IF CHARLES II HAD ACCEPTED THE KINGSHIP OF VIRGINIA
Once at least the New World has furnished to the Old World a reigning,
actual king; once, for thirteen years, a monarch, sitting on a throne in
America, ruled thence an ancient kingdom in Europe. And twice this
singular thing might have happened, with this time an enthroned
sovereign on the banks of the James instead of on the shore of a
Brazilian bay, if a certain king's son and king-to-be had been of a
somewhat more venturing and less indolent disposition.
The occasion when the thing really happened was when Don John VI, King
of Portugal, removed his royal throne and all the paraphernalia of
government from Lisbon to Rio de Janeiro, in 1807 (being impelled
thereto by an intrusive movement on the part of one Napoleon Bonaparte),
and turned Portugal (after the withdrawal of the French) into an actual
dependency of Brazil. This it remained until King John recrossed the
Atlantic in 1820. Throughout that period the scepter bore sway from west
to east, from America Europe-ward.
Very much the same thing would have occurred further north in the
contingency to which I have referred; and if it had, a royalist or
monarchist influence might have been laid upon the English colonies in
America which would have colored their history and institutions in a
marked degree, even if their destiny had not been permanently affected.
When Charles I, King of England, was arrested, imprisoned, and put to
death by the Parliament party in 1649, Virginia experienced a shock of
shame and indignation. That colony had absolutely no sympathy with
Cromwell and his party. It was in no sense or part Puritan. The Cavalier
sentiment dominated it completely; for though the bulk of its
inhabitants came out very poor, and were as far as possible from being
"gentlemen," they were not at all of the material of which Roundheads
were made; nor had they any influence in the government of the Province.
The General Assembly represented the gentlemen of the colony, who were
royalists to a man.
It is not surprising, therefore, that upon the receipt of the news of
the execution of Charles I, the General Assembly of Virginia lost no
time in meeting and passing an act in which the dead king's son, Charles
II, was recognized as the rightful and reigning sovereign. Legal
processes, and the machinery of the provincial government, continued to
run in the king's name. In England, Cromwell was installed as Lord
Protector. But Virginia refused to recognize him or his title. At least
one county of Virginia formally proclaimed Charles king, requiring "all
his majesty's liege people to pray God to bless Charles the Second, King
of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Virginia, New England and the
Caribda Islands." This, I believe, was the first appearance of the term
"King of Virginia," a title which was destined to be heard again
somewhat later.
Nor did the people content themselves with proclaiming Charles king. In
1650, Governor Berkeley sent Colonel Norwood to Holland to invite the
prince to become the ruling sovereign of what Raleigh had called "the
newe Inglishe Nation" on this side the water. Charles did not accept.
Nor did he frankly refuse. He had not the boldness to go to Virginia,
but he was delighted with the chance to put on for a moment the manner
and authority of a ruler. He sent Berkeley a new commission as governor,
signed by himself as king, and gave Colonel Norwood a commission as
treasurer of the colony. Both commissions were honored in Virginia.
The colony, indeed, with Barbadoes in the West Indies, virtually
constituted itself the Dominion of King Charles the Second; and it is in
memory of that assumption of the whole kingdom's prerogative, as the
Virginians believe, that the state is called the Old Dominion to-day.
Nor did the people propose that their allegiance should remain merely
nominal. They essayed actually to cut the connection with Cromwell's
Commonwealth and maintain themselves as the sovereign remainder of the
English realm. They succeeded in maintaining this position for a
considerable time--until, that is, 1651, when Cromwell's government
sent three ships of war to reduce the Virginians to submission. As all
the principal settlements were within easy reach of navigable water, and
had not developed sufficient back territory by means of which to support
themselves, it was impracticable for them to hold out long; they were
obliged to submit. Cromwell treated the province oppressively, and
forbade the other colonies to trade with it.
It is not at all surprising that Virginia, which in the meantime had
become the place of refuge of many more royalists, took steps to throw
off the Puritan allegiance as soon as possible after Cromwell's death,
and sought to anticipate the restoration of the Stuarts. Sir William
Berkeley, whom Cromwell had displaced with a Roundhead governor, was
again called to the head of things by the people. He refused to assume
the governorship at their mandate unless they gave him their solemn and
formal promise to venture their lives and fortunes for King Charles II.
This promise was given him by the unanimous voice of the electors.
Berkeley then proceeded to proclaim Charles "King of England, Scotland,
France, Ireland and Virginia." Virginia was once more the sole existing
segment of the king's dominion. In Virginia, and in Virginia only,
processes and documents were issued in his name.
Charles was therefore really king in Virginia, though in very fact he
was still living a lazy and rather low life in the Dutch towns, or
eating, as a guest, the bread of the French and Spanish nobility. The
Virginians, however, were not at all content with having set up a mere
paper sovereignty for him. Berkeley had kept in touch, by letter and
through messengers, with Charles, and had sent word to him, in Holland,
before the Commonwealth had fallen, that he would raise his standard in
Virginia if the king would give his consent. Once more he offered him a
Virginian crown. Richard Lee was sent to Holland with a proposition from
Berkeley to take the field for the king. It was even proposed that
Charles should come to Virginia and set up his throne there.
The king once more sent cordial thanks to the Virginians. But he did not
accept their proposition. We can imagine that along one side of his
nature it appealed to him, and on the other and commanding side it was
quite unwelcome; that is to say, while it must have inflamed somewhat
his ambition to be king once more and have done with the eating of the
bread of others, it was quite in conflict with his natural indolence and
moral cowardice. His first attempt to assert his kingship, when, on the
field of Worcester, he was ignominiously defeated by Cromwell, had
sickened him with all proceedings having the stamp of energy upon them.
As a matter of fact, it would have been perfectly safe for him to raise
his standard and set up his throne in Virginia. But he would not venture
it. He would remain on the Continent and await the turn of events.
Ere long events made him king in England. The Commonwealth fell to
pieces when there was no longer a strong hand to guide it. Charles
landed shabbily, even squalidly, at Dover, almost sneaking into the
country, instead of coming in triumph from Virginia, with a kingly New
World in his hand, as he might have done if he had accepted Berkeley's
invitation.
If, after his defeat at Worcester, he had taken advantage of Virginia's
first proffer and of French assistance, and raised his flag in America,
Charles might have affected the world's history very materially. There
was no time when the Puritans were not in a minority in England. They
held down the majority for a time because they had developed a superior
military capacity, and had a splendid, resolute army. But to the nucleus
of a brilliant Cavalier command in the New World, the more vigorous
English royalists might have rallied. A court at Williamsburg, which was
then and for a long time afterward the capital of Virginia, would have
meant a royal court in London much sooner than it really arrived, and
would have caused the Commonwealth to leave a fainter and narrower mark
upon the history of England than in the event it did leave.
Meantime, what a brilliant court would have assembled around the gay and
talkative monarch at Williamsburg! Already the Lees, the Washingtons,
the Berkeleys, and many others of the "first families," were established
in Virginia. Charles would probably have been happy in the easy,
light-hearted atmosphere of the plantations. There were no Puritans
there to bother him. Virginia had made its own laws against Puritan
practices--and enforced them.
Never was a monarch who would have been better pleased with having about
him actual slaves--men and women whose bodies he would have owned. His
sway must have spread northward as far as the border of the French
possessions, for though New England was Puritan, it bent reluctantly to
the sway of the Commonwealth, seeming to scent in the Roundhead
sovereignty a kind of rival that threatened to take over its half-won
autonomy. A kingship exercised in America would probably have suited the
men of New England very well.
In all likelihood the throne would in due time have been transferred to
the mother country. But its erection here, even for a few years, must
have infused into the character of the Americans generally a larger
element of monarchicalism than fell to their lot as it was. Virginia
would hardly have fallen off so readily into colonial republicanism as
it did in 1774-1776. English neglect of a really royalist Virginia sowed
the seed of Virginian rebellion. If Virginia had not supported
Massachusetts, shoulder to shoulder, there could not have been an
American Revolution. Charles did not know how far he let Virginia go
when he rebuffed Berkeley's emissaries.
The sentiment of personal loyalty to the crown remained strong in the
colonies up to the very outburst of the Revolution. The Americans
dissolved the relation of subject and sovereign with regret. If they had
ever had a king whom they could call their own, the interest enkindled
and perpetuated by his presence might very well have turned the scale in
1776 and prevented the withdrawal of the colonies.