1. Nathaniel Bradford of Accomack County, Virginia - Lower ...

approve the appointment of the King’s ministers and to set up their own organization for Church reform.
Charles rejected the Remonstrance and attempted to arrest five members of Parliament whom he viewed as
leaders of the opposition, but the members were forewarned and escaped. The King himself, his position
weakened, left London and raised an army. Parliament raised its own
army and the two sides soon found themselves at war. The forces of
Parliament emerged victorious in 1646; after a brief and uneasy peace
war broke out again and, under the generalship of Oliver Cromwell, the
Parliamentary forces were again victorious. At this point, feeling it
could trust Charles no longer, Parliament claimed the full authority of
the state and placed the King on trial. Charles I was found guilty of
treason and beheaded in 1649, after which Parliament abolished the
monarchy and the House of Lords and instituted a Commonwealth, or
government by Parliament. A third war broke out shortly afterwards
when Charles’ son, proclaimed king by exiled royalists in Scotland,
raised an army and invaded England in an attempt to reclaim the throne
for his dynasty. This third civil war resulted in another victory for the forces of Parliament. Cromwell
defeated Charles II at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651, the prince fled to France, and the
royalist cause collapsed in England.
During the period from the execution of Charles I through the aftermath of the failed invasion of Charles II,
many royalists fled England, seeking exile in Scotland, the Netherlands and also in England’s North
American colonies. Two of the destinations of choice for royalists were Virginia and Barbados, where they
were welcomed by the governors of those two colonies, who sympathized with the royal cause. Governor
William Berkeley of Virginia made no secret of his adherence to the king and actively encouraged his
fellow royalists to come to Virginia where their political attitudes might find a welcome reception. It is not
known where Nathaniel Bradford lived during the wars of the 1640s, nor whether he took a side in the
struggle between King and Parliament. However, it should be noted that, wherever he might have lived
before 1654, his first appearance then in Virginia records was during the peak years of the royalist
migration; and he had significant association with known royalist sympathizers Stephen Charlton &
Edmund Scarburgh.
Oath of the Commonwealth
Many of Virginia’s elite were royalists, or as they are more popularly known, ‘cavaliers’, and the leading
men of the eastern shore were no exception. Thus, resistance to the Commonwealth government was
present to a certain degree at all levels of the colonial government, from the Governor on down to the
County Courts. After the execution of Charles I, the Northampton court even went so far as to proclaim
Charles II the rightful ruler of England in clear contradiction of the claims of the Commonwealth to have
abolished the monarchy. 70 Due to these and other acts of defiance against its authority, in 1650 Parliament
attempted to enforce the subjugation of those colonies that had become royalist havens. First it passed an
ordinance cutting off all trade with Virginia and other offending colonies, and then sent Commissioners out
to enforce submission. This was accomplished in Virginia without bloodshed when the colonial
government at James City ratified the Articles of Capitulation on 12 March 1652 and handed over authority
to the Commissioners. Governor Berkeley was removed from office and a new governor of proven loyalty
to the Commonwealth appointed. At the same time, Nathaniel Littleton and Argoll Yeardley, the
councilmen from Northampton County, obtained the signatures of 116 individuals on the eastern shore to
an oath of loyalty to the commonwealth. 71 It could prove significant that Nathaniel is not on the list of
those who took the oath, since it was essentially compulsory and even those in the county who were known
to have royalist sympathies swore allegiance to the Commonwealth. Nathaniel’s absence from the list could
indicate either that he was not on the eastern shore at this time, or that he was too young to be required to
take the oath; alternately it could be that he was old enough but that only landowners or heads of household
were required to take the oath.
The Northampton Protest
Although the justices of Northampton County took the oath of loyalty, Parliamentary rule clearly did not sit
well with many of them. There seems to have been a clear division in the County Commission between
those who were in favor of submitting fully to the constituted authorities and those who wished to adopt a
more adversarial or independent attitude. 72 The latter group of justices took advantage of the opportunity
Page 17 of 74 Copyright 2008 Adam M. Bradford