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

man were the father of Nathaniel Jr., knowledge of it would have probably been as apparent to Nathaniel
Sr. in 1664 as in 1667; and if Nathaniel Sr. was prepared to disown his responsibilities to the child in 1667,
in all likelihood he would not have considered him an heir earlier. Not only that, the early birth of the child
would have been apparent to Nathaniel and Alice’s neighbors, and the two of them would probably have
fallen under suspicion for the crime of fornication, which applied to married as well as unwed couples.
There are instances in the Accomack court records of married couples being presented by the grand jury for
fornication based on their having a child early enough in their marriage to indicate that it was conceived
before that marriage. 140 Nathaniel and Alice would not have been immune from this charge. But there is an
even greater reason to doubt that Holden fathered Nathaniel’s first child by Alice. Namely, since they were
married by 1660, and since Nathaniel, Jr. was born around that year, it’s natural to wonder why Nathaniel
Sr. would have waited a full 7 years to lay a claim for child support based on false paternity. All of the
considerations listed are not quite enough to warrant a complete rejection of Alice as the mother of
Holden’s child, but make her a doubtful candidate.
Yet the likelihood that the wife in question was Joan seems slim. After Nathaniel Sr.’s death, Joan’s brother
Henry Franklin made an attempt to provide for her son John Bradford, but mentioned no other children of
hers by Nathaniel. 141 John remains the only known child of Nathaniel and Joan and he was born in or
around 1677, a full 10 years after the action against Charles Holden. Even so, the possibility remains that
Nathaniel may have had earlier children by Joan who did not survive or who may not have warranted the
assistance of her brother Henry for whatever reason.
Though there is no direct evidence for it, another possibility must not be discounted: that Nathaniel had a
third wife intervening between Alice and Joan. Alice was certainly alive in August 1664, when she united
with Nathaniel in the sale of her inherited land to John Fawset and Dermon Selevant; but as this is her last
identifiable appearance in the records, it can’t be said for certain that she was still alive three years
later. What is more, by January 1667 a smallpox epidemic had broken out on the eastern shore, said to have
been introduced by a sailor from Bermuda. 142 It is possible that Alice died from the disease early in the
year, and that Nathaniel remarried very shortly afterwards, though this is obviously just speculation. The
use of the term “now wife” in the court record may also be significant if it was used to distinguish from a
former wife (i.e., Alice). At any rate, if Nathaniel’s wife in August 1667 was neither Alice nor Joan, there
is no record of her or the child.
Whoever the child was, if it outlived Charles Holden he appears not to have provided for it. A search of
Holden’s numerous appearances in the court records of Accomack and Northampton reveals nothing to
suggest a blood relationship with anyone. Holden appears to have died without having fathered any other
children, as in 1689 he left his land in Northampton County to his wife Mary and, if she had no heirs, then
to Edmund and Tabitha Custis. He also left legacies to various individuals, but none of them seem to be at
all connected to Nathaniel Bradford’s family: Holden left his servant Thomas Summers a cow and calf; to
Elizabeth Sterlinge he gave a gold ring; to John Bradhurst a horse; and to his godson Henry Sprattling a
lamb. 143 The only possible contender for Holden’s illegitimate child among these legacies would be
Elizabeth Sterlinge, since Sterlinge was her married name. According to a deposition she gave in
Northampton Court she was born around 1660, 144 so if she was Holden’s child by Nathaniel’s wife, it
would have to have been by Alice before the birth of Nathaniel, Jr.; and it is unlikely Alice had a child
earlier than Nathaniel Jr.
Ultimately it’s difficult to see how the issues brought up by the Charles Holden prosecution will ever be
settled in the absence of further evidence. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely such evidence will ever come to
light.
* * * * *
Nathaniel A Horseman in the County Militia
On the same date that he prosecuted Charles Holden, Nathaniel was listed among those late or absent at the
muster of the county’s militia. 145
Page 27 of 74 Copyright 2008 Adam M. Bradford