This region includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. For an explanation of regions and more information on the the hyperlinks embedded into the lineages, please see "Kent Lineages by Region.”
There currently aren’t any lineages solely associated with this state. It may be important to check other states associated with a specific Kent family or to review the entire region associated with this state to see if another researcher has a common ancestor or brick wall that may relate to your own.
Participant #380336 (W. Smith) has taken a “Family Finder” test at Family Tree DNA and genetically matches the following Kent project member(s). Any genetic connection should not be presumed as on their respective KENT branches. Family relationships closer than at the second cousin level will not be listed in this section and the “centiMorgans” in common should only include segments of 5.0 or more. (21 Aug. 2017)
[Kent descendancy is genetically confirmed on the Y chromosome, although the pedigree has yet to be established due to informal adoption within the last few generations:]
Established descendant of George E. Kent, b 24 Jul 1858 Clifton Heights, Delaware, PA d 11 Mar 1923 Clifton Heights, Delaware, PA m Elizabeth MASSEY:
Participant #B104968 (K. Beagle) has taken a “Family Finder” test at Family Tree DNA and genetically matches the following Kent project member(s). Any genetic connection should not be presumed as on their respective KENT branches. Family relationships closer than at the second cousin level will not be listed in this section and the “centiMorgans” in common should only include segments of 5.0 or more. (05 Aug. 2017)
Established descendant of Richardson Kent, b 1815 Virginia d aft. 1880 [prob. Fauquier Co., VA] m Louisa Ann LOWE:
Participant #159230 (C. Thornton) has taken a “Family Finder” test at Family Tree DNA and genetically matches the following Kent project member(s). Any genetic connection should not be presumed as on their respective KENT branches. Family relationships closer than at the second cousin level will not be listed in this section and the “centiMorgans” in common should only include segments of 5.0 or more. (21 Aug. 2017)
Established descendant of Phebe Kent, b abt. 1760 [prob. NJ or [old] Hampshire Co., VA] d 1825 Tippecanoe Co., IN m Frederick BURGETT:
Participant #251727 (G. Kent) has taken a 37 marker yDNA test and genetically matches the following Kent males (listed in order of estimated genetic distance, then by established descendants). (20 Aug. 2017)
Established descendants of Thomas Kent, b 1612 Essex, England d 01 May 1658 Gloucester, Essex, MA m Ann Mowit NOYES:
Participant #243164 (C. W. Kent) has taken a 67 marker yDNA test and genetically matches the following Kent males (listed in order of estimated genetic distance, then by established descendants). (20 Aug. 2017)
Established descendants of Thomas Kent, b 1612 Essex, England d 01 May 1658 Gloucester, Essex, MA m Ann Mowit NOYES:
Participant #177672 (Kent male on behalf of A. K. Manning) has taken a 37 marker yDNA test and genetically matches the following Kent males (listed in order of estimated genetic distance, then by established descendants). (20 Aug. 2017)
Established descendants of Thomas Kent, b 1612 Essex, England d 01 May 1658 Gloucester, Essex, MA m Ann Mowit NOYES:
Participant #389431 (K. Kent) has taken a 67 marker yDNA test and genetically matches the following Kent male. (20 Aug. 2017)
Established descendants of Thomas Kent, b 1612 Essex, England d 01 May 1658 Gloucester, Essex, MA m Ann Mowit NOYES:
Participant #389431 (K. Kent on behalf of Linda Kent) has taken a “Family Finder” test at Family Tree DNA and genetically matches the following Kent project member(s). Any genetic connection cannot automatically be presumed as on their respective KENT branches. Family relationships closer than second cousins will not be listed in this section and the “centiMorgans” in common should only include segments of 5.0 or higher. (20 Aug. 2017)
[Kent Pedigree has yet to be posted:]
Participant #407216 (A. Kent) has taken a 37 marker yDNA test and does not have a yDNA genetic match at the time of this writing. (05 Aug. 2017)
Participant #B47041 (J. Keyes) has taken a “Family Finder” test at Family Tree DNA and genetically matches the following Kent project member(s). Any genetic connection should not be presumed as on their respective KENT branches. Family relationships closer than at the second cousin level will not be listed in this section and the “centiMorgans” in common should only include segments of 5.0 or more. (05 Aug. 2017)
Established descendant of James Kent, b c 1750 [prob. NJ or [old] Hampshire Co., VA] d (-?-) m Isabel[?]:
Participant #243527 (A. B. Dick) has taken a “Family Finder” test at Family Tree DNA and genetically matches the following Kent project member(s). Any genetic connection should not be presumed as on their respective KENT branches. Family relationships closer than at the second cousin level will not be listed in this section and the “centiMorgans” in common should only include segments of 5.0 or more. (10 Aug. 2017)
Established descendant of Ann Kent, b abt. 1799 Caldwell, Essex, NJ d bet. 1860-65 prob. Chenango, Broome, NY m Ira D. CORBY (daughter of David and Mary (Freeman) Kent):
Participant #343236 (M. Hudson) has taken a “Family Finder” test at Family Tree DNA and genetically matches the following Kent project member(s). Any genetic connection should not be presumed as on their respective KENT branches. Family relationships closer than at the second cousin level will not be listed in this section and the “centiMorgans” in common should only include segments of 5.0 or more. (05 Aug. 2017)
[Kent lineage has yet to be posted:]
There currently aren’t any lineages solely associated with this state. It may be important to check other states associated with a specific Kent family or to review the entire region associated with this state to see if another researcher has a common ancestor or brick wall that may relate to your own.
There currently aren’t any lineages solely associated with this state. It may be important to check other states associated with a specific Kent family or to review the entire region associated with this state to see if another researcher has a common ancestor or brick wall that may relate to your own.
There currently aren’t any lineages solely associated with this state. It may be important to check other states associated with a specific Kent family or to review the entire region associated with this state to see if another researcher has a common ancestor or brick wall that may relate to your own.