John Kenyon - @John Kenyon

My records show John Kenyon, b ~ 1655, was married in 1680 to Anna Mumford. There is, however, questions about which set of Kenyon brothers emigrated from Oldham, England, and when.

I will figure out since I manage him. I will do heavy research.

Thank you both!
Any help is appreciated!
Katie Smith

I have a suspcian that both of his wives were named Anna- I found only mention of 1st wife Anna _____ whom he married in England as the mother of his first 2 children and she probably died there as there is no record of her or her death here in America. His 2nd wife is presumed to be a Mumford as the Kenyon land bordered the Mumford properties and there is a notation in a published source that John married a “daughter of his neighbor Mumford”. Family Search (LDS) shows a 1st wife “Anna ______” and a 2nd wife “(unknown) Mumford”. However, the Mumford genealogy shows that Thomas & Sarah Sherman Mumford had six children, and someone has added an “unknown” daughter. I am inclined to think that both of his wives were named Anna, the 1st in England with unknown parents and the 2nd Anna Mumford, the dau. of Thomas & Sarah Sherman Mumford, as it is noted that many of the early records of Portsmouth have been lost.

Right then.

The Mumford person is Hannah Annie Mumford. But wasn't named that. I found out using also known as. Seems fishy to me.

A number of articles in "The American Genealogist" or "TAG" have appeared about early Rhode Island Kenyon's. In particular in vol. 13 (1937), pp. 53-55, is "The Wife of the First John Kenyon of Rhode Island.". Other later articles in TAG cover this and other details about early RI Kenyon's. If you are not close to a good genealogical library, microfilm can be ordered and viewed at one of the FHCs located at many Mormon churches. PERSI indexes about 6,000 genealogical periodicals is very helpful in identifying relevant research articles. It is interesting that the old Mumford genealogy published in 1900 does not mention any Kenyon connections and does not list an Anna/Ann/Hannah as a daughter of the prominent Thomas Mumford. I must add that the "English Connections" given in the 1935 book are believed wrong. Why? Because the christening records for a John and James Kenyon in the Oldham parish records are shown in later records (unknown to H N Kenyon) list the burial of the same two John and James Kenyon in England (definitely not RI). Parish records provide insufficient information. Unfortunately, we can only hope to find information about our earlier ancestors across the Atlantic eventually. We have no record of John's birth date or place, just that he said in a court deposition that he was 70 years old, or "thereabouts". He could have had several wives and we have no proof that James was his brother. We do know that Roger Kenyon, who was on nearby Block Island around the same time was not closely related.
Incidentally, there was a Stephen Mumford from London who headed the first Seventh Day Baptist Church in Newport RI. Since many Kenyon's were members of this church, I'd certainly be interested in info about him and any descendants. Maybe some of them married Kenyon's!

Thank you for the information Richard! I do have limited resources and yes a lot of the information published over the years has been found to be incorrect at later dates. I wonder if anyone in the Kenyon families here have participated in any DNA studies? Would be interesting to link up with families in Britain to see if he could be traced. And that is interesting about the Stephen Mumford and the first Seventh Day Baptist Church- I have found another ancestor that was there and participated in that church. I had actually never heard of it before so did some further research on it. Very interesting!

There has been a Kenyon Surname Project for over a dozen years to collect Y-DNA from Kenyon men at Family Tree DNA. I am the (unpaid) Administrator of that project and Marilyn Kenyon is the co-Administrator.
Y-DNA testing is useful in surname studies because fathers pass a copy of their Y-DNA to their sons (but not daughters). Only minor changes might occur from generation to generation. Note that this Y-DNA test differs from the autosomal DNA tests offered by many companies these days.
It seems there are many different Kenyon lines in the British Isles that are only very distantly related. We hope to sort out these lines using DNA testing among other tools. We are in contact with Bob Kenyon in England in this effort. With luck, we hope to connect the RI Kenyon line to one in the British Isles.

That’s great! I wish you luck! The more detailed DNA becomes the more interesting this becomes! I have found several ancestors either proved or disproved by DNA. It’s good to know the truth regardless of which way it goes!
Katie Smith

My wife and I are members of the FTydna Kenyon Project and i am also the administrator for the FTY Singleton Project. The admin for the Kenyon Project above is not stating that the subclades for the Rhode Island Kenyons being R-A1148 and A-1309 do not prove descent from the Ancient British Kenyons of from 1300 to 1405 (Matthew Kenyon of Lancashire). Going way back to 1200 or 1400 could still be distant cousins to the British lines from that time in lancashire. Unless you have somebody in England descended from james of Glodwick or the branch from Accrington in an all male line and they test out not related to the Rhode Island Kenyons, Accrington would still be the choice descended from Matthew Kenyon of Lancashire born 1405. Over the last 5 years on the Rhode Island Kenyon pedigrees we have vacilated between linking to James born 1633 in Glodwick or John born in Accrington. They both link back directly to the first Jordan of Kenyon. The problem has been that someone in England checked the burials in Glodwick and found that James b1633 and John born in 1657 were both buried in Glodwick and now that is clearly writren up in the About for Old John of Glodwick. So we must give up on Old John b1655 and should return John born 1657 in Kingstown, RI back to the Accrington line. Would that be okay? Meanwhile we await more Kenyons still in England to test their YDNA all the way to the BigY700 test in order to get their full SNP pathway leading back to R-DF13. That will indeed happen one day and the Rhode Island Kenyons will be assured they came from Lancashire, England. We have the line for it now on Geni. They did come from Lancashire and the town of Kenyon.

Erica, after viewing the FT Kenyon Project STR/SNP charts and posting on their project activity feed, I see clearly that we really must have John Kenyon linked to the Accrington line once again. It is amazing that the present descendants from Accrington lineage who are still English and have the Kenyon ydna are R-FT383870. That comes directly from R-A1308 and the FT Discovery tool confirms that all those subclades coming from A1308 in the next subclade are confirmed now to be from the same SNP line of A1308 through sons and fathers. It is obvious now that the FTdna Kenyon Project admins have those groups all together under the Kenyons of Accrington with sibling subclades. Now what that will eventually do to the Group at the top of the Kenyon Project STR charts, that is left to be seen later. It is a question of really proving all of the descendant lines of the Lauton YDNA and the genealogical paper trails down to modern Kenyons. But now Geni Kenyon trees are solid all the way from the father of Matthew Kenyon b1405 down to present Kenyons descended from Westerly, Rhode Island. Could you please unlock John Kenyon, of Kings Town and merge the two profiles of John's born 1636? Thanks so much. The YDNA is proving good lines and relationships.I am so happy about it.

Matthew Kenyon is actually listed on Geni now as born in 1470 in Kenyon, Winwick, Lancashire. That is a change from 1405 birth.

The current subclades for the separate brother lines from the children of John Kenyon of Westerly including the Accrington line which remained in England until today follow.. They are: R-A91130, R-A6341, R-A1309, R-A1148, R-FT198982, and R-FGC5494 along with R-FT383870.