1508 Private Frederick Sherwood, 2nd 24th (The 2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Western Daily Press, Friday 22 June 1928.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Sold by Spink and Son, 2007.

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

Another claim to RD...

25B/1508 Private Frederick Sherwood, 2/24th - was at Rorke's Drift - all 2/24th camped at the Mission Station for 6 weeks after the battle. He was NOT a defender - i.e. actually fighting Zulus on 22/23 January 1879.

So many soldiers immediately wrote home to give reassurance to their families that they had survived the carnage at Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift - the big newspaper headlines of the day - the text was almost a standard letter probably drafted by the few who were adept at writing letters - the families naturally read them (and we are today) that the author was actually present at these famous actions - whereas the author was most likely with Lord Chelmsford's column or at Helpmekaar on the fateful day - 22nd January 1879.

I see there was a Samuel Sherwood 25B / 1169 , Pvt , 2/ 24th , KIA Isandlwana , Wonder if Frederick was his Brother as both were entitled to the Medal with Clasp 77-78-79 ? .
Cheers 90th.

Ulundi wrote:

Another claim to RD...

Only by the stupid journo to make his story more interesting - not Frederick.

Kenny wrote:

25B/1508 Private Frederick Sherwood, 2/24th - was at Rorke's Drift - all 2/24th camped at the Mission Station for 6 weeks after the battle. .

Agreed. This is not however, the same thing as "and was at the famous battle of Rorke's Drift."

That is a good point. Perhaps their famileys assumed they had taken part in the Battle, because the soldier inquestion told them he had been at RD, but as Kenny points out, many had, but after the battle. This could account for many of the newspaper accounts and the odd headstone.

Possibly, but the articals and headstones indicate the person inquestion took part in the Battle.

Robert Alexander good example. Head Stone reads."Hero of Rorkes Drift"

Mr Greaves is right about this sort of thing. For instance, many men who went with Chelmsford on the wild goose chase to the falls, wrote home to their families stating that they 'escaped' the carnage at iSandlwana (meaning that they were lucky to have been away with LC at the time), however, others reading these letters assumed it meant that they had fought there and somehow 'escaped' the massacre. It is the same with some men writing home telling their families that they were at Rorke's Drift (meaning that they were now camped there), and again, others reading these letters assumed they meant they took part in the battle. Who knows, maybe some of these chaps wrote their letters in such a way as to give the impression that they were at these places at the time, for a little bravado perhaps? There must be a few headstones or engraved brass plaques in churches, etc, that assume that a person fought at a certain place because they mentioned it in a letter home to their family or friends, but how many is anyones guess.

Mr Greaves wrote:

That is a good point. Perhaps their famileys assumed they had taken part in the Battle, because the soldier inquestion told them he had been at RD, but as Kenny points out, many had, but after the battle. This could account for many of the newspaper accounts and the odd headstone.

I agree with Mr Greaves and Martin about this. Relatives are more likely to confuse stories and exaggerate them than old soldiers, who in fact, are more likely to not talk about them.
And don't forget that journalists sex-up stories to advance their own reputations.
When a friend of mine got his MBE in the NY honours in January, he started to receive emails the very next day addressed to "Sir..."
Heard of Chinese whispers, Ray?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Western Daily Press 23 January 1922