Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records

Chard, i perceived your post as an unprovoked attack on myself!
i responded in kind. ( in haste ) i apologise and withdraw my
remarks.

Hi All

I do have a question?

Has the Regiment ever disputed that David Jenkins was a defender of Rorke's Drift?

Hi Graves
I havent read that the regt didnt think he was a defender , I have read where he , along with other survivors were at various places in England , and none of the other survivors ever doubted his presence at RD , If he wasnt there, I'm sure others would've been saying so ! .
Cheers 90th   

Chard It's not up to me to '' find '
the evidence for you , if you wish to read the 32 or 33 pages you will find it yourself , I dont have the time to do your research for you , and frankly , when the evidence has been put forward , as it has on several instances , you are still in doubt ! . I have many other things which take up my time .
90th

not being obtuse but which regt? an official comment
will not be forthcoming, its not the army way!

Not quite true. The museum staff are civilians

please think for once what you are saying, if the regt did not concur,
they would be double quick to dissociate with this debate. honour
dictates this,,ipso facto..in their silence, they have not! its accepted!!
game over! give this nonsense up.

Hi Impi
Im afraid its all true. Civilians or not they are appointed by the regiment and are as such representatives of the regiment. Again don't forget that this all started when Major Martin Everett was in charge.
The evidence available to them has been outlined in many posts, it wasn't confined to a single point, that's a rather disingenuous remark.
Bill as an official of the museum does have boundaries, this debate got into a full on slanging match, he did the right thing by pulling back. David Payne and Adrian Greaves however put out a written statement, published on the web and in a Zulu Wars forum. Suerly its in their interest and in the interests of their forum to re open the issue and explore it. Just as much as is being done on here really.
This discussion at times brings to mind the Monty Python Sketch on Arguments. Yes it is, no it isn't, ad infinitum. A debate can only be carried forward if both points of view are clearly expressed. The 'against' has never ever looked at the evidence in total but rather picked on very small issues, apropos Bill is a civilian ! Nonsensical really in terms of debate. The fact that the Regiment supported the dedication, they have never attempted to repudiate the museums stance all points to that de facto recognition.
I do respect the right of dissention, hell my country spends its life in that mould, but put forward a logical and cogent argument to support your stand so we can carry the debate forward. A full list of the evidence for has been posted, take that list and go through it point by point in counter.
Two issues for me would be: Explain how he could have commuted back and forth between the hospital and the defended area, ive  posted the photos and the timings, and secondly why was he never exposed as a charlatan and imposter during the rest of his time in the regiment and at subsequent events.
He was awarded the South Africa medal, that proves he was in Africa. That being so show me where he was if not at RD, he wasn't at isandlwana. Couldn't have been he was still alive afterwards. Theres never been a suggestion or document to say he was with the column. That could only mean that he was at Helpmakaar and again we can place him there BEFORE the 22nd but not afterwards.

Cheers

A curators roll and responsiblities.

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

There is still the issue of how he got to Petermerizberg so quick after the Battle.

Hi John
Im not to sure I understand the point of that? Its a general outline of the position available, no more than that really!
Is this again not a case of loosing sight of the debate?

Cheers

Did he get to PMB? Or did his letter? Dispatches and letters were sent from RD on the 23rd Stafford I believe was one of the riders that delivered. Notice of the battle was received in Cape Town on the 23rd and sent to England on the 24th.

Cheers

He sent a letter from Petermerizeberg.

One Jenkins was debilitated in the hospital and could hardly move, so who was the other Jenkins that saved Chard's life?

Guess what????? it was none other than David Jenkins.

The regiment must have accepted that he was there, otherwise why would they have approved and attended the rededication?

There has been lots of evidence posted on these pages in this thread, and also Julian has painstakingly researched and provided lots of evidence to prove that David was at RD, it is now up to the doubters like AG and others, to provide evidence to show and prove that he wasn't.

Hi John
No he didn't, he sent a letter that was dated 'from' PMB. And so did a lot of other people. In other words, the letters were written and the distribution point in PMB wrote the date on it.
That's an explainable point, the others I pointed out still need to be addressed.

Cheers

Sorry John I forgot to add that Jenkins letter from PMB is actually dated the 28th not the 24th.

That's what JW says, not the letter.

The fact is there is nothing of relevance regarding military records that puts Jenkins at RD. We know he was in SA but so were a lot of people, and many bonus ones who claimed to have been at RD. In Jenkins case he tried to claim that he had been at Isandlwana, and then RD. reading between, lines and hindsight along with letters to family members, just ain't good enough. Military records are the key to placing him there. We know the Coloinal regiments that stopped at RD, told the defenders all manner of stories what had taken place at Isandlwana. These stories were past on at they made their way, away from RD. Jenkins Probaly heard these stories.

Hi all

Whilst I fully appreciate a sensible debate, this topic has unfortunately gone way beyond that. Springbok is absolutely correct, in stating that I have "pulled back". That is the case, and will remain the case.

Bill

So John, i take it your not man enough to apologise?.

Hi John
I take your point but the salient points do remain. His regiment, at the time, accepted he was there, he was detailed for various parades and activities so yes there is Military proof. There has been no explanation for the two Jenkins at RD and no explanation of where, assuming he wasn't at RD, he was? Again as he was part of the Prisoner escort, why would he have been separated and where would he have been.
Theres a heck of a lot of questions you would have to answer to actually prove he wasn't there. And to disprove the accreditation of his presence you need to do that, innuendo wont cut it. There were 6 Jenkins in Zululand, 1 arrived in March, 4 were killed on the 22nd. Only leaves one to arrive back in England and be acknowledged by the Military. And by Chard, Bourne Waters etc.


Cheers Mate

As they say, Bill. If you can't stand the heat" it seems the topc is only sensible when members agree with you. When they don't you pull back and don't get involved. Springbok's replies are what we are looking for, but then again he knows his subject, and perseveres unlike some.

LH posted a newspaper artical sometime back regarding Jenkins comments on the death of Henry Hook. Those comments being incorrect. Yet it passed of because his memory was failing him ect ect ect.

Nearly all the defenders that gave an account mention they were at RD Jenkins doesn't? Why's that then. He led people to beleive he was at RD but never claimed to have been there?

This prisoner escort is confusing in that "Who were the prisoners" where was the rear?

I can understand if Prisoners were held at RD and taken back to Greytown. Roy was one of the escorts yet he doesn't mentioned Jenkins.

The other mystery to me that is, is that most of the so called prisoner escort party all had chequered army careers. Not the type that would be trusted to escort prisoners?

Hi John
The prisoner run they had undertaken was from isandlwana through to Helpmakaar. On the way back for some reason they stayed at RD, Roy for one was sick and possibly one other was. Hence the reason they were there for the attack. We know they started from isandlwana because of the partial letter from CS Edwards mentioning one of the escort party being lashed.
I don't think there were many 'virgin warriors' around in those days. They were a pretty rough old bunch, and having spent quite a while in the army and done my share of getting into trouble I can state unequivocally that troop sgnts took great pleasure in picking out the trouble makers and malcontents for the worst duties. The days of the squeaky clean soldier had not yet arrived in the 19th Century.
I don't put to much emphasis on the fact that Roy didn't mention him, or the others for that matter. In that particular time frame, these details, in fact the whole fight didn't seem to be that big a deal. Lets face it if Chelmsford hadn't needed a security blanket and dished out VCs to all and sundry its highly possible that RD would have sunk into history with hardly a ripple.
Its only now that we look backwards and have been so brainwashed into looking for cover ups etc that all these very innocent bits and pieces of 'evidence' are analized to death instead of being seen as what they are, the flotsam of daily living
Jenkins does state very clearly that he was at RD, in two separate letters in fact.
Im pretty sure Jenkins was there probably for one significant point: It is impossible for the other Jenkins to have got from the hospital to the barricades and back. When all the rest of the newspapers, bibles etc etc are filed away then that simple fact remains. Reynolds, Evans, Smith and William Jones all put a Jenkins in the hospital, and being killed and buried there. Chard puts a Jenkins at the barricade, mentions it twice. And in Chards chronological notes the hospital fire happens before the incident on the barricade.Believe me Ive looked at that area critically and attempted to come up with a scenario, any scenario, and failed. There is just no explanation except the most simple one, One Jenkins died and one didn't, one is buried in the cemetery and one in Wales, much as Martin will hate to admit it there were a few Welshmen at RD.

Cheers

Makes sense , if they were held up at RD what happened to the Prisioners.   

The escorts were on their way back from Helpmakaar so the prisoners had already been dropped of. Who they were and what happened to them I have no idea at all. As we have been posting, the thought crossed my mind, would they have marched or had a wagon? I would assume marched and that would have meant a solid day from Helpmakaar so at least one day resting up at RD before another 12 mile hike back to the column. And I would think that if a couple of the 11 man patrol were sick then they would want to wait for them. Typical squaddy, anything for an easy life.

Cheers

Do we have any evidence to show Jenkins actually went to the camp at Isandlwana.

Springy mate, I have never denied that there were a few Welshmen at RD (only about 14 however), but that is no problem, as they all did their bit, and David Jenkins was one of them. They fought alongside their mates at RD, and it was David who called out to Chard to take cover (duck) as there was a Zulu about to fire at him, thus saving Chard from being injured or worse. Chard mentions this and even names the man as being 'Jenkins', so it must have been David as the other Jenkins was debilitated (if not already dead), in the hospital. Like you, I have no doubt that David Jenkins was indeed at RD, and that he fought alongside his mates on the wall, and therefor fully deserves recognition for his actions and heroism. If I remember correctly (without going back through the topic to check), I think there was some mention of the prisoner and escort party being gathered together and setting off from iSandlwana (to Helpmakaar), then on their way back a couple of them were taken ill (one being Roy), so when they arrived at RD, Roy and the other man were treated in the hospital, but then later the Zulu's attacked. In a roundabout way, they were lucky to have got away in the escort party, otherwise they would most likely have been killed at iSandlwana.

Hi All,
I think this issue should be turned around as there is enough circumstantial  and other evidence already produced to show where Jenkins was on 22/01/'79
So, turning it around, the naysayers must be allowed to prove that Jenkins was somewhere else. There is no doubt that the ensuing silence will be deafening.

regards

barry

Hi John
From the various rolls, Chard Bourne Waters etc we do know there were 11 in the prisoner escort. We have proof they were at Helpmakaar and we do know that they left to go back to Isandlwana and stayed over at RD. In the rolls there are two Jenkins listed, one as being killed and one as surviving.
We also know exactly how many Jenkins were in South Africa and what happened to them. So as much as having a pretty definitive list of other data that supports that then yes its pretty conclusive that he was at RD.
He was awarded the SAGS with Bar so that would mean that he crossed into Zululand.
Much has been made of a lack of a signed and witnessed statement or photograph or over 100% verifiable piece of evidence but the same can be said of probably 70 to 80 % of the defenders. Its generally only through their letters home that we can place people at the various locations. Unless there was an additional award ie the VC no annotations were made on their service records.

While exploring the archives some time ago I followed a trail and came across an original account of a soldier from the wars. Its never been published or seen the light of day. That will be remedied in the near future. But the point I make is that without this handwritten account there is no record of him being at the battles he was. And that's a great pity because his descriptions and emotions are soulfull.
Now its time to make tea for the young lady upstairs and start on the long put of paint job in the lounge.
Enjoy your Sunday
Barry
You've got the mother of all storms heading your way, came through here last night.

Cheers Mate.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Springy mate, I have never denied that there were a few Welshmen at RD (only about 14 however), but that is no problem, as they all did their bit, and David Jenkins was one of them. They fought alongside their mates at RD, and it was David who called out to Chard to take cover (duck) as there was a Zulu about to fire at him, thus saving Chard from being injured or worse. Chard mentions this and even names the man as being 'Jenkins', so it must have been David as the other Jenkins was debilitated (if not already dead), in the hospital. Like you, I have no doubt that David Jenkins was indeed at RD, and that he fought alongside his mates on the wall, and therefor fully deserves recognition for his actions and heroism. If I remember correctly (without going back through the topic to check), I think there was some mention of the prisoner and escort party being gathered together and setting off from iSandlwana (to Helpmakaar), then on their way back a couple of them were taken ill (one being Roy), so when they arrived at RD, Roy and the other man were treated in the hospital, but then later the Zulu's attacked. In a roundabout way, they were lucky to have got away in the escort party, otherwise they would most likely have been killed at iSandlwana.

Martin are you saying prisoners were taken to Isandlwana ?

Martin. wrote:

I have no doubt that David Jenkins was indeed at RD

So where's the offical take on this Martin. Looking back at one of your posts, you say the Regiment gave the go head to add Jenkins to the roll. Where does it say that!

You then say in another thread.

Martin wrote:

For something to be authorised it has to be referred to officials who discuss the matter and either approve it or not, if something is authorised without these officials approval it is not official.

Sorry mate, but it seems your willing to accept Jenkins as being at RD. yet it has never, as you say been approved.

Your words.

Martin wrote:

if something is authorised without these officials approval it is not official

None of us on this forum, or museum staff are in a postion to authorise Jenkins being added to the RD roll of honour,

  Martin what was we saying about having your cake and eating it.    Move over Bill make some room for Martin on that fence!   

Totally agree with Martin!

Martin wrote:

For something to be authorised it has to be referred to officials who discuss the matter and either approve it or not, if something is authorised without these officials approval it is not official.

 

impi wrote:

Regardless of what's been written, and what people think about JW publication, the fact remains that David Jenkins presence is not confirmed by any official account from the time. End of! 

Does this not bring us back to the original question   

We just passed sublime with speed !  

Hi HO2. No, they were taken to Helpmakaar.


All.

The officials of the regiment must have discussed the matter of David Jenkins along with the others involved, ie, the custodians, historical researchers (fact finders), etc, even Col Mike Snook might well have been involved in these discussions. If they had not discussed this and arrived at a satisfactory conclusion, then why did the regiment approve of and arrange a rededication for David along with a new headstone for him, and if there was no official approval, then why did the regiment honour David with their military presence and attend his rededication.

It seems that the seed of doubt was sown by AG, who should have done some proper research and got the facts right before casting doubts about David being at RD. Since then it has taken people like Julian to do some real probing and painstaking research to prove that David was indeed at RD fighting alongside his mates and also saving Chard's life by shouting out the warning to "duck down Sir".


John.

I am not sitting on the fence, I am very clear where I stand on this matter, I fully give my support to David Jenkins in that he was indeed at RD, and that he should receive the honour and respect that he fully deserves along with the rest of the brave men that defended RD.

Yet again two threads are running on much the same subject. The only people that believe we are back to square one on Jenkins are those who think there has to be official approval before Jenkins can be said to have been a RD defender. They don't say he wasn't there, they just are not prepared to accept it as fact unless the current military say OK.

Martin has taken a similar line on the use of "24th" by the SWB. In that case there was an Official Board (Board of Ordnance who approve changes to dress). So he is right to say there must be approval for the use of "24th" by SWB, and there was.

Aha! say the Jenkins doubters, we told you so - there has to be a board of approval to say old soldiers were present at particular events!  But it ain't so - there is no such board - all that has been explained already in the Jenkins thread. Its a red herring.

As Barry and others have said, the only way ahead now is for those who think Jenkins wasn't a defender is to show where the evidence is wrong. That is what they would have to do if this mythical official board existed.

Steve

the only way ahead now is for those who think Jenkins wasn't s defender to show where the evidence is wrong.... Well said Steve..

But of course they wont! and that's because they cant..if they had any revelations, they
would trip and trample each other to present it! and so it goes on disrespecting a hero!.

I'm in between. However I must agree, there seems to be very little military documentation, along with Pte Jenkins silence as to wether he was there. The only way for the issue to be resolved. Is for someone to contact the Regiment direct and get their view on the matter. Perhaps is best to let those who think Pte Jenkins was a RD beleive that, and that don't beleive that. Pte Jenkins is the only one who really knows, and I'm sure we will all have the opertunity to ak him when the time comes.

Good point SAS1. As to whether we will have the chance to ask him - depends on where he went and whether we go to the same place!

Steve

Hi Les.

Correct, if any of the doubters had some real evidence to prove that David was not at RD, they would be clambering over each other to be the first to post it. But like Barry, Steve and others have said, it is now up to the doubters to show and prove that the evidence for him being there is wrong.

Steve, yes, the approval of the collar badge was (imo) wrong. The silver wreath was presented to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and not the SWB, the numerals XXIV belonged to the 24th and not the SWB who were never the 24th (although they like to think they were). If I recall correctly, it was for a commemorative occasion that they applied for permission for the badge to be worn as a tribute to their predecessor, but strictly speaking it should never have been allowed, as the SWB were never the 24th, and the Silver Wreath was not theirs.

Do you know, I am not at all sure the Regiment would want to be asked to adjudicate on this.

Think about it - the only evidence they would have would be what JW has unearthed. Unless our doubters put forward a case which refutes it that would be it, the Regiment does not have information of its own.

If they were to say they were not convinced, they would upset the existing relatives of a well respected old soldier and make themselves look foolish for supporting his rededication ceremony.

Why on earth would they want to become involved?

I think our Bill is a very canny chap.

Steve

Rusteze. Is not a case of refuting JW work. the case has to be answerd from a military perpective.

Is it fair to add someone to the roll, when there remains doubt?

Is it fair to the men and families of those we know were there, and fought together for nealy 15 hours.

There's two sides to a coin. The evidence so far, is purly from a civilian perpective. As SAS1 says believe what you want to believe, either way there is doubt.

Your doubt on wether the regiment would be interested, is speculation on your part.

Impi

I understand that you think the case has to be answered from a military perspective. But what does that mean? Why is a random set of modern career soldiers capable of coming up with an answer that is any better than yours or mine? They do not have a crystal ball, there is no set standard of proof, they rely on the same historians who have carried out the research.

So far as I know, there is no precedent for them doing what you ask. And my speculation that they would prefer not to be asked, for the reasons I gave, remains my view.


Steve

Again your missing the point. If JW and other are so sure, that they have enough evidence to prove he was at RD. then approach the Regiment with the evidence, I'm sure they would comment, even just to say they were happy with the evidence,and respect his place as a defender. If they are not interested then so be it, people can make their own choice!

Impi

What point am I missing. You keep asserting this is necessary, but you don't say why.

Steve

sas1 wrote:

I'm in between. However I must agree, there seems to be very little military documentation, along with Pte Jenkins silence as to wether he was there. The only way for the issue to be resolved. Is for someone to contact the Regiment direct and get their view on the matter. Perhaps is best to let those who think Pte Jenkins was a RD beleive that, and that don't beleive that. Pte Jenkins is the only one who really knows, and I'm sure we will all have the opertunity to ak him when the time comes.

Go with the above, I think I have made my own views very clear.

So there is very little military documentation - how will the present regiment resolve that? I know what you believe, I just can't get you to say why you believe it.

Steve

I didn't fail the test, I just found 100 ways to do it wrong. Well researched Juiian, can't argue with that. ..yes impi that was you!

Julian some indepth research there. Seems you have succeeded in placing Jenkings correctly at RD. and it seems I owe you an appoligie for doubting your findings. ctsg..and you said that!!

rusteze wrote:

So there is very little military documentation - how will the present regiment resolve that?  I know what you believe, I just can't get you to say why you believe it.

Steve

Come on Steve, its more than clear. Has the the evidence been shown to the regiment. No one is disputing the research by JW. That's if your happy to accept it, as Impi says from a cilivian perpective. Jenkins was in the army, their documention doesn't put Jenkins at RD.
The non-military documention JW has does. Get both side to agree job done! Col Mike Snook advised them how to bring it to the regiments attention. They haven't !