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

Quote :

"kwajimu1879"
Impi,

What about Bill the current curator, I think you'll find he was a career soldier. What does it matter that Martin Everett's rank was a T.A. & V.R. commission, I can't see what trying to say there.

I'm missing something with your last sentence? Only it doesn't make sense to me.

Quote :

And was really annoying, Mike Snook even advised them out to go about correcting record. They chose to ignore it.

'Jimu

I never said it mattered. for some reason, you have pointed that out. I was posting an overview of his connection with the museum.

On another forum, it was asked how they go about adding the David Jenkins to the roll. Mike Snook told them how they should go about it. ( Posted in my last post)

I think David Jenkins was at Rorkes Drift alright, but I see impi's point. It is a very good idea actually.
If an official board of inquiry containing some credible military personnel, and a judge even, were to examine and assess the evidence of the historians and then make a decision, it would add the degree of credibility to David Jenkins inclusion on any published RD rolls. Obviously proof 100% could never be established, but on the balance of probabilities, this board of inquiry could make a decision.
Then, it would be an "accepted" decision and name on the roll, made by people in the best position to make it.
Then we would all have to accept it whether we liked it or not. Including impi!!!

I would go with that, let the regiment decide, if the evidence is adequate and accepted by them, then yes add him to the roll.

Good post Kopie

kopie wrote:

I think David Jenkins was at Rorkes Drift alright, but I see impi's point. It is a very good idea actually.
If an official board of inquiry containing some credible military personnel, and a judge even, were to examine and assess the evidence of the historians and then make a decision, it would add the degree of credibility to David Jenkins inclusion on any published RD rolls. Obviously proof 100% could never be established, but on the balance of probabilities, this board of inquiry could make a decision.
Then, it would be an "accepted" decision and name on the roll, made by people in the best position to make it.
Then we would all have to accept it whether we liked it or not. Including impi!!!

impi wrote:

I would go with that, let the regiment decide, if the evidence is adequate and accepted by them, then yes add him to the roll.

Good post Kopie

Board of Inquiry, and how much do we think that might cost, 20K-£50K ? Not sure the taxpayers would be too happy. Perhaps we could have a whipround !

Steve

Impi,

Can you supply details of the sit where Mike Snook has made the comment please?

'Jimu

The site of two chapels. RDVC.

Jim. Here's a like. Scroll down to where the administrator refers to the procedure for adding Jenkins to the roll. Mike Snooks reply comes after.

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

PS forgot to add. I agree with Impi and Kopie..

24th,

Thanks for that.

From what is there it appears to have been resolved some time ago.

Only the recent media interest appears to have provoked the renewed debate.

Regards,

'Jimu

Quote :

From what is there it appears to have been resolved some time ago.

Resolved by the isigators. 14 replys done and dusted.

Unfortunately it hit this forum. You could say we are the die hards? And your part of that!

This forum 410 replys on going

I like to think, I can work most things out be it over time? But you have baffle me 24th

Quote :

"The site of two chapels. RDVC

."



Can you expand! Please.

Ray, it would serve no purpose in knowing!

24th please stay on topic!

Hi 'Jimu.

Perhaps AG was trying to score some 'brownie points' by attempting to suggest that 295 Pte David Jenkins, could not have been on the firing line because of his condition, but as you so rightly point out, there were also others with the same condition, and they were on the firing line fighting along side their mates.

All.

On checking out all the information again, it seems so very logical that 295 Pte David Jenkins, was there at RD. He was sent along with the prisoner escort party to RD, these men are listed on the Chard roll, the problem arises because of a mistake with the numbers.

There are two Pte Jenkins shown on Chard's roll, one is listed correctly, ie; 841 Pte Jenkins (killed in the hospital). The other Pte Jenkins is wrongly listed as 1083 Pte Jenkins, but this must be impossible because 1083 Pte Jenkins, was killed at iSandlwana earlier in the day, and therefor could not have been at RD, so logic dictates that the only other Pte Jenkins it could possibly be is 295 Pte David Jenkins, who was sent to RD with the prisoner escort party long before the attack on the camp at iSandlwana.

As far as I am concerned, all the evidence points towards 295 Pte David Jenkins as being one of the brave defenders at RD, and he therefor should be honoured as such, by having his name and his correct number listed on the roll.

Totally agree Martin!

Now let the evidence be given to the regiment, if they are happy to include him on the roll. Then everyone is happy, you because he was a brave fellow fighting along side his mates albeit he was the 1st/24th and most at RD was 2nd/24th and wouldn't have known him.

And me because the adding ofJenkins to the roll was done correctly.

:p;:

Good on you impi, at last you agree.

I am so very glad that you now realise that 295 Pte David Jenkins was there at RD.

It would make no difference which Battlalion he was with impi, he was there fighting with the rest of them, and the man deserves recognition for this, honour him by listing him on the roll.

Cheers

Hi All

I have been going through the discussion since the AZWHS article was posted and I will be seeing Adrian this evening to go through your findings with him.

As a thought if a Board of Inquiry is being set up then Dr Adrian Greaves can sit on the board as he is an ex regular officer of the 41st which amalgamated with the SWB.

Regards

David

Hi sprinbok 9
Good to hear from you
Hope you have not been to much affected by the shoddy Cape winter weather,
To answer your question, Fort Pine may have may have been, but unlikely ,as the fort was not near the other facilities such as court houses, magistrates etc, or a permanent garrison. On my record I have some amusing first hand anecdotes about 6 man NMP patrols pulling in there to spend very cold nights under a leaky thatch roof whilst patrolling Zuluand and gathering intel on the looming war. This was all pre 1879, but what happened there after that I have no immediate knowledge

regards

Barry

Hello David.

Many thanks for the information.

As you can see from the discussion we have had on the forum, all the evidence points to 295 Pte David Jenkins being a defender at RD, and if there is to be a board of enquiry, then I hope that they will realise that the problem arose through a genuine mistake being made with the numbers entered on Chard's roll. And I hope that they honour this man by amending the roll to show that 295 Pte David Jenkins was indeed one of the brave defenders who fought at Rorke's Drift.

Regards.

Martin.

All

Thank you Martin, for summarising the position.

I should make it clear that there is no OFFICIAL roll of the defenders of Rorke's Drift. Various rolls have been produced over the years for a variety of reasons, including the issue of bibles. Some of these rolls still exist, some do not.

As there is no official roll, what is the sense in convening a Board of Enquiry. I'm sure the modern Army has better things to do, even if someone was to fund such a thing. If such a Board was convened, could it/would it be able to come to a definitive conclusion ? It would have to examine the claims of ALL the participants. As I've said before, the Regimental Museum has compiled a roll of those WE consider to have been at Rorke's Drift - and Pte David Jenkins IS on that roll. That roll has been compiled based on extensive research into primary documents (see Kenny's postings above). We weigh the evidence available and make decisions based on that evidence.

The position of the Regimental Museum is clear - we believe that Pte David Jenkins was PROBABLY there, and he is therefore on our roll.

Bill

hi Barry
Bloody cold in the cape, even had snow in Cape Town central, first time recorded. Reason I mentioned Fort Pine was when I was there last year ( Suprised the hell out of me that it was still standing) the local guy that got permission for me to cross the farm pointed out one side of the compound as being the cell block. So reading your conversation with Kwa Jimu I mentally added two and two, dont forget its really very close to the old camp site of helpmakaar, probably no more than a click away.But obviously holding the records you do your knowledge would be far greater than my half hour visit produced.

Cheers

PS the colds on its way north, pucker up mate.

Many thanks for the mention Bill, only too happy to help get the recognition that 295 Pte David Jenkins rightly deserves.

I am glad that he is included on the roll in the museum.

Martin.

bill cainan wrote:

All

Thank you Martin, for summarising the position.

I should make it clear that there is no OFFICIAL roll of the defenders of Rorke's Drift. Various rolls have been produced over the years for a variety of reasons, including the issue of bibles. Some of these rolls still exist, some do not.

As there is no official roll, what is the sense in convening a Board of Enquiry. I'm sure the modern Army has better things to do, even if someone was to fund such a thing. If such a Board was convened, could it/would it be able to come to a definitive conclusion ? It would have to examine the claims of ALL the participants. As I've said before, the Regimental Museum has compiled a roll of those WE consider to have been at Rorke's Drift - and Pte David Jenkins IS on that roll. That roll has been compiled based on extensive research into primary documents (see Kenny's postings above). We weigh the evidence available and make decisions based on that evidence.

The position of the Regimental Museum is clear - we believe that Pte David Jenkins was PROBABLY there, and he is therefore on our roll.

Bill

Back of the net, what a home goal. So it's now the regiments roll. :p;:

So the redication was based on you roll. :p;:

Some poor sucker will Probaly pay 10 times what the medal is worth. It should be made clear to all. That Jenkins is not on the offical roll of defenders, therefore until it's be proven that he was there it should be made public, that this is the Regimental Museum opinion, based on information from an old ledger, that has been added to over many years...

Bill it would have been helpfull if you had posted this sooner.

So the position of the museum, of the regiment that David Jenkins was part of, think that he was probably at Rorkes Drift. And the "probably" is big enough (80% was mentioned) to convince the museum that David Jenkins should be included on their roll.
If the museum are happy to have David Jenkins on their roll, who am I to disagree? I can't think of who else ought to make that judgement, or would be in a better position to make that judgement. I really can't think that the museum would want anyone on their roll, if they didn't believe he was there. What would they have to gain?

So to summarise, these rolls then are a matter "fact" to some extent (100% probability that Bromhead, Jones R, Jones W, Hitch, Hook, Bourne etc) were at Rorkes Drift, but to some extent, a matter of "probability" for example in the case of David Jenkins?

Mr Cainan, if the probability that David Jenkins was at Rorkes Drift is 80%, is there any other soldier to your knowledge, on the museum roll with a probability of less than 80%?
And what probability would exclude a claim? 50%? 49%?
I am not being facetious, sorry if it sounds like it. I am sure creating this roll is not simple or an exact science in the absence of enough hard evidence, I am just very interested.

Kopie

I think it easier to stay away from percentages and to judge each case on its merits. I would rather use the terms PROBABLY or POSSIBLY. As I've said , there is NO official roll. The Museum does maintain a roll on its website. However, the decision to add or subtract a name is not taken lightly - after all, many of these men served in the Regiment that the Museum represents. In each instance we weigh the evidence to see how compelling it is, and if there are a number of sources to strengthen the case. In the case of David Jenkins this was done SEVEN or EIGHT YEARS ago. The evidence was sufficient for the Museum to decide that he ought to be included on its roll. It is interesting to note that no one has seen fit to contradict or challenge this over that period of time. We would also consult with some of the leading AZW researchers and historians for their views. For example, I would strongly recommend Julian Whybra's "England Sons" where Julian has also looked at "possibles" (ie people who were probably were not at Rorke's Drift).

As to Impi's assertion that some "poor sucker" could pay ten times the medal's worth, the opposite could also be true in that some lucky devil would only pay one-tenth of its worth !!!!! I'm sure a reputable medal dealer would indicate the position relating to Jenkins and Rorke's Drift. I understand that the medal is still with the family so the question of its sale is currently academic. I'm still waiting for Impi to contact me about visiting the Museum to look at the ledger and make his own mind up - you can't beat primary research ! He can then also advise me as to where he believes the "official" roll is !!!!!!!

Bill

Quote :

It is Brecon museum staff’s hypothesis that the entry in question was written as a Depot diary, not a ledger. They believe the diary/ledger was overlooked by researchers due to its title, and that, somehow, Norman Holme and all other researchers saw it as a record of the 2/24th in the Napoleonic period, without noticing the second line and the dates of the 1/24th records, furthermore, they suggest anyone doing research into the AZW could easily be forgiven for missing the second title and not be aware of its existence

I would not waste my time...

Wouldn't it be interesting to know what some of the other well known Zulu War historians thought on this matter. We know the thoughts of Dr Adrian Greaves, and David Payne.

Quote :

The position of the Regimental Museum is clear - we believe that Pte David Jenkins was PROBABLY there, and he is therefore on our roll.

But that's not grounds for a re-deadication ( Headstone deplicting Rorkes Drift defender) you have every right to compile your own roll, but you do not have the right ( News papers) declaring he was at Rorkesdift.

bill cainan wrote:

All

Thank you Martin, for summarising the position.

I should make it clear that there is no OFFICIAL roll of the defenders of Rorke's Drift. Various rolls have been produced over the years for a variety of reasons, including the issue of bibles. Some of these rolls still exist, some do not.

As there is no official roll, what is the sense in convening a Board of Enquiry. I'm sure the modern Army has better things to do, even if someone was to fund such a thing. If such a Board was convened, could it/would it be able to come to a definitive conclusion ? It would have to examine the claims of ALL the participants. As I've said before, the Regimental Museum has compiled a roll of those WE consider to have been at Rorke's Drift - and Pte David Jenkins IS on that roll. That roll has been compiled based on extensive research into primary documents (see Kenny's postings above). We weigh the evidence available and make decisions based on that evidence.

The position of the Regimental Museum is clear - we believe that Pte David Jenkins was PROBABLY there, and he is therefore on our roll.

Bill

Bill you say there is not official roll. Why is it then, that all the newspaper reports state Jenkins has been added to the "Offical Roll" they must have got that from somewhere.

""It seemed that he had become the forgotten man, forgotten by history and historians," said his great grand-daughter Sonia Gittoes.
She was determined to recognise his contribution and, along with Geoff Rees, a second cousin she did not realise she had, arranged for Private Jenkins to have a new gravestone at Cwmgelli Cemetery in Treboeth.

It rectifies the omission about his vital role in the Anglo-Zulu War and yesterday was unveiled at a special service conducted by Padre Major Aled Thomas, from the Brecon Barracks.
Alongside Mrs Gittoes and Mr Rees was Lord Mayor of Swansea Alan Lloyd, giving a further official stamp of approval on behalf of the city.
For Mrs Gittoes it marked a successful end to a determined three-year quest, which actually had its origins 37 years earlier.
It was then that she was given a Rorke's Drift bible by her father, who asked her to look after it as it had belonged to his grandfather David Jenkins, a survivor of the conflict.
But it was only three years ago that she found out by accident that his name was not on the official Roll of Defenders. She was not going to let that unjust situation lie.
"I took the bible to the Regimental Museum in Brecon," said Mr Gittoes, who lives in the city's Maritime Quarter. "When I produced it the great excitement made me realise that this was something quite special.
"It was in fact tangible evidence that David Jenkins had fought at Rorke's Drift on the afternoon of January 22, 1879, when 4,000 Zulu warriors attacked the small mission outpost."
They attacked the besieged soldiers with incessant ferocity over a period of 14 hours. Miraculously, the Redcoats managed to repel wave after wave of their attackers who, stunned by their horrific losses, gradually withdrew. Eleven Victoria Crosses were awarded for this famous conflict. Survivors were given a testimonial bible from the Ladies of Durban.
Earlier that day the massed Zulu army of 20,000 warriors had massacred the 2,000 British and colonial forces at Isandlwana. Since their first sight of the bible, museum staff have not skimped on their research, finding hand-written accounts of David Jenkins.
And they discovered he was the man responsible for saving the life of Major John Chard, (played by Stanley Baker in the famous film Zulu) commanding officer of Rorke's Drift on the day, by ducking down his head when a bullet was aimed at him.
Both men were on board the SS Egypt, with surviving colleagues, when it docked in Portsmouth on the following October 2.
When Queen Victoria commissioned Lady Elizabeth Butler to paint the famous picture Defence of Rorke's Drift, Private Jenkins was chosen by her to be a model. He appears in it no less than three times from different angles. The work now hangs in St James's Palace in London.
David Jenkins was born in Defynnog, Brecon, in 1846 and enlisted for the town's 25th Brigade at the age of 23, being posted to South Africa in 1874. By Christmas 1878 he, along with his 1st Battalion 24th Regiment colleagues and men from the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers, assembled at Rorke's Drift.
After it was over he served with the South Wales Borderers from 1882, becoming Lance Corporal the following year. He was discharged in 1888 after 12 years in the military.
He married a Brecon girl, Anne Downey, and they lived much of their time together in Brynmelyn Street, Waun Wen, Swansea. They had two sons together, which were killed in France in World War One. Their bodies were never recovered.
Mrs Gittoes's research also led to her meeting her second cousin, who teaches at Swansea's Pentrehafod School, for the first time. Coincidentally, he was also researching his great-grandfather and they linked up on the memorial project.
Both are happy about the new official recognition of their relative.
"I am delighted that at last David Jenkins has been recognised and has a gravestone which reflects his bravery in Rorke's Drift," said Mrs Gittoes. "It is right and a fitting tribute."
She has donated the testimonial bible to Brecon Museum where it is now on display.
And after 127 years the name of David Jenkins has at last been added to the official Roll of Rorke's Drift Defenders.

Perhaps someone should let the familey know, there is no offical roll.

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

"

Quote :

The original roll of honour cannot be revised. But the museum is to ensure Jenkins’ name is added to any future lists of those who fought.

"

So would this have been the offical roll, that doesn't exsist

The position of the Regimental Museum is clear - we believe that Pte David Jenkins was PROBABLY there, and he is therefore on our roll

I take it when you say "our roll". You mean yourself, Martin Everett and Julian Whybra.

Where did this ledger originate from. The 1st/24th records were lost at Isandlwana. Any refernce to David Jenkins would have been lost with them.

This is a MODERN newspaper report by the Daily Telegraph written to attract your attention.

A list of names of those soldiers present at Rorke's Drift on 22/23 January 1879 was published in the Times of Natal on 10 February 1879. This list names 11 soldiers from 1/24th at RD (and so does the London Gazette dated 15 March 1879 - page 2204). In the newspaper list two of the 11 defenders are named 'Jenkins', one was killed, the other was given a number of a soldier named 'Jenkins' (1083) who was killed at Isandlwana. This personal number is obviously incorrect - the only other Jenkins is 295 David Jenkins - G Company - confirmed by RD Bible in his name and further entry in 1st Battalion diary ledger. Contents of David Jenkins's letter home referring to Bombardier Thomas Lewis (also at RD and family friend from Brecon) adds to the strong probability that DJ was present.

This published list does not confer any special award or privilege on those who were present. However having a relative who was present at RD is no doubt seen as a significant honour with families. And of course because of their heroic actions the campaign medals for these men are highly prized.

Similarly we do not do not have lists of those of 2/SWB who landed at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915 or of those who landed in Normandy on D-Day 6 June 1944. It would be nice if there were records surviving to identify and honour these particular men.

All these recent postings on this forum have come about by the publicity surrounding the NAM wishing to produce a top ten list of battles - with the aim of promoting the museum in Chelsea - an exercise which I think is a bit tacky to say the least bearing mind the casualties suffered on both sides in all these conflicts.

Kenny I'm failing to see what this has to do with the David Jenkins issue. Ie him being added to a roll compiled by museum staff!

The newspaper refers to an official roll - there is no official roll only a list first published - we think on 10 February 1879 - in South Africa. I was making the point that defenders have no special privileges. (and there are other brave soldiers from other eras that also deserve recognition - but the records do not exist to compile similar lists). And this whole thread was started by the ill-judged (in my view) NAM publicity/promotional campaign. Recognising that DJ was most likely at RD was apparent from the evidence produced by the family and that held at the museum some 8 years ago.

You are right Kenny, there will always be (and always has been), actions and deeds done by brave men that have gone unrecognised, and trying to get justification for these men always proves difficult. But in the case of 295 Pte David Jenkins, all the evidence points to him being one of the defenders who fought at RD, who else could the other Pte Jenkins on Chard's roll possibly be?

295 Pte Jenkins was with the escort party 'sent to the rear' at RD.
841 Pte Jenkins was killed in the hospital at RD.
1083 Pte Jenkins was killed at iSandlwana (so could not be at RD), but was wrongly listed on Chard's roll.

So it is more than obvious that it must have been 295 Pte Jenkins who should have been listed on Chard's roll, and not 1083 Pte Jenkins.

There will always be the doubters, but can they say where they think 295 Pte David Jenkins was if they don't believe he was at RD?

Quote :

being added to a roll compiled by museum staff!

This is the issue, Martin. Not if he was there or not!!!

Hi Dave.

Reading back through the topic there are quite a few who doubted that DJ was there, but it does appear that some have now changed their minds. There is no 'official' roll as such, and it is has been said that for some reason Chard's roll cannot be amended. But it is obvious that the wrong number for DJ was entered on that roll (I wonder if it was entered wrongly when Chard's roll was copied)?

Martin and Bill at the museum, have looked at all the evidence, and as they are the custodians of the regiment, they have come to the conclusion that DJ was probably there at RD, so have therefor included him on their roll. I can't see any problem with this, as I cannot see either Martin or Bill adding DJ's name to their roll if they had any doubt that this brave man was there at RD. I think that Martin and Bill are both honourable men, and would not do something on a whim without checking it's credibility, if they did, then the regiment would come down on them like a ton of bricks, so I think that we can trust their judgement on this matter Dave.

The main disagreement that seems to be apparent on this thread is that some do not feel that a couple of museum curators can add to the Brecon museum's Rorke's Drift Roll, without there being a greater degree of discussion (impi suggested a panel) of well qualified people who know more about these things than most of us, in order to double check their findings and thus, to achieve a greater degree of credibility to the inclusion of DJ on that roll.
Is that a fair observation? Or not?
I am not sure if there are many, if any posters left on this site's forum, who at this stage still don't actually believe that DJ was most likely at RD on the 22/1/1879 (apologies, and correct me if I am wrong).

Quote :

The main disagreement that seems to be apparent on this thread is that some do not feel that a couple of museum curators can add to the Brecon museum's Rorke's Drift Roll,

Now Bill as stated It’s their roll, they can add who they want, it’s not an official record. It’s the fallout from the publicity, the re-dedication, was it wise to proceed with that!! I don’t think it was. Not while there is doub't.

kopie wrote:

The main disagreement that seems to be apparent on this thread is that some do not feel that a couple of museum curators can add to the Brecon museum's Rorke's Drift Roll, without there being a greater degree of discussion (impi suggested a panel) of well qualified people who know more about these things than most of us, in order to double check their findings and thus, to achieve a greater degree of credibility to the inclusion of DJ on that roll.
Is that a fair observation? Or not?
I am not sure if there are many, if any posters left on this site's forum, who at this stage still don't actually believe that DJ was most likely at RD on the 22/1/1879 (apologies, and correct me if I am wrong).

Impi was quoting Mike Snook with regards to the panel.

Cheers Ray63, thanks for your input too Ulundi.
I don't know a lot about rededications, so can't quite see why this is resented by third parties. Is this not a private matter for the Jenkins family and the regiment? Given the descendant regiment participated in the rededication by way of the padre, is the rededication not purely private regimental and private family business?
Apologies if I am asking silly questions that are obviously answerable to others but I am just trying to get my head around the whole affair and why some people are so passionate about it!

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

Quote :

is the rededication not purely private regimental and private family business?

It's what is inscribed on the headstone. Far more research should have been done, before allowing the new headstone.

This discussion has had 441 replies. Thought a poll would be in order to see where we stand on the David Jenkins issue. Will run for 14 days..

Dave. I am allowing non-members to vote!

impi.

It might interest you to know that Lt Col Mike Snook told Major Martin Everett that he was, quote; "Completely won over" about all this back in April 2006.

Followed by how to go about adding Jenkins name to the list.

Mike Snooks answer.
“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 Everett Maybe he should convene a panel of wise men to arbitrate the case!!!”

Quote :

That would undoubtedly be channelled through Martin Everett Maybe he should convene a panel of wise men to arbitrate the case!!!”

If they believed they had sufficent evidence, to show David Jenkins as being at RD, Why did they not arbitrate the case through the correct channels. as suggested by Col Mike Snook!!!

Perhaps Bill could shed some light on that Old H. But don't hold your breath

impi.

Well there must have been some sort of arbitration and agreement, as it took over 4 years (2010), before David Jenkins received the headstone.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

impi.

Well there must have been some sort of arbitration and agreement, as it took over 4 years (2010), before David Jenkins received the headstone.

You would have thought so. But there's no mention of that taking place.