South London

Home base for the Caldwells & Bruces

A Shift In Focus

The archive shifts now to the Bruce family. Why? Quite simply, because I have little knowledge of the Caldwells later than 1900 and hence, no archival material. There are two exceptions: my grandmother Rose Mary Caldwell and newly discovered ethnic Chinese cousins who are descendants of Daniel and Mary Caldwell’s adopted children. Rose Mary Caldwell married my grandfather, Sydney Bruce, and so the archive follows their life together. The Chinese Connection thread is just beginning to unfold!

Origins

As I write this piece, I decided to review what I knew about the origins of our branch of the Bruces. The answer is — not much. For years I have not been able to go beyond my great great grandfather, Robert Bruce, baptized 23 July, 1823, not unlike the Caldwell side which goes back only two more generations. Perhaps you can help. If you have any knowledge of our Bruce family beyond the 1800s, please get in touch.

A Mystery

There is a curious mystery to which I have no answer. The question is “Why does the record go silent after my Robert Bruce, born 1823? Baptismal records include the parents names. Robert’s parents are listed as Robert (no surprise there) and Elizabeth. No middle names. That led me to Robert Nicholson Bruce and Harriet Elizabeth Williams. This couple married 9 Jul, 1822, just over a year earlier than the birth of our Robert, at Westminster. Our Robert, was baptized at St Mary Abbots Church, Kensington, London. Both Westminster and Kensington are upscale boroughs of London. Robert Nicholson and and Elizabeth Williams appear to come from wealth and babe-in arms Robert Bruce appears to have been born to a wealthy family to have been baptized in Kensington. Let’s look closer at Robert and Elizabeth. Robert Nicholson Bruce was born 5 April, 1795 in Stirling, Scotland. He died 24 Jun 1867 at St George Hanover Square, London, another upscale London neighbourhood. Harriet Elizabeth Williams was born in 1801. The couple married 9 July, 1822. Ancestry lists them with one child, Isabella Harriet Bruce, born 1824. According to the record, Isabella was an only child. Here’s a theory and it is only a theory. Let’s say Robert, my great great grandfather, was illegitimate. That would have been a colossal problem for the credibility of Robert Nicholson Bruce and wife Harriet Elizabeth (neé Williams) Bruce who, it appears, were upper class Scottish blue-bloods. On our Robert’s baptismal record, the parents names are simply Robert and Elizabeth Bruce, extremely common names which would not connect them to our Robert if the parents were intent on hiding the connection to themselves. On the other hand, if our Robert was a legitimate first born son of Robert and Harriet Elizabeth, would they not have declared their pride by listing their full names on the baptismal record? And did you note that there is room for Robert’s birth in 1823 before the appearance of Isabella in 1824? I notice also that when our Robert married, no parents are listed as witnesses. It was a civil ceremony. Thus, as my theory goes, our Robert was possibly illegitimate, raised by others who were subsidized by the wealthy Bruces, and disowned from the Robert Nicholson Bruce family. Of course, all of this can be explained by the counter argument which is that there is no connection. Still, how do you explain that our Robert was baptized in an upscale neighbourhood, yet there is no sign of wealth throughout his life? And a very modest lifestyle it was. And how do you explain that the record just goes cold with our Robert? I have my suspicions!

London

We do know that, although both the Bruces and the Caldwells spent considerable time living and working in the Far East, England, in particular London, was considered ‘home.’ In my travels as a young man, I shared a stateroom aboard the P&O ship Arcadia with a Fijian policeman. He and his young son were travelling to England. They’d never been there, they had no connection with the place, but the British government was happily financing the trip to go ‘home’, as he put it. The British Empire, it seemed, was, in 1967, still alive and well in the minds and hearts of outlier British subjects.

So it was in my Caldwell and Bruce families. All the children were educated in London, for it was there that the best education could be had, and thus, the best opportunities provided to their offspring. In the case of great great grandparents, Daniel Richard Caldwell and Mary Ayow Caldwell, all 12 of their biological children were London-educated along with probably many, if not all, of their adopted children.

Thus, Caldwell and Bruce children spent the majority of their childhoods in London, notably South London — Croydon, Norwood. They embraced English culture, made English friends, connected with other ex-pat children, adopted English dress and ways of being in the world and for all intents and purposes, became English. Some never returned to their parents ex-pat homes, some did, but eventually, migrated back to England.

There was a downside. Some boarded children only rarely experienced a nurturing environment and grew up to become socially ill-equipped parents, passing on their inadequacies from one generation to the next.