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

Bill,

One thing I noticed on the roll is Adendorff's first name.

I believe it is generally accepted his first name was Gert, rather than James.

Regards,

'Jimu

kwajimu1879 wrote:

Bill,

One thing I noticed on the roll is Adendorff's first name.

I believe it is generally accepted his first name was Gert, rather than James.

Regards,

'Jimu

Well spotted Jimu.
re: Adendorff, there is some dispute as to whether Adendorff actually was at RD or not.

bill cainan wrote:

Thanks Tasker


There is of course an RD roll ion the Museum web site.

Go to "royalwelsh.org.uk"; click on "Regiment"; click on "History"; on the family tree, under 24th Regiment, click on "Anglo-Zulu War"; download "RD Roll".

We have Pte D Jenkins 1/24th on the roll.

Good luck

Bill

Here's the link:

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

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

But wasn't the original question, who decides who puts Dave Jenkins on the Roll Call.

N.A.M. Believes that there could be another 15 Soldiers missing of the roll call.

There has be a few newspaper articals posted by members, by those who have claimed to have taken part in the defence of Rorkes Drift.

One that come to mind was Yanky Dan, who knew quite a lot about RD.

The main question is." If David Jenkins wasn't at RD how did he obtain the signed Bible??"

24th,

If you add ...another 15 Soldiers missing of the roll call...to the old accepted (and still touted by some) 139.

You arrive at a figure which is roughly what we accept today as being the number of defenders.

Bill as the keeper of the old 24th's history has accepted Jenkins' presence as a fact based on known evidence, I believe he, and his predecessor Martin, were happy to accept David Jenkins on to the roll of defenders.

'Jimu

Quote :

Bill as the keeper of the old 24th's history has accepted Jenkins' presence as a fact based on known evidence, I believe he, and his predecessor Martin, were happy to accept David Jenkins on to the roll of defenders.

But as curators of the museum, does this give them the authority to accept Jenkins. No disrepect, but who are they to say who did and who didnt take part in the defence of Rorkes Drift.

Quote :

Quote:
“Such matters would rest with the descendant regiment, on the basis of the best historical advice it can obtain. That would undoubtedly be channelled through Martin. (He's referring to Major Everett) Maybe he should convene a panel of wise men to arbitrate the case!!”

Re-posting Johns Question.

Quote :

Possibly a silly question? But when they say David Jennkins was "sent to the rear", where would that have been.

Of course it's looking like no one really knew who was at RD. So David Jenkins could have been out with Chelmsford, and returned with him to R.D in the morning. Was the roll call taken prior to Chelmsford arriving or after,therefore you would have had, a mixture of RD defenders and Chelmsford column. As David's name was Jenkins, it was possible the ladies of Natal were told a Jenkins was present, at RD. And David received a Bible.

Ray63 I dont want to state the bleedin obvious , but havent you read the six pages or so on this thread as why D.
Jenkins was actually placed on the Roll ! . . Is it me or what
90th.

90th
Its your accent mate. :p;: :p;:

Cheers

90th wrote:

Ray63 I dont want to state the bleedin obvious , but havent you read the six pages or so on this thread as why D.Jenkins was actually placed on the Roll ! . . Is it me or what
90th.

Hear here :p;:
No disrespect Ray, but 90th has a point. Might be worth taking a bit of time and going through the thread from the very first post

90th No one is disputing whether or not he should be added to the roll. What they are disputing is. was it done correctly.

Quote :

“Such matters would rest with the descendant regiment, on the basis of the best historical advice it can obtain. That would undoubtedly be channelled through Martin. (He's referring to Major Everett) Maybe he should convene a panel of wise men to arbitrate the case!!”

In 1987 the NAM mounted an exhibition entitled "Lady Butler Battle Artist" and published a catalogue under the same name. The catalogue contains an interesting commentary on her "Defence of Rorke's Drift" painting and the sketch book containing the sketch of "Jenkins" , both of which were included in the exhibition. At that time, the sketch book was in the ownership of Christopher Wilkinson-Latham who had written an article on the painting in the magazine Tradition No 55 in 1970.

I have not seen the magazine article but I do have a copy of the exhibition catalogue. The following quotations indicate what was believed at that time and, in light of discussions here, throws up some intriguing questions about who is portrayed. Quote:

"Elizabeth Butler had never before been faced with the task of including portraits of living people in her paintings. When the 24th Regiment returned to England, after a summons to Windsor Castle some of the principal heroes were sent to her studio. She also made further trips to Portsmouth to make studies as the men who fought in the action were made to re-enact it, dressed in the uniforms which they had worn on the day. The painter recalled that "Of course the result was that I reproduced the event as nearly to life as possible, but from the soldiers point of view - I may say the Privates point of view - not mine as the principal witnesses were from the ranks." She related that she managed to include portraits of all the VC winners."

In relation to the sketch of the kneeling soldier, the exhibition catalogue offers the following :

"Private M Jenkins of 1st Btn 24th, the only man present at the action with this name , did not survive. The artist may have been told of his death when she wrote his name at the top of the sketch. While Jenkins was defending one of the doorways in the Hospital with his bayonet, he was seized by his hands, dragged through and killed instantly by the Zulus. This is thought to be a portrait of either Robert or William Jones, both of whom won the VC for their part in the action. William Jones had been a witness to Jenkins fate. The figure and the studies of hands holding a Martini-Henry rifle are preliminary sketches for the kneeling figure at the bottom left of the canvas. The pose was altered to a more hunched position to follow the downward angle of the rifle, set between the mealie bags."

A close examination of the face of that figure in the painting (there is quite a large and clear reproduction on the web if you google it) I think shows quite a close resemblance to the face in the sketch now said to be David Jenkins. The position and angle of his ammunition pouch also looks very similar in the painting and in the sketch. I think the figure in the painting is based on the sketch but with the angle of the rifle changed to suit the composition.

But is it Jenkins D, or one of the VC winners in such a prominent position in the painting - given that Butler said she had included them all ?

If it is Jenkins D as we now believe (or most of us do), can we separately account for all the VC winners in the picture ?

or was Jenkins D a spitting image of Jones R or W ?

NAM have plainly changed their mind since 1987.


Steve

Dave please read the post by Ray63 , there is no mention of him stating was Jenkins added correctly ! . You to need to read the post
properly as do a few others on here at times ! In case you cant work out which post it is , it's Ray63's last post ! . Have a read of it , to me he's intimating that D. Jenkins wasnt there , then again it may be my Colonial mind !
90th. :p;:

rusteze wrote:

.NAM have plainly changed their mind since 1987

YES Steve, they HAVE, you are EXACTLY RIGHT! History is not written in granite, it evolves!
In 1879, there were 2 Jenkins' on Chard's roll, including J. Jenkins, hospital patient, unfit to fight like Maxfield, killed - AND "Pte. Jenkins" as named in Chard's own account of the battle who amongst other things, essentially saved Chard's life at the wall by telling him to duck a Zulu bullet.
Chard entered the TWO names on the roll, but incorrectly identified "Pte Jenkins" who saved his life at the wall, as 1083 M. Jenikins. (Even the M was wrong, it should have read "W" - that is two mistakes in one roll entry but apparently their are lots of mistakes on the Chard roll).
1083 Watkin Jenkins died at iSandlwana, so couldn't have saved Chard's life at the wall! Hence, historians removed the second Jenkins from the roll, ASS U ME ing it was a mistake. It wasn't - the Pte Jenkins who'd saved chard's life at the wall had been mistaken for a.n.other Jenkins of the 1/24th.
Chard's roll was correct all along - there were 2 Jenkins' at RD - not one, as per modern day historians' mistake, as thought in 1987.
The second Jenkins, who'd saved Chard's life at the wall, was in fact D. Jenkins - as written in black and white in the regimental diary, the entry of which is stated on this thread by the Curator of the Regimental museum.
The title of this thread is the clue. It is not a question of was D Jenkins at RD or not, it is a question of restoring a man to the roll who had been FORGOTTEN.
Why forgotten? Because the evidence - the regimental diary had been sitting around waiting for someone to realise its significance for 140 years.
Was he forgotten about for a reason? Yes. The roll compiler made a small mistake or two that caused some confusion.

Tasker

I don't have a problem with Jenkins D being added to the Roll for all the reasons you and others have listed. Justice was done on that sometime ago in my view and it isn't really fresh news that warrants seven pages of debate and point scoring.

But the other aspect of all this, and where it all began, is the comparison of the photograph of Jenkins with the Butler sketch. There is a likeness, and she did write "Jenkins" above it so it seems quite likely it is him. But equally to my eye there is a facial likeness between the sketch and the figure in the painting (even though the final pose is leaning further forward). But NAM seem to be saying that Jenkins D is not in the painting. That is what I find odd. Names on a role are one thing, but a contemporary portrait is much more interesting.

Steve

Hi all

Martin and I have been discussing the question of David Jenkins posing for Lady Butler's painting. One obvious fact needs to be kept in mind - the availability of the men for posing.

Except for those hospitalised, the 2/24th embarked from South Africa to India (going via Gibraltar), so WOULD NOT have been available to pose.
The 1/24th embarked from Durban in August 1879 and arrived in Portsmouth in October of that year. So, 1/24th men (such as David Jenkins) WOULD have been available to pose.

Bill

I think too much importance is being placed on the Butler sketch/ painting.
Having compared the Sketch of the Jenkins pose by Butler to the figure in the bottom l/h corner of the painting in the NAM, there is a STRIKING resemblance between the two.
Facial likenesses, is it or isn't it ,are irrelevent because the sketch and painting would never stand up as evidence in isolation.
But if Butler's sketches were preliminary drawings used by the artist of the picture, then imo, the figure on the bottom l//h side is the Jenkins sketch.

In the Lady Butler painting, which one is Jenkin's

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

Quote :

Facial likenesses

.

You need to get a better image. The following in the painting are easily recognised from subsequent photographs (see many of them in the Isandula collection). There are very good likenesses of Chard VC and BromheadVC in the centre, Fred Hitch VC (at right carrying ammunition}, Surgeon Reynolds VC (kneeling next to Hitch), Schiess VC taking a drink in front of Reynolds, Robert Jones VC (on the left loading his rifle, without helmet} and the figure modelled on the Jenkins sketch at left foreground firing down between the mealie bags. On looking more closely I think this is a portrait of W Jones VC - he has a beard. Taking into account what Bill said about availability of soldiers, It may well be that Jenkins provided the pose and Butler superimposed Jones' portrait. If Butler was right when she said she had included all the VC winners in the picture we need to find Henry Hook, John Williams and Cpl. W. Allen. I think the figure shot with his arm in the air may be Commissary Dalton but you cannot really see his face.

Steve

Hi rusteze.
From memory the chap being shot with his arm in the air , is Act Comm ( I think thats his title ) Louis Byrne , who was giving a cup of water to the wounded Cpl Scammell , Dalton is supporting Scammell .
Cheers 90th.

90th,

Louis Byrne's rank was Acting-Storekeeper, it is Surgeon Reynolds supporting Scammell.

Hook is there with skew-whiff helmet, fifth along at the mealie sacks.

As to the man shouting with his hand cupped to his mouth, I've heard two versions as to who he is meant to be; either Daniells or Dalton, personally I'd opt for Dalton.

To Bromhead's right is Schiess bayonetting downwards over the barricade.

In between Byrne and Chard in Padre Smith handing out ammunition.

I've always been told that the first kneeling figure is William Jones, and as Ruteze states that's Robert Jones next to him.

Looked this picture over and over and I've never been able to spot John Williams or William Allan.

'Jimu

Thanks Jimu , I didnt think I had the correct title for Byrne in stating that he was an Acting Commissary , but I wasnt home earlier so couldnt check .
Cheers 90th.

Quote :

As to the man shouting with his hand cupped to his mouth, I've heard two versions as to who he is meant to be; either Daniells or Dalton, personally I'd opt for Dalton.

I thought it was " Lugg"

Hi Jimu .
Happy to be corrected but wouldnt Dalton be in uniform ? , I think the chap shouting with his cupped hand to his mouth may well
be Daniels or possibly Lugg ? .
Cheers 90th.

90th,

Don't forget Dalton like Byrne was only a volunteer. Byrne isn't depicted in a real uniform, if he were he would have been depicted in blue patrol jacket.

Harry Lugg would have been in black NMP uniform, and was only in his 20's hardly the much older man shouting.

LH,

What makes you think it might be Lugg?

Lugg apparently provided some sketches for de Neuville for his version of the battle.

'Jimu

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

So who's

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)

Quote :

Lugg apparently provided some sketches for de Neuville for his version of the battle.

Can't see anyone in the Neuville painting that's dressed like "Lugg"???? in Butler's painting.

LH,

You're the one who is suggesting Lugg in the Lady Butler painting I'm not.

As to him being depicted in the de Neuville painting I would suggest looking at the evacuation of the hospital.

'Jimu

Jim. I did say.

Quote :

I thought it was " Lugg"

. So happy to be shown otherwise

Littlehands number 8. The man shouting with the cupped hand. Daniels fought with a sword not a rifle, there are a few references to that. And one very apt description by Caleb Wood. " The little man stood against the wall for some time with his sword ready for anything. At last he got his chance, a zulu put his head over the wall and the diminutive carpenter brought him down'................. Harry Lugg wore a woolen hat its presently in the warriors gate museum along with his knife. In the painting that looks like a hat with a brim.
The plot thickens.

Cheers

I would bet on number 10 being Schiess.

Cheers

I was looking at the actions of the indivuals, and what they were most known for.

Look at Smith, could he be pointing and saying " Pot that fellow"

Schiess, Wounded in the shin / Foot prior to RD. Now seeing sitting back against mealie bags.

Springbok. It was the hat story that led me to beleive it was "Lugg" also he was renowned for shouting, "Here they come, black as hell and as thick as grass"

kwajimu1879 wrote:

LH,

You're the one who is suggesting Lugg in the Lady Butler painting I'm not.

As to him being depicted in the de Neuville painting I would suggest looking at the evacuation of the hospital.

'Jimu

Jim. Looked at the Neuville painting. Can't see any that resemble the chap in Butlers painting.

LH,

Look at Smith, could he be pointing and saying " Pot that fellow"

Not he is handing out ammunition, which corresponds with the soldier turning to take it from him. I can't see why Dalton - who did say "Pot that..." - would be wearing a cassock, can you?

Schiess, Wounded in the shin / Foot prior to RD. Now seeing sitting back against mealie bags.

Schiess wasn't wounded prior to Rorke's Drift, it was a story started by Donald Morris in 'The Washing of the Spears', which some other modern authors have gone along with.

The figure you are on about appears to be wearing a Royal Artillery uniform, rather than the NNC uniform Elizabeth Butler has used with Scammell, which is the same uniform that the figure Springbok and I appear to agree is Schiess.

'Jimu

LH,


Jim. Looked at the Neuville painting. Can't see any that resemble the chap in Butlers painting.

Just to clarify, are you talking about the man shouting in the Butler painting?

If so look at the casualty that James Reynolds is treating in the de Neuville painting, he looks like the same man to me, and in the de Neuville painting that is Dalton.

'Jimu

Quote :

Just to clarify, are you talking about the man shouting in the Butler painting?

Thats the chap!

I see your man. I don't think "Lugg" was wounded in the shoulder during the action at RD, the only injury he had was to his knee, and that was prior to RD, a horse fell on him.

The chap in the Butler painting, doesn't seem to wearing a uniform.

Hi '' Jimu '' .
Happy to be corrected but I've always believed and read that Schiess was suffering an injury or such from the assault at Sihayo's Kraal ? . If this isnt the case why was he hospitalised at RD ? . I'm not at home so cant check any books for a couple of days .
Cheers 90th.

LH,

Nor is the depiction of Dalton having his wound attended to by James Reynolds.

So can we discount the shouting man as Harry Lugg?

'Jimu

90th,

Schiess was at Rorke's Drift being treated for badly blistered feet, he did not fight at Sihayo's Stronghold.

Donald Morris wrongly stated he was wounded in the action, as I mentioned earlier a point which has been perpetuated by a number of modern authors and tour guides.

Look on the 'London Gazette' website for the casualties of Sirayo's Kraal, and you will not find Schiess.

'Jimu

Thanks Jimu much appreciated
90th.

In the Ian Knight collection he has a photo of Dalton, published on page 37 of ' Nothing Remains but to fight', thats quite a likeness to the shouting man, number 8.
Look carefully at number 11, thats such a thin distinctive face with the goatee, likely candidate is William Jones.
The very youthfull and fresh face of number 3 I would believe could be either Jobbins or Fielding, my cash would be on fielding.

Cheers

I wonder who the chap is depicted above Reynolds' left shoulder, he appears to be wearing a foreign service helmet but he is not wearing the red uniform jacket nor dark blue trousers. There were also other fellows there besides members of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, so he could well be one of these chaps, but he does appear to be either shouting instructions or giving some sort of directions, so could he be an NCO or something like that I wonder?

No 2 appears to be in a bad way with no one attending to him, he might just have gone down wounded or he could be recovering, but the poor chap doesn't look too clever to me.

Quote :

Schiess was at Rorke's Drift being treated for badly blistered feet, he did not fight at Sihayo's Stronghold.

Jim. I have read Schiess was injured at Sihayo Stronghold. Could you verified where it's says he didn't take part?

As for the chap shouting, I would go for "Daniells" as he would not have been required to wear a uniform.

Jim further back, you have named some others. Hook, Jones, ect. Can you let me have the numbers in the photo so I can update.

LH,

Jim. I have read Schiess was injured at Sihayo Stronghold. Could you verified where it's says he didn't take part?

Where have you read it? Morris, Greaves? Ian Knight doesn't go with that theory, nor do Stevenson & Baynham-Jones.

As for the chap shouting, I would go for "Daniells" as he would not have been required to wear a uniform.

And you think that a local recruited volunteer Acting Assistant-Commissary would have had a uniform? Despite de Neuville showing him not in uniform after discussing with survivors of the defence.

1: William Jones
2: Robert Jones
6: 'Harry' Hook
8: Dalton
10: Schiess

For Burne in identified ones read Byrne.

'Jimu

Kwa Jimu
Would agree on 8 as Dalton, far to many facial similarities, still believe that 11 is Jones.

LH
Daniels is described as 'diminuative', no sign there of a man of that stature.

The amazing thing is there is no sign of CS Bourne, possibly his roll has only become aparent over time?

Cheers

Quote :

Where have you read it? Morris, Greaves? Ian Knight doesn't go with that theory, nor do Stevenson & Baynham-Jones.

Ok but I did ask for the source, where it's states he didn't take part "Sihayo Stronghold"

Jim this from John Young..

"

Quote :

Friederich Schiess, a Swiss by birth (neé Christian Ferdinand Schiess), was a corporal in the Natal Native Contingent (NNC). On 22 January 1879, Schiess found himself in the infirmary at Rorke's Drift, suffering from a foot wound he had received ten days earlier as Lord Chelmsford's column captured the kraal of Sihayo, one of Cetshwayo's inDunas. During the attack on Rorke's Drift, Schiess manned the improvised wall of mealie bags and biscuit tins near the storehouse/chapel where a Zulu bullet tore open his instep. Schiess was so determined to drive the Zulus from the wall that he suddenly jumped up on top and killed many of the Zulus hiding on the other side, before returning to his place in line. For his gallantry at Rorke's Drift, Schiess was awarded the Victoria Cross, the first awarded to a member of any native unit."

LH,

I just did a web search the author of the item that you attribute to John Young is actually Peter Schwartz, who thanks John Young for his help.

Why don't I think Schiess was present at Sihayo's Stronghold. 'The London Gazette' of 21st February 1879, details the action of 12th January 1879, and John Crealock records the casualties.

The NNC unit involved in the assault was 1st Battalion, 3rd Regiment. The European casualties of the assault were Lieutenant Thomas Purvis and Corporal Jessy Mayer (surname rendered incorrectly in the LG) both of the 1st/3rd NNC.

In 'The London Gazette' of 5th March 1879 again the details of the casualties of 12th January 1879 appear again, again no mention of Schiess.

In 'The London Gazette' of 15th March 1879 it records Schiess' unit as 2nd Battalion, 3rd Regiment, Natal Native Contingent, which did not fight in the action of 12th January 1879.

In 'The London Gazette' of 4th April 1879 mentions that Scheiss [sic] - I'm sure the German speakers will get joke - was wounded slightly in the Defence of Rorke's Drift.

Now I know that Schiess had fallen on hard times and his passage on the 'Serapis' was paid for, but it appears he had £57 & 10s on him when he died. As revealed in subsequent issues of 'The London Gazette' of 31st July 1885; 20th July 1888 & 25th July 1890 and others.

Recent research has given us the reason for Schiess being at the hospital at Rorke's Drift as being blistered feet from newly issued boots, but being wounded in an action his unit were not present at sounds more exciting doesn't it?

'Jimu