Durnford was he capable.1

I can see why this discussion is so popular. It’s a bit like the Bible. They’re a question for every question. If you get my meaning.

Chelmsford also gave direct order's, but has we know they were disobeyed. Chelmsford cannot be held accountable based on those grounds. He did not plan for the disaster at Isandlwana.So Basically He’s saying. If I have issued an order, and that order jeopardises the column. Then but all means do what’s right to prevent a disaster. He obviously and stupidly trusted the officers under his commarnd to make their own decisions.[/quote]

Thats a bit of a dichotamy (sic) .
On the one hand you say that they shouldn have made decisions, then secondly blame them for doing so?

I need to ask a direct question thats been avoided before: What orders given by Chelmsford to the camp were disobeyed?
Pullein stuck reigiously to his standing ordders ( issued by Chelmsford). Durnford was not under specific orders.

I say again, Who disobeyed orders?

" Chelmsford didnt plan for the disaster", of course not, his plans did however go along way to causing it.

Regards

Posted by Littlehand Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:31 pm
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Doe's anyone knows who asked these questions. And were sufficient replies given. If so where can i see them?

Extract: Statement of Lieutenant-Colonel J. North Crealock, Acting Military Secretary.

Soon after 2 A.M. on the 22nd January I received instructions from the Lieutenant-General to send a written order to Lieutenant-Colonel Durnford, R.E., commanding No. 2 Column, to the following effect (I copied it in my note-book which was afterwards lost): " Move up to Sandhlwana Camp at once with all your mounted men and Rocket Battery—take command of it. I am accompanying Colonel Glyn, who is moving off at once to attack Matyana and a Zulu force
said to be 12 or 14 miles off, and at present watched by Natal Police, Volunteers, and Natal Native Contingent. Colonel Glyn takes with him 2-24th Regiment, 4 guns R.A., and Mounted Infantry."

I subsequently heard Major Clery state that the had left precise instructions to Lieutenant-Lionel Pulleine "to defend the camp." Such instructions would, I consider, as a matter of course, be binding on Colonel Durnford on his assuming command of the camp


Extract Major Clery Senior Staff Officer to the 3rd Column

I sent written instructions to Colonel Pulleine, 24th Regiment, to the following effect:" You will be in command of the camp during the absence of Colonel Glyn; draw in (I speak- from memory) your camp, or your line of defence"—I am not certain which-"

Extract: Captain Essex's Evidence. Rorke's Drift, January 24, 1879

At about ten A.M. a party of about 250 mounted natives, followed by a rocket. Battery arrived with Lieutenant-Colonel Durnford, R.E., who now assumed command of the camp.

Extract: Lieutenant Cochrane, 32nd Regiment,

I entered the Isandlwana camp with Colonel Durnford about 10 A.M., and remained with him as Acting Staff Officer. On arrival he took over command from Colonel Pulleine, 24th Regiment. Colonel Pulleine gave over to Colonel Durnford a verbal state of the troops in camp at the time, and stated the orders he had received, viz., to defend the camp, these words were repeated two or three times in the conversation.

On this message Colonel Durnford sent two troops Mounted Natives to the top of the hills to the left, and took with him two troops of Rocket Battery, with escort of one company Native Contingent, on to the front of the camp about four or five miles off. Before leaving, he asked Colonel Pulleine to give him. two companies 24th Regiment. Colonel Pulleine said that with the orders he had received he could not do it, but agreed with Colonel Durnford to send him help if he got into difficulties.

Already Pulleine has disobeyed two orders. One from Major Clery and the other from Durnford.

This has been repeated on many occasions. Crealock lied. The instructions in his hadwriting suvive.He was not instructed to take command or reinforce. Ergo Durnford did not disobey any command.
I will find the photos of the actuall order, they rest in the RE Museum, and get Pete to post them.
Your second point is purely innuendo on the part of Crealock and Cleary and is not substantiated. A nappy excercise concocted for the COE.
Cleary again lied there is no such instruction.
Essex was not part of the conversation, only Stafford. Essex ASSUMED. Hearsay.

Cochrane has more credibility. However assuming he is correct, where is the disobedience?

On an earlier post SAS 1 pointed out that if Durnford had assumed command, Pullein would have been bound to obey him and give him the two troops he wanted, he didnt because his orders from his commander were that he was in charge of the camp and his duty was to defend the camp. That fits in with his refusal to Durnford.
Still no disobeyed orders?

Nobody disobeyed orders.

Regards

Chelmsford’s court of enquiry was the only one held to establish the facts, as to what caused the disaster at Isandlwana. We can’t keep saying that their evidence was based on hearsay and not substantiated. These officers were there, they saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears. Like I have said before they had nothing to gain by altering the facts.

Quote :

Crealock lied. The instructions in his handwriting survive.

Did it?
Did he confirm it was his writing? If it were true, there would have been a public outcry and an official enquiry would have been carried out. The Government were satisfied with the finding of the enquiry.

Quote :

On an earlier post SAS 1 pointed out that if Durnford had assumed command, Pulleine would have been bound to obey him and give him the two troops he wanted, he didn’t because his orders from his commander were that he was in charge of the camp and his duty was to defend the camp.

In my last post I showed witness statement that confirm Pulleine gave over command to Durnford.

Quote :

“That fits in with his refusal to Durnford”

And is proves that Pulleine, and a knack of disobeying orders.

Quote :

“Nobody disobeyed orders”

Unfortunally we have two at the crime scene, that did.
Durnford & Pulleine. (Guilty on all counts)

I await the photo of creadlock's order.

Must admit this discussion is quite interesting. Both member's seem to be excellent at batting the ball back into each others court.

Impi. That’s because I stick to the facts. Most of the other replies from other members relating to this discussion are based on what the authors think happen.

Thanks CTSG But what about the question Posted by Littlehand Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:31 pm 5th reply from this one. ( I posted today) who asked those question at that time.

Impi. You will probably find it originated from Lieut.Colonel Edward Durnford and Frances. Colenso. (Anthony Durnfords Brother, and lover) They both try to exonerate Anthony Durnfords name after they believed he was being used as a scapegoat. Of course it didn’t work because the disaster was partly his fault.

By the Way if anyone suggest reading the "HISTORY OF THE ZULU WAR AND ITS ORIGIN" Don’t bother it is as bias as hell. It was written by. Lieut.Colonel Edward Durnford and Frances. Colenso.

Thanks CTSG. I will bear that in mind.

Springbok is this the order in-question.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I suppose the missing part is in Crealock’s pocket. :lol!:

No seriously out of interest. Doe’s anyone know what is says. Because I can't read it.

Sorry. I cannot make it out. Who found it on Durmford Body. And why did it take four months to recover it.

Dave. Good question of course it doe’s give someone plenty of time to plant it on the body. Not saying that it is the case. Surly if the Chelmsford and Crealock were trying to alter the facts, they were in a better position to have the order removed and destroyed. But they didn’t because they had nothing to hide.

Chelmsford Orders to Durnford.
CTSG
I have asked admin to post a photo of the orders.
They are: " You are to march to this camp at once with all the force you have with you of No2 Column.
Major Bengoughs battaion is to move to Rorkes Drift as ordered yesterday.
2nd 24th, Artillery and mounted men with the General and Colonel Glyn move of at once to attack a Zulu force about 10 miles distance."
The orders were only discovered on the 27th May 1879 when the battlefield was revisited and Durnfords body buried.
They were removed from the body by Shepstone.
The documents were stuck together with congealed blood and only seperated in 1964 at the RE museum .
That could just explain why it wasnt brought up at the COE?
Stafford was not asked to attend the COE, his diary turned up in 1998. His testimony makes idiots of essex and co.
So written proof that lies abound.
We need to bear in mind that at the COE, testimony was only invited from those under the influence of Chelmsford. Documents were thought to have been destroyed, Crealock Clery et al thought they were safe in committing perjury, history shows different. Chelsford after the COE was still frightened that truth would out and attempted to pass the buck onto Cleary. He, Cleary, avoided that by telling any enquiring minds "to ask Lord Chelmsford."
"What did they have to gain"?, simply put their entire army careers where on the line.
Also found on the body were the original standing orders plus the letter Chelmsford sent to Durnford admonishing him. to even suggest a planting of documents is pretty thin.
So without the smoke screens, obfuscations, attempted character assasinations and repeated ignoring of fact,........still no orders disobeyed.
As far as the book by Durnford/Colenso, without a doubt biased towards Durnford. But all the evidence is presented, so it makes an interesting read. The bias and camoflage are no more in the book than demonstrated by the weak defence of the Red Baron.

Regards

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Photo By Springbok

Springbok. Sorry mate but I really can’t see anything on this document that relates to Isandlwana. It’s look more like a plan of events that have either happened or about to happen.

Quote :

" You are to march to this camp at once with all the force you have with you of No2 Column.
Major Bengough’s battalion is to move to Rorkes Drift as ordered yesterday.”

Could you show me where it say’s the above on this document. Or a rough area where to look.

We have two photo’s one posted by Littlehand from the R.E Website and yours. So are we to believe that both of these original orders were found on Durnford body. Both of which have segments missing, no doubt the parts that could solve the mystery.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Just how many orders did he receive?

But if they are the same orders found, why is the handwriting and paper different.

Quote :

What did they have to gain"?, simply put their entire army careers where on the line.

Speculation, Unfounded, Personal Claim.

Garnet Wolseley had little time for Crealock and described him as:-

"Dressed like a guest at an artist's ball, he wore a sombrero with a long peacock feather and an imitation pugaree tied on one side in what he believed to be picturesque artistic carelessness . . . he had one wagon designed as a movable hen house so that he might have fresh eggs for breakfast. He even telegraphed for six milch cows to be sent forward so that he might not be deprived of milk in his tea while campaigning."

Also: Wolseley described him as Chelmsford's 'evil genius'

Rorke's Drift was commanded by Lieutenants rather than Colonels. Funny that.

And two Lieutenants left Isandlwana to the Colonels.

S.D

Stay on topic lads. !!!

Springbok. Your dear Miss Colenso up to her old tricks.

Quote :

You say "The orders were only discovered on the 27th May 1879 when the battlefield was revisited and Durnfords body buried. They were removed from the body by Shepstone."

Longhurst, Seaward ( - 28/10/1925)

He qualified MRCVS (London) on 31 March 1873 and with his regiment, the first Dragoon Guards, saw service in Natal from 1879 to 1880. In his book entitled "Lord Chelmsford and the Zulu War" (John Lane the Bodley Head 1939), Major General French D.S.O. records the following sequence of incidents involving veterinarian S. Longhurst of the K.D.G.s (King Dragoon Guards).

"On 21 May 1879 when the British columns revisited the battle ground of Isandhlawana for the first time after the massacre on the 22nd of January, a report was made to Miss Francis Colenso (daughter of Bishop Colenso) by Longhurst that he had seen Mr Theophilus Shepstone (son of Sir Theophilus) remove objects as well as correspondence from the dead body of Colonel Durnford. This action on the part of Shepstone smacked of concealment. At the time it was common knowledge that Miss Colenso was in love with Colonel Durnford and as he could be blamed for the unnecessary loss of life at Isandhlawana she felt that the correspondence removed from his body by Shepstone may have contained written orders which rendered Durnford blameless, and Lord Chelmsford blameworthy.

Subsequent enquiries proved that Shepstone had found no papers on Durnford's body (as it was coatless), but that his portmanteau had been handed to Miss Colenso unopened. Amongst the papers in this portmanteau was a despatch from Lord Chelmsford placing Durnford in sole command of the troops and therefore it could be assumed that he had been responsible for the massacre. It is possible therefore that Longhurst was guilty of make a false statement and that Miss Colenso in her turn was guilty of concealment.
In 1880 Longhurst succeeded T.P. Gudgin as P.V.S. of the Army Veterinary Department for a few months and in turn was succeeded by J.D. Lambert. He died on 28 October 1925 at Ash."

I do remember reading somewhere ? That a Trooper named Pearse (Regiment Can't Remember) who was part of the burial party had found some documents.

I believe it was he, who sent them to Miss Colenso some years later. She in turn past them on to the R.E Museum. The photo posted by Littlehand could be one of the documents found by Pearse. I will try to find out where I read this.

Hi Pete.

Googled: Trooper Pearse burial party durnford's body. Come-up with this from Julian whybra RDVC 2005


"Correct. The orders (to Column commanders from Chelmsford dated 23.12.1878) were found by Trooper Pearse with the burial party and given to his brother (the editor of the Natal Witness). He kept them for 5 years before forwarding them to Frances Colenso who forwarded them to the RE (Museum at Chatham) along with Durnford's trunk, sword, scabbard, etc all found on the battlefield. The docs were in an inseparable condition, utterly glued together by weather/blood and remained so until 1989. Shepstone had nothing to do with this."

So it doe’s appear that no one really knows for sure who supposedly found and removed documents from Durnfords body. We could sit here for years pulling names out of the air. All I ask is that someone shows's concrete evidence that documents were found on Durnfords body.

Preferably without Frances Colenso being involved.

Quote :

That’s because I stick to the facts. Most of the other replies from other members relating to this discussion are based on what the authors think happen.

CTSG
Head in the sand time.
Read : Letter C E Luard to Sir Andrew Clarke
Transcript of court of enquiry Shepstone/Luard
Testimony Surgeon Longhurst KDg
Testimony Mr macfarlane.
Letter from The Acting High Commisioner South Africa to CE Luard.

Do the research mate, could cleanse the soul, and help you to accept the facts

Regards

Need I say more. Conspiracy, Conspiracy :lol!:

The fight to re-establish Durnford's reputation was led by his brother, Edward Durnford, his fiancée, Miss Frances Ellen Colenso, daughter of John William Colenso, Bishop of Natal, and Charles Edward Luard. Luard made himself party to a letter writing campaign, accusing fellow officers of a conspiracy to blacken Durnford’s name. He was subsequently court martialled and censured for his actions.

read the full story here. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Miss Frances Ellen Colenso does appeard to be cropping up quite a bit lately. Interesting post CTSG.

Thanks Old H.

I guess my last post slowed down the Durnford boys on the forum. Facts, Facts, Facts, always the winner. Speculation always comes 2nd. I'm quite happy for Admin to lock this topic, as I feel my posts speak for themselves. You may be glad to know that I will not entertain the new discussion regarding Durnford and Colenso.
A fantasy tale that led to a Conspiracy against the Good Lord Chelmsford.

hi ctsg.
You arent Coll from a parallel universe are you ? . :lol!: :lol!: .
cheers 90th.

Probably a good thing for this topic to end. Its gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
We are away from the realms of academia and into the world of Walt disney.

Regards

Springbok. I enjoy your posts, but i don't agree with you, regards to locking down this toipc. I find it quite enjoyable as well as interesting.

The problem is. Its just going backs and forwards. I'm not saying lock it. Maybe just give it a rest. (It would help if CTSG stopped with the sarcastic remarks) that winds people up. We know he is a Good Lord Chelmsford sympathiser, probably the only one there is. He has makes his views pretty clear. But yes ! give it a rest for a while.

I'm quite enjoying the Discussion. If we lock it down. It would not be a Discussion Forum. Keep it going I say.

Keep it going.

Lock it down. It’s impossible for this discussion to go on any further, unless those who wish to contribute stick to using facts and evidence available to us. Its no good basing your argument on the finding of authors and what may have happen. My last post seems to have stumped my opponent Springbok, who has vigorously defended what he believes to be true. But he should have researched C E Luard before bringing him forward as a reliable source. They’re Gentleman I rest my case. And bid you all good night.

Forgot to say: May the Good Lord Chelmsford now Rest In Peace.

I posted this to give those like me a better understanding of this discussion.

By Frances Colenso & Lieut-Colonel Edward Durnford.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Bias as hell.

Lord Chelmsford's letter to the Secretary of State for War, dated " Durban, Natal, February 9th, 1879," and which ran as follows:

[" I consider it my duty to lay before you my opinion that it is very desirable, in view of future contingencies, that an officer of the rank of major-general shall be sent out to South Africa without delay. In June last I mentioned privately to His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding- in-Chief that the strain of prolonged anxiety and exertion, physical and mental, was even then telling on me. What I felt then, I feel still more now.I feel still more now. His Excellency Sir Bartle Frere concurs in this representation, and pointed out to me that the officer selected should be fitted to succeed him in his position of High Commissioner. In making this representation, I need not assure you that it will be my earnest desire to carry on my duties for Her Majesty's service up to the fullest extent of my powers."

Is he kind of admitting that due to the strain of prolonged anxiety and exertion, physical and mental? He may have made the wrong decisions at Isandlwana.
And is lending the blame on His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding- in-Chief . for not sending out a replacement.

But when Worley was sent to replace him. What did he do? He disobeyed orders and carried on to Lundi.

sas1
Good debatable point.
It would be easy to have a flippant answer, if nothing else it would wind up CTSG. But looking at it in depth. Chelmsford had seen some pretty hectic duty before Zulu Land. He was very much a hands on leader and had his fingers in every decision made. The pressure, a lot self induced, must have been awesum. He was also under pressure from Frere to get a quick result, that has to have had an impact on the decisions he made. After Isandlwana, RD, The prince Imperials death etc. many greater men would have been ready to fold. That letter must have been penned in some really dark place. Give the man credit he bounced back and probably muttered to himself something like, "sod this, time to finnish the job".
And, to his credit he did.
Good old fashioned British guts and determination.

Regards

From the same source: Regarding Chelmsford letter to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief

The exact meaning of this letter has never been made clear. No doubt Lord Chelmsford was feeling

" the strain of prolonged anxiety and exertion, physical and mental," but His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief said that he had no previous knowledge of it."

Another one of Chelmsford untrustworthy saga’s

CTSG
We do seem to be straying from topic.
However facts.
The documents in the RE Museum are indisputably genuine. They are in two hands, Crealocks and Chelmsfords. I cant find any reference to CE Luard being Court Martialed, except for Wikepedia ( not the most authoritive) the references you so kindly provided do not suggest a courts martial but are in fact to do with the murder of his wife and his subsequent suicide. Plus the arrest of the real murderor.
The correct orders issued are quoted verbatim in a number of publications including Mike Snooks. Dispite his dislike of Durnford even he accepts them as genuine.

So its back to square 1, Durnford didnt disobey any orders. He may have acted like a gung ho impulsive idiot in charging of into the Quabe but he wasnt guilty of disobeying orders.
The only reason Chelmsford wasnt censured more was of Royal Patronage, the Queen protected him. He in turn protected his supportors.
In the enquiry launched by Luard the case fell apart because of A) the restrictions placed on the evidence By the Administrator of the Cape ( to protect the reputations of emminent persons: His own words in a letter written to the court and produced in evidence) and also by the Army authorities who refused to allow active soldiers to give evidence.

Regards

PS sorry its taken a while getting back to you, circumstances prevented an earlier reply.

Springbok. The Good Lord Chelmsford was absolved of any blame. His career after the Zulu Was speaks for its self. If the stories about the orders being found on Durnford's body were correct, Then Chelmsford and several other leading figures would be revealed as incompetents.

Unfortunally the person pushing the stories was Durnford's fiancée. She had found a supporter and defender in a newly stationed Royal Engineers officer, named Lt. Col. Charles Luard.

Luard got himself into serious complications because of a letter writing campaign in which he tarnished several others as conspirators against the memory of Colonel Durnford. They were able to force a court martial on Luard, where he was censured.

What’s fascinating is that it somewhat mirrored what happened to the Luard. In 1908, when after his wife's murder he was the subject of the poison pen letter’s a campaign that blamed him for the murder of his wife - a campaign so strong that in led to his a state of depression, and his suicide by throwing himself before a train.

CTSG
Actually he was never absolved of all blame, the oposite was true. As stated when the government of the time wished to take action they were over ruled by the Queen.
There is no record of a court martial of Luard, after the abortive enquiry he was admonished and forced to apologise.
There is also nothing on record suggesting that Fanny Colenso was a fiance. Regardles of what there relaltionship was, it was never official.
Facts???? A word I seem to recall

We do agree on one thing, the uncanny paralel with his own death. The murderor was eventually arrested in canada.

Regards

Springbok. Just to get some issues in my mind sorted.

Quote :

As stated when the government of the time wished to take action they were over ruled by the Queen.

I would like to see this if possible.

Quote :

“There is also nothing on record suggesting that Fanny Colenso was a fiance. Regardless of what there relationship was, it was never official.”

“Future brides and bridegrooms are often referred to as fiancées or fiancés respectively.”

It was common knowlegde that Durnford and Colenso were having a relationship. They may have had a private engagement party. But you you don’t need to register the event to may it offiical. We know they wasn’t married. That would have been recorded.

Quote :

“We do agree on one thing, the uncanny parallel with his own death. The murderer was eventually arrested in Canada.”

Springbok can you name your source.

The inquest verdict on Mrs. Luard was 'murder by person or persons unknown' and that on General Luard 'suicide while temporarily insane'. The murder was never solved and the police files have been destroyed. The General and Mrs. Luard are both buried in Ightham churchyard.

I would like to see this.

Quote :

"As stated when the government of the time wished to take action they were over ruled by the Queen"

hi all.
This is how things can get confused and we are doing it ourselves :) .

John .
You write it was plain for all to see that Durnford and Fanny were having an relationship , what evidence
do you base that upon ? :) . Just because they no doubt enjoyed each others company it doesnt
mean they were in a relationship , it could have been strictly plutonic for all we know .
ctsg.
Your comment about how well treated the good Lord was after the campaign is a little strange ,
The fact is that he was never given a field command or able to lead troops again overseas ,
To me it seems that was a punishment without being made to look like one Didnt the
Queen bestow some honouary rank on him and basically turn him out to pasture ?
cheers 90th

Hi John
I agree there was an attraction between fanny Colenso and Durnford. However He was a married man, she was a Bishops daughter and we are talking Victorian morals. Its impossible to prove a negative so no there is no proof that the WERENT engaged. However is there proof they were? Again bear in mind it would have been illegal.

The quote about the murderer being Canadian/in Canada comes from the New York Times September/November 1908.

The protection Chelmsford had from the Queen was explored by Ian Knight, Lock and Quantril, Greaves and mentioned by Archiball Forbes. ..." although he continued to enjoy the support of the Queen and the military establishment he never commanded an army in the field again".

Earlier in this string are the statements made in Parliament calling Chelmsford to task.

Regards

Just to add a bit to the mix about Durnford's relationship with Frances Colenso.

In his book, "The Road to Isandhlwana - Colonel Anthony Durnford in Natal and Zululand", R W F Droogleever asserts their relationship may well have been a bit of a one sided affair. Durnford was a frequent visitor to Bishop Colenso's residence at Bishopstowe and it was here, Droogleever tells us, that Durnford, "struck up a particularly close relationship with Frances" but that, "On Durnford's side it should be said that the relationship seems to have remained correct and proper" and argues the reasons for this to be a mix of manners, morals and a "reluctance" for too close a relationship because of the "painful" experience of separation from his wife (Frances Tranchell). Moreover, " The bishop and his wife knew of their daughter's love for Durnford and although they too considerd him 'our very dear friend', they understood, or appeared to understand, the reason why he never wished to respond to her in as indulgent manner as she to him."

U