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

But there is - lots of it.
Define "official" if you will.
How official do you need it to be? Is the report of the Officer in charge not "official" enough?
I can only assume you have not read the latest research?
There is "official documentation" to say a man who was killed at Isandhlwana also fought and survived the defence of Rorke's Drift. Do you think that must be true as well?

So you don't think Glyn asked Chard to write a report of what happened while the events were still fresh in his mind.

Err no! why would the grieving Col of the 24th ask a
lieut of Engineer's to write a report! where do you
have this from!   

Chard
I agree, Chard was asked to write a report and Im pretty certain I saw a reference in Sonia Clark that it was Clery that requested it. Theres also a letter from Clery that describes him asking Bromhead to do the same at which:"he scuttled of with a companion and huddled together to write it." As far as Im aware that's the only reference ever to a Bromhead statement which is strange in that he was senior 24th man and Im sure the regiment would have wanted it.
That first report needs to be put into context, it was exactly that a report on the battle couched in more formal military language. When he produced the report for Queen Victoria it was more of an essay padded it with all the color needed to give HRH more of an insight.
With regard to the mention of David Jenkins in that essay. I don't think Chard knew by name all the defenders, he had only been at RD for a couple of days and a degree of that time he was camped down by the river. One can almost imagine the trip back from SA to UK, Chard seeing the men on board the boat and possibly exclaiming: "Ah I remember you, you warned me of the shooter." And probably at that time requesting the mans name. So when he came to write for the Queen it was freshened in his memory and so included.
I do have absolutely no doubt that Jenkins was at RD by the way and would humbly suggest that those who don't believe it have not studied the evidence for and the lack of evidence against.
As an aside to that a 'think tank' / discussion group at Rorkes Drift are still divided on the issue, but were rather shocked when I mentioned the available evidence for.

Cheers

kopie wrote:

But there is - lots of it.
Define "official" if you will.
How official do you need it to be? Is the report of the Officer in charge not "official" enough?
I can only assume you have not read the latest research?
There is "official documentation" to say a man who was killed at Isandhlwana also fought and survived the defence of Rorke's Drift. Do you think that must be true as well?

His name does not appear on any of the historical roll calls associated with the Battle of Rorkes Drift. End of!

His name does not appear on any of the historical roll calls associated with the Battle of Rorkes Drift. End of!

People get missed off roll's, it happened often, maybe you could research in depth!
say for a few years, find all the primary and secondary sources to suggest definitively that
Jenkin's was NOT! at R.D. cogent argument supported with evidence!

Instead what do we get, the same old mantra..i dont believe it..so it cant be true!! thats
simply no where near good enough!   

Returning to the original question, what did Private David Jenkins do to merit the award of a Victoria Cross?  In my opinion and based on Chard's later account - nothing.  He did what an trained soldier would have done and reacted to the threat.

He got what he deserved which was Chard's thanks on record, made richer by the fact that Chard named him to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

Just my opinion.

Were there others who deserved a Victoria Cross?  I can think of one other who perished who gave a good account of himself in the Defence of the Hospital, but that's another matter.

John Y.

Thanks a lot for your opinion John, I get that. Could one not say the same of Neville Coghill's VC also? One man risking his life (and in this case losing it) to save another is pretty much expected of an honourable man. Perhaps Coghill's award of the VC was a "soft" award in retrospect.
Jenkins genuinely did risk his life in ducking down Chard's head, as Chard implies in his second report. (Basic physics really - every action has an equal and opposite one. Jenkins pushes down, but pushes his own body upwards and more exposed to the sniper in doing so.

Springbok, your speculation about Chard attaining the name of Private Jenkins on the trip home is a little far fetched to say the least, no disrespect intended. Is it not more likely that in the seconds after having his head ducked down at the wall, Chard, not knowing the man's name would have simply asked something along the lines of, "Thank you, my good man, what is your name private?" To which the ducker-downer replies, "Jenkins sir."

Also Springbok, if you are implying that Chard's second report is unreliable and possibly inaccurate, then you have to apply that same level of doubt to every primary account from every other source. Either we accept the information written by the men who were there, or we do not. We can't pick and choose which accounts we believe and which we do not, unless there is very good reason.

Kopie,

Nevill Coghill may have had other reasons for saving the life of Teignmouth Melvill, he was not only endeavouring to save the life of a brother officer, but also the life of a fellow Freemason.

John Y.

Perhaps if David Jenkins had been a freemason, and if Chard (or whoever had advised him had got DJ's service number and/or first name correct on the original roll) he'd have got the VC also.
(Or at least a DCM!)

Kopie
I implied nothing, my statements are very clear, my version of the name exchange with Chard is every bit as likely as your own. All within the realms of speculation.

I wonder sometimes what Chards input actually was with the reports. Did he write the reports or was he being told what to write. There is some doubt regarding his version of the RD roll call.

The Melvill and Coghill debate is already on the forum. The fact they were masons would have had no bearing on there situation. There's no doubt other masons were on the Battlefield, and the so called mason bond didn't extend to Melvill and Coghill them staying and helping them?

springbok9 wrote:

, my version of the name exchange with Chard is every bit as likely as your own. All within the realms of speculation.

I agree with all your points springbok except one. With all due respect to your seniority and vastly superior knowledge to quite probably everyone else on this forum.
On the speculation of the name exchange between Chard and Pte Jenkins, your scenario is far, far, far less likely than mine!!!

Just to recap:
Yours:
"One can almost imagine the trip back from SA to UK, Chard seeing the men on board the boat and possibly exclaiming: "Ah I remember you, you warned me of the shooter." And probably at that time requesting the mans name."

Mine:
Is it not more likely that in the seconds after having his head ducked down at the wall, Chard, not knowing the man's name would have simply asked something along the lines of, "Thank you, my good man, what is your name private?" To which the ducker-downer replies, "Jenkins sir."

Most of this topic is aimed at Pte Jenkins being at RD. So have merged with original topic!

thanks Pete   

There's no doubt other masons were on the Battlefield, and the so called mason bond didn't extend to Melvill and Coghill them staying and helping them? 24th   know what your saying, that was
right down to the bone!    i was kicked off the other place for expanding on that, very
incite full remark of your's. well said.

"And just out of interest " An Illuminated Address was presented to Major Chard, by the Worshipful Master and Brethren of Freemasons, of St. George's Lodge, Exeter, Devon."

Not a lot of people know that!

kopie wrote:

springbok9 wrote:

, my version of the name exchange with Chard is every bit as likely as your own. All within the realms of speculation.

I agree with all your points springbok except one. With all due respect to your seniority and vastly superior knowledge to quite probably everyone else on this forum.
On the speculation of the name exchange between Chard and Pte Jenkins, your scenario is far, far, far less likely than mine!!!

Just to recap:
Yours:
"One can almost imagine the trip back from SA to UK, Chard seeing the men on board the boat and possibly exclaiming: "Ah I remember you, you warned me of the shooter." And probably at that time requesting the mans name."

Mine:
Is it not more likely that in the seconds after having his head ducked down at the wall, Chard, not knowing the man's name would have simply asked something along the lines of, "Thank you, my good man, what is your name private?" To which the ducker-downer replies, "Jenkins sir."

OK I give in. Hopefully that will end a pointless debate

24th
It is worth stating that Jenkins's name appears on the following contemporary Rolls of RD defenders - both Chard Reports, the 'Smith' Roll, the 'Waters' Roll, the 'Fine Art' Roll, the adjutant's 1/24th Records, as well as Cantwell's later 'Chard' Roll.  It may be that when his regimental number appears it is the wrong one (which was the case with many of those named) but importantly he is named as a survivor (as opposed to kia), and one of them gives his initial correctly.

xhosa
In addition to all the new evidence I published (including Jenkins's 3rd letter home) I've since come across a further newspaper report entitled ‘ARRIVAL OF MAJOR CHARD AT PORTSMOUTH’, The Hampshire Advertiser County Newspaper, 4th October 1879:
“Chard and Surgeon-Major Reynolds were introduced to him…One small group, standing alone on the jetty, attracted considerable attention, consisting as it did of five men of the first battalion of the regiment, who, on the morning of the Isandula massacre, were told off to escort some prisoners to the rear, and on their return could get no further than Rorke’s Drift.  There they remained and took part in the now historic defence.  The names of these men are Sergeant Wilson, Lance-Corporal Roy, Privates Desmond, Payton, and Jenkins.”
This not only corroborates Jenkins's 3rd letter home but also places him firmly in the same 'let's-welcome-home-the heroes-in-the-presence-of-royalty' reception as Chard, Reynolds and the other 1/24th men.

chard1879
You wrote that it's a matter of "personal opinion" as to whether David Jenkins was at RD or not.  This is emphatically not the case.  It is a question of hard evidence and primary sources and, Lord knows, there's more than enough of that in his favour - more in fact than for the majority of defenders.

In general
I find it hard to believe that there is any serious discussion of his not having been a defender.  I can only assume, as per Springbok's comment, that those 'anti' remarks come from those who've not read the research (or literally are incapable of understanding it, its relevance or its conclusiveness as evidence).

xhosa
In addition to all the new evidence I published (including Jenkins's 3rd letter home) I've since come across a further newspaper report entitled ‘ARRIVAL OF MAJOR CHARD AT PORTSMOUTH’, The Hampshire Advertiser County Newspaper, 4th October 1879:

You wrote that it's a matter of "personal opinion" as to whether David Jenkins was at RD or not. This is emphatically not the case.

Hiya Julian. me what?..   

xhosa
I think you've misread the above.  The remark was to Chard1879's 'personal opinion' comment, not to you.  I've added spaces to delineate clearly which reply is addressed to whom.

Thanks Julian, cant understand how that
happened, i dont usually get confused      
i will just keep taking the pills..

xhosa
In addition to all the new evidence I published (including Jenkins's 3rd letter home) I've since come across a further newspaper report entitled ‘ARRIVAL OF MAJOR CHARD AT PORTSMOUTH’, The Hampshire Advertiser County Newspaper, 4th October 1879:
“Chard and Surgeon-Major Reynolds were introduced to him…One small group, standing alone on the jetty, attracted considerable attention, consisting as it did of five men of the first battalion of the regiment, who, on the morning of the Isandula massacre, were told off to escort some prisoners to the rear, and on their return could get no further than Rorke’s Drift. There they remained and took part in the now historic defence. The names of these men are Sergeant Wilson, Lance-Corporal Roy, Privates Desmond, Payton, and Jenkins.”
This not only corroborates Jenkins's 3rd letter home but also places him firmly in the same 'let's-welcome-home-the heroes-in-the-presence-of-royalty' reception as Chard, Reynolds and the other 1/24th men.

Thank you Julian for sharing that with us.. now that my brain is moving again can i ask, is this to
be included in vol three?. i have printed this off and have inserted loosely in in vol two. again..
outstanding research!.“Chard and Surgeon-Major Reynolds were introduced to him… him being
Cambridge?.

xhosa
The following will be inserted on p. 64 immediately before the para. beginning "It is now necessary..." in the second edition:

"A report from The Hampshire Advertiser County Newspaper dated 4th October 1879 reporting the battalion’s official welcome by the Duke of Cambridge and Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar’s clarifies the matter:

“Chard and Surgeon-Major Reynolds were introduced to him…One small group, standing alone on the jetty, attracted considerable attention, consisting as it did of five men of the first battalion of the regiment, who, on the morning of the Isandula massacre, were told off to escort some prisoners to the rear, and on their return could get no further than Rorke’s Drift.  There they remained and took part in the now historic defence.  The names of these men are Sergeant Wilson, Lance-Corporal Roy, Privates Desmond, Payton, and Jenkins.”

[here is the printed extract of the full newspaper report]
News report entitled ‘ARRIVAL OF MAJOR CHARD AT PORTSMOUTH’, The Hampshire Advertiser County Newspaper, 4th October 1879."

I'm sorry I wasn't able to include this in the first edition but at least all forum members who bought a copy will be able to print this off and insert it if they wish.

Julian Whybra wrote:

24th
It is worth stating that Jenkins's name appears on the following contemporary Rolls of RD defenders - both Chard Reports, the 'Smith' Roll, the 'Waters' Roll, the 'Fine Art' Roll, the adjutant's 1/24th Records, as well as Cantwell's later 'Chard' Roll.  It may be that when his regimental number appears it is the wrong one (which was the case with many of those named) but importantly he is named as a survivor (as opposed to kia), and one of them gives his initial correctly.

xhosa
In addition to all the new evidence I published (including Jenkins's 3rd letter home) I've since come across a further newspaper report entitled ‘ARRIVAL OF MAJOR CHARD AT PORTSMOUTH’, The Hampshire Advertiser County Newspaper, 4th October 1879:
“Chard and Surgeon-Major Reynolds were introduced to him…One small group, standing alone on the jetty, attracted considerable attention, consisting as it did of five men of the first battalion of the regiment, who, on the morning of the Isandula massacre, were told off to escort some prisoners to the rear, and on their return could get no further than Rorke’s Drift.  There they remained and took part in the now historic defence.  The names of these men are Sergeant Wilson, Lance-Corporal Roy, Privates Desmond, Payton, and Jenkins.”
This not only corroborates Jenkins's 3rd letter home but also places him firmly in the same 'let's-welcome-home-the heroes-in-the-presence-of-royalty' reception as Chard, Reynolds and the other 1/24th men.

chard1879
You wrote that it's a matter of "personal opinion" as to whether David Jenkins was at RD or not.  This is emphatically not the case.  It is a question of hard evidence and primary sources and, Lord knows, there's more than enough of that in his favour - more in fact than for the majority of defenders.

In general
I find it hard to believe that there is any serious discussion of his not having been a defender.  I can only assume, as per Springbok's comment, that those 'anti' remarks come from those who've not read the research (or literally are incapable of understanding it, its relevance or its conclusiveness as evidence).

Regimental number wrong. Not that old Chestnut!   

As I wrote...
"I can only assume, as per Springbok's comment, that those 'anti' remarks come from those who've not read the research (or literally are incapable of understanding it, its relevance or its conclusiveness as evidence)."
Don't extract one part from a whole and criticize it (an old KGB trick - you weren't in the KGB were you?); you're missing the point.  The important element is not that the regtl. no. was incorrect but that that particular entry was for a RD man named JENKINS who was NOT killed in action.  This then begs the question 'who was the Jenkins who survived?' and that is what the rest of the research was intended to discover and prove.  But you still don't know any of this because you've not read the evidence.
From little chestnuts do great big horse chestnuts grow...

Now now, it was you who mentioned chestnuts. No-one's mentioned back passages. But I refuse to debate this any further with you (though I will respond to questions) because you simply have not assessed the evidence, making intelligent discussion impossible. I certainly don't want a repeat of the earlier pointless to-and-fro mockery and neither do any of the other forum members Q.E.D.

Thank you Julian, i have done as you
suggest.excellent work, mr thorough!   
impi, change the record,your stuck in a groove.
move on!.   

Which one is Pte David Jenkins?

xhosa
I'm impressed. Which paper (and date) is that from?

impi      

Actually impi your question has a serious edge. It is known that the five 1/24th who came back with Chard were standing off to one side whilst Chard was getting his royal welcome. If the artist made a serious stab at realistic facial images, the 1/24th might be the group on the right and Jenkins might indeed be among them.

please dont be impressed, i have had that in
my scrapbook for yonks, cant for the life of
me place where from.its a photocopy which
i aged and varnished    but its going
to be from one of the big ones of the day.
chapter and verse will no doubt follow..

Julian Whybra wrote:

xhosa
I'm impressed.  Which paper (and date) is that from?

Yes I agree, gr8 pic you found there Xhosa. I would love to know the IDs of those men in the pic.
Perhaps impi thinks 1083 Pte Jenkins is standing there among them!

Kopie he's been sent to the rear? Prisoner escort!

Hey impi, perhaps you could be the first to reply to my 1083 Watkin Jenkins thread, before it gets deleted!!!

Picture is from The Graphic, Sat Oct 11 1879. Here it is.

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

Steve

Steve   

Many thanks!

Close up of group on the right.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thought you might like this one too. Soldiers and Sailors Banquet Portsmouth. I think it says at the back "To our Brave Defenders".

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

Steve

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]This is the sketch Geoff Rees was able to recognise his great-grandfather from. So he might be able to recognise him  from the image posted ?

We can exclude the group on the right as they are officers.

John Y.

they are all wearing sashes..looks like a couple
of non coms there, but zooming around the
back..a sea of brass! not surprising really.there
queuing up for a gorp at Chard.

Would you say this was written by the same person? I can't get the lighted one any clearer. To me some of the letters are of the same style, some with a very slight variation!  The J, e, i, n, s


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

The only letter that looks different is the "K" the first three letters, look and join up the same. And the last three i,n,s,

I would say yes.

Agree with sas1. The last 3 letters identical.

Yes! The letters mentioned are very similar,