occurrences provisionally identified with younger James-3986. Neither has a father statement for Alexander. These are '''competing explanations worth testing''', not equal-probability trees. The local Robert and father-John possibilities remain in the immediate-parent comparison; a Larne origin could ultimately run through either of them.


The earlier Adam → older Alexander route compresses the generations: Adam born about 1758 would be twelve at the older Alexander's estimated 1770 birth, while Rose born about 1767 would be three. Moving the older Alexander's birth later and proposing an earlier mother can make Adam's paternity biologically possible, but adds conditions unsupported by records. A brother or cousin relationship is the more natural version to investigate. This chronological preference does not itself prove their kinship.



==== Where the DNA and the wider catalogue narrow the search ====


The DNA evidence is positive family evidence. Alexander's established descendant line and James J's line share '''R-FT20271''', are three steps apart at Y-111 and share DYS714=27. Alongside James J's South Carolina origin and the documented Kilwaughter emigrant family, that makes the Larne connection worth pursuing ahead of an arbitrary same-surname pedigree. The American household evidence was not derived from the DNA, so their agreement is meaningful. But the proposed links from James J to Robert and Archibald are the very links being tested: they cannot also be counted as an independent proof that the match descends from Archibald.


There are already '''two additional historical comparison routes''' in the public project<ref name="Evidencedb3c53b8e9" />: a reported Robert-1143 line tested at Y-111, and a reported John-822 line tested at Y-67. They place the Larne and Inishrush questions within the same broader STR research network. Their public broad haplogroup labels do not yet establish either as FT20271-positive. Auditing those descent paths and obtaining resolved SNP states would test the proposed geographic connection more directly than treating all current FT20271 matches as interchangeable. John's omission of Alexander from his family Bible weakens '''John as Alexander's father''', not John as a collateral relative.


The proposed older Larne tree must also be tested. James-1509’s imported and live attachment is to [[Glasgow-1505|William-1505]], while the reviewed catalogue also carries a competing Hugh hypothesis. A William Glasgow, merchant of Larne, witnessed the 1760 lease; his identification with William-1505 needs checking against the other adult Williams. The derivative 1737 baptism names Hugh. [[Glasgow-1499|Hugh-1503's]] monument names a different adult son James, born about 1747/48. Both cannot casually be treated as the same child; identifying both as surviving sons of one Hugh would need explanation. William and Hugh's 1736 joint tenancy establishes association, while the proposed connections from them and Robert-1143 to [[Glasgow-1502|Robert-1502]] remain unproved. This is the unsettled joining generation, rather than a reason to disregard the well-supported branches below it.


A second origin model remains useful: the two '''Hugh Glasgow householders recorded in Tamlaght O'Crilly in 1740''', followed by a parish Hugh in 1772, could represent local continuity behind Adam. John's Bible<ref name="Evidence5dc7ff7638">[https://www.hiltner.com/mckeown/getperson.php?personID=I368&tree=tree1 Bible].</ref> gives sons Adam–James–John and second daughter Maria, suggesting older Adam and Maria under a conventional naming pattern. That pattern is not fully followed, and applying it to Adam-3902 depends on the unproved brotherhood. These are substantive local alternatives. They prevent treating a good Larne reconstruction as already the only surviving family.


'''The research can now be narrower:''' test Archibald's missing adult son in estate '''647'''; test the Larne household through William-3324's surviving '''1815 will, D300/1/5/49''', the '''1762 marriage''' and earlier Belfast records; identify Alexander's immediate family in '''CR5/32/1/1/1–2'''; and resolve the DNA placement of the specific Larne and Inishrush comparison lines. Each addresses a particular missing connection. The research priorities explain the outcomes to look for.



=== Alexander’s immediate parents: the remaining comparisons ===

'''Three local explanations addressed Alexander’s immediate parents; since Nancy Glasgow's 1892 next-of-kin citation was read as a legal document, one of them leads.''' The father-John model — the John Glasgow, farmer, named in [[Glasgow-867|John of Lisnagaver]]'s 1846 marriage — is now the leading hypothesis, because the citation places Alexander's children and John's children in the same class of Nancy's next of kin. The older-Alexander-and-Rosanna couple, which reached Alexander through proposed brotherhood with [[Glasgow-987|Thomas]], remains unproved; omission of Thomas's children does not categorically disprove it. The table below records the earlier state of the comparison; the probate-citation section above gives the current reasoning.



==== The immediate local family tests ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Local explanation !! Evidence carrying real weight !! Why it does not yet select a parent
|-
| '''First relationship to resolve: the Thomas–Daniel family''', possibly children of [[Glasgow-3904|older Alexander]] and [[Unknown-761034|Rosanna]] || Contemporary Lisnagaver households, adjoining later holdings and a repeated Marks witness network establish association. Daniel’s will independently proves Thomas his brother. The descendant account<ref name="Evidenceae0615ab1c" /> names Thomas’s parents. || No record makes Alexander their brother. Neighbourhood, congregation and holdings overlap as evidence of local association. Applying Thomas’s parent names requires establishing both their historical basis and Alexander’s same-parent relationship.
|-
| '''Parallel household test: the unidentified Robert of Lisnagaver, 1834''' || A real local occupier, with a Robert also in the 1836 house list. This is a stronger local lead than an otherwise unconnected pedigree. || Neither his age nor relationship is recorded. Identifying him as [[Glasgow-1367|Glenleslie Robert]] is another unproved step, not supporting evidence. He could be a father, brother, uncle or unrelated occupier.
|-
| '''Parallel family test: father John''', named by [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow of Lisnagaver]] || John’s 1846 marriage<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4" /> names father John, farmer; the census calls Samuel John’s brother. || Alexander is not called their brother. Brotherhood alone would not prove both parents were shared. This father is not automatically John of Glenleslie.
|}


These are research priorities, not numerical odds or mutually exclusive family trees. Robert could be an uncle while Thomas was a cousin. A father not yet identified in the records remains an open possibility.



==== What the original Canadian deeds change ====


The 1861 deed<ref name="Evidence6e02c4a48a" /> now establishes the Canadian connection for Thomas and Daniel: their documented siblings include Robert and Samuel of Prescott, John the watchmaker, Mary Glasgow Black and brother James. Mary Black’s deed<ref name="Evidencea11558442b" /> identifies six children, including John and Rose Ann of Drumoolish. Their family records now provide a specific local route to the siblings’ parents, independently of the repeated Alexander-and-Rosanna tradition.


The 1868 father statement<ref name="Evidence1f5003a1e5" /> belongs to '''Alexander Glasco of Rochester, express agent''', son of James the Prescott carpenter. It cannot be transferred to Alexander-951 without a wife, age, birthplace or migration bridge. The carpenter’s identity with Robert’s brother also remains to be established because the daughters’ property shares do not fit a simple division of the will’s sixth. James is a named family hypothesis to test; the deed has not selected him as Alexander-951’s father. The full family and property analysis distinguishes the established relationships from these identity steps.



==== Evidence that should change the weighting ====


'''The 1868 Robert death could weaken the father hypothesis.''' The previously inspected Ballymoney index<ref name="Evidenced078ae5073">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view/?record_id=cidenc-957324 Ballymoney index].</ref> gives age 71, implying birth about 1796–97. If that man were the 1834 occupier, he would have been about '''14–15''' at Alexander’s c.1811 birth, or '''7–8''' at the probable death’s c.1804 birth estimate. That is adverse father-age evidence, not confirmation of an older generation. The occupier’s identity is still unknown, so the calculation does not presently exclude him.


'''An older Alexander is not required by the tithe.''' Alexander-951 could have occupied land in 1834 at about twenty-three, or about thirty under the earlier birth estimate. Gortereagh residence after marriage and omission from the 1836 house section do not prove inheritance or co-residence with a parent. The land analysis explains the limits of the surviving coverage and acreage comparisons.


'''The tradition has less independent support than its repetition suggests.''' The public 2020 reply copies the 2007 post; the 2018 pedigree file cites a member tree. The private correspondent believed Thomas’s parent names and separately asked whether Alexander was his brother. Her source is unknown, so neither independence nor copying is established. The clockmaker tradition supplies useful context but misplaces Daniel’s generation if it calls Thomas’s documented brother his uncle. Rosanna’s surname Shaw and reported 1822 death do not become independent evidence for this parentage.


'''The genetic family and the immediate father are different levels of the question.''' The Larne analysis explains why the wider connection is a priority and compares two routes into Alexander’s generation. The local candidates still need a record or independently traced comparison line that distinguishes their particular families.



==== Other immediate-parent candidates and collateral roles ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Hypothesis and present status !! Supporting evidence !! Contrary or missing evidence; required assumption !! Discriminating evidence to seek
|-
| [[Glasgow-1367|Robert of Glenleslie (Glasgow-1367)]]: weak || Census age and 1803 marriage permit parenthood || No Lisnagaver bridge; must distinguish him from the tithe occupier || Relationship record bridging the separately documented households.
|-
| [[Glasgow-1022|John of Glenleslie (Glasgow-1022)]]: weak identity proposal || Nearby father-John model || Age problems; Mary/Maryan ages differ substantially; neither bridge proved || Identify the marriage father; resolve granddaughter identity and her parent.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3902|Adam of Inishrush (Glasgow-3902)]]: weak as immediate father; useful collateral anchor || Nearby documented family || Monument omits Alexander; unnamed census male cannot identify him || Named-child register or estate record.
|-
| [[Glasgow-1622|Adam (Glasgow-1622)]]: open, distinct identity || James's 1851 marriage<ref name="Evidence1d60aad848">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view/?record_id=cima-3208068 James's 1851 marriage].</ref> names father Adam || Names no Alexander; cannot merge the two Adams || Identify James and father, then test sibling connection.
|-
| [[Glasgow-822|John of Inishrush/Ohio (Glasgow-822)]]: weakened as father; useful collateral and DNA comparison || Relevant documented family || Family register<ref name="Evidence5dc7ff7638" /> lists nine children, no Alexander || Independent family or church evidence naming Alexander; the two Bible-image inspections are complete.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3986|James of Larne (Glasgow-3986)]]: alternative route within the Larne hypothesis || Suitable age; possible son of James-1509; Alexander used James twice for sons || Larne, not Lisnagaver; naming custom and birth order uncertain || Deed, church or estate record connecting households.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3941|Robert of Coltrim (Glasgow-3941)]]: low priority || Documented older householder || Children unnamed; distinct from Glenleslie and unidentified Lisnagaver Robert || Named family record establishing a bridge.
|}


The first son’s name James is meaningful family evidence, but it does not identify a paternal grandfather or select the Larne man. Mary/Molly’s parents remain unknown, and James and William McCaheran occur locally. Naming could reflect either side of the family; the surviving child sequence cannot establish a fixed naming rule.


'''Retired or excluded:''' the imported Robert-and-Catherine parental pair is superseded; Robert’s biological possibility remains separately open. Catherine has no independent maternity evidence. James-1702 is excluded by the maintained chronology; John-1657 is a rejected practical lead in a distinct family. Detailed candidate sources and exclusions remain accessible.


'''For parentage, the first record priority is the family-group material in PRONI CR5/32/1/1/1–2''', alongside the actual source behind the Thomas parent tradition. Extract named households and dated admissions/removals across Alexander’s childhood, rather than another surname-only list. The existing enquiry remains pending. Reconstruct the unidentified Robert and father John in parallel, without merging them into convenient profiles. The next tests retain the exact references.


Rosanna’s maternity must be assessed separately from older Alexander’s paternity: even paternal half-brotherhood with Thomas would not transfer Thomas’s mother. Mary/Molly’s McCaughan connections concern Alexander’s wife, not his own mother.



=== How the evidence supports this account ===

The account separates the '''recorded event''', '''the identification of its people''', and '''the conclusion drawn from it'''. A baptism can directly name a child’s parents while leaving the child’s later identity unknown. A death can have an exact date while remaining a probable match to Alexander. These are different questions and should carry different qualifications.



==== How the sources work together ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Source group !! Information close to the event !! Principal limitation !! How it is used here
|-
| Rasharkin baptisms || Child, named parents, dates and family residence in the maintained transcription || This is a transcription of a register; the incomplete 1838 original has not been inspected || Establishes the early couple and children; missing transcription fields remain missing
|-
| 1851 original census || One household’s relationships, reported ages, occupations, literacy and marriage years || Birth ages and the 1836 marriage year are retrospective reports; this is not a list of every child ever born || Anchors the household and approximate birth chronology
|-
| Adult children’s marriages || Bride/groom, residence, spouse and named father || Usually does not name the mother; father details do not by themselves establish that he was alive || Bridges children into adult households using the combined name, place and family evidence
|-
| Tithe, valuation and revision records || Assessed occupier, holding, lessor and administrative changes || Different surveys, measures and effective dates; tenancy does not establish kinship or ownership || Tracks property associations and tests the Elder succession without inventing an inheritance
|-
| Civil deaths || Death date, place, reported age/status and informant || Age may be retrospective or uncertain; neither Gortahar death names the other spouse || Supports the death identification through the independently established family network
|-
| Later traditions, trees and correspondence || What a descendant or compiler reported and when || Copying may create apparent corroboration; an unsourced belief is not a second parent record || Preserves the origins of hypotheses and directs specific follow-up
|-
| Descendant DNA || Tested genetic relationships, with the panel and result specified || Linking a result to a historical ancestor depends on the descent; mutation evidence cannot fill every documentary gap || Establishes the paternal cluster and tests competing branch arrangements
|}


An index, a transcription and a tree quoting the same original do not provide three independent confirmations. The surname-project report, STR reconstruction and later discussion can likewise reuse the same genetic observations. Independent civil, church and land records are valuable because they offer different routes through the identity problem; even then, their logical dependencies must remain visible.



==== What an unsuccessful search means ====


Missing evidence is useful only when we know what should have been recorded and what survives. The unnamed 1838 child’s absence from all relevant parts of the household return has more bearing on a survival hypothesis than an unrestricted web search finding nothing. It still cannot establish a death date by itself. A gap in the baptism transcription, a register starting after the marriage, and an archive image requiring onsite access are three different limitations.


The research history records completed searches and the wider register of inaccessible originals and unresolved identities; the focused next tests appear below. The next work is prioritised by the proposition it could resolve, not by the number of databases left to search. No numerical parent score is treated as a probability or allowed to replace these source-based arguments.



=== The next records that could change the conclusions ===

The first task could distinguish the early Alexander identities directly. The American and Larne tests still address the wider family reconstruction. The Canadian deeds now establish the Irish sibling connection and identify the Rochester and Black families. Their earlier family records and unresolved title fractions form the next collateral tests.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Question !! Exact record or bounded target !! Current status !! Alternative outcomes and consequence
|-
| '''1. What kind of 1829 Lisnagaver occurrence is this Alexander?''' || Belfast News-Letter, '''5 June 1829, page 4, article 015'''<ref name="Evidence2721035739" />, full heading and adjoining columns around '''Alex. Glasgow, Lisnagaver'''; compare the Elder and Wallace entries. || Original alert and public newspaper index inspected; page 4, article 015 located. Full image access blocked; registration context provisional and identity unresolved. || Age or qualification wording could distinguish the census-age man, the same man with an earlier birth, or an older namesake. No adulthood rule, freehold status or fatherhood follows from the snippet.
|-
| '''2. Was Archibald’s missing son Robert of Tennessee?''' || Newberry estate index<ref name="Evidence2afaabeaff">[https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm Newberry estate index].</ref>: Archibald, '''1818 estate 647, box 27, package 57'''; adult distributions, receipts, releases and powers of attorney. Compare the '''1810 Archald census, image 4433429_00206''', and James-2439’s '''1831 estate 1643, box 63, package 158'''. || Indexes located; no matching estate packet or 1810 household image found in the saved material reviewed. Estate 646 is a separate guardianship proceeding. || A named Robert in Tennessee, a kinship clause or a receipt identifying the missing boy could establish or redirect the American branch. An omitted adult in a guardianship list is not an exclusion. James-2439’s heirs test an alternative father for James J.
|-
| '''3. Did the Inishrush family come from James of Larne?''' || William-3324’s surviving '''1815 will, PRONI D300/1/5/49'''; '''MIC/1B/6''', the reported 1762 James–Janet marriage and earlier baptisms; Belfast records before the 1760 ropewalk lease; Adam’s Inishrush tenancy in '''D1062/1/5''' and the Vintners rentals. || Specific catalogue targets and existing source trails; will clauses, original marriage and relevant tenancy succession remain uninspected. || Look for named siblings, nephews, places, predecessors and any recorded prior marriage. An Adam of Inishrush or a Larne origin would bridge the branches. A different named father would redirect the hypothesis. Janet’s reported 1762 marriage must not supply maternity for Adam born about 1758.
|-
| '''4. Who were Alexander and Mary’s parents?''' || Reported '''1836 marriage''' in surviving First Kilraughts material, film 197; Ballymoney/Kilraughts family and society registers '''PRONI CR5/32/1/1/1–2''' || Not inspected; the existing PRONI enquiry remains pending. Rasharkin’s surviving marriage register starts in 1845 || Named parents or an explicit family group could decide a candidate. Witness names supply leads, not automatic kinship. Failure in an incomplete or later-starting register cannot exclude the marriage.
|-
| '''5. How do James’s Rochester family and the remaining title interests connect?''' || C114, 25 March 1868<ref name="Evidence1f5003a1e5" />: Alexander Glasco, Rochester express agent, son of James the Prescott carpenter; compare B395/B601 daughters Eliza Jane and Mary, earlier parcel interests and the remaining family records. Separately resolve the Samuel 1875 and James E. 1900–09 estate-index rows. Follow Mary Glasgow Black’s identified children at Drumoolish, Newburgh and Legrand from C298. || Original B12/B13/B395/B465/B601 and C113/C114/C298 inspected. Irish Daniel and Thomas identified; Rochester Alexander’s identity with Alexander-951 unproved. Ninth and eighteenth interests remain unreconciled with the will’s sixth. || The named carpenter’s children provide a concrete family to reconstruct. Establish their earlier lives and title interests before equating their father with Robert’s brother or assigning James to Alexander-951. The abstract dates are not automatically execution dates. Mary Black’s documented branch offers a separate local route to the siblings’ parents.
|-
| '''6. Can existing DNA distinguish the closest paternal branches?''' || Audit the existing reported Robert-1143 (Y-111), James-1144 (Y-37) and John-822 (Y-67) descendant paths and whether further SNP results already exist. Compare consented James J calls and coverage with Alexander’s line; retain the FT6135/FTE32242 comparison in the Robert-12 family. || The matrix identifies direct calls, displayed placements and unresolved states || Resolved SNP states in these particular Larne and Inishrush lines test the proposed branch connections. A matching downstream state could strengthen a narrower grouping; differing states require mutation placement and pedigree review. A broad STR group or an absent variant-list entry is not a negative SNP call. Establish the useful historical split before proposing a new paid test.
|-
| '''7. Which Alexander died, and who was Nancy?''' || Original John Martin Glascow–Mary Gibson marriage, '''10 November 1870''', reported index<ref name="Evidence1569ab344f">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGYQ-ZW9Z reported index].</ref>; follow Ann McCracken from son William James’s '''21 September 1877 Lisnagaver birth''' and seek Nancy/Ann records at Gortahar, 1877–1901 || The marriage remains a profile-derived lead; original access blocked. Nancy has no independent link to either family. Ignore the copied contradictory Coleraine/County Offaly location. || A compatible father Alexander and Glenleslie context would locate the rival’s later family. An explicit Nancy/Ann alias or parents would distinguish the two households. Neither a common name nor an unmarked father-deceased field proves identity or survival. Verify Mary Ann Martin’s alleged 1882 death and any remarriage before using marital status to exclude her husband.
|-
| '''8. Does Scottish Robert belong to the Irish couple?''' || James’s 10 July 1869 birth<ref name="Evidence1e8e8dbbab">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSFB-KDZR James’s 10 July 1869 birth].</ref>, film '''008065881 image 256'''; corroborate with Agnes’s 19 August 1875 birth<ref name="Evidence9ee708eb07">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSFB-FXZ5 Agnes’s 19 August 1875 birth].</ref>, film '''008066640 image 244''' || Exact image references recovered; access blocked, originals unread || Read the parents’ marriage date/place: agreement with '''5 April 1866''' supplies a much stronger identity bridge than parental names alone. A conflicting marriage requires a namesake review; a blank field leaves the bridge open. Two siblings may repeat the same parents’ report. Then verify the copied 1871/1881/1891 households against all family members.
|-
| '''9. Does Robert’s death name Alexander and Mary?''' || Alleged '''27 November 1902''' death; Camlachie '''644/2/849''' || Citation is misplaced beneath daughter Mary in the copied brief; verify the subject first || Matching parents and wife Jane Graham would strengthen the Scottish bridge and add later family testimony. Different parents need reconciliation. A deceased-father statement would set an upper boundary, not identify the 1888 death.
|-
| '''10. What does the original 1838 baptism say?''' || Rasharkin Presbyterian '''MIC1P/292, entry 106''', with neighbouring entries || Named transcription incomplete; original not inspected || A readable name and dates would identify the documented child more precisely. Marginal wording may help; no invented name or exact death follows from a blank or damaged entry.
|}


An access failure leaves a record uninspected; it is not a negative search. Completed searches remain in the research history. The ScotlandsPeople birth-register guide<ref name="Evidenceb64b69d251">[https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/help-and-support/guides/statutory-register-births ScotlandsPeople birth-register guide].</ref> explains the marriage fields sought in the Scottish births, without establishing what these unread entries contain.



=== Additional source material and comparison records ===

These sources include indexes, transcriptions and comparison families. Their presence does not add independent support where they repeat the records assessed above.

* [http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/35/ earlier census page]
* [https://apps.proni.gov.uk/eCatNI_IE/SearchPage.aspx PRONI eCatalogue]
* [https://archive.org/details/kilraughtskirkit0000alex S. Alexander Blair's ''Kilraughts: A Kirk and Its People'']
* [https://bdmhistoricalrecords.dia.govt.nz/ New Zealand BDM Historical Records]
* [https://cotyrone.com/colondonderry/burial/CoLondonderry-DeathsSentinel-G-1829-1869.html County Londonderry death-notice transcription]
* [https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-FT20271 R-FT20271 haplotree page]
* [https://downtheroad.dev/pt/census?county=Antrim&tab=browse&townland=Lisnagaver&year=1901 1901 Lisnagaver census browse]
* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/Drimbolg/graveyard.html Drimbolg graveyard transcription]
* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/GarvaghP1/Marriages/1845-1889marr.html Garvagh marriages]
* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/graveyard.html Rasharkin Presbyterian graveyard]
* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/TamlaghtP/Baptisms.html Tamlaght baptisms]
* [https://help.familytreedna.com/hc/en-us/articles/4402695710223-Big-Y-Private-Variants-Guide FTDNA private-variant guidance]
* [https://itm.howison.co.nz/year/1871/page/6604 New Zealand intentions to marry transcription]
* [https://rootsireland.ie/antrim/online-sources.php RootsIreland's live County Antrim source list]
* [https://ulsterhistoricalfoundation.com/presbyterianism/covenanters/records-of-congregations Ulster Historical Foundation]
* [https://www.clockmakers.org/museum-archive/library-archive Clockmakers' Company archive]
* [https://www.failteromhat.com/slater/0192.pdf Slater's directory]
* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FBP3-95M Ireland civil registration birth index]
* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FTZP-9M6 Ireland civil registration death index]
* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPB2-KNM2 Mary Elder household, Gortahar, 1901]
* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QYHR-52T2 Robert J. Elder household, Gortahar, 1911]
* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3JBF-PQ8 Rosanna]
* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3JBF-PQL Alexander]
* [https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/glasgow/about Glasgow project page]
* [https://www.hiltner.com/mckeown/showmedia.php?mediaID=1260&medialinkID=1865 Hiltner genealogy]
* [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1897/05858/4660280.pdf 1897 civil death]
* [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/search/?church-or-civil=civil&event-birth=1&lastname=Elder&location=Ballymoney&per_page=100 Ballymoney civil births for Elder]
* [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view?record_id=cide-6570010 official index entry]
* [https://www.johngrenham.com/records/church.php?civilparish=Rasharkin&civilparishid=347&search_type=full Rasharkin church-register inventory]
* [https://www.johngrenham.com/records/county_church_full.php?county=Antrim&denomination=Presbyterian&location=Public+Record+Office+of+Northern+Ireland&search_type=full County Antrim Presbyterian register inventory]
* [https://www.nationalarchives.gov.za/node/737 Underlying record source: alexander glasgow]
* [https://www.prescott.ca/recreation-culture/history-heritage/heritage-properties/ municipal register]
* [https://www.proni.gov.uk/files/proni/2026-01/PRONI%20Guide%20to%20Church%20Records.pdf Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, ''Guide to Church Records'']
* [https://www.townlands.ie/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin/lisnagaver/ Lisnagaver townland reference]
* [https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Space:Alexander_Glasgow Alexander Glasgow Research Space]
* [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Glasgow_DNA Glasgow DNA research space]

=== New Dysart–Glascaw network lead ===

The Rasharkin baptism register records '''Jane Glascaw''', born 29 April 1846, as daughter of '''Thos Glascaw''' and '''Mary Ann McCrackin''' at Lisnagaver, and records later children of Jane and James Dysart in Granagh and Crushybracken. Since [[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]] and [[McCracken-5681|Maryann (McCracken) Glasgow]] are independently documented at Lisnagaver, this is a strong possible affinal link between the Dysart branch and the Thomas Glasgow family. It does not identify Sarah Dysart as Jane's sister and does not connect either branch to Mary's parentage.<ref name="EvidenceGlascawDysart">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/Baptisms_1834.html Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription], entries 82, 133, 176, 192, 203, 269 and 271.</ref>

=== Record-level Dysart–McCaughan marriage evidence ===

FamilySearch's indexed civil-registration entry records '''John McCaughan''' marrying '''Sarah Dysart''' at Rasharkin on 18 March 1851. The associated persons identify '''Jas McCaughan''' as John's father and '''Jas Dysart''' as Sarah's father. This is relationship-bearing evidence, although the image is unavailable and the original certificate has not yet been checked for residences, occupations or witnesses.<ref name="EvidenceDysartMcCaughan1851">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGVD-CN3S FamilySearch civil record], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

The record strengthens the local McCaughan–Dysart network, but it does not identify Jas McCaughan with the Gortereghy tithe tenant, Sarah Dysart with Jane Glascaw's sister, or either branch with '''Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow'''. Griffith's Valuation separately lists James and Robert Dysart at Crushybracken and Archibald Dysart and Sarah Dysert at Drumack, making the original certificate and Sarah's own baptism the next tests.<ref name="EvidenceRasharkinDysartValuation">[https://www.irishgenealogyhub.com/antrim/griffiths-valuation/parish-of-rasharkin.php Griffith's Valuation, Rasharkin parish], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

=== Mary McCaughan date discrepancy ===

The current WikiTree+ suggestions report lists [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow (McCaughan)]] with a '''certain 1817 birth at Lisnagaver''', whereas this research has generally used an approximate 1811 birth from the 1851 census age. The report also shows an expired “source will be added” suggestion; the 1817 value is therefore a tree assertion requiring source recovery, not an independently verified birth record. If confirmed, it would change the chronology of possible McCaughan parent couples.<ref name="EvidenceMary1817TreeAssertion">[https://plus.wikitree.com/Profiles/Suggestions/IRL_ANT/981_Hidden_0.htm WikiTree+ Antrim suggestions report], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

=== FamilySearch identity collision: Scottish and Rasharkin Alexanders ===

The authenticated FamilySearch Tree profile [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/G8WJ-HFW G8WJ-HFW] is internally conflated. Its source list contains Irish records for the Rasharkin Alexander, but its family panel also attaches a Scottish wife, Mary McCaughan (MQ57-B2Y), Scottish children and a Barony, Lanarkshire marriage. The archived discussion on this profile identifies the Scottish marriage as Alexander Glasgow and Mary Fleming on 12 June 1838 in Barony, Lanarkshire, with an 1841 Barony household headed by a flesher.

That Scottish couple is distinct from this profile's Rasharkin farmer: the latter's son James was baptized at Gortereagh on 9 February 1837, before the Scottish marriage, and Alexander appears with Mary and children at Lisnagaver in 1851. The Mary Fleming marriage is therefore not evidence against [[McCaughan-222|Mary McCaughan]]. The FamilySearch tree is useful for locating the conflict but is not proof of Mary's parents or of Alexander's parentage.

Sources: [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/G8WJ-HFW FamilySearch G8WJ-HFW], [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/sources/G8WJ-HFW its source list], [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/MQ57-B2Y FamilySearch MQ57-B2Y], and the [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Glasgow-951#comments archived WikiTree discussion], accessed 14 September 2026.

=== Ballymena death-index candidate: Mary M'caughren, 1894 ===

FamilySearch contains an exact-ish local civil index entry for '''Mary M'caughren''': death registration in '''Ballymena, County Antrim''', October–December '''1894''', page 69, volume 1. The index gives age '''81''' and estimated birth year '''1813'''.<ref name="EvidenceMaryMcCaughren1894">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FTZ5-6ZJ FamilySearch civil-registration index entry], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

The age and county make this a worthwhile identity lead, but it cannot presently be identified with [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]. The index has no residence, spouse, informant, townland, parents or associated persons; the image is unavailable; and it post-dates the current 27 February 1892 death for Mary Glasgow. It therefore does not justify changing Mary's death date or adding parents. The next test is to obtain the underlying civil death certificate through the General Register Office/IrishGenealogy route, if available, and check the residence and informant.

=== FamilySearch targeted search audit ===

The focused FamilySearch search for '''Mary McCaughren''', birth 1808–1816 in Antrim, returned '''0''' historical-record results. A second search for '''Mary McCaughan''' of the same approximate age and place with spouse '''Alexander Glasgow''' also returned '''0''' results. These are negative results from the current index, not proof that the records never existed.

The spouse search did expose a documented false-positive: Mary McCaughan married '''Alexander Thompson''' at '''Armoy, Ballycastle, on 7 July 1857'''; the index names her father as '''John McCaughan'''. This is a separate woman and cannot be transferred to [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]], whose family is documented in Rasharkin from 1837. The result is retained as an exclusion check only.<ref name="EvidenceMaryMcCaughanThompson1857">[https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&q.givenName=Mary&q.surname=McCaughan&q.birthLikeDate.from=1808&q.birthLikeDate.to=1816&q.birthLikePlace=Antrim%2C%20Ireland&q.spouseGivenName=Alexander FamilySearch targeted search], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

=== 1803 Ballintoy household census ===

A separate 1803 household return for Ballintoy parish records two structured McCaughan households at '''Coulrasheskin/Curryeshkin'''. House 3 contains '''Archd. M'Caghan''', wife '''Isobel Lawson''', sons Archd. and John, and brother Alex, a weaver. House 4 contains '''Arch. senior M'Caghan''', wife '''Sarah Linegan''', son Isaac, daughters Sally, Giles and Ibby, and brother Robert.<ref name="EvidenceTraillMcCaughan1803">[https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1803traillcensus.pdf Robert Traill's 1803 Ballintoy household census transcription], PRONI T679/69, p. 27, entries 1417–1427.</ref>

This is direct household evidence for a multi-generational North Antrim network and helps separate the Ballintoy/Culfeightrin cluster from the Rasharkin Gortereghy hypothesis. Neither household contains a Mary of the right apparent age; the younger Archibald would also be too young to be [[McAughin-2|Archibald McAughin]], estimated born about 1791. It does not identify Mary's parents.

=== WikiTree-linked comparison family ===

WikiTree shows [[McCaughan-4|Hugh McCaughan]] (about 1824–about 1903) as the son of [[McCaughan-5|Hugh McCaughan Sr.]] (estimated about 1806) and [[McCurdy-193|Roseanne McCurdy]], and brother of [[McCaughan-7|Archibald McCaughan]] (about 1799–about 1870) and [[McCaughan-6|Elizabeth McCaughan]]. Hugh's wife is [[Erwin-428|Mary Erwin]]; listed children include [[McCaughan-16|Mary]], [[McCaughan-17|Alexander]], [[McCaughan-18|Hugh Jr.]] and [[McCaughan-19|Archibald]]. The dates are internally strained and no profile supplies a Rasharkin/Lisnagaver bridge, so this remains a separate comparison cluster rather than a proposed family for [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]].

The later Moneyleck branch includes [[McCahon-44|Joseph McCahon]] (1867–1941), whose profile names Hugh McCahon and Mary Jane Wilson as parents, [[Wilson-71886|Hannah Wilson]] as wife and [[McCahon-18|Enos Archibald McCahon]] as a son. It links FamilySearch identity [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/MCJX-HRD MCJX-HRD]. Moneyleck is useful local network evidence but does not identify Mary's parents.

=== New pre-1790 Hearth Money evidence ===

The [https://adamsfamilydna.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/1669-Hearth-Money-Rolls-for-North-and-Mid-Antrim.pdf 1669 Hearth Money Rolls] list Ogan McCaghan at Kilcroagh, Armoy; Allex McCahan and John McCaghan at Ballyverdagh, Culfeightrin; Angus McCahir at Cross Denard, Culfeightrin; Gillindrish McCagher at Loughan/Ballyloghan, Culfeightrin; and Daniell McKaghin in Dunluce town. These direct household-head entries substantially pre-date the 1740 Rasharkin returns and establish a long-standing McCaughan-name presence in the wider Culfeightrin–Armoy region.

The rolls provide no ages, spouses or children and no bridge to Lisnagaver. They are therefore regional ancestral candidates and surname-network context only, not evidence that any named householder was a parent of [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]].

The compiled Ballyverdagh/Culfeightrin account gives a secondary pedigree lead: John McCaughan (about 1724–1793), husband of Agnes McCahan, with children John (about 1754), Alexander (1756), Archibald (1758), Sarah (1760), Mary (1761) and Charles (1763). It says John was served heir to his father in 1771. The listed Mary McCaughan is chronologically possible but currently a poor candidate for Mary Glasgow's mother because she would have been about 50 in 1811 and no marriage, residence or child evidence links her to Rasharkin. The original heir, will and parish records remain to be checked.

Source: [https://electricscotland.com/webclans/m/maceachain2.htm compiled Ballyverdagh/Culfeightrin McCaughan account], accessed 15 September 2026.

The same account reports a later James McCaughan, born about 1792, as a son of John McCaughan (born about 1754) of Ballyverdagh. This should not be silently merged with [[McCaughan-68|James McCaughan]], whose WikiTree profile gives birth before 1790, wife [[Larny-2|Mary Larny]] (about 1790), and son [[McCaughan-67|John]] (about 1798). On the current dates the two James profiles are chronologically incompatible, so the Ballyverdagh James is not a safe identification for the Canadian John line or for Mary's father.

=== FamilySearch Rasharkin/Ballydonnelly McCaughern cluster ===

FamilySearch's authenticated Tree gives a separate local cluster around [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/GWCJ-8BK James Mcaughern] (22 May 1842–13 December 1896, '''GWCJ-8BK'''), born at Ballydonnelly and christened at Rasharkin. His parents are [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/LCRH-Z1G John McCaughern] (about 1813–1901) and [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/LCRH-DL2 Elizabeth Hansen] (about 1813–1843), married in Rasharkin in 1834; listed children include [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/MZQT-2TK John McCaughern] (1835–1907) and James.

The same Tree connects [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/949C-MM6 James Mcaughern] (1830–1900) to [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/L11Q-5KR James McCaughern] (about 1790–1858) and [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/L119-DTP Nancy Marks] (about 1794–1859). The younger James married [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/KLP6-P27 Mary Jamison] at Finvoy on 9 March 1854 and had [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/949C-MMM James Mcaughern] (1868–).

This is significant local evidence but does not prove either James was [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow's]] father. The about-1790 James is chronologically possible for a daughter born about 1811, but the displayed children begin with Daniel (1826), Thomas (1829), James (1830) and William (1842), with no Mary; the 1830 James is too young. Keep it as a distinct Rasharkin/Ballydonnelly branch pending the original 1834 marriage, 1842 baptism and records for the older James's children.

=== FamilySearch civil-marriage proof for the older James's children ===

The authenticated FamilySearch source list for [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/L11Q-5KR James McCaughern] (about 1790–1858) contains two relationship-bearing indexed marriage records. The 27 November 1850 civil marriage of Daniel McAughern and Eleanor Graham records Daniel as age 24, estimated birth about 1826, and explicitly names '''James Mc Aughern as his father'''; the original place is Churchtown, Ballymoney. [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FGXX-H6G FamilySearch record FGXX-H6G]

The 9 March 1854 marriage of James McCaughern and Mary Jamison at Finvoy likewise explicitly names '''James McCaughern as the groom's father'''. [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FG6V-QGF FamilySearch record FG6V-QGF]

These records materially strengthen the identification of the 1790–1858 James/Nancy household and document two sons, Daniel and James. They do not prove that this James was the 1834 Gortereghy tithe tenant or the father of [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]: neither record names Mary, Glasgow, William McCaheran or Gortereghy.

=== Pre-1790 Rasharkin McCaharan graveyard root ===

The [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinCOI/graveyard.html Rasharkin Church of Ireland graveyard transcription] records '''Andrew McCaharan''', who died '''1 February 1738 aged 69''', and separately names his son '''John McCaharan''' on the same memorial. This is a direct local memorial and places the McCaharan spelling in Rasharkin more than a century before [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]'s estimated birth.

It is a new root cluster for the surname study, but not a proved ancestor line: the transcription gives no John's wife, townland, full death information or intervening generations. It strengthens the case for a long-established local surname population while leaving Mary's parentage unproved. The original stone image or burial/register material should be sought to recover the remainder of John's inscription.

=== New full 1803 Ballintoy McCaughan household audit ===

The complete [https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1803traillcensus.pdf 1803 Ballintoy agricultural census] reveals several distinct early McCaughan households beyond the previously isolated Coulrasheskin entries:

* '''Broughgammon:''' deceased Dennis M'Caghan; widow Margaret McCurdy; John, Molly, Betty, Nancy and Matty.
* '''Drumnagessan/Cairn-Hill:''' John M'Caghan and Sarah McCaw; sons David, Archibald, John and James; daughter Isobel.
* '''Drumnagessan:''' Daniel M'Caghan and Rose McCurdy; daughters Catherine, Sally and Isobel.
* '''Templastragh:''' Daniel M'Caghan and Rose McCurdy; sons John, Alexander, Roger and Robert; daughter Mary.
* '''Templastragh:''' Hector M'Caghan and Peggy Laverty; son Zachariah and daughter Rose.
* '''Templastragh:''' John M'Caghan and Jane Sinclair; sons Hector and Daniel.
* '''Craige:''' Angus M'Caghan and Elizabeth Glass; sons Hugh and Archibald; daughter Belle.

The two Daniel-and-Rose entries occur as separate census households in different townlands and must not be merged without proof. The Templastragh Mary is directly recorded as a daughter of Daniel M'Caghan and Rose McCurdy, but no age, later marriage, migration or Rasharkin connection is supplied. This confirms a substantial early, multi-branch Ballintoy network, but none of these households can presently be assigned as the parents of [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]. Targeted WikiTree searches found no matching profiles for these exact household combinations, so no IDs are invented here.

=== 1824 Templastragh tithe continuity ===

The later [https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionnamespdf.pdf North Antrim tithe revision] independently preserves the Templastragh cluster: it lists '''Zackariah McCahan''', '''Daniel McCahan''', '''Alexander McCahan''' and a '''widow McCahan''' there in 1824. Zackariah is especially notable because the 1803 Ballintoy census names '''Zachariah McCaghan''' as the son of '''Hector McCaghan''' and '''Peggy Laverty'''. Daniel and Alexander also recur as names in the 1803 Daniel-and-Rose household, although the tithe does not state their relationships or ages.<ref name="Evidence1824TemplastraghContinuity">[https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionnamespdf.pdf North Antrim tithe revision names], records 800–801 and 807–814.</ref>

This is genuine chronological corroboration for a continuing McCaughan/McCahan presence in the same Ballintoy townland, and it helps distinguish the early Templastragh households from isolated name occurrences. It still cannot identify the 1803 Mary as the later [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]: the tithe gives no women’s identities beyond the widow, no marriages or children, and no movement toward Lisnagaver or Gortereghy.

=== 1766–1860 Templastragh locality trail ===

The 1766 [https://www.billmacafee.com/1766census/1766religiouscensusballintoy.pdf Religious Census for Ballintoy] records '''Daniel M'Kaughen''' in '''Templastragh''', with a household size of five. This is a direct pre-1790 occurrence of the same distinctive given name and townland later seen in the 1803 census. The 1803 household is much larger—Daniel M'Caghan, Rose McCurdy and five listed children, including Mary—and the 1824 tithe revision again lists Daniel McCahan in Templastragh.<ref name="Evidence1766TemplastraghDaniel">[https://www.billmacafee.com/1766census/1766religiouscensusballintoy.pdf 1766 Ballintoy Religious Census], record 348.</ref>

The later [https://www.irishgenealogyhub.com/antrim/griffiths-valuation/parish-of-ballintoy.php Griffith's Valuation index] also lists '''Daniel McCahan''' and '''Elizabeth McCaughan''' in Templastragh. Because the valuation is a later occupier index and does not state ages, spouses or parentage, this may represent a younger Daniel or a different household; it cannot be assumed to be the 1803 man. Taken together, the records establish a long-lived Daniel/McCaughan presence in Templastragh from 1766 through the mid-nineteenth century and justify targeted searches for a marriage or baptismal record connecting the households.

This materially strengthens the Ballintoy cluster but still does not prove that the 1803 Mary was [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]] or that Daniel and Rose were her parents.

=== Later Daniel-and-Elizabeth Templastragh branch ===

An [https://www.ancestry.com/genealogy/records/jane-mccaughan-24-1mzn0 Ancestry public-name index] identifies '''Jane McCaughan''', born '''12 November 1834''' at '''Templastragh''', as daughter of '''Daniel McCaughan''' and '''Elizabeth Rogers'''; the same compiled entry estimates both parents at about 1800–1847 and says Jane later emigrated to New York. This is a useful later-household lead because Griffith's Valuation also lists Daniel McCahan and Elizabeth McCaughan in Templastragh.

The index is derivative and does not expose the original baptism or marriage images. It therefore cannot yet establish whether this Daniel was a son of the 1803 Daniel and Rose, a nephew, or an unrelated Daniel in the same townland. It does, however, give a specific child, date, mother’s maiden surname and migration trail for further testing. No evidence currently connects this branch to [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]].

=== First Kilraughts register: confirmed archival target ===

The [https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/accessions/2002/02digests/religion.htm National Archives catalogue] confirms that '''First Kilraughts Presbyterian Church''' records survive at PRONI as '''MIC/1P/462''', including registers and minute books from '''1815–1984'''. An independent [https://ulsterlees.azurewebsites.net/families/co-antrim/ballymoney-area/ North Antrim reconstruction] identifies a marriage in that register on '''8 November 1839''' and gives witnesses, confirming that the register preserves marriage-level detail. The couple's reported 1836 marriage should therefore be searched in the same register under Glasgow/Glasgo/Glassgow and every McCaughan/McAughin/McAughern/McCaughren variant.

This is the clearest remaining route to a contemporaneous record associated with Alexander and Mary. It may name witnesses rather than parents, so even a successful marriage entry may not prove Mary's parentage; however, repeated witnesses could connect her to one of the local McCaughan households. The register must be consulted directly before any conclusion is upgraded.

=== Collateral Drumadarragh McCaughey branch ===

The [https://ulsterlees.azurewebsites.net/families/co-antrim/ballymoney-area/ Ulster Lees reconstruction] documents a separate '''John McCaughey/McCaghy and Margaret Lees''' family associated with '''Drumadarragh''', including Jane (about 1812), Margaret (about 1825), James (about 1833), Sarah (about 1835) and other proposed children. Several adult marriages name John McCaghy as father, and Jane's later death record names John McAughley and Margaret Lees. This branch is geographically relevant to the Ballymoney-area McCaughan variants and explains why the 1817 Drumard household cannot be treated as the only local candidate.

The published reconstruction does not include a daughter Mary of the correct age and remains partly inferential. It is therefore a comparison/exclusion branch, not evidence that John and Margaret were Mary's parents.

=== 1740–1796 Tamlaght O'Crilly / Drumcannon McCaughan continuity lead ===

The 1740 Protestant Householders' Returns identify '''John McCahan''' and '''James McCahan''' in '''Tamlaght O'Crilly''', in the Loughinsholin barony. This is an unusually early, exact-parish occurrence of two McCaughan-variant householders, decades before the Rasharkin baptismal material. The return gives no ages, household composition or relationship between the two men.<ref name="Evidence1740TamlaghtMcCahan">[https://adamsfamilydna.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/1740-Protestant-Returns-Londonderry-County-Ireland.pdf 1740 Protestant Householders' Returns], records 1171–1172.</ref>

A later circa-1800 rent-roll transcription records four McCaughan tenants in '''Drumcannon''' in '''1791''': '''Samuel''', '''Matthew''', '''William''' and '''John'''. The source explains that the undated entries are part of farm rental lists dating roughly 1796–1814, so the dated 1791 entries should be treated as a landlord record, not a census. The 1796 Flaxgrowers' List then records '''William M'Caughin''' in '''Tamlaght O'Crilly''' with three wheels/looms.<ref name="Evidence1791Rent1796Flax">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/misc/rentrolls.html circa-1800 Bann Valley rent-roll transcription], Drumcannon entries 182, 185, 197–198; [https://www.billmacafee.com/1796flaxgrowerslist/1796flaxgrowersderry.pdf 1796 Flaxgrowers' List], record 4754.</ref>

This is new pre-1811 evidence in the same broader parish region and strengthens the case for investigating Tamlaght O'Crilly, Drumcannon and Gortereghy together. It does not prove the parents of [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]: the named tenants have no demonstrated relationship to her, and the 1791 William has not been shown to be the 1796 William. The next test is to trace these names through surviving estate papers, Presbyterian records and valuation revisions for a daughter Mary born about 1811 or a transfer into Lisnagaver/Gortereghy.

=== 1817 First Ballymoney McCaughan household: a new Mary-parent candidate ===

Rev. Robert Park's 1817 register of the First Ballymoney Presbyterian Church records '''John McCaughan [McCahon]''', wife '''Mary McCaughan [McCahon]''', and son '''James McCaughan [McCahon]''' at '''Drumard [Drumart]''', house 8. The same register records '''Grissel McCaughan [McCahan]''' and '''Hugh McCaughan [McCahan]''' in a Bendooragh household, showing the variant forms in the Ballymoney-area Presbyterian network at the period when Mary Glasgow would have been a child.<ref name="Evidence1817BallymoneyMcCaughan">[https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1817parkcensus.pdf 1817 First Ballymoney Presbyterian register], records 2912–2914 and 570–571.</ref>

A separate compiled Ballyverdagh account lists a Drumant church-member household as John and Mary McCahon, with son James and daughters Mary and Elizabeth. Since that detail is not present in the searchable Park register entry and the underlying membership source has not been inspected, it remains a secondary lead. If the two records refer to the same couple, their daughter Mary would be chronologically compatible with [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]'s estimated birth about 1811; no marriage, migration, residence or Glasgow connection has been found.

This is currently the strongest new chronological candidate for a Mary-parent household outside the immediate Rasharkin cluster, but it is not proof. The decisive test is to identify the original Drumard/Drumant membership sheet and trace John and Mary McCaughan through Ballymoney Presbyterian baptisms, marriages and valuation records.<ref name="EvidenceDrumantMcCahon">[https://electricscotland.com/webclans/m/maceachain2.htm compiled Ballyverdagh account].</ref>

=== Complete 1817 Ballymoney-area McCaughan audit ===

The full searchable 1817 register contains at least five distinct McCaughan/McCahon placements: '''Charles and Elizabeth McCaughan''' at Balnamore, with children James, Samuel, John, Ann, Daniel and Elizabeth and an older Mary whose relationship is uncertain; '''Samuel and Martha McCaughan''' at Taghey, with sons John and James; '''John and Mary McCaughan''' at Drumard, with son James; '''Grissel McCaughan''' and '''Hugh McCaughan''' in a Bendooragh household headed by William McMaster; and '''Elizabeth McCaughan''' in a Currysiskan household headed by Widow Knox.<ref name="Evidence1817CompleteMcCaughanAudit">[https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1817parkcensus.pdf complete searchable 1817 register], records 1239–1248, 1383, 1436–1439, 2912–2914 and 570–571.</ref>

This is important negative evidence: the primary searchable register does '''not''' list a daughter Mary in the Drumard John-and-Mary household. The separate compiled account's Drumant list of daughters Mary and Elizabeth may represent a different membership list, a different townland, or an expanded/parallel record, but it cannot currently prove that the Drumard couple had a daughter Mary. The Drumard family remains a possible chronological comparison branch, but its evidential weight is lower than the initial reading suggested.

The audit also identifies a Balnamore Mary McCaughan candidate, but the register marks her relationship as uncertain and suggests only that she may be Charles's mother. None of the five placements supplies a marriage, parent statement, migration record or Glasgow link. [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow's]] parents therefore remain unproved.

=== Dreen probate cluster: Agnes and Peter McCaughern, 1916 ===

The [https://www.willcalendars.nationalarchives.ie/reels/cwa/005014919/005014919_00647.pdf National Archives of Ireland will-calendar] records two adjacent Dreen, Rasharkin estates: '''Agnes McCaughern''', spinster, died 26 March 1916, administration granted to '''William McCaughern'''; and '''Peter McCaughern''', farmer, died 27 February 1916, also granted to William. Later unadministered grants for both estates were made to '''Catherine McCaughern''', spinster.

These entries show a substantial late local McCaughern cluster and a repeated William–Catherine administrative connection, but the calendar does not identify their exact kinship. The underlying probate packets should be obtained because they may name beneficiaries, relatives and property. This is a useful local-network lead, not evidence for [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow's]] parents.

=== New parent-bearing Armoy/Cromaghs branch: William McCaughan ===

The National Archives of Ireland census-search-form index gives a new parent-bearing local record: '''William McCaughan''', whose present address was Fairhill Street, Ballycastle, supplied an 1851 census extract naming his father '''Archibald McCaughan''' and mother '''Mary'''. The indexed residence was '''Cromaghs, parish of Armoy, barony of Cary''', placing this branch in the wider Ballycastle–Armoy area rather than directly at Lisnagaver or Gortereghy.

This proves an additional Archibald–Mary McCaughan parental pair in the wider North Antrim research region, but it does not identify William with any existing WikiTree profile or connect him to [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]. The record is a census-search-form abstraction rather than the underlying 1851 return, and the next step is to obtain the extract/image and trace William, Archibald and Mary through Cromaghs valuation and church records. No safe WikiTree ID has been assigned to this branch.

Source: [https://censussearchforms.nationalarchives.ie/search/cs/results.jsp?applicantAddress=&amp;applicantFirstname=&amp;applicantSurname=&amp;barony=&amp;censusExtractYear=&amp;city=&amp;county=&amp;fatherFirstname=&amp;fatherSurname=&amp;motherFirstname=&amp;motherSurname=&amp;pageSize=&amp;pager.offset=14290&amp;parish=&amp;search=Search&amp;sort=residence_baronySort&amp;townland= National Archives of Ireland census-search-form index], accessed 15 September 2026.

=== Cromaghs valuation corroboration: Archibald and Margaret McCahan ===

Two independent online transcriptions of Griffith's Valuation for Armoy, dated to the 1861/62 county survey, list '''Archibald Mc Cahan''' as an occupier in '''Cromaghs'''. The same entries also list '''Margaret Mc Cahan''' in Cromaghs. This corroborates the parent-bearing 1851 census-search-form branch: the Archibald named there was an Archibald of the same surname variant and townland in the next decade.

The entries do not state whether Margaret was Archibald's wife, sister, daughter or another household occupier. The valuation is an occupier/property record, not a family register. The spelling is '''McCahan''', while the 1851 search-form entry uses '''McCaughan'''; this is compatible with local spelling variation but cannot identify either person with [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]'s family. No safe WikiTree ID has been found for Archibald or Margaret.

Sources: [https://irishgenealogyhub.com/antrim/griffiths-valuation/parish-of-armoy.php Irish Genealogy Hub transcription of Armoy Griffith's Valuation]; [https://www.failteromhat.com/griffiths/antrim/armoy.php Fáilte Romhat transcription]; [https://nationalarchives.ie/help-with-research/research-guides/valuation-office-records/ National Archives guide to valuation records]. Accessed 15 September 2026.

=== Pre-1790 Ballintoy record: Archd. McKaughin at Lisbellanagroagh More ===

The 1766 Religious Census for Ballintoy parish records '''Archd. McKaughin''' at '''Lisbellanagroagh More''', identified as Protestant. This is a new pre-1790 occurrence of the McCaughan spelling family in the barony of Cary, the same wider North Antrim barony containing later Ballintoy, Armoy and Ballycastle McCaughan/McCahan households.

The census supplies no age, household composition or relationship to Mary Glasgow. It cannot identify this Archibald as her father, and Lisbellanagroagh More is not the same place as Lisnagaver/Gortereghy. It is nevertheless a valuable locality and spelling lead for testing whether the later Armoy/Cromaghs and Rasharkin branches descend from an older Cary family.

Source: [https://www.billmacafee.com/1766census/1766religiouscensusballintoy.pdf 1766 Religious Census for Ballintoy parish], entry 318, accessed 15 September 2026.

=== Lisbellanagroagh continuity: Catherine M'Caghan and Daniel McCaw ===

The 1803 Ballintoy census records '''Kath. M'Caghan''', standardised as Catherine McCaughan, at '''Lisbellanagroagh Beg'''. She was listed as the wife of John McIlfatrick and as Church of Ireland; the row gives her age as 29, implying an estimated birth about 1774. The 1824 Ballintoy tithe book then records '''Danl. McCaw''' at '''Lisbellanagroagh More''', the neighbouring “More” townland where the 1766 census had recorded Archd. McKaughin.

These records create a continuous locality trail from an Archibald in 1766, to a McCaughan woman in the adjoining townland in 1803, to a McCaw occupier in More in 1824. They do not prove that Catherine was Archibald's daughter, that Daniel was related to either person, or that this Cary cluster was the family of [[McCaughan-222|Mary McCaughan Glasgow]]. They are nevertheless stronger than isolated surname occurrences and justify targeted searches of Ballintoy Church of Ireland marriages, baptisms and vestry records.

Sources: [https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1803traillcensus.pdf 1803 Trail census, Ballintoy], entries 2852–2853; [https://www.billmacafee.com/ballintoy/earlydatabases/titheballintoy.pdf 1824 Ballintoy tithe applotment], entry for Daniel McCaw at Lisbellanagroagh More; accessed 15 September 2026.

=== FamilySearch record-hint collision: James McCaughan and Alexander McCaughan ===

The logged-in FamilySearch record search returned an indexed Ireland marriage result describing '''James Mc Caughan''' as father of '''Alexander Mc Caughan'''. The attached Family Tree match was '''MCGP-3S2''', but that profile is James McCaughan born about '''1827''', with spouse Catharine McConachie and children Alexander McCaughan ('''1847–1921''', 96QG-NVJ) and Robert Mc Caughan ('''1853–1934''', K4GP-RD8). The tree profile has no sources and the relationship was added in 2020.

This is a new and important exclusion. The attached tree person cannot be the older James proposed as Mary's father: he is too young, and his son Alexander was born decades after Mary's marriage and the 1837–1844 Glasgow baptisms. The indexed father statement may belong to a different McCaughan family or be an aggregation error; it must not be cited as evidence for Mary's parentage. Source: [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/MCGP-3S2 FamilySearch tree profile MCGP-3S2], and [https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&amp;q.givenName=James&amp;q.surname=McCaughan&amp;q.birthLikeDate.from=1760&amp;q.birthLikeDate.to=1800&amp;q.birthLikePlace=Antrim%2C%20Ireland FamilySearch James McCaughan search results], accessed 15 September 2026.

The same search also surfaced '''James McCaughan''' in the Irish Valuation Office Books for '''Shankill in 1838''' and '''Billy, Ballycastle in 1861'''. These are new locality leads, but the index does not expose enough detail to identify the tenant with [[McCaughan-68|McCaughan-68]], the Gortereghy tithe tenant, or Mary's father. The underlying valuation images should be checked for townland continuity, occupier changes and adjoining McCaughan households.

The death of Alexander Glasgow was registered on 16 May 1888 in Ballymoney, aged 84.<ref>[https://geni.nidirect.gov.uk/search/death GRONI civil death index], Alexander Glasgow, 16 May 1888, aged 84, Ballymoney registration district, D/1888/31/1005/7/348.</ref>

== Sources ==
<references />

Compared with Glasgow-951, captured 2026-09-30 (biography rechecked against the saved revision) · 2026-09-23.

Side-by-side comparison of the live and replacement profiles

Changes only — hide unchanged lines

Current profileReplacement profile

Current profile1{{Estimated Date}}

Replacement profile1{{Estimated Date}}

Current profile2[[Category:Glasgow Name Study]]

Replacement profile2[[Category:Glasgow Name Study]]

Current profile3{{Ireland Native}}

Replacement profile3{{Ireland Native}}

Current profile4{{Occupation|image=Wikimedia_Commons_photos-3.jpg|text=was a farmer}}

Replacement profile4{{Occupation|image=Wikimedia_Commons_photos-3.jpg|text=was a farmer}}

Current profile5

Replacement profile5

Current profile6== Biography ==

Replacement profile6== Biography ==

Current profile7=== Alexander’s life in its local setting ===

Replacement profile7=== Alexander’s life in its local setting ===

Current profile8

Replacement profile8

Current profile9Alexander’s records describe a family rooted in a small part of County Antrim, with children whose later lives lead beyond it. His clearest surviving household is at Lisnagaver in 1851: an Antrim-born farmer, his wife Mary, and three children. Earlier baptisms recover the beginnings of that family; later marriages and the Elder tenancy connect it to the next generation. The probable Gortahar death completes the broad outline, with the last identity link still open.

Replacement profile9Alexander’s records describe a family rooted in a small part of County Antrim, with children whose later lives lead beyond it. His clearest surviving household is at Lisnagaver in 1851: an Antrim-born farmer, his wife Mary, and three children. Earlier baptisms recover the beginnings of that family; later marriages and the Elder tenancy connect it to the next generation. The probable Gortahar death completes the broad outline, with the last identity link still open.

Current profile10

Replacement profile10

Current profile11

Replacement profile11

Current profile12

Replacement profile12

Current profile13==== The places in his life ====

Replacement profile13==== The places in his life ====

Current profile14

Replacement profile14

Current profile15

Replacement profile15

Current profile16Gortereghy<ref name="Evidencec9d92bcd01">[https://www.townlands.ie/en/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin-upper/gortereghy/ Gortereghy].</ref>, written Gortereagh in the baptism transcription, adjoins Lisnagaver<ref name="Evidence7d988f87c8">[https://www.townlands.ie/en/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin/lisnagaver/ Lisnagaver].</ref> to the south. Gortahar<ref name="Evidence10a9c7be48">[https://www.townlands.ie/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin/gortahar/ Gortahar].</ref> lies northeast, beyond Moneyleck. They are distinct townlands within the same parish. The map shows approximate modern townland locations, not reconstructed houses or field boundaries.

Replacement profile16Gortereghy<ref name="Evidencec9d92bcd01">[https://www.townlands.ie/en/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin-upper/gortereghy/ Gortereghy].</ref>, written Gortereagh in the baptism transcription, adjoins Lisnagaver<ref name="Evidence7d988f87c8">[https://www.townlands.ie/en/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin/lisnagaver/ Lisnagaver].</ref> to the south. Gortahar<ref name="Evidence10a9c7be48">[https://www.townlands.ie/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin/gortahar/ Gortahar].</ref> lies northeast, beyond Moneyleck. They are distinct townlands within the same parish. The map shows approximate modern townland locations, not reconstructed houses or field boundaries.

Current profile17

Replacement profile17

Current profile18

Replacement profile18

Current profile19Both spouses reported first marriage in 1836. Their children’s baptisms place them at Gortereagh in 1837–38 and Lisnagaver by 1843. That suggests a change in the family’s recorded residence between neighbouring townlands; it does not date a move precisely or establish a return to a paternal home. Mary’s possible local family connections deserve investigation in their own right.

Replacement profile19Both spouses reported first marriage in 1836. Their children’s baptisms place them at Gortereagh in 1837–38 and Lisnagaver by 1843. That suggests a change in the family’s recorded residence between neighbouring townlands; it does not date a move precisely or establish a return to a paternal home. Mary’s possible local family connections deserve investigation in their own right.

Current profile20

Replacement profile20

Current profile21

Replacement profile21

Current profile22The census’s farmer and literate household, the small assessed tenancy and the children’s marriages recover part of Alexander’s circumstances. Later records call him a labourer, and his son-in-law succeeds him on the holding. These changes are compatible with an altered working role as he aged, but their cause is unknown. No inspected source establishes eviction, poverty, or illness-induced retirement. The record sequence and farm analysis distinguish those observations from assumptions about his life.

Replacement profile22The census’s farmer and literate household, the small assessed tenancy and the children’s marriages recover part of Alexander’s circumstances. Later records call him a labourer, and his son-in-law succeeds him on the holding. These changes are compatible with an altered working role as he aged, but their cause is unknown. No inspected source establishes eviction, poverty, or illness-induced retirement. The record sequence and farm analysis distinguish those observations from assumptions about his life.

Current profile23

Replacement profile23

Current profile24

Replacement profile24

Current profile25The following account traces marriage and children, examines the surviving household, then follows the farm, probable death and paternal connections. Missing parentage is one question within that family history.

Replacement profile25The following account traces marriage and children, examines the surviving household, then follows the farm, probable death and paternal connections. Missing parentage is one question within that family history.

Current profile26

Replacement profile26

Current profile27

Replacement profile27

Current profile28

Replacement profile28

Current profile29=== Marriage, Mary’s family and the children ===

Replacement profile29=== Marriage, Mary’s family and the children ===

Current profile30

Replacement profile30

Current profile31Alexander Glasgow and Mary/Molly McCaughan are a documented couple. Their 1851 household reports first marriage in 1836, but no original marriage entry has been located. Rasharkin Presbyterian’s surviving marriage register begins in 1845; First Kilraughts material (Coleraine Family History Society film 197, marriages from 1831) remains a focused alternative.

Replacement profile31Alexander Glasgow and Mary/Molly McCaughan are a documented couple. Their 1851 household reports first marriage in 1836, but no original marriage entry has been located. Rasharkin Presbyterian’s surviving marriage register begins in 1845; First Kilraughts material (Coleraine Family History Society film 197, marriages from 1831) remains a focused alternative.

Current profile32

Replacement profile32

Current profile33

Replacement profile33

Current profile34The marriage-year statement fits the first directly located record sequence. The published transcription of the original Rasharkin Presbyterian register, PRONI MIC1P/292, records the same parental couple at Gortereagh: James Glascaw was born 17 January and baptised 9 February 1837 to Alex and Mary McAughin; an incomplete 1838 entry records a Glascow child of Alex and Molly McAughern; and a later James Glascow was born 9 October 1843 and baptised 7 January 1844 to Alex and Molly McAughern at Lisnagaver. The named transcription can be checked at Rasharkin Presbyterian baptisms<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/Baptisms_1834.html Rasharkin Presbyterian baptisms].</ref>. The register transcription preserves Mary/Molly and McAughin/McAughern. The repeated parental names and residences support their identification with Mary McCaughan while retaining the spellings actually recorded.

Replacement profile34The marriage-year statement fits the first directly located record sequence. The published transcription of the original Rasharkin Presbyterian register, PRONI MIC1P/292, records the same parental couple at Gortereagh: James Glascaw was born 17 January and baptised 9 February 1837 to Alex and Mary McAughin; an incomplete 1838 entry records a Glascow child of Alex and Molly McAughern; and a later James Glascow was born 9 October 1843 and baptised 7 January 1844 to Alex and Molly McAughern at Lisnagaver. The named transcription can be checked at Rasharkin Presbyterian baptisms<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/Baptisms_1834.html Rasharkin Presbyterian baptisms].</ref>. The register transcription preserves Mary/Molly and McAughin/McAughern. The repeated parental names and residences support their identification with Mary McCaughan while retaining the spellings actually recorded.

Current profile35

Replacement profile35

Current profile36

Replacement profile36

Current profile37The Gortereagh residence is meaningful maternal context, but it is not a parentage proof. The 1834 tithe list includes William and James McCaheran there, a spelling compatible with the recorded McAughin/McAughern/McCaughan forms. This makes a McCaughan family connection a reasonable explanation to test for the newly married couple’s residence, perhaps through Mary's people or a subtenancy. It does not prove that either man was Mary's father, nor that the first son James was named for a maternal grandfather. The 1851 Lisnagaver evidence supplies a more concrete lead: Mary McCaheren, 22, lived with farmer Archibald McCaheren, 60, and Elizabeth in house 31. She is the strongest currently located candidate for the later 1855 bride who named her father as Archy, but that is a separate McCaughan problem. It does not establish Mary Glasgow’s parentage. Likewise, the household of widowed Sarah McCaghrin and grandchildren beside widowed Margaret Elder and children is evidence of a local network of families and neighbours, not an expressed kinship.

Replacement profile37The Gortereagh residence is meaningful maternal context, but it is not a parentage proof. The 1834 tithe list includes William and James McCaheran there, a spelling compatible with the recorded McAughin/McAughern/McCaughan forms. This makes a McCaughan family connection a reasonable explanation to test for the newly married couple’s residence, perhaps through Mary's people or a subtenancy. It does not prove that either man was Mary's father, nor that the first son James was named for a maternal grandfather. The 1851 Lisnagaver evidence supplies a more concrete lead: Mary McCaheren, 22, lived with farmer Archibald McCaheren, 60, and Elizabeth in house 31. She is the strongest currently located candidate for the later 1855 bride who named her father as Archy, but that is a separate McCaughan problem. It does not establish Mary Glasgow’s parentage. Likewise, the household of widowed Sarah McCaghrin and grandchildren beside widowed Margaret Elder and children is evidence of a local network of families and neighbours, not an expressed kinship.

Current profile38

Replacement profile38

Current profile39

Replacement profile39

Current profile40The Gortereagh names are recorded in the 1834 Rasharkin tithe book, PRONI '''FIN/5/A/236'''; the 1851 McCaheren and Elder groupings are in Lisnagaver houses 31 and 5. These are separate record observations, not confirmed maternal relatives. See the National Archives census collection<ref name="Evidence0b09d5bb14">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/ National Archives census collection].</ref> and PRONI tithe-book guide<ref name="Evidenceb39783b2e9">[https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/tithe-applotment-books PRONI tithe-book guide].</ref>.

Replacement profile40The Gortereagh names are recorded in the 1834 Rasharkin tithe book, PRONI '''FIN/5/A/236'''; the 1851 McCaheren and Elder groupings are in Lisnagaver houses 31 and 5. These are separate record observations, not confirmed maternal relatives. See the National Archives census collection<ref name="Evidence0b09d5bb14">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/ National Archives census collection].</ref> and PRONI tithe-book guide<ref name="Evidenceb39783b2e9">[https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/tithe-applotment-books PRONI tithe-book guide].</ref>.

Current profile41

Replacement profile41

Current profile42An authenticated FamilySearch search adds a useful comparison lead: a John McCaughan marriage at Rasharkin on 18 March 1851 names '''Jas McCaughan''' as his father, while a separate 1836 Lisnagaver valuation entry names '''Archibald Mccaughan Junr'''. The same search returns Archey and John McCaheran in the 1822–1840 tithe collection. These entries strengthen the conclusion that several similarly named families occupied the area, but their original images and townlands still need checking; none currently proves Mary's parents.<ref name="EvidenceFamilySearchMcCaughan">[https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&q.anyPlace=Rasharkin&q.surname=McCaughan FamilySearch Rasharkin McCaughan search], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

Replacement profile42An authenticated FamilySearch search adds a useful comparison lead: a John McCaughan marriage at Rasharkin on 18 March 1851 names '''Jas McCaughan''' as his father, while a separate 1836 Lisnagaver valuation entry names '''Archibald Mccaughan Junr'''. The same search returns Archey and John McCaheran in the 1822–1840 tithe collection. These entries strengthen the conclusion that several similarly named families occupied the area, but their original images and townlands still need checking; none currently proves Mary's parents.<ref name="EvidenceFamilySearchMcCaughan">[https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&q.anyPlace=Rasharkin&q.surname=McCaughan FamilySearch Rasharkin McCaughan search], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

Current profile43

Replacement profile43

Current profile44A separate public Geneanet tree repeats the John McCaughern–Sarah Dysart marriage and proposes a 1872 death for John and a daughter, Mary Anne Jane Rea McCaughern, at Crushybracken about 1858. This supplies a useful descendant-search route, but it is user-submitted derivative material and remains a collateral branch, not evidence for Mary's parents.<ref name="EvidenceGeneanetDysart">[https://pt.geneanet.org/fonds/individus/?go=1&niveaux_1___3869569569__=arbres&niveaux_2___3645179592__=arbres%23utilisateur&nom=MCCAUGHERN&sourcename__0__=bobspree Geneanet McCaughern public tree index], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

Replacement profile44A separate public Geneanet tree repeats the John McCaughern–Sarah Dysart marriage and proposes a 1872 death for John and a daughter, Mary Anne Jane Rea McCaughern, at Crushybracken about 1858. This supplies a useful descendant-search route, but it is user-submitted derivative material and remains a collateral branch, not evidence for Mary's parents.<ref name="EvidenceGeneanetDysart">[https://pt.geneanet.org/fonds/individus/?go=1&niveaux_1___3869569569__=arbres&niveaux_2___3645179592__=arbres%23utilisateur&nom=MCCAUGHERN&sourcename__0__=bobspree Geneanet McCaughern public tree index], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

Current profile45

Replacement profile45

Current profile46

Replacement profile46

Current profile47

Replacement profile47

Current profile48==== Six children, with different kinds of evidence ====

Replacement profile48==== Six children, with different kinds of evidence ====

Current profile49

Replacement profile49

Current profile50

Replacement profile50

Current profile51

Replacement profile51

Current profile52{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile52{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile53|-

Replacement profile53|-

Current profile54! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Child !! Dates supported by records !! Evidence and what remains uncertain

Replacement profile54! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Child !! Dates supported by records !! Evidence and what remains uncertain

Current profile55|-

Replacement profile55|-

Current profile56| [[Glasgow-3939|James Glasgow (Glasgow-3939)]] || Born 17 January 1837; baptised 9 February || Rasharkin entry 75 names Alex and Mary McAughin at Gortereagh. Reuse of James in 1843 suggests this child died young; no death or burial has been found.

Replacement profile56| [[Glasgow-3939|James Glasgow (Glasgow-3939)]] || Born 17 January 1837; baptised 9 February || Rasharkin entry 75 names Alex and Mary McAughin at Gortereagh. Reuse of James in 1843 suggests this child died young; no death or burial has been found.

Current profile57|-

Replacement profile57|-

Current profile58| [[Glasgow-3940|Unnamed Glasgow child (Glasgow-3940)]] || Entry in the 1838 baptism sequence || Entry 106 names Alex and Molly McAughern at Gortereagh. The parent relationship is documented; the forename and precise birth/baptism dates are not preserved in the transcription. No death date is proved.

Replacement profile58| [[Glasgow-3940|Unnamed Glasgow child (Glasgow-3940)]] || Entry in the 1838 baptism sequence || Entry 106 names Alex and Molly McAughern at Gortereagh. The parent relationship is documented; the forename and precise birth/baptism dates are not preserved in the transcription. No death date is proved.

Current profile59|-

Replacement profile59|-

Current profile60| [[Glasgow-938|Robert Glasgow (Glasgow-938)]] || Born about 1840–41 || Aged 10 in 1851 and 25 at his 1866 marriage. Both records name Alexander as father. The imported exact date 6 November 1840 has no identified supporting record.

Replacement profile60| [[Glasgow-938|Robert Glasgow (Glasgow-938)]] || Born about 1840–41 || Aged 10 in 1851 and 25 at his 1866 marriage. Both records name Alexander as father. The imported exact date 6 November 1840 has no identified supporting record.

Current profile61|-

Replacement profile61|-

Current profile62| [[Glasgow-3167|Mary Glasgow, later Elder (Glasgow-3167)]] || Aged 28 at marriage in 1871; birth year uncertain || Her marriage names Alexander Glasgow, farmer, and gives Lisnagaver residence. Husband Robert Elder’s later occupation of Alexander’s lot and her role at her mother’s 1892 death strengthen the family identification. She is not listed in house 35 in 1851.

Replacement profile62| [[Glasgow-3167|Mary Glasgow, later Elder (Glasgow-3167)]] || Aged 28 at marriage in 1871; birth year uncertain || Her marriage names Alexander Glasgow, farmer, and gives Lisnagaver residence. Husband Robert Elder’s later occupation of Alexander’s lot and her role at her mother’s 1892 death strengthen the family identification. She is not listed in house 35 in 1851. Her later census ages (60 in 1901, 72 in 1911) suggest birth about 1838–41, and she may be the unnamed child baptised in 1838.

Current profile63|-

Replacement profile63|-

Current profile64| [[Glasgow-973|James Glasgow (Glasgow-973)]] || Born 9 October 1843; baptised 7 January 1844 || Rasharkin entry 203 names Alex and Molly McAughern at Lisnagaver. The seven-year-old son in 1851 fits this child. His later life remains under investigation.

Replacement profile64| [[Glasgow-973|James Glasgow (Glasgow-973)]] || Born 9 October 1843; baptised 7 January 1844 || Rasharkin entry 203 names Alex and Molly McAughern at Lisnagaver. The seven-year-old son in 1851 fits this child. His later life remains under investigation.

Current profile65|-

Replacement profile65|-

Current profile66| [[Glasgow-438|Ann Glasgow, later McCracken (Glasgow-438)]] || Born about 1846–47; married 13 October 1876 || Four-year-old daughter in 1851; her 1876 marriage independently names Alexander Glasgow, labourer. Her identity with the 1888 informant Nancy is possible but unproved.

Replacement profile66| [[Glasgow-438|Ann Glasgow, later McCracken (Glasgow-438)]] || Born about 1846–47; married 13 October 1876 || Four-year-old daughter in 1851; her 1876 marriage independently names Alexander Glasgow, labourer. The 1888 informant, formerly read as Nancy and compared with Ann, is now read as Mary.

Current profile67|}

Replacement profile67|}

Current profile68

Replacement profile68

Current profile69

Replacement profile69

Current profile70Sources: Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription, entries 75, 106 and 203<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />, from PRONI '''MIC1P/292'''; 1851 household image<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/view-pdf/?doc=007246523_00175&c19=true 1851 household image].</ref>; the civil marriages linked in the record table below. The baptism evidence is a named transcription; the original incomplete 1838 entry still needs inspection. The two James entries represent separate children, not a duplicate caused by a date discrepancy.

Replacement profile70Sources: Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription, entries 75, 106 and 203<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />, from PRONI '''MIC1P/292'''; 1851 household image<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/view-pdf/?doc=007246523_00175&c19=true 1851 household image].</ref>; the civil marriages linked in the record table below. The baptism evidence is a named transcription; the original incomplete 1838 entry still needs inspection. The two James entries represent separate children, not a duplicate caused by a date discrepancy.

Current profile71

Replacement profile71

Current profile72

Replacement profile72

Current profile73

Replacement profile73

Current profile74==== What the gaps mean ====

Replacement profile74==== What the gaps mean ====

Current profile75

Replacement profile75

Current profile76

Replacement profile76

Current profile77The early children are documented separately from their inferred deaths. The table’s reuse-of-name argument does not supply an exact death date. Nor does the incomplete 1838 transcription identify its child as Samuel: an original copy of '''MIC1P/292, entry 106''' is needed to read the missing name and dates.

Replacement profile77The early children are documented separately from their inferred deaths. The table’s reuse-of-name argument does not supply an exact death date. Nor does the incomplete 1838 transcription identify its child as Samuel: an original copy of '''MIC1P/292, entry 106''' is needed to read the missing name and dates.

Current profile78

Replacement profile78

Current profile79

Replacement profile79

Current profile80The transcription has no entries for 1840 or 1841, around Robert’s likely birth. Failure to find his baptism in that transcription is therefore weak evidence against the known parentage: the census and marriage positively establish his father. The missing original marriage, incomplete baptism entry and missing burial records are different gaps and need different searches.

Replacement profile80The transcription has no entries for 1840 or 1841, around Robert’s likely birth. Failure to find his baptism in that transcription is therefore weak evidence against the known parentage: the census and marriage positively establish his father. The missing original marriage, incomplete baptism entry and missing burial records are different gaps and need different searches.

Current profile81

Replacement profile81

Current profile82

Replacement profile82

Current profile83The unnamed child would have been about twelve or thirteen in 1851. No resident, absent-person or household-death entry records that child in the maintained return audit. That omission weighs against an uncomplicated survival-and-emigration reconstruction, but cannot fix a death date or guarantee that the return was complete. The candidate Samuel Glasgow in Michigan was rejected because no American record supplied the required Antrim/parent bridge and the proposal also had to explain this omission. An impossible February date in a later cemetery transcription cannot name the child. The [[Glasgow-3940|child’s assessment]] preserves the comparison.

Replacement profile83The unnamed child would have been about twelve or thirteen in 1851. No resident, absent-person or household-death entry records that child in the maintained return audit. That omission weighs against an uncomplicated survival-and-emigration reconstruction, but cannot fix a death date or guarantee that the return was complete. The same return also omits a daughter who was certainly living: Mary, later Mrs Elder, appears nowhere in it, so the child’s absence is not evidence of an early death. The candidate Samuel Glasgow in Michigan was rejected because no American record supplied the required Antrim/parent bridge and the proposal also had to explain this omission. An impossible February date in a later cemetery transcription cannot name the child. The [[Glasgow-3940|child’s assessment]] preserves the comparison.

Current profile84

Replacement profile84

Current profile85

Replacement profile85

Current profile86

Replacement profile86

Current profile87=== New parentage research: Mary’s McCaughan/McAughern network ===

Replacement profile87=== New parentage research: Mary’s McCaughan/McAughern network ===

Current profile88

Replacement profile88

Current profile89The current evidence still does '''not''' prove the parents of [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]. The new research separates several local families that had previously risked being merged by surname and locality alone.

Replacement profile89The current evidence still does '''not''' prove the parents of [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]. The new research separates several local families that had previously risked being merged by surname and locality alone.

Current profile90

Replacement profile90

Current profile91* The complete 1851 Rasharkin-derived return contains several relevant households: the older Archibald McCaheren family at Lisnagaver; William McCaheren; Sarah McCaghrin; Mary McCaheren, age 70, recorded as mother-in-law in the John and Margaret Taylor household; and an 11-year-old John McCaughern recorded as a servant/apprentice. None identifies Mary Glasgow, born about 1811, or names her parents.

Replacement profile91* The complete 1851 Rasharkin-derived return contains several relevant households: the older Archibald McCaheren family at Lisnagaver; William McCaheren; Sarah McCaghrin; Mary McCaheren, age 70, recorded as mother-in-law in the John and Margaret Taylor household; and an 11-year-old John McCaughern recorded as a servant/apprentice. None identifies Mary Glasgow, born about 1811, or names her parents.

Current profile92* The Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription shows distinct McAughern/McAughin households: Eliza McAughern with Thomas at Carnfinton; Archy McAughern with Elizabeth Kilpatrick at Lisnagaver; and James McAughern, son of John and Jane McAuly, at Ballydonly. These records establish a local network, not a single extended family.

Replacement profile92* The Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription shows distinct McAughern/McAughin households: Eliza McAughern with Thomas at Carnfinton; Archy McAughern with Elizabeth Kilpatrick at Lisnagaver; and James McAughern, son of John and Jane McAuly, at Ballydonly. These records establish a local network, not a single extended family.

Current profile93* The 1834 tithe material adds Alexr. McCaughan at Unchenagh in Finvoy, while the Drumadarragh family reconstruction identifies John McCaughey/McCahan, farmer, with children including Jane, Margaret, Nancy, James and Sarah. The Gortereghy William and James McCaheran group remains another candidate cluster. None is linked directly to Mary Glasgow.

Replacement profile93* The 1834 tithe material adds Alexr. McCaughan at Unchenagh in Finvoy, while the Drumadarragh family reconstruction identifies John McCaughey/McCahan, farmer, with children including Jane, Margaret, Nancy, James and Sarah. The Gortereghy William and James McCaheran group remains another candidate cluster. None is linked directly to Mary Glasgow.

Current profile94* A separate National Archives census-search-form result documents Thomas McCaughern/McCaughan of Gortahar with father John McCaughern and mother Mary Gormley. This is a later-generation, parent-documented local family and does not prove Mary’s parentage.

Replacement profile94* A separate National Archives census-search-form result documents Thomas McCaughern/McCaughan of Gortahar with father John McCaughern and mother Mary Gormley. This is a later-generation, parent-documented local family and does not prove Mary’s parentage.

Current profile95* Authenticated FamilySearch searches for Mary McCaughan, McAughin, McAughern and McCaheren in the relevant Antrim period returned no indexed result. The apparent Alexander–Mary McCaughan hits belong to a different Catholic Culfeightrin/Ballycastle family, including Mary M’caughan’s 7 April 1867 baptism to Alex M’caughan and Cath Quinn. A separate Mary McCaughern–William Marks cluster is also later and unrelated.

Replacement profile95* Authenticated FamilySearch searches for Mary McCaughan, McAughin, McAughern and McCaheren in the relevant Antrim period returned no indexed result. The apparent Alexander–Mary McCaughan hits belong to a different Catholic Culfeightrin/Ballycastle family, including Mary M’caughan’s 7 April 1867 baptism to Alex M’caughan and Cath Quinn. A separate Mary McCaughern–William Marks cluster is also later and unrelated.

Current profile96

Replacement profile96

Current profile97The strongest new route is the pre-1831 '''Kilraughts–Dervock Reformed Presbyterian society material''', PRONI '''CR5/32A/1''' (also appearing in related catalogue references as '''CR5/32/1/1/1–2'''). The PRONI guide describes member-by-society lists, baptisms, marriages, deaths, removals and emigrations from about 1804–1831. Since Mary was probably born about 1811, a household or society entry could name her parents. The Kilraughts and Dervock societies operated together until their 1831 division, so both localities must be searched. This manuscript has not yet been inspected; it is a high-priority evidence target, not proof.

Replacement profile97The strongest new route is the pre-1831 '''Kilraughts–Dervock Reformed Presbyterian society material''', PRONI '''CR5/32A/1''' (also appearing in related catalogue references as '''CR5/32/1/1/1–2'''). The PRONI guide describes member-by-society lists, baptisms, marriages, deaths, removals and emigrations from about 1804–1831. Since Mary was probably born about 1811, a household or society entry could name her parents. The Kilraughts and Dervock societies operated together until their 1831 division, so both localities must be searched. This manuscript has not yet been inspected; it is a high-priority evidence target, not proof.

Current profile98

Replacement profile98

Current profile99'''Current conclusion:''' Mary’s parents remain unknown. The local McCaughan/McAughern network is now better defined, and the Kilraughts–Dervock family lists are the highest-value unresolved route. No parent should be added to Mary’s profile until an original record explicitly connects her to a named household or parent couple.

Replacement profile99'''Current conclusion:''' Mary’s parents remain unknown. The local McCaughan/McAughern network is now better defined, and the Kilraughts–Dervock family lists are the highest-value unresolved route. No parent should be added to Mary’s profile until an original record explicitly connects her to a named household or parent couple.

Current profile100

Replacement profile100

Current profile101Sources: [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/Baptisms_1834.html Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription]; [https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionorder.pdf North Antrim tithe material]; [https://ulsterlees.azurewebsites.net/families/co-antrim/ballymoney-area/ Ulster Lees Ballymoney-area study]; [https://censussearchforms.nationalarchives.ie/search/cs/results.jsp?applicantAddress=&applicantFirstname=&applicantSurname=&barony=&censusExtractYear=&city=&county=&fatherFirstname=&fatherSurname=&motherFirstname=&motherSurname=&pageSize=10&pager.offset=56160&parish=&search=Search&sort=residence_parishSort&townland= National Archives census-search forms]; [https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&q.givenName=Mary&q.surname=McAughern&q.birthLikeDate.from=1780&q.birthLikeDate.to=1840&q.birthLikePlace=Antrim%2C%20Ireland FamilySearch search]; [https://www.americanancestors.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Guide-to-Church-Records-October-2019.pdf PRONI Guide to Church Records]; [https://rootsireland.ie/antrimdown/online-sources.php RootsIreland County Antrim source list].

Replacement profile101Sources: [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/Baptisms_1834.html Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription]; [https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionorder.pdf North Antrim tithe material]; [https://ulsterlees.azurewebsites.net/families/co-antrim/ballymoney-area/ Ulster Lees Ballymoney-area study]; [https://censussearchforms.nationalarchives.ie/search/cs/results.jsp?applicantAddress=&applicantFirstname=&applicantSurname=&barony=&censusExtractYear=&city=&county=&fatherFirstname=&fatherSurname=&motherFirstname=&motherSurname=&pageSize=10&pager.offset=56160&parish=&search=Search&sort=residence_parishSort&townland= National Archives census-search forms]; [https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&q.givenName=Mary&q.surname=McAughern&q.birthLikeDate.from=1780&q.birthLikeDate.to=1840&q.birthLikePlace=Antrim%2C%20Ireland FamilySearch search]; [https://www.americanancestors.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Guide-to-Church-Records-October-2019.pdf PRONI Guide to Church Records]; [https://rootsireland.ie/antrimdown/online-sources.php RootsIreland County Antrim source list].

Current profile102

Replacement profile102

Current profile103=== 1851 census: the complete household ===

Replacement profile103=== 1851 census: the complete household ===

Current profile104

Replacement profile104

Current profile105The original return for Lisnagaver house 35<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0" /> contains these '''five completed person rows'''. It is the strongest single record of Alexander’s immediate household: relationships, ages, occupation, birthplace, literacy and marriage year appear together. The National Archives catalogue record<ref name="Evidenced9460690a2">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#census_year=1851&surname__icontains=glasgow&firstname__icontains=alexander&county=Antrim&limit=30&id=43294 National Archives catalogue record].</ref> identifies the return; image reference '''007246523_00175'''.

Replacement profile105The original return for Lisnagaver house 35<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0" /> contains these '''five completed person rows'''. It is the strongest single record of Alexander’s immediate household: relationships, ages, occupation, birthplace, literacy and marriage year appear together. The National Archives catalogue record<ref name="Evidenced9460690a2">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#census_year=1851&surname__icontains=glasgow&firstname__icontains=alexander&county=Antrim&limit=30&id=43294 National Archives catalogue record].</ref> identifies the return; image reference '''007246523_00175'''.

Current profile106

Replacement profile106

Current profile107

Replacement profile107

Current profile108

Replacement profile108

Current profile109{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile109{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile110|-

Replacement profile110|-

Current profile111! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Person !! Relationship; age !! Occupation !! Birthplace !! Literacy; marital information

Replacement profile111! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Person !! Relationship; age !! Occupation !! Birthplace !! Literacy; marital information

Current profile112|-

Replacement profile112|-

Current profile113| Alexander Glasgow || Head; 40 || Farmer || Antrim || Reads and writes; married; first marriage 1836

Replacement profile113| Alexander Glasgow || Head; 40 || Farmer || Antrim || Reads and writes; married; first marriage 1836

Current profile114|-

Replacement profile114|-

Current profile115| [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]] || Wife; 40 || None entered || Antrim || Reads; married; first marriage 1836

Replacement profile115| [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]] || Wife; 40 || None entered || Antrim || Reads; married; first marriage 1836

Current profile116|-

Replacement profile116|-

Current profile117| [[Glasgow-938|Robert Glasgow]] || Son; 10 || At school || Antrim || Reads; unmarried

Replacement profile117| [[Glasgow-938|Robert Glasgow]] || Son; 10 || At school || Antrim || Reads; unmarried

Current profile118|-

Replacement profile118|-

Current profile119| [[Glasgow-973|James Glasgow]] || Son; 7 || At school || Antrim || Reads; unmarried

Replacement profile119| [[Glasgow-973|James Glasgow]] || Son; 7 || At school || Antrim || Reads; unmarried

Current profile120|-

Replacement profile120|-

Current profile121| [[Glasgow-438|Ann Glasgow]] || Daughter; 4 || None entered || Antrim || Literacy blank; unmarried

Replacement profile121| [[Glasgow-438|Ann Glasgow]] || Daughter; 4 || None entered || Antrim || Literacy blank; unmarried

Current profile122|}

Replacement profile122|}

Current profile123

Replacement profile123

Current profile124

Replacement profile124

Current profile125'''What this establishes.''' Alexander and Mary were recorded as spouses, with Robert, James and Ann as their children, in one Antrim household. It supports the approximate births and reported 1836 marriage year. It does not name Alexander’s parents, or locate every child born to the couple. In particular, Mary’s absence from this return does not outweigh her later father-naming marriage and family evidence.

Replacement profile125'''What this establishes.''' Alexander and Mary were recorded as spouses, with Robert, James and Ann as their children, in one Antrim household. It supports the approximate births and reported 1836 marriage year. It does not name Alexander’s parents, or locate every child born to the couple. In particular, Mary’s absence from this return does not outweigh her later father-naming marriage and family evidence.

Current profile126

Replacement profile126

Current profile127

Replacement profile127

Current profile128The remaining person rows are blank. The maintained return audit and the published transcription, page 183<ref name="Evidence26281d6bb1">[https://durrushistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1851irishcensusreturnscommadelimitedtextfilejul24_071.pdf published transcription, page 183].</ref> record no absent-person or 1841–51 household-death entry for house 35. That is a statement about this return, not proof that no child or other relative had died. The transcript is another rendering of the same census, not independent corroboration.

Replacement profile128The remaining person rows are blank. The maintained return audit and the published transcription, page 183<ref name="Evidence26281d6bb1">[https://durrushistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1851irishcensusreturnscommadelimitedtextfilejul24_071.pdf published transcription, page 183].</ref> record no absent-person or 1841–51 household-death entry for house 35. That is a statement about this return, not proof that no child or other relative had died. The transcript is another rendering of the same census, not independent corroboration.

Current profile129

Replacement profile129

Current profile130

Replacement profile130

Current profile131

Replacement profile131

Current profile132==== Neighbouring households ====

Replacement profile132==== Neighbouring households ====

Current profile133

Replacement profile133

Current profile134

Replacement profile134

Current profile135

Replacement profile135

Current profile136{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile136{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile137|-

Replacement profile137|-

Current profile138! style="background:#dce8d5;" | House !! Recorded household !! What it establishes

Replacement profile138! style="background:#dce8d5;" | House !! Recorded household !! What it establishes

Current profile139|-

Replacement profile139|-

Current profile140| 34 || [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow]], 50; wife Margaret, 30; daughter Ann, 3; [[Glasgow-2908|Samuel Glasgow]], 60, brother and unmarried linen weaver || John and Samuel are expressly brothers. Neither is called Alexander’s brother.

Replacement profile140| 34 || [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow]], 50; wife Margaret, 30; daughter Ann, 3; [[Glasgow-2908|Samuel Glasgow]], 60, brother and unmarried linen weaver || John and Samuel are expressly brothers. Neither is called Alexander’s brother.

Current profile141|-

Replacement profile141|-

Current profile142| 35 || Alexander, Mary, Robert, James and Ann || The household transcribed above.

Replacement profile142| 35 || Alexander, Mary, Robert, James and Ann || The household transcribed above.

Current profile143|-

Replacement profile143|-

Current profile144| 36 || John Watters, blacksmith, and family || A separate household intervenes between Alexander and Thomas.

Replacement profile144| 36 || John Watters, blacksmith, and family || A separate household intervenes between Alexander and Thomas.

Current profile145|-

Replacement profile145|-

Current profile146| 37 || [[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]], 35; Mary Ann and daughters || A nearby Glasgow family of compatible generation. Proximity supports investigation, not siblinghood.

Replacement profile146| 37 || [[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]], 35; Mary Ann and daughters || A nearby Glasgow family of compatible generation. Proximity supports investigation, not siblinghood.

Current profile147|}

Replacement profile147|}

Current profile148

Replacement profile148

Current profile149

Replacement profile149

Current profile150Sources: National Archives 1851 Lisnagaver returns 34<ref name="Evidence2c97cf113b">[https://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/34/ 34].</ref>, 35<ref name="Evidencedea66e5c28">[https://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/35/ 35].</ref> and 37<ref name="Evidence6c8cd27a9f">[https://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/37/ 37].</ref>, original-image audit maintained in the case findings. John’s reported census age conflicts with his later gravestone age; it should not be used to force a generation gap between him and Alexander.

Replacement profile150Sources: National Archives 1851 Lisnagaver returns 34<ref name="Evidence2c97cf113b">[https://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/34/ 34].</ref>, 35<ref name="Evidencedea66e5c28">[https://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/35/ 35].</ref> and 37<ref name="Evidence6c8cd27a9f">[https://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/37/ 37].</ref>, original-image audit maintained in the case findings. John’s reported census age conflicts with his later gravestone age; it should not be used to force a generation gap between him and Alexander.

Current profile151

Replacement profile151

Current profile152

Replacement profile152

Current profile153

Replacement profile153

Current profile154=== Following the children into adult life ===

Replacement profile154=== Following the children into adult life ===

Current profile155

Replacement profile155

Current profile156

Replacement profile156

Current profile157==== Robert: the recorded son and the Scottish continuation ====

Replacement profile157==== Robert: the recorded son and the Scottish continuation ====

Current profile158

Replacement profile158

Current profile159

Replacement profile159

Current profile160Robert, aged ten in 1851, is directly recorded as Alexander and Mary’s son in the same Lisnagaver household. His 5 April 1866 marriage to Jane Graham<ref name="Evidence05c8c53b0b">[https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1866/11531/8240963.pdf 5 April 1866 marriage to Jane Graham].</ref> independently calls him a Lisnagaver farmer and names his father Alexander Glasgow, farmer. Those two records make Robert Glasgow-938 the documented child, with estimated birth about 1840–41 from the census and marriage ages. The often repeated exact 6 November 1840 birth date has no identified supporting original. His probable identification with a later Gortereghy valuation occupier is useful local continuity, but that identification is separate from the proved father–son relationship.

Replacement profile160Robert, aged ten in 1851, is directly recorded as Alexander and Mary’s son in the same Lisnagaver household. His 5 April 1866 marriage to Jane Graham<ref name="Evidence05c8c53b0b">[https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1866/11531/8240963.pdf 5 April 1866 marriage to Jane Graham].</ref> independently calls him a Lisnagaver farmer and names his father Alexander Glasgow, farmer. Those two records make Robert Glasgow-938 the documented child, with estimated birth about 1840–41 from the census and marriage ages. The often repeated exact 6 November 1840 birth date has no identified supporting original. His probable identification with a later Gortereghy valuation occupier is useful local continuity, but that identification is separate from the proved father–son relationship.

Current profile161

Replacement profile161

Current profile162

Replacement profile162

Current profile163Robert’s later family is followed into Glasgow, Scotland, in the maintained account, which cites a 1871 Scottish census index for Robert<ref name="Evidencea991c3602f">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QV9Y-71S6 1871 Scottish census index for Robert].</ref> and an 1881 index for the younger Alexander<ref name="Evidencecfab144f27">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VQQ8-5MB 1881 index for the younger Alexander].</ref>. [[Glasgow-937|Alexander Glasgow (Glasgow-937)]], born about 1871, is the next historical generation in that family reconstruction. The Irish census and marriage provide the direct father–son argument for Alexander-951 and Robert; the Scottish continuation relies here on the maintained census references, not newly inspected original images. The copied exact birth date for the younger Alexander had been cited to the same index used for the census, so it is not adopted as an independently verified birth in this account. Exact Scottish address chronology and Robert’s reported 1902 death remain checks on their own originals.

Replacement profile163Robert’s later family is followed into Glasgow, Scotland, in the maintained account, which cites a 1871 Scottish census index for Robert<ref name="Evidencea991c3602f">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QV9Y-71S6 1871 Scottish census index for Robert].</ref> and an 1881 index for the younger Alexander<ref name="Evidencecfab144f27">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VQQ8-5MB 1881 index for the younger Alexander].</ref>. [[Glasgow-937|Alexander Glasgow (Glasgow-937)]], born about 1871, is the next historical generation in that family reconstruction. The Irish census and marriage provide the direct father–son argument for Alexander-951 and Robert; the Scottish continuation relies here on the maintained census references, not newly inspected original images. The copied exact birth date for the younger Alexander had been cited to the same index used for the census, so it is not adopted as an independently verified birth in this account. Exact Scottish address chronology and Robert’s reported 1902 death remain checks on their own originals.

Current profile164

Replacement profile164

Current profile165

Replacement profile165

Current profile166This carries the story beyond the Antrim farm without making every copied detail equally secure. The tested descendant’s confirmed paternal ancestry reaches Alexander-951; the Y-DNA section explains the genetic comparison without listing living generations.

Replacement profile166This carries the story beyond the Antrim farm without making every copied detail equally secure. The tested descendant’s confirmed paternal ancestry reaches Alexander-951; the Y-DNA section explains the genetic comparison without listing living generations.

Current profile167

Replacement profile167

Current profile168

Replacement profile168

Current profile169The precise Scottish birth-image leads and the misplaced 1902 death citation are assessed in the next research tests. Neither has yet been inspected; the direct Irish father–son evidence remains secure.

Replacement profile169The precise Scottish birth-image leads and the misplaced 1902 death citation are assessed in the next research tests. Neither has yet been inspected; the direct Irish father–son evidence remains secure.

Current profile170

Replacement profile170

Current profile171

Replacement profile171

Current profile172

Replacement profile172

Current profile173==== James: a strong Michigan candidate, still an open identity ====

Replacement profile173==== James: a strong Michigan candidate, still an open identity ====

Current profile174

Replacement profile174

Current profile175

Replacement profile175

Current profile176The second James, Glasgow-973, has an unusually clear Irish identity: the 1843–44 baptism and his age seven appearance in the 1851 household establish him as Alexander and Mary’s child. His subsequent association with the James Glasgow buried at Tecumseh, Michigan is strong but still unproved. The Michigan household is well reconstructed: the original 1884 Michigan census image<ref name="Evidence13cf3f6b80">[https://michigan.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_eb4d3f94-3c2f-4701-b5bb-c3ecee9ef9b9/ the original 1884 Michigan census image].</ref> gives a forty-year-old Irish-born baggage agent, and the Brookside register identifies the associated wife and daughters. His daughter Minnie’s 1941 death certificate<ref name="Evidence8b5b1f0905">[https://michigan.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_3dab599e-1093-473c-be85-eee5e9b49154/ 1941 death certificate].</ref> reports James as born in County Antrim. That narrows the comparison materially but names neither Alexander nor Mary and gives no Lisnagaver detail. The 1869 original marriage return, naturalisation papers, or a passenger record is still required before the Michigan life becomes Alexander’s son’s biography.

Replacement profile176The second James, Glasgow-973, has an unusually clear Irish identity: the 1843–44 baptism and his age seven appearance in the 1851 household establish him as Alexander and Mary’s child. His subsequent association with the James Glasgow buried at Tecumseh, Michigan is strong but still unproved. The Michigan household is well reconstructed: the original 1884 Michigan census image<ref name="Evidence13cf3f6b80">[https://michigan.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_eb4d3f94-3c2f-4701-b5bb-c3ecee9ef9b9/ the original 1884 Michigan census image].</ref> gives a forty-year-old Irish-born baggage agent, and the Brookside register identifies the associated wife and daughters. His daughter Minnie’s 1941 death certificate<ref name="Evidence8b5b1f0905">[https://michigan.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_3dab599e-1093-473c-be85-eee5e9b49154/ 1941 death certificate].</ref> reports James as born in County Antrim. That narrows the comparison materially but names neither Alexander nor Mary and gives no Lisnagaver detail. The 1869 original marriage return, naturalisation papers, or a passenger record is still required before the Michigan life becomes Alexander’s son’s biography.

Current profile177

Replacement profile177

Current profile178

Replacement profile178

Current profile179

Replacement profile179

Current profile180==== Ann: a later marriage and the Nancy problem ====

Replacement profile180==== Ann: a later marriage ====

Current profile181

Replacement profile181

Current profile182

Replacement profile182

Current profile183Ann, Glasgow-438, is likewise direct family evidence. She was aged four in 1851 and her 13 October 1876 marriage to Robert McCracken<ref name="Evidence157ee58a9a">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1876/11181/8097170.pdf 13 October 1876 marriage to Robert McCracken].</ref> calls her a full-age spinster of Lisnagaver and names Alexander Glasgow, labourer, as father. The occupational wording matters because it independently makes the 1888 Gortahar death’s “labourer” compatible with the former Lisnagaver farmer; it is not grounds to split the two men. Ann’s later married surname also means Nancy Glasgow, who reported Alexander’s 1888 death, cannot simply be equated with her. A separate daughter, or another explanation, remains possible.

Replacement profile183Ann, Glasgow-438, is likewise direct family evidence. She was aged four in 1851 and her 13 October 1876 marriage to Robert McCracken<ref name="Evidence157ee58a9a">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1876/11181/8097170.pdf 13 October 1876 marriage to Robert McCracken].</ref> calls her a full-age spinster of Lisnagaver and names Alexander Glasgow, labourer, as father. The occupational wording matters because it independently makes the 1888 Gortahar death’s “labourer” compatible with the former Lisnagaver farmer; it is not grounds to split the two men. The informant at Alexander’s 1888 death, formerly read as Nancy Glasgow and compared with Ann, is now read as Mary Glasgow, so Ann is no longer in question as that informant.

Current profile184

Replacement profile184

Current profile185

Replacement profile185

Current profile186

Replacement profile186

Current profile187==== Mary: the daughter whose records connect the households ====

Replacement profile187==== Mary: the daughter whose records connect the households ====

Current profile188

Replacement profile188

Current profile189

Replacement profile189

Current profile190Mary Glasgow-3167 is not in the 1851 return but is securely added by her 14 June 1871 marriage to Robert Elder<ref name="Evidence5782477e56">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1871/11341/8162804.pdf 14 June 1871 marriage to Robert Elder].</ref>: aged 28, resident Lisnagaver, she named Alexander Glasgow, farmer, as father. Her marriage, Robert Elder’s succession to lot 25, and the Gortahar deaths create the high-confidence bridge between the Lisnagaver couple and Mary McCaughan’s later identity. Mary Glasgow’s 17 February 1892 death return<ref name="Evidence6f1ed437a9">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1892/06049/4723532.pdf 17 February 1892 death return].</ref> records daughter Mary Elder as informant. It does not state a maiden surname or husband, and its reported age 89 conflicts with the retained c.1811 estimate; those limits belong beside the identification, not beneath it.

Replacement profile190Mary Glasgow-3167 is not in the 1851 return but is securely added by her 14 June 1871 marriage to Robert Elder<ref name="Evidence5782477e56">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1871/11341/8162804.pdf 14 June 1871 marriage to Robert Elder].</ref>: aged 28, resident Lisnagaver, she named Alexander Glasgow, farmer, as father. Her marriage, Robert Elder’s succession to lot 25, and the Gortahar deaths create the high-confidence bridge between the Lisnagaver couple and Mary McCaughan’s later identity. Mary Glasgow’s 17 February 1892 death return<ref name="Evidence6f1ed437a9">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1892/06049/4723532.pdf 17 February 1892 death return].</ref> records daughter Mary Elder as informant. It does not state a maiden surname or husband, and its reported age 89 conflicts with the retained c.1811 estimate; those limits belong beside the identification, not beneath it.

Current profile191

Replacement profile191

Current profile192

Replacement profile192

Current profile193Mary’s later household also contains an instructive name conflict. Her granddaughter’s 1908 birth<ref name="Evidencebe365902e1">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/birth_returns/births_1908/01647/1657700.pdf 1908 birth].</ref> records '''Samuel Elder''', son of Jane Elder, with no father named; the 1911 household<ref name="Evidenceb4f7bd3ba5">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#id=490671&c20_year=1911 1911 household].</ref> calls him '''Samuel Glasgow'''. The surname is genuinely present in the census, not merely a modern transcription mistake. These records help reconstruct the continuing family, but neither identifies his father. It would be circular to invent a Glasgow father and then use that invented relationship to strengthen Alexander’s ancestry.

Replacement profile193Mary’s later household also contains an instructive name conflict. Her granddaughter’s 1908 birth<ref name="Evidencebe365902e1">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/birth_returns/births_1908/01647/1657700.pdf 1908 birth].</ref> records '''Samuel Elder''', son of Jane Elder, with no father named; the 1911 household<ref name="Evidenceb4f7bd3ba5">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#id=490671&c20_year=1911 1911 household].</ref> calls him '''Samuel Glasgow'''. The surname is genuinely present in the census, not merely a modern transcription mistake. These records help reconstruct the continuing family, but neither identifies his father. It would be circular to invent a Glasgow father and then use that invented relationship to strengthen Alexander’s ancestry.

Current profile194

Replacement profile194

Current profile195

Replacement profile195

Current profile196Mary’s absence in 1851 is consequently an unresolved location question within a well-supported later family identification. It does not erase the 1871 father statement. Nor does it establish that she was the Maryan in John of Glenleslie’s household: the roughly nine-year conflict between their implied birth years requires explanation, and no located record joins those two identities.

Replacement profile196Mary’s absence in 1851 is consequently an unresolved location question within a well-supported later family identification. It does not erase the 1871 father statement. Nor does it establish that she was the Maryan in John of Glenleslie’s household: the roughly nine-year conflict between their implied birth years requires explanation, and no located record joins those two identities. A search of the surviving 1851 returns on 6 October 2026 found no child Mary Glasgow of suitable age elsewhere in Rasharkin parish. Her later census ages, 60 in 1901 and 72 in 1911, place her birth about 1838–41, and she may be the unnamed child baptised in 1838; the original register entry has not been examined.

Current profile197

Replacement profile197

Current profile198

Replacement profile198

Current profile199

Replacement profile199

Current profile200=== The complete record sequence and the farm ===

Replacement profile200=== The complete record sequence and the farm ===

Current profile201

Replacement profile201

Current profile202The sequence follows the named couple and their children across church, census, land and civil records. A father named on an adult child’s marriage is evidence of parentage; it does not by itself prove that he was alive on the marriage date.

Replacement profile202The sequence follows the named couple and their children across church, census, land and civil records. A father named on an adult child’s marriage is evidence of parentage; it does not by itself prove that he was alive on the marriage date.

Current profile203

Replacement profile203

Current profile204

Replacement profile204

Current profile205

Replacement profile205

Current profile206{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile206{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile207|-

Replacement profile207|-

Current profile208! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Date !! Record and recorded detail !! Identification and evidential value

Replacement profile208! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Date !! Record and recorded detail !! Identification and evidential value

Current profile209|-

Replacement profile209|-

Current profile210| 5 June 1829, derivative extracts || Belfast News-Letter, page 4, article 015<ref name="Evidence2721035739">[https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.com/image-viewer?issue=BL%2F0000038%2F18290605&page=0004&article=015 Belfast News-Letter, page 4, article 015].</ref>: “Alex. Glasgow, Lisnagaver” in the inspected alert; independently located by townland in the newspaper index || Earlier local identity lead. Registration context suggested by heading OCR; full image, qualifications and identification unresolved. See the comparison below.

Replacement profile210| 5 June 1829, derivative extracts || Belfast News-Letter, page 4, article 015<ref name="Evidence2721035739">[https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.com/image-viewer?issue=BL%2F0000038%2F18290605&page=0004&article=015 Belfast News-Letter, page 4, article 015].</ref>: “Alex. Glasgow, Lisnagaver” in the inspected alert; independently located by townland in the newspaper index || Earlier local identity lead. Registration context suggested by heading OCR; full image, qualifications and identification unresolved. See the comparison below.

Current profile211|-

Replacement profile211|-

Current profile212| 1834 || Rasharkin tithe book<ref name="Evidenceb707c32b1e">[https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionorder.pdf Rasharkin tithe book].</ref>, PRONI FIN/5/A/236, folio 17: Alexr Glasgow, 29 acres at Lisnagaver; Robt Glasgow separately, 35 acres || Plausible early occurrence of this Alexander, who would have been about 23. No age or kinship distinguishes him from a possible older namesake.

Replacement profile212| 1834 || Rasharkin tithe book<ref name="Evidenceb707c32b1e">[https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionorder.pdf Rasharkin tithe book].</ref>, PRONI FIN/5/A/236, folio 17: Alexr Glasgow, 29 acres at Lisnagaver; Robt Glasgow separately, 35 acres || Plausible early occurrence of this Alexander, who would have been about 23. No age or kinship distinguishes him from a possible older namesake.

Current profile213|-

Replacement profile213|-

Current profile214| 1836 || Lisnagaver valuation field book, pp.194–197<ref name="Evidence4804bc98c4">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-994J-9HD6 Lisnagaver valuation field book, pp.194–197].</ref>: Robert Glasgow and Archibald McCaughan junior named in the house section; Alexander absent || The land section has no occupier names. This is not proof that Alexander held no land or lived in either named household.

Replacement profile214| 1836 || Lisnagaver valuation field book, pp.194–197<ref name="Evidence4804bc98c4">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-994J-9HD6 Lisnagaver valuation field book, pp.194–197].</ref>: Robert Glasgow and Archibald McCaughan junior named in the house section; Alexander absent || The land section has no occupier names. This is not proof that Alexander held no land or lived in either named household.

Current profile215|-

Replacement profile215|-

Current profile216| 1836, reported in 1851 || Both spouses give 1836 as first-marriage year in the census image<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0" /> || A contemporaneously recorded retrospective statement; an original marriage entry is still missing.

Replacement profile216| 1836, reported in 1851 || Both spouses give 1836 as first-marriage year in the census image<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0" /> || A contemporaneously recorded retrospective statement; an original marriage entry is still missing.

Current profile217|-

Replacement profile217|-

Current profile218| 9 February 1837 || Baptism entry 75<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />: Jas Glascaw, born 17 January; Alex and Mary McAughin; Gortereagh || Direct transcribed parent names, residence and child’s birth/baptism dates.

Replacement profile218| 9 February 1837 || Baptism entry 75<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />: Jas Glascaw, born 17 January; Alex and Mary McAughin; Gortereagh || Direct transcribed parent names, residence and child’s birth/baptism dates.

Current profile219|-

Replacement profile219|-

Current profile220| 1838 sequence || Baptism entry 106<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />: unnamed Glascow child; Alex and Molly McAughern; Gortereagh || Repeated couple and locality. The personal name and exact dates remain missing, separately from the documented parents.

Replacement profile220| 1838 sequence || Baptism entry 106<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />: unnamed Glascow child; Alex and Molly McAughern; Gortereagh || Repeated couple and locality. The personal name and exact dates remain missing, separately from the documented parents.

Current profile221|-

Replacement profile221|-

Current profile222| 7 January 1844 || Baptism entry 203<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />: James, born 9 October 1843; Alex and Molly McAughern; Lisnagaver || Establishes the later James and places the family at Lisnagaver by his birth.

Replacement profile222| 7 January 1844 || Baptism entry 203<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />: James, born 9 October 1843; Alex and Molly McAughern; Lisnagaver || Establishes the later James and places the family at Lisnagaver by his birth.

Current profile223|-

Replacement profile223|-

Current profile224| 1851 || Original house 35 census, transcribed above || The principal household identity, approximate ages and reported marriage year.

Replacement profile224| 1851 || Original house 35 census, transcribed above || The principal household identity, approximate ages and reported marriage year.

Current profile225|-

Replacement profile225|-

Current profile226| Griffith’s Valuation and 1863–78 revisions || Alexander on Lisnagaver lot 25, house, offices and land; PRONI VAL/12/B/4/16A–B || Continuing landholding beside John and Thomas Glasgow. An occupier’s name can outlast his actual occupation; it is not a continuous life certificate.

Replacement profile226| Griffith’s Valuation and 1863–78 revisions || Alexander on Lisnagaver lot 25, house, offices and land; PRONI VAL/12/B/4/16A–B || Continuing landholding beside John and Thomas Glasgow. An occupier’s name can outlast his actual occupation; it is not a continuous life certificate.

Current profile227|-

Replacement profile227|-

Current profile228| 5 April 1866 || Robert Glasgow–Jane Graham marriage<ref name="Evidence05c8c53b0b" />: Robert, 25, farmer of Lisnagaver; father Alexander Glasgow, farmer || Connects the 1851 son to his adult family. Jane’s Gortereghy residence also links the adjoining locality.

Replacement profile228| 5 April 1866 || Robert Glasgow–Jane Graham marriage<ref name="Evidence05c8c53b0b" />: Robert, 25, farmer of Lisnagaver; father Alexander Glasgow, farmer || Connects the 1851 son to his adult family. Jane’s Gortereghy residence also links the adjoining locality.

Current profile229|-

Replacement profile229|-

Current profile230| 14 June 1871 || Mary Glasgow–Robert Elder marriage<ref name="Evidence5782477e56" />: Mary, 28, spinster of Lisnagaver; father Alexander Glasgow, farmer || Father-naming record for an additional daughter. Robert, 40, farmer of Gortereghy, names father Nathaniel Elder. Witnesses William Graham and John Collins state no kinship.

Replacement profile230| 14 June 1871 || Mary Glasgow–Robert Elder marriage<ref name="Evidence5782477e56" />: Mary, 28, spinster of Lisnagaver; father Alexander Glasgow, farmer || Father-naming record for an additional daughter. Robert, 40, farmer of Gortereghy, names father Nathaniel Elder. Witnesses William Graham and John Collins state no kinship.

Current profile231|-

Replacement profile231|-

Current profile232| 13 October 1876 || Ann Glasgow–Robert McCracken marriage<ref name="Evidence157ee58a9a" />: Ann, full-age spinster of Lisnagaver; father Alexander Glasgow, labourer || Supports the 1851 daughter’s later identity and shows that “labourer” was used for her father before the probable 1888 death.

Replacement profile232| 13 October 1876 || Ann Glasgow–Robert McCracken marriage<ref name="Evidence157ee58a9a" />: Ann, full-age spinster of Lisnagaver; father Alexander Glasgow, labourer || Supports the 1851 daughter’s later identity and shows that “labourer” was used for her father before the probable 1888 death.

Current profile233|-

Replacement profile233|-

Current profile234| 1879–88 revision volume || Alexander struck from lot 25 in VAL/12/B/4/16C; changes annotated 1881, 1882 and 1886; Robert Elder in possession by VAL/12/B/4/16D, 1889–98 || Supports the daughter/son-in-law land connection. No annotation establishes an exact death date or says that the transfer was inheritance.

Replacement profile234| 1879–88 revision volume || Alexander struck from lot 25 in VAL/12/B/4/16C; changes annotated 1881, 1882 and 1886; Robert Elder in possession by VAL/12/B/4/16D, 1889–98 || Supports the daughter/son-in-law land connection. No annotation establishes an exact death date or says that the transfer was inheritance.

Current profile235|-

Replacement profile235|-

Current profile236| 16 May 1888 || Gortahar civil death, entry 348<ref name="Evidencee25dc06500">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1888/06179/4766466.pdf Gortahar civil death, entry 348].</ref>: Alexander Glasgow, married labourer, 84; daughter Nancy present || Best-supported death identification, assessed separately below.

Replacement profile236| 16 May 1888 || Gortahar civil death, entry 348<ref name="Evidencee25dc06500">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1888/06179/4766466.pdf Gortahar civil death, entry 348].</ref>: Alexander Glasgow, married labourer, 84; daughter Mary Glasgow present || Best-supported death identification, assessed separately below.

Current profile237|-

Replacement profile237|-

Current profile238| 17 February 1892 || Gortahar death of Mary Glasgow, entry 234<ref name="Evidence6f1ed437a9" />: widow, reported age 89; daughter Mary Elder informant || Strong indirect link between Alexander’s documented daughter and the elderly Glasgow couple at Gortahar. The register does not name Mary’s deceased husband.

Replacement profile238| 17 February 1892 || Gortahar death of Mary Glasgow, entry 234<ref name="Evidence6f1ed437a9" />: widow, reported age 89; daughter Mary Elder informant || Strong indirect link between Alexander’s documented daughter and the elderly Glasgow couple at Gortahar. The register does not name Mary’s deceased husband.

Current profile239|}

Replacement profile239|}

Current profile240

Replacement profile240

Current profile241

Replacement profile241

Current profile242

Replacement profile242

Current profile243==== The reported 1829 occurrence: an age and identity test ====

Replacement profile243==== The reported 1829 occurrence: an age and identity test ====

Current profile244

Replacement profile244

Current profile245

Replacement profile245

Current profile246The original newspaper alert of '''12 September 2025''' was inspected directly on 13 September 2026. Its MyHeritage result, 12021-100828509<ref name="Evidenceb9eaffcccc">[https://www.myheritage.com/research/record-12021-100828509-/alexander-glasgow-in-united-kingdom-names-stories-in-newspapers-from-oldnewscom MyHeritage result, 12021-100828509].</ref>, does quote '''“Alex. Glasgow, Lisnagaver”''' from the '''Belfast News-Letter, 5 June 1829'''. The British Newspaper Archive issue index<ref name="Evidence2721035739" /> independently locates the Lisnagaver entry in '''page 4, article 015'''. Its OCR mangles Glasgow, explaining why a surname search missed the article while a townland search found it. These are two derivative extracts of one newspaper occurrence, not two independent historical records.

Replacement profile246The original newspaper alert of '''12 September 2025''' was inspected directly on 13 September 2026. Its MyHeritage result, 12021-100828509<ref name="Evidenceb9eaffcccc">[https://www.myheritage.com/research/record-12021-100828509-/alexander-glasgow-in-united-kingdom-names-stories-in-newspapers-from-oldnewscom MyHeritage result, 12021-100828509].</ref>, does quote '''“Alex. Glasgow, Lisnagaver”''' from the '''Belfast News-Letter, 5 June 1829'''. The British Newspaper Archive issue index<ref name="Evidence2721035739" /> independently locates the Lisnagaver entry in '''page 4, article 015'''. Its OCR mangles Glasgow, explaining why a surname search missed the article while a townland search found it. These are two derivative extracts of one newspaper occurrence, not two independent historical records.

Current profile247

Replacement profile247

Current profile248

Replacement profile248

Current profile249The archive’s damaged heading excerpt appears to concern persons applying to register, with special sessions at Ballymoney, under '''County of Antrim'''. That makes a registration notice the specific working context, but the full image and governing columns remain unread: MyHeritage now presents a subscription paywall and the archive viewer requires sign-in. The extract cannot yet establish an adult qualification, successful registration or the man’s identity. The earlier claim that even the alert was uninspected is superseded; the historical interpretation remains open.

Replacement profile249The archive’s damaged heading excerpt appears to concern persons applying to register, with special sessions at Ballymoney, under '''County of Antrim'''. That makes a registration notice the specific working context, but the full image and governing columns remain unread: MyHeritage now presents a subscription paywall and the archive viewer requires sign-in. The extract cannot yet establish an adult qualification, successful registration or the man’s identity. The earlier claim that even the alert was uninspected is superseded; the historical interpretation remains open.

Current profile250

Replacement profile250

Current profile251

Replacement profile251

Current profile252

Replacement profile252

Current profile253{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile253{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile254|-

Replacement profile254|-

Current profile255! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Identity being tested !! Approximate age on 5 June 1829 !! What the original could distinguish

Replacement profile255! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Identity being tested !! Approximate age on 5 June 1829 !! What the original could distinguish

Current profile256|-

Replacement profile256|-

Current profile257| Alexander-951 using the 1851 census age || About 18 || A general subscription, petition or resident list might accommodate him. An entry requiring a particular adult qualification would need that requirement and its date checked.

Replacement profile257| Alexander-951 using the 1851 census age || About 18 || A general subscription, petition or resident list might accommodate him. An entry requiring a particular adult qualification would need that requirement and its date checked.

Current profile258|-

Replacement profile258|-

Current profile259| Alexander-951 using the probable 1888 death age || About 25 || Fits an adult occurrence more comfortably, but depends on both the death identification and the reported death age being correct.

Replacement profile259| Alexander-951 using the probable 1888 death age || About 25 || Fits an adult occurrence more comfortably, but depends on both the death identification and the reported death age being correct.

Current profile260|-

Replacement profile260|-

Current profile261| An older Alexander, possibly the man represented by [[Glasgow-3904|Glasgow-3904]] || About 59 if the estimated 1770 birth is used || A senior/junior label, occupation, related party or other identifying detail might support an older namesake. Name and townland alone do not establish one.

Replacement profile261| An older Alexander, possibly the man represented by [[Glasgow-3904|Glasgow-3904]] || About 59 if the estimated 1770 birth is used || A senior/junior label, occupation, related party or other identifying detail might support an older namesake. Name and townland alone do not establish one.

Current profile262|}

Replacement profile262|}

Current profile263

Replacement profile263

Current profile264

Replacement profile264

Current profile265The important distinction is between '''an older birth date for the same man''' and '''a second, older man'''. Even if the notice proves adult status, it would not automatically make the subject Alexander's father. Conversely, identifying the subject from the 1888 age and then using him to validate that same death identification would be circular. No birth estimate or parent ranking changes on the extract alone.

Replacement profile265The important distinction is between '''an older birth date for the same man''' and '''a second, older man'''. Even if the notice proves adult status, it would not automatically make the subject Alexander's father. Conversely, identifying the subject from the 1888 age and then using him to validate that same death identification would be circular. No birth estimate or parent ranking changes on the extract alone.

Current profile266

Replacement profile266

Current profile267

Replacement profile267

Current profile268If the subject is Alexander-951, the occurrence would support a premarital Lisnagaver association before the couple's Gortereagh baptisms of 1837–38 and their documented Lisnagaver residence by 1843. That would make a temporary residence near Mary's possible family a more focused hypothesis; it would not prove a move, tenancy or inheritance.

Replacement profile268If the subject is Alexander-951, the occurrence would support a premarital Lisnagaver association before the couple's Gortereagh baptisms of 1837–38 and their documented Lisnagaver residence by 1843. That would make a temporary residence near Mary's possible family a more focused hypothesis; it would not prove a move, tenancy or inheritance.

Current profile269

Replacement profile269

Current profile270

Replacement profile270

Current profile271The supplied extract also lists Robert Elder of '''Gortaragh''', Arthur O'Neil of Tehorney, Henry and James Wallace of Culmore, James Tomb of Ballymaconly and James Elder of Drumcon. Their combined names and literal place spellings are useful for locating the correct column despite imperfect OCR. They must not yet be treated as neighbours, fellow freeholders or relatives. The 1829 Robert Elder cannot comfortably be the later son-in-law whose 1871 marriage<ref name="Evidence5782477e56" /> gives age forty and father Nathaniel; the corresponding 1894 death<ref name="Evidencea1cad7ff9e">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1894/05952/4691448.pdf 1894 death].</ref> gives age sixty-four. Those dates place that Robert's birth around 1830–31. A different Elder generation is therefore the appropriate comparison, and '''Gortaragh''' is left unnormalised pending the page.

Replacement profile271The supplied extract also lists Robert Elder of '''Gortaragh''', Arthur O'Neil of Tehorney, Henry and James Wallace of Culmore, James Tomb of Ballymaconly and James Elder of Drumcon. Their combined names and literal place spellings are useful for locating the correct column despite imperfect OCR. They must not yet be treated as neighbours, fellow freeholders or relatives. The 1829 Robert Elder cannot comfortably be the later son-in-law whose 1871 marriage<ref name="Evidence5782477e56" /> gives age forty and father Nathaniel; the corresponding 1894 death<ref name="Evidencea1cad7ff9e">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1894/05952/4691448.pdf 1894 death].</ref> gives age sixty-four. Those dates place that Robert's birth around 1830–31. A different Elder generation is therefore the appropriate comparison, and '''Gortaragh''' is left unnormalised pending the page.

Current profile272

Replacement profile272

Current profile273

Replacement profile273

Current profile274The next test is the full image of page 4 and the heading governing this entry, with adjoining columns. The earlier PRONI freeholder-search negative does not dispose of this newspaper occurrence. The surname-search failure is now demonstrably an OCR limitation: the exact townland retrieves article 015. Neither search outcomes nor damaged heading text determine the qualification or age of the named man.

Replacement profile274The next test is the full image of page 4 and the heading governing this entry, with adjoining columns. The earlier PRONI freeholder-search negative does not dispose of this newspaper occurrence. The surname-search failure is now demonstrably an OCR limitation: the exact townland retrieves article 015. Neither search outcomes nor damaged heading text determine the qualification or age of the named man.

Current profile275

Replacement profile275

Current profile276

Replacement profile276

Current profile277

Replacement profile277

Current profile278==== What the land records can establish ====

Replacement profile278==== What the land records can establish ====

Current profile279

Replacement profile279

Current profile280

Replacement profile280

Current profile281Alexander could have been the 1834 occupier at about twenty-three. An older namesake remains possible, but the name alone does not require one. In the 1836 field book, the house section names Robert Glasgow and Archibald McCaughan junior; the land section supplies no occupier names. Alexander’s omission cannot prove he held no land, lived with Robert, or had not yet formed a household.

Replacement profile281Alexander could have been the 1834 occupier at about twenty-three. An older namesake remains possible, but the name alone does not require one. In the 1836 field book, the house section names Robert Glasgow and Archibald McCaughan junior; the land section supplies no occupier names. Alexander’s omission cannot prove he held no land, lived with Robert, or had not yet formed a household.

Current profile282

Replacement profile282

Current profile283

Replacement profile283

Current profile284

Replacement profile284

Current profile285==== The farm and the Elder connection ====

Replacement profile285==== The farm and the Elder connection ====

Current profile286

Replacement profile286

Current profile287

Replacement profile287

Current profile288

Replacement profile288

Current profile289{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile289{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile290|-

Replacement profile290|-

Current profile291! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Lisnagaver lot !! Occupier !! Area in valuation !! Immediate lessor

Replacement profile291! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Lisnagaver lot !! Occupier !! Area in valuation !! Immediate lessor

Current profile292|-

Replacement profile292|-

Current profile293| 24 || [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow]] || 21 acres, 2 roods, 25 perches || Robert Harvey

Replacement profile293| 24 || [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow]] || 21 acres, 2 roods, 25 perches || Robert Harvey

Current profile294|-

Replacement profile294|-

Current profile295| 25 || Alexander Glasgow || 8 acres, 2 roods, 10 perches || Robert Harvey

Replacement profile295| 25 || Alexander Glasgow || 8 acres, 2 roods, 10 perches || Robert Harvey

Current profile296|-

Replacement profile296|-

Current profile297| 26a || [[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]] || 32 acres, 3 roods, 15 perches || Robert Harvey

Replacement profile297| 26a || [[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]] || 32 acres, 3 roods, 15 perches || Robert Harvey

Current profile298|}

Replacement profile298|}

Current profile299

Replacement profile299

Current profile300

Replacement profile300

Current profile301Source: General Valuation of Ireland and PRONI valuation revision books<ref name="Evidence5c88fa9a83">[https://apps.proni.gov.uk/Val12B/Search.aspx PRONI valuation revision books].</ref>, Lisnagaver, VAL/12/B/4/16A–D. The 1834 tithe’s Plantation acreage and the valuation’s statute acreage cannot be directly equated to reconstruct an inheritance. The earlier near-equality argument is superseded. Adjoining holdings do not establish three brothers or a particular father.

Replacement profile301Source: General Valuation of Ireland and PRONI valuation revision books<ref name="Evidence5c88fa9a83">[https://apps.proni.gov.uk/Val12B/Search.aspx PRONI valuation revision books].</ref>, Lisnagaver, VAL/12/B/4/16A–D. The 1834 tithe’s Plantation acreage and the valuation’s statute acreage cannot be directly equated to reconstruct an inheritance. The earlier near-equality argument is superseded. Adjoining holdings do not establish three brothers or a particular father.

Current profile302

Replacement profile302

Current profile303

Replacement profile303

Current profile304Robert Elder’s succession to the '''same numbered holding''' is more specific than two surname occurrences in one parish. It supports continuity between Alexander’s family and his daughter’s husband. The immediate lessor was Robert Harvey: this is an estate tenancy, not evidence of freehold ownership. Neither succession nor the annotated revision years prove inheritance or an exact death date. The independent civil records that carry the Elder family to Gortahar are set out once, in the death-identification chain.

Replacement profile304Robert Elder’s succession to the '''same numbered holding''' is more specific than two surname occurrences in one parish. It supports continuity between Alexander’s family and his daughter’s husband. The immediate lessor was Robert Harvey: this is an estate tenancy, not evidence of freehold ownership. Neither succession nor the annotated revision years prove inheritance or an exact death date. The independent civil records that carry the Elder family to Gortahar are set out once, in the death-identification chain.

Current profile305

Replacement profile305

Current profile306

Replacement profile306

Current profile307The later 1901<ref name="Evidencee493b88786">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#id=4575739&c20_year=1901 1901].</ref> and 1911<ref name="Evidenceb4f7bd3ba5" /> Gortahar Elder households are supporting family continuations, '''not censuses of Alexander'''. Their contribution to Alexander’s family account is explained above; complete household details remain on [[Glasgow-3167|Mary’s page]].

Replacement profile307The later 1901<ref name="Evidencee493b88786">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#id=4575739&c20_year=1901 1901].</ref> and 1911<ref name="Evidenceb4f7bd3ba5" /> Gortahar Elder households are supporting family continuations, '''not censuses of Alexander'''. Their contribution to Alexander’s family account is explained above; complete household details remain on [[Glasgow-3167|Mary’s page]].

Current profile308

Replacement profile308

Current profile309

Replacement profile309

Current profile310

Replacement profile310

Current profile311

Replacement profile311

Current profile312== Research Notes ==

Replacement profile312== Research Notes ==

Current profile313=== Testing the 1888 death identification ===

Replacement profile313=== Testing the 1888 death identification ===

Current profile314

Replacement profile314

Current profile315'''The death at Gortahar on 16 May 1888 remains the best-supported located match for [[Glasgow-951|Alexander Glasgow of Lisnagaver (Glasgow-951)]], but its identification is probable rather than uniquely proved.''' The case rests on a connected family and landholding sequence. The register supplies an exact death date; uncertainty concerns the deceased’s identity, not the precision of that date.

Replacement profile315'''The death at Gortahar on 16 May 1888 remains the best-supported located match for [[Glasgow-951|Alexander Glasgow of Lisnagaver (Glasgow-951)]], but its identification is probable rather than uniquely proved.''' The case rests on a connected family and landholding sequence. The register supplies an exact death date; uncertainty concerns the deceased’s identity, not the precision of that date.

Current profile316

Replacement profile316

Current profile317

Replacement profile317

Current profile318

Replacement profile318

Current profile319==== The record and its limits ====

Replacement profile319==== The record and its limits ====

Current profile320

Replacement profile320

Current profile321

Replacement profile321

Current profile322Original death entry 348<ref name="Evidencee25dc06500" /> supplies the following details. Nancy’s age and marital status are not recorded; no wife, parent, birthplace or former Lisnagaver address identifies the deceased more narrowly.

Replacement profile322Original death entry 348<ref name="Evidencee25dc06500" /> supplies the following details. The informant’s age and marital status are not recorded; no wife, parent, birthplace or former Lisnagaver address identifies the deceased more narrowly.

Current profile323

Replacement profile323

Current profile324

Replacement profile324

Current profile325

Replacement profile325

Current profile326==== The register at a glance ====

Replacement profile326==== The register at a glance ====

Current profile327

Replacement profile327

Current profile328

Replacement profile328

Current profile329

Replacement profile329

Current profile330{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile330{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile331|-

Replacement profile331|-

Current profile332! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Field !! Entry 348

Replacement profile332! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Field !! Entry 348

Current profile333|-

Replacement profile333|-

Current profile334| Registration || Dirraw registrar’s district, Ballymoney union, County Antrim

Replacement profile334| Registration || Dirraw registrar’s district, Ballymoney union, County Antrim

Current profile335|-

Replacement profile335|-

Current profile336| Death || 16 May 1888, Gortahar

Replacement profile336| Death || 16 May 1888, Gortahar

Current profile337|-

Replacement profile337|-

Current profile338| Name and status || Alexander Glasgow; male; married

Replacement profile338| Name and status || Alexander Glasgow; male; married

Current profile339|-

Replacement profile339|-

Current profile340| Age and occupation || 84 years; labourer

Replacement profile340| Age and occupation || 84 years; labourer

Current profile341|-

Replacement profile341|-

Current profile342| Cause || Gangrene, three months, certified

Replacement profile342| Cause || Gangrene, three months, certified

Current profile343|-

Replacement profile343|-

Current profile344| Informant || Nancy Glasgow, her mark; daughter; present at death; '''Gortahar'''

Replacement profile344| Informant || Mary Glasgow, her mark; daughter; present at death; '''Gortahar'''

Current profile345|-

Replacement profile345|-

Current profile346| Registration date || 25 May 1888

Replacement profile346| Registration date || 25 May 1888

Current profile347|}

Replacement profile347|}

Current profile

Replacement profile348

Current profile

Replacement profile349

Current profile

Replacement profile350'''The informant’s forename is Mary.''' Earlier versions of this profile read it as Nancy. Compared with the same registrar’s other entries, it matches his “Mary” in entry 345 on the same page (Mary Smith) and in entries 330 and 358 on the adjoining pages (Mary McCaw, Mary McFall), and differs from his “Nancy” in entry 355 (Nancy McKay): four letters ending “ary”, without the separate n and c of his Nancy.<ref name="Audit2026Death333">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1888/06179/4766465.pdf Civil death register, Dirraw registrar’s district, 1888, entries 330 and 333].</ref><ref name="Audit2026Death355">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1888/06179/4766467.pdf Civil death register, Dirraw registrar’s district, 1888, entries 355 and 358].</ref> The online image is the registrar’s quarterly copy. The local register, held by GRONI, has not been viewed and would settle both the forename and the surname.

Current profile348

Replacement profile351

Current profile349

Replacement profile352

Current profile350

Replacement profile353

Current profile351==== The identity chain, in dependency order ====

Replacement profile354==== The identity chain, in dependency order ====

Current profile352

Replacement profile355

Current profile353

Replacement profile356

Current profile354# The 1851 Lisnagaver house-35 return<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0" /> establishes Alexander and wife Mary, both reported aged 40, with children Robert, James and Ann. This is the starting household; its identity does not depend on either Gortahar death.

Replacement profile357# The 1851 Lisnagaver house-35 return<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0" /> establishes Alexander and wife Mary, both reported aged 40, with children Robert, James and Ann. This is the starting household; its identity does not depend on either Gortahar death.

Current profile355# Mary Glasgow’s 14 June 1871 marriage<ref name="Evidence5782477e56" /> identifies a 28-year-old Lisnagaver spinster, daughter of Alexander Glasgow, farmer, marrying Robert Elder, 40, farmer of Gortereghy. It directly establishes the bride’s father. Linking that father to the established Lisnagaver household uses name, residence and occupation; the marriage does not name her mother.

Replacement profile358# Mary Glasgow’s 14 June 1871 marriage<ref name="Evidence5782477e56" /> identifies a 28-year-old Lisnagaver spinster, daughter of Alexander Glasgow, farmer, marrying Robert Elder, 40, farmer of Gortereghy. It directly establishes the bride’s father. Linking that father to the established Lisnagaver household uses name, residence and occupation; the marriage does not name her mother.

Current profile356# PRONI valuation revisions<ref name="Evidence5c88fa9a83" />, VAL/12/B/4/16C–D, follow Alexander’s removal from '''Lisnagaver lot 25''' and Robert Elder’s subsequent occupation. Succession to the particular holding strengthens the identification of Robert with the daughter’s husband. The book neither declares an inheritance nor records Alexander’s destination or exact death. It supplies a separate administrative connection, not another explicit statement of kinship.

Replacement profile359# PRONI valuation revisions<ref name="Evidence5c88fa9a83" />, VAL/12/B/4/16C–D, follow Alexander’s removal from '''Lisnagaver lot 25''' and Robert Elder’s subsequent occupation. Succession to the particular holding strengthens the identification of Robert with the daughter’s husband. The book neither declares an inheritance nor records Alexander’s destination or exact death. It supplies a separate administrative connection, not another explicit statement of kinship.

Current profile357# The 16 September 1878 birth of Jane Matilda Elder<ref name="Evidence5aecbbb88b">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/birth_returns/births_1878/02945/2078820.pdf 16 September 1878 birth of Jane Matilda Elder].</ref> places Robert Elder and Mary, maiden surname '''Glass''', at Gortahar. The spelling is retained as written. The parents and later household continuity support identification with the 1871 couple; the shortened surname alone would be insufficient.

Replacement profile360# The 16 September 1878 birth of Jane Matilda Elder<ref name="Evidence5aecbbb88b">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/birth_returns/births_1878/02945/2078820.pdf 16 September 1878 birth of Jane Matilda Elder].</ref> places Robert Elder and Mary, maiden surname '''Glass''', at Gortahar. The spelling is retained as written. The parents and later household continuity support identification with the 1871 couple; the shortened surname alone would be insufficient.

Current profile358# Mary Glasgow’s death on 17 February 1892<ref name="Evidence6f1ed437a9" />, entry 234, records a widow aged 89 at Gortahar, with '''daughter Mary Elder''' present. That named relationship supplies the strongest connection between the elderly Glasgow woman and the Elder family. With the preceding marriage and household evidence, it supports the high-confidence identification of the widow as [[McCaughan-222|Mary McCaughan (McCaughan-222)]]. It does '''not''' name her deceased husband.

Replacement profile361# Mary Glasgow’s death on 17 February 1892<ref name="Evidence6f1ed437a9" />, entry 234, records a widow aged 89 at Gortahar, with '''daughter Mary Elder''' present. That named relationship supplies the strongest connection between the elderly Glasgow woman and the Elder family. With the preceding marriage and household evidence, it supports the high-confidence identification of the widow as [[McCaughan-222|Mary McCaughan (McCaughan-222)]]. It does '''not''' name her deceased husband.

Current profile359# The 1888 death of a married Alexander Glasgow in the same townland fits the husband of that widow. This last step remains inferential: neither death expressly identifies the other deceased as spouse, and Nancy has not yet been connected independently to the Lisnagaver family.

Replacement profile362# The 1888 death of a married Alexander Glasgow in the same townland fits the husband of that widow. This last step remains inferential: neither death expressly identifies the other deceased as spouse. The informant, Mary Glasgow, daughter, fits this family, although Alexander’s daughter Mary had been Mrs Elder since 1871.

Current profile

Replacement profile363

Current profile

Replacement profile364

Current profile

Replacement profile365A second Gortahar death four weeks earlier belongs to the same family circle. [[Anderson-104743|James Anderson]], widower and retired farmer, reported age 94, died at Gortahar on 18 April 1888 with his son James present.<ref name="Audit2026Death333" /> He fits the husband of [[Glasgow-4071|Elizabeth (Glasgow) Anderson]], Alexander’s probable sister, who died there in 1868. Alexander therefore spent his last years in the townland where his probable sister’s family had long lived. The entry names no Glasgow; it is context for the townland and does not itself identify Alexander.

Current profile360

Replacement profile366

Current profile361

Replacement profile367

Current profile362The 1901<ref name="Evidencee493b88786" /> and 1911<ref name="Evidenceb4f7bd3ba5" /> Elder households strengthen the family continuation. They are not independent sightings of Alexander. Likewise, the two civil deaths cannot first be assumed to concern a married couple and then cited as independent proof of that assumption. Their combined value depends on the independently established Elder connection.

Replacement profile368The 1901<ref name="Evidencee493b88786" /> and 1911<ref name="Evidenceb4f7bd3ba5" /> Elder households strengthen the family continuation. They are not independent sightings of Alexander. Likewise, the two civil deaths cannot first be assumed to concern a married couple and then cited as independent proof of that assumption. Their combined value depends on the independently established Elder connection.

Current profile363

Replacement profile369

Current profile364

Replacement profile370

Current profile365

Replacement profile371

Current profile366==== Ages and occupation: compatibility with genuine conflicts ====

Replacement profile372==== Ages and occupation: compatibility with genuine conflicts ====

Current profile367

Replacement profile373

Current profile368

Replacement profile374

Current profile369

Replacement profile375

Current profile370{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile376{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile371|-

Replacement profile377|-

Current profile372! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Person !! 1851 reported age !! Later death age !! Approximate discrepancy

Replacement profile378! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Person !! 1851 reported age !! Later death age !! Approximate discrepancy

Current profile373|-

Replacement profile379|-

Current profile374| Alexander || 40, implying c.1811 || 84 in 1888, implying c.1804 || Seven years older than expected

Replacement profile380| Alexander || 40, implying c.1811 || 84 in 1888, implying c.1804 || Seven years older than expected

Current profile375|-

Replacement profile381|-

Current profile376| Mary || 40, implying c.1811 || 89 in 1892, implying c.1803 || Eight years older than expected

Replacement profile382| Mary || 40, implying c.1811 || 89 in 1892, implying c.1803 || Eight years older than expected

Current profile377|}

Replacement profile383|}

Current profile378

Replacement profile384

Current profile379

Replacement profile385

Current profile380The two death ages describe near-contemporary people, as does the census, and both imply births several years earlier. This parallel is compatible with one elderly couple whose ages were reported differently across records. It does not prove shared identity: the informants may have had incomplete knowledge, the census ages may be inaccurate, or a namesake could be involved. Neither age should silently replace the maintained approximate birth estimate. The paired pattern becomes relevant only after the family connection has been established.

Replacement profile386The two death ages describe near-contemporary people, as does the census, and both imply births several years earlier. This parallel is compatible with one elderly couple whose ages were reported differently across records. It does not prove shared identity: the informants may have had incomplete knowledge, the census ages may be inaccurate, or a namesake could be involved. Neither age should silently replace the maintained approximate birth estimate. The paired pattern becomes relevant only after the family connection has been established.

Current profile381

Replacement profile387

Current profile382

Replacement profile388

Current profile383Alexander’s change from farmer to labourer is less problematic. Ann Glasgow’s 13 October 1876 marriage to Robert McCracken<ref name="Evidence157ee58a9a" /> already calls her father Alexander a labourer. Thus the 1888 occupation is compatible with the known father twelve years earlier; it does not require a different man. Conversely, labourer is too common an occupation to identify him by itself.

Replacement profile389Alexander’s change from farmer to labourer is less problematic. Ann Glasgow’s 13 October 1876 marriage to Robert McCracken<ref name="Evidence157ee58a9a" /> already calls her father Alexander a labourer. Thus the 1888 occupation is compatible with the known father twelve years earlier; it does not require a different man. Conversely, labourer is too common an occupation to identify him by itself.

Current profile384

Replacement profile390

Current profile385

Replacement profile391

Current profile386

Replacement profile392

Current profile387==== Nancy and the competing Alexander ====

Replacement profile393==== The informant and the competing Alexander ====

Current profile388

Replacement profile394

Current profile389

Replacement profile395

Current profile390[[Glasgow-438|Nancy’s possible identification with Ann (Glasgow-438)]] remains open. Ann had married in 1876 and would ordinarily appear as McCracken. No inspected record calls her Nancy or places her at Gortahar in 1888. Use of Glasgow does not establish that Nancy was unmarried, but it is a real obstacle to equating the two. Another daughter, absent in 1851 or born later, remains possible; no such birth or relationship should be invented.

Replacement profile396'''The informant reads Mary Glasgow, daughter.''' Alexander’s daughter [[Glasgow-3167|Mary (Glasgow-3167)]] lived at Gortahar and is the natural candidate. She had been Mrs Elder since 1871, and the same registrar entered her as “Mary Elder, daughter” at her mother’s death in 1892,<ref name="Evidence6f1ed437a9" /> so the surname Glasgow in 1888 needs explaining. Three readings are possible: the daughter was entered under her maiden surname; the informant was Alexander’s wife Mary Glasgow, who was living, and “daughter” is a slip for “wife”; or she was Mary Ellen Glasgow, born at Lisnagaver on 14 February 1867 to an unmarried Mary Glasgow,<ref name="Audit2026MaryEllen1867">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/birth_returns/births_1867/03501/2286677.pdf Civil birth register, Ballymoney union, 1867, entry 214: Mary Ellen, born 14 February 1867 at Lisnagaver].</ref> and “daughter” stands for a granddaughter. Each belongs to the Lisnagaver family. The earlier comparison with [[Glasgow-438|Ann (Glasgow-438)]], made while the forename was read as Nancy, is withdrawn.

Current profile391

Replacement profile397

Current profile392

Replacement profile398

Current profile393[[Glasgow-2385|Alexander of Glenleslie (Glasgow-2385)]] is a genuine competing labourer. His 1847 marriage to Mary Anne Martin<ref name="Evidence4dd66ea875">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1847/09322/5375567.pdf 1847 marriage to Mary Anne Martin].</ref> and 1851 household<ref name="Evidence3f5ed7a43f">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#id=32216&census_year=1851 1851 household].</ref> distinguish a coherent family with wife Mary Ann and son John. A reported age of 35 in 1851 implies about 72 in 1888, twelve years below the death age. No located record connects this household to Nancy, Gortahar or the Elder succession. He is weaker, not excluded.

Replacement profile399[[Glasgow-2385|Alexander of Glenleslie (Glasgow-2385)]] is a genuine competing labourer. His 1847 marriage to Mary Anne Martin<ref name="Evidence4dd66ea875">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1847/09322/5375567.pdf 1847 marriage to Mary Anne Martin].</ref> and 1851 household<ref name="Evidence3f5ed7a43f">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#id=32216&census_year=1851 1851 household].</ref> distinguish a coherent family with wife Mary Ann and son John. A reported age of 35 in 1851 implies about 72 in 1888, twelve years below the death age. No located record connects this household to Gortahar or the Elder succession, or gives it a daughter Mary. He is weaker, not excluded.

Current profile394

Replacement profile400

Current profile395

Replacement profile401

Current profile396The reported 1882 death of his wife is '''unverified'''. Her current [[Martin-93219|WikiTree biography]], checked through the live API, supplies no identifiable original death registration and includes an 1848 Sydney marriage description concerning Mary Ann Cupid. That material cannot establish the Irish wife’s death. Even a verified death would require checking remarriage before using the 1888 married status to exclude her husband.

Replacement profile402The reported 1882 death of his wife is '''unverified'''. Her current [[Martin-93219|WikiTree biography]], checked through the live API, supplies no identifiable original death registration and includes an 1848 Sydney marriage description concerning Mary Ann Cupid. That material cannot establish the Irish wife’s death. Even a verified death would require checking remarriage before using the 1888 married status to exclude her husband.

Current profile397

Replacement profile403

Current profile398

Replacement profile404

Current profile399

Replacement profile405

Current profile400==== Comparing the named candidates ====

Replacement profile406==== Comparing the named candidates ====

Current profile401

Replacement profile407

Current profile402

Replacement profile408

Current profile403

Replacement profile409

Current profile404{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile410{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile405|-

Replacement profile411|-

Current profile406! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Candidate !! Fit to the Gortahar death !! Present assessment

Replacement profile412! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Candidate !! Fit to the Gortahar death !! Present assessment

Current profile407|-

Replacement profile413|-

Current profile408| Alexander of Lisnagaver, Glasgow-951 || Known family reaches Gortahar; father described as labourer by 1876; widow and daughter fit the Elder network || '''Best current fit; probable.''' Age and Nancy’s identity remain unresolved.

Replacement profile414| Alexander of Lisnagaver, Glasgow-951 || Known family reaches Gortahar; father described as labourer by 1876; widow and daughter fit the Elder network || '''Best current fit; probable.''' The age conflict remains; the informant, read as Mary Glasgow, fits this family.

Current profile409|-

Replacement profile415|-

Current profile410| [[Glasgow-2385|Alexander of Glenleslie (Glasgow-2385)]], born about 1816; husband of Mary Anne Martin || A real Antrim labourer namesake. He would have been about 72, a worse age fit to 84. No located Gortahar, Nancy or Elder connection identifies him with the death || '''Weaker alternative, not conclusively excluded.''' Trace his later household and wife independently before any reassignment.

Replacement profile416| [[Glasgow-2385|Alexander of Glenleslie (Glasgow-2385)]], born about 1816; husband of Mary Anne Martin || A real Antrim labourer namesake. He would have been about 72, a worse age fit to 84. No located Gortahar or Elder connection, or daughter Mary, identifies him with the death || '''Weaker alternative, not conclusively excluded.''' Trace his later household and wife independently before any reassignment.

Current profile411|-

Replacement profile417|-

Current profile412| [[Glasgow-3904|Older Alexander (Glasgow-3904)]], estimated birth c.1770 in the parent tradition || Would have been about 118 in 1888; neither the reported generation nor family history fits || '''No plausible claim on present chronology.''' His own estimated identity is not an original death identification.

Replacement profile418| [[Glasgow-3904|Older Alexander (Glasgow-3904)]], estimated birth c.1770 in the parent tradition || Would have been about 118 in 1888; neither the reported generation nor family history fits || '''No plausible claim on present chronology.''' His own estimated identity is not an original death identification.

Current profile413|}

Replacement profile419|}

Current profile414

Replacement profile420

Current profile415

Replacement profile421

Current profile416Thomas’s daughter [[Glasgow-1362|Nancy Glasgow (Glasgow-1362)]] is another local name, but the death expressly calls its informant Alexander’s daughter. Substituting Thomas’s daughter would require a relationship error or further evidence; she is not an equally straightforward identification.

Replacement profile422Thomas’s daughter [[Glasgow-1362|Nancy Glasgow (Glasgow-1362)]] was considered as the informant while the forename was read as Nancy. With the forename read as Mary, she is no longer a candidate.

Current profile417

Replacement profile423

Current profile418

Replacement profile424

Current profile419The old 22 May 1852 death belongs to an unsupported Australian reconstruction of a different family. The submitted DNA-project ancestor label repeating “d.1852” is not a death record.

Replacement profile425The old 22 May 1852 death belongs to an unsupported Australian reconstruction of a different family. The submitted DNA-project ancestor label repeating “d.1852” is not a death record.

Current profile420

Replacement profile426

Current profile421

Replacement profile427

Current profile422

Replacement profile428

Current profile423==== What would change the conclusion? ====

Replacement profile429==== What would change the conclusion? ====

Current profile424

Replacement profile430

Current profile425

Replacement profile431

Current profile426A record linking Nancy to Alexander and Mary of Lisnagaver, or a burial or notice naming the Gortahar man’s wife or former residence, would strengthen the leading identification. A securely identified death of Alexander-951 elsewhere, or an independently documented Glenleslie-to-Gortahar household with daughter Nancy, would challenge it. Tracing the Glenleslie son’s reported 1870 marriage offers a specific next step toward later family residence; that profile-derived lead still needs its original. Present evidence supports retaining '''16 May 1888, Gortahar, probable identification''', with the identity chain and its dependencies visible.

Replacement profile432The local register original of entry 348, a record showing which Mary Glasgow lived at Gortahar in 1888, or a burial or notice naming the Gortahar man’s wife or former residence, would strengthen the leading identification. A securely identified death of Alexander-951 elsewhere, or an independently documented Glenleslie-to-Gortahar household with a daughter Mary, would challenge it. Tracing the Glenleslie son’s reported 1870 marriage offers a specific next step toward later family residence; that profile-derived lead still needs its original. Present evidence supports retaining '''16 May 1888, Gortahar, probable identification''', with the identity chain and its dependencies visible.

Current profile427

Replacement profile433

Current profile428

Replacement profile434

Current profile429Original excerpts shown here were checked against the saved images. The Mary–Robert Elder 1871 marriage and Mary Glasgow 1892 death remain linked above and supported by the earlier maintained readings; fresh image retrieval returned an access error during this illustration pass, so no new excerpt or fresh reading is claimed for them.

Replacement profile435Original excerpts shown here were checked against the saved images. The Mary–Robert Elder 1871 marriage and Mary Glasgow 1892 death remain linked above and supported by the earlier maintained readings; both images were retrieved and read again on 6 October 2026 and agree with those readings; no excerpt has been cut from them.

Current profile430

Replacement profile436

Current profile431

Replacement profile437

Current profile432

Replacement profile438

Current profile433=== Y-DNA: the connection and the competing histories ===

Replacement profile439=== Y-DNA: the connection and the competing histories ===

Current profile434

Replacement profile440

Current profile435[[Glasgow-951|Alexander Glasgow (Glasgow-951)]] is the project owner’s '''oldest confirmed direct paternal ancestor'''. The documented descent reaches Alexander; his parents remain unknown. A tested male-line descendant has '''Big Y-700 placement R-FT20271''', also found in a tested descendant of [[Glasgow-2738|James J Glasgow (Glasgow-2738)]], born about 1809–10. These are historical ancestors represented by descendant results, not people who were themselves tested. The shared branch establishes paternal genetic kinship between the tested lines. It does not extend either documentary pedigree automatically. FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow project results<ref name="Evidencedb3c53b8e9">[https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Glasgow?iframe=ydna-results-overview FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow project results].</ref>, checked 13 September 2026.

Replacement profile441[[Glasgow-951|Alexander Glasgow (Glasgow-951)]] is the project owner’s '''oldest confirmed direct paternal ancestor'''. The documented descent reaches Alexander; his parents remain unknown. A tested male-line descendant has '''Big Y-700 placement R-FT20271''', also found in a tested descendant of [[Glasgow-2738|James J Glasgow (Glasgow-2738)]], born about 1809–10. These are historical ancestors represented by descendant results, not people who were themselves tested. The shared branch establishes paternal genetic kinship between the tested lines. It does not extend either documentary pedigree automatically. FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow project results<ref name="Evidencedb3c53b8e9">[https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Glasgow?iframe=ydna-results-overview FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow project results].</ref>, checked 13 September 2026.

Current profile436

Replacement profile442

Current profile437

Replacement profile443

Current profile438This gives the parentage investigation a concrete family network. Alexander’s connection to James J’s line is established genetically even though the bridge between their families is missing. James J’s proposed father [[Glasgow-2769|Robert Glasgow (Glasgow-2769)]] and proposed earlier connection to [[Glasgow-2304|Archibald Glasgow (Glasgow-2304)]] remain hypotheses. Inserting them into a proved descent would assume the answer. See [[Glasgow-2738|James J’s evidence and open parentage question]].

Replacement profile444This gives the parentage investigation a concrete family network. Alexander’s connection to James J’s line is established genetically even though the bridge between their families is missing. James J’s proposed father [[Glasgow-2769|Robert Glasgow (Glasgow-2769)]] and proposed earlier connection to [[Glasgow-2304|Archibald Glasgow (Glasgow-2304)]] remain hypotheses. Inserting them into a proved descent would assume the answer. See [[Glasgow-2738|James J’s evidence and open parentage question]].

Current profile439

Replacement profile445

Current profile440

Replacement profile446

Current profile441

Replacement profile447

Current profile442==== What close STR matching can tell us ====

Replacement profile448==== What close STR matching can tell us ====

Current profile443

Replacement profile449

Current profile444

Replacement profile450

Current profile445The maintained comparison gives '''genetic distance three at Y-111''' between the Alexander and James J descendant lines. That makes their connection a valuable research priority. It does not mean three generations: STR changes accumulate unevenly, and observed distance is not the number of father-to-son transmissions. FTDNA’s explanation of genetic distance<ref name="Evidencee3eb9bbee5">[https://blog.familytreedna.com/ftdnatip-report/ FTDNA’s explanation of genetic distance].</ref>.

Replacement profile451The maintained comparison gives '''genetic distance three at Y-111''' between the Alexander and James J descendant lines. That makes their connection a valuable research priority. It does not mean three generations: STR changes accumulate unevenly, and observed distance is not the number of father-to-son transmissions. FTDNA’s explanation of genetic distance<ref name="Evidencee3eb9bbee5">[https://blog.familytreedna.com/ftdnatip-report/ FTDNA’s explanation of genetic distance].</ref>.

Current profile446

Replacement profile452

Current profile447

Replacement profile453

Current profile448Another Glasgow line is closer on the larger callable Big Y STR comparison. Consequently James J is the nearest comparison on the specified Y-111 panel, not demonstrably Alexander’s nearest genealogical cousin. The inspected August 2026 Block Tree contains no exclusive named downstream branch joining only these two lines. Wider Y-DNA study and comparison evidence.

Replacement profile454Another Glasgow line is closer on the larger callable Big Y STR comparison. Consequently James J is the nearest comparison on the specified Y-111 panel, not demonstrably Alexander’s nearest genealogical cousin. The inspected August 2026 Block Tree contains no exclusive named downstream branch joining only these two lines. Wider Y-DNA study and comparison evidence.

Current profile449

Replacement profile455

Current profile450

Replacement profile456

Current profile451Brothers, paternal cousins and descendants of more distant collateral branches remain distinguishable historical hypotheses; the present DNA cannot choose among them. Their similar estimated birth years do not locate their common ancestor. A connection through an earlier generation, followed by migration in one branch, remains compatible with the results. A specific migration route is not established. An exact ancestor, date or cousin degree requires evidence connecting the named people, supported where possible by additional independent descendant comparisons.

Replacement profile457Brothers, paternal cousins and descendants of more distant collateral branches remain distinguishable historical hypotheses; the present DNA cannot choose among them. Their similar estimated birth years do not locate their common ancestor. A connection through an earlier generation, followed by migration in one branch, remains compatible with the results. A specific migration route is not established. An exact ancestor, date or cousin degree requires evidence connecting the named people, supported where possible by additional independent descendant comparisons.

Current profile452

Replacement profile458

Current profile453

Replacement profile459

Current profile454

Replacement profile460

Current profile455==== The SNP evidence matrix ====

Replacement profile461==== The SNP evidence matrix ====

Current profile456

Replacement profile462

Current profile457

Replacement profile463

Current profile458The abbreviated branch path is '''R-FT4811 → R-FT32941 → R-FT25406 → R-FT20271''', with FTE32242 downstream. Historical names below label descendant lines, not tested historical people.

Replacement profile464The abbreviated branch path is '''R-FT4811 → R-FT32941 → R-FT25406 → R-FT20271''', with FTE32242 downstream. Historical names below label descendant lines, not tested historical people.

Current profile459

Replacement profile465

Current profile460

Replacement profile466

Current profile461'''State key:''' '''D''' = derived, the changed state; '''A''' = ancestral, the pre-mutation state supported by a direct call; '''U''' = unresolved in the reviewed evidence; '''UT''' = untested at SNP level in the supplied comparison. A '''no-call''' means an attempted call was inconclusive and remains unresolved. '''Not independently reviewed''' describes the evidence or pedigree audit, not a genotype. No row is labelled no-call without evidence of an actual no-call.

Replacement profile467'''State key:''' '''D''' = derived, the changed state; '''A''' = ancestral, the pre-mutation state supported by a direct call; '''U''' = unresolved in the reviewed evidence; '''UT''' = untested at SNP level in the supplied comparison. A '''no-call''' means an attempted call was inconclusive and remains unresolved. '''Not independently reviewed''' describes the evidence or pedigree audit, not a genotype. No row is labelled no-call without evidence of an actual no-call.

Current profile462

Replacement profile468

Current profile463

Replacement profile469

Current profile464

Replacement profile470

Current profile465{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile471{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile466|-

Replacement profile472|-

Current profile467! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Historical paternal line !! FT20271 !! FT6135 !! FTE32242 !! Provenance and pedigree qualification

Replacement profile473! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Historical paternal line !! FT20271 !! FT6135 !! FTE32242 !! Provenance and pedigree qualification

Current profile468|-

Replacement profile474|-

Current profile469| [[Glasgow-951|Alexander Glasgow (Glasgow-951)]] || '''D''': direct audit and public placement || '''A''': direct reliable call || '''U''': basal display is insufficient to prove ancestral || Public project, 13 Sep 2026; private call audit, 11 Aug 2026. Established descendant line in this case; Alexander's parents remain unknown.

Replacement profile475| [[Glasgow-951|Alexander Glasgow (Glasgow-951)]] || '''D''': direct audit and public placement || '''A''': direct reliable call || '''U''': basal display is insufficient to prove ancestral || Public project, 13 Sep 2026; private call audit, 11 Aug 2026. Established descendant line in this case; Alexander's parents remain unknown.

Current profile470|-

Replacement profile476|-

Current profile471| [[Glasgow-2738|James J Glasgow (Glasgow-2738)]] || '''D''': public placement || '''U''': direct state not independently reviewed || '''U''': basal display only || Public project, 13 Sep 2026; Aug administrator mapping. Descent to James J is distinguished from his uncertain attachment to Robert-2769 and Archibald-2304.

Replacement profile477| [[Glasgow-2738|James J Glasgow (Glasgow-2738)]] || '''D''': public placement || '''U''': direct state not independently reviewed || '''U''': basal display only || Public project, 13 Sep 2026; Aug administrator mapping. Descent to James J is distinguished from his uncertain attachment to Robert-2769 and Archibald-2304.

Current profile472|-

Replacement profile478|-

Current profile473| Reported [[Glasgow-591|William Glasgow (Glasgow-591)]], c.1655 || '''D''': reported public placement || '''U''' || '''U''': basal display only || Aug 2026 project evidence; early pedigree not independently established here.

Replacement profile479| Reported [[Glasgow-591|William Glasgow (Glasgow-591)]], c.1655 || '''D''': reported public placement || '''U''' || '''U''': basal display only || Aug 2026 project evidence; early pedigree not independently established here.

Current profile474|-

Replacement profile480|-

Current profile475| Reported [[Glasgow-12|Robert Glasgow (Glasgow-12)]], through [[Glasgow-1965|John M (Glasgow-1965)]] || '''D''': reported public placement || '''D''': supplied comparison || '''U''': basal display only || Aug call comparison; maintained Y-DNA study maps this result through John M with a probable private continuation. This is a reported son-line of Robert, not an independently verified earlier root.

Replacement profile481| Reported [[Glasgow-12|Robert Glasgow (Glasgow-12)]], through [[Glasgow-1965|John M (Glasgow-1965)]] || '''D''': reported public placement || '''D''': supplied comparison || '''U''': basal display only || Aug call comparison; maintained Y-DNA study maps this result through John M with a probable private continuation. This is a reported son-line of Robert, not an independently verified earlier root.

Current profile476|-

Replacement profile482|-

Current profile477| Reported Robert Glasgow, through [[Glasgow-563|William (Glasgow-563)]] || '''D''': reported public placement || '''D''': supplied comparison || '''U''': basal display only || Aug call comparison; the maintained pedigree audit identifies William’s line. The older James c.1700 ancestor label is not an independent test of Robert’s father or grandfather.

Replacement profile483| Reported Robert Glasgow, through [[Glasgow-563|William (Glasgow-563)]] || '''D''': reported public placement || '''D''': supplied comparison || '''U''': basal display only || Aug call comparison; the maintained pedigree audit identifies William’s line. The older James c.1700 ancestor label is not an independent test of Robert’s father or grandfather.

Current profile478|-

Replacement profile484|-

Current profile479| [[Glasgow-193|James M Glasgow (Glasgow-193)]], through [[Glasgow-2182|William Allen (Glasgow-2182)]] || '''D''': upstream of displayed child || '''U''': direct call required || '''D''': public child-branch association || Aug 2026 project and Block Tree evidence; historical association conditional on the supplied father-to-son pedigree.

Replacement profile485| [[Glasgow-193|James M Glasgow (Glasgow-193)]], through [[Glasgow-2182|William Allen (Glasgow-2182)]] || '''D''': upstream of displayed child || '''U''': direct call required || '''D''': public child-branch association || Aug 2026 project and Block Tree evidence; historical association conditional on the supplied father-to-son pedigree.

Current profile480|-

Replacement profile486|-

Current profile481| James M Glasgow, through [[Glasgow-192|Samuel Lyle (Glasgow-192)]] || '''D''': upstream of displayed child || '''U''': direct call required || '''D''': public child-branch association || Same dated evidence; independently documented descent still needs checking at the relevant joining generations.

Replacement profile487| James M Glasgow, through [[Glasgow-192|Samuel Lyle (Glasgow-192)]] || '''D''': upstream of displayed child || '''U''': direct call required || '''D''': public child-branch association || Same dated evidence; independently documented descent still needs checking at the relevant joining generations.

Current profile482|-

Replacement profile488|-

Current profile483| Reported [[Glasgow-1143|Robert Glasgow of Kilwaughter (Glasgow-1143)]] || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || Aug 2026 Y-111 comparison only. The ancestor label is a candidate identification; STR grouping does not establish FT20271 membership.

Replacement profile489| Reported [[Glasgow-1143|Robert Glasgow of Kilwaughter (Glasgow-1143)]] || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || Aug 2026 Y-111 comparison only. The ancestor label is a candidate identification; STR grouping does not establish FT20271 membership.

Current profile484|-

Replacement profile490|-

Current profile485| Reported [[Glasgow-1144|James of Kilwaughter, later South Carolina (Glasgow-1144)]] || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || Maintained historical mapping and Y-37 comparison, reviewed 13 Sep 2026. Public broad haplogroup/STR grouping does not establish FT20271. Audit the descendant path before assigning its result to this ancestor.

Replacement profile491| Reported [[Glasgow-1144|James of Kilwaughter, later South Carolina (Glasgow-1144)]] || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || Maintained historical mapping and Y-37 comparison, reviewed 13 Sep 2026. Public broad haplogroup/STR grouping does not establish FT20271. Audit the descendant path before assigning its result to this ancestor.

Current profile486|-

Replacement profile492|-

Current profile487| Reported [[Glasgow-822|John of Inishrush, later Ohio (Glasgow-822)]] || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || Maintained historical mapping and Y-67 comparison, reviewed 13 Sep 2026. Public broad haplogroup/STR grouping does not establish FT20271. Audit the descendant path before assigning its result to this ancestor.

Replacement profile493| Reported [[Glasgow-822|John of Inishrush, later Ohio (Glasgow-822)]] || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || Maintained historical mapping and Y-67 comparison, reviewed 13 Sep 2026. Public broad haplogroup/STR grouping does not establish FT20271. Audit the descendant path before assigning its result to this ancestor.

Current profile488|}

Replacement profile494|}

Current profile489

Replacement profile495

Current profile490

Replacement profile496

Current profile491Public source: FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow project<ref name="Evidencedb3c53b8e9" />. Safe study context: Y-DNA research. Private-call results above are a summary of the maintained August audit, not an independently reproducible public genotype dataset.

Replacement profile497Public source: FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow project<ref name="Evidencedb3c53b8e9" />. Safe study context: Y-DNA research. Private-call results above are a summary of the maintained August audit, not an independently reproducible public genotype dataset.

Current profile492

Replacement profile498

Current profile493

Replacement profile499

Current profile494The maintained pedigree audit places the two FT6135 comparison results through Robert’s sons William and John M, with different confidence in their later continuations. The older James c.1700 label must not be counted as an independent test above Robert.

Replacement profile500The maintained pedigree audit places the two FT6135 comparison results through Robert’s sons William and John M, with different confidence in their later continuations. The older James c.1700 label must not be counted as an independent test above Robert.

Current profile495

Replacement profile501

Current profile496

Replacement profile502

Current profile497The FT6135 difference is real in the audited Alexander result and the two supplied comparison results. Its position outside the currently accepted child-branch display makes it a '''candidate grouping signal''', not an established new branch. Resolve FT6135 in both James M son-lines first: derived results would support inheritance at or above Robert under the reported pedigrees and a simple inheritance model; ancestral results would contradict that simple model and require checking pedigrees, recurrence or reversion. Inadequate coverage would leave the issue open. Neither outcome alone identifies Alexander's father.

Replacement profile503The FT6135 difference is real in the audited Alexander result and the two supplied comparison results. Its position outside the currently accepted child-branch display makes it a '''candidate grouping signal''', not an established new branch. Resolve FT6135 in both James M son-lines first: derived results would support inheritance at or above Robert under the reported pedigrees and a simple inheritance model; ancestral results would contradict that simple model and require checking pedigrees, recurrence or reversion. Inadequate coverage would leave the issue open. Neither outcome alone identifies Alexander's father.

Current profile498

Replacement profile504

Current profile499

Replacement profile505

Current profile500The two FTE32242-positive son-lines associate that branch with James M's descendants, conditionally on their pedigrees. To locate it below Robert generally requires a reliable ancestral result in a separately documented Robert line. A basal FT20271 label supplies no such result. Missing entries in a variants-only file likewise do not prove ancestral states. FTDNA SNP and match guidance<ref name="Evidence4dd87788ef">[https://help.familytreedna.com/hc/en-us/articles/4402696079887-Big-Y-Matching-Matches-Guide FTDNA SNP and match guidance].</ref>.

Replacement profile506The two FTE32242-positive son-lines associate that branch with James M's descendants, conditionally on their pedigrees. To locate it below Robert generally requires a reliable ancestral result in a separately documented Robert line. A basal FT20271 label supplies no such result. Missing entries in a variants-only file likewise do not prove ancestral states. FTDNA SNP and match guidance<ref name="Evidence4dd87788ef">[https://help.familytreedna.com/hc/en-us/articles/4402696079887-Big-Y-Matching-Matches-Guide FTDNA SNP and match guidance].</ref>.

Current profile501

Replacement profile507

Current profile502

Replacement profile508

Current profile503For Alexander and James J, compare existing consented calls at named and private variants with coverage and pedigree checks. A shared additional derived state could refine their genetic grouping; it would not make the historical men brothers or identify the mutation's generation. A separately documented Alexander son-line could distinguish variants inherited through Alexander or earlier from changes arising later in one descendant line. STR distance and rounded private-variant averages reuse existing observations: they do not independently date the common ancestor. No narrow common-ancestor date is justified here.

Replacement profile509For Alexander and James J, compare existing consented calls at named and private variants with coverage and pedigree checks. A shared additional derived state could refine their genetic grouping; it would not make the historical men brothers or identify the mutation's generation. A separately documented Alexander son-line could distinguish variants inherited through Alexander or earlier from changes arising later in one descendant line. STR distance and rounded private-variant averages reuse existing observations: they do not independently date the common ancestor. No narrow common-ancestor date is justified here.

Current profile504

Replacement profile510

Current profile505

Replacement profile511

Current profile506One Robert-associated line and one James M descendant are identical at Y-111 despite different displayed SNP branches. STR similarity therefore cannot recover every branching event. The previous STR reconstruction’s approximate 1750 horizon also reuses marker evidence and has unconstrained dates conflicting with known genealogy; it is not an independent historical date.

Replacement profile512One Robert-associated line and one James M descendant are identical at Y-111 despite different displayed SNP branches. STR similarity therefore cannot recover every branching event. The previous STR reconstruction’s approximate 1750 horizon also reuses marker evidence and has unconstrained dates conflicting with known genealogy; it is not an independent historical date.

Current profile507

Replacement profile513

Current profile508

Replacement profile514

Current profile509The table is available as CSV and JSON, with its dated provenance and unresolved states. A public branch placement can be rechecked at the project; the private-call summary requires the underlying consented files for replication.

Replacement profile515The table is available as CSV and JSON, with its dated provenance and unresolved states. A public branch placement can be rechecked at the project; the private-call summary requires the underlying consented files for replication.

Current profile510

Replacement profile516

Current profile511

Replacement profile517

Current profile512The Larne reconstruction connects these genetic comparisons to the actual American and Irish family hypotheses, with each missing generation assessed separately.

Replacement profile518The Larne reconstruction connects these genetic comparisons to the actual American and Irish family hypotheses, with each missing generation assessed separately.

Current profile513

Replacement profile519

Current profile514

Replacement profile520

Current profile515

Replacement profile521

Current profile516=== The wider family: proved links and open bridges ===

Replacement profile522=== The wider family: proved links and open bridges ===

Current profile517

Replacement profile523

Current profile518The Lisnagaver evidence supports a local Glasgow network; it does not yet yield a single reconstructed pedigree. The starting point is the 1851 sequence. House 34<ref name="Evidence2c97cf113b" /> contains John Glasgow, farmer, with wife Margaret and his unmarried brother Samuel, a linen weaver. House 35<ref name="Evidencedea66e5c28" /> contains Alexander and Mary with their children. House 37<ref name="Evidence6c8cd27a9f" /> contains Thomas Glasgow and Mary Ann. A Watters household separates Alexander and Thomas. The layout establishes a small same-surname farming cluster and useful geographic proximity; enumeration order is not a kinship statement or a property map.

Replacement profile524The Lisnagaver evidence supports a local Glasgow network; it does not yet yield a single reconstructed pedigree. The starting point is the 1851 sequence. House 34<ref name="Evidence2c97cf113b" /> contains John Glasgow, farmer, with wife Margaret and his unmarried brother Samuel, a linen weaver. House 35<ref name="Evidencedea66e5c28" /> contains Alexander and Mary with their children. House 37<ref name="Evidence6c8cd27a9f" /> contains Thomas Glasgow and Mary Ann. A Watters household separates Alexander and Thomas. The layout establishes a small same-surname farming cluster and useful geographic proximity; enumeration order is not a kinship statement or a property map.

Current profile519

Replacement profile525

Current profile520

Replacement profile526

Current profile521John Glasgow-867 and Samuel Glasgow-2908 belong to a specific '''father-John branch'''. John’s original 16 November 1846 marriage<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view/?record_id=cima-3156063 original 16 November 1846 marriage].</ref> names his father as John Glasgow, farmer. The 1851 household expressly calls Samuel John’s brother. That chain directly establishes the brotherhood and names John-867’s father and his occupation. Extending that father statement to Samuel assumes they shared a father; the census does not distinguish full from half brothers. It does '''not''' identify that father with John Glasgow-1022, the older Glenleslie man, and it does not make Alexander another son. The younger John’s memorial says he died in 1895 aged 78, which implies a birth about 1816–17 and makes the candidate Glasgow-1022 less comfortable than an earlier census-age reading alone. Any maintained attachment to John-1022 is an uncertain identification of the father, not an additional record and not evidence for Alexander’s parentage.

Replacement profile527John Glasgow-867 and Samuel Glasgow-2908 belong to a specific '''father-John branch'''. John’s original 16 November 1846 marriage<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view/?record_id=cima-3156063 original 16 November 1846 marriage].</ref> names his father as John Glasgow, farmer. The 1851 household expressly calls Samuel John’s brother. That chain directly establishes the brotherhood and names John-867’s father and his occupation. Extending that father statement to Samuel assumes they shared a father; the census does not distinguish full from half brothers. It does '''not''' identify that father with John Glasgow-1022, the older Glenleslie man, and it does not make Alexander another son. The family memorial transcription gives John’s death as 20 June 1895 aged 78, implying birth about 1816–17. A civil return instead records a John Glasgow of Lisnagaver dying on 24 June 1885, with son James as informant; this is a compatible candidate record, but its identification with the memorial’s John remains unresolved.<ref name="JohnDeath1885" /> The 1851 census age implies birth about 1801. The conflicting dates and ages must be kept separate; neither reading identifies his father with Glenleslie John. Any maintained attachment to John-1022 is an uncertain identification of the father, not an additional record and not evidence for Alexander’s parentage.

Current profile522

Replacement profile528

Current profile523

Replacement profile529

Current profile524The distinction matters because the neighbouring tenancy pattern is tempting but not decisive. The 1834 tithe names Alexander and Robert Glasgow at Lisnagaver, while later valuation lots 24, 25 and 26 are associated with John, Alexander and Thomas under Robert Harvey. Acreage, field-book and adjacency arguments can suggest tenancy succession or a broader network. They cannot establish a biological descent, and Plantation-measure tithe acreage cannot be numerically matched to statute-measure valuation acreage to manufacture an inheritance. The 1836 field book names Robert Glasgow and Archibald McCaughan junior in the house section but does not name Alexander; its land section does not supply occupier names. It therefore cannot decide who lived together, who inherited, or whether Alexander was a brother of John or Thomas.

Replacement profile530The distinction matters because the neighbouring tenancy pattern is tempting but not decisive. The 1834 tithe names Alexander and Robert Glasgow at Lisnagaver, while later valuation lots 24, 25 and 26 are associated with John, Alexander and Thomas under Robert Harvey. Acreage, field-book and adjacency arguments can suggest tenancy succession or a broader network. They cannot establish a biological descent, and Plantation-measure tithe acreage cannot be numerically matched to statute-measure valuation acreage to manufacture an inheritance. The 1836 field book names Robert Glasgow and Archibald McCaughan junior in the house section but does not name Alexander; its land section does not supply occupier names. It therefore cannot decide who lived together, who inherited, or whether Alexander was a brother of John or Thomas.

Current profile525

Replacement profile531

Current profile526

Replacement profile532

Current profile527Thomas Glasgow-987 and Daniel Glasgow-3896 have a stronger relationship argument than Alexander has with either. Daniel’s 1871 will, indexed through the PRONI Wills Calendar<ref name="Evidence968b317eb1">[https://apps.proni.gov.uk/willscalendar_ie/willssearch.aspx PRONI Wills Calendar].</ref>, calls the late Thomas his brother and identifies Daniel Neely Glasgow as nephew; Daniel Neely’s 28 June 1888 marriage<ref name="Evidence47f7d35ebe">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1888/10763/5925382.pdf 28 June 1888 marriage].</ref> in turn names Thomas Glasgow, farmer, as his father. Those two records establish Daniel and Thomas as brothers. Thomas’s PRONI calendar administration<ref name="Evidence9c6dade023">[https://apps.proni.gov.uk/WillsCalendar_IE/WillsSearch.aspx PRONI calendar administration].</ref> adds that the Lisnagaver farmer died 21 June 1870 and administration went to widow Mary Anne on 7 September. It was an intestate administration, not a will, and it names no parent, sibling or heir beyond the widow. It cannot be used to extend the proved brotherhood into a parentage for Alexander.

Replacement profile533Thomas Glasgow-987 and Daniel Glasgow-3896 have a stronger relationship argument than Alexander has with either. Daniel’s 1871 will, indexed through the PRONI Wills Calendar<ref name="Evidence968b317eb1">[https://apps.proni.gov.uk/willscalendar_ie/willssearch.aspx PRONI Wills Calendar].</ref>, calls the late Thomas his brother and identifies Daniel Neely Glasgow as nephew; Daniel Neely’s 28 June 1888 marriage<ref name="Evidence47f7d35ebe">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1888/10763/5925382.pdf 28 June 1888 marriage].</ref> in turn names Thomas Glasgow, farmer, as his father. Those two records establish Daniel and Thomas as brothers. Thomas’s PRONI calendar administration<ref name="Evidence9c6dade023">[https://apps.proni.gov.uk/WillsCalendar_IE/WillsSearch.aspx PRONI calendar administration].</ref> adds that the Lisnagaver farmer died 21 June 1870 and administration went to widow Mary Anne on 7 September. It was an intestate administration, not a will, and it names no parent, sibling or heir beyond the widow. It cannot be used to extend the proved brotherhood into a parentage for Alexander.

Current profile528

Replacement profile534

Current profile529

Replacement profile535

Current profile530Alexander may be a brother or cousin of Thomas and Daniel. Shared locality, associated land, church context and descendant testimony make that a worthwhile research model. No confirmed Y-DNA comparison with an independently documented Thomas or Daniel descendant is supplied in this case. None of those sources says that Alexander was their brother, so the three men are not a proved sibling set. The 2020 correspondence records the older Alexander-and-Rosanna belief, but provides no demonstrably independent parentage source: the correspondent said she ''believed'' Thomas’s parents were Alexander and Rosanna, separately wondered whether the user’s Alexander was Thomas’s brother, and supplied neither a record citation nor usable autosomal-match data. The later FamilySearch Pedigree Resource File entries derive from an Ancestry member tree and conflict even on Rosanna’s reported death day. They show the circulation of a tradition, not its verification.

Replacement profile536Alexander may be a brother or cousin of Thomas and Daniel. Shared locality, associated land, church context and descendant testimony make that a worthwhile research model. No confirmed Y-DNA comparison with an independently documented Thomas or Daniel descendant is supplied in this case. None of those sources says that Alexander was their brother, so the three men are not a proved sibling set. The 2020 correspondence records the older Alexander-and-Rosanna belief, but provides no demonstrably independent parentage source: the correspondent said she ''believed'' Thomas’s parents were Alexander and Rosanna, separately wondered whether the user’s Alexander was Thomas’s brother, and supplied neither a record citation nor usable autosomal-match data. The later FamilySearch Pedigree Resource File entries derive from an Ancestry member tree and conflict even on Rosanna’s reported death day. They show the circulation of a tradition, not its verification.

Current profile531

Replacement profile537

Current profile532

Replacement profile538

Current profile533

Replacement profile539

Current profile534==== The Irish–Canadian family: what the original deeds establish ====

Replacement profile540==== The Irish–Canadian family: what the original deeds establish ====

Current profile535

Replacement profile541

Current profile536

Replacement profile542

Current profile537The Canadian connection is now supported by an explicit transaction. In the registered deed of '''30 July 1861''', B465<ref name="Evidence6e02c4a48a">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWB8-D registered deed of '''30 July 1861''', B465].</ref>, '''Daniel Glasgow of Kilrea, County Londonderry, watchmaker''', and '''Thomas Glasgow, farmer of the County Antrim townland written Lislagaver/Lisnagaver''', sell Samuel Glasgow of Prescott two undivided sixths of the Centre Street property. Their wives are '''Margaret''' and '''Mary Anne''', and the deed expressly derives the interests from Robert Glasgow's will. Place, occupation, wives and the already proved Daniel–Thomas brotherhood identify these men with [[Glasgow-3896|Daniel-3896]] and [[Glasgow-987|Thomas-987]]. This resolves the former uncertainty about whether the will's Irish brothers were the known Kilrea and Lisnagaver men.

Replacement profile543The Canadian connection is now supported by an explicit transaction. In the registered deed of '''30 July 1861''', B465<ref name="Evidence6e02c4a48a">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWB8-D registered deed of '''30 July 1861''', B465].</ref>, '''Daniel Glasgow of Kilrea, County Londonderry, watchmaker''', and '''Thomas Glasgow, farmer of the County Antrim townland written Lislagaver/Lisnagaver''', sell Samuel Glasgow of Prescott two undivided sixths of the Centre Street property. Their wives are '''Margaret''' and '''Mary Anne''', and the deed expressly derives the interests from Robert Glasgow's will. Place, occupation, wives and the already proved Daniel–Thomas brotherhood identify these men with [[Glasgow-3896|Daniel-3896]] and [[Glasgow-987|Thomas-987]]. This resolves the former uncertainty about whether the will's Irish brothers were the known Kilrea and Lisnagaver men.

Current profile538

Replacement profile544

Current profile539

Replacement profile545

Current profile540Robert's will of '''9 October 1849''', B12<ref name="Evidence8bdc36c751">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWY9-S will of '''9 October 1849''', B12].</ref>, registered in 1856, gives one sixth each to brothers '''Daniel, Samuel, John and Thomas''', one sixth to sister '''Mary''', and one sixth collectively to '''the children of brother James'''. Combined with B465, this places Daniel and Thomas in the same documented sibling group as [[Glasgow-4010|Samuel of Prescott-4010]] and Robert. The original does '''not''' call James deceased: the earlier death-before-1849 inference is withdrawn. It names no parents.

Replacement profile546Robert's will of '''9 October 1849''', B12<ref name="Evidence8bdc36c751">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWY9-S will of '''9 October 1849''', B12].</ref>, registered in 1856, gives one sixth each to brothers '''Daniel, Samuel, John and Thomas''', one sixth to sister '''Mary''', and one sixth collectively to '''the children of brother James'''. Combined with B465, this places Daniel and Thomas in the same documented sibling group as [[Glasgow-4010|Samuel of Prescott-4010]] and Robert. The original does '''not''' call James deceased: the earlier death-before-1849 inference is withdrawn. It names no parents.

Current profile541

Replacement profile547

Current profile542

Replacement profile548

Current profile543

Replacement profile549

Current profile544{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile550{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile545|-

Replacement profile551|-

Current profile546! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Original record !! People, property and transaction !! What it establishes

Replacement profile552! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Original record !! People, property and transaction !! What it establishes

Current profile547|-

Replacement profile553|-

Current profile548| B12, 9 October 1849; registered 13 November 1856<ref name="Evidence8bdc36c751" />, DGS 008200419, images 35–36, pp.9–10 || Robert's six shares, including one collectively for brother James's children. Executors Alexander McWilliam and Samuel Glasgow. || Direct sibling wording. Alexander Glasgow witnesses the 1856 registration request; that is a different role from beneficiary. James's death is not stated.

Replacement profile554| B12, 9 October 1849; registered 13 November 1856<ref name="Evidence8bdc36c751" />, DGS 008200419, images 35–36, pp.9–10 || Robert's six shares, including one collectively for brother James's children. Executors Alexander McWilliam and Samuel Glasgow. || Direct sibling wording. Alexander Glasgow witnesses the 1856 registration request; that is a different role from beneficiary. James's death is not stated.

Current profile549|-

Replacement profile555|-

Current profile550| B13, 30 October 1856<ref name="Evidencea817cfef9a">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWYM-6 B13, 30 October 1856].</ref>, image 36, pp.10–11 || '''John Glasgow, Prescott watchmaker, and wife Jane''' sell Samuel, merchant, '''one sixth for £125'''; Jane releases dower. Registered 13 November. || An actual acquisition of a share. John's trade also gives a specific occupational comparison with his brother Daniel.

Replacement profile556| B13, 30 October 1856<ref name="Evidencea817cfef9a">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWYM-6 B13, 30 October 1856].</ref>, image 36, pp.10–11 || '''John Glasgow, Prescott watchmaker, and wife Jane''' sell Samuel, merchant, '''one sixth for £125'''; Jane releases dower. Registered 13 November. || An actual acquisition of a share. John's trade also gives a specific occupational comparison with his brother Daniel.

Current profile551|-

Replacement profile557|-

Current profile552| B395, 23 November 1860<ref name="Evidence28cf19c59e">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWR4-5 B395, 23 November 1860].</ref>, image 208, pp.336–337 || '''Eliza Jane Glasco''', Rochester, New York, spinster, eldest daughter of '''James Glasco, formerly of Prescott, carpenter''', sells Samuel '''one ninth for £33 6s 8d'''. Registered 22 December. || Explicit father–daughter relationship and residence. No explicit derivation from Robert's will. The copied registration signature says James although the grantee is Samuel.

Replacement profile558| B395, 23 November 1860<ref name="Evidence28cf19c59e">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWR4-5 B395, 23 November 1860].</ref>, image 208, pp.336–337 || '''Eliza Jane Glasco''', Rochester, New York, spinster, eldest daughter of '''James Glasco, formerly of Prescott, carpenter''', sells Samuel '''one ninth for £33 6s 8d'''. Registered 22 December. || Explicit father–daughter relationship and residence. No explicit derivation from Robert's will. The copied registration signature says James although the grantee is Samuel.

Current profile553|-

Replacement profile559|-

Current profile554| B465, 30 July 1861<ref name="Evidence6e02c4a48a" />, images 240–241, pp.397–398 || '''Daniel and Margaret of Kilrea; Thomas and Mary Anne of Lisnagaver'''; two sixths to Samuel for '''$1,000 Canadian currency''', expressly under Robert's will; executed at Coleraine. || The direct Irish identification and inheritance link. The official abstract gives registration 7 October 1861. The deed opening and closing copy differ on the July day; the opening date is used here.

Replacement profile560| B465, 30 July 1861<ref name="Evidence6e02c4a48a" />, images 240–241, pp.397–398 || '''Daniel and Margaret of Kilrea; Thomas and Mary Anne of Lisnagaver'''; two sixths to Samuel for '''$1,000 Canadian currency''', expressly under Robert's will; executed at Coleraine. || The direct Irish identification and inheritance link. The official abstract gives registration 7 October 1861. The deed opening and closing copy differ on the July day; the opening date is used here.

Current profile555|-

Replacement profile561|-

Current profile556| B601, 27 June 1863<ref name="Evidenceb3d6546218">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWBS-7 B601, 27 June 1863].</ref>, image 316, pp.542–543 || '''Mary Glasco''', Rochester spinster, second eldest daughter of '''James, formerly Prescott carpenter''', sells Samuel '''one ninth for £33 6s 8d'''. '''Alexander Glasgow of Prescott, gentleman''', witnesses. Registered 3 August. || Identifies a second daughter of the carpenter. It does not identify the witness as Alexander-951 or explicitly describe the interest as a share under Robert's will.

Replacement profile562| B601, 27 June 1863<ref name="Evidenceb3d6546218">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWBS-7 B601, 27 June 1863].</ref>, image 316, pp.542–543 || '''Mary Glasco''', Rochester spinster, second eldest daughter of '''James, formerly Prescott carpenter''', sells Samuel '''one ninth for £33 6s 8d'''. '''Alexander Glasgow of Prescott, gentleman''', witnesses. Registered 3 August. || Identifies a second daughter of the carpenter. It does not identify the witness as Alexander-951 or explicitly describe the interest as a share under Robert's will.

Current profile557|}

Replacement profile563|}

Current profile558

Replacement profile564

Current profile559

Replacement profile565

Current profile560These deeds concern '''Lot 12 south of Dibble Street and a 3,400-square-foot part of Lot 11''', the house at '''388 Centre Street'''. The municipal designation report<ref name="Evidence4107280a3f">[https://www.prescott.ca/media/3dtiztjk/council-agenda-june-16-2025.pdf municipal designation report].</ref>, printed pp.31–32, and the 2017 property account<ref name="Evidence57849ff728">[https://www.theresataylor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Auction-all-for-others-Brockville-Recorder.pdf 2017 property account].</ref> agree on 388. The former 280 reference was a project citation error. OnLand's official parcel search<ref name="Evidence43bc477d8f">[https://www.onland.ca/ui/15/property/address OnLand's official parcel search].</ref> identifies PIN '''68159-0153''', Plan 19, Block 2; the historical abstract, p.71<ref name="Evidence675d9ee4bd">[https://www.onland.ca/ui/15/books/48793/viewer/998408458?page=97 historical abstract, p.71].</ref>, connects the same Lot 11 strip to Robert's '''5 April 1841''' purchase from Susannah Jessup. Samuel's '''251 Water Street West''', Plan 19, Block 2, part Lot 16, remains a separate property.

Replacement profile566These deeds concern '''Lot 12 south of Dibble Street and a 3,400-square-foot part of Lot 11''', the house at '''388 Centre Street'''. The municipal designation report<ref name="Evidence4107280a3f">[https://www.prescott.ca/media/3dtiztjk/council-agenda-june-16-2025.pdf municipal designation report].</ref>, printed pp.31–32, and the 2017 property account<ref name="Evidence57849ff728">[https://www.theresataylor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Auction-all-for-others-Brockville-Recorder.pdf 2017 property account].</ref> agree on 388. The former 280 reference was a project citation error. OnLand's official parcel search<ref name="Evidence43bc477d8f">[https://www.onland.ca/ui/15/property/address OnLand's official parcel search].</ref> identifies PIN '''68159-0153''', Plan 19, Block 2; the historical abstract, p.71<ref name="Evidence675d9ee4bd">[https://www.onland.ca/ui/15/books/48793/viewer/998408458?page=97 historical abstract, p.71].</ref>, connects the same Lot 11 strip to Robert's '''5 April 1841''' purchase from Susannah Jessup. Samuel's '''251 Water Street West''', Plan 19, Block 2, part Lot 16, remains a separate property.

Current profile561

Replacement profile567

Current profile562

Replacement profile568

Current profile563

Replacement profile569

Current profile564==== James's family: a promising identification with an unresolved title problem ====

Replacement profile570==== James's family: a promising identification with an unresolved title problem ====

Current profile565

Replacement profile571

Current profile566

Replacement profile572

Current profile567Eliza Jane and Mary are explicitly sisters and daughters of '''James the Prescott carpenter'''. Identifying that James with Robert's brother is a strong property-based hypothesis, because both daughters convey interests in the same two parcels to Samuel. It is not yet proved by an express kinship or inheritance clause. Each daughter's '''one-ninth''' interest is also recorded in the official abstract. Together they exceed the '''one-sixth''' collective share given to James's children in Robert's will. Earlier ownership, additional inherited interests or a record error must be examined before treating these as a simple distribution of that sixth. The fractions cannot responsibly supply a child count.

Replacement profile573Eliza Jane and Mary are explicitly sisters and daughters of '''James the Prescott carpenter'''. Identifying that James with Robert's brother is a strong property-based hypothesis, because both daughters convey interests in the same two parcels to Samuel. It is not yet proved by an express kinship or inheritance clause. Each daughter's '''one-ninth''' interest is also recorded in the official abstract. Together they exceed the '''one-sixth''' collective share given to James's children in Robert's will. Earlier ownership, additional inherited interests or a record error must be examined before treating these as a simple distribution of that sixth. The fractions cannot responsibly supply a child count.

Current profile568

Replacement profile574

Current profile569

Replacement profile575

Current profile570The '''1868 Alexander deed has now been inspected'''. C114, 25 March 1868<ref name="Evidence1f5003a1e5">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LQRC-Y C114, 25 March 1868].</ref>, DGS 008200420, image 120, pp.164–165, identifies '''Alexander Glasco of Rochester, Monroe County, New York, express agent, son of James Glasco formerly of Prescott, carpenter'''. Through attorney Macneil Clarke he conveys '''one eighteenth''' for '''$166.66''' to '''Mary Eno Glasgow, widow of the late Samuel Glasgow'''. The accompanying C113 power of attorney<ref name="Evidenceff75c70d0d">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LQRK-B accompanying C113 power of attorney].</ref> was made at Rochester on '''28 December 1867'''; both instruments were registered on '''18 August 1868'''. The abstract's August date is therefore registration, not the deed's execution date.

Replacement profile576The '''1868 Alexander deed has now been inspected'''. C114, 25 March 1868<ref name="Evidence1f5003a1e5">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LQRC-Y C114, 25 March 1868].</ref>, DGS 008200420, image 120, pp.164–165, identifies '''Alexander Glasco of Rochester, Monroe County, New York, express agent, son of James Glasco formerly of Prescott, carpenter'''. Through attorney Macneil Clarke he conveys '''one eighteenth''' for '''$166.66''' to '''Mary Eno Glasgow, widow of the late Samuel Glasgow'''. The accompanying C113 power of attorney<ref name="Evidenceff75c70d0d">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LQRK-B accompanying C113 power of attorney].</ref> was made at Rochester on '''28 December 1867'''; both instruments were registered on '''18 August 1868'''. The abstract's August date is therefore registration, not the deed's execution date.

Current profile571

Replacement profile577

Current profile572

Replacement profile578

Current profile573This positively identifies a son of James the carpenter alongside Eliza Jane and Mary. It supplies '''three named children''', without claiming a complete family or resolving how their title shares arose. It identifies a Rochester express agent, not a Lisnagaver farmer: linking him to Alexander-951 would require an independent wife, age, birthplace or migration bridge. No such bridge was found in this inspection, so this father statement is not assigned to Alexander-951. The earlier Prescott witness named Alexander is a relevant comparison, but the shared name does not prove he was the express agent either. '''Mary Eno''' is the widow's recorded name; the document does not establish Eno as a maiden surname.

Replacement profile579This positively identifies a son of James the carpenter alongside Eliza Jane and Mary. It supplies '''three named children''', without claiming a complete family or resolving how their title shares arose. It identifies a Rochester express agent, not a Lisnagaver farmer: linking him to Alexander-951 would require an independent wife, age, birthplace or migration bridge. No such bridge was found in this inspection, so this father statement is not assigned to Alexander-951. The earlier Prescott witness named Alexander is a relevant comparison, but the shared name does not prove he was the express agent either. '''Mary Eno''' is the widow's recorded name; the document does not establish Eno as a maiden surname.

Current profile574

Replacement profile580

Current profile575

Replacement profile581

Current profile576

Replacement profile582

Current profile577==== Mary Glasgow Black and the Drumoolish connection ====

Replacement profile583==== Mary Glasgow Black and the Drumoolish connection ====

Current profile578

Replacement profile584

Current profile579

Replacement profile585

Current profile580The original '''C298 deed of 15 September 1869'''<ref name="Evidencea11558442b">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LQTY-K original '''C298 deed of 15 September 1869'''].</ref>, registered '''1 July 1870''', explicitly identifies '''Mary Black, formerly Mary Glasgow, as sister of the late Robert Glasgow of Prescott'''. It names her six children and conveys the family’s interest to Samuel’s widow for '''$800'''. This is another direct Irish bridge: two of the children reside at '''Drumoolish, County Londonderry'''. The deed gives a record-based family to compare with the wider Bann Valley and Inishrush evidence; it does not name Mary’s parents or make her a daughter of Adam.

Replacement profile586The original '''C298 deed of 15 September 1869'''<ref name="Evidencea11558442b">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LQTY-K original '''C298 deed of 15 September 1869'''].</ref>, registered '''1 July 1870''', explicitly identifies '''Mary Black, formerly Mary Glasgow, as sister of the late Robert Glasgow of Prescott'''. It names her six children and conveys the family’s interest to Samuel’s widow for '''$800'''. This is another direct Irish bridge: two of the children reside at '''Drumoolish, County Londonderry'''. The deed gives a record-based family to compare with the wider Bann Valley and Inishrush evidence; it does not name Mary’s parents or make her a daughter of Adam.

Current profile581

Replacement profile587

Current profile582

Replacement profile588

Current profile583

Replacement profile589

Current profile584{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile590{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile585|-

Replacement profile591|-

Current profile586! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Child of Mary Glasgow Black !! Residence and description in the deed !! Spouse or estate detail

Replacement profile592! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Child of Mary Glasgow Black !! Residence and description in the deed !! Spouse or estate detail

Current profile587|-

Replacement profile593|-

Current profile588| John Black || Drumoolish, County Londonderry; yeoman || Wife Martha joins.

Replacement profile594| John Black || Drumoolish, County Londonderry; yeoman || Wife Martha joins.

Current profile589|-

Replacement profile595|-

Current profile590| Rose Ann Black || Drumoolish; spinster || Living party.

Replacement profile596| Rose Ann Black || Drumoolish; spinster || Living party.

Current profile591|-

Replacement profile597|-

Current profile592| Jane Miller || Newburgh, Orange County, New York || Wife of Robert Miller.

Replacement profile598| Jane Miller || Newburgh, Orange County, New York || Wife of Robert Miller.

Current profile593|-

Replacement profile599|-

Current profile594| Agnes Black || Newburgh; spinster || Living party.

Replacement profile600| Agnes Black || Newburgh; spinster || Living party.

Current profile595|-

Replacement profile601|-

Current profile596| Thomasina Montgomery || Legrand, Marshall County, Iowa || Wife of Mathew Montgomery.

Replacement profile602| Thomasina Montgomery || Legrand, Marshall County, Iowa || Wife of Mathew Montgomery.

Current profile597|-

Replacement profile603|-

Current profile598| Elizabeth Black || Newburgh; spinster || Had died unmarried and intestate; the five named siblings are described as her heirs.

Replacement profile604| Elizabeth Black || Newburgh; spinster || Had died unmarried and intestate; the five named siblings are described as her heirs.

Current profile599|}

Replacement profile605|}

Current profile600

Replacement profile606

Current profile601

Replacement profile607

Current profile602The six child interests are expressed as '''six sixth-parts of Mary’s one-sixth interest'''; the five surviving siblings also account for Elizabeth’s part. This explains a subdivision within this particular branch. It does not resolve the Rochester daughters’ ninths. Mary Black, Robert’s sister, is distinct from Mary Glasco of Rochester, James the carpenter’s daughter. The deed names '''Mary Eno Glasgow''' as Samuel’s widow, but does not establish Eno as her maiden surname.

Replacement profile608The six child interests are expressed as '''six sixth-parts of Mary’s one-sixth interest'''; the five surviving siblings also account for Elizabeth’s part. This explains a subdivision within this particular branch. It does not resolve the Rochester daughters’ ninths. Mary Black, Robert’s sister, is distinct from Mary Glasco of Rochester, James the carpenter’s daughter. The deed names '''Mary Eno Glasgow''' as Samuel’s widow, but does not establish Eno as her maiden surname.

Current profile603

Replacement profile609

Current profile604

Replacement profile610

Current profile605

Replacement profile611

Current profile606==== Consequences for Alexander's parentage ====

Replacement profile612==== Consequences for Alexander's parentage ====

Current profile607

Replacement profile613

Current profile608

Replacement profile614

Current profile609The Canadian records now expand '''Daniel and Thomas's documented family''', which makes their brothers' and sister's records directly relevant to this enquiry. They still do not name Daniel or Thomas's parents, and they do not establish Alexander-951 as another brother. The Alexander-and-Rosanna tradition remains a hypothesis about Thomas's parents. Alexander's possible place among James's children now has named family and property records to test, but the carpenter's identity with Robert's brother and any connection between his Rochester son and Alexander-951 must each be demonstrated.

Replacement profile615The Canadian records now expand '''Daniel and Thomas's documented family''', which makes their brothers' and sister's records directly relevant to this enquiry. They still do not name Daniel or Thomas's parents, and they do not establish Alexander-951 as another brother. The Alexander-and-Rosanna tradition remains a hypothesis about Thomas's parents. Alexander's possible place among James's children now has named family and property records to test, but the carpenter's identity with Robert's brother and any connection between his Rochester son and Alexander-951 must each be demonstrated.

Current profile610

Replacement profile616

Current profile611

Replacement profile617

Current profile612The 1861 deed also places wives '''Margaret''' and '''Mary Anne''' in the recorded family transaction. It strengthens the identification of the existing Irish couples and gives a later dated occurrence of Daniel's wife before his widowed death in 1871. It does not supply either woman's maiden name or establish the mother of every child. No new Y-DNA result was obtained: documentary linkage to the Prescott brothers expands the family that can be compared with Alexander's paternal line, without proving a genetic match or the joining generation.

Replacement profile618The 1861 deed also places wives '''Margaret''' and '''Mary Anne''' in the recorded family transaction. It strengthens the identification of the existing Irish couples and gives a later dated occurrence of Daniel's wife before his widowed death in 1871. It does not supply either woman's maiden name or establish the mother of every child. No new Y-DNA result was obtained: documentary linkage to the Prescott brothers expands the family that can be compared with Alexander's paternal line, without proving a genetic match or the joining generation.

Current profile613

Replacement profile619

Current profile614==== The Black branch and a possible witness at Robert's marriage ====

Replacement profile620==== The Black branch and a possible witness at Robert's marriage ====

Current profile615

Replacement profile621

Current profile616The original civil return for [[Glasgow-938|Robert Glasgow]] and Jane Graham, 5 April 1866, records Robert's father as Alexander Glasgow, farmer, and names '''John Black''' as a witness. The return gives John no address or relationship. A plausible candidate is the John Black of Drumoolish who married Martha Savage on 13 March 1862, son of Robert Black, farmer; this remains a hypothesis, not a profile identification.

Replacement profile622The original civil return for [[Glasgow-938|Robert Glasgow]] and Jane Graham, 5 April 1866, records Robert's father as Alexander Glasgow, farmer, and names '''John Black''' as a witness. The return gives John no address or relationship. A plausible candidate is the John Black of Drumoolish who married Martha Savage on 13 March 1862, son of Robert Black, farmer; this remains a hypothesis, not a profile identification.

Current profile617

Replacement profile623

Current profile618The 1862 marriage return<ref name="EvidenceBlackSavage1862">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1862/10945/5491449.pdf John Black–Martha Savage marriage return], page 178, entry 136, image 5491449.</ref> gives John as a full-age bachelor, farmer of Drumoolish, son of Robert Black; Martha was daughter of William Savage. Churchtown's baptism transcription records Elizabeth Black on 31 July 1845, daughter of '''Robert Black and Mary Glasgow''', resident Drumoolish<ref name="EvidenceBlackElizabeth1845">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/TamlaghtP/Baptisms.html Churchtown baptism transcription], page 7, entry 116.</ref>. This supplies a named parental couple for the Black branch and makes the deed-based John a specific person to investigate. It does not name Alexander's parents.

Replacement profile624The 1862 marriage return<ref name="EvidenceBlackSavage1862">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1862/10945/5491449.pdf John Black–Martha Savage marriage return], page 178, entry 136, image 5491449.</ref> gives John as a full-age bachelor, farmer of Drumoolish, son of Robert Black; Martha was daughter of William Savage. Churchtown's baptism transcription records Elizabeth Black on 31 July 1845, daughter of '''Robert Black and Mary Glasgow''', resident Drumoolish<ref name="EvidenceBlackElizabeth1845">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/TamlaghtP/Baptisms.html Churchtown baptism transcription], page 7, entry 116.</ref>. This supplies a named parental couple for the Black branch and makes the deed-based John a specific person to investigate. It does not name Alexander's parents.

Current profile619

Replacement profile625

Current profile620The 1831 Tamlaght O'Crilly census transcription lists Robert Black at Drumolish, house 57, with two males and one female, but the occupants are unnamed and other Black households occur in the same townland<ref name="EvidenceBlack1831">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/Tamlaght/1831census_2.html 1831 census transcription], row 643.</ref>. The December 1862 report of twins born to John's wife at her father William Savage's home and the 5 November 1863 Churchtown baptisms of Robert and William Black, children of John and Martha, support the couple's continuity<ref name="EvidenceBlackChildren">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/TamlaghtP/Baptisms2.html Churchtown baptism transcription].</ref>. The newspaper's 20 December birth and the baptism transcription's nine-month age conflict; both remain reported rather than reconciled.

Replacement profile626The 1831 Tamlaght O'Crilly census transcription lists Robert Black at Drumolish, house 57, with two males and one female, but the occupants are unnamed and other Black households occur in the same townland<ref name="EvidenceBlack1831">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/Tamlaght/1831census_2.html 1831 census transcription], row 643.</ref>. The December 1862 report of twins born to John's wife at her father William Savage's home and the 5 November 1863 Churchtown baptisms of Robert and William Black, children of John and Martha, support the couple's continuity<ref name="EvidenceBlackChildren">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/TamlaghtP/Baptisms2.html Churchtown baptism transcription].</ref>. The newspaper's 20 December birth and the baptism transcription's nine-month age conflict; both remain reported rather than reconciled.

Current profile621

Replacement profile627

Current profile622The 1866 witness fact is established, but identifying him with this John Black remains unproved. Shared congregation and local geography could explain contact without kinship. Even a confirmed identification would not prove that Alexander and Mary Glasgow belonged to the same parental couple. The Elizabeth and 1843 baptism images, Robert Black and Mary Glasgow's marriage, and further Churchtown witness occurrences are the next discriminating checks. The 1843 transcription's “Thomson Black” and illegible mother reading must not be changed to “Thomasina” or “Gear” without the original image.

Replacement profile628The 1866 witness fact is established, but identifying him with this John Black remains unproved. Shared congregation and local geography could explain contact without kinship. Even a confirmed identification would not prove that Alexander and Mary Glasgow belonged to the same parental couple. The Elizabeth and 1843 baptism images, Robert Black and Mary Glasgow's marriage, and further Churchtown witness occurrences are the next discriminating checks. The 1843 transcription's “Thomson Black” and illegible mother reading must not be changed to “Thomasina” or “Gear” without the original image.

Current profile623

Replacement profile629

Current profile624==== Concrete connections to other Glasgows ====

Replacement profile630==== Concrete connections to other Glasgows ====

Current profile625

Replacement profile631

Current profile626On 18 February 1875 at Finvoy Parish Church, [[Glasgow-1371|Ann Glasgow]], daughter of [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow]], married Francis Bellingham. The witnesses were Thomas Bellingham and '''Mary Anne M‘Caughern'''.<ref name="Bellingham1875">[[https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/McCaughan-222#_note-BellinghamGlasgow1875 WikiTree source note for the 1875 Bellingham–Glasgow marriage].</ref>

Replacement profile632On 18 February 1875 at Finvoy Parish Church, [[Glasgow-1371|Ann Glasgow]], daughter of [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow]], married Francis Bellingham. The witnesses were Thomas Bellingham and '''Mary Anne M‘Caughern'''.<ref name="Bellingham1875">[[https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/McCaughan-222#_note-BellinghamGlasgow1875 WikiTree source note for the 1875 Bellingham–Glasgow marriage].</ref>

Current profile627

Replacement profile633

Current profile628This is a useful record-level link between John's Glasgow family and a McCaughern surname form. The witness is unidentified and must not be equated with [[McCaughan-222|Mary/Molly Glasgow]]: the record says Mary Anne, uses M‘Caughern, and does not establish that Alexander's wife was living in 1875. It is a network observation, not proof that [[Glasgow-867|John]] and [[Glasgow-951|Alexander]] were related.

Replacement profile634This is a useful record-level link between John's Glasgow family and a McCaughern surname form. The witness is unidentified and must not be equated with [[McCaughan-222|Mary/Molly Glasgow]]: the record says Mary Anne, uses M‘Caughern, and does not establish that Alexander's wife was living in 1875. It is a network observation, not proof that [[Glasgow-867|John]] and [[Glasgow-951|Alexander]] were related.

Current profile629

Replacement profile635

Current profile630

Replacement profile636

Current profile631

Replacement profile637

Current profile632==== 1892 New York probate citation: Nancy Glasgow's next of kin ====

Replacement profile638==== 1892 New York probate citation: Nancy Glasgow's next of kin ====

Current profile633

Replacement profile639

Current profile634The most informative parentage evidence located so far is not an Irish record but a legal notice published in New York. On 14 January 1892 the Clinton County Surrogate issued a citation on the petition of Hiram Walworth to prove the will of '''[[Glasgow-4070|Nancy Glasgow]]''' of Plattsburgh, an unmarried Irish-born woman who had described herself in January 1889 as "about 68 years" old.<ref name="NancyWill1889">Clinton County, New York, Surrogate's Court, ''Records of wills, 1807–1902'', vol. Q, pp. 255–259, will of Nancy Glasgow of Plattsburgh dated 15 January 1889, admitted 9 May 1892; [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GYC4-66V?view=fullText FamilySearch image 159].</ref><ref name="NancyCitation1892">''The Plattsburgh Sentinel'' (Plattsburgh, New York), 26 February 1892, p. 6, legal notices, citation in the estate of Nancy Glasgow, deceased, dated 14 January 1892; [https://www.nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=plts18920226-01.1.6 New York State Historic Newspapers].</ref> The notice addresses heirs, next of kin and legatees. Its reference to both real and personal estate matters: the old restriction on collateral representation in personal property cannot by itself determine every relative's standing in this proceeding.<ref name="DeVoe1905">''Matter of De Voe'', 107 A.D. 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1905), discussion of pre-1898 personal-property representation and the different treatment of real property; [https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division/1905/107-ad-245.html published judicial opinion]. This later case explains the distinction; it is not a decree concerning Nancy's family.</ref>

Replacement profile640The most informative parentage evidence located so far is not an Irish record but a legal notice published in New York. On 14 January 1892 the Clinton County Surrogate issued a citation on the petition of Hiram Walworth to prove the will of '''[[Glasgow-4070|Nancy Glasgow]]''' of Plattsburgh, an unmarried Irish-born woman who had described herself in January 1889 as "about 68 years" old.<ref name="NancyWill1889">Clinton County, New York, Surrogate's Court, ''Records of wills, 1807–1902'', vol. Q, pp. 255–259, will of Nancy Glasgow of Plattsburgh dated 15 January 1889, admitted 9 May 1892; [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GYC4-66V?view=fullText FamilySearch image 159].</ref><ref name="NancyCitation1892">''The Plattsburgh Sentinel'' (Plattsburgh, New York), 26 February 1892, p. 6, legal notices, citation in the estate of Nancy Glasgow, deceased, dated 14 January 1892; [https://www.nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=plts18920226-01.1.6 New York State Historic Newspapers].</ref> The notice addresses heirs, next of kin and legatees. Its reference to both real and personal estate matters: the old restriction on collateral representation in personal property cannot by itself determine every relative's standing in this proceeding.<ref name="DeVoe1905">''Matter of De Voe'', 107 A.D. 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1905), discussion of pre-1898 personal-property representation and the different treatment of real property; [https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division/1905/107-ad-245.html published judicial opinion]. This later case explains the distinction; it is not a decree concerning Nancy's family.</ref>

Current profile635

Replacement profile641

Current profile636The citation names no brother or sister directly. It lists only children of named people: '''James G. Glasgow, Ann and Lizzie''', children of John Glasgow, late of "Baladonly" (Ballydonnelly, Rasharkin parish); '''James Glasgow, Mary and Ann''', children of Alexander Glasgow, formerly of Rasharkin; '''Mary Jane and Ann''', children of Robert Glasgow; the Dysart children of '''[[Glasglow-11|Jane (Glasgow) Dysart]]''' in Rasharkin, Ballymena, New Zealand and West Troy; '''David, James and Samuel Anderson of Gortahar''', identified through separate household records as sons of '''[[Glasgow-4071|Elizabeth (Glasgow) Anderson]]'''; and the unnamed children of '''Ann McClelland''' and '''Mary Thompson'''.<ref name="NancyCitation1892" /> Nancy's will independently calls Margaret (Dysart) Kennedy her niece and Robert Anderson her nephew,<ref name="NancyWill1889" /> and the Rasharkin Presbyterian register records both as children of Glasgow mothers — Jane Glascaw at Granagh and Betty Glascaw at Drumack.<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" /> Together these records support a probable network of deceased sibling branches: John, Alexander, Robert, Jane, Elizabeth, Ann and Mary. Elizabeth is identified through the baptism and household records, not named as a parent in the notice. The list's completeness and each person's exact relationship remain to be checked in the underlying petition.

Replacement profile642The citation names no brother or sister directly. It lists only children of named people: '''James G. Glasgow, Ann and Lizzie''', children of John Glasgow, late of "Baladonly" (Ballydonnelly, Rasharkin parish); '''James Glasgow, Mary and Ann''', children of Alexander Glasgow, formerly of Rasharkin; '''Mary Jane and Ann''', children of Robert Glasgow; the Dysart children of '''[[Glasglow-11|Jane (Glasgow) Dysart]]''' in Rasharkin, Ballymena, New Zealand and West Troy; '''David, James and Samuel Anderson of Gortahar''', identified through separate household records as sons of '''[[Glasgow-4071|Elizabeth (Glasgow) Anderson]]'''; and the unnamed children of '''Ann McClelland''' and '''Mary Thompson'''.<ref name="NancyCitation1892" /> Nancy's will independently calls Margaret (Dysart) Kennedy her niece and Robert Anderson her nephew,<ref name="NancyWill1889" /> and the Rasharkin Presbyterian register records both as children of Glasgow mothers — Jane Glascaw at Granagh and Betty Glascaw at Drumack.<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" /> Together these records support a probable network of deceased sibling branches: John, Alexander, Robert, Jane, Elizabeth, Ann and Mary. Elizabeth is identified through the baptism and household records, not named as a parent in the notice. The list's completeness and each person's exact relationship remain to be checked in the underlying petition.

Current profile637

Replacement profile643

Current profile638The Alexander of this citation is probably Alexander of Lisnagaver. His daughters' marriages of 1871 and 1876 each name Alexander Glasgow of Lisnagaver as father, his son James was baptised at Lisnagaver in 1843, and he died in May 1888 — "formerly of Rasharkin" in the citation's language. Nancy, born about 1820–21, was roughly ten years his junior: probable sisterhood fits these ages; daughterhood does not. He spent his last years at '''Gortahar''', where the citation places his sister Elizabeth's Anderson sons in 1892. His son [[Glasgow-938|Robert]] is not named. The proposed Scottish continuity and alleged survival to 1902 need original-record verification; this potential omission prevents treating completeness as already demonstrated.

Replacement profile644The Alexander of this citation is probably Alexander of Lisnagaver. His daughters' marriages of 1871 and 1876 each name Alexander Glasgow of Lisnagaver as father, his son James was baptised at Lisnagaver in 1843, and he died in May 1888 — "formerly of Rasharkin" in the citation's language. Nancy, born about 1820–21, was roughly ten years his junior: probable sisterhood fits these ages; daughterhood does not. He spent his last years at '''Gortahar''', where the citation places his sister Elizabeth's Anderson sons in 1892. His son [[Glasgow-938|Robert]] is not named, although he was living: the ''Belfast News-Letter'' of 6 January 1892 announced the death at 534 Gallowgate, Glasgow, of Jane Graham, "wife of Robert Glasgow, formerly of Rasharkin", eight days before the citation.<ref name="Audit2026BNL1892">''Belfast News-Letter'', 6 January 1892, p. 1, deaths, GRAHAM; [https://www.newspapers.com/image/388125998/ Newspapers.com image 388125998].</ref> The citation therefore left out a living child of Alexander, and its lists cannot be read as complete. His reported death in 1902 still needs its original record.

Current profile639

Replacement profile645

Current profile640The John of the citation is probably '''[[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow of Lisnagaver]]'''; Lizzie and the Ballydonnelly residence remain identity checks. His documented children were Ann (born 1848; married Bellingham in 1875, naming father John) and '''James Garvin Glasgow''' — the "James G." of the notice; the "Lizzie" of the notice is an otherwise unrecorded daughter (the Elizabeth Ann on the family memorial, died 1933, was James Garvin's widow).<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4" /> A John Glasgow of Lisnagaver died on 24 June 1885 with son James as informant, which agrees with "late of".<ref name="JohnDeath1885">General Register Office of Ireland, civil death return, Ballymoney superintendent registrar's district, Dirraw district, entry 2: John Glasgow, Lisnagaver, 24 June 1885; [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1885/06280/4799372.pdf register image].</ref> John's original 1846 marriage return names his father as '''John Glasgow, farmer''', and the 1851 census makes Samuel Glasgow, born in County Londonderry about 1790, John's brother.<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4" /> If Alexander and John shared a father, that father would be John Glasgow, farmer. Probable siblinghood alone does not distinguish a shared father from a shared mother or more complex half relationships.

Replacement profile646The John of the citation is probably '''[[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow of Lisnagaver]]'''; Lizzie and the Ballydonnelly residence remain identity checks. His documented children were Ann (born 1848; married Bellingham in 1875, naming father John) and '''James Garvin Glasgow''' — the "James G." of the notice; the "Lizzie" of the notice is an otherwise unrecorded daughter (the Elizabeth Ann on the family memorial, died 1933, was James Garvin's widow).<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4" /> A John Glasgow of Lisnagaver died on 24 June 1885 with son James as informant, which agrees with "late of".<ref name="JohnDeath1885">General Register Office of Ireland, civil death return, Ballymoney superintendent registrar's district, Dirraw district, entry 2: John Glasgow, Lisnagaver, 24 June 1885; [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1885/06280/4799372.pdf register image].</ref> John's original 1846 marriage return names his father as '''John Glasgow, farmer''', and the 1851 census makes Samuel Glasgow, born in County Londonderry about 1790, John's brother.<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4" /> If Alexander and John shared a father, that father would be John Glasgow, farmer. Probable siblinghood alone does not distinguish a shared father from a shared mother or more complex half relationships.

Current profile641

Replacement profile647

Current profile642The same document tells against the alternatives. '''[[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]]''' of Lisnagaver, whom earlier research treated as Alexander's possible brother, died in 1870 leaving children who were adults at Lisnagaver in the 1880s; had he been Nancy's brother they would have been her next of kin, yet none is cited while nieces in New Zealand are. This omission weighs against a simple reconstruction only if expected inclusion and completeness are established. It does not exclude Thomas or his proved brother [[Glasgow-3896|Daniel]] as Alexander's brothers or collateral relatives: Alexander could also share a parent with Thomas without Thomas being Nancy's sibling. The tradition naming [[Glasgow-3904|an older Alexander]] and Rosanna concerns Thomas; its extension to Alexander of Lisnagaver remains unproved. Likewise no member of the Glenleslie family of [[Glasgow-1367|Robert Glasgow]] and Catherine, previously attached as Alexander's parents, appears among Nancy's next of kin; [[Glasgow-1049|Robert of Doonbought]]'s daughters were Catherine, Margaret, Maria, Netta and Jane, not the Mary Jane and Ann of the citation. The Robert of the citation is more likely the second Lisnagaver tithe occupier of 1834 — 35 acres entered immediately after Alexander's 29 — and perhaps the Robert Glasgow of Gortereghy in Griffith's Valuation who died in Ballymoney district in 1868 aged 71; his daughters have not yet been found.<ref name="Evidenceb707c32b1e" /><ref name="GriffithRasharkin">[https://www.failteromhat.com/griffiths/antrim/rasharkin.htm Griffith's Valuation, Rasharkin parish], Glasgow occupiers at Lisnagaver (Alexander, John, Thomas), Gortereghy (Daniel, Robert) and Dromore (James).</ref><ref name="Evidenced078ae5073" />

Replacement profile648The same document tells against the alternatives. '''[[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]]''' of Lisnagaver, whom earlier research treated as Alexander's possible brother, died in 1870 leaving children who were adults at Lisnagaver in the 1880s; had he been Nancy's brother they would have been her next of kin, yet none is cited while nieces in New Zealand are. This omission weighs against a simple reconstruction only if expected inclusion and completeness are established. It does not exclude Thomas or his proved brother [[Glasgow-3896|Daniel]] as Alexander's brothers or collateral relatives: Alexander could also share a parent with Thomas without Thomas being Nancy's sibling. The tradition naming [[Glasgow-3904|an older Alexander]] and Rosanna concerns Thomas; its extension to Alexander of Lisnagaver remains unproved. Likewise no member of the Glenleslie family of [[Glasgow-1367|Robert Glasgow]] and Catherine, previously attached as Alexander's parents, appears among Nancy's next of kin; [[Glasgow-1049|Robert of Doonbought]]'s daughters were Catherine, Margaret, Maria, Netta and Jane, not the Mary Jane and Ann of the citation. The Robert of the citation is more likely the second Lisnagaver tithe occupier of 1834 — 35 acres entered immediately after Alexander's 29 — and perhaps the Robert Glasgow of Gortereghy in Griffith's Valuation who died in Ballymoney district in 1868 aged 71; his daughters have not yet been found.<ref name="Evidenceb707c32b1e" /><ref name="GriffithRasharkin">[https://www.failteromhat.com/griffiths/antrim/rasharkin.htm Griffith's Valuation, Rasharkin parish], Glasgow occupiers at Lisnagaver (Alexander, John, Thomas), Gortereghy (Daniel, Robert) and Dromore (James).</ref><ref name="Evidenced078ae5073" />

Current profile643

Replacement profile649

Current profile644The reconstructed family of John Glasgow, farmer, runs from Samuel (about 1790, County Londonderry) through Robert (about 1797), John (about 1801, County Antrim), Jane (about 1804), Alexander (about 1811), Elizabeth (by about 1816), Ann and Mary, to Nancy (about 1820–21) — a span that warrants checking estimated ages, identities and possible multiple unions; it does not establish two marriages of a particular parent. If these identities and a shared household are correct, their different birth counties suggest a possible movement from County Londonderry to Rasharkin parish; the John Glasgow recorded as a Desertoghill flax grower in 1796 ([[Glasgow-4090|Glasgow-4090]]) is a plausible but unproved identity for the father, and John of Lisnagaver later married a Desertoghill woman at Garvagh. No record yet names Alexander's father in his own right, and the citation cannot distinguish full from half siblings. The decisive record is Nancy's underlying Clinton County probate petition, which should state each cited person's relationship to her.

Replacement profile650The reconstructed family of John Glasgow, farmer, runs from Samuel (about 1790, County Londonderry) through Robert (about 1797), John (about 1801, County Antrim), Jane (about 1804), Alexander (about 1811), Elizabeth (by about 1816), Ann and Mary, to Nancy (about 1820–21) — a span that warrants checking estimated ages, identities and possible multiple unions; it does not establish two marriages of a particular parent. If these identities and a shared household are correct, their different birth counties suggest a possible movement from County Londonderry to Rasharkin parish; the John Glasgow recorded as a Desertoghill flax grower in 1796 ([[Glasgow-4090|Glasgow-4090]]) is a plausible but unproved identity for the father, and John of Lisnagaver later married a Desertoghill woman at Garvagh. No record yet names Alexander's father in his own right, and the citation cannot distinguish full from half siblings. The decisive record is Nancy's underlying Clinton County probate petition, which should state each cited person's relationship to her.

Current profile645

Replacement profile651

Current profile646Sources: ''The Plattsburgh Sentinel'', 26 February 1892, p. 6; Clinton County Will Book Q, pp. 255–259; Rasharkin Presbyterian baptisms, entries 04, 63, 82, 133, 176, 271; John Glasgow–Margaret Garvin marriage, 16 November 1846; 1851 census, Lisnagaver house 34; civil death of John Glasgow, Lisnagaver, 24 June 1885; Griffith's Valuation, Rasharkin; 1834 Rasharkin tithe applotment, Lisnagaver.

Replacement profile652Sources: ''The Plattsburgh Sentinel'', 26 February 1892, p. 6; Clinton County Will Book Q, pp. 255–259; Rasharkin Presbyterian baptisms, entries 04, 63, 82, 133, 176, 271; John Glasgow–Margaret Garvin marriage, 16 November 1846; 1851 census, Lisnagaver house 34; civil death of John Glasgow, Lisnagaver, 24 June 1885; Griffith's Valuation, Rasharkin; 1834 Rasharkin tithe applotment, Lisnagaver.

Current profile647

Replacement profile653

Current profile648

Replacement profile654

Current profile649==== Separate Canadian estate leads ====

Replacement profile655==== Separate Canadian estate leads ====

Current profile650

Replacement profile656

Current profile651

Replacement profile657

Current profile652The bare estate index<ref name="Evidence886dbd1025">[https://www.ontariogenealogy.com/uppercanadaontariopioneerwillsestatefiles/leedsgrenvillecountieswillssurrogaterecords/leedsgrenvillecountieswillestateindex.html bare estate index].</ref> entries '''Samuel Glasgow, 1875''' and '''James E., 1900–09''' remain unassigned. [[Glasgow-4021|Younger Samuel-4021]], two at his next birthday in the 1851 household, is an alternative to the merchant; [[Glasgow-4017|James E.-4017]], five at his next birthday, is a specific comparison for the later James E. entry. These are separate from James the carpenter and the Centre Street deeds.

Replacement profile658The bare estate index<ref name="Evidence886dbd1025">[https://www.ontariogenealogy.com/uppercanadaontariopioneerwillsestatefiles/leedsgrenvillecountieswillssurrogaterecords/leedsgrenvillecountieswillestateindex.html bare estate index].</ref> entries '''Samuel Glasgow, 1875''' and '''James E., 1900–09''' remain unassigned. [[Glasgow-4021|Younger Samuel-4021]], two at his next birthday in the 1851 household, is an alternative to the merchant; [[Glasgow-4017|James E.-4017]], five at his next birthday, is a specific comparison for the later James E. entry. These are separate from James the carpenter and the Centre Street deeds.

Current profile653

Replacement profile659

Current profile654

Replacement profile660

Current profile655The 1851 Prescott census<ref name="Evidence9d10d7d2c7">[https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item/?app=Census1851&op=img&id=e002351566 1851 Prescott census].</ref> contains '''eight household members, six probable children'''. With two later sons reported by local history, eight possible children are accounted for, leaving two of the reported ten unaccounted for by those sources. Library and Archives Canada fonds R6229-0-0-E / MG24-I39<ref name="Evidence3488d83655">[https://recherche-collection-search.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/home/record?IdNumber=98738&app=fonandcol Library and Archives Canada fonds R6229-0-0-E / MG24-I39].</ref> concerns a Niagara farmer who died about 1830 and is excluded as this merchant's archive.

Replacement profile661The 1851 Prescott census<ref name="Evidence9d10d7d2c7">[https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item/?app=Census1851&op=img&id=e002351566 1851 Prescott census].</ref> contains '''eight household members, six probable children'''. With two later sons reported by local history, eight possible children are accounted for, leaving two of the reported ten unaccounted for by those sources. Library and Archives Canada fonds R6229-0-0-E / MG24-I39<ref name="Evidence3488d83655">[https://recherche-collection-search.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/home/record?IdNumber=98738&app=fonandcol Library and Archives Canada fonds R6229-0-0-E / MG24-I39].</ref> concerns a Niagara farmer who died about 1830 and is excluded as this merchant's archive.

Current profile656

Replacement profile662

Current profile657

Replacement profile663

Current profile658The remaining distinct family groups are Alexander's household; John-867 and Samuel-2908's father-John branch; and the now connected '''Kilrea–Lisnagaver–Prescott sibling group'''. No record yet joins them under a common parent. The new Irish bridge is established; Alexander's position within that wider family remains the question.

Replacement profile664The remaining distinct family groups are Alexander's household; John-867 and Samuel-2908's father-John branch; and the now connected '''Kilrea–Lisnagaver–Prescott sibling group'''. No record yet joins them under a common parent. The new Irish bridge is established; Alexander's position within that wider family remains the question.

Current profile659

Replacement profile665

Current profile660

Replacement profile666

Current profile661The 2020 correspondent identified a descent through Catherine, described as Thomas and Mary Ann’s sixth daughter, and reported an autosomal match. The supplied message contains no shared-cM total, segment information, checked descent or source for the parent names. Her belief about Thomas’s parents and her separate question about Alexander’s brotherhood are two claims that require separate tests. The reported match is a lead to evaluate for other shared ancestral routes as well as this paternal hypothesis. The correspondence is summarised without publishing the private message or correspondent’s identity.

Replacement profile667The 2020 correspondent identified a descent through Catherine, described as Thomas and Mary Ann’s sixth daughter, and reported an autosomal match. The supplied message contains no shared-cM total, segment information, checked descent or source for the parent names. Her belief about Thomas’s parents and her separate question about Alexander’s brotherhood are two claims that require separate tests. The reported match is a lead to evaluate for other shared ancestral routes as well as this paternal hypothesis. The correspondence is summarised without publishing the private message or correspondent’s identity.

Current profile662

Replacement profile668

Current profile663

Replacement profile669

Current profile664

Replacement profile670

Current profile665=== The Larne connection: a working family reconstruction ===

Replacement profile671=== The Larne connection: a working family reconstruction ===

Current profile666

Replacement profile672

Current profile667'''The Larne–Kilwaughter family is a priority origin hypothesis for Alexander's paternal line.''' The useful model connects an Irish branch with a branch that moved to South Carolina in the 1770s. [[Glasgow-2769|Robert of Tennessee]], born in South Carolina about 1790–94, is proposed as [[Glasgow-2738|James J's]] father. He is not proposed as the father of Alexander, Thomas or Daniel. Their ages therefore supply no objection to that American parentage.

Replacement profile673'''The Larne–Kilwaughter family is a priority origin hypothesis for Alexander's paternal line.''' The useful model connects an Irish branch with a branch that moved to South Carolina in the 1770s. [[Glasgow-2769|Robert of Tennessee]], born in South Carolina about 1790–94, is proposed as [[Glasgow-2738|James J's]] father. He is not proposed as the father of Alexander, Thomas or Daniel. Their ages therefore supply no objection to that American parentage.

Current profile668

Replacement profile674

Current profile669

Replacement profile675

Current profile670There are two questions to solve together: which older Larne household supplied the Irish branch, and which man in that branch fathered Alexander. [[Glasgow-1509|James Glasgow of Larne (Glasgow-1509)]], reportedly born in 1737, is a concrete candidate for the earlier generation. Identifying him with [[Glasgow-3905|Glasgow-3905]] means testing whether he was '''Adam of Inishrush's father''': 3905 represents that unidentified parental role, rather than a second man established by records. Its placeholder status neither supports nor disqualifies James.

Replacement profile676There are two questions to solve together: which older Larne household supplied the Irish branch, and which man in that branch fathered Alexander. [[Glasgow-1509|James Glasgow of Larne (Glasgow-1509)]], reportedly born in 1737, is a concrete candidate for the earlier generation. Identifying him with [[Glasgow-3905|Glasgow-3905]] means testing whether he was '''Adam of Inishrush's father''': 3905 represents that unidentified parental role, rather than a second man established by records. Its placeholder status neither supports nor disqualifies James.

Current profile671

Replacement profile677

Current profile672

Replacement profile678

Current profile673

Replacement profile679

Current profile674==== The American branch has a coherent chronology ====

Replacement profile680==== The American branch has a coherent chronology ====

Current profile675

Replacement profile681

Current profile676

Replacement profile682

Current profile677

Replacement profile683

Current profile678{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile684{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile679|-

Replacement profile685|-

Current profile680! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Connection !! Evidence and present assessment

Replacement profile686! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Connection !! Evidence and present assessment

Current profile681|-

Replacement profile687|-

Current profile682| [[Glasgow-1143|Robert of Kilwaughter (1143)]] → [[Glasgow-1144|James (1144)]], born 1731 || Strongly supported by the congregation-register transcription and the sworn Wilson inheritance evidence. The 1738 lease<ref name="Evidence3639771d35">[https://www.irishdeedsindex.net/mem.php?memorial=74015 1738 lease].</ref> independently associates Robert, wife Rachel and James junior; it does not itself call James a son.

Replacement profile688| [[Glasgow-1143|Robert of Kilwaughter (1143)]] → [[Glasgow-1144|James (1144)]], born 1731 || Strongly supported by the congregation-register transcription and the sworn Wilson inheritance evidence. The 1738 lease<ref name="Evidence3639771d35">[https://www.irishdeedsindex.net/mem.php?memorial=74015 1738 lease].</ref> independently associates Robert, wife Rachel and James junior; it does not itself call James a son.

Current profile683|-

Replacement profile689|-

Current profile684| James → [[Glasgow-2304|Archibald (2304)]], about 1769–1818 || James's 1775 will<ref name="Evidence7be752e583">[https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_JGlasgowWill.html 1775 will].</ref> and the 1817 equity complaint<ref name="Evidence6cd9fd682a">[https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_Complaint.html 1817 equity complaint].</ref> name Archibald among his children. This is a record-supported connection, not merely a tree attachment.

Replacement profile690| James → [[Glasgow-2304|Archibald (2304)]], about 1769–1818 || James's 1775 will<ref name="Evidence7be752e583">[https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_JGlasgowWill.html 1775 will].</ref> and the 1817 equity complaint<ref name="Evidence6cd9fd682a">[https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_Complaint.html 1817 equity complaint].</ref> name Archibald among his children. This is a record-supported connection, not merely a tree attachment.

Current profile685|-

Replacement profile691|-

Current profile686| Archibald → Robert of Tennessee (2769) || A substantive missing-son hypothesis. The 1800 Newberry household<ref name="Evidencee062f1f75c">[https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/1800nbycensusG.htm 1800 Newberry household].</ref> contains one boy under ten. Archibald's monument-named son James was born about 1806 and cannot be that boy. Robert's early-1790s birth fits.

Replacement profile692| Archibald → Robert of Tennessee (2769) || A substantive missing-son hypothesis. The 1800 Newberry household<ref name="Evidencee062f1f75c">[https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/1800nbycensusG.htm 1800 Newberry household].</ref> contains one boy under ten. Archibald's monument-named son James was born about 1806 and cannot be that boy. Robert's early-1790s birth fits.

Current profile687|-

Replacement profile693|-

Current profile688| Robert → James J (2738), born about 1809/10 || Both report South Carolina origins; Robert's 1820 household<ref name="Evidencebaa474cb6d">[https://archive.org/details/populationsc18200124unit/page/n21/mode/1up 1820 household].</ref> has a boy aged 10–15, and James later has a documented Giles County land trail. No located record names Robert as James's father.

Replacement profile694| Robert → James J (2738), born about 1809/10 || Both report South Carolina origins; Robert's 1820 household<ref name="Evidencebaa474cb6d">[https://archive.org/details/populationsc18200124unit/page/n21/mode/1up 1820 household].</ref> has a boy aged 10–15, and James later has a documented Giles County land trail. No located record names Robert as James's father.

Current profile689|}

Replacement profile695|}

Current profile690

Replacement profile696

Current profile691

Replacement profile697

Current profile692The Kilwaughter chronology<ref name="Evidencea2434e090d">[https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Kilwaughter/Timeline.html Kilwaughter chronology].</ref> associates James's family with the 1772 Irish petition; his 1775 will places him in South Carolina. These fit the reported 1772/73 migration without proving an exact voyage. If Robert was James J's father, their South Carolina births followed by Robert's 1814 Tennessee militia service<ref name="Evidenceeac4e8f870">[https://scout.lib.utk.edu/repositories/2/resources/4000 1814 Tennessee militia service].</ref> fit a later move within America. The Irish collateral branch can have remained in Ireland throughout.

Replacement profile698The Kilwaughter chronology<ref name="Evidencea2434e090d">[https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Kilwaughter/Timeline.html Kilwaughter chronology].</ref> associates James's family with the 1772 Irish petition; his 1775 will places him in South Carolina. These fit the reported 1772/73 migration without proving an exact voyage. If Robert was James J's father, their South Carolina births followed by Robert's 1814 Tennessee militia service<ref name="Evidenceeac4e8f870">[https://scout.lib.utk.edu/repositories/2/resources/4000 1814 Tennessee militia service].</ref> fit a later move within America. The Irish collateral branch can have remained in Ireland throughout.

Current profile693

Replacement profile699

Current profile694

Replacement profile700

Current profile695The age fit is stronger when calculated properly. Robert's 1820 and 1840 brackets, combined with Archibald's under-ten boy in 1800, allow '''5 August 1790–7 August 1794''', if all three returns concern him and their age bands are accurate. His 1850 age of sixty requires a modest discrepancy; it favours the older end of the working range. That older end also gives a more comfortable fatherhood age for James J around 1809/10. The woman aged 16–25 in Archibald's 1800 household could have been about sixteen to twenty at an early-1790s birth if near the older end of her range. Her age is a constraint to check, not a general exclusion of the family. Census dates: 1800<ref name="Evidence023fccd184">[https://www.archives.gov/research/census/1800 Census dates: 1800].</ref>, 1820<ref name="Evidence4b42eb2ce0">[https://www.archives.gov/research/census/1820 1820].</ref>, 1840<ref name="Evidenceb15556cf00">[https://www.archives.gov/research/census/1840 1840].</ref>.

Replacement profile701The age fit is stronger when calculated properly. Robert's 1820 and 1840 brackets, combined with Archibald's under-ten boy in 1800, allow '''5 August 1790–7 August 1794''', if all three returns concern him and their age bands are accurate. His 1850 age of sixty requires a modest discrepancy; it favours the older end of the working range. That older end also gives a more comfortable fatherhood age for James J around 1809/10. The woman aged 16–25 in Archibald's 1800 household could have been about sixteen to twenty at an early-1790s birth if near the older end of her range. Her age is a constraint to check, not a general exclusion of the family. Census dates: 1800<ref name="Evidence023fccd184">[https://www.archives.gov/research/census/1800 Census dates: 1800].</ref>, 1820<ref name="Evidence4b42eb2ce0">[https://www.archives.gov/research/census/1820 1820].</ref>, 1840<ref name="Evidenceb15556cf00">[https://www.archives.gov/research/census/1840 1840].</ref>.

Current profile696

Replacement profile702

Current profile697

Replacement profile703

Current profile698This makes Archibald a worthwhile leading named candidate for '''Robert's''' father. It does not make Robert the uniquely established father of '''James J'''. [[Glasgow-2439|James Glasgow (2439)]], born about 1787, and Sarah form another age-compatible Newberry household. Its 1831 estate should be compared with Archibald's. Robert's Bradshaw Creek associates and James J's district-six land trail still need joining. The 1848 deed<ref name="Evidenceeb34fedf89">[https://tngenweb.org/giles/deed-noah-hancock-to-james-glasgow/ 1848 deed].</ref> proves James's residence then; its recital of an 1845 title bond proves the earlier transaction, not necessarily residence in 1845.

Replacement profile704This makes Archibald a worthwhile leading named candidate for '''Robert's''' father. It does not make Robert the uniquely established father of '''James J'''. [[Glasgow-2439|James Glasgow (2439)]], born about 1787, and Sarah form another age-compatible Newberry household. Its 1831 estate should be compared with Archibald's. Robert's Bradshaw Creek associates and James J's district-six land trail still need joining. The 1848 deed<ref name="Evidenceeb34fedf89">[https://tngenweb.org/giles/deed-noah-hancock-to-james-glasgow/ 1848 deed].</ref> proves James's residence then; its recital of an 1845 title bond proves the earlier transaction, not necessarily residence in 1845.

Current profile699

Replacement profile705

Current profile700

Replacement profile706

Current profile701

Replacement profile707

Current profile702==== James of Larne fits the missing older generation ====

Replacement profile708==== James of Larne fits the missing older generation ====

Current profile703

Replacement profile709

Current profile704

Replacement profile710

Current profile705James was a '''Belfast ropemaker''' when he took the 1760 Larne ropewalk lease<ref name="Evidence02ef2f94d9">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSH3-S7XZ-8 1760 Larne ropewalk lease].</ref>. That gives the hypothesis a real adult and a property trail near Adam's estimated birth, rather than a name supplied only by a pedigree. The 1773 affidavit<ref name="Evidence3d5dde76bc">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSH3-M72W-M 1773 affidavit].</ref> says he was over thirty. It supports the older James identity, although the especially good generational fit below depends on his reported 1737 birth.

Replacement profile711James was a '''Belfast ropemaker''' when he took the 1760 Larne ropewalk lease<ref name="Evidence02ef2f94d9">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSH3-S7XZ-8 1760 Larne ropewalk lease].</ref>. That gives the hypothesis a real adult and a property trail near Adam's estimated birth, rather than a name supplied only by a pedigree. The 1773 affidavit<ref name="Evidence3d5dde76bc">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSH3-M72W-M 1773 affidavit].</ref> says he was over thirty. It supports the older James identity, although the especially good generational fit below depends on his reported 1737 birth.

Current profile706

Replacement profile712

Current profile707

Replacement profile713

Current profile708

Replacement profile714

Current profile709{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile715{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile710|-

Replacement profile716|-

Current profile711! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Person to compare with James's household !! James's approximate age at the reported birth !! Evidence for the proposed connection

Replacement profile717! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Person to compare with James's household !! James's approximate age at the reported birth !! Evidence for the proposed connection

Current profile712|-

Replacement profile718|-

Current profile713| [[Glasgow-3902|Adam of Inishrush (3902)]], about 1758 || 21 || A normal father–son interval. Adam's monument<ref name="Evidenceb277bf57fc">[https://www.oneirishrover.com/tamlaght-graveyard/ monument].</ref> names a son James, providing modest naming support. The full child order is unknown; James cannot be called Adam's first son. No record yet joins Adam to the ropemaker.

Replacement profile719| [[Glasgow-3902|Adam of Inishrush (3902)]], about 1758 || 21 || A normal father–son interval. Adam's monument<ref name="Evidenceb277bf57fc">[https://www.oneirishrover.com/tamlaght-graveyard/ monument].</ref> names a son James, providing modest naming support. The full child order is unknown; James cannot be called Adam's first son. No record yet joins Adam to the ropemaker.

Current profile714|-

Replacement profile720|-

Current profile715| [[Glasgow-3324|William (3324)]], about 1763 || 26 || The strongest existing child hypothesis: William's daughter '''Jane Shutter''' supplies distinctive support for descent from James and Janet Shutter. William's own household is established by the published monument<ref name="Evidence2451376d60">[https://archive.org/stream/ulsterjournalofa06ulstiala/ulsterjournalofa06ulstiala_djvu.txt published monument].</ref>.

Replacement profile721| [[Glasgow-3324|William (3324)]], about 1763 || 26 || The strongest existing child hypothesis: William's daughter '''Jane Shutter''' supplies distinctive support for descent from James and Janet Shutter. William's own household is established by the published monument<ref name="Evidence2451376d60">[https://archive.org/stream/ulsterjournalofa06ulstiala/ulsterjournalofa06ulstiala_djvu.txt published monument].</ref>.

Current profile716|-

Replacement profile722|-

Current profile717| [[Glasgow-822|John of Inishrush, later Ohio (822)]], 1767 || 30 || John and Adam have a substantial Inishrush family association and may be brothers. Making James their common father is an additional hypothesis; John's own naming sequence also supports an alternative older Adam.

Replacement profile723| [[Glasgow-822|John of Inishrush, later Ohio (822)]], 1767 || 30 || John and Adam have a substantial Inishrush family association and may be brothers. Making James their common father is an additional hypothesis; John's own naming sequence also supports an alternative older Adam.

Current profile718|-

Replacement profile724|-

Current profile719| [[Glasgow-3904|Older Alexander (3904)]], estimated about 1770 || 33 || A coherent possible brother of Adam. His own existence and family are reconstructed principally from the later Thomas-parent tradition; no record names James as his father.

Replacement profile725| [[Glasgow-3904|Older Alexander (3904)]], estimated about 1770 || 33 || A coherent possible brother of Adam. His own existence and family are reconstructed principally from the later Thomas-parent tradition; no record names James as his father.

Current profile720|-

Replacement profile726|-

Current profile721| [[Glasgow-3986|Younger James of Larne (3986)]], about 1773 || 36 || An already identified possible son, associated with the 1795 merchant and 1797 junior records. He supplies an alternative route to Alexander's generation without inventing another unnamed James.

Replacement profile727| [[Glasgow-3986|Younger James of Larne (3986)]], about 1773 || 36 || An already identified possible son, associated with the 1795 merchant and 1797 junior records. He supplies an alternative route to Alexander's generation without inventing another unnamed James.

Current profile722|-

Replacement profile728|-

Current profile723| [[Glasgow-1367|Robert of Glenleslie (1367)]], about 1779 || 42 || Fits chronologically as another possible child in the broader reconstruction. No record makes him James's son, and he is not securely identified with the Lisnagaver tithe occupier.

Replacement profile729| [[Glasgow-1367|Robert of Glenleslie (1367)]], about 1779 || 42 || Fits chronologically as another possible child in the broader reconstruction. No record makes him James's son, and he is not securely identified with the Lisnagaver tithe occupier.

Current profile724|}

Replacement profile730|}

Current profile725

Replacement profile731

Current profile726

Replacement profile732

Current profile727'''The 1762 marriage is the main household condition.''' It postdates Adam's estimated birth by about four years. If James fathered Adam, Adam could belong to an earlier relationship, a premarital birth, or a chronology needing correction. None is established. Janet Shutter must not acquire maternity merely because she was James's later reported wife. The original marriage and earlier Belfast records could distinguish these possibilities.

Replacement profile733'''The 1762 marriage is the main household condition.''' It postdates Adam's estimated birth by about four years. If James fathered Adam, Adam could belong to an earlier relationship, a premarital birth, or a chronology needing correction. None is established. Janet Shutter must not acquire maternity merely because she was James's later reported wife. The original marriage and earlier Belfast records could distinguish these possibilities.

Current profile728

Replacement profile734

Current profile729

Replacement profile735

Current profile730Nor does James have to move to Inishrush himself. His 1768 sale<ref name="Evidence2f70b79715">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSJW-DDXW 1768 sale].</ref> transferred the ropewalk interest, but Holmes's 1799 will<ref name="Evidence0b4b961c56">[https://holmes-history.com/antrim/ Holmes's 1799 will].</ref> still names a James Glasgow, roper, in Larne. An adult son could have moved independently. The ropemaker, the younger [[Glasgow-3991|tanner James (3991)]], and the younger merchant must remain distinct record groups; selling a workshop is not evidence of a family migration by itself.

Replacement profile736Nor does James have to move to Inishrush himself. His 1768 sale<ref name="Evidence2f70b79715">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSJW-DDXW 1768 sale].</ref> transferred the ropewalk interest, but Holmes's 1799 will<ref name="Evidence0b4b961c56">[https://holmes-history.com/antrim/ Holmes's 1799 will].</ref> still names a James Glasgow, roper, in Larne. An adult son could have moved independently. The ropemaker, the younger [[Glasgow-3991|tanner James (3991)]], and the younger merchant must remain distinct record groups; selling a workshop is not evidence of a family migration by itself.

Current profile731

Replacement profile737

Current profile732

Replacement profile738

Current profile733

Replacement profile739

Current profile734==== Two routes to Alexander deserve explicit comparison ====

Replacement profile740==== Two routes to Alexander deserve explicit comparison ====

Current profile735

Replacement profile741

Current profile736

Replacement profile742

Current profile737

Replacement profile743

Current profile738{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile744{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile739|-

Replacement profile745|-

Current profile740! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Working reconstruction !! Why it fits !! What would distinguish it

Replacement profile746! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Working reconstruction !! Why it fits !! What would distinguish it

Current profile741|-

Replacement profile747|-

Current profile742| '''James-1509 → older Alexander-3904 → Alexander-951''', with Adam-3902 a possible brother of the older Alexander || It gives ordinary generation intervals and accommodates the tradition naming Alexander and Rosanna as Thomas's parents<ref name="Evidenceae0615ab1c">[https://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards/board/general_topics/thread/465937 tradition naming Alexander and Rosanna as Thomas's parents].</ref>, if younger Alexander belonged to that sibling family. It is much cleaner chronologically than making older Alexander a son of Adam and Rose. || A record linking older Alexander to the Larne family, and an independent record or family register joining younger Alexander to Thomas and Daniel. The tradition supplies a name, not the missing Larne connection.

Replacement profile748| '''James-1509 → older Alexander-3904 → Alexander-951''', with Adam-3902 a possible brother of the older Alexander || It gives ordinary generation intervals and accommodates the tradition naming Alexander and Rosanna as Thomas's parents<ref name="Evidenceae0615ab1c">[https://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards/board/general_topics/thread/465937 tradition naming Alexander and Rosanna as Thomas's parents].</ref>, if younger Alexander belonged to that sibling family. It is much cleaner chronologically than making older Alexander a son of Adam and Rose. || A record linking older Alexander to the Larne family, and an independent record or family register joining younger Alexander to Thomas and Daniel. The tradition supplies a name, not the missing Larne connection.

Current profile743|-

Replacement profile749|-

Current profile744| '''James-1509 → younger James-3986 → Alexander-951''', with Adam in a collateral branch || The younger James's estimated birth about 1773 gives an ordinary fatherhood age around 1804–11. Alexander's use of James for his sons is compatible with this route. It uses a known candidate of the appropriate generation. || Larne succession records naming James's children, or a Lisnagaver record naming Alexander's father James. If Thomas and Daniel were also made his sons, that would be an alternative to the testimony naming their father Alexander. They need not be assigned to him merely to test Alexander's own parentage.

Replacement profile750| '''James-1509 → younger James-3986 → Alexander-951''', with Adam in a collateral branch || The younger James's estimated birth about 1773 gives an ordinary fatherhood age around 1804–11. Alexander's use of James for his sons is compatible with this route. It uses a known candidate of the appropriate generation. || Larne succession records naming James's children, or a Lisnagaver record naming Alexander's father James. If Thomas and Daniel were also made his sons, that would be an alternative to the testimony naming their father Alexander. They need not be assigned to him merely to test Alexander's own parentage.

Current profile745|}

Replacement profile751|}

Current profile746

Replacement profile752

Current profile747

Replacement profile753

Current profile748The first route better preserves the existing Thomas-family testimony; the second tests the documented merchant and junior occurrences provisionally identified with younger James-3986. Neither has a father statement for Alexander. These are '''competing explanations worth testing''', not equal-probability trees. The local Robert and father-John possibilities remain in the immediate-parent comparison; a Larne origin could ultimately run through either of them.

Replacement profile754The first route better preserves the existing Thomas-family testimony; the second tests the documented merchant and junior occurrences provisionally identified with younger James-3986. Neither has a father statement for Alexander. These are '''competing explanations worth testing''', not equal-probability trees. The local Robert and father-John possibilities remain in the immediate-parent comparison; a Larne origin could ultimately run through either of them.

Current profile749

Replacement profile755

Current profile750

Replacement profile756

Current profile751The earlier Adam → older Alexander route compresses the generations: Adam born about 1758 would be twelve at the older Alexander's estimated 1770 birth, while Rose born about 1767 would be three. Moving the older Alexander's birth later and proposing an earlier mother can make Adam's paternity biologically possible, but adds conditions unsupported by records. A brother or cousin relationship is the more natural version to investigate. This chronological preference does not itself prove their kinship.

Replacement profile757The earlier Adam → older Alexander route compresses the generations: Adam born about 1758 would be twelve at the older Alexander's estimated 1770 birth, while Rose born about 1767 would be three. Moving the older Alexander's birth later and proposing an earlier mother can make Adam's paternity biologically possible, but adds conditions unsupported by records. A brother or cousin relationship is the more natural version to investigate. This chronological preference does not itself prove their kinship.

Current profile752

Replacement profile758

Current profile753

Replacement profile759

Current profile754

Replacement profile760

Current profile755==== Where the DNA and the wider catalogue narrow the search ====

Replacement profile761==== Where the DNA and the wider catalogue narrow the search ====

Current profile756

Replacement profile762

Current profile757

Replacement profile763

Current profile758The DNA evidence is positive family evidence. Alexander's established descendant line and James J's line share '''R-FT20271''', are three steps apart at Y-111 and share DYS714=27. Alongside James J's South Carolina origin and the documented Kilwaughter emigrant family, that makes the Larne connection worth pursuing ahead of an arbitrary same-surname pedigree. The American household evidence was not derived from the DNA, so their agreement is meaningful. But the proposed links from James J to Robert and Archibald are the very links being tested: they cannot also be counted as an independent proof that the match descends from Archibald.

Replacement profile764The DNA evidence is positive family evidence. Alexander's established descendant line and James J's line share '''R-FT20271''', are three steps apart at Y-111 and share DYS714=27. Alongside James J's South Carolina origin and the documented Kilwaughter emigrant family, that makes the Larne connection worth pursuing ahead of an arbitrary same-surname pedigree. The American household evidence was not derived from the DNA, so their agreement is meaningful. But the proposed links from James J to Robert and Archibald are the very links being tested: they cannot also be counted as an independent proof that the match descends from Archibald.

Current profile759

Replacement profile765

Current profile760

Replacement profile766

Current profile761There are already '''two additional historical comparison routes''' in the public project<ref name="Evidencedb3c53b8e9" />: a reported Robert-1143 line tested at Y-111, and a reported John-822 line tested at Y-67. They place the Larne and Inishrush questions within the same broader STR research network. Their public broad haplogroup labels do not yet establish either as FT20271-positive. Auditing those descent paths and obtaining resolved SNP states would test the proposed geographic connection more directly than treating all current FT20271 matches as interchangeable. John's omission of Alexander from his family Bible weakens '''John as Alexander's father''', not John as a collateral relative.

Replacement profile767There are already '''two additional historical comparison routes''' in the public project<ref name="Evidencedb3c53b8e9" />: a reported Robert-1143 line tested at Y-111, and a reported John-822 line tested at Y-67. They place the Larne and Inishrush questions within the same broader STR research network. Their public broad haplogroup labels do not yet establish either as FT20271-positive. Auditing those descent paths and obtaining resolved SNP states would test the proposed geographic connection more directly than treating all current FT20271 matches as interchangeable. John's omission of Alexander from his family Bible weakens '''John as Alexander's father''', not John as a collateral relative.

Current profile762

Replacement profile768

Current profile763

Replacement profile769

Current profile764The proposed older Larne tree must also be tested. James-1509’s imported and live attachment is to [[Glasgow-1505|William-1505]], while the reviewed catalogue also carries a competing Hugh hypothesis. A William Glasgow, merchant of Larne, witnessed the 1760 lease; his identification with William-1505 needs checking against the other adult Williams. The derivative 1737 baptism names Hugh. [[Glasgow-1499|Hugh-1503's]] monument names a different adult son James, born about 1747/48. Both cannot casually be treated as the same child; identifying both as surviving sons of one Hugh would need explanation. William and Hugh's 1736 joint tenancy establishes association, while the proposed connections from them and Robert-1143 to [[Glasgow-1502|Robert-1502]] remain unproved. This is the unsettled joining generation, rather than a reason to disregard the well-supported branches below it.

Replacement profile770The proposed older Larne tree must also be tested. James-1509’s imported and live attachment is to [[Glasgow-1505|William-1505]], while the reviewed catalogue also carries a competing Hugh hypothesis. A William Glasgow, merchant of Larne, witnessed the 1760 lease; his identification with William-1505 needs checking against the other adult Williams. The derivative 1737 baptism names Hugh. [[Glasgow-1499|Hugh-1503's]] monument names a different adult son James, born about 1747/48. Both cannot casually be treated as the same child; identifying both as surviving sons of one Hugh would need explanation. William and Hugh's 1736 joint tenancy establishes association, while the proposed connections from them and Robert-1143 to [[Glasgow-1502|Robert-1502]] remain unproved. This is the unsettled joining generation, rather than a reason to disregard the well-supported branches below it.

Current profile765

Replacement profile771

Current profile766

Replacement profile772

Current profile767A second origin model remains useful: the two '''Hugh Glasgow householders recorded in Tamlaght O'Crilly in 1740''', followed by a parish Hugh in 1772, could represent local continuity behind Adam. John's Bible<ref name="Evidence5dc7ff7638">[https://www.hiltner.com/mckeown/getperson.php?personID=I368&tree=tree1 Bible].</ref> gives sons Adam–James–John and second daughter Maria, suggesting older Adam and Maria under a conventional naming pattern. That pattern is not fully followed, and applying it to Adam-3902 depends on the unproved brotherhood. These are substantive local alternatives. They prevent treating a good Larne reconstruction as already the only surviving family.

Replacement profile773A second origin model remains useful: the two '''Hugh Glasgow householders recorded in Tamlaght O'Crilly in 1740''', followed by a parish Hugh in 1772, could represent local continuity behind Adam. John's Bible<ref name="Evidence5dc7ff7638">[https://www.hiltner.com/mckeown/getperson.php?personID=I368&tree=tree1 Bible].</ref> gives sons Adam–James–John and second daughter Maria, suggesting older Adam and Maria under a conventional naming pattern. That pattern is not fully followed, and applying it to Adam-3902 depends on the unproved brotherhood. These are substantive local alternatives. They prevent treating a good Larne reconstruction as already the only surviving family.

Current profile768

Replacement profile774

Current profile769

Replacement profile775

Current profile770'''The research can now be narrower:''' test Archibald's missing adult son in estate '''647'''; test the Larne household through William-3324's surviving '''1815 will, D300/1/5/49''', the '''1762 marriage''' and earlier Belfast records; identify Alexander's immediate family in '''CR5/32/1/1/1–2'''; and resolve the DNA placement of the specific Larne and Inishrush comparison lines. Each addresses a particular missing connection. The research priorities explain the outcomes to look for.

Replacement profile776'''The research can now be narrower:''' test Archibald's missing adult son in estate '''647'''; test the Larne household through William-3324's surviving '''1815 will, D300/1/5/49''', the '''1762 marriage''' and earlier Belfast records; identify Alexander's immediate family in '''CR5/32/1/1/1–2'''; and resolve the DNA placement of the specific Larne and Inishrush comparison lines. Each addresses a particular missing connection. The research priorities explain the outcomes to look for.

Current profile771

Replacement profile777

Current profile772

Replacement profile778

Current profile773

Replacement profile779

Current profile774=== Alexander’s immediate parents: the remaining comparisons ===

Replacement profile780=== Alexander’s immediate parents: the remaining comparisons ===

Current profile775

Replacement profile781

Current profile776'''Three local explanations addressed Alexander’s immediate parents; since Nancy Glasgow's 1892 next-of-kin citation was read as a legal document, one of them leads.''' The father-John model — the John Glasgow, farmer, named in [[Glasgow-867|John of Lisnagaver]]'s 1846 marriage — is now the leading hypothesis, because the citation places Alexander's children and John's children in the same class of Nancy's next of kin. The older-Alexander-and-Rosanna couple, which reached Alexander through proposed brotherhood with [[Glasgow-987|Thomas]], remains unproved; omission of Thomas's children does not categorically disprove it. The table below records the earlier state of the comparison; the probate-citation section above gives the current reasoning.

Replacement profile782'''Three local explanations addressed Alexander’s immediate parents; since Nancy Glasgow's 1892 next-of-kin citation was read as a legal document, one of them leads.''' The father-John model — the John Glasgow, farmer, named in [[Glasgow-867|John of Lisnagaver]]'s 1846 marriage — is now the leading hypothesis, because the citation places Alexander's children and John's children in the same class of Nancy's next of kin. The older-Alexander-and-Rosanna couple, which reached Alexander through proposed brotherhood with [[Glasgow-987|Thomas]], remains unproved; omission of Thomas's children does not categorically disprove it. The table below records the earlier state of the comparison; the probate-citation section above gives the current reasoning.

Current profile777

Replacement profile783

Current profile778

Replacement profile784

Current profile779

Replacement profile785

Current profile780==== The immediate local family tests ====

Replacement profile786==== The immediate local family tests ====

Current profile781

Replacement profile787

Current profile782

Replacement profile788

Current profile783

Replacement profile789

Current profile784{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile790{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile785|-

Replacement profile791|-

Current profile786! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Local explanation !! Evidence carrying real weight !! Why it does not yet select a parent

Replacement profile792! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Local explanation !! Evidence carrying real weight !! Why it does not yet select a parent

Current profile787|-

Replacement profile793|-

Current profile788| '''First relationship to resolve: the Thomas–Daniel family''', possibly children of [[Glasgow-3904|older Alexander]] and [[Unknown-761034|Rosanna]] || Contemporary Lisnagaver households, adjoining later holdings and a repeated Marks witness network establish association. Daniel’s will independently proves Thomas his brother. The descendant account<ref name="Evidenceae0615ab1c" /> names Thomas’s parents. || No record makes Alexander their brother. Neighbourhood, congregation and holdings overlap as evidence of local association. Applying Thomas’s parent names requires establishing both their historical basis and Alexander’s same-parent relationship.

Replacement profile794| '''First relationship to resolve: the Thomas–Daniel family''', possibly children of [[Glasgow-3904|older Alexander]] and [[Unknown-761034|Rosanna]] || Contemporary Lisnagaver households, adjoining later holdings and a repeated Marks witness network establish association. Daniel’s will independently proves Thomas his brother. The descendant account<ref name="Evidenceae0615ab1c" /> names Thomas’s parents. || No record makes Alexander their brother. Neighbourhood, congregation and holdings overlap as evidence of local association. Applying Thomas’s parent names requires establishing both their historical basis and Alexander’s same-parent relationship.

Current profile789|-

Replacement profile795|-

Current profile790| '''Parallel household test: the unidentified Robert of Lisnagaver, 1834''' || A real local occupier, with a Robert also in the 1836 house list. This is a stronger local lead than an otherwise unconnected pedigree. || Neither his age nor relationship is recorded. Identifying him as [[Glasgow-1367|Glenleslie Robert]] is another unproved step, not supporting evidence. He could be a father, brother, uncle or unrelated occupier.

Replacement profile796| '''Parallel household test: the unidentified Robert of Lisnagaver, 1834''' || A real local occupier, with a Robert also in the 1836 house list. This is a stronger local lead than an otherwise unconnected pedigree. || Neither his age nor relationship is recorded. Identifying him as [[Glasgow-1367|Glenleslie Robert]] is another unproved step, not supporting evidence. He could be a father, brother, uncle or unrelated occupier.

Current profile791|-

Replacement profile797|-

Current profile792| '''Parallel family test: father John''', named by [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow of Lisnagaver]] || John’s 1846 marriage<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4" /> names father John, farmer; the census calls Samuel John’s brother. || Alexander is not called their brother. Brotherhood alone would not prove both parents were shared. This father is not automatically John of Glenleslie.

Replacement profile798| '''Parallel family test: father John''', named by [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow of Lisnagaver]] || John’s 1846 marriage<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4" /> names father John, farmer; the census calls Samuel John’s brother. || Alexander is not called their brother. Brotherhood alone would not prove both parents were shared. This father is not automatically John of Glenleslie.

Current profile793|}

Replacement profile799|}

Current profile794

Replacement profile800

Current profile795

Replacement profile801

Current profile796These are research priorities, not numerical odds or mutually exclusive family trees. Robert could be an uncle while Thomas was a cousin. A father not yet identified in the records remains an open possibility.

Replacement profile802These are research priorities, not numerical odds or mutually exclusive family trees. Robert could be an uncle while Thomas was a cousin. A father not yet identified in the records remains an open possibility.

Current profile797

Replacement profile803

Current profile798

Replacement profile804

Current profile799

Replacement profile805

Current profile800==== What the original Canadian deeds change ====

Replacement profile806==== What the original Canadian deeds change ====

Current profile801

Replacement profile807

Current profile802

Replacement profile808

Current profile803The 1861 deed<ref name="Evidence6e02c4a48a" /> now establishes the Canadian connection for Thomas and Daniel: their documented siblings include Robert and Samuel of Prescott, John the watchmaker, Mary Glasgow Black and brother James. Mary Black’s deed<ref name="Evidencea11558442b" /> identifies six children, including John and Rose Ann of Drumoolish. Their family records now provide a specific local route to the siblings’ parents, independently of the repeated Alexander-and-Rosanna tradition.

Replacement profile809The 1861 deed<ref name="Evidence6e02c4a48a" /> now establishes the Canadian connection for Thomas and Daniel: their documented siblings include Robert and Samuel of Prescott, John the watchmaker, Mary Glasgow Black and brother James. Mary Black’s deed<ref name="Evidencea11558442b" /> identifies six children, including John and Rose Ann of Drumoolish. Their family records now provide a specific local route to the siblings’ parents, independently of the repeated Alexander-and-Rosanna tradition.

Current profile804

Replacement profile810

Current profile805

Replacement profile811

Current profile806The 1868 father statement<ref name="Evidence1f5003a1e5" /> belongs to '''Alexander Glasco of Rochester, express agent''', son of James the Prescott carpenter. It cannot be transferred to Alexander-951 without a wife, age, birthplace or migration bridge. The carpenter’s identity with Robert’s brother also remains to be established because the daughters’ property shares do not fit a simple division of the will’s sixth. James is a named family hypothesis to test; the deed has not selected him as Alexander-951’s father. The full family and property analysis distinguishes the established relationships from these identity steps.

Replacement profile812The 1868 father statement<ref name="Evidence1f5003a1e5" /> belongs to '''Alexander Glasco of Rochester, express agent''', son of James the Prescott carpenter. It cannot be transferred to Alexander-951 without a wife, age, birthplace or migration bridge. The carpenter’s identity with Robert’s brother also remains to be established because the daughters’ property shares do not fit a simple division of the will’s sixth. James is a named family hypothesis to test; the deed has not selected him as Alexander-951’s father. The full family and property analysis distinguishes the established relationships from these identity steps.

Current profile807

Replacement profile813

Current profile808

Replacement profile814

Current profile809

Replacement profile815

Current profile810==== Evidence that should change the weighting ====

Replacement profile816==== Evidence that should change the weighting ====

Current profile811

Replacement profile817

Current profile812

Replacement profile818

Current profile813'''The 1868 Robert death could weaken the father hypothesis.''' The previously inspected Ballymoney index<ref name="Evidenced078ae5073">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view/?record_id=cidenc-957324 Ballymoney index].</ref> gives age 71, implying birth about 1796–97. If that man were the 1834 occupier, he would have been about '''14–15''' at Alexander’s c.1811 birth, or '''7–8''' at the probable death’s c.1804 birth estimate. That is adverse father-age evidence, not confirmation of an older generation. The occupier’s identity is still unknown, so the calculation does not presently exclude him.

Replacement profile819'''The 1868 Robert death could weaken the father hypothesis.''' The previously inspected Ballymoney index<ref name="Evidenced078ae5073">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view/?record_id=cidenc-957324 Ballymoney index].</ref> gives age 71, implying birth about 1796–97. If that man were the 1834 occupier, he would have been about '''14–15''' at Alexander’s c.1811 birth, or '''7–8''' at the probable death’s c.1804 birth estimate. That is adverse father-age evidence, not confirmation of an older generation. The occupier’s identity is still unknown, so the calculation does not presently exclude him.

Current profile814

Replacement profile820

Current profile815

Replacement profile821

Current profile816'''An older Alexander is not required by the tithe.''' Alexander-951 could have occupied land in 1834 at about twenty-three, or about thirty under the earlier birth estimate. Gortereagh residence after marriage and omission from the 1836 house section do not prove inheritance or co-residence with a parent. The land analysis explains the limits of the surviving coverage and acreage comparisons.

Replacement profile822'''An older Alexander is not required by the tithe.''' Alexander-951 could have occupied land in 1834 at about twenty-three, or about thirty under the earlier birth estimate. Gortereagh residence after marriage and omission from the 1836 house section do not prove inheritance or co-residence with a parent. The land analysis explains the limits of the surviving coverage and acreage comparisons.

Current profile817

Replacement profile823

Current profile818

Replacement profile824

Current profile819'''The tradition has less independent support than its repetition suggests.''' The public 2020 reply copies the 2007 post; the 2018 pedigree file cites a member tree. The private correspondent believed Thomas’s parent names and separately asked whether Alexander was his brother. Her source is unknown, so neither independence nor copying is established. The clockmaker tradition supplies useful context but misplaces Daniel’s generation if it calls Thomas’s documented brother his uncle. Rosanna’s surname Shaw and reported 1822 death do not become independent evidence for this parentage.

Replacement profile825'''The tradition has less independent support than its repetition suggests.''' The public 2020 reply copies the 2007 post; the 2018 pedigree file cites a member tree. The private correspondent believed Thomas’s parent names and separately asked whether Alexander was his brother. Her source is unknown, so neither independence nor copying is established. The clockmaker tradition supplies useful context but misplaces Daniel’s generation if it calls Thomas’s documented brother his uncle. Rosanna’s surname Shaw and reported 1822 death do not become independent evidence for this parentage.

Current profile820

Replacement profile826

Current profile821

Replacement profile827

Current profile822'''The genetic family and the immediate father are different levels of the question.''' The Larne analysis explains why the wider connection is a priority and compares two routes into Alexander’s generation. The local candidates still need a record or independently traced comparison line that distinguishes their particular families.

Replacement profile828'''The genetic family and the immediate father are different levels of the question.''' The Larne analysis explains why the wider connection is a priority and compares two routes into Alexander’s generation. The local candidates still need a record or independently traced comparison line that distinguishes their particular families.

Current profile823

Replacement profile829

Current profile824

Replacement profile830

Current profile825

Replacement profile831

Current profile826==== Other immediate-parent candidates and collateral roles ====

Replacement profile832==== Other immediate-parent candidates and collateral roles ====

Current profile827

Replacement profile833

Current profile828

Replacement profile834

Current profile829

Replacement profile835

Current profile830{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile836{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile831|-

Replacement profile837|-

Current profile832! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Hypothesis and present status !! Supporting evidence !! Contrary or missing evidence; required assumption !! Discriminating evidence to seek

Replacement profile838! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Hypothesis and present status !! Supporting evidence !! Contrary or missing evidence; required assumption !! Discriminating evidence to seek

Current profile833|-

Replacement profile839|-

Current profile834| [[Glasgow-1367|Robert of Glenleslie (Glasgow-1367)]]: weak || Census age and 1803 marriage permit parenthood || No Lisnagaver bridge; must distinguish him from the tithe occupier || Relationship record bridging the separately documented households.

Replacement profile840| [[Glasgow-1367|Robert of Glenleslie (Glasgow-1367)]]: weak || Census age and 1803 marriage permit parenthood || No Lisnagaver bridge; must distinguish him from the tithe occupier || Relationship record bridging the separately documented households.

Current profile835|-

Replacement profile841|-

Current profile836| [[Glasgow-1022|John of Glenleslie (Glasgow-1022)]]: weak identity proposal || Nearby father-John model || Age problems; Mary/Maryan ages differ substantially; neither bridge proved || Identify the marriage father; resolve granddaughter identity and her parent.

Replacement profile842| [[Glasgow-1022|John of Glenleslie (Glasgow-1022)]]: weak identity proposal || Nearby father-John model || Age problems; Mary/Maryan ages differ substantially; neither bridge proved || Identify the marriage father; resolve granddaughter identity and her parent.

Current profile837|-

Replacement profile843|-

Current profile838| [[Glasgow-3902|Adam of Inishrush (Glasgow-3902)]]: weak as immediate father; useful collateral anchor || Nearby documented family || Monument omits Alexander; unnamed census male cannot identify him || Named-child register or estate record.

Replacement profile844| [[Glasgow-3902|Adam of Inishrush (Glasgow-3902)]]: weak as immediate father; useful collateral anchor || Nearby documented family || Monument omits Alexander; unnamed census male cannot identify him || Named-child register or estate record.

Current profile839|-

Replacement profile845|-

Current profile840| [[Glasgow-1622|Adam (Glasgow-1622)]]: open, distinct identity || James's 1851 marriage<ref name="Evidence1d60aad848">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view/?record_id=cima-3208068 James's 1851 marriage].</ref> names father Adam || Names no Alexander; cannot merge the two Adams || Identify James and father, then test sibling connection.

Replacement profile846| [[Glasgow-1622|Adam (Glasgow-1622)]]: open, distinct identity || James's 1851 marriage<ref name="Evidence1d60aad848">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view/?record_id=cima-3208068 James's 1851 marriage].</ref> names father Adam || Names no Alexander; cannot merge the two Adams || Identify James and father, then test sibling connection.

Current profile841|-

Replacement profile847|-

Current profile842| [[Glasgow-822|John of Inishrush/Ohio (Glasgow-822)]]: weakened as father; useful collateral and DNA comparison || Relevant documented family || Family register<ref name="Evidence5dc7ff7638" /> lists nine children, no Alexander || Independent family or church evidence naming Alexander; the two Bible-image inspections are complete.

Replacement profile848| [[Glasgow-822|John of Inishrush/Ohio (Glasgow-822)]]: weakened as father; useful collateral and DNA comparison || Relevant documented family || Family register<ref name="Evidence5dc7ff7638" /> lists nine children, no Alexander || Independent family or church evidence naming Alexander; the two Bible-image inspections are complete.

Current profile843|-

Replacement profile849|-

Current profile844| [[Glasgow-3986|James of Larne (Glasgow-3986)]]: alternative route within the Larne hypothesis || Suitable age; possible son of James-1509; Alexander used James twice for sons || Larne, not Lisnagaver; naming custom and birth order uncertain || Deed, church or estate record connecting households.

Replacement profile850| [[Glasgow-3986|James of Larne (Glasgow-3986)]]: alternative route within the Larne hypothesis || Suitable age; possible son of James-1509; Alexander used James twice for sons || Larne, not Lisnagaver; naming custom and birth order uncertain || Deed, church or estate record connecting households.

Current profile845|-

Replacement profile851|-

Current profile846| [[Glasgow-3941|Robert of Coltrim (Glasgow-3941)]]: low priority || Documented older householder || Children unnamed; distinct from Glenleslie and unidentified Lisnagaver Robert || Named family record establishing a bridge.

Replacement profile852| [[Glasgow-3941|Robert of Coltrim (Glasgow-3941)]]: low priority || Documented older householder || Children unnamed; distinct from Glenleslie and unidentified Lisnagaver Robert || Named family record establishing a bridge.

Current profile847|}

Replacement profile853|}

Current profile848

Replacement profile854

Current profile849

Replacement profile855

Current profile850The first son’s name James is meaningful family evidence, but it does not identify a paternal grandfather or select the Larne man. Mary/Molly’s parents remain unknown, and James and William McCaheran occur locally. Naming could reflect either side of the family; the surviving child sequence cannot establish a fixed naming rule.

Replacement profile856The first son’s name James is meaningful family evidence, but it does not identify a paternal grandfather or select the Larne man. Mary/Molly’s parents remain unknown, and James and William McCaheran occur locally. Naming could reflect either side of the family; the surviving child sequence cannot establish a fixed naming rule.

Current profile851

Replacement profile857

Current profile852

Replacement profile858

Current profile853'''Retired or excluded:''' the imported Robert-and-Catherine parental pair is superseded; Robert’s biological possibility remains separately open. Catherine has no independent maternity evidence. James-1702 is excluded by the maintained chronology; John-1657 is a rejected practical lead in a distinct family. Detailed candidate sources and exclusions remain accessible.

Replacement profile859'''Retired or excluded:''' the imported Robert-and-Catherine parental pair is superseded; Robert’s biological possibility remains separately open. Catherine has no independent maternity evidence. James-1702 is excluded by the maintained chronology; John-1657 is a rejected practical lead in a distinct family. Detailed candidate sources and exclusions remain accessible.

Current profile854

Replacement profile860

Current profile855

Replacement profile861

Current profile856'''For parentage, the first record priority is the family-group material in PRONI CR5/32/1/1/1–2''', alongside the actual source behind the Thomas parent tradition. Extract named households and dated admissions/removals across Alexander’s childhood, rather than another surname-only list. The existing enquiry remains pending. Reconstruct the unidentified Robert and father John in parallel, without merging them into convenient profiles. The next tests retain the exact references.

Replacement profile862'''For parentage, the first record priority is the family-group material in PRONI CR5/32/1/1/1–2''', alongside the actual source behind the Thomas parent tradition. Extract named households and dated admissions/removals across Alexander’s childhood, rather than another surname-only list. The existing enquiry remains pending. Reconstruct the unidentified Robert and father John in parallel, without merging them into convenient profiles. The next tests retain the exact references.

Current profile857

Replacement profile863

Current profile858

Replacement profile864

Current profile859Rosanna’s maternity must be assessed separately from older Alexander’s paternity: even paternal half-brotherhood with Thomas would not transfer Thomas’s mother. Mary/Molly’s McCaughan connections concern Alexander’s wife, not his own mother.

Replacement profile865Rosanna’s maternity must be assessed separately from older Alexander’s paternity: even paternal half-brotherhood with Thomas would not transfer Thomas’s mother. Mary/Molly’s McCaughan connections concern Alexander’s wife, not his own mother.

Current profile860

Replacement profile866

Current profile861

Replacement profile867

Current profile862

Replacement profile868

Current profile863=== How the evidence supports this account ===

Replacement profile869=== How the evidence supports this account ===

Current profile864

Replacement profile870

Current profile865The account separates the '''recorded event''', '''the identification of its people''', and '''the conclusion drawn from it'''. A baptism can directly name a child’s parents while leaving the child’s later identity unknown. A death can have an exact date while remaining a probable match to Alexander. These are different questions and should carry different qualifications.

Replacement profile871The account separates the '''recorded event''', '''the identification of its people''', and '''the conclusion drawn from it'''. A baptism can directly name a child’s parents while leaving the child’s later identity unknown. A death can have an exact date while remaining a probable match to Alexander. These are different questions and should carry different qualifications.

Current profile866

Replacement profile872

Current profile867

Replacement profile873

Current profile868

Replacement profile874

Current profile869==== How the sources work together ====

Replacement profile875==== How the sources work together ====

Current profile870

Replacement profile876

Current profile871

Replacement profile877

Current profile872

Replacement profile878

Current profile873{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile879{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile874|-

Replacement profile880|-

Current profile875! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Source group !! Information close to the event !! Principal limitation !! How it is used here

Replacement profile881! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Source group !! Information close to the event !! Principal limitation !! How it is used here

Current profile876|-

Replacement profile882|-

Current profile877| Rasharkin baptisms || Child, named parents, dates and family residence in the maintained transcription || This is a transcription of a register; the incomplete 1838 original has not been inspected || Establishes the early couple and children; missing transcription fields remain missing

Replacement profile883| Rasharkin baptisms || Child, named parents, dates and family residence in the maintained transcription || This is a transcription of a register; the incomplete 1838 original has not been inspected || Establishes the early couple and children; missing transcription fields remain missing

Current profile878|-

Replacement profile884|-

Current profile879| 1851 original census || One household’s relationships, reported ages, occupations, literacy and marriage years || Birth ages and the 1836 marriage year are retrospective reports; this is not a list of every child ever born || Anchors the household and approximate birth chronology

Replacement profile885| 1851 original census || One household’s relationships, reported ages, occupations, literacy and marriage years || Birth ages and the 1836 marriage year are retrospective reports; this is not a list of every child ever born || Anchors the household and approximate birth chronology

Current profile880|-

Replacement profile886|-

Current profile881| Adult children’s marriages || Bride/groom, residence, spouse and named father || Usually does not name the mother; father details do not by themselves establish that he was alive || Bridges children into adult households using the combined name, place and family evidence

Replacement profile887| Adult children’s marriages || Bride/groom, residence, spouse and named father || Usually does not name the mother; father details do not by themselves establish that he was alive || Bridges children into adult households using the combined name, place and family evidence

Current profile882|-

Replacement profile888|-

Current profile883| Tithe, valuation and revision records || Assessed occupier, holding, lessor and administrative changes || Different surveys, measures and effective dates; tenancy does not establish kinship or ownership || Tracks property associations and tests the Elder succession without inventing an inheritance

Replacement profile889| Tithe, valuation and revision records || Assessed occupier, holding, lessor and administrative changes || Different surveys, measures and effective dates; tenancy does not establish kinship or ownership || Tracks property associations and tests the Elder succession without inventing an inheritance

Current profile884|-

Replacement profile890|-

Current profile885| Civil deaths || Death date, place, reported age/status and informant || Age may be retrospective or uncertain; neither Gortahar death names the other spouse || Supports the death identification through the independently established family network

Replacement profile891| Civil deaths || Death date, place, reported age/status and informant || Age may be retrospective or uncertain; neither Gortahar death names the other spouse || Supports the death identification through the independently established family network

Current profile886|-

Replacement profile892|-

Current profile887| Later traditions, trees and correspondence || What a descendant or compiler reported and when || Copying may create apparent corroboration; an unsourced belief is not a second parent record || Preserves the origins of hypotheses and directs specific follow-up

Replacement profile893| Later traditions, trees and correspondence || What a descendant or compiler reported and when || Copying may create apparent corroboration; an unsourced belief is not a second parent record || Preserves the origins of hypotheses and directs specific follow-up

Current profile888|-

Replacement profile894|-

Current profile889| Descendant DNA || Tested genetic relationships, with the panel and result specified || Linking a result to a historical ancestor depends on the descent; mutation evidence cannot fill every documentary gap || Establishes the paternal cluster and tests competing branch arrangements

Replacement profile895| Descendant DNA || Tested genetic relationships, with the panel and result specified || Linking a result to a historical ancestor depends on the descent; mutation evidence cannot fill every documentary gap || Establishes the paternal cluster and tests competing branch arrangements

Current profile890|}

Replacement profile896|}

Current profile891

Replacement profile897

Current profile892

Replacement profile898

Current profile893An index, a transcription and a tree quoting the same original do not provide three independent confirmations. The surname-project report, STR reconstruction and later discussion can likewise reuse the same genetic observations. Independent civil, church and land records are valuable because they offer different routes through the identity problem; even then, their logical dependencies must remain visible.

Replacement profile899An index, a transcription and a tree quoting the same original do not provide three independent confirmations. The surname-project report, STR reconstruction and later discussion can likewise reuse the same genetic observations. Independent civil, church and land records are valuable because they offer different routes through the identity problem; even then, their logical dependencies must remain visible.

Current profile894

Replacement profile900

Current profile895

Replacement profile901

Current profile896

Replacement profile902

Current profile897==== What an unsuccessful search means ====

Replacement profile903==== What an unsuccessful search means ====

Current profile898

Replacement profile904

Current profile899

Replacement profile905

Current profile900Missing evidence is useful only when we know what should have been recorded and what survives. The unnamed 1838 child’s absence from all relevant parts of the household return has more bearing on a survival hypothesis than an unrestricted web search finding nothing. It still cannot establish a death date by itself. A gap in the baptism transcription, a register starting after the marriage, and an archive image requiring onsite access are three different limitations.

Replacement profile906Missing evidence is useful only when we know what should have been recorded and what survives. The unnamed 1838 child’s absence from all relevant parts of the household return has more bearing on a survival hypothesis than an unrestricted web search finding nothing. It still cannot establish a death date by itself. A gap in the baptism transcription, a register starting after the marriage, and an archive image requiring onsite access are three different limitations.

Current profile901

Replacement profile907

Current profile902

Replacement profile908

Current profile903The research history records completed searches and the wider register of inaccessible originals and unresolved identities; the focused next tests appear below. The next work is prioritised by the proposition it could resolve, not by the number of databases left to search. No numerical parent score is treated as a probability or allowed to replace these source-based arguments.

Replacement profile909The research history records completed searches and the wider register of inaccessible originals and unresolved identities; the focused next tests appear below. The next work is prioritised by the proposition it could resolve, not by the number of databases left to search. No numerical parent score is treated as a probability or allowed to replace these source-based arguments.

Current profile904

Replacement profile910

Current profile905

Replacement profile911

Current profile906

Replacement profile912

Current profile907=== The next records that could change the conclusions ===

Replacement profile913=== The next records that could change the conclusions ===

Current profile908

Replacement profile914

Current profile909The first task could distinguish the early Alexander identities directly. The American and Larne tests still address the wider family reconstruction. The Canadian deeds now establish the Irish sibling connection and identify the Rochester and Black families. Their earlier family records and unresolved title fractions form the next collateral tests.

Replacement profile915The first task could distinguish the early Alexander identities directly. The American and Larne tests still address the wider family reconstruction. The Canadian deeds now establish the Irish sibling connection and identify the Rochester and Black families. Their earlier family records and unresolved title fractions form the next collateral tests.

Current profile910

Replacement profile916

Current profile911

Replacement profile917

Current profile912

Replacement profile918

Current profile913{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Replacement profile919{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"

Current profile914|-

Replacement profile920|-

Current profile915! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Question !! Exact record or bounded target !! Current status !! Alternative outcomes and consequence

Replacement profile921! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Question !! Exact record or bounded target !! Current status !! Alternative outcomes and consequence

Current profile916|-

Replacement profile922|-

Current profile917| '''1. What kind of 1829 Lisnagaver occurrence is this Alexander?''' || Belfast News-Letter, '''5 June 1829, page 4, article 015'''<ref name="Evidence2721035739" />, full heading and adjoining columns around '''Alex. Glasgow, Lisnagaver'''; compare the Elder and Wallace entries. || Original alert and public newspaper index inspected; page 4, article 015 located. Full image access blocked; registration context provisional and identity unresolved. || Age or qualification wording could distinguish the census-age man, the same man with an earlier birth, or an older namesake. No adulthood rule, freehold status or fatherhood follows from the snippet.

Replacement profile923| '''1. What kind of 1829 Lisnagaver occurrence is this Alexander?''' || Belfast News-Letter, '''5 June 1829, page 4, article 015'''<ref name="Evidence2721035739" />, full heading and adjoining columns around '''Alex. Glasgow, Lisnagaver'''; compare the Elder and Wallace entries. || Original alert and public newspaper index inspected; page 4, article 015 located. Full image access blocked; registration context provisional and identity unresolved. || Age or qualification wording could distinguish the census-age man, the same man with an earlier birth, or an older namesake. No adulthood rule, freehold status or fatherhood follows from the snippet.

Current profile918|-

Replacement profile924|-

Current profile919| '''2. Was Archibald’s missing son Robert of Tennessee?''' || Newberry estate index<ref name="Evidence2afaabeaff">[https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm Newberry estate index].</ref>: Archibald, '''1818 estate 647, box 27, package 57'''; adult distributions, receipts, releases and powers of attorney. Compare the '''1810 Archald census, image 4433429_00206''', and James-2439’s '''1831 estate 1643, box 63, package 158'''. || Indexes located; no matching estate packet or 1810 household image found in the saved material reviewed. Estate 646 is a separate guardianship proceeding. || A named Robert in Tennessee, a kinship clause or a receipt identifying the missing boy could establish or redirect the American branch. An omitted adult in a guardianship list is not an exclusion. James-2439’s heirs test an alternative father for James J.

Replacement profile925| '''2. Was Archibald’s missing son Robert of Tennessee?''' || Newberry estate index<ref name="Evidence2afaabeaff">[https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm Newberry estate index].</ref>: Archibald, '''1818 estate 647, box 27, package 57'''; adult distributions, receipts, releases and powers of attorney. Compare the '''1810 Archald census, image 4433429_00206''', and James-2439’s '''1831 estate 1643, box 63, package 158'''. || Indexes located; no matching estate packet or 1810 household image found in the saved material reviewed. Estate 646 is a separate guardianship proceeding. || A named Robert in Tennessee, a kinship clause or a receipt identifying the missing boy could establish or redirect the American branch. An omitted adult in a guardianship list is not an exclusion. James-2439’s heirs test an alternative father for James J.

Current profile920|-

Replacement profile926|-

Current profile921| '''3. Did the Inishrush family come from James of Larne?''' || William-3324’s surviving '''1815 will, PRONI D300/1/5/49'''; '''MIC/1B/6''', the reported 1762 James–Janet marriage and earlier baptisms; Belfast records before the 1760 ropewalk lease; Adam’s Inishrush tenancy in '''D1062/1/5''' and the Vintners rentals. || Specific catalogue targets and existing source trails; will clauses, original marriage and relevant tenancy succession remain uninspected. || Look for named siblings, nephews, places, predecessors and any recorded prior marriage. An Adam of Inishrush or a Larne origin would bridge the branches. A different named father would redirect the hypothesis. Janet’s reported 1762 marriage must not supply maternity for Adam born about 1758.

Replacement profile927| '''3. Did the Inishrush family come from James of Larne?''' || William-3324’s surviving '''1815 will, PRONI D300/1/5/49'''; '''MIC/1B/6''', the reported 1762 James–Janet marriage and earlier baptisms; Belfast records before the 1760 ropewalk lease; Adam’s Inishrush tenancy in '''D1062/1/5''' and the Vintners rentals. || Specific catalogue targets and existing source trails; will clauses, original marriage and relevant tenancy succession remain uninspected. || Look for named siblings, nephews, places, predecessors and any recorded prior marriage. An Adam of Inishrush or a Larne origin would bridge the branches. A different named father would redirect the hypothesis. Janet’s reported 1762 marriage must not supply maternity for Adam born about 1758.

Current profile922|-

Replacement profile928|-

Current profile923| '''4. Who were Alexander and Mary’s parents?''' || Reported '''1836 marriage''' in surviving First Kilraughts material, film 197; Ballymoney/Kilraughts family and society registers '''PRONI CR5/32/1/1/1–2''' || Not inspected; the existing PRONI enquiry remains pending. Rasharkin’s surviving marriage register starts in 1845 || Named parents or an explicit family group could decide a candidate. Witness names supply leads, not automatic kinship. Failure in an incomplete or later-starting register cannot exclude the marriage.

Replacement profile929| '''4. Who were Alexander and Mary’s parents?''' || Reported '''1836 marriage''' in surviving First Kilraughts material, film 197; Ballymoney/Kilraughts family and society registers '''PRONI CR5/32/1/1/1–2''' || Not inspected; the existing PRONI enquiry remains pending. Rasharkin’s surviving marriage register starts in 1845 || Named parents or an explicit family group could decide a candidate. Witness names supply leads, not automatic kinship. Failure in an incomplete or later-starting register cannot exclude the marriage.

Current profile924|-

Replacement profile930|-

Current profile925| '''5. How do James’s Rochester family and the remaining title interests connect?''' || C114, 25 March 1868<ref name="Evidence1f5003a1e5" />: Alexander Glasco, Rochester express agent, son of James the Prescott carpenter; compare B395/B601 daughters Eliza Jane and Mary, earlier parcel interests and the remaining family records. Separately resolve the Samuel 1875 and James E. 1900–09 estate-index rows. Follow Mary Glasgow Black’s identified children at Drumoolish, Newburgh and Legrand from C298. || Original B12/B13/B395/B465/B601 and C113/C114/C298 inspected. Irish Daniel and Thomas identified; Rochester Alexander’s identity with Alexander-951 unproved. Ninth and eighteenth interests remain unreconciled with the will’s sixth. || The named carpenter’s children provide a concrete family to reconstruct. Establish their earlier lives and title interests before equating their father with Robert’s brother or assigning James to Alexander-951. The abstract dates are not automatically execution dates. Mary Black’s documented branch offers a separate local route to the siblings’ parents.

Replacement profile931| '''5. How do James’s Rochester family and the remaining title interests connect?''' || C114, 25 March 1868<ref name="Evidence1f5003a1e5" />: Alexander Glasco, Rochester express agent, son of James the Prescott carpenter; compare B395/B601 daughters Eliza Jane and Mary, earlier parcel interests and the remaining family records. Separately resolve the Samuel 1875 and James E. 1900–09 estate-index rows. Follow Mary Glasgow Black’s identified children at Drumoolish, Newburgh and Legrand from C298. || Original B12/B13/B395/B465/B601 and C113/C114/C298 inspected. Irish Daniel and Thomas identified; Rochester Alexander’s identity with Alexander-951 unproved. Ninth and eighteenth interests remain unreconciled with the will’s sixth. || The named carpenter’s children provide a concrete family to reconstruct. Establish their earlier lives and title interests before equating their father with Robert’s brother or assigning James to Alexander-951. The abstract dates are not automatically execution dates. Mary Black’s documented branch offers a separate local route to the siblings’ parents.

Current profile926|-

Replacement profile932|-

Current profile927| '''6. Can existing DNA distinguish the closest paternal branches?''' || Audit the existing reported Robert-1143 (Y-111), James-1144 (Y-37) and John-822 (Y-67) descendant paths and whether further SNP results already exist. Compare consented James J calls and coverage with Alexander’s line; retain the FT6135/FTE32242 comparison in the Robert-12 family. || The matrix identifies direct calls, displayed placements and unresolved states || Resolved SNP states in these particular Larne and Inishrush lines test the proposed branch connections. A matching downstream state could strengthen a narrower grouping; differing states require mutation placement and pedigree review. A broad STR group or an absent variant-list entry is not a negative SNP call. Establish the useful historical split before proposing a new paid test.

Replacement profile933| '''6. Can existing DNA distinguish the closest paternal branches?''' || Audit the existing reported Robert-1143 (Y-111), James-1144 (Y-37) and John-822 (Y-67) descendant paths and whether further SNP results already exist. Compare consented James J calls and coverage with Alexander’s line; retain the FT6135/FTE32242 comparison in the Robert-12 family. || The matrix identifies direct calls, displayed placements and unresolved states || Resolved SNP states in these particular Larne and Inishrush lines test the proposed branch connections. A matching downstream state could strengthen a narrower grouping; differing states require mutation placement and pedigree review. A broad STR group or an absent variant-list entry is not a negative SNP call. Establish the useful historical split before proposing a new paid test.

Current profile928|-

Replacement profile934|-

Current profile929| '''7. Which Alexander died, and who was Nancy?''' || Original John Martin Glascow–Mary Gibson marriage, '''10 November 1870''', reported index<ref name="Evidence1569ab344f">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGYQ-ZW9Z reported index].</ref>; follow Ann McCracken from son William James’s '''21 September 1877 Lisnagaver birth''' and seek Nancy/Ann records at Gortahar, 1877–1901 || The marriage remains a profile-derived lead; original access blocked. Nancy has no independent link to either family. Ignore the copied contradictory Coleraine/County Offaly location. || A compatible father Alexander and Glenleslie context would locate the rival’s later family. An explicit Nancy/Ann alias or parents would distinguish the two households. Neither a common name nor an unmarked father-deceased field proves identity or survival. Verify Mary Ann Martin’s alleged 1882 death and any remarriage before using marital status to exclude her husband.

Replacement profile935| '''7. Which Alexander died, and which Mary reported it?''' || Original John Martin Glascow–Mary Gibson marriage, '''10 November 1870''', reported index<ref name="Evidence1569ab344f">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGYQ-ZW9Z reported index].</ref>; view the local register original of death entry 348 (GRONI) and trace Mary Ellen Glasgow, born at Lisnagaver on '''14 February 1867''' || The marriage remains a profile-derived lead; original access blocked. The informant’s forename was corrected from Nancy to Mary on 6 October 2026, which fits the Lisnagaver family. Ignore the copied contradictory Coleraine/County Offaly location. || A compatible father Alexander and Glenleslie context would locate the rival’s later family. The local original would show whether the informant was entered as Glasgow or Elder; a daughter Mary in the Glenleslie family would reopen the comparison. Neither a common name nor an unmarked father-deceased field proves identity or survival. Verify Mary Ann Martin’s alleged 1882 death and any remarriage before using marital status to exclude her husband.

Current profile930|-

Replacement profile936|-

Current profile931| '''8. Does Scottish Robert belong to the Irish couple?''' || James’s 10 July 1869 birth<ref name="Evidence1e8e8dbbab">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSFB-KDZR James’s 10 July 1869 birth].</ref>, film '''008065881 image 256'''; corroborate with Agnes’s 19 August 1875 birth<ref name="Evidence9ee708eb07">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSFB-FXZ5 Agnes’s 19 August 1875 birth].</ref>, film '''008066640 image 244''' || Exact image references recovered; access blocked, originals unread || Read the parents’ marriage date/place: agreement with '''5 April 1866''' supplies a much stronger identity bridge than parental names alone. A conflicting marriage requires a namesake review; a blank field leaves the bridge open. Two siblings may repeat the same parents’ report. Then verify the copied 1871/1881/1891 households against all family members.

Replacement profile937| '''8. Does Scottish Robert belong to the Irish couple?''' || James’s 10 July 1869 birth<ref name="Evidence1e8e8dbbab">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSFB-KDZR James’s 10 July 1869 birth].</ref>, film '''008065881 image 256'''; corroborate with Agnes’s 19 August 1875 birth<ref name="Evidence9ee708eb07">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSFB-FXZ5 Agnes’s 19 August 1875 birth].</ref>, film '''008066640 image 244''' || Exact image references recovered; access blocked, originals unread || Read the parents’ marriage date/place: agreement with '''5 April 1866''' supplies a much stronger identity bridge than parental names alone. A conflicting marriage requires a namesake review; a blank field leaves the bridge open. Two siblings may repeat the same parents’ report. Then verify the copied 1871/1881/1891 households against all family members.

Current profile932|-

Replacement profile938|-

Current profile933| '''9. Does Robert’s death name Alexander and Mary?''' || Alleged '''27 November 1902''' death; Camlachie '''644/2/849''' || Citation is misplaced beneath daughter Mary in the copied brief; verify the subject first || Matching parents and wife Jane Graham would strengthen the Scottish bridge and add later family testimony. Different parents need reconciliation. A deceased-father statement would set an upper boundary, not identify the 1888 death.

Replacement profile939| '''9. Does Robert’s death name Alexander and Mary?''' || Alleged '''27 November 1902''' death; Camlachie '''644/2/849''' || Citation is misplaced beneath daughter Mary in the copied brief; verify the subject first || Matching parents and wife Jane Graham would strengthen the Scottish bridge and add later family testimony. Different parents need reconciliation. A deceased-father statement would set an upper boundary, not identify the 1888 death.

Current profile934|-

Replacement profile940|-

Current profile935| '''10. What does the original 1838 baptism say?''' || Rasharkin Presbyterian '''MIC1P/292, entry 106''', with neighbouring entries || Named transcription incomplete; original not inspected || A readable name and dates would identify the documented child more precisely. Marginal wording may help; no invented name or exact death follows from a blank or damaged entry.

Replacement profile941| '''10. What does the original 1838 baptism say?''' || Rasharkin Presbyterian '''MIC1P/292, entry 106''', with neighbouring entries || Named transcription incomplete; original not inspected || A readable name and dates would identify the documented child more precisely. Marginal wording may help; no invented name or exact death follows from a blank or damaged entry.

Current profile936|}

Replacement profile942|}

Current profile937

Replacement profile943

Current profile938

Replacement profile944

Current profile939An access failure leaves a record uninspected; it is not a negative search. Completed searches remain in the research history. The ScotlandsPeople birth-register guide<ref name="Evidenceb64b69d251">[https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/help-and-support/guides/statutory-register-births ScotlandsPeople birth-register guide].</ref> explains the marriage fields sought in the Scottish births, without establishing what these unread entries contain.

Replacement profile945An access failure leaves a record uninspected; it is not a negative search. Completed searches remain in the research history. The ScotlandsPeople birth-register guide<ref name="Evidenceb64b69d251">[https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/help-and-support/guides/statutory-register-births ScotlandsPeople birth-register guide].</ref> explains the marriage fields sought in the Scottish births, without establishing what these unread entries contain.

Current profile940

Replacement profile946

Current profile941

Replacement profile947

Current profile942

Replacement profile948

Current profile943=== Additional source material and comparison records ===

Replacement profile949=== Additional source material and comparison records ===

Current profile944

Replacement profile950

Current profile945These sources include indexes, transcriptions and comparison families. Their presence does not add independent support where they repeat the records assessed above.

Replacement profile951These sources include indexes, transcriptions and comparison families. Their presence does not add independent support where they repeat the records assessed above.

Current profile946

Replacement profile952

Current profile947* [http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/35/ earlier census page]

Replacement profile953* [http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/35/ earlier census page]

Current profile948* [https://apps.proni.gov.uk/eCatNI_IE/SearchPage.aspx PRONI eCatalogue]

Replacement profile954* [https://apps.proni.gov.uk/eCatNI_IE/SearchPage.aspx PRONI eCatalogue]

Current profile949* [https://archive.org/details/kilraughtskirkit0000alex S. Alexander Blair's ''Kilraughts: A Kirk and Its People'']

Replacement profile955* [https://archive.org/details/kilraughtskirkit0000alex S. Alexander Blair's ''Kilraughts: A Kirk and Its People'']

Current profile950* [https://bdmhistoricalrecords.dia.govt.nz/ New Zealand BDM Historical Records]

Replacement profile956* [https://bdmhistoricalrecords.dia.govt.nz/ New Zealand BDM Historical Records]

Current profile951* [https://cotyrone.com/colondonderry/burial/CoLondonderry-DeathsSentinel-G-1829-1869.html County Londonderry death-notice transcription]

Replacement profile957* [https://cotyrone.com/colondonderry/burial/CoLondonderry-DeathsSentinel-G-1829-1869.html County Londonderry death-notice transcription]

Current profile952* [https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-FT20271 R-FT20271 haplotree page]

Replacement profile958* [https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-FT20271 R-FT20271 haplotree page]

Current profile953* [https://downtheroad.dev/pt/census?county=Antrim&tab=browse&townland=Lisnagaver&year=1901 1901 Lisnagaver census browse]

Replacement profile959* [https://downtheroad.dev/pt/census?county=Antrim&tab=browse&townland=Lisnagaver&year=1901 1901 Lisnagaver census browse]

Current profile954* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/Drimbolg/graveyard.html Drimbolg graveyard transcription]

Replacement profile960* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/Drimbolg/graveyard.html Drimbolg graveyard transcription]

Current profile955* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/GarvaghP1/Marriages/1845-1889marr.html Garvagh marriages]

Replacement profile961* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/GarvaghP1/Marriages/1845-1889marr.html Garvagh marriages]

Current profile956* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/graveyard.html Rasharkin Presbyterian graveyard]

Replacement profile962* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/graveyard.html Rasharkin Presbyterian graveyard]

Current profile957* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/TamlaghtP/Baptisms.html Tamlaght baptisms]

Replacement profile963* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/TamlaghtP/Baptisms.html Tamlaght baptisms]

Current profile958* [https://help.familytreedna.com/hc/en-us/articles/4402695710223-Big-Y-Private-Variants-Guide FTDNA private-variant guidance]

Replacement profile964* [https://help.familytreedna.com/hc/en-us/articles/4402695710223-Big-Y-Private-Variants-Guide FTDNA private-variant guidance]

Current profile959* [https://itm.howison.co.nz/year/1871/page/6604 New Zealand intentions to marry transcription]

Replacement profile965* [https://itm.howison.co.nz/year/1871/page/6604 New Zealand intentions to marry transcription]

Current profile960* [https://rootsireland.ie/antrim/online-sources.php RootsIreland's live County Antrim source list]

Replacement profile966* [https://rootsireland.ie/antrim/online-sources.php RootsIreland's live County Antrim source list]

Current profile961* [https://ulsterhistoricalfoundation.com/presbyterianism/covenanters/records-of-congregations Ulster Historical Foundation]

Replacement profile967* [https://ulsterhistoricalfoundation.com/presbyterianism/covenanters/records-of-congregations Ulster Historical Foundation]

Current profile962* [https://www.clockmakers.org/museum-archive/library-archive Clockmakers' Company archive]

Replacement profile968* [https://www.clockmakers.org/museum-archive/library-archive Clockmakers' Company archive]

Current profile963* [https://www.failteromhat.com/slater/0192.pdf Slater's directory]

Replacement profile969* [https://www.failteromhat.com/slater/0192.pdf Slater's directory]

Current profile964* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FBP3-95M Ireland civil registration birth index]

Replacement profile970* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FBP3-95M Ireland civil registration birth index]

Current profile965* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FTZP-9M6 Ireland civil registration death index]

Replacement profile971* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FTZP-9M6 Ireland civil registration death index]

Current profile966* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPB2-KNM2 Mary Elder household, Gortahar, 1901]

Replacement profile972* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPB2-KNM2 Mary Elder household, Gortahar, 1901]

Current profile967* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QYHR-52T2 Robert J. Elder household, Gortahar, 1911]

Replacement profile973* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QYHR-52T2 Robert J. Elder household, Gortahar, 1911]

Current profile968* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3JBF-PQ8 Rosanna]

Replacement profile974* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3JBF-PQ8 Rosanna]

Current profile969* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3JBF-PQL Alexander]

Replacement profile975* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3JBF-PQL Alexander]

Current profile970* [https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/glasgow/about Glasgow project page]

Replacement profile976* [https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/glasgow/about Glasgow project page]

Current profile971* [https://www.hiltner.com/mckeown/showmedia.php?mediaID=1260&medialinkID=1865 Hiltner genealogy]

Replacement profile977* [https://www.hiltner.com/mckeown/showmedia.php?mediaID=1260&medialinkID=1865 Hiltner genealogy]

Current profile972* [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1897/05858/4660280.pdf 1897 civil death]

Replacement profile978* [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1897/05858/4660280.pdf 1897 civil death]

Current profile973* [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/search/?church-or-civil=civil&event-birth=1&lastname=Elder&location=Ballymoney&per_page=100 Ballymoney civil births for Elder]

Replacement profile979* [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/search/?church-or-civil=civil&event-birth=1&lastname=Elder&location=Ballymoney&per_page=100 Ballymoney civil births for Elder]

Current profile974* [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view?record_id=cide-6570010 official index entry]

Replacement profile980* [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view?record_id=cide-6570010 official index entry]

Current profile975* [https://www.johngrenham.com/records/church.php?civilparish=Rasharkin&civilparishid=347&search_type=full Rasharkin church-register inventory]

Replacement profile981* [https://www.johngrenham.com/records/church.php?civilparish=Rasharkin&civilparishid=347&search_type=full Rasharkin church-register inventory]

Current profile976* [https://www.johngrenham.com/records/county_church_full.php?county=Antrim&denomination=Presbyterian&location=Public+Record+Office+of+Northern+Ireland&search_type=full County Antrim Presbyterian register inventory]

Replacement profile982* [https://www.johngrenham.com/records/county_church_full.php?county=Antrim&denomination=Presbyterian&location=Public+Record+Office+of+Northern+Ireland&search_type=full County Antrim Presbyterian register inventory]

Current profile977* [https://www.nationalarchives.gov.za/node/737 Underlying record source: alexander glasgow]

Replacement profile983* [https://www.nationalarchives.gov.za/node/737 Underlying record source: alexander glasgow]

Current profile978* [https://www.prescott.ca/recreation-culture/history-heritage/heritage-properties/ municipal register]

Replacement profile984* [https://www.prescott.ca/recreation-culture/history-heritage/heritage-properties/ municipal register]

Current profile979* [https://www.proni.gov.uk/files/proni/2026-01/PRONI%20Guide%20to%20Church%20Records.pdf Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, ''Guide to Church Records'']

Replacement profile985* [https://www.proni.gov.uk/files/proni/2026-01/PRONI%20Guide%20to%20Church%20Records.pdf Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, ''Guide to Church Records'']

Current profile980* [https://www.townlands.ie/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin/lisnagaver/ Lisnagaver townland reference]

Replacement profile986* [https://www.townlands.ie/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin/lisnagaver/ Lisnagaver townland reference]

Current profile981* [https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Space:Alexander_Glasgow Alexander Glasgow Research Space]

Replacement profile987* [https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Space:Alexander_Glasgow Alexander Glasgow Research Space]

Current profile982* [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Glasgow_DNA Glasgow DNA research space]

Replacement profile988* [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Glasgow_DNA Glasgow DNA research space]

Current profile983

Replacement profile989

Current profile984=== New Dysart–Glascaw network lead ===

Replacement profile990=== New Dysart–Glascaw network lead ===

Current profile985

Replacement profile991

Current profile986The Rasharkin baptism register records '''Jane Glascaw''', born 29 April 1846, as daughter of '''Thos Glascaw''' and '''Mary Ann McCrackin''' at Lisnagaver, and records later children of Jane and James Dysart in Granagh and Crushybracken. Since [[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]] and [[McCracken-5681|Maryann (McCracken) Glasgow]] are independently documented at Lisnagaver, this is a strong possible affinal link between the Dysart branch and the Thomas Glasgow family. It does not identify Sarah Dysart as Jane's sister and does not connect either branch to Mary's parentage.<ref name="EvidenceGlascawDysart">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/Baptisms_1834.html Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription], entries 82, 133, 176, 192, 203, 269 and 271.</ref>

Replacement profile992The Rasharkin baptism register records '''Jane Glascaw''', born 29 April 1846, as daughter of '''Thos Glascaw''' and '''Mary Ann McCrackin''' at Lisnagaver, and records later children of Jane and James Dysart in Granagh and Crushybracken. Since [[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]] and [[McCracken-5681|Maryann (McCracken) Glasgow]] are independently documented at Lisnagaver, this is a strong possible affinal link between the Dysart branch and the Thomas Glasgow family. It does not identify Sarah Dysart as Jane's sister and does not connect either branch to Mary's parentage.<ref name="EvidenceGlascawDysart">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/Baptisms_1834.html Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription], entries 82, 133, 176, 192, 203, 269 and 271.</ref>

Current profile987

Replacement profile993

Current profile988=== Record-level Dysart–McCaughan marriage evidence ===

Replacement profile994=== Record-level Dysart–McCaughan marriage evidence ===

Current profile989

Replacement profile995

Current profile990FamilySearch's indexed civil-registration entry records '''John McCaughan''' marrying '''Sarah Dysart''' at Rasharkin on 18 March 1851. The associated persons identify '''Jas McCaughan''' as John's father and '''Jas Dysart''' as Sarah's father. This is relationship-bearing evidence, although the image is unavailable and the original certificate has not yet been checked for residences, occupations or witnesses.<ref name="EvidenceDysartMcCaughan1851">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGVD-CN3S FamilySearch civil record], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

Replacement profile996FamilySearch's indexed civil-registration entry records '''John McCaughan''' marrying '''Sarah Dysart''' at Rasharkin on 18 March 1851. The associated persons identify '''Jas McCaughan''' as John's father and '''Jas Dysart''' as Sarah's father. This is relationship-bearing evidence, although the image is unavailable and the original certificate has not yet been checked for residences, occupations or witnesses.<ref name="EvidenceDysartMcCaughan1851">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGVD-CN3S FamilySearch civil record], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

Current profile991

Replacement profile997

Current profile992The record strengthens the local McCaughan–Dysart network, but it does not identify Jas McCaughan with the Gortereghy tithe tenant, Sarah Dysart with Jane Glascaw's sister, or either branch with '''Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow'''. Griffith's Valuation separately lists James and Robert Dysart at Crushybracken and Archibald Dysart and Sarah Dysert at Drumack, making the original certificate and Sarah's own baptism the next tests.<ref name="EvidenceRasharkinDysartValuation">[https://www.irishgenealogyhub.com/antrim/griffiths-valuation/parish-of-rasharkin.php Griffith's Valuation, Rasharkin parish], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

Replacement profile998The record strengthens the local McCaughan–Dysart network, but it does not identify Jas McCaughan with the Gortereghy tithe tenant, Sarah Dysart with Jane Glascaw's sister, or either branch with '''Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow'''. Griffith's Valuation separately lists James and Robert Dysart at Crushybracken and Archibald Dysart and Sarah Dysert at Drumack, making the original certificate and Sarah's own baptism the next tests.<ref name="EvidenceRasharkinDysartValuation">[https://www.irishgenealogyhub.com/antrim/griffiths-valuation/parish-of-rasharkin.php Griffith's Valuation, Rasharkin parish], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

Current profile993

Replacement profile999

Current profile994=== Mary McCaughan date discrepancy ===

Replacement profile1000=== Mary McCaughan date discrepancy ===

Current profile995

Replacement profile1001

Current profile996The current WikiTree+ suggestions report lists [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow (McCaughan)]] with a '''certain 1817 birth at Lisnagaver''', whereas this research has generally used an approximate 1811 birth from the 1851 census age. The report also shows an expired “source will be added” suggestion; the 1817 value is therefore a tree assertion requiring source recovery, not an independently verified birth record. If confirmed, it would change the chronology of possible McCaughan parent couples.<ref name="EvidenceMary1817TreeAssertion">[https://plus.wikitree.com/Profiles/Suggestions/IRL_ANT/981_Hidden_0.htm WikiTree+ Antrim suggestions report], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

Replacement profile1002The current WikiTree+ suggestions report lists [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow (McCaughan)]] with a '''certain 1817 birth at Lisnagaver''', whereas this research has generally used an approximate 1811 birth from the 1851 census age. The report also shows an expired “source will be added” suggestion; the 1817 value is therefore a tree assertion requiring source recovery, not an independently verified birth record. If confirmed, it would change the chronology of possible McCaughan parent couples.<ref name="EvidenceMary1817TreeAssertion">[https://plus.wikitree.com/Profiles/Suggestions/IRL_ANT/981_Hidden_0.htm WikiTree+ Antrim suggestions report], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

Current profile997

Replacement profile1003

Current profile998=== FamilySearch identity collision: Scottish and Rasharkin Alexanders ===

Replacement profile1004=== FamilySearch identity collision: Scottish and Rasharkin Alexanders ===

Current profile999

Replacement profile1005

Current profile1000The authenticated FamilySearch Tree profile [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/G8WJ-HFW G8WJ-HFW] is internally conflated. Its source list contains Irish records for the Rasharkin Alexander, but its family panel also attaches a Scottish wife, Mary McCaughan (MQ57-B2Y), Scottish children and a Barony, Lanarkshire marriage. The archived discussion on this profile identifies the Scottish marriage as Alexander Glasgow and Mary Fleming on 12 June 1838 in Barony, Lanarkshire, with an 1841 Barony household headed by a flesher.

Replacement profile1006The authenticated FamilySearch Tree profile [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/G8WJ-HFW G8WJ-HFW] is internally conflated. Its source list contains Irish records for the Rasharkin Alexander, but its family panel also attaches a Scottish wife, Mary McCaughan (MQ57-B2Y), Scottish children and a Barony, Lanarkshire marriage. The archived discussion on this profile identifies the Scottish marriage as Alexander Glasgow and Mary Fleming on 12 June 1838 in Barony, Lanarkshire, with an 1841 Barony household headed by a flesher.

Current profile1001

Replacement profile1007

Current profile1002That Scottish couple is distinct from this profile's Rasharkin farmer: the latter's son James was baptized at Gortereagh on 9 February 1837, before the Scottish marriage, and Alexander appears with Mary and children at Lisnagaver in 1851. The Mary Fleming marriage is therefore not evidence against [[McCaughan-222|Mary McCaughan]]. The FamilySearch tree is useful for locating the conflict but is not proof of Mary's parents or of Alexander's parentage.

Replacement profile1008That Scottish couple is distinct from this profile's Rasharkin farmer: the latter's son James was baptized at Gortereagh on 9 February 1837, before the Scottish marriage, and Alexander appears with Mary and children at Lisnagaver in 1851. The Mary Fleming marriage is therefore not evidence against [[McCaughan-222|Mary McCaughan]]. The FamilySearch tree is useful for locating the conflict but is not proof of Mary's parents or of Alexander's parentage.

Current profile1003

Replacement profile1009

Current profile1004Sources: [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/G8WJ-HFW FamilySearch G8WJ-HFW], [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/sources/G8WJ-HFW its source list], [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/MQ57-B2Y FamilySearch MQ57-B2Y], and the [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Glasgow-951#comments archived WikiTree discussion], accessed 14 September 2026.

Replacement profile1010Sources: [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/G8WJ-HFW FamilySearch G8WJ-HFW], [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/sources/G8WJ-HFW its source list], [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/MQ57-B2Y FamilySearch MQ57-B2Y], and the [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Glasgow-951#comments archived WikiTree discussion], accessed 14 September 2026.

Current profile1005

Replacement profile1011

Current profile1006=== Ballymena death-index candidate: Mary M'caughren, 1894 ===

Replacement profile1012=== Ballymena death-index candidate: Mary M'caughren, 1894 ===

Current profile1007

Replacement profile1013

Current profile1008FamilySearch contains an exact-ish local civil index entry for '''Mary M'caughren''': death registration in '''Ballymena, County Antrim''', October–December '''1894''', page 69, volume 1. The index gives age '''81''' and estimated birth year '''1813'''.<ref name="EvidenceMaryMcCaughren1894">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FTZ5-6ZJ FamilySearch civil-registration index entry], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

Replacement profile1014FamilySearch contains an exact-ish local civil index entry for '''Mary M'caughren''': death registration in '''Ballymena, County Antrim''', October–December '''1894''', page 69, volume 1. The index gives age '''81''' and estimated birth year '''1813'''.<ref name="EvidenceMaryMcCaughren1894">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FTZ5-6ZJ FamilySearch civil-registration index entry], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

Current profile1009

Replacement profile1015

Current profile1010The age and county make this a worthwhile identity lead, but it cannot presently be identified with [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]. The index has no residence, spouse, informant, townland, parents or associated persons; the image is unavailable; and it post-dates the current 27 February 1892 death for Mary Glasgow. It therefore does not justify changing Mary's death date or adding parents. The next test is to obtain the underlying civil death certificate through the General Register Office/IrishGenealogy route, if available, and check the residence and informant.

Replacement profile1016The age and county make this a worthwhile identity lead, but it cannot presently be identified with [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]. The index has no residence, spouse, informant, townland, parents or associated persons; the image is unavailable; and it post-dates the current 27 February 1892 death for Mary Glasgow. It therefore does not justify changing Mary's death date or adding parents. The next test is to obtain the underlying civil death certificate through the General Register Office/IrishGenealogy route, if available, and check the residence and informant.

Current profile1011

Replacement profile1017

Current profile1012=== FamilySearch targeted search audit ===

Replacement profile1018=== FamilySearch targeted search audit ===

Current profile1013

Replacement profile1019

Current profile1014The focused FamilySearch search for '''Mary McCaughren''', birth 1808–1816 in Antrim, returned '''0''' historical-record results. A second search for '''Mary McCaughan''' of the same approximate age and place with spouse '''Alexander Glasgow''' also returned '''0''' results. These are negative results from the current index, not proof that the records never existed.

Replacement profile1020The focused FamilySearch search for '''Mary McCaughren''', birth 1808–1816 in Antrim, returned '''0''' historical-record results. A second search for '''Mary McCaughan''' of the same approximate age and place with spouse '''Alexander Glasgow''' also returned '''0''' results. These are negative results from the current index, not proof that the records never existed.

Current profile1015

Replacement profile1021

Current profile1016The spouse search did expose a documented false-positive: Mary McCaughan married '''Alexander Thompson''' at '''Armoy, Ballycastle, on 7 July 1857'''; the index names her father as '''John McCaughan'''. This is a separate woman and cannot be transferred to [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]], whose family is documented in Rasharkin from 1837. The result is retained as an exclusion check only.<ref name="EvidenceMaryMcCaughanThompson1857">[https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&q.givenName=Mary&q.surname=McCaughan&q.birthLikeDate.from=1808&q.birthLikeDate.to=1816&q.birthLikePlace=Antrim%2C%20Ireland&q.spouseGivenName=Alexander FamilySearch targeted search], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

Replacement profile1022The spouse search did expose a documented false-positive: Mary McCaughan married '''Alexander Thompson''' at '''Armoy, Ballycastle, on 7 July 1857'''; the index names her father as '''John McCaughan'''. This is a separate woman and cannot be transferred to [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]], whose family is documented in Rasharkin from 1837. The result is retained as an exclusion check only.<ref name="EvidenceMaryMcCaughanThompson1857">[https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&q.givenName=Mary&q.surname=McCaughan&q.birthLikeDate.from=1808&q.birthLikeDate.to=1816&q.birthLikePlace=Antrim%2C%20Ireland&q.spouseGivenName=Alexander FamilySearch targeted search], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

Current profile1017

Replacement profile1023

Current profile1018=== 1803 Ballintoy household census ===

Replacement profile1024=== 1803 Ballintoy household census ===

Current profile1019

Replacement profile1025

Current profile1020A separate 1803 household return for Ballintoy parish records two structured McCaughan households at '''Coulrasheskin/Curryeshkin'''. House 3 contains '''Archd. M'Caghan''', wife '''Isobel Lawson''', sons Archd. and John, and brother Alex, a weaver. House 4 contains '''Arch. senior M'Caghan''', wife '''Sarah Linegan''', son Isaac, daughters Sally, Giles and Ibby, and brother Robert.<ref name="EvidenceTraillMcCaughan1803">[https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1803traillcensus.pdf Robert Traill's 1803 Ballintoy household census transcription], PRONI T679/69, p. 27, entries 1417–1427.</ref>

Replacement profile1026A separate 1803 household return for Ballintoy parish records two structured McCaughan households at '''Coulrasheskin/Curryeshkin'''. House 3 contains '''Archd. M'Caghan''', wife '''Isobel Lawson''', sons Archd. and John, and brother Alex, a weaver. House 4 contains '''Arch. senior M'Caghan''', wife '''Sarah Linegan''', son Isaac, daughters Sally, Giles and Ibby, and brother Robert.<ref name="EvidenceTraillMcCaughan1803">[https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1803traillcensus.pdf Robert Traill's 1803 Ballintoy household census transcription], PRONI T679/69, p. 27, entries 1417–1427.</ref>

Current profile1021

Replacement profile1027

Current profile1022This is direct household evidence for a multi-generational North Antrim network and helps separate the Ballintoy/Culfeightrin cluster from the Rasharkin Gortereghy hypothesis. Neither household contains a Mary of the right apparent age; the younger Archibald would also be too young to be [[McAughin-2|Archibald McAughin]], estimated born about 1791. It does not identify Mary's parents.

Replacement profile1028This is direct household evidence for a multi-generational North Antrim network and helps separate the Ballintoy/Culfeightrin cluster from the Rasharkin Gortereghy hypothesis. Neither household contains a Mary of the right apparent age; the younger Archibald would also be too young to be [[McAughin-2|Archibald McAughin]], estimated born about 1791. It does not identify Mary's parents.

Current profile1023

Replacement profile1029

Current profile1024=== WikiTree-linked comparison family ===

Replacement profile1030=== WikiTree-linked comparison family ===

Current profile1025

Replacement profile1031

Current profile1026WikiTree shows [[McCaughan-4|Hugh McCaughan]] (about 1824–about 1903) as the son of [[McCaughan-5|Hugh McCaughan Sr.]] (estimated about 1806) and [[McCurdy-193|Roseanne McCurdy]], and brother of [[McCaughan-7|Archibald McCaughan]] (about 1799–about 1870) and [[McCaughan-6|Elizabeth McCaughan]]. Hugh's wife is [[Erwin-428|Mary Erwin]]; listed children include [[McCaughan-16|Mary]], [[McCaughan-17|Alexander]], [[McCaughan-18|Hugh Jr.]] and [[McCaughan-19|Archibald]]. The dates are internally strained and no profile supplies a Rasharkin/Lisnagaver bridge, so this remains a separate comparison cluster rather than a proposed family for [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]].

Replacement profile1032WikiTree shows [[McCaughan-4|Hugh McCaughan]] (about 1824–about 1903) as the son of [[McCaughan-5|Hugh McCaughan Sr.]] (estimated about 1806) and [[McCurdy-193|Roseanne McCurdy]], and brother of [[McCaughan-7|Archibald McCaughan]] (about 1799–about 1870) and [[McCaughan-6|Elizabeth McCaughan]]. Hugh's wife is [[Erwin-428|Mary Erwin]]; listed children include [[McCaughan-16|Mary]], [[McCaughan-17|Alexander]], [[McCaughan-18|Hugh Jr.]] and [[McCaughan-19|Archibald]]. The dates are internally strained and no profile supplies a Rasharkin/Lisnagaver bridge, so this remains a separate comparison cluster rather than a proposed family for [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]].

Current profile1027

Replacement profile1033

Current profile1028The later Moneyleck branch includes [[McCahon-44|Joseph McCahon]] (1867–1941), whose profile names Hugh McCahon and Mary Jane Wilson as parents, [[Wilson-71886|Hannah Wilson]] as wife and [[McCahon-18|Enos Archibald McCahon]] as a son. It links FamilySearch identity [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/MCJX-HRD MCJX-HRD]. Moneyleck is useful local network evidence but does not identify Mary's parents.

Replacement profile1034The later Moneyleck branch includes [[McCahon-44|Joseph McCahon]] (1867–1941), whose profile names Hugh McCahon and Mary Jane Wilson as parents, [[Wilson-71886|Hannah Wilson]] as wife and [[McCahon-18|Enos Archibald McCahon]] as a son. It links FamilySearch identity [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/MCJX-HRD MCJX-HRD]. Moneyleck is useful local network evidence but does not identify Mary's parents.

Current profile1029

Replacement profile1035

Current profile1030=== New pre-1790 Hearth Money evidence ===

Replacement profile1036=== New pre-1790 Hearth Money evidence ===

Current profile1031

Replacement profile1037

Current profile1032The [https://adamsfamilydna.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/1669-Hearth-Money-Rolls-for-North-and-Mid-Antrim.pdf 1669 Hearth Money Rolls] list Ogan McCaghan at Kilcroagh, Armoy; Allex McCahan and John McCaghan at Ballyverdagh, Culfeightrin; Angus McCahir at Cross Denard, Culfeightrin; Gillindrish McCagher at Loughan/Ballyloghan, Culfeightrin; and Daniell McKaghin in Dunluce town. These direct household-head entries substantially pre-date the 1740 Rasharkin returns and establish a long-standing McCaughan-name presence in the wider Culfeightrin–Armoy region.

Replacement profile1038The [https://adamsfamilydna.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/1669-Hearth-Money-Rolls-for-North-and-Mid-Antrim.pdf 1669 Hearth Money Rolls] list Ogan McCaghan at Kilcroagh, Armoy; Allex McCahan and John McCaghan at Ballyverdagh, Culfeightrin; Angus McCahir at Cross Denard, Culfeightrin; Gillindrish McCagher at Loughan/Ballyloghan, Culfeightrin; and Daniell McKaghin in Dunluce town. These direct household-head entries substantially pre-date the 1740 Rasharkin returns and establish a long-standing McCaughan-name presence in the wider Culfeightrin–Armoy region.

Current profile1033

Replacement profile1039

Current profile1034The rolls provide no ages, spouses or children and no bridge to Lisnagaver. They are therefore regional ancestral candidates and surname-network context only, not evidence that any named householder was a parent of [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]].

Replacement profile1040The rolls provide no ages, spouses or children and no bridge to Lisnagaver. They are therefore regional ancestral candidates and surname-network context only, not evidence that any named householder was a parent of [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]].

Current profile1035

Replacement profile1041

Current profile1036The compiled Ballyverdagh/Culfeightrin account gives a secondary pedigree lead: John McCaughan (about 1724–1793), husband of Agnes McCahan, with children John (about 1754), Alexander (1756), Archibald (1758), Sarah (1760), Mary (1761) and Charles (1763). It says John was served heir to his father in 1771. The listed Mary McCaughan is chronologically possible but currently a poor candidate for Mary Glasgow's mother because she would have been about 50 in 1811 and no marriage, residence or child evidence links her to Rasharkin. The original heir, will and parish records remain to be checked.

Replacement profile1042The compiled Ballyverdagh/Culfeightrin account gives a secondary pedigree lead: John McCaughan (about 1724–1793), husband of Agnes McCahan, with children John (about 1754), Alexander (1756), Archibald (1758), Sarah (1760), Mary (1761) and Charles (1763). It says John was served heir to his father in 1771. The listed Mary McCaughan is chronologically possible but currently a poor candidate for Mary Glasgow's mother because she would have been about 50 in 1811 and no marriage, residence or child evidence links her to Rasharkin. The original heir, will and parish records remain to be checked.

Current profile1037

Replacement profile1043

Current profile1038Source: [https://electricscotland.com/webclans/m/maceachain2.htm compiled Ballyverdagh/Culfeightrin McCaughan account], accessed 15 September 2026.

Replacement profile1044Source: [https://electricscotland.com/webclans/m/maceachain2.htm compiled Ballyverdagh/Culfeightrin McCaughan account], accessed 15 September 2026.

Current profile1039

Replacement profile1045

Current profile1040The same account reports a later James McCaughan, born about 1792, as a son of John McCaughan (born about 1754) of Ballyverdagh. This should not be silently merged with [[McCaughan-68|James McCaughan]], whose WikiTree profile gives birth before 1790, wife [[Larny-2|Mary Larny]] (about 1790), and son [[McCaughan-67|John]] (about 1798). On the current dates the two James profiles are chronologically incompatible, so the Ballyverdagh James is not a safe identification for the Canadian John line or for Mary's father.

Replacement profile1046The same account reports a later James McCaughan, born about 1792, as a son of John McCaughan (born about 1754) of Ballyverdagh. This should not be silently merged with [[McCaughan-68|James McCaughan]], whose WikiTree profile gives birth before 1790, wife [[Larny-2|Mary Larny]] (about 1790), and son [[McCaughan-67|John]] (about 1798). On the current dates the two James profiles are chronologically incompatible, so the Ballyverdagh James is not a safe identification for the Canadian John line or for Mary's father.

Current profile1041

Replacement profile1047

Current profile1042=== FamilySearch Rasharkin/Ballydonnelly McCaughern cluster ===

Replacement profile1048=== FamilySearch Rasharkin/Ballydonnelly McCaughern cluster ===

Current profile1043

Replacement profile1049

Current profile1044FamilySearch's authenticated Tree gives a separate local cluster around [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/GWCJ-8BK James Mcaughern] (22 May 1842–13 December 1896, '''GWCJ-8BK'''), born at Ballydonnelly and christened at Rasharkin. His parents are [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/LCRH-Z1G John McCaughern] (about 1813–1901) and [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/LCRH-DL2 Elizabeth Hansen] (about 1813–1843), married in Rasharkin in 1834; listed children include [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/MZQT-2TK John McCaughern] (1835–1907) and James.

Replacement profile1050FamilySearch's authenticated Tree gives a separate local cluster around [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/GWCJ-8BK James Mcaughern] (22 May 1842–13 December 1896, '''GWCJ-8BK'''), born at Ballydonnelly and christened at Rasharkin. His parents are [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/LCRH-Z1G John McCaughern] (about 1813–1901) and [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/LCRH-DL2 Elizabeth Hansen] (about 1813–1843), married in Rasharkin in 1834; listed children include [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/MZQT-2TK John McCaughern] (1835–1907) and James.

Current profile1045

Replacement profile1051

Current profile1046The same Tree connects [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/949C-MM6 James Mcaughern] (1830–1900) to [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/L11Q-5KR James McCaughern] (about 1790–1858) and [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/L119-DTP Nancy Marks] (about 1794–1859). The younger James married [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/KLP6-P27 Mary Jamison] at Finvoy on 9 March 1854 and had [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/949C-MMM James Mcaughern] (1868–).

Replacement profile1052The same Tree connects [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/949C-MM6 James Mcaughern] (1830–1900) to [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/L11Q-5KR James McCaughern] (about 1790–1858) and [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/L119-DTP Nancy Marks] (about 1794–1859). The younger James married [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/KLP6-P27 Mary Jamison] at Finvoy on 9 March 1854 and had [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/949C-MMM James Mcaughern] (1868–).

Current profile1047

Replacement profile1053

Current profile1048This is significant local evidence but does not prove either James was [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow's]] father. The about-1790 James is chronologically possible for a daughter born about 1811, but the displayed children begin with Daniel (1826), Thomas (1829), James (1830) and William (1842), with no Mary; the 1830 James is too young. Keep it as a distinct Rasharkin/Ballydonnelly branch pending the original 1834 marriage, 1842 baptism and records for the older James's children.

Replacement profile1054This is significant local evidence but does not prove either James was [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow's]] father. The about-1790 James is chronologically possible for a daughter born about 1811, but the displayed children begin with Daniel (1826), Thomas (1829), James (1830) and William (1842), with no Mary; the 1830 James is too young. Keep it as a distinct Rasharkin/Ballydonnelly branch pending the original 1834 marriage, 1842 baptism and records for the older James's children.

Current profile1049

Replacement profile1055

Current profile1050=== FamilySearch civil-marriage proof for the older James's children ===

Replacement profile1056=== FamilySearch civil-marriage proof for the older James's children ===

Current profile1051

Replacement profile1057

Current profile1052The authenticated FamilySearch source list for [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/L11Q-5KR James McCaughern] (about 1790–1858) contains two relationship-bearing indexed marriage records. The 27 November 1850 civil marriage of Daniel McAughern and Eleanor Graham records Daniel as age 24, estimated birth about 1826, and explicitly names '''James Mc Aughern as his father'''; the original place is Churchtown, Ballymoney. [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FGXX-H6G FamilySearch record FGXX-H6G]

Replacement profile1058The authenticated FamilySearch source list for [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/L11Q-5KR James McCaughern] (about 1790–1858) contains two relationship-bearing indexed marriage records. The 27 November 1850 civil marriage of Daniel McAughern and Eleanor Graham records Daniel as age 24, estimated birth about 1826, and explicitly names '''James Mc Aughern as his father'''; the original place is Churchtown, Ballymoney. [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FGXX-H6G FamilySearch record FGXX-H6G]

Current profile1053

Replacement profile1059

Current profile1054The 9 March 1854 marriage of James McCaughern and Mary Jamison at Finvoy likewise explicitly names '''James McCaughern as the groom's father'''. [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FG6V-QGF FamilySearch record FG6V-QGF]

Replacement profile1060The 9 March 1854 marriage of James McCaughern and Mary Jamison at Finvoy likewise explicitly names '''James McCaughern as the groom's father'''. [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FG6V-QGF FamilySearch record FG6V-QGF]

Current profile1055

Replacement profile1061

Current profile1056These records materially strengthen the identification of the 1790–1858 James/Nancy household and document two sons, Daniel and James. They do not prove that this James was the 1834 Gortereghy tithe tenant or the father of [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]: neither record names Mary, Glasgow, William McCaheran or Gortereghy.

Replacement profile1062These records materially strengthen the identification of the 1790–1858 James/Nancy household and document two sons, Daniel and James. They do not prove that this James was the 1834 Gortereghy tithe tenant or the father of [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]: neither record names Mary, Glasgow, William McCaheran or Gortereghy.

Current profile1057

Replacement profile1063

Current profile1058=== Pre-1790 Rasharkin McCaharan graveyard root ===

Replacement profile1064=== Pre-1790 Rasharkin McCaharan graveyard root ===

Current profile1059

Replacement profile1065

Current profile1060The [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinCOI/graveyard.html Rasharkin Church of Ireland graveyard transcription] records '''Andrew McCaharan''', who died '''1 February 1738 aged 69''', and separately names his son '''John McCaharan''' on the same memorial. This is a direct local memorial and places the McCaharan spelling in Rasharkin more than a century before [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]'s estimated birth.

Replacement profile1066The [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinCOI/graveyard.html Rasharkin Church of Ireland graveyard transcription] records '''Andrew McCaharan''', who died '''1 February 1738 aged 69''', and separately names his son '''John McCaharan''' on the same memorial. This is a direct local memorial and places the McCaharan spelling in Rasharkin more than a century before [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]'s estimated birth.

Current profile1061

Replacement profile1067

Current profile1062It is a new root cluster for the surname study, but not a proved ancestor line: the transcription gives no John's wife, townland, full death information or intervening generations. It strengthens the case for a long-established local surname population while leaving Mary's parentage unproved. The original stone image or burial/register material should be sought to recover the remainder of John's inscription.

Replacement profile1068It is a new root cluster for the surname study, but not a proved ancestor line: the transcription gives no John's wife, townland, full death information or intervening generations. It strengthens the case for a long-established local surname population while leaving Mary's parentage unproved. The original stone image or burial/register material should be sought to recover the remainder of John's inscription.

Current profile1063

Replacement profile1069

Current profile1064=== New full 1803 Ballintoy McCaughan household audit ===

Replacement profile1070=== New full 1803 Ballintoy McCaughan household audit ===

Current profile1065

Replacement profile1071

Current profile1066The complete [https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1803traillcensus.pdf 1803 Ballintoy agricultural census] reveals several distinct early McCaughan households beyond the previously isolated Coulrasheskin entries:

Replacement profile1072The complete [https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1803traillcensus.pdf 1803 Ballintoy agricultural census] reveals several distinct early McCaughan households beyond the previously isolated Coulrasheskin entries:

Current profile1067

Replacement profile1073

Current profile1068* '''Broughgammon:''' deceased Dennis M'Caghan; widow Margaret McCurdy; John, Molly, Betty, Nancy and Matty.

Replacement profile1074* '''Broughgammon:''' deceased Dennis M'Caghan; widow Margaret McCurdy; John, Molly, Betty, Nancy and Matty.

Current profile1069* '''Drumnagessan/Cairn-Hill:''' John M'Caghan and Sarah McCaw; sons David, Archibald, John and James; daughter Isobel.

Replacement profile1075* '''Drumnagessan/Cairn-Hill:''' John M'Caghan and Sarah McCaw; sons David, Archibald, John and James; daughter Isobel.

Current profile1070* '''Drumnagessan:''' Daniel M'Caghan and Rose McCurdy; daughters Catherine, Sally and Isobel.

Replacement profile1076* '''Drumnagessan:''' Daniel M'Caghan and Rose McCurdy; daughters Catherine, Sally and Isobel.

Current profile1071* '''Templastragh:''' Daniel M'Caghan and Rose McCurdy; sons John, Alexander, Roger and Robert; daughter Mary.

Replacement profile1077* '''Templastragh:''' Daniel M'Caghan and Rose McCurdy; sons John, Alexander, Roger and Robert; daughter Mary.

Current profile1072* '''Templastragh:''' Hector M'Caghan and Peggy Laverty; son Zachariah and daughter Rose.

Replacement profile1078* '''Templastragh:''' Hector M'Caghan and Peggy Laverty; son Zachariah and daughter Rose.

Current profile1073* '''Templastragh:''' John M'Caghan and Jane Sinclair; sons Hector and Daniel.

Replacement profile1079* '''Templastragh:''' John M'Caghan and Jane Sinclair; sons Hector and Daniel.

Current profile1074* '''Craige:''' Angus M'Caghan and Elizabeth Glass; sons Hugh and Archibald; daughter Belle.

Replacement profile1080* '''Craige:''' Angus M'Caghan and Elizabeth Glass; sons Hugh and Archibald; daughter Belle.

Current profile1075

Replacement profile1081

Current profile1076The two Daniel-and-Rose entries occur as separate census households in different townlands and must not be merged without proof. The Templastragh Mary is directly recorded as a daughter of Daniel M'Caghan and Rose McCurdy, but no age, later marriage, migration or Rasharkin connection is supplied. This confirms a substantial early, multi-branch Ballintoy network, but none of these households can presently be assigned as the parents of [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]. Targeted WikiTree searches found no matching profiles for these exact household combinations, so no IDs are invented here.

Replacement profile1082The two Daniel-and-Rose entries occur as separate census households in different townlands and must not be merged without proof. The Templastragh Mary is directly recorded as a daughter of Daniel M'Caghan and Rose McCurdy, but no age, later marriage, migration or Rasharkin connection is supplied. This confirms a substantial early, multi-branch Ballintoy network, but none of these households can presently be assigned as the parents of [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]. Targeted WikiTree searches found no matching profiles for these exact household combinations, so no IDs are invented here.

Current profile1077

Replacement profile1083

Current profile1078=== 1824 Templastragh tithe continuity ===

Replacement profile1084=== 1824 Templastragh tithe continuity ===

Current profile1079

Replacement profile1085

Current profile1080The later [https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionnamespdf.pdf North Antrim tithe revision] independently preserves the Templastragh cluster: it lists '''Zackariah McCahan''', '''Daniel McCahan''', '''Alexander McCahan''' and a '''widow McCahan''' there in 1824. Zackariah is especially notable because the 1803 Ballintoy census names '''Zachariah McCaghan''' as the son of '''Hector McCaghan''' and '''Peggy Laverty'''. Daniel and Alexander also recur as names in the 1803 Daniel-and-Rose household, although the tithe does not state their relationships or ages.<ref name="Evidence1824TemplastraghContinuity">[https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionnamespdf.pdf North Antrim tithe revision names], records 800–801 and 807–814.</ref>

Replacement profile1086The later [https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionnamespdf.pdf North Antrim tithe revision] independently preserves the Templastragh cluster: it lists '''Zackariah McCahan''', '''Daniel McCahan''', '''Alexander McCahan''' and a '''widow McCahan''' there in 1824. Zackariah is especially notable because the 1803 Ballintoy census names '''Zachariah McCaghan''' as the son of '''Hector McCaghan''' and '''Peggy Laverty'''. Daniel and Alexander also recur as names in the 1803 Daniel-and-Rose household, although the tithe does not state their relationships or ages.<ref name="Evidence1824TemplastraghContinuity">[https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionnamespdf.pdf North Antrim tithe revision names], records 800–801 and 807–814.</ref>

Current profile1081

Replacement profile1087

Current profile1082This is genuine chronological corroboration for a continuing McCaughan/McCahan presence in the same Ballintoy townland, and it helps distinguish the early Templastragh households from isolated name occurrences. It still cannot identify the 1803 Mary as the later [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]: the tithe gives no women’s identities beyond the widow, no marriages or children, and no movement toward Lisnagaver or Gortereghy.

Replacement profile1088This is genuine chronological corroboration for a continuing McCaughan/McCahan presence in the same Ballintoy townland, and it helps distinguish the early Templastragh households from isolated name occurrences. It still cannot identify the 1803 Mary as the later [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]: the tithe gives no women’s identities beyond the widow, no marriages or children, and no movement toward Lisnagaver or Gortereghy.

Current profile1083

Replacement profile1089

Current profile1084=== 1766–1860 Templastragh locality trail ===

Replacement profile1090=== 1766–1860 Templastragh locality trail ===

Current profile1085

Replacement profile1091

Current profile1086The 1766 [https://www.billmacafee.com/1766census/1766religiouscensusballintoy.pdf Religious Census for Ballintoy] records '''Daniel M'Kaughen''' in '''Templastragh''', with a household size of five. This is a direct pre-1790 occurrence of the same distinctive given name and townland later seen in the 1803 census. The 1803 household is much larger—Daniel M'Caghan, Rose McCurdy and five listed children, including Mary—and the 1824 tithe revision again lists Daniel McCahan in Templastragh.<ref name="Evidence1766TemplastraghDaniel">[https://www.billmacafee.com/1766census/1766religiouscensusballintoy.pdf 1766 Ballintoy Religious Census], record 348.</ref>

Replacement profile1092The 1766 [https://www.billmacafee.com/1766census/1766religiouscensusballintoy.pdf Religious Census for Ballintoy] records '''Daniel M'Kaughen''' in '''Templastragh''', with a household size of five. This is a direct pre-1790 occurrence of the same distinctive given name and townland later seen in the 1803 census. The 1803 household is much larger—Daniel M'Caghan, Rose McCurdy and five listed children, including Mary—and the 1824 tithe revision again lists Daniel McCahan in Templastragh.<ref name="Evidence1766TemplastraghDaniel">[https://www.billmacafee.com/1766census/1766religiouscensusballintoy.pdf 1766 Ballintoy Religious Census], record 348.</ref>

Current profile1087

Replacement profile1093

Current profile1088The later [https://www.irishgenealogyhub.com/antrim/griffiths-valuation/parish-of-ballintoy.php Griffith's Valuation index] also lists '''Daniel McCahan''' and '''Elizabeth McCaughan''' in Templastragh. Because the valuation is a later occupier index and does not state ages, spouses or parentage, this may represent a younger Daniel or a different household; it cannot be assumed to be the 1803 man. Taken together, the records establish a long-lived Daniel/McCaughan presence in Templastragh from 1766 through the mid-nineteenth century and justify targeted searches for a marriage or baptismal record connecting the households.

Replacement profile1094The later [https://www.irishgenealogyhub.com/antrim/griffiths-valuation/parish-of-ballintoy.php Griffith's Valuation index] also lists '''Daniel McCahan''' and '''Elizabeth McCaughan''' in Templastragh. Because the valuation is a later occupier index and does not state ages, spouses or parentage, this may represent a younger Daniel or a different household; it cannot be assumed to be the 1803 man. Taken together, the records establish a long-lived Daniel/McCaughan presence in Templastragh from 1766 through the mid-nineteenth century and justify targeted searches for a marriage or baptismal record connecting the households.

Current profile1089

Replacement profile1095

Current profile1090This materially strengthens the Ballintoy cluster but still does not prove that the 1803 Mary was [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]] or that Daniel and Rose were her parents.

Replacement profile1096This materially strengthens the Ballintoy cluster but still does not prove that the 1803 Mary was [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]] or that Daniel and Rose were her parents.

Current profile1091

Replacement profile1097

Current profile1092=== Later Daniel-and-Elizabeth Templastragh branch ===

Replacement profile1098=== Later Daniel-and-Elizabeth Templastragh branch ===

Current profile1093

Replacement profile1099

Current profile1094An [https://www.ancestry.com/genealogy/records/jane-mccaughan-24-1mzn0 Ancestry public-name index] identifies '''Jane McCaughan''', born '''12 November 1834''' at '''Templastragh''', as daughter of '''Daniel McCaughan''' and '''Elizabeth Rogers'''; the same compiled entry estimates both parents at about 1800–1847 and says Jane later emigrated to New York. This is a useful later-household lead because Griffith's Valuation also lists Daniel McCahan and Elizabeth McCaughan in Templastragh.

Replacement profile1100An [https://www.ancestry.com/genealogy/records/jane-mccaughan-24-1mzn0 Ancestry public-name index] identifies '''Jane McCaughan''', born '''12 November 1834''' at '''Templastragh''', as daughter of '''Daniel McCaughan''' and '''Elizabeth Rogers'''; the same compiled entry estimates both parents at about 1800–1847 and says Jane later emigrated to New York. This is a useful later-household lead because Griffith's Valuation also lists Daniel McCahan and Elizabeth McCaughan in Templastragh.

Current profile1095

Replacement profile1101

Current profile1096The index is derivative and does not expose the original baptism or marriage images. It therefore cannot yet establish whether this Daniel was a son of the 1803 Daniel and Rose, a nephew, or an unrelated Daniel in the same townland. It does, however, give a specific child, date, mother’s maiden surname and migration trail for further testing. No evidence currently connects this branch to [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]].

Replacement profile1102The index is derivative and does not expose the original baptism or marriage images. It therefore cannot yet establish whether this Daniel was a son of the 1803 Daniel and Rose, a nephew, or an unrelated Daniel in the same townland. It does, however, give a specific child, date, mother’s maiden surname and migration trail for further testing. No evidence currently connects this branch to [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]].

Current profile1097

Replacement profile1103

Current profile1098=== First Kilraughts register: confirmed archival target ===

Replacement profile1104=== First Kilraughts register: confirmed archival target ===

Current profile1099

Replacement profile1105

Current profile1100The [https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/accessions/2002/02digests/religion.htm National Archives catalogue] confirms that '''First Kilraughts Presbyterian Church''' records survive at PRONI as '''MIC/1P/462''', including registers and minute books from '''1815–1984'''. An independent [https://ulsterlees.azurewebsites.net/families/co-antrim/ballymoney-area/ North Antrim reconstruction] identifies a marriage in that register on '''8 November 1839''' and gives witnesses, confirming that the register preserves marriage-level detail. The couple's reported 1836 marriage should therefore be searched in the same register under Glasgow/Glasgo/Glassgow and every McCaughan/McAughin/McAughern/McCaughren variant.

Replacement profile1106The [https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/accessions/2002/02digests/religion.htm National Archives catalogue] confirms that '''First Kilraughts Presbyterian Church''' records survive at PRONI as '''MIC/1P/462''', including registers and minute books from '''1815–1984'''. An independent [https://ulsterlees.azurewebsites.net/families/co-antrim/ballymoney-area/ North Antrim reconstruction] identifies a marriage in that register on '''8 November 1839''' and gives witnesses, confirming that the register preserves marriage-level detail. The couple's reported 1836 marriage should therefore be searched in the same register under Glasgow/Glasgo/Glassgow and every McCaughan/McAughin/McAughern/McCaughren variant.

Current profile1101

Replacement profile1107

Current profile1102This is the clearest remaining route to a contemporaneous record associated with Alexander and Mary. It may name witnesses rather than parents, so even a successful marriage entry may not prove Mary's parentage; however, repeated witnesses could connect her to one of the local McCaughan households. The register must be consulted directly before any conclusion is upgraded.

Replacement profile1108This is the clearest remaining route to a contemporaneous record associated with Alexander and Mary. It may name witnesses rather than parents, so even a successful marriage entry may not prove Mary's parentage; however, repeated witnesses could connect her to one of the local McCaughan households. The register must be consulted directly before any conclusion is upgraded.

Current profile1103

Replacement profile1109

Current profile1104=== Collateral Drumadarragh McCaughey branch ===

Replacement profile1110=== Collateral Drumadarragh McCaughey branch ===

Current profile1105

Replacement profile1111

Current profile1106The [https://ulsterlees.azurewebsites.net/families/co-antrim/ballymoney-area/ Ulster Lees reconstruction] documents a separate '''John McCaughey/McCaghy and Margaret Lees''' family associated with '''Drumadarragh''', including Jane (about 1812), Margaret (about 1825), James (about 1833), Sarah (about 1835) and other proposed children. Several adult marriages name John McCaghy as father, and Jane's later death record names John McAughley and Margaret Lees. This branch is geographically relevant to the Ballymoney-area McCaughan variants and explains why the 1817 Drumard household cannot be treated as the only local candidate.

Replacement profile1112The [https://ulsterlees.azurewebsites.net/families/co-antrim/ballymoney-area/ Ulster Lees reconstruction] documents a separate '''John McCaughey/McCaghy and Margaret Lees''' family associated with '''Drumadarragh''', including Jane (about 1812), Margaret (about 1825), James (about 1833), Sarah (about 1835) and other proposed children. Several adult marriages name John McCaghy as father, and Jane's later death record names John McAughley and Margaret Lees. This branch is geographically relevant to the Ballymoney-area McCaughan variants and explains why the 1817 Drumard household cannot be treated as the only local candidate.

Current profile1107

Replacement profile1113

Current profile1108The published reconstruction does not include a daughter Mary of the correct age and remains partly inferential. It is therefore a comparison/exclusion branch, not evidence that John and Margaret were Mary's parents.

Replacement profile1114The published reconstruction does not include a daughter Mary of the correct age and remains partly inferential. It is therefore a comparison/exclusion branch, not evidence that John and Margaret were Mary's parents.

Current profile1109

Replacement profile1115

Current profile1110=== 1740–1796 Tamlaght O'Crilly / Drumcannon McCaughan continuity lead ===

Replacement profile1116=== 1740–1796 Tamlaght O'Crilly / Drumcannon McCaughan continuity lead ===

Current profile1111

Replacement profile1117

Current profile1112The 1740 Protestant Householders' Returns identify '''John McCahan''' and '''James McCahan''' in '''Tamlaght O'Crilly''', in the Loughinsholin barony. This is an unusually early, exact-parish occurrence of two McCaughan-variant householders, decades before the Rasharkin baptismal material. The return gives no ages, household composition or relationship between the two men.<ref name="Evidence1740TamlaghtMcCahan">[https://adamsfamilydna.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/1740-Protestant-Returns-Londonderry-County-Ireland.pdf 1740 Protestant Householders' Returns], records 1171–1172.</ref>

Replacement profile1118The 1740 Protestant Householders' Returns identify '''John McCahan''' and '''James McCahan''' in '''Tamlaght O'Crilly''', in the Loughinsholin barony. This is an unusually early, exact-parish occurrence of two McCaughan-variant householders, decades before the Rasharkin baptismal material. The return gives no ages, household composition or relationship between the two men.<ref name="Evidence1740TamlaghtMcCahan">[https://adamsfamilydna.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/1740-Protestant-Returns-Londonderry-County-Ireland.pdf 1740 Protestant Householders' Returns], records 1171–1172.</ref>

Current profile1113

Replacement profile1119

Current profile1114A later circa-1800 rent-roll transcription records four McCaughan tenants in '''Drumcannon''' in '''1791''': '''Samuel''', '''Matthew''', '''William''' and '''John'''. The source explains that the undated entries are part of farm rental lists dating roughly 1796–1814, so the dated 1791 entries should be treated as a landlord record, not a census. The 1796 Flaxgrowers' List then records '''William M'Caughin''' in '''Tamlaght O'Crilly''' with three wheels/looms.<ref name="Evidence1791Rent1796Flax">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/misc/rentrolls.html circa-1800 Bann Valley rent-roll transcription], Drumcannon entries 182, 185, 197–198; [https://www.billmacafee.com/1796flaxgrowerslist/1796flaxgrowersderry.pdf 1796 Flaxgrowers' List], record 4754.</ref>

Replacement profile1120A later circa-1800 rent-roll transcription records four McCaughan tenants in '''Drumcannon''' in '''1791''': '''Samuel''', '''Matthew''', '''William''' and '''John'''. The source explains that the undated entries are part of farm rental lists dating roughly 1796–1814, so the dated 1791 entries should be treated as a landlord record, not a census. The 1796 Flaxgrowers' List then records '''William M'Caughin''' in '''Tamlaght O'Crilly''' with three wheels/looms.<ref name="Evidence1791Rent1796Flax">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/misc/rentrolls.html circa-1800 Bann Valley rent-roll transcription], Drumcannon entries 182, 185, 197–198; [https://www.billmacafee.com/1796flaxgrowerslist/1796flaxgrowersderry.pdf 1796 Flaxgrowers' List], record 4754.</ref>

Current profile1115

Replacement profile1121

Current profile1116This is new pre-1811 evidence in the same broader parish region and strengthens the case for investigating Tamlaght O'Crilly, Drumcannon and Gortereghy together. It does not prove the parents of [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]: the named tenants have no demonstrated relationship to her, and the 1791 William has not been shown to be the 1796 William. The next test is to trace these names through surviving estate papers, Presbyterian records and valuation revisions for a daughter Mary born about 1811 or a transfer into Lisnagaver/Gortereghy.

Replacement profile1122This is new pre-1811 evidence in the same broader parish region and strengthens the case for investigating Tamlaght O'Crilly, Drumcannon and Gortereghy together. It does not prove the parents of [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]: the named tenants have no demonstrated relationship to her, and the 1791 William has not been shown to be the 1796 William. The next test is to trace these names through surviving estate papers, Presbyterian records and valuation revisions for a daughter Mary born about 1811 or a transfer into Lisnagaver/Gortereghy.

Current profile1117

Replacement profile1123

Current profile1118=== 1817 First Ballymoney McCaughan household: a new Mary-parent candidate ===

Replacement profile1124=== 1817 First Ballymoney McCaughan household: a new Mary-parent candidate ===

Current profile1119

Replacement profile1125

Current profile1120Rev. Robert Park's 1817 register of the First Ballymoney Presbyterian Church records '''John McCaughan [McCahon]''', wife '''Mary McCaughan [McCahon]''', and son '''James McCaughan [McCahon]''' at '''Drumard [Drumart]''', house 8. The same register records '''Grissel McCaughan [McCahan]''' and '''Hugh McCaughan [McCahan]''' in a Bendooragh household, showing the variant forms in the Ballymoney-area Presbyterian network at the period when Mary Glasgow would have been a child.<ref name="Evidence1817BallymoneyMcCaughan">[https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1817parkcensus.pdf 1817 First Ballymoney Presbyterian register], records 2912–2914 and 570–571.</ref>

Replacement profile1126Rev. Robert Park's 1817 register of the First Ballymoney Presbyterian Church records '''John McCaughan [McCahon]''', wife '''Mary McCaughan [McCahon]''', and son '''James McCaughan [McCahon]''' at '''Drumard [Drumart]''', house 8. The same register records '''Grissel McCaughan [McCahan]''' and '''Hugh McCaughan [McCahan]''' in a Bendooragh household, showing the variant forms in the Ballymoney-area Presbyterian network at the period when Mary Glasgow would have been a child.<ref name="Evidence1817BallymoneyMcCaughan">[https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1817parkcensus.pdf 1817 First Ballymoney Presbyterian register], records 2912–2914 and 570–571.</ref>

Current profile1121

Replacement profile1127

Current profile1122A separate compiled Ballyverdagh account lists a Drumant church-member household as John and Mary McCahon, with son James and daughters Mary and Elizabeth. Since that detail is not present in the searchable Park register entry and the underlying membership source has not been inspected, it remains a secondary lead. If the two records refer to the same couple, their daughter Mary would be chronologically compatible with [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]'s estimated birth about 1811; no marriage, migration, residence or Glasgow connection has been found.

Replacement profile1128A separate compiled Ballyverdagh account lists a Drumant church-member household as John and Mary McCahon, with son James and daughters Mary and Elizabeth. Since that detail is not present in the searchable Park register entry and the underlying membership source has not been inspected, it remains a secondary lead. If the two records refer to the same couple, their daughter Mary would be chronologically compatible with [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]'s estimated birth about 1811; no marriage, migration, residence or Glasgow connection has been found.

Current profile1123

Replacement profile1129

Current profile1124This is currently the strongest new chronological candidate for a Mary-parent household outside the immediate Rasharkin cluster, but it is not proof. The decisive test is to identify the original Drumard/Drumant membership sheet and trace John and Mary McCaughan through Ballymoney Presbyterian baptisms, marriages and valuation records.<ref name="EvidenceDrumantMcCahon">[https://electricscotland.com/webclans/m/maceachain2.htm compiled Ballyverdagh account].</ref>

Replacement profile1130This is currently the strongest new chronological candidate for a Mary-parent household outside the immediate Rasharkin cluster, but it is not proof. The decisive test is to identify the original Drumard/Drumant membership sheet and trace John and Mary McCaughan through Ballymoney Presbyterian baptisms, marriages and valuation records.<ref name="EvidenceDrumantMcCahon">[https://electricscotland.com/webclans/m/maceachain2.htm compiled Ballyverdagh account].</ref>

Current profile1125

Replacement profile1131

Current profile1126=== Complete 1817 Ballymoney-area McCaughan audit ===

Replacement profile1132=== Complete 1817 Ballymoney-area McCaughan audit ===

Current profile1127

Replacement profile1133

Current profile1128The full searchable 1817 register contains at least five distinct McCaughan/McCahon placements: '''Charles and Elizabeth McCaughan''' at Balnamore, with children James, Samuel, John, Ann, Daniel and Elizabeth and an older Mary whose relationship is uncertain; '''Samuel and Martha McCaughan''' at Taghey, with sons John and James; '''John and Mary McCaughan''' at Drumard, with son James; '''Grissel McCaughan''' and '''Hugh McCaughan''' in a Bendooragh household headed by William McMaster; and '''Elizabeth McCaughan''' in a Currysiskan household headed by Widow Knox.<ref name="Evidence1817CompleteMcCaughanAudit">[https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1817parkcensus.pdf complete searchable 1817 register], records 1239–1248, 1383, 1436–1439, 2912–2914 and 570–571.</ref>

Replacement profile1134The full searchable 1817 register contains at least five distinct McCaughan/McCahon placements: '''Charles and Elizabeth McCaughan''' at Balnamore, with children James, Samuel, John, Ann, Daniel and Elizabeth and an older Mary whose relationship is uncertain; '''Samuel and Martha McCaughan''' at Taghey, with sons John and James; '''John and Mary McCaughan''' at Drumard, with son James; '''Grissel McCaughan''' and '''Hugh McCaughan''' in a Bendooragh household headed by William McMaster; and '''Elizabeth McCaughan''' in a Currysiskan household headed by Widow Knox.<ref name="Evidence1817CompleteMcCaughanAudit">[https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1817parkcensus.pdf complete searchable 1817 register], records 1239–1248, 1383, 1436–1439, 2912–2914 and 570–571.</ref>

Current profile1129

Replacement profile1135

Current profile1130This is important negative evidence: the primary searchable register does '''not''' list a daughter Mary in the Drumard John-and-Mary household. The separate compiled account's Drumant list of daughters Mary and Elizabeth may represent a different membership list, a different townland, or an expanded/parallel record, but it cannot currently prove that the Drumard couple had a daughter Mary. The Drumard family remains a possible chronological comparison branch, but its evidential weight is lower than the initial reading suggested.

Replacement profile1136This is important negative evidence: the primary searchable register does '''not''' list a daughter Mary in the Drumard John-and-Mary household. The separate compiled account's Drumant list of daughters Mary and Elizabeth may represent a different membership list, a different townland, or an expanded/parallel record, but it cannot currently prove that the Drumard couple had a daughter Mary. The Drumard family remains a possible chronological comparison branch, but its evidential weight is lower than the initial reading suggested.

Current profile1131

Replacement profile1137

Current profile1132The audit also identifies a Balnamore Mary McCaughan candidate, but the register marks her relationship as uncertain and suggests only that she may be Charles's mother. None of the five placements supplies a marriage, parent statement, migration record or Glasgow link. [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow's]] parents therefore remain unproved.

Replacement profile1138The audit also identifies a Balnamore Mary McCaughan candidate, but the register marks her relationship as uncertain and suggests only that she may be Charles's mother. None of the five placements supplies a marriage, parent statement, migration record or Glasgow link. [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow's]] parents therefore remain unproved.

Current profile1133

Replacement profile1139

Current profile1134=== Dreen probate cluster: Agnes and Peter McCaughern, 1916 ===

Replacement profile1140=== Dreen probate cluster: Agnes and Peter McCaughern, 1916 ===

Current profile1135

Replacement profile1141

Current profile1136The [https://www.willcalendars.nationalarchives.ie/reels/cwa/005014919/005014919_00647.pdf National Archives of Ireland will-calendar] records two adjacent Dreen, Rasharkin estates: '''Agnes McCaughern''', spinster, died 26 March 1916, administration granted to '''William McCaughern'''; and '''Peter McCaughern''', farmer, died 27 February 1916, also granted to William. Later unadministered grants for both estates were made to '''Catherine McCaughern''', spinster.

Replacement profile1142The [https://www.willcalendars.nationalarchives.ie/reels/cwa/005014919/005014919_00647.pdf National Archives of Ireland will-calendar] records two adjacent Dreen, Rasharkin estates: '''Agnes McCaughern''', spinster, died 26 March 1916, administration granted to '''William McCaughern'''; and '''Peter McCaughern''', farmer, died 27 February 1916, also granted to William. Later unadministered grants for both estates were made to '''Catherine McCaughern''', spinster.

Current profile1137

Replacement profile1143

Current profile1138These entries show a substantial late local McCaughern cluster and a repeated William–Catherine administrative connection, but the calendar does not identify their exact kinship. The underlying probate packets should be obtained because they may name beneficiaries, relatives and property. This is a useful local-network lead, not evidence for [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow's]] parents.

Replacement profile1144These entries show a substantial late local McCaughern cluster and a repeated William–Catherine administrative connection, but the calendar does not identify their exact kinship. The underlying probate packets should be obtained because they may name beneficiaries, relatives and property. This is a useful local-network lead, not evidence for [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow's]] parents.

Current profile1139

Replacement profile1145

Current profile1140=== New parent-bearing Armoy/Cromaghs branch: William McCaughan ===

Replacement profile1146=== New parent-bearing Armoy/Cromaghs branch: William McCaughan ===

Current profile1141

Replacement profile1147

Current profile1142The National Archives of Ireland census-search-form index gives a new parent-bearing local record: '''William McCaughan''', whose present address was Fairhill Street, Ballycastle, supplied an 1851 census extract naming his father '''Archibald McCaughan''' and mother '''Mary'''. The indexed residence was '''Cromaghs, parish of Armoy, barony of Cary''', placing this branch in the wider Ballycastle–Armoy area rather than directly at Lisnagaver or Gortereghy.

Replacement profile1148The National Archives of Ireland census-search-form index gives a new parent-bearing local record: '''William McCaughan''', whose present address was Fairhill Street, Ballycastle, supplied an 1851 census extract naming his father '''Archibald McCaughan''' and mother '''Mary'''. The indexed residence was '''Cromaghs, parish of Armoy, barony of Cary''', placing this branch in the wider Ballycastle–Armoy area rather than directly at Lisnagaver or Gortereghy.

Current profile1143

Replacement profile1149

Current profile1144This proves an additional Archibald–Mary McCaughan parental pair in the wider North Antrim research region, but it does not identify William with any existing WikiTree profile or connect him to [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]. The record is a census-search-form abstraction rather than the underlying 1851 return, and the next step is to obtain the extract/image and trace William, Archibald and Mary through Cromaghs valuation and church records. No safe WikiTree ID has been assigned to this branch.

Replacement profile1150This proves an additional Archibald–Mary McCaughan parental pair in the wider North Antrim research region, but it does not identify William with any existing WikiTree profile or connect him to [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]. The record is a census-search-form abstraction rather than the underlying 1851 return, and the next step is to obtain the extract/image and trace William, Archibald and Mary through Cromaghs valuation and church records. No safe WikiTree ID has been assigned to this branch.

Current profile1145

Replacement profile1151

Current profile1146Source: [https://censussearchforms.nationalarchives.ie/search/cs/results.jsp?applicantAddress=&applicantFirstname=&applicantSurname=&barony=&censusExtractYear=&city=&county=&fatherFirstname=&fatherSurname=&motherFirstname=&motherSurname=&pageSize=&pager.offset=14290&parish=&search=Search&sort=residence_baronySort&townland= National Archives of Ireland census-search-form index], accessed 15 September 2026.

Replacement profile1152Source: [https://censussearchforms.nationalarchives.ie/search/cs/results.jsp?applicantAddress=&applicantFirstname=&applicantSurname=&barony=&censusExtractYear=&city=&county=&fatherFirstname=&fatherSurname=&motherFirstname=&motherSurname=&pageSize=&pager.offset=14290&parish=&search=Search&sort=residence_baronySort&townland= National Archives of Ireland census-search-form index], accessed 15 September 2026.

Current profile1147

Replacement profile1153

Current profile1148=== Cromaghs valuation corroboration: Archibald and Margaret McCahan ===

Replacement profile1154=== Cromaghs valuation corroboration: Archibald and Margaret McCahan ===

Current profile1149

Replacement profile1155

Current profile1150Two independent online transcriptions of Griffith's Valuation for Armoy, dated to the 1861/62 county survey, list '''Archibald Mc Cahan''' as an occupier in '''Cromaghs'''. The same entries also list '''Margaret Mc Cahan''' in Cromaghs. This corroborates the parent-bearing 1851 census-search-form branch: the Archibald named there was an Archibald of the same surname variant and townland in the next decade.

Replacement profile1156Two independent online transcriptions of Griffith's Valuation for Armoy, dated to the 1861/62 county survey, list '''Archibald Mc Cahan''' as an occupier in '''Cromaghs'''. The same entries also list '''Margaret Mc Cahan''' in Cromaghs. This corroborates the parent-bearing 1851 census-search-form branch: the Archibald named there was an Archibald of the same surname variant and townland in the next decade.

Current profile1151

Replacement profile1157

Current profile1152The entries do not state whether Margaret was Archibald's wife, sister, daughter or another household occupier. The valuation is an occupier/property record, not a family register. The spelling is '''McCahan''', while the 1851 search-form entry uses '''McCaughan'''; this is compatible with local spelling variation but cannot identify either person with [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]'s family. No safe WikiTree ID has been found for Archibald or Margaret.

Replacement profile1158The entries do not state whether Margaret was Archibald's wife, sister, daughter or another household occupier. The valuation is an occupier/property record, not a family register. The spelling is '''McCahan''', while the 1851 search-form entry uses '''McCaughan'''; this is compatible with local spelling variation but cannot identify either person with [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]'s family. No safe WikiTree ID has been found for Archibald or Margaret.

Current profile1153

Replacement profile1159

Current profile1154Sources: [https://irishgenealogyhub.com/antrim/griffiths-valuation/parish-of-armoy.php Irish Genealogy Hub transcription of Armoy Griffith's Valuation]; [https://www.failteromhat.com/griffiths/antrim/armoy.php Fáilte Romhat transcription]; [https://nationalarchives.ie/help-with-research/research-guides/valuation-office-records/ National Archives guide to valuation records]. Accessed 15 September 2026.

Replacement profile1160Sources: [https://irishgenealogyhub.com/antrim/griffiths-valuation/parish-of-armoy.php Irish Genealogy Hub transcription of Armoy Griffith's Valuation]; [https://www.failteromhat.com/griffiths/antrim/armoy.php Fáilte Romhat transcription]; [https://nationalarchives.ie/help-with-research/research-guides/valuation-office-records/ National Archives guide to valuation records]. Accessed 15 September 2026.

Current profile1155

Replacement profile1161

Current profile1156=== Pre-1790 Ballintoy record: Archd. McKaughin at Lisbellanagroagh More ===

Replacement profile1162=== Pre-1790 Ballintoy record: Archd. McKaughin at Lisbellanagroagh More ===

Current profile1157

Replacement profile1163

Current profile1158The 1766 Religious Census for Ballintoy parish records '''Archd. McKaughin''' at '''Lisbellanagroagh More''', identified as Protestant. This is a new pre-1790 occurrence of the McCaughan spelling family in the barony of Cary, the same wider North Antrim barony containing later Ballintoy, Armoy and Ballycastle McCaughan/McCahan households.

Replacement profile1164The 1766 Religious Census for Ballintoy parish records '''Archd. McKaughin''' at '''Lisbellanagroagh More''', identified as Protestant. This is a new pre-1790 occurrence of the McCaughan spelling family in the barony of Cary, the same wider North Antrim barony containing later Ballintoy, Armoy and Ballycastle McCaughan/McCahan households.

Current profile1159

Replacement profile1165

Current profile1160The census supplies no age, household composition or relationship to Mary Glasgow. It cannot identify this Archibald as her father, and Lisbellanagroagh More is not the same place as Lisnagaver/Gortereghy. It is nevertheless a valuable locality and spelling lead for testing whether the later Armoy/Cromaghs and Rasharkin branches descend from an older Cary family.

Replacement profile1166The census supplies no age, household composition or relationship to Mary Glasgow. It cannot identify this Archibald as her father, and Lisbellanagroagh More is not the same place as Lisnagaver/Gortereghy. It is nevertheless a valuable locality and spelling lead for testing whether the later Armoy/Cromaghs and Rasharkin branches descend from an older Cary family.

Current profile1161

Replacement profile1167

Current profile1162Source: [https://www.billmacafee.com/1766census/1766religiouscensusballintoy.pdf 1766 Religious Census for Ballintoy parish], entry 318, accessed 15 September 2026.

Replacement profile1168Source: [https://www.billmacafee.com/1766census/1766religiouscensusballintoy.pdf 1766 Religious Census for Ballintoy parish], entry 318, accessed 15 September 2026.

Current profile1163

Replacement profile1169

Current profile1164=== Lisbellanagroagh continuity: Catherine M'Caghan and Daniel McCaw ===

Replacement profile1170=== Lisbellanagroagh continuity: Catherine M'Caghan and Daniel McCaw ===

Current profile1165

Replacement profile1171

Current profile1166The 1803 Ballintoy census records '''Kath. M'Caghan''', standardised as Catherine McCaughan, at '''Lisbellanagroagh Beg'''. She was listed as the wife of John McIlfatrick and as Church of Ireland; the row gives her age as 29, implying an estimated birth about 1774. The 1824 Ballintoy tithe book then records '''Danl. McCaw''' at '''Lisbellanagroagh More''', the neighbouring “More” townland where the 1766 census had recorded Archd. McKaughin.

Replacement profile1172The 1803 Ballintoy census records '''Kath. M'Caghan''', standardised as Catherine McCaughan, at '''Lisbellanagroagh Beg'''. She was listed as the wife of John McIlfatrick and as Church of Ireland; the row gives her age as 29, implying an estimated birth about 1774. The 1824 Ballintoy tithe book then records '''Danl. McCaw''' at '''Lisbellanagroagh More''', the neighbouring “More” townland where the 1766 census had recorded Archd. McKaughin.

Current profile1167

Replacement profile1173

Current profile1168These records create a continuous locality trail from an Archibald in 1766, to a McCaughan woman in the adjoining townland in 1803, to a McCaw occupier in More in 1824. They do not prove that Catherine was Archibald's daughter, that Daniel was related to either person, or that this Cary cluster was the family of [[McCaughan-222|Mary McCaughan Glasgow]]. They are nevertheless stronger than isolated surname occurrences and justify targeted searches of Ballintoy Church of Ireland marriages, baptisms and vestry records.

Replacement profile1174These records create a continuous locality trail from an Archibald in 1766, to a McCaughan woman in the adjoining townland in 1803, to a McCaw occupier in More in 1824. They do not prove that Catherine was Archibald's daughter, that Daniel was related to either person, or that this Cary cluster was the family of [[McCaughan-222|Mary McCaughan Glasgow]]. They are nevertheless stronger than isolated surname occurrences and justify targeted searches of Ballintoy Church of Ireland marriages, baptisms and vestry records.

Current profile1169

Replacement profile1175

Current profile1170Sources: [https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1803traillcensus.pdf 1803 Trail census, Ballintoy], entries 2852–2853; [https://www.billmacafee.com/ballintoy/earlydatabases/titheballintoy.pdf 1824 Ballintoy tithe applotment], entry for Daniel McCaw at Lisbellanagroagh More; accessed 15 September 2026.

Replacement profile1176Sources: [https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1803traillcensus.pdf 1803 Trail census, Ballintoy], entries 2852–2853; [https://www.billmacafee.com/ballintoy/earlydatabases/titheballintoy.pdf 1824 Ballintoy tithe applotment], entry for Daniel McCaw at Lisbellanagroagh More; accessed 15 September 2026.

Current profile1171

Replacement profile1177

Current profile1172=== FamilySearch record-hint collision: James McCaughan and Alexander McCaughan ===

Replacement profile1178=== FamilySearch record-hint collision: James McCaughan and Alexander McCaughan ===

Current profile1173

Replacement profile1179

Current profile1174The logged-in FamilySearch record search returned an indexed Ireland marriage result describing '''James Mc Caughan''' as father of '''Alexander Mc Caughan'''. The attached Family Tree match was '''MCGP-3S2''', but that profile is James McCaughan born about '''1827''', with spouse Catharine McConachie and children Alexander McCaughan ('''1847–1921''', 96QG-NVJ) and Robert Mc Caughan ('''1853–1934''', K4GP-RD8). The tree profile has no sources and the relationship was added in 2020.

Replacement profile1180The logged-in FamilySearch record search returned an indexed Ireland marriage result describing '''James Mc Caughan''' as father of '''Alexander Mc Caughan'''. The attached Family Tree match was '''MCGP-3S2''', but that profile is James McCaughan born about '''1827''', with spouse Catharine McConachie and children Alexander McCaughan ('''1847–1921''', 96QG-NVJ) and Robert Mc Caughan ('''1853–1934''', K4GP-RD8). The tree profile has no sources and the relationship was added in 2020.

Current profile1175

Replacement profile1181

Current profile1176This is a new and important exclusion. The attached tree person cannot be the older James proposed as Mary's father: he is too young, and his son Alexander was born decades after Mary's marriage and the 1837–1844 Glasgow baptisms. The indexed father statement may belong to a different McCaughan family or be an aggregation error; it must not be cited as evidence for Mary's parentage. Source: [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/MCGP-3S2 FamilySearch tree profile MCGP-3S2], and [https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&q.givenName=James&q.surname=McCaughan&q.birthLikeDate.from=1760&q.birthLikeDate.to=1800&q.birthLikePlace=Antrim%2C%20Ireland FamilySearch James McCaughan search results], accessed 15 September 2026.

Replacement profile1182This is a new and important exclusion. The attached tree person cannot be the older James proposed as Mary's father: he is too young, and his son Alexander was born decades after Mary's marriage and the 1837–1844 Glasgow baptisms. The indexed father statement may belong to a different McCaughan family or be an aggregation error; it must not be cited as evidence for Mary's parentage. Source: [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/MCGP-3S2 FamilySearch tree profile MCGP-3S2], and [https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&q.givenName=James&q.surname=McCaughan&q.birthLikeDate.from=1760&q.birthLikeDate.to=1800&q.birthLikePlace=Antrim%2C%20Ireland FamilySearch James McCaughan search results], accessed 15 September 2026.

Current profile1177

Replacement profile1183

Current profile1178The same search also surfaced '''James McCaughan''' in the Irish Valuation Office Books for '''Shankill in 1838''' and '''Billy, Ballycastle in 1861'''. These are new locality leads, but the index does not expose enough detail to identify the tenant with [[McCaughan-68|McCaughan-68]], the Gortereghy tithe tenant, or Mary's father. The underlying valuation images should be checked for townland continuity, occupier changes and adjoining McCaughan households.

Replacement profile1184The same search also surfaced '''James McCaughan''' in the Irish Valuation Office Books for '''Shankill in 1838''' and '''Billy, Ballycastle in 1861'''. These are new locality leads, but the index does not expose enough detail to identify the tenant with [[McCaughan-68|McCaughan-68]], the Gortereghy tithe tenant, or Mary's father. The underlying valuation images should be checked for townland continuity, occupier changes and adjoining McCaughan households.

Current profile1179

Replacement profile1185

Current profile1180The death of Alexander Glasgow was registered on 16 May 1888 in Ballymoney, aged 84.<ref>[https://geni.nidirect.gov.uk/search/death GRONI civil death index], Alexander Glasgow, 16 May 1888, aged 84, Ballymoney registration district, D/1888/31/1005/7/348.</ref>

Replacement profile1186The death of Alexander Glasgow was registered on 16 May 1888 in Ballymoney, aged 84.<ref>[https://geni.nidirect.gov.uk/search/death GRONI civil death index], Alexander Glasgow, 16 May 1888, aged 84, Ballymoney registration district, D/1888/31/1005/7/348.</ref>

Current profile1181

Replacement profile1187

Current profile

Replacement profile1188

Current profile

Replacement profile1189=== Independent parentage tests, September 2026 ===

Current profile

Replacement profile1190

Current profile

Replacement profile1191The ''Plattsburgh Sentinel'' reports Nancy Glasgow's death at Plattsburgh on 31 October 1891, aged about 75, and funeral at the Peristrome Presbyterian church. This corroborates her death date but conflicts with the approximate age in her January 1889 will: the sources imply birth about 1815–1816 or 1820–1821. The reconstructed sibling birth span therefore does not establish that their proposed father had two wives.<ref name="NancyDeathNotice1891">''Plattsburgh Sentinel'', 6 November 1891, p. 8, death notices; [https://www.nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=plts18911106-01.1.8 original newspaper page], image inspected 29 September 2026.</ref>

Current profile

Replacement profile1192

Current profile

Replacement profile1193The Glenleslie daughter Nancy, reported in the 1851 return as dying in 1847 aged 36, is a different woman from Plattsburgh Nancy. A reconstruction placing both in John-1022's immediate family would require an unexplained second daughter of the same name or a revised sibling interpretation. This does not exclude every collateral or half-sibling connection.<ref>[https://durrushistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1851irishcensusreturnscommadelimitedtextfilejul24_072.pdf 1851 Irish census returns transcription], Glenleslie, house 21, John Glasgow household and deaths since 1841; derived transcript, compared with maintained findings.</ref>

Current profile

Replacement profile1194

Current profile

Replacement profile1195John Glasgow, farmer, named in John-867's 1846 marriage, remains the probable father; Alexander's own father is not directly named. An independent parent statement in another reconstructed sibling branch could test this without relying entirely on Nancy's petition. A Scottish marriage index names Mary Thomson, aged 37, marrying William Sneddon on 9 November 1860, with parents Robert Thomson and Mary Glasgon Thomson. The older extracted index places the marriage at Old Monkland, Lanarkshire.<ref>FamilySearch, ''Scotland, Marriages, 1561–1910'', [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XT1H-TBC Mary Thomson index], 1860, Old Monkland, Lanarkshire; inspected 29 September 2026. This indexes the same event as the civil-registration index.</ref> The mother is a candidate for the unidentified Mary Thompson branch, not an established match; the original image was not available for inspection.<ref>FamilySearch, ''Scotland, Civil Registration, 1855–1875, 1881, 1891'', [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6TLK-6T1J Mary Thomson index], 9 November 1860; parents Robert Thomson and Mary Glasgon Thomson. Document reference 008056939_011_M9H1-8LK, image 32. Index inspected 29 September 2026; original restricted to a FamilySearch centre or affiliate library.</ref>

Current profile

Replacement profile1196

Current profile

Replacement profile1197==== Newspaper originals inspected 3 October 2026 ====

Current profile

Replacement profile1198

Current profile

Replacement profile1199The original 5 June 1829 newspaper page is now read, superseding the earlier access-blocked extract account. It lists applicant 2324, Alex. Glasgow of Lisnagaver, under persons applying to register their freeholds, with lands in Kilconway barony, townland of Lisnagaver. It records an application, not successful admission; no age or relative is stated. [[Glasgow-951|Alexander]] and [[Glasgow-3904|the older Alexander]] remain compatible candidates. No birth estimate or father assessment is changed.<ref>''Belfast News-Letter'', 5 June 1829, p.4, [https://www.newspapers.com/image/390582445/ County of Antrim freehold applications]; original page inspected 3 October 2026.</ref>

Current profile

Replacement profile1200

Current profile

Replacement profile1201A 7 January 1861 report identifies Robt. Glasgow as a Lisnagaver neighbour who warned James M’Caughern about a dangerous gable, narrowly escaped the house collapse and raised the alarm. [[Glasgow-938|Robert Glasgow]] and [[Glasgow-3449|Robert Glasgow]] remain compatible candidates. The report gives no age, parents or occupation and does not identify him with a valuation holding or prove kinship with the M’Caughern household.<ref>''Belfast News-Letter'', 7 January 1861, p.4, [https://www.newspapers.com/image/387764534/ Shocking catastrophe at Rasharkin]; original passage inspected 3 October 2026.</ref>

Current profile

Replacement profile1202

Current profile1182== Sources ==

Replacement profile1203== Sources ==

Current profile1183<references />

Replacement profile1204<references />

Full replacement WikiTree biography

Copy this complete text into the WikiTree biography editor. Removed lines appear red on the left; added lines appear green on the right. Apply any structured vital or relationship correction described in the update separately in WikiTree's data fields.

{{Estimated Date}}
[[Category:Glasgow Name Study]]
{{Ireland Native}}
{{Occupation|image=Wikimedia_Commons_photos-3.jpg|text=was a farmer}}

== Biography ==
=== Alexander’s life in its local setting ===

Alexander’s records describe a family rooted in a small part of County Antrim, with children whose later lives lead beyond it. His clearest surviving household is at Lisnagaver in 1851: an Antrim-born farmer, his wife Mary, and three children. Earlier baptisms recover the beginnings of that family; later marriages and the Elder tenancy connect it to the next generation. The probable Gortahar death completes the broad outline, with the last identity link still open.



==== The places in his life ====


Gortereghy<ref name="Evidencec9d92bcd01">[https://www.townlands.ie/en/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin-upper/gortereghy/ Gortereghy].</ref>, written Gortereagh in the baptism transcription, adjoins Lisnagaver<ref name="Evidence7d988f87c8">[https://www.townlands.ie/en/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin/lisnagaver/ Lisnagaver].</ref> to the south. Gortahar<ref name="Evidence10a9c7be48">[https://www.townlands.ie/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin/gortahar/ Gortahar].</ref> lies northeast, beyond Moneyleck. They are distinct townlands within the same parish. The map shows approximate modern townland locations, not reconstructed houses or field boundaries.


Both spouses reported first marriage in 1836. Their children’s baptisms place them at Gortereagh in 1837–38 and Lisnagaver by 1843. That suggests a change in the family’s recorded residence between neighbouring townlands; it does not date a move precisely or establish a return to a paternal home. Mary’s possible local family connections deserve investigation in their own right.


The census’s farmer and literate household, the small assessed tenancy and the children’s marriages recover part of Alexander’s circumstances. Later records call him a labourer, and his son-in-law succeeds him on the holding. These changes are compatible with an altered working role as he aged, but their cause is unknown. No inspected source establishes eviction, poverty, or illness-induced retirement. The record sequence and farm analysis distinguish those observations from assumptions about his life.


The following account traces marriage and children, examines the surviving household, then follows the farm, probable death and paternal connections. Missing parentage is one question within that family history.



=== Marriage, Mary’s family and the children ===

Alexander Glasgow and Mary/Molly McCaughan are a documented couple. Their 1851 household reports first marriage in 1836, but no original marriage entry has been located. Rasharkin Presbyterian’s surviving marriage register begins in 1845; First Kilraughts material (Coleraine Family History Society film 197, marriages from 1831) remains a focused alternative.


The marriage-year statement fits the first directly located record sequence. The published transcription of the original Rasharkin Presbyterian register, PRONI MIC1P/292, records the same parental couple at Gortereagh: James Glascaw was born 17 January and baptised 9 February 1837 to Alex and Mary McAughin; an incomplete 1838 entry records a Glascow child of Alex and Molly McAughern; and a later James Glascow was born 9 October 1843 and baptised 7 January 1844 to Alex and Molly McAughern at Lisnagaver. The named transcription can be checked at Rasharkin Presbyterian baptisms<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/Baptisms_1834.html Rasharkin Presbyterian baptisms].</ref>. The register transcription preserves Mary/Molly and McAughin/McAughern. The repeated parental names and residences support their identification with Mary McCaughan while retaining the spellings actually recorded.


The Gortereagh residence is meaningful maternal context, but it is not a parentage proof. The 1834 tithe list includes William and James McCaheran there, a spelling compatible with the recorded McAughin/McAughern/McCaughan forms. This makes a McCaughan family connection a reasonable explanation to test for the newly married couple’s residence, perhaps through Mary's people or a subtenancy. It does not prove that either man was Mary's father, nor that the first son James was named for a maternal grandfather. The 1851 Lisnagaver evidence supplies a more concrete lead: Mary McCaheren, 22, lived with farmer Archibald McCaheren, 60, and Elizabeth in house 31. She is the strongest currently located candidate for the later 1855 bride who named her father as Archy, but that is a separate McCaughan problem. It does not establish Mary Glasgow’s parentage. Likewise, the household of widowed Sarah McCaghrin and grandchildren beside widowed Margaret Elder and children is evidence of a local network of families and neighbours, not an expressed kinship.


The Gortereagh names are recorded in the 1834 Rasharkin tithe book, PRONI '''FIN/5/A/236'''; the 1851 McCaheren and Elder groupings are in Lisnagaver houses 31 and 5. These are separate record observations, not confirmed maternal relatives. See the National Archives census collection<ref name="Evidence0b09d5bb14">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/ National Archives census collection].</ref> and PRONI tithe-book guide<ref name="Evidenceb39783b2e9">[https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/tithe-applotment-books PRONI tithe-book guide].</ref>.

An authenticated FamilySearch search adds a useful comparison lead: a John McCaughan marriage at Rasharkin on 18 March 1851 names '''Jas McCaughan''' as his father, while a separate 1836 Lisnagaver valuation entry names '''Archibald Mccaughan Junr'''. The same search returns Archey and John McCaheran in the 1822–1840 tithe collection. These entries strengthen the conclusion that several similarly named families occupied the area, but their original images and townlands still need checking; none currently proves Mary's parents.<ref name="EvidenceFamilySearchMcCaughan">[https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&amp;q.anyPlace=Rasharkin&amp;q.surname=McCaughan FamilySearch Rasharkin McCaughan search], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

A separate public Geneanet tree repeats the John McCaughern–Sarah Dysart marriage and proposes a 1872 death for John and a daughter, Mary Anne Jane Rea McCaughern, at Crushybracken about 1858. This supplies a useful descendant-search route, but it is user-submitted derivative material and remains a collateral branch, not evidence for Mary's parents.<ref name="EvidenceGeneanetDysart">[https://pt.geneanet.org/fonds/individus/?go=1&amp;niveaux_1___3869569569__=arbres&amp;niveaux_2___3645179592__=arbres%23utilisateur&amp;nom=MCCAUGHERN&amp;sourcename__0__=bobspree Geneanet McCaughern public tree index], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>



==== Six children, with different kinds of evidence ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Child !! Dates supported by records !! Evidence and what remains uncertain
|-
| [[Glasgow-3939|James Glasgow (Glasgow-3939)]] || Born 17 January 1837; baptised 9 February || Rasharkin entry 75 names Alex and Mary McAughin at Gortereagh. Reuse of James in 1843 suggests this child died young; no death or burial has been found.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3940|Unnamed Glasgow child (Glasgow-3940)]] || Entry in the 1838 baptism sequence || Entry 106 names Alex and Molly McAughern at Gortereagh. The parent relationship is documented; the forename and precise birth/baptism dates are not preserved in the transcription. No death date is proved.
|-
| [[Glasgow-938|Robert Glasgow (Glasgow-938)]] || Born about 1840–41 || Aged 10 in 1851 and 25 at his 1866 marriage. Both records name Alexander as father. The imported exact date 6 November 1840 has no identified supporting record.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3167|Mary Glasgow, later Elder (Glasgow-3167)]] || Aged 28 at marriage in 1871; birth year uncertain || Her marriage names Alexander Glasgow, farmer, and gives Lisnagaver residence. Husband Robert Elder’s later occupation of Alexander’s lot and her role at her mother’s 1892 death strengthen the family identification. She is not listed in house 35 in 1851. Her later census ages (60 in 1901, 72 in 1911) suggest birth about 1838–41, and she may be the unnamed child baptised in 1838.
|-
| [[Glasgow-973|James Glasgow (Glasgow-973)]] || Born 9 October 1843; baptised 7 January 1844 || Rasharkin entry 203 names Alex and Molly McAughern at Lisnagaver. The seven-year-old son in 1851 fits this child. His later life remains under investigation.
|-
| [[Glasgow-438|Ann Glasgow, later McCracken (Glasgow-438)]] || Born about 1846–47; married 13 October 1876 || Four-year-old daughter in 1851; her 1876 marriage independently names Alexander Glasgow, labourer. The 1888 informant, formerly read as Nancy and compared with Ann, is now read as Mary.
|}


Sources: Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription, entries 75, 106 and 203<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />, from PRONI '''MIC1P/292'''; 1851 household image<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/view-pdf/?doc=007246523_00175&c19=true 1851 household image].</ref>; the civil marriages linked in the record table below. The baptism evidence is a named transcription; the original incomplete 1838 entry still needs inspection. The two James entries represent separate children, not a duplicate caused by a date discrepancy.



==== What the gaps mean ====


The early children are documented separately from their inferred deaths. The table’s reuse-of-name argument does not supply an exact death date. Nor does the incomplete 1838 transcription identify its child as Samuel: an original copy of '''MIC1P/292, entry 106''' is needed to read the missing name and dates.


The transcription has no entries for 1840 or 1841, around Robert’s likely birth. Failure to find his baptism in that transcription is therefore weak evidence against the known parentage: the census and marriage positively establish his father. The missing original marriage, incomplete baptism entry and missing burial records are different gaps and need different searches.


The unnamed child would have been about twelve or thirteen in 1851. No resident, absent-person or household-death entry records that child in the maintained return audit. That omission weighs against an uncomplicated survival-and-emigration reconstruction, but cannot fix a death date or guarantee that the return was complete. The same return also omits a daughter who was certainly living: Mary, later Mrs Elder, appears nowhere in it, so the child’s absence is not evidence of an early death. The candidate Samuel Glasgow in Michigan was rejected because no American record supplied the required Antrim/parent bridge and the proposal also had to explain this omission. An impossible February date in a later cemetery transcription cannot name the child. The [[Glasgow-3940|child’s assessment]] preserves the comparison.



=== New parentage research: Mary’s McCaughan/McAughern network ===

The current evidence still does '''not''' prove the parents of [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]. The new research separates several local families that had previously risked being merged by surname and locality alone.

* The complete 1851 Rasharkin-derived return contains several relevant households: the older Archibald McCaheren family at Lisnagaver; William McCaheren; Sarah McCaghrin; Mary McCaheren, age 70, recorded as mother-in-law in the John and Margaret Taylor household; and an 11-year-old John McCaughern recorded as a servant/apprentice. None identifies Mary Glasgow, born about 1811, or names her parents.
* The Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription shows distinct McAughern/McAughin households: Eliza McAughern with Thomas at Carnfinton; Archy McAughern with Elizabeth Kilpatrick at Lisnagaver; and James McAughern, son of John and Jane McAuly, at Ballydonly. These records establish a local network, not a single extended family.
* The 1834 tithe material adds Alexr. McCaughan at Unchenagh in Finvoy, while the Drumadarragh family reconstruction identifies John McCaughey/McCahan, farmer, with children including Jane, Margaret, Nancy, James and Sarah. The Gortereghy William and James McCaheran group remains another candidate cluster. None is linked directly to Mary Glasgow.
* A separate National Archives census-search-form result documents Thomas McCaughern/McCaughan of Gortahar with father John McCaughern and mother Mary Gormley. This is a later-generation, parent-documented local family and does not prove Mary’s parentage.
* Authenticated FamilySearch searches for Mary McCaughan, McAughin, McAughern and McCaheren in the relevant Antrim period returned no indexed result. The apparent Alexander–Mary McCaughan hits belong to a different Catholic Culfeightrin/Ballycastle family, including Mary M’caughan’s 7 April 1867 baptism to Alex M’caughan and Cath Quinn. A separate Mary McCaughern–William Marks cluster is also later and unrelated.

The strongest new route is the pre-1831 '''Kilraughts–Dervock Reformed Presbyterian society material''', PRONI '''CR5/32A/1''' (also appearing in related catalogue references as '''CR5/32/1/1/1–2'''). The PRONI guide describes member-by-society lists, baptisms, marriages, deaths, removals and emigrations from about 1804–1831. Since Mary was probably born about 1811, a household or society entry could name her parents. The Kilraughts and Dervock societies operated together until their 1831 division, so both localities must be searched. This manuscript has not yet been inspected; it is a high-priority evidence target, not proof.

'''Current conclusion:''' Mary’s parents remain unknown. The local McCaughan/McAughern network is now better defined, and the Kilraughts–Dervock family lists are the highest-value unresolved route. No parent should be added to Mary’s profile until an original record explicitly connects her to a named household or parent couple.

Sources: [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/Baptisms_1834.html Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription]; [https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionorder.pdf North Antrim tithe material]; [https://ulsterlees.azurewebsites.net/families/co-antrim/ballymoney-area/ Ulster Lees Ballymoney-area study]; [https://censussearchforms.nationalarchives.ie/search/cs/results.jsp?applicantAddress=&applicantFirstname=&applicantSurname=&barony=&censusExtractYear=&city=&county=&fatherFirstname=&fatherSurname=&motherFirstname=&motherSurname=&pageSize=10&pager.offset=56160&parish=&search=Search&sort=residence_parishSort&townland= National Archives census-search forms]; [https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&q.givenName=Mary&q.surname=McAughern&q.birthLikeDate.from=1780&q.birthLikeDate.to=1840&q.birthLikePlace=Antrim%2C%20Ireland FamilySearch search]; [https://www.americanancestors.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Guide-to-Church-Records-October-2019.pdf PRONI Guide to Church Records]; [https://rootsireland.ie/antrimdown/online-sources.php RootsIreland County Antrim source list].

=== 1851 census: the complete household ===

The original return for Lisnagaver house 35<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0" /> contains these '''five completed person rows'''. It is the strongest single record of Alexander’s immediate household: relationships, ages, occupation, birthplace, literacy and marriage year appear together. The National Archives catalogue record<ref name="Evidenced9460690a2">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#census_year=1851&surname__icontains=glasgow&firstname__icontains=alexander&county=Antrim&limit=30&id=43294 National Archives catalogue record].</ref> identifies the return; image reference '''007246523_00175'''.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Person !! Relationship; age !! Occupation !! Birthplace !! Literacy; marital information
|-
| Alexander Glasgow || Head; 40 || Farmer || Antrim || Reads and writes; married; first marriage 1836
|-
| [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]] || Wife; 40 || None entered || Antrim || Reads; married; first marriage 1836
|-
| [[Glasgow-938|Robert Glasgow]] || Son; 10 || At school || Antrim || Reads; unmarried
|-
| [[Glasgow-973|James Glasgow]] || Son; 7 || At school || Antrim || Reads; unmarried
|-
| [[Glasgow-438|Ann Glasgow]] || Daughter; 4 || None entered || Antrim || Literacy blank; unmarried
|}


'''What this establishes.''' Alexander and Mary were recorded as spouses, with Robert, James and Ann as their children, in one Antrim household. It supports the approximate births and reported 1836 marriage year. It does not name Alexander’s parents, or locate every child born to the couple. In particular, Mary’s absence from this return does not outweigh her later father-naming marriage and family evidence.


The remaining person rows are blank. The maintained return audit and the published transcription, page 183<ref name="Evidence26281d6bb1">[https://durrushistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1851irishcensusreturnscommadelimitedtextfilejul24_071.pdf published transcription, page 183].</ref> record no absent-person or 1841–51 household-death entry for house 35. That is a statement about this return, not proof that no child or other relative had died. The transcript is another rendering of the same census, not independent corroboration.



==== Neighbouring households ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | House !! Recorded household !! What it establishes
|-
| 34 || [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow]], 50; wife Margaret, 30; daughter Ann, 3; [[Glasgow-2908|Samuel Glasgow]], 60, brother and unmarried linen weaver || John and Samuel are expressly brothers. Neither is called Alexander’s brother.
|-
| 35 || Alexander, Mary, Robert, James and Ann || The household transcribed above.
|-
| 36 || John Watters, blacksmith, and family || A separate household intervenes between Alexander and Thomas.
|-
| 37 || [[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]], 35; Mary Ann and daughters || A nearby Glasgow family of compatible generation. Proximity supports investigation, not siblinghood.
|}


Sources: National Archives 1851 Lisnagaver returns 34<ref name="Evidence2c97cf113b">[https://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/34/ 34].</ref>, 35<ref name="Evidencedea66e5c28">[https://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/35/ 35].</ref> and 37<ref name="Evidence6c8cd27a9f">[https://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/37/ 37].</ref>, original-image audit maintained in the case findings. John’s reported census age conflicts with his later gravestone age; it should not be used to force a generation gap between him and Alexander.



=== Following the children into adult life ===


==== Robert: the recorded son and the Scottish continuation ====


Robert, aged ten in 1851, is directly recorded as Alexander and Mary’s son in the same Lisnagaver household. His 5 April 1866 marriage to Jane Graham<ref name="Evidence05c8c53b0b">[https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1866/11531/8240963.pdf 5 April 1866 marriage to Jane Graham].</ref> independently calls him a Lisnagaver farmer and names his father Alexander Glasgow, farmer. Those two records make Robert Glasgow-938 the documented child, with estimated birth about 1840–41 from the census and marriage ages. The often repeated exact 6 November 1840 birth date has no identified supporting original. His probable identification with a later Gortereghy valuation occupier is useful local continuity, but that identification is separate from the proved father–son relationship.


Robert’s later family is followed into Glasgow, Scotland, in the maintained account, which cites a 1871 Scottish census index for Robert<ref name="Evidencea991c3602f">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QV9Y-71S6 1871 Scottish census index for Robert].</ref> and an 1881 index for the younger Alexander<ref name="Evidencecfab144f27">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VQQ8-5MB 1881 index for the younger Alexander].</ref>. [[Glasgow-937|Alexander Glasgow (Glasgow-937)]], born about 1871, is the next historical generation in that family reconstruction. The Irish census and marriage provide the direct father–son argument for Alexander-951 and Robert; the Scottish continuation relies here on the maintained census references, not newly inspected original images. The copied exact birth date for the younger Alexander had been cited to the same index used for the census, so it is not adopted as an independently verified birth in this account. Exact Scottish address chronology and Robert’s reported 1902 death remain checks on their own originals.


This carries the story beyond the Antrim farm without making every copied detail equally secure. The tested descendant’s confirmed paternal ancestry reaches Alexander-951; the Y-DNA section explains the genetic comparison without listing living generations.


The precise Scottish birth-image leads and the misplaced 1902 death citation are assessed in the next research tests. Neither has yet been inspected; the direct Irish father–son evidence remains secure.



==== James: a strong Michigan candidate, still an open identity ====


The second James, Glasgow-973, has an unusually clear Irish identity: the 1843–44 baptism and his age seven appearance in the 1851 household establish him as Alexander and Mary’s child. His subsequent association with the James Glasgow buried at Tecumseh, Michigan is strong but still unproved. The Michigan household is well reconstructed: the original 1884 Michigan census image<ref name="Evidence13cf3f6b80">[https://michigan.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_eb4d3f94-3c2f-4701-b5bb-c3ecee9ef9b9/ the original 1884 Michigan census image].</ref> gives a forty-year-old Irish-born baggage agent, and the Brookside register identifies the associated wife and daughters. His daughter Minnie’s 1941 death certificate<ref name="Evidence8b5b1f0905">[https://michigan.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_3dab599e-1093-473c-be85-eee5e9b49154/ 1941 death certificate].</ref> reports James as born in County Antrim. That narrows the comparison materially but names neither Alexander nor Mary and gives no Lisnagaver detail. The 1869 original marriage return, naturalisation papers, or a passenger record is still required before the Michigan life becomes Alexander’s son’s biography.



==== Ann: a later marriage ====


Ann, Glasgow-438, is likewise direct family evidence. She was aged four in 1851 and her 13 October 1876 marriage to Robert McCracken<ref name="Evidence157ee58a9a">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1876/11181/8097170.pdf 13 October 1876 marriage to Robert McCracken].</ref> calls her a full-age spinster of Lisnagaver and names Alexander Glasgow, labourer, as father. The occupational wording matters because it independently makes the 1888 Gortahar death’s “labourer” compatible with the former Lisnagaver farmer; it is not grounds to split the two men. The informant at Alexander’s 1888 death, formerly read as Nancy Glasgow and compared with Ann, is now read as Mary Glasgow, so Ann is no longer in question as that informant.



==== Mary: the daughter whose records connect the households ====


Mary Glasgow-3167 is not in the 1851 return but is securely added by her 14 June 1871 marriage to Robert Elder<ref name="Evidence5782477e56">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1871/11341/8162804.pdf 14 June 1871 marriage to Robert Elder].</ref>: aged 28, resident Lisnagaver, she named Alexander Glasgow, farmer, as father. Her marriage, Robert Elder’s succession to lot 25, and the Gortahar deaths create the high-confidence bridge between the Lisnagaver couple and Mary McCaughan’s later identity. Mary Glasgow’s 17 February 1892 death return<ref name="Evidence6f1ed437a9">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1892/06049/4723532.pdf 17 February 1892 death return].</ref> records daughter Mary Elder as informant. It does not state a maiden surname or husband, and its reported age 89 conflicts with the retained c.1811 estimate; those limits belong beside the identification, not beneath it.


Mary’s later household also contains an instructive name conflict. Her granddaughter’s 1908 birth<ref name="Evidencebe365902e1">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/birth_returns/births_1908/01647/1657700.pdf 1908 birth].</ref> records '''Samuel Elder''', son of Jane Elder, with no father named; the 1911 household<ref name="Evidenceb4f7bd3ba5">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#id=490671&c20_year=1911 1911 household].</ref> calls him '''Samuel Glasgow'''. The surname is genuinely present in the census, not merely a modern transcription mistake. These records help reconstruct the continuing family, but neither identifies his father. It would be circular to invent a Glasgow father and then use that invented relationship to strengthen Alexander’s ancestry.


Mary’s absence in 1851 is consequently an unresolved location question within a well-supported later family identification. It does not erase the 1871 father statement. Nor does it establish that she was the Maryan in John of Glenleslie’s household: the roughly nine-year conflict between their implied birth years requires explanation, and no located record joins those two identities. A search of the surviving 1851 returns on 6 October 2026 found no child Mary Glasgow of suitable age elsewhere in Rasharkin parish. Her later census ages, 60 in 1901 and 72 in 1911, place her birth about 1838–41, and she may be the unnamed child baptised in 1838; the original register entry has not been examined.



=== The complete record sequence and the farm ===

The sequence follows the named couple and their children across church, census, land and civil records. A father named on an adult child’s marriage is evidence of parentage; it does not by itself prove that he was alive on the marriage date.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Date !! Record and recorded detail !! Identification and evidential value
|-
| 5 June 1829, derivative extracts || Belfast News-Letter, page 4, article 015<ref name="Evidence2721035739">[https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.com/image-viewer?issue=BL%2F0000038%2F18290605&page=0004&article=015 Belfast News-Letter, page 4, article 015].</ref>: “Alex. Glasgow, Lisnagaver” in the inspected alert; independently located by townland in the newspaper index || Earlier local identity lead. Registration context suggested by heading OCR; full image, qualifications and identification unresolved. See the comparison below.
|-
| 1834 || Rasharkin tithe book<ref name="Evidenceb707c32b1e">[https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionorder.pdf Rasharkin tithe book].</ref>, PRONI FIN/5/A/236, folio 17: Alexr Glasgow, 29 acres at Lisnagaver; Robt Glasgow separately, 35 acres || Plausible early occurrence of this Alexander, who would have been about 23. No age or kinship distinguishes him from a possible older namesake.
|-
| 1836 || Lisnagaver valuation field book, pp.194–197<ref name="Evidence4804bc98c4">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-994J-9HD6 Lisnagaver valuation field book, pp.194–197].</ref>: Robert Glasgow and Archibald McCaughan junior named in the house section; Alexander absent || The land section has no occupier names. This is not proof that Alexander held no land or lived in either named household.
|-
| 1836, reported in 1851 || Both spouses give 1836 as first-marriage year in the census image<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0" /> || A contemporaneously recorded retrospective statement; an original marriage entry is still missing.
|-
| 9 February 1837 || Baptism entry 75<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />: Jas Glascaw, born 17 January; Alex and Mary McAughin; Gortereagh || Direct transcribed parent names, residence and child’s birth/baptism dates.
|-
| 1838 sequence || Baptism entry 106<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />: unnamed Glascow child; Alex and Molly McAughern; Gortereagh || Repeated couple and locality. The personal name and exact dates remain missing, separately from the documented parents.
|-
| 7 January 1844 || Baptism entry 203<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" />: James, born 9 October 1843; Alex and Molly McAughern; Lisnagaver || Establishes the later James and places the family at Lisnagaver by his birth.
|-
| 1851 || Original house 35 census, transcribed above || The principal household identity, approximate ages and reported marriage year.
|-
| Griffith’s Valuation and 1863–78 revisions || Alexander on Lisnagaver lot 25, house, offices and land; PRONI VAL/12/B/4/16A–B || Continuing landholding beside John and Thomas Glasgow. An occupier’s name can outlast his actual occupation; it is not a continuous life certificate.
|-
| 5 April 1866 || Robert Glasgow–Jane Graham marriage<ref name="Evidence05c8c53b0b" />: Robert, 25, farmer of Lisnagaver; father Alexander Glasgow, farmer || Connects the 1851 son to his adult family. Jane’s Gortereghy residence also links the adjoining locality.
|-
| 14 June 1871 || Mary Glasgow–Robert Elder marriage<ref name="Evidence5782477e56" />: Mary, 28, spinster of Lisnagaver; father Alexander Glasgow, farmer || Father-naming record for an additional daughter. Robert, 40, farmer of Gortereghy, names father Nathaniel Elder. Witnesses William Graham and John Collins state no kinship.
|-
| 13 October 1876 || Ann Glasgow–Robert McCracken marriage<ref name="Evidence157ee58a9a" />: Ann, full-age spinster of Lisnagaver; father Alexander Glasgow, labourer || Supports the 1851 daughter’s later identity and shows that “labourer” was used for her father before the probable 1888 death.
|-
| 1879–88 revision volume || Alexander struck from lot 25 in VAL/12/B/4/16C; changes annotated 1881, 1882 and 1886; Robert Elder in possession by VAL/12/B/4/16D, 1889–98 || Supports the daughter/son-in-law land connection. No annotation establishes an exact death date or says that the transfer was inheritance.
|-
| 16 May 1888 || Gortahar civil death, entry 348<ref name="Evidencee25dc06500">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1888/06179/4766466.pdf Gortahar civil death, entry 348].</ref>: Alexander Glasgow, married labourer, 84; daughter Mary Glasgow present || Best-supported death identification, assessed separately below.
|-
| 17 February 1892 || Gortahar death of Mary Glasgow, entry 234<ref name="Evidence6f1ed437a9" />: widow, reported age 89; daughter Mary Elder informant || Strong indirect link between Alexander’s documented daughter and the elderly Glasgow couple at Gortahar. The register does not name Mary’s deceased husband.
|}



==== The reported 1829 occurrence: an age and identity test ====


The original newspaper alert of '''12 September 2025''' was inspected directly on 13 September 2026. Its MyHeritage result, 12021-100828509<ref name="Evidenceb9eaffcccc">[https://www.myheritage.com/research/record-12021-100828509-/alexander-glasgow-in-united-kingdom-names-stories-in-newspapers-from-oldnewscom MyHeritage result, 12021-100828509].</ref>, does quote '''“Alex. Glasgow, Lisnagaver”''' from the '''Belfast News-Letter, 5 June 1829'''. The British Newspaper Archive issue index<ref name="Evidence2721035739" /> independently locates the Lisnagaver entry in '''page 4, article 015'''. Its OCR mangles Glasgow, explaining why a surname search missed the article while a townland search found it. These are two derivative extracts of one newspaper occurrence, not two independent historical records.


The archive’s damaged heading excerpt appears to concern persons applying to register, with special sessions at Ballymoney, under '''County of Antrim'''. That makes a registration notice the specific working context, but the full image and governing columns remain unread: MyHeritage now presents a subscription paywall and the archive viewer requires sign-in. The extract cannot yet establish an adult qualification, successful registration or the man’s identity. The earlier claim that even the alert was uninspected is superseded; the historical interpretation remains open.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Identity being tested !! Approximate age on 5 June 1829 !! What the original could distinguish
|-
| Alexander-951 using the 1851 census age || About 18 || A general subscription, petition or resident list might accommodate him. An entry requiring a particular adult qualification would need that requirement and its date checked.
|-
| Alexander-951 using the probable 1888 death age || About 25 || Fits an adult occurrence more comfortably, but depends on both the death identification and the reported death age being correct.
|-
| An older Alexander, possibly the man represented by [[Glasgow-3904|Glasgow-3904]] || About 59 if the estimated 1770 birth is used || A senior/junior label, occupation, related party or other identifying detail might support an older namesake. Name and townland alone do not establish one.
|}


The important distinction is between '''an older birth date for the same man''' and '''a second, older man'''. Even if the notice proves adult status, it would not automatically make the subject Alexander's father. Conversely, identifying the subject from the 1888 age and then using him to validate that same death identification would be circular. No birth estimate or parent ranking changes on the extract alone.


If the subject is Alexander-951, the occurrence would support a premarital Lisnagaver association before the couple's Gortereagh baptisms of 1837–38 and their documented Lisnagaver residence by 1843. That would make a temporary residence near Mary's possible family a more focused hypothesis; it would not prove a move, tenancy or inheritance.


The supplied extract also lists Robert Elder of '''Gortaragh''', Arthur O'Neil of Tehorney, Henry and James Wallace of Culmore, James Tomb of Ballymaconly and James Elder of Drumcon. Their combined names and literal place spellings are useful for locating the correct column despite imperfect OCR. They must not yet be treated as neighbours, fellow freeholders or relatives. The 1829 Robert Elder cannot comfortably be the later son-in-law whose 1871 marriage<ref name="Evidence5782477e56" /> gives age forty and father Nathaniel; the corresponding 1894 death<ref name="Evidencea1cad7ff9e">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1894/05952/4691448.pdf 1894 death].</ref> gives age sixty-four. Those dates place that Robert's birth around 1830–31. A different Elder generation is therefore the appropriate comparison, and '''Gortaragh''' is left unnormalised pending the page.


The next test is the full image of page 4 and the heading governing this entry, with adjoining columns. The earlier PRONI freeholder-search negative does not dispose of this newspaper occurrence. The surname-search failure is now demonstrably an OCR limitation: the exact townland retrieves article 015. Neither search outcomes nor damaged heading text determine the qualification or age of the named man.



==== What the land records can establish ====


Alexander could have been the 1834 occupier at about twenty-three. An older namesake remains possible, but the name alone does not require one. In the 1836 field book, the house section names Robert Glasgow and Archibald McCaughan junior; the land section supplies no occupier names. Alexander’s omission cannot prove he held no land, lived with Robert, or had not yet formed a household.



==== The farm and the Elder connection ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Lisnagaver lot !! Occupier !! Area in valuation !! Immediate lessor
|-
| 24 || [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow]] || 21 acres, 2 roods, 25 perches || Robert Harvey
|-
| 25 || Alexander Glasgow || 8 acres, 2 roods, 10 perches || Robert Harvey
|-
| 26a || [[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]] || 32 acres, 3 roods, 15 perches || Robert Harvey
|}


Source: General Valuation of Ireland and PRONI valuation revision books<ref name="Evidence5c88fa9a83">[https://apps.proni.gov.uk/Val12B/Search.aspx PRONI valuation revision books].</ref>, Lisnagaver, VAL/12/B/4/16A–D. The 1834 tithe’s Plantation acreage and the valuation’s statute acreage cannot be directly equated to reconstruct an inheritance. The earlier near-equality argument is superseded. Adjoining holdings do not establish three brothers or a particular father.


Robert Elder’s succession to the '''same numbered holding''' is more specific than two surname occurrences in one parish. It supports continuity between Alexander’s family and his daughter’s husband. The immediate lessor was Robert Harvey: this is an estate tenancy, not evidence of freehold ownership. Neither succession nor the annotated revision years prove inheritance or an exact death date. The independent civil records that carry the Elder family to Gortahar are set out once, in the death-identification chain.


The later 1901<ref name="Evidencee493b88786">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#id=4575739&c20_year=1901 1901].</ref> and 1911<ref name="Evidenceb4f7bd3ba5" /> Gortahar Elder households are supporting family continuations, '''not censuses of Alexander'''. Their contribution to Alexander’s family account is explained above; complete household details remain on [[Glasgow-3167|Mary’s page]].




== Research Notes ==
=== Testing the 1888 death identification ===

'''The death at Gortahar on 16 May 1888 remains the best-supported located match for [[Glasgow-951|Alexander Glasgow of Lisnagaver (Glasgow-951)]], but its identification is probable rather than uniquely proved.''' The case rests on a connected family and landholding sequence. The register supplies an exact death date; uncertainty concerns the deceased’s identity, not the precision of that date.



==== The record and its limits ====


Original death entry 348<ref name="Evidencee25dc06500" /> supplies the following details. The informant’s age and marital status are not recorded; no wife, parent, birthplace or former Lisnagaver address identifies the deceased more narrowly.



==== The register at a glance ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Field !! Entry 348
|-
| Registration || Dirraw registrar’s district, Ballymoney union, County Antrim
|-
| Death || 16 May 1888, Gortahar
|-
| Name and status || Alexander Glasgow; male; married
|-
| Age and occupation || 84 years; labourer
|-
| Cause || Gangrene, three months, certified
|-
| Informant || Mary Glasgow, her mark; daughter; present at death; '''Gortahar'''
|-
| Registration date || 25 May 1888
|}


'''The informant’s forename is Mary.''' Earlier versions of this profile read it as Nancy. Compared with the same registrar’s other entries, it matches his “Mary” in entry 345 on the same page (Mary Smith) and in entries 330 and 358 on the adjoining pages (Mary McCaw, Mary McFall), and differs from his “Nancy” in entry 355 (Nancy McKay): four letters ending “ary”, without the separate n and c of his Nancy.<ref name="Audit2026Death333">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1888/06179/4766465.pdf Civil death register, Dirraw registrar’s district, 1888, entries 330 and 333].</ref><ref name="Audit2026Death355">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1888/06179/4766467.pdf Civil death register, Dirraw registrar’s district, 1888, entries 355 and 358].</ref> The online image is the registrar’s quarterly copy. The local register, held by GRONI, has not been viewed and would settle both the forename and the surname.



==== The identity chain, in dependency order ====


# The 1851 Lisnagaver house-35 return<ref name="Evidence96bd10f1c0" /> establishes Alexander and wife Mary, both reported aged 40, with children Robert, James and Ann. This is the starting household; its identity does not depend on either Gortahar death.
# Mary Glasgow’s 14 June 1871 marriage<ref name="Evidence5782477e56" /> identifies a 28-year-old Lisnagaver spinster, daughter of Alexander Glasgow, farmer, marrying Robert Elder, 40, farmer of Gortereghy. It directly establishes the bride’s father. Linking that father to the established Lisnagaver household uses name, residence and occupation; the marriage does not name her mother.
# PRONI valuation revisions<ref name="Evidence5c88fa9a83" />, VAL/12/B/4/16C–D, follow Alexander’s removal from '''Lisnagaver lot 25''' and Robert Elder’s subsequent occupation. Succession to the particular holding strengthens the identification of Robert with the daughter’s husband. The book neither declares an inheritance nor records Alexander’s destination or exact death. It supplies a separate administrative connection, not another explicit statement of kinship.
# The 16 September 1878 birth of Jane Matilda Elder<ref name="Evidence5aecbbb88b">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/birth_returns/births_1878/02945/2078820.pdf 16 September 1878 birth of Jane Matilda Elder].</ref> places Robert Elder and Mary, maiden surname '''Glass''', at Gortahar. The spelling is retained as written. The parents and later household continuity support identification with the 1871 couple; the shortened surname alone would be insufficient.
# Mary Glasgow’s death on 17 February 1892<ref name="Evidence6f1ed437a9" />, entry 234, records a widow aged 89 at Gortahar, with '''daughter Mary Elder''' present. That named relationship supplies the strongest connection between the elderly Glasgow woman and the Elder family. With the preceding marriage and household evidence, it supports the high-confidence identification of the widow as [[McCaughan-222|Mary McCaughan (McCaughan-222)]]. It does '''not''' name her deceased husband.
# The 1888 death of a married Alexander Glasgow in the same townland fits the husband of that widow. This last step remains inferential: neither death expressly identifies the other deceased as spouse. The informant, Mary Glasgow, daughter, fits this family, although Alexander’s daughter Mary had been Mrs Elder since 1871.


A second Gortahar death four weeks earlier belongs to the same family circle. [[Anderson-104743|James Anderson]], widower and retired farmer, reported age 94, died at Gortahar on 18 April 1888 with his son James present.<ref name="Audit2026Death333" /> He fits the husband of [[Glasgow-4071|Elizabeth (Glasgow) Anderson]], Alexander’s probable sister, who died there in 1868. Alexander therefore spent his last years in the townland where his probable sister’s family had long lived. The entry names no Glasgow; it is context for the townland and does not itself identify Alexander.


The 1901<ref name="Evidencee493b88786" /> and 1911<ref name="Evidenceb4f7bd3ba5" /> Elder households strengthen the family continuation. They are not independent sightings of Alexander. Likewise, the two civil deaths cannot first be assumed to concern a married couple and then cited as independent proof of that assumption. Their combined value depends on the independently established Elder connection.



==== Ages and occupation: compatibility with genuine conflicts ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Person !! 1851 reported age !! Later death age !! Approximate discrepancy
|-
| Alexander || 40, implying c.1811 || 84 in 1888, implying c.1804 || Seven years older than expected
|-
| Mary || 40, implying c.1811 || 89 in 1892, implying c.1803 || Eight years older than expected
|}


The two death ages describe near-contemporary people, as does the census, and both imply births several years earlier. This parallel is compatible with one elderly couple whose ages were reported differently across records. It does not prove shared identity: the informants may have had incomplete knowledge, the census ages may be inaccurate, or a namesake could be involved. Neither age should silently replace the maintained approximate birth estimate. The paired pattern becomes relevant only after the family connection has been established.


Alexander’s change from farmer to labourer is less problematic. Ann Glasgow’s 13 October 1876 marriage to Robert McCracken<ref name="Evidence157ee58a9a" /> already calls her father Alexander a labourer. Thus the 1888 occupation is compatible with the known father twelve years earlier; it does not require a different man. Conversely, labourer is too common an occupation to identify him by itself.



==== The informant and the competing Alexander ====


'''The informant reads Mary Glasgow, daughter.''' Alexander’s daughter [[Glasgow-3167|Mary (Glasgow-3167)]] lived at Gortahar and is the natural candidate. She had been Mrs Elder since 1871, and the same registrar entered her as “Mary Elder, daughter” at her mother’s death in 1892,<ref name="Evidence6f1ed437a9" /> so the surname Glasgow in 1888 needs explaining. Three readings are possible: the daughter was entered under her maiden surname; the informant was Alexander’s wife Mary Glasgow, who was living, and “daughter” is a slip for “wife”; or she was Mary Ellen Glasgow, born at Lisnagaver on 14 February 1867 to an unmarried Mary Glasgow,<ref name="Audit2026MaryEllen1867">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/birth_returns/births_1867/03501/2286677.pdf Civil birth register, Ballymoney union, 1867, entry 214: Mary Ellen, born 14 February 1867 at Lisnagaver].</ref> and “daughter” stands for a granddaughter. Each belongs to the Lisnagaver family. The earlier comparison with [[Glasgow-438|Ann (Glasgow-438)]], made while the forename was read as Nancy, is withdrawn.


[[Glasgow-2385|Alexander of Glenleslie (Glasgow-2385)]] is a genuine competing labourer. His 1847 marriage to Mary Anne Martin<ref name="Evidence4dd66ea875">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1847/09322/5375567.pdf 1847 marriage to Mary Anne Martin].</ref> and 1851 household<ref name="Evidence3f5ed7a43f">[https://nationalarchives.ie/collections/search-the-census/census-record/#id=32216&census_year=1851 1851 household].</ref> distinguish a coherent family with wife Mary Ann and son John. A reported age of 35 in 1851 implies about 72 in 1888, twelve years below the death age. No located record connects this household to Gortahar or the Elder succession, or gives it a daughter Mary. He is weaker, not excluded.


The reported 1882 death of his wife is '''unverified'''. Her current [[Martin-93219|WikiTree biography]], checked through the live API, supplies no identifiable original death registration and includes an 1848 Sydney marriage description concerning Mary Ann Cupid. That material cannot establish the Irish wife’s death. Even a verified death would require checking remarriage before using the 1888 married status to exclude her husband.



==== Comparing the named candidates ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Candidate !! Fit to the Gortahar death !! Present assessment
|-
| Alexander of Lisnagaver, Glasgow-951 || Known family reaches Gortahar; father described as labourer by 1876; widow and daughter fit the Elder network || '''Best current fit; probable.''' The age conflict remains; the informant, read as Mary Glasgow, fits this family.
|-
| [[Glasgow-2385|Alexander of Glenleslie (Glasgow-2385)]], born about 1816; husband of Mary Anne Martin || A real Antrim labourer namesake. He would have been about 72, a worse age fit to 84. No located Gortahar or Elder connection, or daughter Mary, identifies him with the death || '''Weaker alternative, not conclusively excluded.''' Trace his later household and wife independently before any reassignment.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3904|Older Alexander (Glasgow-3904)]], estimated birth c.1770 in the parent tradition || Would have been about 118 in 1888; neither the reported generation nor family history fits || '''No plausible claim on present chronology.''' His own estimated identity is not an original death identification.
|}


Thomas’s daughter [[Glasgow-1362|Nancy Glasgow (Glasgow-1362)]] was considered as the informant while the forename was read as Nancy. With the forename read as Mary, she is no longer a candidate.


The old 22 May 1852 death belongs to an unsupported Australian reconstruction of a different family. The submitted DNA-project ancestor label repeating “d.1852” is not a death record.



==== What would change the conclusion? ====


The local register original of entry 348, a record showing which Mary Glasgow lived at Gortahar in 1888, or a burial or notice naming the Gortahar man’s wife or former residence, would strengthen the leading identification. A securely identified death of Alexander-951 elsewhere, or an independently documented Glenleslie-to-Gortahar household with a daughter Mary, would challenge it. Tracing the Glenleslie son’s reported 1870 marriage offers a specific next step toward later family residence; that profile-derived lead still needs its original. Present evidence supports retaining '''16 May 1888, Gortahar, probable identification''', with the identity chain and its dependencies visible.


Original excerpts shown here were checked against the saved images. The Mary–Robert Elder 1871 marriage and Mary Glasgow 1892 death remain linked above and supported by the earlier maintained readings; both images were retrieved and read again on 6 October 2026 and agree with those readings; no excerpt has been cut from them.



=== Y-DNA: the connection and the competing histories ===

[[Glasgow-951|Alexander Glasgow (Glasgow-951)]] is the project owner’s '''oldest confirmed direct paternal ancestor'''. The documented descent reaches Alexander; his parents remain unknown. A tested male-line descendant has '''Big Y-700 placement R-FT20271''', also found in a tested descendant of [[Glasgow-2738|James J Glasgow (Glasgow-2738)]], born about 1809–10. These are historical ancestors represented by descendant results, not people who were themselves tested. The shared branch establishes paternal genetic kinship between the tested lines. It does not extend either documentary pedigree automatically. FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow project results<ref name="Evidencedb3c53b8e9">[https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Glasgow?iframe=ydna-results-overview FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow project results].</ref>, checked 13 September 2026.


This gives the parentage investigation a concrete family network. Alexander’s connection to James J’s line is established genetically even though the bridge between their families is missing. James J’s proposed father [[Glasgow-2769|Robert Glasgow (Glasgow-2769)]] and proposed earlier connection to [[Glasgow-2304|Archibald Glasgow (Glasgow-2304)]] remain hypotheses. Inserting them into a proved descent would assume the answer. See [[Glasgow-2738|James J’s evidence and open parentage question]].



==== What close STR matching can tell us ====


The maintained comparison gives '''genetic distance three at Y-111''' between the Alexander and James J descendant lines. That makes their connection a valuable research priority. It does not mean three generations: STR changes accumulate unevenly, and observed distance is not the number of father-to-son transmissions. FTDNA’s explanation of genetic distance<ref name="Evidencee3eb9bbee5">[https://blog.familytreedna.com/ftdnatip-report/ FTDNA’s explanation of genetic distance].</ref>.


Another Glasgow line is closer on the larger callable Big Y STR comparison. Consequently James J is the nearest comparison on the specified Y-111 panel, not demonstrably Alexander’s nearest genealogical cousin. The inspected August 2026 Block Tree contains no exclusive named downstream branch joining only these two lines. Wider Y-DNA study and comparison evidence.


Brothers, paternal cousins and descendants of more distant collateral branches remain distinguishable historical hypotheses; the present DNA cannot choose among them. Their similar estimated birth years do not locate their common ancestor. A connection through an earlier generation, followed by migration in one branch, remains compatible with the results. A specific migration route is not established. An exact ancestor, date or cousin degree requires evidence connecting the named people, supported where possible by additional independent descendant comparisons.



==== The SNP evidence matrix ====


The abbreviated branch path is '''R-FT4811 → R-FT32941 → R-FT25406 → R-FT20271''', with FTE32242 downstream. Historical names below label descendant lines, not tested historical people.


'''State key:''' '''D''' = derived, the changed state; '''A''' = ancestral, the pre-mutation state supported by a direct call; '''U''' = unresolved in the reviewed evidence; '''UT''' = untested at SNP level in the supplied comparison. A '''no-call''' means an attempted call was inconclusive and remains unresolved. '''Not independently reviewed''' describes the evidence or pedigree audit, not a genotype. No row is labelled no-call without evidence of an actual no-call.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Historical paternal line !! FT20271 !! FT6135 !! FTE32242 !! Provenance and pedigree qualification
|-
| [[Glasgow-951|Alexander Glasgow (Glasgow-951)]] || '''D''': direct audit and public placement || '''A''': direct reliable call || '''U''': basal display is insufficient to prove ancestral || Public project, 13 Sep 2026; private call audit, 11 Aug 2026. Established descendant line in this case; Alexander's parents remain unknown.
|-
| [[Glasgow-2738|James J Glasgow (Glasgow-2738)]] || '''D''': public placement || '''U''': direct state not independently reviewed || '''U''': basal display only || Public project, 13 Sep 2026; Aug administrator mapping. Descent to James J is distinguished from his uncertain attachment to Robert-2769 and Archibald-2304.
|-
| Reported [[Glasgow-591|William Glasgow (Glasgow-591)]], c.1655 || '''D''': reported public placement || '''U''' || '''U''': basal display only || Aug 2026 project evidence; early pedigree not independently established here.
|-
| Reported [[Glasgow-12|Robert Glasgow (Glasgow-12)]], through [[Glasgow-1965|John M (Glasgow-1965)]] || '''D''': reported public placement || '''D''': supplied comparison || '''U''': basal display only || Aug call comparison; maintained Y-DNA study maps this result through John M with a probable private continuation. This is a reported son-line of Robert, not an independently verified earlier root.
|-
| Reported Robert Glasgow, through [[Glasgow-563|William (Glasgow-563)]] || '''D''': reported public placement || '''D''': supplied comparison || '''U''': basal display only || Aug call comparison; the maintained pedigree audit identifies William’s line. The older James c.1700 ancestor label is not an independent test of Robert’s father or grandfather.
|-
| [[Glasgow-193|James M Glasgow (Glasgow-193)]], through [[Glasgow-2182|William Allen (Glasgow-2182)]] || '''D''': upstream of displayed child || '''U''': direct call required || '''D''': public child-branch association || Aug 2026 project and Block Tree evidence; historical association conditional on the supplied father-to-son pedigree.
|-
| James M Glasgow, through [[Glasgow-192|Samuel Lyle (Glasgow-192)]] || '''D''': upstream of displayed child || '''U''': direct call required || '''D''': public child-branch association || Same dated evidence; independently documented descent still needs checking at the relevant joining generations.
|-
| Reported [[Glasgow-1143|Robert Glasgow of Kilwaughter (Glasgow-1143)]] || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || Aug 2026 Y-111 comparison only. The ancestor label is a candidate identification; STR grouping does not establish FT20271 membership.
|-
| Reported [[Glasgow-1144|James of Kilwaughter, later South Carolina (Glasgow-1144)]] || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || Maintained historical mapping and Y-37 comparison, reviewed 13 Sep 2026. Public broad haplogroup/STR grouping does not establish FT20271. Audit the descendant path before assigning its result to this ancestor.
|-
| Reported [[Glasgow-822|John of Inishrush, later Ohio (Glasgow-822)]] || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || '''UT''' || Maintained historical mapping and Y-67 comparison, reviewed 13 Sep 2026. Public broad haplogroup/STR grouping does not establish FT20271. Audit the descendant path before assigning its result to this ancestor.
|}


Public source: FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow project<ref name="Evidencedb3c53b8e9" />. Safe study context: Y-DNA research. Private-call results above are a summary of the maintained August audit, not an independently reproducible public genotype dataset.


The maintained pedigree audit places the two FT6135 comparison results through Robert’s sons William and John M, with different confidence in their later continuations. The older James c.1700 label must not be counted as an independent test above Robert.


The FT6135 difference is real in the audited Alexander result and the two supplied comparison results. Its position outside the currently accepted child-branch display makes it a '''candidate grouping signal''', not an established new branch. Resolve FT6135 in both James M son-lines first: derived results would support inheritance at or above Robert under the reported pedigrees and a simple inheritance model; ancestral results would contradict that simple model and require checking pedigrees, recurrence or reversion. Inadequate coverage would leave the issue open. Neither outcome alone identifies Alexander's father.


The two FTE32242-positive son-lines associate that branch with James M's descendants, conditionally on their pedigrees. To locate it below Robert generally requires a reliable ancestral result in a separately documented Robert line. A basal FT20271 label supplies no such result. Missing entries in a variants-only file likewise do not prove ancestral states. FTDNA SNP and match guidance<ref name="Evidence4dd87788ef">[https://help.familytreedna.com/hc/en-us/articles/4402696079887-Big-Y-Matching-Matches-Guide FTDNA SNP and match guidance].</ref>.


For Alexander and James J, compare existing consented calls at named and private variants with coverage and pedigree checks. A shared additional derived state could refine their genetic grouping; it would not make the historical men brothers or identify the mutation's generation. A separately documented Alexander son-line could distinguish variants inherited through Alexander or earlier from changes arising later in one descendant line. STR distance and rounded private-variant averages reuse existing observations: they do not independently date the common ancestor. No narrow common-ancestor date is justified here.


One Robert-associated line and one James M descendant are identical at Y-111 despite different displayed SNP branches. STR similarity therefore cannot recover every branching event. The previous STR reconstruction’s approximate 1750 horizon also reuses marker evidence and has unconstrained dates conflicting with known genealogy; it is not an independent historical date.


The table is available as CSV and JSON, with its dated provenance and unresolved states. A public branch placement can be rechecked at the project; the private-call summary requires the underlying consented files for replication.


The Larne reconstruction connects these genetic comparisons to the actual American and Irish family hypotheses, with each missing generation assessed separately.



=== The wider family: proved links and open bridges ===

The Lisnagaver evidence supports a local Glasgow network; it does not yet yield a single reconstructed pedigree. The starting point is the 1851 sequence. House 34<ref name="Evidence2c97cf113b" /> contains John Glasgow, farmer, with wife Margaret and his unmarried brother Samuel, a linen weaver. House 35<ref name="Evidencedea66e5c28" /> contains Alexander and Mary with their children. House 37<ref name="Evidence6c8cd27a9f" /> contains Thomas Glasgow and Mary Ann. A Watters household separates Alexander and Thomas. The layout establishes a small same-surname farming cluster and useful geographic proximity; enumeration order is not a kinship statement or a property map.


John Glasgow-867 and Samuel Glasgow-2908 belong to a specific '''father-John branch'''. John’s original 16 November 1846 marriage<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view/?record_id=cima-3156063 original 16 November 1846 marriage].</ref> names his father as John Glasgow, farmer. The 1851 household expressly calls Samuel John’s brother. That chain directly establishes the brotherhood and names John-867’s father and his occupation. Extending that father statement to Samuel assumes they shared a father; the census does not distinguish full from half brothers. It does '''not''' identify that father with John Glasgow-1022, the older Glenleslie man, and it does not make Alexander another son. The family memorial transcription gives John’s death as 20 June 1895 aged 78, implying birth about 1816–17. A civil return instead records a John Glasgow of Lisnagaver dying on 24 June 1885, with son James as informant; this is a compatible candidate record, but its identification with the memorial’s John remains unresolved.<ref name="JohnDeath1885" /> The 1851 census age implies birth about 1801. The conflicting dates and ages must be kept separate; neither reading identifies his father with Glenleslie John. Any maintained attachment to John-1022 is an uncertain identification of the father, not an additional record and not evidence for Alexander’s parentage.


The distinction matters because the neighbouring tenancy pattern is tempting but not decisive. The 1834 tithe names Alexander and Robert Glasgow at Lisnagaver, while later valuation lots 24, 25 and 26 are associated with John, Alexander and Thomas under Robert Harvey. Acreage, field-book and adjacency arguments can suggest tenancy succession or a broader network. They cannot establish a biological descent, and Plantation-measure tithe acreage cannot be numerically matched to statute-measure valuation acreage to manufacture an inheritance. The 1836 field book names Robert Glasgow and Archibald McCaughan junior in the house section but does not name Alexander; its land section does not supply occupier names. It therefore cannot decide who lived together, who inherited, or whether Alexander was a brother of John or Thomas.


Thomas Glasgow-987 and Daniel Glasgow-3896 have a stronger relationship argument than Alexander has with either. Daniel’s 1871 will, indexed through the PRONI Wills Calendar<ref name="Evidence968b317eb1">[https://apps.proni.gov.uk/willscalendar_ie/willssearch.aspx PRONI Wills Calendar].</ref>, calls the late Thomas his brother and identifies Daniel Neely Glasgow as nephew; Daniel Neely’s 28 June 1888 marriage<ref name="Evidence47f7d35ebe">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1888/10763/5925382.pdf 28 June 1888 marriage].</ref> in turn names Thomas Glasgow, farmer, as his father. Those two records establish Daniel and Thomas as brothers. Thomas’s PRONI calendar administration<ref name="Evidence9c6dade023">[https://apps.proni.gov.uk/WillsCalendar_IE/WillsSearch.aspx PRONI calendar administration].</ref> adds that the Lisnagaver farmer died 21 June 1870 and administration went to widow Mary Anne on 7 September. It was an intestate administration, not a will, and it names no parent, sibling or heir beyond the widow. It cannot be used to extend the proved brotherhood into a parentage for Alexander.


Alexander may be a brother or cousin of Thomas and Daniel. Shared locality, associated land, church context and descendant testimony make that a worthwhile research model. No confirmed Y-DNA comparison with an independently documented Thomas or Daniel descendant is supplied in this case. None of those sources says that Alexander was their brother, so the three men are not a proved sibling set. The 2020 correspondence records the older Alexander-and-Rosanna belief, but provides no demonstrably independent parentage source: the correspondent said she ''believed'' Thomas’s parents were Alexander and Rosanna, separately wondered whether the user’s Alexander was Thomas’s brother, and supplied neither a record citation nor usable autosomal-match data. The later FamilySearch Pedigree Resource File entries derive from an Ancestry member tree and conflict even on Rosanna’s reported death day. They show the circulation of a tradition, not its verification.



==== The Irish–Canadian family: what the original deeds establish ====


The Canadian connection is now supported by an explicit transaction. In the registered deed of '''30 July 1861''', B465<ref name="Evidence6e02c4a48a">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWB8-D registered deed of '''30 July 1861''', B465].</ref>, '''Daniel Glasgow of Kilrea, County Londonderry, watchmaker''', and '''Thomas Glasgow, farmer of the County Antrim townland written Lislagaver/Lisnagaver''', sell Samuel Glasgow of Prescott two undivided sixths of the Centre Street property. Their wives are '''Margaret''' and '''Mary Anne''', and the deed expressly derives the interests from Robert Glasgow's will. Place, occupation, wives and the already proved Daniel–Thomas brotherhood identify these men with [[Glasgow-3896|Daniel-3896]] and [[Glasgow-987|Thomas-987]]. This resolves the former uncertainty about whether the will's Irish brothers were the known Kilrea and Lisnagaver men.


Robert's will of '''9 October 1849''', B12<ref name="Evidence8bdc36c751">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWY9-S will of '''9 October 1849''', B12].</ref>, registered in 1856, gives one sixth each to brothers '''Daniel, Samuel, John and Thomas''', one sixth to sister '''Mary''', and one sixth collectively to '''the children of brother James'''. Combined with B465, this places Daniel and Thomas in the same documented sibling group as [[Glasgow-4010|Samuel of Prescott-4010]] and Robert. The original does '''not''' call James deceased: the earlier death-before-1849 inference is withdrawn. It names no parents.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Original record !! People, property and transaction !! What it establishes
|-
| B12, 9 October 1849; registered 13 November 1856<ref name="Evidence8bdc36c751" />, DGS 008200419, images 35–36, pp.9–10 || Robert's six shares, including one collectively for brother James's children. Executors Alexander McWilliam and Samuel Glasgow. || Direct sibling wording. Alexander Glasgow witnesses the 1856 registration request; that is a different role from beneficiary. James's death is not stated.
|-
| B13, 30 October 1856<ref name="Evidencea817cfef9a">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWYM-6 B13, 30 October 1856].</ref>, image 36, pp.10–11 || '''John Glasgow, Prescott watchmaker, and wife Jane''' sell Samuel, merchant, '''one sixth for £125'''; Jane releases dower. Registered 13 November. || An actual acquisition of a share. John's trade also gives a specific occupational comparison with his brother Daniel.
|-
| B395, 23 November 1860<ref name="Evidence28cf19c59e">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWR4-5 B395, 23 November 1860].</ref>, image 208, pp.336–337 || '''Eliza Jane Glasco''', Rochester, New York, spinster, eldest daughter of '''James Glasco, formerly of Prescott, carpenter''', sells Samuel '''one ninth for £33 6s 8d'''. Registered 22 December. || Explicit father–daughter relationship and residence. No explicit derivation from Robert's will. The copied registration signature says James although the grantee is Samuel.
|-
| B465, 30 July 1861<ref name="Evidence6e02c4a48a" />, images 240–241, pp.397–398 || '''Daniel and Margaret of Kilrea; Thomas and Mary Anne of Lisnagaver'''; two sixths to Samuel for '''$1,000 Canadian currency''', expressly under Robert's will; executed at Coleraine. || The direct Irish identification and inheritance link. The official abstract gives registration 7 October 1861. The deed opening and closing copy differ on the July day; the opening date is used here.
|-
| B601, 27 June 1863<ref name="Evidenceb3d6546218">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LWBS-7 B601, 27 June 1863].</ref>, image 316, pp.542–543 || '''Mary Glasco''', Rochester spinster, second eldest daughter of '''James, formerly Prescott carpenter''', sells Samuel '''one ninth for £33 6s 8d'''. '''Alexander Glasgow of Prescott, gentleman''', witnesses. Registered 3 August. || Identifies a second daughter of the carpenter. It does not identify the witness as Alexander-951 or explicitly describe the interest as a share under Robert's will.
|}


These deeds concern '''Lot 12 south of Dibble Street and a 3,400-square-foot part of Lot 11''', the house at '''388 Centre Street'''. The municipal designation report<ref name="Evidence4107280a3f">[https://www.prescott.ca/media/3dtiztjk/council-agenda-june-16-2025.pdf municipal designation report].</ref>, printed pp.31–32, and the 2017 property account<ref name="Evidence57849ff728">[https://www.theresataylor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Auction-all-for-others-Brockville-Recorder.pdf 2017 property account].</ref> agree on 388. The former 280 reference was a project citation error. OnLand's official parcel search<ref name="Evidence43bc477d8f">[https://www.onland.ca/ui/15/property/address OnLand's official parcel search].</ref> identifies PIN '''68159-0153''', Plan 19, Block 2; the historical abstract, p.71<ref name="Evidence675d9ee4bd">[https://www.onland.ca/ui/15/books/48793/viewer/998408458?page=97 historical abstract, p.71].</ref>, connects the same Lot 11 strip to Robert's '''5 April 1841''' purchase from Susannah Jessup. Samuel's '''251 Water Street West''', Plan 19, Block 2, part Lot 16, remains a separate property.



==== James's family: a promising identification with an unresolved title problem ====


Eliza Jane and Mary are explicitly sisters and daughters of '''James the Prescott carpenter'''. Identifying that James with Robert's brother is a strong property-based hypothesis, because both daughters convey interests in the same two parcels to Samuel. It is not yet proved by an express kinship or inheritance clause. Each daughter's '''one-ninth''' interest is also recorded in the official abstract. Together they exceed the '''one-sixth''' collective share given to James's children in Robert's will. Earlier ownership, additional inherited interests or a record error must be examined before treating these as a simple distribution of that sixth. The fractions cannot responsibly supply a child count.


The '''1868 Alexander deed has now been inspected'''. C114, 25 March 1868<ref name="Evidence1f5003a1e5">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LQRC-Y C114, 25 March 1868].</ref>, DGS 008200420, image 120, pp.164–165, identifies '''Alexander Glasco of Rochester, Monroe County, New York, express agent, son of James Glasco formerly of Prescott, carpenter'''. Through attorney Macneil Clarke he conveys '''one eighteenth''' for '''$166.66''' to '''Mary Eno Glasgow, widow of the late Samuel Glasgow'''. The accompanying C113 power of attorney<ref name="Evidenceff75c70d0d">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LQRK-B accompanying C113 power of attorney].</ref> was made at Rochester on '''28 December 1867'''; both instruments were registered on '''18 August 1868'''. The abstract's August date is therefore registration, not the deed's execution date.


This positively identifies a son of James the carpenter alongside Eliza Jane and Mary. It supplies '''three named children''', without claiming a complete family or resolving how their title shares arose. It identifies a Rochester express agent, not a Lisnagaver farmer: linking him to Alexander-951 would require an independent wife, age, birthplace or migration bridge. No such bridge was found in this inspection, so this father statement is not assigned to Alexander-951. The earlier Prescott witness named Alexander is a relevant comparison, but the shared name does not prove he was the express agent either. '''Mary Eno''' is the widow's recorded name; the document does not establish Eno as a maiden surname.



==== Mary Glasgow Black and the Drumoolish connection ====


The original '''C298 deed of 15 September 1869'''<ref name="Evidencea11558442b">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSLG-LQTY-K original '''C298 deed of 15 September 1869'''].</ref>, registered '''1 July 1870''', explicitly identifies '''Mary Black, formerly Mary Glasgow, as sister of the late Robert Glasgow of Prescott'''. It names her six children and conveys the family’s interest to Samuel’s widow for '''$800'''. This is another direct Irish bridge: two of the children reside at '''Drumoolish, County Londonderry'''. The deed gives a record-based family to compare with the wider Bann Valley and Inishrush evidence; it does not name Mary’s parents or make her a daughter of Adam.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Child of Mary Glasgow Black !! Residence and description in the deed !! Spouse or estate detail
|-
| John Black || Drumoolish, County Londonderry; yeoman || Wife Martha joins.
|-
| Rose Ann Black || Drumoolish; spinster || Living party.
|-
| Jane Miller || Newburgh, Orange County, New York || Wife of Robert Miller.
|-
| Agnes Black || Newburgh; spinster || Living party.
|-
| Thomasina Montgomery || Legrand, Marshall County, Iowa || Wife of Mathew Montgomery.
|-
| Elizabeth Black || Newburgh; spinster || Had died unmarried and intestate; the five named siblings are described as her heirs.
|}


The six child interests are expressed as '''six sixth-parts of Mary’s one-sixth interest'''; the five surviving siblings also account for Elizabeth’s part. This explains a subdivision within this particular branch. It does not resolve the Rochester daughters’ ninths. Mary Black, Robert’s sister, is distinct from Mary Glasco of Rochester, James the carpenter’s daughter. The deed names '''Mary Eno Glasgow''' as Samuel’s widow, but does not establish Eno as her maiden surname.



==== Consequences for Alexander's parentage ====


The Canadian records now expand '''Daniel and Thomas's documented family''', which makes their brothers' and sister's records directly relevant to this enquiry. They still do not name Daniel or Thomas's parents, and they do not establish Alexander-951 as another brother. The Alexander-and-Rosanna tradition remains a hypothesis about Thomas's parents. Alexander's possible place among James's children now has named family and property records to test, but the carpenter's identity with Robert's brother and any connection between his Rochester son and Alexander-951 must each be demonstrated.


The 1861 deed also places wives '''Margaret''' and '''Mary Anne''' in the recorded family transaction. It strengthens the identification of the existing Irish couples and gives a later dated occurrence of Daniel's wife before his widowed death in 1871. It does not supply either woman's maiden name or establish the mother of every child. No new Y-DNA result was obtained: documentary linkage to the Prescott brothers expands the family that can be compared with Alexander's paternal line, without proving a genetic match or the joining generation.

==== The Black branch and a possible witness at Robert's marriage ====

The original civil return for [[Glasgow-938|Robert Glasgow]] and Jane Graham, 5 April 1866, records Robert's father as Alexander Glasgow, farmer, and names '''John Black''' as a witness. The return gives John no address or relationship. A plausible candidate is the John Black of Drumoolish who married Martha Savage on 13 March 1862, son of Robert Black, farmer; this remains a hypothesis, not a profile identification.

The 1862 marriage return<ref name="EvidenceBlackSavage1862">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/marriage_returns/marriages_1862/10945/5491449.pdf John Black–Martha Savage marriage return], page 178, entry 136, image 5491449.</ref> gives John as a full-age bachelor, farmer of Drumoolish, son of Robert Black; Martha was daughter of William Savage. Churchtown's baptism transcription records Elizabeth Black on 31 July 1845, daughter of '''Robert Black and Mary Glasgow''', resident Drumoolish<ref name="EvidenceBlackElizabeth1845">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/TamlaghtP/Baptisms.html Churchtown baptism transcription], page 7, entry 116.</ref>. This supplies a named parental couple for the Black branch and makes the deed-based John a specific person to investigate. It does not name Alexander's parents.

The 1831 Tamlaght O'Crilly census transcription lists Robert Black at Drumolish, house 57, with two males and one female, but the occupants are unnamed and other Black households occur in the same townland<ref name="EvidenceBlack1831">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/Tamlaght/1831census_2.html 1831 census transcription], row 643.</ref>. The December 1862 report of twins born to John's wife at her father William Savage's home and the 5 November 1863 Churchtown baptisms of Robert and William Black, children of John and Martha, support the couple's continuity<ref name="EvidenceBlackChildren">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/TamlaghtP/Baptisms2.html Churchtown baptism transcription].</ref>. The newspaper's 20 December birth and the baptism transcription's nine-month age conflict; both remain reported rather than reconciled.

The 1866 witness fact is established, but identifying him with this John Black remains unproved. Shared congregation and local geography could explain contact without kinship. Even a confirmed identification would not prove that Alexander and Mary Glasgow belonged to the same parental couple. The Elizabeth and 1843 baptism images, Robert Black and Mary Glasgow's marriage, and further Churchtown witness occurrences are the next discriminating checks. The 1843 transcription's “Thomson Black” and illegible mother reading must not be changed to “Thomasina” or “Gear” without the original image.

==== Concrete connections to other Glasgows ====

On 18 February 1875 at Finvoy Parish Church, [[Glasgow-1371|Ann Glasgow]], daughter of [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow]], married Francis Bellingham. The witnesses were Thomas Bellingham and '''Mary Anne M‘Caughern'''.<ref name="Bellingham1875">[[https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/McCaughan-222#_note-BellinghamGlasgow1875 WikiTree source note for the 1875 Bellingham–Glasgow marriage].</ref>

This is a useful record-level link between John's Glasgow family and a McCaughern surname form. The witness is unidentified and must not be equated with [[McCaughan-222|Mary/Molly Glasgow]]: the record says Mary Anne, uses M‘Caughern, and does not establish that Alexander's wife was living in 1875. It is a network observation, not proof that [[Glasgow-867|John]] and [[Glasgow-951|Alexander]] were related.



==== 1892 New York probate citation: Nancy Glasgow's next of kin ====

The most informative parentage evidence located so far is not an Irish record but a legal notice published in New York. On 14 January 1892 the Clinton County Surrogate issued a citation on the petition of Hiram Walworth to prove the will of '''[[Glasgow-4070|Nancy Glasgow]]''' of Plattsburgh, an unmarried Irish-born woman who had described herself in January 1889 as "about 68 years" old.<ref name="NancyWill1889">Clinton County, New York, Surrogate's Court, ''Records of wills, 1807–1902'', vol. Q, pp. 255–259, will of Nancy Glasgow of Plattsburgh dated 15 January 1889, admitted 9 May 1892; [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GYC4-66V?view=fullText FamilySearch image 159].</ref><ref name="NancyCitation1892">''The Plattsburgh Sentinel'' (Plattsburgh, New York), 26 February 1892, p. 6, legal notices, citation in the estate of Nancy Glasgow, deceased, dated 14 January 1892; [https://www.nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=plts18920226-01.1.6 New York State Historic Newspapers].</ref> The notice addresses heirs, next of kin and legatees. Its reference to both real and personal estate matters: the old restriction on collateral representation in personal property cannot by itself determine every relative's standing in this proceeding.<ref name="DeVoe1905">''Matter of De Voe'', 107 A.D. 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1905), discussion of pre-1898 personal-property representation and the different treatment of real property; [https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division/1905/107-ad-245.html published judicial opinion]. This later case explains the distinction; it is not a decree concerning Nancy's family.</ref>

The citation names no brother or sister directly. It lists only children of named people: '''James G. Glasgow, Ann and Lizzie''', children of John Glasgow, late of "Baladonly" (Ballydonnelly, Rasharkin parish); '''James Glasgow, Mary and Ann''', children of Alexander Glasgow, formerly of Rasharkin; '''Mary Jane and Ann''', children of Robert Glasgow; the Dysart children of '''[[Glasglow-11|Jane (Glasgow) Dysart]]''' in Rasharkin, Ballymena, New Zealand and West Troy; '''David, James and Samuel Anderson of Gortahar''', identified through separate household records as sons of '''[[Glasgow-4071|Elizabeth (Glasgow) Anderson]]'''; and the unnamed children of '''Ann McClelland''' and '''Mary Thompson'''.<ref name="NancyCitation1892" /> Nancy's will independently calls Margaret (Dysart) Kennedy her niece and Robert Anderson her nephew,<ref name="NancyWill1889" /> and the Rasharkin Presbyterian register records both as children of Glasgow mothers — Jane Glascaw at Granagh and Betty Glascaw at Drumack.<ref name="Evidence5574dbd555" /> Together these records support a probable network of deceased sibling branches: John, Alexander, Robert, Jane, Elizabeth, Ann and Mary. Elizabeth is identified through the baptism and household records, not named as a parent in the notice. The list's completeness and each person's exact relationship remain to be checked in the underlying petition.

The Alexander of this citation is probably Alexander of Lisnagaver. His daughters' marriages of 1871 and 1876 each name Alexander Glasgow of Lisnagaver as father, his son James was baptised at Lisnagaver in 1843, and he died in May 1888 — "formerly of Rasharkin" in the citation's language. Nancy, born about 1820–21, was roughly ten years his junior: probable sisterhood fits these ages; daughterhood does not. He spent his last years at '''Gortahar''', where the citation places his sister Elizabeth's Anderson sons in 1892. His son [[Glasgow-938|Robert]] is not named, although he was living: the ''Belfast News-Letter'' of 6 January 1892 announced the death at 534 Gallowgate, Glasgow, of Jane Graham, "wife of Robert Glasgow, formerly of Rasharkin", eight days before the citation.<ref name="Audit2026BNL1892">''Belfast News-Letter'', 6 January 1892, p. 1, deaths, GRAHAM; [https://www.newspapers.com/image/388125998/ Newspapers.com image 388125998].</ref> The citation therefore left out a living child of Alexander, and its lists cannot be read as complete. His reported death in 1902 still needs its original record.

The John of the citation is probably '''[[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow of Lisnagaver]]'''; Lizzie and the Ballydonnelly residence remain identity checks. His documented children were Ann (born 1848; married Bellingham in 1875, naming father John) and '''James Garvin Glasgow''' — the "James G." of the notice; the "Lizzie" of the notice is an otherwise unrecorded daughter (the Elizabeth Ann on the family memorial, died 1933, was James Garvin's widow).<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4" /> A John Glasgow of Lisnagaver died on 24 June 1885 with son James as informant, which agrees with "late of".<ref name="JohnDeath1885">General Register Office of Ireland, civil death return, Ballymoney superintendent registrar's district, Dirraw district, entry 2: John Glasgow, Lisnagaver, 24 June 1885; [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1885/06280/4799372.pdf register image].</ref> John's original 1846 marriage return names his father as '''John Glasgow, farmer''', and the 1851 census makes Samuel Glasgow, born in County Londonderry about 1790, John's brother.<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4" /> If Alexander and John shared a father, that father would be John Glasgow, farmer. Probable siblinghood alone does not distinguish a shared father from a shared mother or more complex half relationships.

The same document tells against the alternatives. '''[[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]]''' of Lisnagaver, whom earlier research treated as Alexander's possible brother, died in 1870 leaving children who were adults at Lisnagaver in the 1880s; had he been Nancy's brother they would have been her next of kin, yet none is cited while nieces in New Zealand are. This omission weighs against a simple reconstruction only if expected inclusion and completeness are established. It does not exclude Thomas or his proved brother [[Glasgow-3896|Daniel]] as Alexander's brothers or collateral relatives: Alexander could also share a parent with Thomas without Thomas being Nancy's sibling. The tradition naming [[Glasgow-3904|an older Alexander]] and Rosanna concerns Thomas; its extension to Alexander of Lisnagaver remains unproved. Likewise no member of the Glenleslie family of [[Glasgow-1367|Robert Glasgow]] and Catherine, previously attached as Alexander's parents, appears among Nancy's next of kin; [[Glasgow-1049|Robert of Doonbought]]'s daughters were Catherine, Margaret, Maria, Netta and Jane, not the Mary Jane and Ann of the citation. The Robert of the citation is more likely the second Lisnagaver tithe occupier of 1834 — 35 acres entered immediately after Alexander's 29 — and perhaps the Robert Glasgow of Gortereghy in Griffith's Valuation who died in Ballymoney district in 1868 aged 71; his daughters have not yet been found.<ref name="Evidenceb707c32b1e" /><ref name="GriffithRasharkin">[https://www.failteromhat.com/griffiths/antrim/rasharkin.htm Griffith's Valuation, Rasharkin parish], Glasgow occupiers at Lisnagaver (Alexander, John, Thomas), Gortereghy (Daniel, Robert) and Dromore (James).</ref><ref name="Evidenced078ae5073" />

The reconstructed family of John Glasgow, farmer, runs from Samuel (about 1790, County Londonderry) through Robert (about 1797), John (about 1801, County Antrim), Jane (about 1804), Alexander (about 1811), Elizabeth (by about 1816), Ann and Mary, to Nancy (about 1820–21) — a span that warrants checking estimated ages, identities and possible multiple unions; it does not establish two marriages of a particular parent. If these identities and a shared household are correct, their different birth counties suggest a possible movement from County Londonderry to Rasharkin parish; the John Glasgow recorded as a Desertoghill flax grower in 1796 ([[Glasgow-4090|Glasgow-4090]]) is a plausible but unproved identity for the father, and John of Lisnagaver later married a Desertoghill woman at Garvagh. No record yet names Alexander's father in his own right, and the citation cannot distinguish full from half siblings. The decisive record is Nancy's underlying Clinton County probate petition, which should state each cited person's relationship to her.

Sources: ''The Plattsburgh Sentinel'', 26 February 1892, p. 6; Clinton County Will Book Q, pp. 255–259; Rasharkin Presbyterian baptisms, entries 04, 63, 82, 133, 176, 271; John Glasgow–Margaret Garvin marriage, 16 November 1846; 1851 census, Lisnagaver house 34; civil death of John Glasgow, Lisnagaver, 24 June 1885; Griffith's Valuation, Rasharkin; 1834 Rasharkin tithe applotment, Lisnagaver.


==== Separate Canadian estate leads ====


The bare estate index<ref name="Evidence886dbd1025">[https://www.ontariogenealogy.com/uppercanadaontariopioneerwillsestatefiles/leedsgrenvillecountieswillssurrogaterecords/leedsgrenvillecountieswillestateindex.html bare estate index].</ref> entries '''Samuel Glasgow, 1875''' and '''James E., 1900–09''' remain unassigned. [[Glasgow-4021|Younger Samuel-4021]], two at his next birthday in the 1851 household, is an alternative to the merchant; [[Glasgow-4017|James E.-4017]], five at his next birthday, is a specific comparison for the later James E. entry. These are separate from James the carpenter and the Centre Street deeds.


The 1851 Prescott census<ref name="Evidence9d10d7d2c7">[https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item/?app=Census1851&op=img&id=e002351566 1851 Prescott census].</ref> contains '''eight household members, six probable children'''. With two later sons reported by local history, eight possible children are accounted for, leaving two of the reported ten unaccounted for by those sources. Library and Archives Canada fonds R6229-0-0-E / MG24-I39<ref name="Evidence3488d83655">[https://recherche-collection-search.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/home/record?IdNumber=98738&app=fonandcol Library and Archives Canada fonds R6229-0-0-E / MG24-I39].</ref> concerns a Niagara farmer who died about 1830 and is excluded as this merchant's archive.


The remaining distinct family groups are Alexander's household; John-867 and Samuel-2908's father-John branch; and the now connected '''Kilrea–Lisnagaver–Prescott sibling group'''. No record yet joins them under a common parent. The new Irish bridge is established; Alexander's position within that wider family remains the question.


The 2020 correspondent identified a descent through Catherine, described as Thomas and Mary Ann’s sixth daughter, and reported an autosomal match. The supplied message contains no shared-cM total, segment information, checked descent or source for the parent names. Her belief about Thomas’s parents and her separate question about Alexander’s brotherhood are two claims that require separate tests. The reported match is a lead to evaluate for other shared ancestral routes as well as this paternal hypothesis. The correspondence is summarised without publishing the private message or correspondent’s identity.



=== The Larne connection: a working family reconstruction ===

'''The Larne–Kilwaughter family is a priority origin hypothesis for Alexander's paternal line.''' The useful model connects an Irish branch with a branch that moved to South Carolina in the 1770s. [[Glasgow-2769|Robert of Tennessee]], born in South Carolina about 1790–94, is proposed as [[Glasgow-2738|James J's]] father. He is not proposed as the father of Alexander, Thomas or Daniel. Their ages therefore supply no objection to that American parentage.


There are two questions to solve together: which older Larne household supplied the Irish branch, and which man in that branch fathered Alexander. [[Glasgow-1509|James Glasgow of Larne (Glasgow-1509)]], reportedly born in 1737, is a concrete candidate for the earlier generation. Identifying him with [[Glasgow-3905|Glasgow-3905]] means testing whether he was '''Adam of Inishrush's father''': 3905 represents that unidentified parental role, rather than a second man established by records. Its placeholder status neither supports nor disqualifies James.



==== The American branch has a coherent chronology ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Connection !! Evidence and present assessment
|-
| [[Glasgow-1143|Robert of Kilwaughter (1143)]] → [[Glasgow-1144|James (1144)]], born 1731 || Strongly supported by the congregation-register transcription and the sworn Wilson inheritance evidence. The 1738 lease<ref name="Evidence3639771d35">[https://www.irishdeedsindex.net/mem.php?memorial=74015 1738 lease].</ref> independently associates Robert, wife Rachel and James junior; it does not itself call James a son.
|-
| James → [[Glasgow-2304|Archibald (2304)]], about 1769–1818 || James's 1775 will<ref name="Evidence7be752e583">[https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_JGlasgowWill.html 1775 will].</ref> and the 1817 equity complaint<ref name="Evidence6cd9fd682a">[https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_Complaint.html 1817 equity complaint].</ref> name Archibald among his children. This is a record-supported connection, not merely a tree attachment.
|-
| Archibald → Robert of Tennessee (2769) || A substantive missing-son hypothesis. The 1800 Newberry household<ref name="Evidencee062f1f75c">[https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/1800nbycensusG.htm 1800 Newberry household].</ref> contains one boy under ten. Archibald's monument-named son James was born about 1806 and cannot be that boy. Robert's early-1790s birth fits.
|-
| Robert → James J (2738), born about 1809/10 || Both report South Carolina origins; Robert's 1820 household<ref name="Evidencebaa474cb6d">[https://archive.org/details/populationsc18200124unit/page/n21/mode/1up 1820 household].</ref> has a boy aged 10–15, and James later has a documented Giles County land trail. No located record names Robert as James's father.
|}


The Kilwaughter chronology<ref name="Evidencea2434e090d">[https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Kilwaughter/Timeline.html Kilwaughter chronology].</ref> associates James's family with the 1772 Irish petition; his 1775 will places him in South Carolina. These fit the reported 1772/73 migration without proving an exact voyage. If Robert was James J's father, their South Carolina births followed by Robert's 1814 Tennessee militia service<ref name="Evidenceeac4e8f870">[https://scout.lib.utk.edu/repositories/2/resources/4000 1814 Tennessee militia service].</ref> fit a later move within America. The Irish collateral branch can have remained in Ireland throughout.


The age fit is stronger when calculated properly. Robert's 1820 and 1840 brackets, combined with Archibald's under-ten boy in 1800, allow '''5 August 1790–7 August 1794''', if all three returns concern him and their age bands are accurate. His 1850 age of sixty requires a modest discrepancy; it favours the older end of the working range. That older end also gives a more comfortable fatherhood age for James J around 1809/10. The woman aged 16–25 in Archibald's 1800 household could have been about sixteen to twenty at an early-1790s birth if near the older end of her range. Her age is a constraint to check, not a general exclusion of the family. Census dates: 1800<ref name="Evidence023fccd184">[https://www.archives.gov/research/census/1800 Census dates: 1800].</ref>, 1820<ref name="Evidence4b42eb2ce0">[https://www.archives.gov/research/census/1820 1820].</ref>, 1840<ref name="Evidenceb15556cf00">[https://www.archives.gov/research/census/1840 1840].</ref>.


This makes Archibald a worthwhile leading named candidate for '''Robert's''' father. It does not make Robert the uniquely established father of '''James J'''. [[Glasgow-2439|James Glasgow (2439)]], born about 1787, and Sarah form another age-compatible Newberry household. Its 1831 estate should be compared with Archibald's. Robert's Bradshaw Creek associates and James J's district-six land trail still need joining. The 1848 deed<ref name="Evidenceeb34fedf89">[https://tngenweb.org/giles/deed-noah-hancock-to-james-glasgow/ 1848 deed].</ref> proves James's residence then; its recital of an 1845 title bond proves the earlier transaction, not necessarily residence in 1845.



==== James of Larne fits the missing older generation ====


James was a '''Belfast ropemaker''' when he took the 1760 Larne ropewalk lease<ref name="Evidence02ef2f94d9">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSH3-S7XZ-8 1760 Larne ropewalk lease].</ref>. That gives the hypothesis a real adult and a property trail near Adam's estimated birth, rather than a name supplied only by a pedigree. The 1773 affidavit<ref name="Evidence3d5dde76bc">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSH3-M72W-M 1773 affidavit].</ref> says he was over thirty. It supports the older James identity, although the especially good generational fit below depends on his reported 1737 birth.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Person to compare with James's household !! James's approximate age at the reported birth !! Evidence for the proposed connection
|-
| [[Glasgow-3902|Adam of Inishrush (3902)]], about 1758 || 21 || A normal father–son interval. Adam's monument<ref name="Evidenceb277bf57fc">[https://www.oneirishrover.com/tamlaght-graveyard/ monument].</ref> names a son James, providing modest naming support. The full child order is unknown; James cannot be called Adam's first son. No record yet joins Adam to the ropemaker.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3324|William (3324)]], about 1763 || 26 || The strongest existing child hypothesis: William's daughter '''Jane Shutter''' supplies distinctive support for descent from James and Janet Shutter. William's own household is established by the published monument<ref name="Evidence2451376d60">[https://archive.org/stream/ulsterjournalofa06ulstiala/ulsterjournalofa06ulstiala_djvu.txt published monument].</ref>.
|-
| [[Glasgow-822|John of Inishrush, later Ohio (822)]], 1767 || 30 || John and Adam have a substantial Inishrush family association and may be brothers. Making James their common father is an additional hypothesis; John's own naming sequence also supports an alternative older Adam.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3904|Older Alexander (3904)]], estimated about 1770 || 33 || A coherent possible brother of Adam. His own existence and family are reconstructed principally from the later Thomas-parent tradition; no record names James as his father.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3986|Younger James of Larne (3986)]], about 1773 || 36 || An already identified possible son, associated with the 1795 merchant and 1797 junior records. He supplies an alternative route to Alexander's generation without inventing another unnamed James.
|-
| [[Glasgow-1367|Robert of Glenleslie (1367)]], about 1779 || 42 || Fits chronologically as another possible child in the broader reconstruction. No record makes him James's son, and he is not securely identified with the Lisnagaver tithe occupier.
|}


'''The 1762 marriage is the main household condition.''' It postdates Adam's estimated birth by about four years. If James fathered Adam, Adam could belong to an earlier relationship, a premarital birth, or a chronology needing correction. None is established. Janet Shutter must not acquire maternity merely because she was James's later reported wife. The original marriage and earlier Belfast records could distinguish these possibilities.


Nor does James have to move to Inishrush himself. His 1768 sale<ref name="Evidence2f70b79715">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSJW-DDXW 1768 sale].</ref> transferred the ropewalk interest, but Holmes's 1799 will<ref name="Evidence0b4b961c56">[https://holmes-history.com/antrim/ Holmes's 1799 will].</ref> still names a James Glasgow, roper, in Larne. An adult son could have moved independently. The ropemaker, the younger [[Glasgow-3991|tanner James (3991)]], and the younger merchant must remain distinct record groups; selling a workshop is not evidence of a family migration by itself.



==== Two routes to Alexander deserve explicit comparison ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Working reconstruction !! Why it fits !! What would distinguish it
|-
| '''James-1509 → older Alexander-3904 → Alexander-951''', with Adam-3902 a possible brother of the older Alexander || It gives ordinary generation intervals and accommodates the tradition naming Alexander and Rosanna as Thomas's parents<ref name="Evidenceae0615ab1c">[https://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards/board/general_topics/thread/465937 tradition naming Alexander and Rosanna as Thomas's parents].</ref>, if younger Alexander belonged to that sibling family. It is much cleaner chronologically than making older Alexander a son of Adam and Rose. || A record linking older Alexander to the Larne family, and an independent record or family register joining younger Alexander to Thomas and Daniel. The tradition supplies a name, not the missing Larne connection.
|-
| '''James-1509 → younger James-3986 → Alexander-951''', with Adam in a collateral branch || The younger James's estimated birth about 1773 gives an ordinary fatherhood age around 1804–11. Alexander's use of James for his sons is compatible with this route. It uses a known candidate of the appropriate generation. || Larne succession records naming James's children, or a Lisnagaver record naming Alexander's father James. If Thomas and Daniel were also made his sons, that would be an alternative to the testimony naming their father Alexander. They need not be assigned to him merely to test Alexander's own parentage.
|}


The first route better preserves the existing Thomas-family testimony; the second tests the documented merchant and junior occurrences provisionally identified with younger James-3986. Neither has a father statement for Alexander. These are '''competing explanations worth testing''', not equal-probability trees. The local Robert and father-John possibilities remain in the immediate-parent comparison; a Larne origin could ultimately run through either of them.


The earlier Adam → older Alexander route compresses the generations: Adam born about 1758 would be twelve at the older Alexander's estimated 1770 birth, while Rose born about 1767 would be three. Moving the older Alexander's birth later and proposing an earlier mother can make Adam's paternity biologically possible, but adds conditions unsupported by records. A brother or cousin relationship is the more natural version to investigate. This chronological preference does not itself prove their kinship.



==== Where the DNA and the wider catalogue narrow the search ====


The DNA evidence is positive family evidence. Alexander's established descendant line and James J's line share '''R-FT20271''', are three steps apart at Y-111 and share DYS714=27. Alongside James J's South Carolina origin and the documented Kilwaughter emigrant family, that makes the Larne connection worth pursuing ahead of an arbitrary same-surname pedigree. The American household evidence was not derived from the DNA, so their agreement is meaningful. But the proposed links from James J to Robert and Archibald are the very links being tested: they cannot also be counted as an independent proof that the match descends from Archibald.


There are already '''two additional historical comparison routes''' in the public project<ref name="Evidencedb3c53b8e9" />: a reported Robert-1143 line tested at Y-111, and a reported John-822 line tested at Y-67. They place the Larne and Inishrush questions within the same broader STR research network. Their public broad haplogroup labels do not yet establish either as FT20271-positive. Auditing those descent paths and obtaining resolved SNP states would test the proposed geographic connection more directly than treating all current FT20271 matches as interchangeable. John's omission of Alexander from his family Bible weakens '''John as Alexander's father''', not John as a collateral relative.


The proposed older Larne tree must also be tested. James-1509’s imported and live attachment is to [[Glasgow-1505|William-1505]], while the reviewed catalogue also carries a competing Hugh hypothesis. A William Glasgow, merchant of Larne, witnessed the 1760 lease; his identification with William-1505 needs checking against the other adult Williams. The derivative 1737 baptism names Hugh. [[Glasgow-1499|Hugh-1503's]] monument names a different adult son James, born about 1747/48. Both cannot casually be treated as the same child; identifying both as surviving sons of one Hugh would need explanation. William and Hugh's 1736 joint tenancy establishes association, while the proposed connections from them and Robert-1143 to [[Glasgow-1502|Robert-1502]] remain unproved. This is the unsettled joining generation, rather than a reason to disregard the well-supported branches below it.


A second origin model remains useful: the two '''Hugh Glasgow householders recorded in Tamlaght O'Crilly in 1740''', followed by a parish Hugh in 1772, could represent local continuity behind Adam. John's Bible<ref name="Evidence5dc7ff7638">[https://www.hiltner.com/mckeown/getperson.php?personID=I368&tree=tree1 Bible].</ref> gives sons Adam–James–John and second daughter Maria, suggesting older Adam and Maria under a conventional naming pattern. That pattern is not fully followed, and applying it to Adam-3902 depends on the unproved brotherhood. These are substantive local alternatives. They prevent treating a good Larne reconstruction as already the only surviving family.


'''The research can now be narrower:''' test Archibald's missing adult son in estate '''647'''; test the Larne household through William-3324's surviving '''1815 will, D300/1/5/49''', the '''1762 marriage''' and earlier Belfast records; identify Alexander's immediate family in '''CR5/32/1/1/1–2'''; and resolve the DNA placement of the specific Larne and Inishrush comparison lines. Each addresses a particular missing connection. The research priorities explain the outcomes to look for.



=== Alexander’s immediate parents: the remaining comparisons ===

'''Three local explanations addressed Alexander’s immediate parents; since Nancy Glasgow's 1892 next-of-kin citation was read as a legal document, one of them leads.''' The father-John model — the John Glasgow, farmer, named in [[Glasgow-867|John of Lisnagaver]]'s 1846 marriage — is now the leading hypothesis, because the citation places Alexander's children and John's children in the same class of Nancy's next of kin. The older-Alexander-and-Rosanna couple, which reached Alexander through proposed brotherhood with [[Glasgow-987|Thomas]], remains unproved; omission of Thomas's children does not categorically disprove it. The table below records the earlier state of the comparison; the probate-citation section above gives the current reasoning.



==== The immediate local family tests ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Local explanation !! Evidence carrying real weight !! Why it does not yet select a parent
|-
| '''First relationship to resolve: the Thomas–Daniel family''', possibly children of [[Glasgow-3904|older Alexander]] and [[Unknown-761034|Rosanna]] || Contemporary Lisnagaver households, adjoining later holdings and a repeated Marks witness network establish association. Daniel’s will independently proves Thomas his brother. The descendant account<ref name="Evidenceae0615ab1c" /> names Thomas’s parents. || No record makes Alexander their brother. Neighbourhood, congregation and holdings overlap as evidence of local association. Applying Thomas’s parent names requires establishing both their historical basis and Alexander’s same-parent relationship.
|-
| '''Parallel household test: the unidentified Robert of Lisnagaver, 1834''' || A real local occupier, with a Robert also in the 1836 house list. This is a stronger local lead than an otherwise unconnected pedigree. || Neither his age nor relationship is recorded. Identifying him as [[Glasgow-1367|Glenleslie Robert]] is another unproved step, not supporting evidence. He could be a father, brother, uncle or unrelated occupier.
|-
| '''Parallel family test: father John''', named by [[Glasgow-867|John Glasgow of Lisnagaver]] || John’s 1846 marriage<ref name="Evidencef940c7acb4" /> names father John, farmer; the census calls Samuel John’s brother. || Alexander is not called their brother. Brotherhood alone would not prove both parents were shared. This father is not automatically John of Glenleslie.
|}


These are research priorities, not numerical odds or mutually exclusive family trees. Robert could be an uncle while Thomas was a cousin. A father not yet identified in the records remains an open possibility.



==== What the original Canadian deeds change ====


The 1861 deed<ref name="Evidence6e02c4a48a" /> now establishes the Canadian connection for Thomas and Daniel: their documented siblings include Robert and Samuel of Prescott, John the watchmaker, Mary Glasgow Black and brother James. Mary Black’s deed<ref name="Evidencea11558442b" /> identifies six children, including John and Rose Ann of Drumoolish. Their family records now provide a specific local route to the siblings’ parents, independently of the repeated Alexander-and-Rosanna tradition.


The 1868 father statement<ref name="Evidence1f5003a1e5" /> belongs to '''Alexander Glasco of Rochester, express agent''', son of James the Prescott carpenter. It cannot be transferred to Alexander-951 without a wife, age, birthplace or migration bridge. The carpenter’s identity with Robert’s brother also remains to be established because the daughters’ property shares do not fit a simple division of the will’s sixth. James is a named family hypothesis to test; the deed has not selected him as Alexander-951’s father. The full family and property analysis distinguishes the established relationships from these identity steps.



==== Evidence that should change the weighting ====


'''The 1868 Robert death could weaken the father hypothesis.''' The previously inspected Ballymoney index<ref name="Evidenced078ae5073">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view/?record_id=cidenc-957324 Ballymoney index].</ref> gives age 71, implying birth about 1796–97. If that man were the 1834 occupier, he would have been about '''14–15''' at Alexander’s c.1811 birth, or '''7–8''' at the probable death’s c.1804 birth estimate. That is adverse father-age evidence, not confirmation of an older generation. The occupier’s identity is still unknown, so the calculation does not presently exclude him.


'''An older Alexander is not required by the tithe.''' Alexander-951 could have occupied land in 1834 at about twenty-three, or about thirty under the earlier birth estimate. Gortereagh residence after marriage and omission from the 1836 house section do not prove inheritance or co-residence with a parent. The land analysis explains the limits of the surviving coverage and acreage comparisons.


'''The tradition has less independent support than its repetition suggests.''' The public 2020 reply copies the 2007 post; the 2018 pedigree file cites a member tree. The private correspondent believed Thomas’s parent names and separately asked whether Alexander was his brother. Her source is unknown, so neither independence nor copying is established. The clockmaker tradition supplies useful context but misplaces Daniel’s generation if it calls Thomas’s documented brother his uncle. Rosanna’s surname Shaw and reported 1822 death do not become independent evidence for this parentage.


'''The genetic family and the immediate father are different levels of the question.''' The Larne analysis explains why the wider connection is a priority and compares two routes into Alexander’s generation. The local candidates still need a record or independently traced comparison line that distinguishes their particular families.



==== Other immediate-parent candidates and collateral roles ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Hypothesis and present status !! Supporting evidence !! Contrary or missing evidence; required assumption !! Discriminating evidence to seek
|-
| [[Glasgow-1367|Robert of Glenleslie (Glasgow-1367)]]: weak || Census age and 1803 marriage permit parenthood || No Lisnagaver bridge; must distinguish him from the tithe occupier || Relationship record bridging the separately documented households.
|-
| [[Glasgow-1022|John of Glenleslie (Glasgow-1022)]]: weak identity proposal || Nearby father-John model || Age problems; Mary/Maryan ages differ substantially; neither bridge proved || Identify the marriage father; resolve granddaughter identity and her parent.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3902|Adam of Inishrush (Glasgow-3902)]]: weak as immediate father; useful collateral anchor || Nearby documented family || Monument omits Alexander; unnamed census male cannot identify him || Named-child register or estate record.
|-
| [[Glasgow-1622|Adam (Glasgow-1622)]]: open, distinct identity || James's 1851 marriage<ref name="Evidence1d60aad848">[https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view/?record_id=cima-3208068 James's 1851 marriage].</ref> names father Adam || Names no Alexander; cannot merge the two Adams || Identify James and father, then test sibling connection.
|-
| [[Glasgow-822|John of Inishrush/Ohio (Glasgow-822)]]: weakened as father; useful collateral and DNA comparison || Relevant documented family || Family register<ref name="Evidence5dc7ff7638" /> lists nine children, no Alexander || Independent family or church evidence naming Alexander; the two Bible-image inspections are complete.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3986|James of Larne (Glasgow-3986)]]: alternative route within the Larne hypothesis || Suitable age; possible son of James-1509; Alexander used James twice for sons || Larne, not Lisnagaver; naming custom and birth order uncertain || Deed, church or estate record connecting households.
|-
| [[Glasgow-3941|Robert of Coltrim (Glasgow-3941)]]: low priority || Documented older householder || Children unnamed; distinct from Glenleslie and unidentified Lisnagaver Robert || Named family record establishing a bridge.
|}


The first son’s name James is meaningful family evidence, but it does not identify a paternal grandfather or select the Larne man. Mary/Molly’s parents remain unknown, and James and William McCaheran occur locally. Naming could reflect either side of the family; the surviving child sequence cannot establish a fixed naming rule.


'''Retired or excluded:''' the imported Robert-and-Catherine parental pair is superseded; Robert’s biological possibility remains separately open. Catherine has no independent maternity evidence. James-1702 is excluded by the maintained chronology; John-1657 is a rejected practical lead in a distinct family. Detailed candidate sources and exclusions remain accessible.


'''For parentage, the first record priority is the family-group material in PRONI CR5/32/1/1/1–2''', alongside the actual source behind the Thomas parent tradition. Extract named households and dated admissions/removals across Alexander’s childhood, rather than another surname-only list. The existing enquiry remains pending. Reconstruct the unidentified Robert and father John in parallel, without merging them into convenient profiles. The next tests retain the exact references.


Rosanna’s maternity must be assessed separately from older Alexander’s paternity: even paternal half-brotherhood with Thomas would not transfer Thomas’s mother. Mary/Molly’s McCaughan connections concern Alexander’s wife, not his own mother.



=== How the evidence supports this account ===

The account separates the '''recorded event''', '''the identification of its people''', and '''the conclusion drawn from it'''. A baptism can directly name a child’s parents while leaving the child’s later identity unknown. A death can have an exact date while remaining a probable match to Alexander. These are different questions and should carry different qualifications.



==== How the sources work together ====



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Source group !! Information close to the event !! Principal limitation !! How it is used here
|-
| Rasharkin baptisms || Child, named parents, dates and family residence in the maintained transcription || This is a transcription of a register; the incomplete 1838 original has not been inspected || Establishes the early couple and children; missing transcription fields remain missing
|-
| 1851 original census || One household’s relationships, reported ages, occupations, literacy and marriage years || Birth ages and the 1836 marriage year are retrospective reports; this is not a list of every child ever born || Anchors the household and approximate birth chronology
|-
| Adult children’s marriages || Bride/groom, residence, spouse and named father || Usually does not name the mother; father details do not by themselves establish that he was alive || Bridges children into adult households using the combined name, place and family evidence
|-
| Tithe, valuation and revision records || Assessed occupier, holding, lessor and administrative changes || Different surveys, measures and effective dates; tenancy does not establish kinship or ownership || Tracks property associations and tests the Elder succession without inventing an inheritance
|-
| Civil deaths || Death date, place, reported age/status and informant || Age may be retrospective or uncertain; neither Gortahar death names the other spouse || Supports the death identification through the independently established family network
|-
| Later traditions, trees and correspondence || What a descendant or compiler reported and when || Copying may create apparent corroboration; an unsourced belief is not a second parent record || Preserves the origins of hypotheses and directs specific follow-up
|-
| Descendant DNA || Tested genetic relationships, with the panel and result specified || Linking a result to a historical ancestor depends on the descent; mutation evidence cannot fill every documentary gap || Establishes the paternal cluster and tests competing branch arrangements
|}


An index, a transcription and a tree quoting the same original do not provide three independent confirmations. The surname-project report, STR reconstruction and later discussion can likewise reuse the same genetic observations. Independent civil, church and land records are valuable because they offer different routes through the identity problem; even then, their logical dependencies must remain visible.



==== What an unsuccessful search means ====


Missing evidence is useful only when we know what should have been recorded and what survives. The unnamed 1838 child’s absence from all relevant parts of the household return has more bearing on a survival hypothesis than an unrestricted web search finding nothing. It still cannot establish a death date by itself. A gap in the baptism transcription, a register starting after the marriage, and an archive image requiring onsite access are three different limitations.


The research history records completed searches and the wider register of inaccessible originals and unresolved identities; the focused next tests appear below. The next work is prioritised by the proposition it could resolve, not by the number of databases left to search. No numerical parent score is treated as a probability or allowed to replace these source-based arguments.



=== The next records that could change the conclusions ===

The first task could distinguish the early Alexander identities directly. The American and Larne tests still address the wider family reconstruction. The Canadian deeds now establish the Irish sibling connection and identify the Rochester and Black families. Their earlier family records and unresolved title fractions form the next collateral tests.



{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%; background:#f5f8f1;"
|-
! style="background:#dce8d5;" | Question !! Exact record or bounded target !! Current status !! Alternative outcomes and consequence
|-
| '''1. What kind of 1829 Lisnagaver occurrence is this Alexander?''' || Belfast News-Letter, '''5 June 1829, page 4, article 015'''<ref name="Evidence2721035739" />, full heading and adjoining columns around '''Alex. Glasgow, Lisnagaver'''; compare the Elder and Wallace entries. || Original alert and public newspaper index inspected; page 4, article 015 located. Full image access blocked; registration context provisional and identity unresolved. || Age or qualification wording could distinguish the census-age man, the same man with an earlier birth, or an older namesake. No adulthood rule, freehold status or fatherhood follows from the snippet.
|-
| '''2. Was Archibald’s missing son Robert of Tennessee?''' || Newberry estate index<ref name="Evidence2afaabeaff">[https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm Newberry estate index].</ref>: Archibald, '''1818 estate 647, box 27, package 57'''; adult distributions, receipts, releases and powers of attorney. Compare the '''1810 Archald census, image 4433429_00206''', and James-2439’s '''1831 estate 1643, box 63, package 158'''. || Indexes located; no matching estate packet or 1810 household image found in the saved material reviewed. Estate 646 is a separate guardianship proceeding. || A named Robert in Tennessee, a kinship clause or a receipt identifying the missing boy could establish or redirect the American branch. An omitted adult in a guardianship list is not an exclusion. James-2439’s heirs test an alternative father for James J.
|-
| '''3. Did the Inishrush family come from James of Larne?''' || William-3324’s surviving '''1815 will, PRONI D300/1/5/49'''; '''MIC/1B/6''', the reported 1762 James–Janet marriage and earlier baptisms; Belfast records before the 1760 ropewalk lease; Adam’s Inishrush tenancy in '''D1062/1/5''' and the Vintners rentals. || Specific catalogue targets and existing source trails; will clauses, original marriage and relevant tenancy succession remain uninspected. || Look for named siblings, nephews, places, predecessors and any recorded prior marriage. An Adam of Inishrush or a Larne origin would bridge the branches. A different named father would redirect the hypothesis. Janet’s reported 1762 marriage must not supply maternity for Adam born about 1758.
|-
| '''4. Who were Alexander and Mary’s parents?''' || Reported '''1836 marriage''' in surviving First Kilraughts material, film 197; Ballymoney/Kilraughts family and society registers '''PRONI CR5/32/1/1/1–2''' || Not inspected; the existing PRONI enquiry remains pending. Rasharkin’s surviving marriage register starts in 1845 || Named parents or an explicit family group could decide a candidate. Witness names supply leads, not automatic kinship. Failure in an incomplete or later-starting register cannot exclude the marriage.
|-
| '''5. How do James’s Rochester family and the remaining title interests connect?''' || C114, 25 March 1868<ref name="Evidence1f5003a1e5" />: Alexander Glasco, Rochester express agent, son of James the Prescott carpenter; compare B395/B601 daughters Eliza Jane and Mary, earlier parcel interests and the remaining family records. Separately resolve the Samuel 1875 and James E. 1900–09 estate-index rows. Follow Mary Glasgow Black’s identified children at Drumoolish, Newburgh and Legrand from C298. || Original B12/B13/B395/B465/B601 and C113/C114/C298 inspected. Irish Daniel and Thomas identified; Rochester Alexander’s identity with Alexander-951 unproved. Ninth and eighteenth interests remain unreconciled with the will’s sixth. || The named carpenter’s children provide a concrete family to reconstruct. Establish their earlier lives and title interests before equating their father with Robert’s brother or assigning James to Alexander-951. The abstract dates are not automatically execution dates. Mary Black’s documented branch offers a separate local route to the siblings’ parents.
|-
| '''6. Can existing DNA distinguish the closest paternal branches?''' || Audit the existing reported Robert-1143 (Y-111), James-1144 (Y-37) and John-822 (Y-67) descendant paths and whether further SNP results already exist. Compare consented James J calls and coverage with Alexander’s line; retain the FT6135/FTE32242 comparison in the Robert-12 family. || The matrix identifies direct calls, displayed placements and unresolved states || Resolved SNP states in these particular Larne and Inishrush lines test the proposed branch connections. A matching downstream state could strengthen a narrower grouping; differing states require mutation placement and pedigree review. A broad STR group or an absent variant-list entry is not a negative SNP call. Establish the useful historical split before proposing a new paid test.
|-
| '''7. Which Alexander died, and which Mary reported it?''' || Original John Martin Glascow–Mary Gibson marriage, '''10 November 1870''', reported index<ref name="Evidence1569ab344f">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGYQ-ZW9Z reported index].</ref>; view the local register original of death entry 348 (GRONI) and trace Mary Ellen Glasgow, born at Lisnagaver on '''14 February 1867''' || The marriage remains a profile-derived lead; original access blocked. The informant’s forename was corrected from Nancy to Mary on 6 October 2026, which fits the Lisnagaver family. Ignore the copied contradictory Coleraine/County Offaly location. || A compatible father Alexander and Glenleslie context would locate the rival’s later family. The local original would show whether the informant was entered as Glasgow or Elder; a daughter Mary in the Glenleslie family would reopen the comparison. Neither a common name nor an unmarked father-deceased field proves identity or survival. Verify Mary Ann Martin’s alleged 1882 death and any remarriage before using marital status to exclude her husband.
|-
| '''8. Does Scottish Robert belong to the Irish couple?''' || James’s 10 July 1869 birth<ref name="Evidence1e8e8dbbab">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSFB-KDZR James’s 10 July 1869 birth].</ref>, film '''008065881 image 256'''; corroborate with Agnes’s 19 August 1875 birth<ref name="Evidence9ee708eb07">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSFB-FXZ5 Agnes’s 19 August 1875 birth].</ref>, film '''008066640 image 244''' || Exact image references recovered; access blocked, originals unread || Read the parents’ marriage date/place: agreement with '''5 April 1866''' supplies a much stronger identity bridge than parental names alone. A conflicting marriage requires a namesake review; a blank field leaves the bridge open. Two siblings may repeat the same parents’ report. Then verify the copied 1871/1881/1891 households against all family members.
|-
| '''9. Does Robert’s death name Alexander and Mary?''' || Alleged '''27 November 1902''' death; Camlachie '''644/2/849''' || Citation is misplaced beneath daughter Mary in the copied brief; verify the subject first || Matching parents and wife Jane Graham would strengthen the Scottish bridge and add later family testimony. Different parents need reconciliation. A deceased-father statement would set an upper boundary, not identify the 1888 death.
|-
| '''10. What does the original 1838 baptism say?''' || Rasharkin Presbyterian '''MIC1P/292, entry 106''', with neighbouring entries || Named transcription incomplete; original not inspected || A readable name and dates would identify the documented child more precisely. Marginal wording may help; no invented name or exact death follows from a blank or damaged entry.
|}


An access failure leaves a record uninspected; it is not a negative search. Completed searches remain in the research history. The ScotlandsPeople birth-register guide<ref name="Evidenceb64b69d251">[https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/help-and-support/guides/statutory-register-births ScotlandsPeople birth-register guide].</ref> explains the marriage fields sought in the Scottish births, without establishing what these unread entries contain.



=== Additional source material and comparison records ===

These sources include indexes, transcriptions and comparison families. Their presence does not add independent support where they repeat the records assessed above.

* [http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1851/Antrim/Kilconway/Rasharkin/Lisnagaver/35/ earlier census page]
* [https://apps.proni.gov.uk/eCatNI_IE/SearchPage.aspx PRONI eCatalogue]
* [https://archive.org/details/kilraughtskirkit0000alex S. Alexander Blair's ''Kilraughts: A Kirk and Its People'']
* [https://bdmhistoricalrecords.dia.govt.nz/ New Zealand BDM Historical Records]
* [https://cotyrone.com/colondonderry/burial/CoLondonderry-DeathsSentinel-G-1829-1869.html County Londonderry death-notice transcription]
* [https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-FT20271 R-FT20271 haplotree page]
* [https://downtheroad.dev/pt/census?county=Antrim&tab=browse&townland=Lisnagaver&year=1901 1901 Lisnagaver census browse]
* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/Drimbolg/graveyard.html Drimbolg graveyard transcription]
* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/GarvaghP1/Marriages/1845-1889marr.html Garvagh marriages]
* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/graveyard.html Rasharkin Presbyterian graveyard]
* [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/TamlaghtP/Baptisms.html Tamlaght baptisms]
* [https://help.familytreedna.com/hc/en-us/articles/4402695710223-Big-Y-Private-Variants-Guide FTDNA private-variant guidance]
* [https://itm.howison.co.nz/year/1871/page/6604 New Zealand intentions to marry transcription]
* [https://rootsireland.ie/antrim/online-sources.php RootsIreland's live County Antrim source list]
* [https://ulsterhistoricalfoundation.com/presbyterianism/covenanters/records-of-congregations Ulster Historical Foundation]
* [https://www.clockmakers.org/museum-archive/library-archive Clockmakers' Company archive]
* [https://www.failteromhat.com/slater/0192.pdf Slater's directory]
* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FBP3-95M Ireland civil registration birth index]
* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FTZP-9M6 Ireland civil registration death index]
* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPB2-KNM2 Mary Elder household, Gortahar, 1901]
* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QYHR-52T2 Robert J. Elder household, Gortahar, 1911]
* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3JBF-PQ8 Rosanna]
* [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3JBF-PQL Alexander]
* [https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/glasgow/about Glasgow project page]
* [https://www.hiltner.com/mckeown/showmedia.php?mediaID=1260&medialinkID=1865 Hiltner genealogy]
* [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/files/civil/deaths_returns/deaths_1897/05858/4660280.pdf 1897 civil death]
* [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/search/?church-or-civil=civil&event-birth=1&lastname=Elder&location=Ballymoney&per_page=100 Ballymoney civil births for Elder]
* [https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/view?record_id=cide-6570010 official index entry]
* [https://www.johngrenham.com/records/church.php?civilparish=Rasharkin&civilparishid=347&search_type=full Rasharkin church-register inventory]
* [https://www.johngrenham.com/records/county_church_full.php?county=Antrim&denomination=Presbyterian&location=Public+Record+Office+of+Northern+Ireland&search_type=full County Antrim Presbyterian register inventory]
* [https://www.nationalarchives.gov.za/node/737 Underlying record source: alexander glasgow]
* [https://www.prescott.ca/recreation-culture/history-heritage/heritage-properties/ municipal register]
* [https://www.proni.gov.uk/files/proni/2026-01/PRONI%20Guide%20to%20Church%20Records.pdf Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, ''Guide to Church Records'']
* [https://www.townlands.ie/antrim/kilconway/rasharkin/killoquin/lisnagaver/ Lisnagaver townland reference]
* [https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Space:Alexander_Glasgow Alexander Glasgow Research Space]
* [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Glasgow_DNA Glasgow DNA research space]

=== New Dysart–Glascaw network lead ===

The Rasharkin baptism register records '''Jane Glascaw''', born 29 April 1846, as daughter of '''Thos Glascaw''' and '''Mary Ann McCrackin''' at Lisnagaver, and records later children of Jane and James Dysart in Granagh and Crushybracken. Since [[Glasgow-987|Thomas Glasgow]] and [[McCracken-5681|Maryann (McCracken) Glasgow]] are independently documented at Lisnagaver, this is a strong possible affinal link between the Dysart branch and the Thomas Glasgow family. It does not identify Sarah Dysart as Jane's sister and does not connect either branch to Mary's parentage.<ref name="EvidenceGlascawDysart">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinP/Baptisms_1834.html Rasharkin Presbyterian baptism transcription], entries 82, 133, 176, 192, 203, 269 and 271.</ref>

=== Record-level Dysart–McCaughan marriage evidence ===

FamilySearch's indexed civil-registration entry records '''John McCaughan''' marrying '''Sarah Dysart''' at Rasharkin on 18 March 1851. The associated persons identify '''Jas McCaughan''' as John's father and '''Jas Dysart''' as Sarah's father. This is relationship-bearing evidence, although the image is unavailable and the original certificate has not yet been checked for residences, occupations or witnesses.<ref name="EvidenceDysartMcCaughan1851">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGVD-CN3S FamilySearch civil record], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

The record strengthens the local McCaughan–Dysart network, but it does not identify Jas McCaughan with the Gortereghy tithe tenant, Sarah Dysart with Jane Glascaw's sister, or either branch with '''Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow'''. Griffith's Valuation separately lists James and Robert Dysart at Crushybracken and Archibald Dysart and Sarah Dysert at Drumack, making the original certificate and Sarah's own baptism the next tests.<ref name="EvidenceRasharkinDysartValuation">[https://www.irishgenealogyhub.com/antrim/griffiths-valuation/parish-of-rasharkin.php Griffith's Valuation, Rasharkin parish], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

=== Mary McCaughan date discrepancy ===

The current WikiTree+ suggestions report lists [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow (McCaughan)]] with a '''certain 1817 birth at Lisnagaver''', whereas this research has generally used an approximate 1811 birth from the 1851 census age. The report also shows an expired “source will be added” suggestion; the 1817 value is therefore a tree assertion requiring source recovery, not an independently verified birth record. If confirmed, it would change the chronology of possible McCaughan parent couples.<ref name="EvidenceMary1817TreeAssertion">[https://plus.wikitree.com/Profiles/Suggestions/IRL_ANT/981_Hidden_0.htm WikiTree+ Antrim suggestions report], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

=== FamilySearch identity collision: Scottish and Rasharkin Alexanders ===

The authenticated FamilySearch Tree profile [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/G8WJ-HFW G8WJ-HFW] is internally conflated. Its source list contains Irish records for the Rasharkin Alexander, but its family panel also attaches a Scottish wife, Mary McCaughan (MQ57-B2Y), Scottish children and a Barony, Lanarkshire marriage. The archived discussion on this profile identifies the Scottish marriage as Alexander Glasgow and Mary Fleming on 12 June 1838 in Barony, Lanarkshire, with an 1841 Barony household headed by a flesher.

That Scottish couple is distinct from this profile's Rasharkin farmer: the latter's son James was baptized at Gortereagh on 9 February 1837, before the Scottish marriage, and Alexander appears with Mary and children at Lisnagaver in 1851. The Mary Fleming marriage is therefore not evidence against [[McCaughan-222|Mary McCaughan]]. The FamilySearch tree is useful for locating the conflict but is not proof of Mary's parents or of Alexander's parentage.

Sources: [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/G8WJ-HFW FamilySearch G8WJ-HFW], [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/sources/G8WJ-HFW its source list], [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/MQ57-B2Y FamilySearch MQ57-B2Y], and the [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Glasgow-951#comments archived WikiTree discussion], accessed 14 September 2026.

=== Ballymena death-index candidate: Mary M'caughren, 1894 ===

FamilySearch contains an exact-ish local civil index entry for '''Mary M'caughren''': death registration in '''Ballymena, County Antrim''', October–December '''1894''', page 69, volume 1. The index gives age '''81''' and estimated birth year '''1813'''.<ref name="EvidenceMaryMcCaughren1894">[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FTZ5-6ZJ FamilySearch civil-registration index entry], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

The age and county make this a worthwhile identity lead, but it cannot presently be identified with [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]. The index has no residence, spouse, informant, townland, parents or associated persons; the image is unavailable; and it post-dates the current 27 February 1892 death for Mary Glasgow. It therefore does not justify changing Mary's death date or adding parents. The next test is to obtain the underlying civil death certificate through the General Register Office/IrishGenealogy route, if available, and check the residence and informant.

=== FamilySearch targeted search audit ===

The focused FamilySearch search for '''Mary McCaughren''', birth 1808–1816 in Antrim, returned '''0''' historical-record results. A second search for '''Mary McCaughan''' of the same approximate age and place with spouse '''Alexander Glasgow''' also returned '''0''' results. These are negative results from the current index, not proof that the records never existed.

The spouse search did expose a documented false-positive: Mary McCaughan married '''Alexander Thompson''' at '''Armoy, Ballycastle, on 7 July 1857'''; the index names her father as '''John McCaughan'''. This is a separate woman and cannot be transferred to [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]], whose family is documented in Rasharkin from 1837. The result is retained as an exclusion check only.<ref name="EvidenceMaryMcCaughanThompson1857">[https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&q.givenName=Mary&q.surname=McCaughan&q.birthLikeDate.from=1808&q.birthLikeDate.to=1816&q.birthLikePlace=Antrim%2C%20Ireland&q.spouseGivenName=Alexander FamilySearch targeted search], accessed 14 September 2026.</ref>

=== 1803 Ballintoy household census ===

A separate 1803 household return for Ballintoy parish records two structured McCaughan households at '''Coulrasheskin/Curryeshkin'''. House 3 contains '''Archd. M'Caghan''', wife '''Isobel Lawson''', sons Archd. and John, and brother Alex, a weaver. House 4 contains '''Arch. senior M'Caghan''', wife '''Sarah Linegan''', son Isaac, daughters Sally, Giles and Ibby, and brother Robert.<ref name="EvidenceTraillMcCaughan1803">[https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1803traillcensus.pdf Robert Traill's 1803 Ballintoy household census transcription], PRONI T679/69, p. 27, entries 1417–1427.</ref>

This is direct household evidence for a multi-generational North Antrim network and helps separate the Ballintoy/Culfeightrin cluster from the Rasharkin Gortereghy hypothesis. Neither household contains a Mary of the right apparent age; the younger Archibald would also be too young to be [[McAughin-2|Archibald McAughin]], estimated born about 1791. It does not identify Mary's parents.

=== WikiTree-linked comparison family ===

WikiTree shows [[McCaughan-4|Hugh McCaughan]] (about 1824–about 1903) as the son of [[McCaughan-5|Hugh McCaughan Sr.]] (estimated about 1806) and [[McCurdy-193|Roseanne McCurdy]], and brother of [[McCaughan-7|Archibald McCaughan]] (about 1799–about 1870) and [[McCaughan-6|Elizabeth McCaughan]]. Hugh's wife is [[Erwin-428|Mary Erwin]]; listed children include [[McCaughan-16|Mary]], [[McCaughan-17|Alexander]], [[McCaughan-18|Hugh Jr.]] and [[McCaughan-19|Archibald]]. The dates are internally strained and no profile supplies a Rasharkin/Lisnagaver bridge, so this remains a separate comparison cluster rather than a proposed family for [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]].

The later Moneyleck branch includes [[McCahon-44|Joseph McCahon]] (1867–1941), whose profile names Hugh McCahon and Mary Jane Wilson as parents, [[Wilson-71886|Hannah Wilson]] as wife and [[McCahon-18|Enos Archibald McCahon]] as a son. It links FamilySearch identity [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/MCJX-HRD MCJX-HRD]. Moneyleck is useful local network evidence but does not identify Mary's parents.

=== New pre-1790 Hearth Money evidence ===

The [https://adamsfamilydna.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/1669-Hearth-Money-Rolls-for-North-and-Mid-Antrim.pdf 1669 Hearth Money Rolls] list Ogan McCaghan at Kilcroagh, Armoy; Allex McCahan and John McCaghan at Ballyverdagh, Culfeightrin; Angus McCahir at Cross Denard, Culfeightrin; Gillindrish McCagher at Loughan/Ballyloghan, Culfeightrin; and Daniell McKaghin in Dunluce town. These direct household-head entries substantially pre-date the 1740 Rasharkin returns and establish a long-standing McCaughan-name presence in the wider Culfeightrin–Armoy region.

The rolls provide no ages, spouses or children and no bridge to Lisnagaver. They are therefore regional ancestral candidates and surname-network context only, not evidence that any named householder was a parent of [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]].

The compiled Ballyverdagh/Culfeightrin account gives a secondary pedigree lead: John McCaughan (about 1724–1793), husband of Agnes McCahan, with children John (about 1754), Alexander (1756), Archibald (1758), Sarah (1760), Mary (1761) and Charles (1763). It says John was served heir to his father in 1771. The listed Mary McCaughan is chronologically possible but currently a poor candidate for Mary Glasgow's mother because she would have been about 50 in 1811 and no marriage, residence or child evidence links her to Rasharkin. The original heir, will and parish records remain to be checked.

Source: [https://electricscotland.com/webclans/m/maceachain2.htm compiled Ballyverdagh/Culfeightrin McCaughan account], accessed 15 September 2026.

The same account reports a later James McCaughan, born about 1792, as a son of John McCaughan (born about 1754) of Ballyverdagh. This should not be silently merged with [[McCaughan-68|James McCaughan]], whose WikiTree profile gives birth before 1790, wife [[Larny-2|Mary Larny]] (about 1790), and son [[McCaughan-67|John]] (about 1798). On the current dates the two James profiles are chronologically incompatible, so the Ballyverdagh James is not a safe identification for the Canadian John line or for Mary's father.

=== FamilySearch Rasharkin/Ballydonnelly McCaughern cluster ===

FamilySearch's authenticated Tree gives a separate local cluster around [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/GWCJ-8BK James Mcaughern] (22 May 1842–13 December 1896, '''GWCJ-8BK'''), born at Ballydonnelly and christened at Rasharkin. His parents are [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/LCRH-Z1G John McCaughern] (about 1813–1901) and [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/LCRH-DL2 Elizabeth Hansen] (about 1813–1843), married in Rasharkin in 1834; listed children include [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/MZQT-2TK John McCaughern] (1835–1907) and James.

The same Tree connects [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/949C-MM6 James Mcaughern] (1830–1900) to [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/L11Q-5KR James McCaughern] (about 1790–1858) and [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/L119-DTP Nancy Marks] (about 1794–1859). The younger James married [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/KLP6-P27 Mary Jamison] at Finvoy on 9 March 1854 and had [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/949C-MMM James Mcaughern] (1868–).

This is significant local evidence but does not prove either James was [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow's]] father. The about-1790 James is chronologically possible for a daughter born about 1811, but the displayed children begin with Daniel (1826), Thomas (1829), James (1830) and William (1842), with no Mary; the 1830 James is too young. Keep it as a distinct Rasharkin/Ballydonnelly branch pending the original 1834 marriage, 1842 baptism and records for the older James's children.

=== FamilySearch civil-marriage proof for the older James's children ===

The authenticated FamilySearch source list for [https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/L11Q-5KR James McCaughern] (about 1790–1858) contains two relationship-bearing indexed marriage records. The 27 November 1850 civil marriage of Daniel McAughern and Eleanor Graham records Daniel as age 24, estimated birth about 1826, and explicitly names '''James Mc Aughern as his father'''; the original place is Churchtown, Ballymoney. [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FGXX-H6G FamilySearch record FGXX-H6G]

The 9 March 1854 marriage of James McCaughern and Mary Jamison at Finvoy likewise explicitly names '''James McCaughern as the groom's father'''. [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FG6V-QGF FamilySearch record FG6V-QGF]

These records materially strengthen the identification of the 1790–1858 James/Nancy household and document two sons, Daniel and James. They do not prove that this James was the 1834 Gortereghy tithe tenant or the father of [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]: neither record names Mary, Glasgow, William McCaheran or Gortereghy.

=== Pre-1790 Rasharkin McCaharan graveyard root ===

The [https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/church/RasharkinCOI/graveyard.html Rasharkin Church of Ireland graveyard transcription] records '''Andrew McCaharan''', who died '''1 February 1738 aged 69''', and separately names his son '''John McCaharan''' on the same memorial. This is a direct local memorial and places the McCaharan spelling in Rasharkin more than a century before [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]'s estimated birth.

It is a new root cluster for the surname study, but not a proved ancestor line: the transcription gives no John's wife, townland, full death information or intervening generations. It strengthens the case for a long-established local surname population while leaving Mary's parentage unproved. The original stone image or burial/register material should be sought to recover the remainder of John's inscription.

=== New full 1803 Ballintoy McCaughan household audit ===

The complete [https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1803traillcensus.pdf 1803 Ballintoy agricultural census] reveals several distinct early McCaughan households beyond the previously isolated Coulrasheskin entries:

* '''Broughgammon:''' deceased Dennis M'Caghan; widow Margaret McCurdy; John, Molly, Betty, Nancy and Matty.
* '''Drumnagessan/Cairn-Hill:''' John M'Caghan and Sarah McCaw; sons David, Archibald, John and James; daughter Isobel.
* '''Drumnagessan:''' Daniel M'Caghan and Rose McCurdy; daughters Catherine, Sally and Isobel.
* '''Templastragh:''' Daniel M'Caghan and Rose McCurdy; sons John, Alexander, Roger and Robert; daughter Mary.
* '''Templastragh:''' Hector M'Caghan and Peggy Laverty; son Zachariah and daughter Rose.
* '''Templastragh:''' John M'Caghan and Jane Sinclair; sons Hector and Daniel.
* '''Craige:''' Angus M'Caghan and Elizabeth Glass; sons Hugh and Archibald; daughter Belle.

The two Daniel-and-Rose entries occur as separate census households in different townlands and must not be merged without proof. The Templastragh Mary is directly recorded as a daughter of Daniel M'Caghan and Rose McCurdy, but no age, later marriage, migration or Rasharkin connection is supplied. This confirms a substantial early, multi-branch Ballintoy network, but none of these households can presently be assigned as the parents of [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]. Targeted WikiTree searches found no matching profiles for these exact household combinations, so no IDs are invented here.

=== 1824 Templastragh tithe continuity ===

The later [https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionnamespdf.pdf North Antrim tithe revision] independently preserves the Templastragh cluster: it lists '''Zackariah McCahan''', '''Daniel McCahan''', '''Alexander McCahan''' and a '''widow McCahan''' there in 1824. Zackariah is especially notable because the 1803 Ballintoy census names '''Zachariah McCaghan''' as the son of '''Hector McCaghan''' and '''Peggy Laverty'''. Daniel and Alexander also recur as names in the 1803 Daniel-and-Rose household, although the tithe does not state their relationships or ages.<ref name="Evidence1824TemplastraghContinuity">[https://www.billmacafee.com/182030stithe/tithenorthantrimrevisionnamespdf.pdf North Antrim tithe revision names], records 800–801 and 807–814.</ref>

This is genuine chronological corroboration for a continuing McCaughan/McCahan presence in the same Ballintoy townland, and it helps distinguish the early Templastragh households from isolated name occurrences. It still cannot identify the 1803 Mary as the later [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]]: the tithe gives no women’s identities beyond the widow, no marriages or children, and no movement toward Lisnagaver or Gortereghy.

=== 1766–1860 Templastragh locality trail ===

The 1766 [https://www.billmacafee.com/1766census/1766religiouscensusballintoy.pdf Religious Census for Ballintoy] records '''Daniel M'Kaughen''' in '''Templastragh''', with a household size of five. This is a direct pre-1790 occurrence of the same distinctive given name and townland later seen in the 1803 census. The 1803 household is much larger—Daniel M'Caghan, Rose McCurdy and five listed children, including Mary—and the 1824 tithe revision again lists Daniel McCahan in Templastragh.<ref name="Evidence1766TemplastraghDaniel">[https://www.billmacafee.com/1766census/1766religiouscensusballintoy.pdf 1766 Ballintoy Religious Census], record 348.</ref>

The later [https://www.irishgenealogyhub.com/antrim/griffiths-valuation/parish-of-ballintoy.php Griffith's Valuation index] also lists '''Daniel McCahan''' and '''Elizabeth McCaughan''' in Templastragh. Because the valuation is a later occupier index and does not state ages, spouses or parentage, this may represent a younger Daniel or a different household; it cannot be assumed to be the 1803 man. Taken together, the records establish a long-lived Daniel/McCaughan presence in Templastragh from 1766 through the mid-nineteenth century and justify targeted searches for a marriage or baptismal record connecting the households.

This materially strengthens the Ballintoy cluster but still does not prove that the 1803 Mary was [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]] or that Daniel and Rose were her parents.

=== Later Daniel-and-Elizabeth Templastragh branch ===

An [https://www.ancestry.com/genealogy/records/jane-mccaughan-24-1mzn0 Ancestry public-name index] identifies '''Jane McCaughan''', born '''12 November 1834''' at '''Templastragh''', as daughter of '''Daniel McCaughan''' and '''Elizabeth Rogers'''; the same compiled entry estimates both parents at about 1800–1847 and says Jane later emigrated to New York. This is a useful later-household lead because Griffith's Valuation also lists Daniel McCahan and Elizabeth McCaughan in Templastragh.

The index is derivative and does not expose the original baptism or marriage images. It therefore cannot yet establish whether this Daniel was a son of the 1803 Daniel and Rose, a nephew, or an unrelated Daniel in the same townland. It does, however, give a specific child, date, mother’s maiden surname and migration trail for further testing. No evidence currently connects this branch to [[McCaughan-222|Mary (McCaughan) Glasgow]].

=== First Kilraughts register: confirmed archival target ===

The [https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/accessions/2002/02digests/religion.htm National Archives catalogue] confirms that '''First Kilraughts Presbyterian Church''' records survive at PRONI as '''MIC/1P/462''', including registers and minute books from '''1815–1984'''. An independent [https://ulsterlees.azurewebsites.net/families/co-antrim/ballymoney-area/ North Antrim reconstruction] identifies a marriage in that register on '''8 November 1839''' and gives witnesses, confirming that the register preserves marriage-level detail. The couple's reported 1836 marriage should therefore be searched in the same register under Glasgow/Glasgo/Glassgow and every McCaughan/McAughin/McAughern/McCaughren variant.

This is the clearest remaining route to a contemporaneous record associated with Alexander and Mary. It may name witnesses rather than parents, so even a successful marriage entry may not prove Mary's parentage; however, repeated witnesses could connect her to one of the local McCaughan households. The register must be consulted directly before any conclusion is upgraded.

=== Collateral Drumadarragh McCaughey branch ===

The [https://ulsterlees.azurewebsites.net/families/co-antrim/ballymoney-area/ Ulster Lees reconstruction] documents a separate '''John McCaughey/McCaghy and Margaret Lees''' family associated with '''Drumadarragh''', including Jane (about 1812), Margaret (about 1825), James (about 1833), Sarah (about 1835) and other proposed children. Several adult marriages name John McCaghy as father, and Jane's later death record names John McAughley and Margaret Lees. This branch is geographically relevant to the Ballymoney-area McCaughan variants and explains why the 1817 Drumard household cannot be treated as the only local candidate.

The published reconstruction does not include a daughter Mary of the correct age and remains partly inferential. It is therefore a comparison/exclusion branch, not evidence that John and Margaret were Mary's parents.

=== 1740–1796 Tamlaght O'Crilly / Drumcannon McCaughan continuity lead ===

The 1740 Protestant Householders' Returns identify '''John McCahan''' and '''James McCahan''' in '''Tamlaght O'Crilly''', in the Loughinsholin barony. This is an unusually early, exact-parish occurrence of two McCaughan-variant householders, decades before the Rasharkin baptismal material. The return gives no ages, household composition or relationship between the two men.<ref name="Evidence1740TamlaghtMcCahan">[https://adamsfamilydna.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/1740-Protestant-Returns-Londonderry-County-Ireland.pdf 1740 Protestant Householders' Returns], records 1171–1172.</ref>

A later circa-1800 rent-roll transcription records four McCaughan tenants in '''Drumcannon''' in '''1791''': '''Samuel''', '''Matthew''', '''William''' and '''John'''. The source explains that the undated entries are part of farm rental lists dating roughly 1796–1814, so the dated 1791 entries should be treated as a landlord record, not a census. The 1796 Flaxgrowers' List then records '''William M'Caughin''' in '''Tamlaght O'Crilly''' with three wheels/looms.<ref name="Evidence1791Rent1796Flax">[https://genealogy.torrens.org/BannValley/misc/rentrolls.html circa-1800 Bann Valley rent-roll transcription], Drumcannon entries 182, 185, 197–198; [https://www.billmacafee.com/1796flaxgrowerslist/1796flaxgrowersderry.pdf 1796 Flaxgrowers' List], record 4754.</ref>

This is new pre-1811 evidence in the same broader parish region and strengthens the case for investigating Tamlaght O'Crilly, Drumcannon and Gortereghy together. It does not prove the parents of [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]: the named tenants have no demonstrated relationship to her, and the 1791 William has not been shown to be the 1796 William. The next test is to trace these names through surviving estate papers, Presbyterian records and valuation revisions for a daughter Mary born about 1811 or a transfer into Lisnagaver/Gortereghy.

=== 1817 First Ballymoney McCaughan household: a new Mary-parent candidate ===

Rev. Robert Park's 1817 register of the First Ballymoney Presbyterian Church records '''John McCaughan [McCahon]''', wife '''Mary McCaughan [McCahon]''', and son '''James McCaughan [McCahon]''' at '''Drumard [Drumart]''', house 8. The same register records '''Grissel McCaughan [McCahan]''' and '''Hugh McCaughan [McCahan]''' in a Bendooragh household, showing the variant forms in the Ballymoney-area Presbyterian network at the period when Mary Glasgow would have been a child.<ref name="Evidence1817BallymoneyMcCaughan">[https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1817parkcensus.pdf 1817 First Ballymoney Presbyterian register], records 2912–2914 and 570–571.</ref>

A separate compiled Ballyverdagh account lists a Drumant church-member household as John and Mary McCahon, with son James and daughters Mary and Elizabeth. Since that detail is not present in the searchable Park register entry and the underlying membership source has not been inspected, it remains a secondary lead. If the two records refer to the same couple, their daughter Mary would be chronologically compatible with [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]'s estimated birth about 1811; no marriage, migration, residence or Glasgow connection has been found.

This is currently the strongest new chronological candidate for a Mary-parent household outside the immediate Rasharkin cluster, but it is not proof. The decisive test is to identify the original Drumard/Drumant membership sheet and trace John and Mary McCaughan through Ballymoney Presbyterian baptisms, marriages and valuation records.<ref name="EvidenceDrumantMcCahon">[https://electricscotland.com/webclans/m/maceachain2.htm compiled Ballyverdagh account].</ref>

=== Complete 1817 Ballymoney-area McCaughan audit ===

The full searchable 1817 register contains at least five distinct McCaughan/McCahon placements: '''Charles and Elizabeth McCaughan''' at Balnamore, with children James, Samuel, John, Ann, Daniel and Elizabeth and an older Mary whose relationship is uncertain; '''Samuel and Martha McCaughan''' at Taghey, with sons John and James; '''John and Mary McCaughan''' at Drumard, with son James; '''Grissel McCaughan''' and '''Hugh McCaughan''' in a Bendooragh household headed by William McMaster; and '''Elizabeth McCaughan''' in a Currysiskan household headed by Widow Knox.<ref name="Evidence1817CompleteMcCaughanAudit">[https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1817parkcensus.pdf complete searchable 1817 register], records 1239–1248, 1383, 1436–1439, 2912–2914 and 570–571.</ref>

This is important negative evidence: the primary searchable register does '''not''' list a daughter Mary in the Drumard John-and-Mary household. The separate compiled account's Drumant list of daughters Mary and Elizabeth may represent a different membership list, a different townland, or an expanded/parallel record, but it cannot currently prove that the Drumard couple had a daughter Mary. The Drumard family remains a possible chronological comparison branch, but its evidential weight is lower than the initial reading suggested.

The audit also identifies a Balnamore Mary McCaughan candidate, but the register marks her relationship as uncertain and suggests only that she may be Charles's mother. None of the five placements supplies a marriage, parent statement, migration record or Glasgow link. [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow's]] parents therefore remain unproved.

=== Dreen probate cluster: Agnes and Peter McCaughern, 1916 ===

The [https://www.willcalendars.nationalarchives.ie/reels/cwa/005014919/005014919_00647.pdf National Archives of Ireland will-calendar] records two adjacent Dreen, Rasharkin estates: '''Agnes McCaughern''', spinster, died 26 March 1916, administration granted to '''William McCaughern'''; and '''Peter McCaughern''', farmer, died 27 February 1916, also granted to William. Later unadministered grants for both estates were made to '''Catherine McCaughern''', spinster.

These entries show a substantial late local McCaughern cluster and a repeated William–Catherine administrative connection, but the calendar does not identify their exact kinship. The underlying probate packets should be obtained because they may name beneficiaries, relatives and property. This is a useful local-network lead, not evidence for [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow's]] parents.

=== New parent-bearing Armoy/Cromaghs branch: William McCaughan ===

The National Archives of Ireland census-search-form index gives a new parent-bearing local record: '''William McCaughan''', whose present address was Fairhill Street, Ballycastle, supplied an 1851 census extract naming his father '''Archibald McCaughan''' and mother '''Mary'''. The indexed residence was '''Cromaghs, parish of Armoy, barony of Cary''', placing this branch in the wider Ballycastle–Armoy area rather than directly at Lisnagaver or Gortereghy.

This proves an additional Archibald–Mary McCaughan parental pair in the wider North Antrim research region, but it does not identify William with any existing WikiTree profile or connect him to [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]. The record is a census-search-form abstraction rather than the underlying 1851 return, and the next step is to obtain the extract/image and trace William, Archibald and Mary through Cromaghs valuation and church records. No safe WikiTree ID has been assigned to this branch.

Source: [https://censussearchforms.nationalarchives.ie/search/cs/results.jsp?applicantAddress=&amp;applicantFirstname=&amp;applicantSurname=&amp;barony=&amp;censusExtractYear=&amp;city=&amp;county=&amp;fatherFirstname=&amp;fatherSurname=&amp;motherFirstname=&amp;motherSurname=&amp;pageSize=&amp;pager.offset=14290&amp;parish=&amp;search=Search&amp;sort=residence_baronySort&amp;townland= National Archives of Ireland census-search-form index], accessed 15 September 2026.

=== Cromaghs valuation corroboration: Archibald and Margaret McCahan ===

Two independent online transcriptions of Griffith's Valuation for Armoy, dated to the 1861/62 county survey, list '''Archibald Mc Cahan''' as an occupier in '''Cromaghs'''. The same entries also list '''Margaret Mc Cahan''' in Cromaghs. This corroborates the parent-bearing 1851 census-search-form branch: the Archibald named there was an Archibald of the same surname variant and townland in the next decade.

The entries do not state whether Margaret was Archibald's wife, sister, daughter or another household occupier. The valuation is an occupier/property record, not a family register. The spelling is '''McCahan''', while the 1851 search-form entry uses '''McCaughan'''; this is compatible with local spelling variation but cannot identify either person with [[McCaughan-222|Mary Glasgow]]'s family. No safe WikiTree ID has been found for Archibald or Margaret.

Sources: [https://irishgenealogyhub.com/antrim/griffiths-valuation/parish-of-armoy.php Irish Genealogy Hub transcription of Armoy Griffith's Valuation]; [https://www.failteromhat.com/griffiths/antrim/armoy.php Fáilte Romhat transcription]; [https://nationalarchives.ie/help-with-research/research-guides/valuation-office-records/ National Archives guide to valuation records]. Accessed 15 September 2026.

=== Pre-1790 Ballintoy record: Archd. McKaughin at Lisbellanagroagh More ===

The 1766 Religious Census for Ballintoy parish records '''Archd. McKaughin''' at '''Lisbellanagroagh More''', identified as Protestant. This is a new pre-1790 occurrence of the McCaughan spelling family in the barony of Cary, the same wider North Antrim barony containing later Ballintoy, Armoy and Ballycastle McCaughan/McCahan households.

The census supplies no age, household composition or relationship to Mary Glasgow. It cannot identify this Archibald as her father, and Lisbellanagroagh More is not the same place as Lisnagaver/Gortereghy. It is nevertheless a valuable locality and spelling lead for testing whether the later Armoy/Cromaghs and Rasharkin branches descend from an older Cary family.

Source: [https://www.billmacafee.com/1766census/1766religiouscensusballintoy.pdf 1766 Religious Census for Ballintoy parish], entry 318, accessed 15 September 2026.

=== Lisbellanagroagh continuity: Catherine M'Caghan and Daniel McCaw ===

The 1803 Ballintoy census records '''Kath. M'Caghan''', standardised as Catherine McCaughan, at '''Lisbellanagroagh Beg'''. She was listed as the wife of John McIlfatrick and as Church of Ireland; the row gives her age as 29, implying an estimated birth about 1774. The 1824 Ballintoy tithe book then records '''Danl. McCaw''' at '''Lisbellanagroagh More''', the neighbouring “More” townland where the 1766 census had recorded Archd. McKaughin.

These records create a continuous locality trail from an Archibald in 1766, to a McCaughan woman in the adjoining townland in 1803, to a McCaw occupier in More in 1824. They do not prove that Catherine was Archibald's daughter, that Daniel was related to either person, or that this Cary cluster was the family of [[McCaughan-222|Mary McCaughan Glasgow]]. They are nevertheless stronger than isolated surname occurrences and justify targeted searches of Ballintoy Church of Ireland marriages, baptisms and vestry records.

Sources: [https://www.billmacafee.com/census/1803traillcensus.pdf 1803 Trail census, Ballintoy], entries 2852–2853; [https://www.billmacafee.com/ballintoy/earlydatabases/titheballintoy.pdf 1824 Ballintoy tithe applotment], entry for Daniel McCaw at Lisbellanagroagh More; accessed 15 September 2026.

=== FamilySearch record-hint collision: James McCaughan and Alexander McCaughan ===

The logged-in FamilySearch record search returned an indexed Ireland marriage result describing '''James Mc Caughan''' as father of '''Alexander Mc Caughan'''. The attached Family Tree match was '''MCGP-3S2''', but that profile is James McCaughan born about '''1827''', with spouse Catharine McConachie and children Alexander McCaughan ('''1847–1921''', 96QG-NVJ) and Robert Mc Caughan ('''1853–1934''', K4GP-RD8). The tree profile has no sources and the relationship was added in 2020.

This is a new and important exclusion. The attached tree person cannot be the older James proposed as Mary's father: he is too young, and his son Alexander was born decades after Mary's marriage and the 1837–1844 Glasgow baptisms. The indexed father statement may belong to a different McCaughan family or be an aggregation error; it must not be cited as evidence for Mary's parentage. Source: [https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/MCGP-3S2 FamilySearch tree profile MCGP-3S2], and [https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/record/results?count=100&amp;q.givenName=James&amp;q.surname=McCaughan&amp;q.birthLikeDate.from=1760&amp;q.birthLikeDate.to=1800&amp;q.birthLikePlace=Antrim%2C%20Ireland FamilySearch James McCaughan search results], accessed 15 September 2026.

The same search also surfaced '''James McCaughan''' in the Irish Valuation Office Books for '''Shankill in 1838''' and '''Billy, Ballycastle in 1861'''. These are new locality leads, but the index does not expose enough detail to identify the tenant with [[McCaughan-68|McCaughan-68]], the Gortereghy tithe tenant, or Mary's father. The underlying valuation images should be checked for townland continuity, occupier changes and adjoining McCaughan households.

The death of Alexander Glasgow was registered on 16 May 1888 in Ballymoney, aged 84.<ref>[https://geni.nidirect.gov.uk/search/death GRONI civil death index], Alexander Glasgow, 16 May 1888, aged 84, Ballymoney registration district, D/1888/31/1005/7/348.</ref>


=== Independent parentage tests, September 2026 ===

The ''Plattsburgh Sentinel'' reports Nancy Glasgow's death at Plattsburgh on 31 October 1891, aged about 75, and funeral at the Peristrome Presbyterian church. This corroborates her death date but conflicts with the approximate age in her January 1889 will: the sources imply birth about 1815–1816 or 1820–1821. The reconstructed sibling birth span therefore does not establish that their proposed father had two wives.<ref name="NancyDeathNotice1891">''Plattsburgh Sentinel'', 6 November 1891, p. 8, death notices; [https://www.nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=plts18911106-01.1.8 original newspaper page], image inspected 29 September 2026.</ref>

The Glenleslie daughter Nancy, reported in the 1851 return as dying in 1847 aged 36, is a different woman from Plattsburgh Nancy. A reconstruction placing both in John-1022's immediate family would require an unexplained second daughter of the same name or a revised sibling interpretation. This does not exclude every collateral or half-sibling connection.<ref>[https://durrushistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1851irishcensusreturnscommadelimitedtextfilejul24_072.pdf 1851 Irish census returns transcription], Glenleslie, house 21, John Glasgow household and deaths since 1841; derived transcript, compared with maintained findings.</ref>

John Glasgow, farmer, named in John-867's 1846 marriage, remains the probable father; Alexander's own father is not directly named. An independent parent statement in another reconstructed sibling branch could test this without relying entirely on Nancy's petition. A Scottish marriage index names Mary Thomson, aged 37, marrying William Sneddon on 9 November 1860, with parents Robert Thomson and Mary Glasgon Thomson. The older extracted index places the marriage at Old Monkland, Lanarkshire.<ref>FamilySearch, ''Scotland, Marriages, 1561–1910'', [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XT1H-TBC Mary Thomson index], 1860, Old Monkland, Lanarkshire; inspected 29 September 2026. This indexes the same event as the civil-registration index.</ref> The mother is a candidate for the unidentified Mary Thompson branch, not an established match; the original image was not available for inspection.<ref>FamilySearch, ''Scotland, Civil Registration, 1855–1875, 1881, 1891'', [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6TLK-6T1J Mary Thomson index], 9 November 1860; parents Robert Thomson and Mary Glasgon Thomson. Document reference 008056939_011_M9H1-8LK, image 32. Index inspected 29 September 2026; original restricted to a FamilySearch centre or affiliate library.</ref>

==== Newspaper originals inspected 3 October 2026 ====

The original 5 June 1829 newspaper page is now read, superseding the earlier access-blocked extract account. It lists applicant 2324, Alex. Glasgow of Lisnagaver, under persons applying to register their freeholds, with lands in Kilconway barony, townland of Lisnagaver. It records an application, not successful admission; no age or relative is stated. [[Glasgow-951|Alexander]] and [[Glasgow-3904|the older Alexander]] remain compatible candidates. No birth estimate or father assessment is changed.<ref>''Belfast News-Letter'', 5 June 1829, p.4, [https://www.newspapers.com/image/390582445/ County of Antrim freehold applications]; original page inspected 3 October 2026.</ref>

A 7 January 1861 report identifies Robt. Glasgow as a Lisnagaver neighbour who warned James M’Caughern about a dangerous gable, narrowly escaped the house collapse and raised the alarm. [[Glasgow-938|Robert Glasgow]] and [[Glasgow-3449|Robert Glasgow]] remain compatible candidates. The report gives no age, parents or occupation and does not identify him with a valuation holding or prove kinship with the M’Caughern household.<ref>''Belfast News-Letter'', 7 January 1861, p.4, [https://www.newspapers.com/image/387764534/ Shocking catastrophe at Rasharkin]; original passage inspected 3 October 2026.</ref>

== Sources ==
<references />

Open WikiTree profile