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

Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24

The Bible and Sketch look very much the same! And the one posted from service paper. The Marrage paper signiture, we can put now to nerves on the day!

Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24

The attestation reads as "Leut Brai??"

Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02

CTSG

Should have gone to Specsavers.

Steve

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

Originally posted by Mr David Payne. Might be worth looking at this again, in view of this bible issued.

"From the link posted by forum member David Payne.

"

Author:
Review By : (unknown)
Pte. D. Jenkins, G Company, 1st /24th Was he there – or not? By Dr Adrian Greaves ___________________________________________________________________________ An interesting scenario has arisen over the history of Pte. D. Jenkins, G Company, 1st /24th following recent press interest. As members will appreciate, Dr David Payne of the AZWRS and I have been literally bombarded with queries and observations from our respective Society members, and the media, about this matter. So that we don’t have to prepare a large amount of individual replies, we have put together this Journal article so that our initial thoughts are known to Society members.

Last year I was forwarded newspaper correspondence from a descendent of Pte Jenkins, Mr Rees. This stated that there had been a re-dedication of his relative’s grave which now showed Pte. D. Jenkins as a ‘Rorke’s Drift defender’. I was initially delighted with the news. As this was new to me, I conducted some research into this. There is a Pte. David Jenkins of G Company who is recorded by the Zulu War researchers, Alan Baynham-Jones and Lee Stevenson, as being a questionable survivor of Isandlwana. This is based upon Pte David Jenkins who wrote a letter home in which he specifically states he survived the battle of Isandlwana.

He wrote.... ‘being only one of the ten that escaped out of the five companies’. I could find no report of this Jenkins listed as an Isandlwana survivor and, equally oddly, Jenkins didn’t mention Rorke’s Drift in this letter.

The numerous histories, accounts and documents on the subject likewise don’t mention this Jenkins being at either Isandlwana or Rorke’s Drift – neither Dr David Payne nor I could find his name on any of the rolls of participants at Rorke’s Drift. The Chard Report merely states that Chard was given a warning by Pte. Jenkins of the 24th - but could Chard have been referring to Pte James Jenkins of the 24th? Pte. James Jenkins appears on the various nominal rolls as a defender at Rorke’s Drift - and he certainly participated in the battle because he was killed towards the end of the fighting. James W Bancroft in his book, The Zulu War, 1879. Rorke's Drift (Spellmount 1988) wrote; Lt Chard would also have been killed if Pte Jenkins had not shouted a warning and pulled his officer's head down just as a Zulu round whizzed over it. Private Jenkins himself was later killed.

The art expert, Oliver Millar, wrote at length about Lady Butler’s painting, which Mr Rees partly relies on for his claim, on the grounds that Pte David Jenkins was a model for the famous painting. You will find part of Millar’s comment in Journal 15. When describing the key to the figures he makes a comment, one that has never been challenged.... One of these is inscribed ‘Jenkins’ by the artist but no soldier of this name is recorded as having been at the action. (Other than the Jenkins killed).

It was stated in the newspapers at the time the unit returned home that ‘amongst the men from the 1st Battalion of the 24th who disembarked were “a number of men which includes a soldier with the surname ‘Jenkins’ and the comment after all the names, five in total,….who had been to the rear with prisoners’. Jenkins also wrote a letter to his father just days after the battles, dated 26th January, some suggest it was sent on the 28th. The letter is written from Pietermaritzburg, a location well over 100 miles of rough tracks from Rorke’s Drift, which tallies with the above words ‘to the rear’. He was not with the 5 companies of the 1st Battalion present at Isandlwana. In his letter he wrote about the fact that 5 companies, had been slain at Isandlwana, and he was ‘one of only 10 survivors that escaped’. If he had been at Isandlwana or Rorke’s Drift, how did he get to Pietermaritzburg so quickly?

The relevant parts of his letter are as follows; Zululand January 26, 1879. Dear Father, Just a few lines to let you know that I am one of the ten men that escaped out of the five companies.

The letter signed off: No 295 David Jenkins 'G' Company, 1-24th Regiment Pietermaritzburg. Natal.

In Norman Holme’s The Silver Wreath you will see that there has always been confusion with regard to ‘who was where’ due to any number of bogus Rorke’s Drift claimants. Bearing in mind all that has been written over the years by well-respected researchers and historians about Rorke’s Drift defenders, I suggested Mr Rees obtained a copy of Jenkins’ Service Record as this should show exactly where he was on which date. My own research to date shows that Jenkins’ records make no mention of Rorke’s Drift or Isandlwana, though this is not in itself conclusive.

Meanwhile, Mr Rees has presented his case to the National Army Museum who contacted both me and Ian Knight. We have both expressed our reservations on the matter, based on the absence of any actual evidence that we are aware of. Apart from the 2nd Battalion medal roll, we have not been able to find any reference to Pte. David Jenkins. So far, we have had checked the following Army records for evidence of whereabouts of this soldier on the 22nd and 23rd January 1879, without success. Casualties – Isandlwana – 22nd January 1879

Casualties Rorke’s Drift 22nd/23rd January 1879

Nominal Roll Rorke’s Drift – Bourne List – from Regimental Pay Roll for January 1879 Nominal Roll –

Lt. Chard 3rd February 1879 Nominal Roll –

Major Dunbar January 1880 Nominal Roll

– not attributed – Cantwell?

Roll of Honour – undated. Illuminated Scroll – In memoriam.

Men of the 2nd Battalion Who Received a Copy of the Address by the Mayor of Durban. Various medal rolls of the AZW. (Hart’s List and Dutton’s Zulu and Basuto Wars)

Local General Orders, South Africa, 1878-79

Mr Rees’ response to my above observations ‘Was he there – or not?’ (Comments by Mr Rees are indicated by his title, Mr Rees. My own comments commence with my initials AG.) Mr Rees.

There are two worthy sources which comment on James Edmund Jenkins's death in the hospital. I quote: a) '... the only men actually killed in the hospital were three ... The names were Sergeant Maxfield, Private Jenkins, both unable to assist in their escape, being debilitated by fever, and Private Adams.' (The Report of Surgeon Reynolds - see 'Rorke's Drift' by Dr. Adrian Greaves, p 402) b) 'One poor fellow, Jenkins, venturing through one of these (the holes in the hospital partition walls), was also seized and dragged away ...’ (Reverend George Smith's account).

AG. All these references only refer to a Pte Jenkins, not Pte David Jenkins. And see Bancroft’s comment above that Jenkins was killed. Gunner Evans RA later wrote that he lost two friends at Rorke’s Drift, Adams and Jenkins of the 24th.

Mr Rees. There are actually two references to the behaviour of an 'active', 'fit' second Jenkins in Chard's Second Report. a) The first (p 373 RD by Dr AG) includes this 'other' Jenkins amongst a group of soldiers who, early in the battle, repelled the attacks of the Zulus with 'great coolness and gallantry'. Remember James Edmund Jenkins was in the hospital in the grips of a fever.

AG. There was only one Jenkins mentioned - James Edmund Jenkins. Sick or not, using a rifle would have been second nature to him. He could easily have left the hospital at various times during the 12 hour engagement. To claim he was ‘in the grips of a fever’ is speculation. Furthermore, Pte David Jenkins was hardly ‘active’ and ‘fit’ – the poor fellow suffered from syphilis – which begs two supplementary questions; 1. What was he doing on the front line, and 2. How did this syphilitic soldier get back to Pietermaritzburg so quickly?

b) The second refers to an incident a couple of hours into the battle, long after JEJ had been killed and outside the hospital.

AG. This timing is speculative. We don’t know at which point in the fighting that Jenkins was killed.

Mr Rees. Chard writes, 'While I was intently watching to get a fair shot at a Zulu who appeared to be firing rather well, Jenkins 24th, saying 'Look out, Sir,' gave my head a duck down just as a bullet whizzed over it. He had noticed a Zulu who was quite near in another direction taking a deliberate aim at me. For all the man could have known, the shot might have been directed at himself. I mention these facts to show how well the men behaved and how loyally worked together.' (p375-6 'RD' by Dr AG, and p111 'Zulu' by Ian Knight, an extract highlighted to me by the Royal Engineers TA Group in Swansea). These I believe indicate that 'another' Jenkins was present.

AG. Like other references from participants, Chard only refers to a Jenkins. With regard to Mr Rees’ ‘belief’; this acknowledges it is open to other interpretations.

Mr Rees. Soon after the battle David sent a letter home to his father to reassure him that he was still alive.

The first part of the letter has puzzled many researchers because it appears to suggest that he was one of the fortunate survivors of Isandlwana. However, no trace of his presence there can be found in the regimental archives. Perhaps David realised that the big talking point in England would be of the disaster and casualties at Isandlwana. As he is writing so soon after 22nd January he might not have been able to distinguish between the two separate 'battles' but was rather seeing both as part of one big battle

. AG. This is the most serious defect in Mr Rees’ claim, and the whole story.

1. I have doubts that anyone who fought on that day could not have been able to differentiate between whether he was at Rorke’s Drift or Isandlwana. If Jenkins had been a Rorke’s Drift defender, I suspect he would have known. No one else saw him at Rorke’s Drift and he is not featured in any of the Nominal Rolls of those present, nor in participants’ letters and accounts of the action. Neither is he recorded as having even been at Isandlwana.

2. Pte David Jenkins’s G Company, commanded by Captain Thomas Rainforth, was stationed at Helpmekaar. As Jenkins’s letter to his parents was signed off with the location of Pietermaritzberg and G Company 1/24th, he was probably engaged on duty, or under prisoners’ escort (he had a distasteful disciplinary record), somewhere between Helpmakaar and Pietermaritzburg during the 22nd/23rd January, not as is being claimed, surviving Isandlwana or fighting at Rorke’s Drift.

3. Accounts of the fighting would have rapidly become common knowledge throughout the army, emanating from the fugitives departing Rorke's Drift en route to Helpmekaar. I suspect this could be the source that inspired Jenkins’ muddled letter home.

Mr Rees. In the second half of the letter David asks his father to contact Isaac Lewis, a neighbour in the Brecon area, to tell him of the death of his son-in-law, George Chambers, at Isandlwana and the narrow escape of his son, Bombardier Thomas Lewis, at the Drift. David writes of Thomas's escape from the hospital at RD to the 'fort' (which was a term used by men at the Drift for the 'fortified' area position which the soldiers had fallen back to in the later stages of the battle). His letter, therefore does speak of RD ‘as if he witnessed this young man's rescue and escape’

AG. This is pure speculation – using words like ‘as if he witnessed’ is hardly evidence.

Mr Rees. 'he came from the hospital to the fort through all the firing'. (The letter appeared in 'The Merthyr Express' in March 1879 and a Welsh Language Newspaper, 'Y Gwladgarwyr' a week later. These newspapers are online at, respectively, Merthyr Central Library and Aberdare Library)

AG. The gist of the Rorke’s Drift story was well known to soldiers of Chelmsford’s returning column within hours following the battle and to the rest of the army in South Africa during the following days.

Mr Rees. In the Autumn of 1879, Queen Victoria asked Lady Butler to depict a scene from a war of her reign. Lady Butler liked to use 'models' who were actual participants in the conflicts of her paintings. She gained access to many of the main heroes in the action at RD, and the returning soldiers also played out a re-enactment of the battle for her. My great-grandfather was a model for the painting. I say this because later news reports of his meeting with King Edward V11 and Lady Butler's husband state this ... as does his obituary of August 1912. I quote, 'When the late King and Queen visited Swansea, General Butler singled him out at the dockside in this connection and introduced him to the Monarch who expressed his pleasure at the introduction, and later on, the General personally saw him at the Hotel Metropole and conveyed his wife's regards. Years ago, Lady Butler, by the way, sent Mr. Jenkins a letter of appreciation for his sitting for the painting'. (South Wales Daily Post and Herald of Wales August 1912)

AG. ‘Liking to use models who were actual participants in the conflicts’ is not evidence that the soldier who actually modelled for the painting was at Rorke’s Drift. The family details are irrelevant; no one doubts Pte David Jenkins was in the 24th in Zululand, so of course he had the medal.

Mr Rees. Preliminary sketches for the painting can be seen in a wide variety of books, but more topically The National Army Museum's Greatest Battles website features a sketch of a soldier kneeling with the name ‘Jenkins’ written above it. The picture is of a living soldier named ‘Jenkins’, not an idealised portrait of a dead one. Included in the drawing are additional sketches of the hand positions on the rifle in preparation for the main portrait. I am aware of only one soldier named Jenkins who claimed to be in the painting.

AG. Two points….

1. Pte David Jenkins could have volunteered as the model for the dead man for any one of a number of reasons, it would certainly have been a soft and appropriate duty for a soldier suffering from a sexual disease. Being a model for a painting is not evidence that the model participated in the action. Indeed, art critic, Oliver Millar wrote when describing the key to the figures... One of these is inscribed ‘Jenkins’ by the artist but no soldier of this name is recorded as having been at the action.

2. In the National Army Museum’s weighty tome ‘Ashes and Blood - The British Army in South Africa 1795-1914’ they have a section about Pte Jenkins and the Lady Butler painting, which negates Mr Rees’ above comment that ‘The picture is of a living soldier named ‘Jenkins’, not an idealised portrait of a dead one’. I quote… The drawings on this page are preliminary studies for the kneeling figure at the bottom left-hand corner of the completed canvas. They depict a soldier crouching to take aim, his bayonet scabbard bent underneath him, inscribed top right ‘Jenkins’ with two details of his hands holding a Martini-Henry rifle and squeezing the trigger. It is thought that the main figure could be either Robert (1857-98) or William Jones (1840-1913, both of whom won the Victoria Cross for gallantry at Rorke’s Drift. The only man named Jenkins present at the engagement was Pte M Jenkins whose death was witnessed by William Jones*. * See Boydon, Guy and Harding. Ashes and Blood - The British Army in South Africa 1795-1914 , National Army Museum, 1999. (p. 234)

Mr Rees. Several writers on RD such as James Bancroft ('The Rorke's Drift Men'), Lieutenant Colonel Mike Snook ('Like Wolves on the Fold' and Kris Wheatley (author of the Legacy series on the lesser known men at RD and a descendant of a RD soldier) have backed David's claim to be a Rorke's Drift Defender as well as his own regimental museum, of course, and now ... The National Army Museum.

AG. a. Pte David Jenkins never claimed to be a Rorke’s Drift defender.

b. Mr Rees states that the NAM supports his claim but I understand that it has now backed away from this story, and was not responsible for the recent publicity in the national press. I don’t know that anyone of the above has categorically supported Mr Rees’ claim. Staff at Brecon give this story a cautionary 80% possibility based on what they believe, which sounds fair to me as circumstantial evidence in the absence of any actual evidence. In our view, 80% is the starting point, not the finishing point for this research.

c. Col Snook’s 2006 ‘Like Wolves…’ omits Pte D. Jenkins and in any event, the book is unreferenced which precludes any check on his account.

d. Kris Wheatley appears to have dropped Pte D. Jenkins from her work.

e. In the findings of numerous Zulu War researchers over many years I have found no reference to Pte David Jenkins being at either Isandlwana or Rorke’s Drift, or anywhere else; John Young’s detailed ‘They Fell Like Stones’ follows suite, as does all of Ian Knight’s extensive and detailed research. Furthermore, there are a great number of letters home from participants; none make any reference to him. Much is being made of a ledger at Brecon’s 24th Regimental Museum containing names of participants at Rorke’s Drift, including Pte David Jenkins. This ledger was referred to by Welsh historian and researcher, the then Archivist at Caernarfon Castle, Norman Holme, author of The Noble 24th, as having formed part of his book’s research material – yet Norman Holme makes no mention of Pte. David Jenkins in any of his research, other than recording that he was present in Zululand at the time. We wonder if Norman Holme was referring to Pte David Jenkins when he wrote the following in his The Noble 24th … Many soldiers claimed to have been at Rorke’s Drift, or stated that they had been one of the garrison at that place. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s the pages of the Regimental journal of the South Wales Borderers contain many references to such men, usually in conjunction with their attendance at the funeral of a former comrade.

By 1978, Norman Holme had collated all known records of the 24th in Zululand and had a number of his collations printed under the title Medal Rolls of the 24th Foot; Adrian Greaves owns one of the first such editions which Norman Holme originally sent to his friend, Frank Emery (The Red Soldier).

Over the years that followed, Norman Holme continued his research for his following works, The Silver Wreath and The Noble 24th with the full support of the incumbent 24th Regimental Museum curators, and latterly Maj. Everett, who made available the latest contents of the regimental archives and assisted Norman Holme ‘on virtually a daily basis’. Over a period of more than twenty years, between 1978 and the publication of The Noble 24th in 1999, neither Norman Holme, nor his many researchers, found any reference to Pte David Jenkins.

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.

Its title is….

Records of the 2/24th 1804-1813

Records of the 1/24th 1689-1905

In Brecon museum staff’s opinion, it is difficult to say who wrote the entry in the diary without a full investigation of the handwriting of various ‘potentials’. It is their opinion that the diary consolidated ‘various records’ held in the Depot. Someone clearly used a book that had space after the 2/24th entries (some 35 pages), to write (initially) a ‘catch up on the records’ of the 1/24th and subsequent officers have added to it, possibly a Depot Commandant or Depot Adjutant. There are about a hundred pages of considerable detail, written in different handwriting (which you would expect allowing for the length of the period). It is Brecon museum staff’s opinion that the entry in question looks like the work of Lieutenant George K Moore, an adjutant of the 1st Bn SWB and a participant in the 1879 conflict, not of Isandlwana or Rorke’s Drift, but who took part in the march against Ulundi. The fact that he uses the SWB title points to the diary having been compiled following the formation of the South Wales Borderers in July 1881. To be fair to Lt. Moore, perhaps he based his entry on what he had seen written about David Jenkins when he sat for Lady Butler, and presumed he was the ‘Rorke’s Drift Jenkins’.

A Society member, and a serving army major, has been given sight of the Brecon museum ledger/diary to clarify the relevance of this document. Their report makes the following observations;

An insert for 14 Apr 1879 was present on the pages, which was out of sync. This implies that the details were added to this ledger in an order that linked specific events rather than a strict chronological order and that all entries were added retrospectively of the events. This is also supported by the signature by Lt G K Moore, which ends in 'SWB', clearly indicating he signed these entries off, at the earliest in 1881, or sometime after the 1st Bn became the SWB.

The ledger appears to be a compilation of events, possibly pulled together by Adjutants several years after the events using unknown documents rather than an Orderly Book or Daily Diary. The name of Pte D. Jenkins is present but this could be an inaccurate record and shows no reference to the original nominal rolls.

The ledger is not 100% credible as a record of events as it was compiled years later, as indicated by the SWB mention in the signature.

The museum staff remain content that there is an 80% possibility Pte D Jenkins had an active role as an RD Defender based on this ledger, his Bible and the fact that Pte D Jenkins had attended various reunions of the events without being questioned by fellow soldiers.

AG. 1. I accept this assessment as a very fair observation. I also totally accept the Brecon ledger/diary itself is 100% genuine. However, I agree with the observation … ‘The ledger is not 100% credible as a record of events as it was compiled years later, as indicated by the SWB mention in the signature’.

2. As Pte David Jenkins never claimed to be a Rorke’s Drift defender, why would anyone attending a reunion need to challenge him?

3. Had he been a Rorke’s Drift defender, might he at some point have asked for his name to be included on a ledger or roll?

The diary was donated to the Museum in 1950 by the family of an ex 24th officer. We have been requested by the regimental curator not to publish photographs of the diary/ledger.

In the same vein of records referring to Pte David Jenkins being out of sync, the 1/24th Record of Services lists the following as having been present at the Drift, but the words… ‘had been sent’ were written by C/Sgt Edwards before he was killed at Isandlwana. He could not possibly have been referring to who was at Rorke’s Drift later on the 22nd… Sgt Wilson, Ptes Payton, Desmond, Jenkins and Roy had been sent to the rear with prisoners according to a letter written by Col Sgt Edwards. If proof was required that this Edwards entry was out of sync, it certainly predates the battle as Roy was in the hospital at RD during the battle - he got the DCM. Since the other Jenkins (James, the one killed) was also 1st Battalion, Edwards could easily have been referring to him rather than David Jenkins, so in fact that reference doesn't confirm in any way that there were more than one Jenkins at RD.

Moving on, it is accepted that Pte David Jenkins returned to the UK in possession of a ‘Rorke’s Drift Bible’ copies of which were given to all of B Company by the ladies of Durban.

It is already known that these Bibles were put in B Company’s kit bags at the docks before the troops embarked from Durban. This is confirmed by no less than Pte John Williams VC who wrote…. When B Company boarded ship that very same day, each man had in his kit bag a Bible, which they would treasure for the remainder of their lives. Presented by the ladies of Durban, a philanthropic group, each signed by a ‘Miss Wilkinson’.

(1) If Pte John Williams VC is to be believed, there is no mention by him, or anyone else, of the Bibles going only to Rorke’s Drift men. Therefore, Pte David Jenkins’ name in his Bible cannot be evidence of his participation in the action. The contemporary press in South Arfica has many accounts of presentations and events for 24th men returning to Pietermaritzburg and Durban – none mention Bibles. With regard to the Mayoral Address, copies were presented to ‘The Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men of the 2nd Battalion of H.M. 24th Regiment’ ; this distribution also went beyond the Rorke’s Drift defenders and possession of a Mayoral Address cannot, on its own, be considered proof that a recipient was actually there. For example, one copy went to Pte. 25B/953 Frederick Evans, who we know was not at Rorke’s Drift As you can guess, Norman Holme’s and Julian Whybra’s views (JW’s England’s Sons) of suspect Rorke’s Drift claimants are re-emerging strongly again. Norman Holme logged all the 1879 records over many years and in 1998 wrote, Undoubtedly a number of veterans encouraged the belief [that they were at Rorke’s Drift] possibly to increase their standing within the community, or with members of their family. Unfortunately, such spurious claims are now firmly embedded in family folklore.

(2) Likewise, in his section headed Letters from South Africa, (Zulu and Basuto Wars Complete medal Roll 1877-8-9) researcher Roy Dutton wrote…. Editors of newspapers were not very accurate in their printing of soldiers’ letters…they quite often mixed up similar sounding names and also managed to print accounts of some soldiers, who had never been present at Isandlwana or Rorke’s Drift. It is important to corroborate such material against other historical sources. The biographer of John Williams VC, W. G. Lloyd, wrote in his seminal work… Some men said they were at Rorke’s Drift but in fact they had never been to South Africa. Some had been at the small mission station with either the middle column or prior to the second invasion of Zululand, but failed to mention that they were not actually at the legendary rearguard action. And some were to impersonate John Williams VC. On at least three occasions known to the author, deceitful attempts to take advantage of his fame occurred.

(3) We agree whole heartedly. See also, the accompanying Journal article about yet another recently uncovered ‘false claimant’, Pte George Langridge, who, according to his local newspaper, was given ‘a hero’s 21 gun salute’ at his funeral by the SWB. Woops! So, what is the answer in Pte. David Jenkins’ case? Sadly we have not yet seen any independent confirmation, or a convincing reason, for Pte David Jenkins being at Rorke’s Drift. Most of all, we cannot even find a clear, unequivocal claim from the man himself explaining his movements, or even claiming he was there. As anyone can see from his records, he was constantly in trouble with the authorities and had a distasteful disciplinary record as well as suffering ‘the jolly rant’ or syphilis (as did many soldiers of that period). He was undoubtedly a ‘regimental character’. This, to us, is a peculiar situation; a man who never claimed to have been at Rorke’s Drift is now being credited with having been there. With all the publicity, and welcome ‘hype’ for the Brecon museum, (not our interpretation) there is the possibility that, if left unchallenged, a belief will grow, and the story that Pte David Jenkins was at Rorke’s Drift as a defender will become ‘fact’- that is the power of myth turning into belief. As David Rattray frequently said when addressing selected audiences and speaking of ‘Welsh soldiers marching into Zululand singing ‘Men of Harlech’ – ‘why spoil a good story’?

With such willingness to make Pte David Jenkins a Rorke’s Drift defender, then what about other cases, for example, Sgt Cooper 1st 24th who is on the rolls of Isandlwana casualties. His family’s belief, in parallel with Jenkin’s family, is that Cooper was killed at Rorke’s Drift, a belief that is supported by his memorial service papers and a personal letter to his next of kin from the then CO of the 1st 24th at Helpmakaar Major Upcher, commanding Rorke’s Drift, confirming Sgt Cooper’s death on the 22nd January. This letter is, according to Brecon museum staff, unique; no similar letter is known to the museum.

(4) This supporting documentary evidence puts Cooper in close proximity to RD at the relevant time. However, despite this evidence, there is little compelling or substantiated evidence putting him specifically at Rorke’s Drift. Consequently, Sgt Cooper’s case is not probable but possible - nevertheless, there is more evidence to support Sgt Cooper’s case than Pte David Jenkins whose case is neither probable or possible. Finally, as a former detective of many years, let Adrian Greaves ask the reader to test the following imaginary scenario. For just a moment, let us turn the story on its head and retrospectively pretend that, because of the killing of several hundred Zulu wounded after the engagement, it was a crime to have been a Rorke’s Drift defender. Let us now put Pte David Jenkins on trial to face the charge. How could he possibly be found guilty on the ‘evidence’ currently being put forward to put him at Rorke’s Drift when the only line of evidence comes from the press of the day, which would clear him of the charge… that amongst the men from the 1st Battalion of the 24th who disembarked were a number of men which includes a soldier with the surname ‘Jenkins’ and the comment after all the names, five in total,….who had been to the rear with prisoners. I submit the case against him would have to be dismissed on the strength of this line alone, especially when it is further supported by C/Sgt Edwards’ statement above, leaving no evidence that puts Pte David Jenkins anywhere near Rorke’s Drift at the material date/time. Therefore, why suggest the same lack of evidence proves he was present? If this scenario cannot pass such a test, there is no test to pass.

We believe Pte David Jenkins case should, therefore, be treated with caution until his Service Record, or any genuine contemporary record, or mention in another participant’s letter confirms his role as a ‘defender’; we would then willingly accept that the matter is beyond any question and we could then support the claim of Brecon museum staff and Mr Rees.

The above is our personal opinion. Let’s see what pops up.

Dr Adrian Greaves, AZWHS. Author Rorke’s Drift Cassell 2002.

Dr David Payne, AZWRS. Author Harford Ultimatum Tree Press 2008.

References.

1. Lloyd, W.G. John Williams VC Three Arch Press, 1993.

2. Holme, Norman. The Noble 24th Savannah Publications 1999. We accept he did not mention Frederick Herbert Brown either, but there is other evidence he was there.

3. Lloyd, W.G. John Williams VC Three Arch Press, 1993.

4. The original Upcher letter is in Adrian Greaves’ personal collection, Sgt Cooper’s medal is owned by an anonymous collector. See AZWHS Journal 21 for further details

. Post Script.

a. Numerous Society members, and the press, have asked about the value of such this soldier’s medal. A South Africa campaign medal to a non-combatant 24th soldier could fetch £900. A Rorke’s Drift defender’s medal would currently attract offers of £35,000 or more.

b. I was surprised to see that Capt. Greaves, 2nd Bn 3rd Regiment NNC * , is mentioned in the same Brecon diary entry as Pte David Jenkins. According to this Brecon diary, Capt Greaves accompanied Capt Harford when the bodies of Coghill and Melvill were found. Being a very distant relative, I am aware Capt. Greaves’ arrived at Rorke’s Drift early on the 23rd January to help strengthen the position. The Brecon diary entry, of which I was totally unaware, supports the hypothesis that, I too, could have a family member who was significantly connected to Rorke’s Drift, albeit post engagement! As Capt Greaves was seemingly accompanying Capt Harford and Lt Hillier when they found Coghill and Melvill, perhaps he was one of those who also found Sgt Cooper’s body, now there’s a theory to go with my Upcher letter! The hypothesis that there were two soldiers bodies alongside Coghill and Melvill is based upon a contemporary account by Lt. Hillier **, and supported by a handwritten entry by Capt. Harford in his presentation copy of In Zululand with the British by Norris-Newman, presented to him in 1880 by the author, that the bodies found totalled ‘4’. This particular edition, formally owned and annotated throughout by Harford, is in my collection.

Dr Adrian Greaves * Referenced in a. Laband and Thompson. The Buffalo Border 1879 University of Natal, 1983 and b. Smith, Keith, L. Local General Orders Relating to the Anglo Zulu War of 1879. D.P. & G Publishers, 2005. ** Telegraph and Eastern Province Standard, 28 February 1879.

Tuesday 28th of May 2013 10:54:33 PM"

That report from David is so full of inaccuracies and misleading content. Read the last few pages its been discredited completely. Having not only read the available evidence and the essay by Julian I remain convinced that David Jenkins deserves his status as a defender of Rorkes Drift. The discussion has moved on and centres around the bible. That article by the way never used as corroboration in the Essay as proof of Jenkins attendance.
Having spent a considerable time last evening looking at the signatures Im more than ever convinced that they are the same hand and that hand isn't David Jenkins. But how on earth that could lead back to proof that Jenkins wasn't at RD is way beyond my comprehension.
Looking at the balance of the writing on the bibles I would suggest that the 5 or so ladies of the Trust each took part in writing in the names, ergo different styles and penman ship. We do know they were signed by at least two different women, Annie Foster and Annie Margaret Wilkinson.
The signature on the bible (is it a signature or merely the cursive writing of his name?), if it is the same as the sketch by Butler then would have to have been done in England, to my mind those sketches were done in England, ergo the bible annotation would have also been written in England. The issue then would have been who had access to both articles?
I would come back to my original suggestion that its 'possible' that David Jenkins took along his bible to show Lady Butler and asked her to fill in the details for him. This is of course only a scenario.

As alluded to above the signatures on the various certificates mean nothing at all, they are signatures which by their very nature are dashed of by rote whereas the deliberate filling in of the details on an treasured article destined to be a family heirloom would have been slower and more painstaking.

What is being lost sight off here is that IF those signatures are the same it goes a hell of a long way to putting Jenkins and Butler some time together. And to my mind strengthens Jenkins case.

Cheers

Posts : 1261 Join date : 2010-04-12

There were two pieces of evidence submitted. The Bible and an announcement that the man in the Butler sketch was D Jenkins. Martin Everett and Bill Carn found an old ledger, which they claimed showed Jenkins as serving at RD.

There is some doubt regarding the Bible?
Very few people have seen the record at Brecon. Bill was asked if he could post it. But declined to do so. Stating if you want to see it go to the museum.?
Jenkins service record was posted. But shows nothing regarding the actin at RD.

Excuse spelling.

Chard
Your very wrong and I would assume that you haven't read the list of evidentiary items put forward. Significantly more than your quote.
Apart from that though and returning to the bible

"Reward to Rorke's Drift Heroes -
The Ladies' Rorke's Drift Testimonial Fund, as a mark of recognition of the bravery displayed by the small force under Majors Chard and Bromhead in successfully repelling thousands of Zulus on the night of the 22d of January, 1879, have just presented a number of bibles to those who distinguished themselves on that memorable occasion. Among the recipients is Mr Wm Roy, Dundee, late Corporal 1-24th Regiment, who, it will be remembered, was along with a few others, decorated by the Queen with the medal for distinguished service on his return from the Zulu War. The Bible which he has received is extremely handsome, and bears in gold letters on the cover the words, 'Souvenir of Rorke's Drift, January 22-23 1879.' The fly leaf bears the inscription, 'To Wm Roy, late Corporal 1-24th Regiment, from the Ladies' Rorke's Drift Testimonial Fund.' Accompanying the Bible was a kind letter, begging acceptance of the gift as a slight token of the appreciation of the heroic defence made by our soldiers at Rorke's Drift entertained by the donors."

Dundee Courier, Saturday 5th February 1881

This is a post from Sherman last year, its a report from the Dundee Courier. The interesting points are firstly: The bibles have just been presented. ( this report is detailed 1881)
And secondly: to the late Corporal. Implying that it was presented to Roy after his death. As Roy was part of the detachment with Jenkins does this have some form of significance? Is it possible that that these bibles were only presented to the 1/24th some 18 months to two years after the battle?

Cheers

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

Springbok. Chards is talking about in the first instance and what led to Jenkins being added to roll. What's transpired since then, is another story.

24th
Ok sorry about that.

Ive just been checking up on other bibles, does the name Patrick Kears ring any bells at all?

Cheers

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

At the end of the day, Jenkins has only been recognised as being at RD by employee's of Brecon museum. Those happy to except that, are in their right to do so. But the regimental records don't include him.

Hi impi
He was, he wasn't, really got passed that now, but the bible issue is very interesting in particular that they may have been issued 18 months later.

Cheers

Hi Springy
Found this in the bookcase after your Patrick Kears query , it's a booklet entitled ' The Defence Of Rorke's Drift January 22nd and 23rd , 1879 ; The Fine Art Society , London Ninth Exhibition 1880 - Featuring Monsieur de Neuville's - The Defence Of Rorke's Drift ( long title lol ) . Original 1880 Exhibition Catalogue reproduced by the kind permission of The South Wales Borderers Museum , The Barracks , Brecon LD3 7EA . Published in 2006 by DP & G , Military Publishers PO Box 186 , Doncaster , South Yorkshire , England DN4 0HN . phew ! Anyway back to the Kears query and a bonus with Jenkins , on page 19 of the booklet is a list of the defenders , 24th Regt 1st Batt has 11 names , including two named Jenkins , one of which has killed in Brackets next to his name , then a list of B Co 2nd Batt which features a P.Kears .
90th You need to study mo

Springy it's unfortunate Annie Wilkinson's book didnt cover the Bible allocations at Durban isnt it ? . I did purchase it and send you the link hoping she may have mentioned it , as it would've certainly tied up some loose ends

Cheers 90th Salute

Thanks 90th
His is the only other bible that Ive been able to trace. It was sold the same time as his medal a few years back for GBP150.00

Im just struggling to tie up some dates.
Pvt Roy according to the article I posted was refered to as the late, dead deceased withered gone. That in 1880/81 but he actually died in Parramatta in 1890. He emigrated in 1883, so very much alive. So in 1880 being very much alive would he have just had his bible posted to him at his home in Scotland?
If it was the case that the bibles where posted out to the 1/24th men and Jenkins received his at the same time as Roy it would be in the same time frame as Jenkins sitting for Lady Butler. Although she finished the painting in May 1880 she was requested to add more 'portraits' by Queen Victoria meaning the painting was only completed in 81.
So highly feasible that Jenkins and Butler met after he received his bible.

The Annie Wilkinson book stops well short unfortunately.

Cheers

Hi Springy
Yes , I read your post but to me '' Late Corporal '' didnt mean he'd gone to meet his maker necessarily , it just may've been referring to his rank of Corp , was he demoted at some stage which seems to me to be what the '' Late Corp '' may have insinuated ? . I'm not home so cant check Kris Wheatley's works which I'm sure cover Roy ? .
Cheers 90th You need to study mo

90th
Yeah that's a possibility but its a side issue really Im more concentrating on the posted bible aspect.

Cheers

impi
I only ever agree or disagree on the basis of evidence and will happily go back on an opinion if necessary. This isn't about seeing who is right; it's about seeing what is right. Your comment is unhelpful.
The subsequent bevy of Jenkins's signatures closes the matter. I still maintain that the Bible in itself is not relevant to proof of DJ's presence at RD. My police graphologist colleague has just usefully reminded me that one word doesn't even remotely constitute a scientific survey. Anyone who's had experience of examining originals of C19-C20 copperplate handwriting can verify what kopie stated about similarities.

Chard1879
I am sorry but your list of evidence is way out of date - and impoverishes any arguments you put forward. The letter you mention is ambiguous in meaning. Jenkins's third letter puts the matter beyond doubt that he was at RD. When put in conjunction with his 1st and 2nd letters his meaning becomes clear.

Rusteze
Well done.

90th/Springbok
Roy was made a corporal on 24th Nov 1879.

My police graphologist colleague has just usefully reminded me that one word doesn't even remotely constitute a scientific survey

That does tend to shoot down his instant opinion on the matter doesn't it?

Regards

springbok
Actually it complements it. His first impression was that there were significant differences between the two surnames but that to conduct a conclusive graphological analysis one would need a piece of writing of 30 or so words minimum.

As I said earlier, lets agree to disagree.

Always happy to agree with you!

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

Just out of curiosity, if Jenkins medal was to be put up for sale. Would it be as a defender of Rorkes Drift. Or a possible defender at Rorkes Drift?

Posts : 1261 Join date : 2010-04-12

Julian Whybra wrote:: impi
I only ever agree or disagree on the basis of evidence and will happily go back on an opinion if necessary. This isn't about seeing who is right; it's about seeing what is right. Your comment is unhelpful.
The subsequent bevy of Jenkins's signatures closes the matter. I still maintain that the Bible in itself is not relevant to proof of DJ's presence at RD. My police graphologist colleague has just usefully reminded me that one word doesn't even remotely constitute a scientific survey. Anyone who's had experience of examining originals of C19-C20 copperplate handwriting can verify what kopie stated about similarities.

Chard1879
I am sorry but your list of evidence is way out of date - and impoverishes any arguments you put forward. The letter you mention is ambiguous in meaning. Jenkins's third letter puts the matter beyond doubt that he was at RD. When put in conjunction with his 1st and 2nd letters his meaning becomes clear.

Rusteze
Well done.

90th/Springbok
Roy was made a corporal on 24th Nov 1879.

What list of evidence would that be scratch

Posts : 1261 Join date : 2010-04-12

Julian Whybra wrote:: impi
I only ever agree or disagree on the basis of evidence and will happily go back on an opinion if necessary. This isn't about seeing who is right; it's about seeing what is right. Your comment is unhelpful.
The subsequent bevy of Jenkins's signatures closes the matter. I still maintain that the Bible in itself is not relevant to proof of DJ's presence at RD. My police graphologist colleague has just usefully reminded me that one word doesn't even remotely constitute a scientific survey. Anyone who's had experience of examining originals of C19-C20 copperplate handwriting can verify what kopie stated about similarities.

Chard1879
I am sorry but your list of evidence is way out of date - and impoverishes any arguments you put forward. The letter you mention is ambiguous in meaning. Jenkins's third letter puts the matter beyond doubt that he was at RD. When put in conjunction with his 1st and 2nd letters his meaning becomes clear.

Rusteze
Well done.

90th/Springbok
Roy was made a corporal on 24th Nov 1879.

What list of evidence would that be scratch

Guest

Just out of interest, but does anyone know where the Lady Butler preliminary sketches are located. I note that Michael Glover's book includes several of the sketches, including the 'Jenkins' one and one other with handwritten notes.

Chard
Jenkins wrote three letters home about Rorke’s Drift; he is named on contemporary rolls (plural) of defenders; he is witnessed in the performance of his duty by the post’s commanding officer and commended for it; he brings the battalion’s presence at Rorke’s Drift up to the recorded eleven; he is precisely recorded in his regiment’s own records; he is named and recorded in newspaper reports with others as being on escort duty, the movements and personnel of which can be independently verified; and he is named and recorded in several newspapers and letters as being ‘paraded’ as a Rorke’s Drift veteran before the public, before comrades, before a famous Society artist, and even before royalty, all in the presence of other known survivors and their relatives, any one of whom might have exposed him as a fraud, if he were so. But he was not. I'm not going to list each of the sources for you - they can all be found in my book.

Springy mate.

I think the reference to 'Late Corporal' means ex-corporal, as in 'late of Her Majesty's forces', meaning ex-forces, I don't think it means Roy was dead.

I see we are back in the old 'was he, wasn't he' mode regarding Jenkins, even after Julian has done all that research and found proof that Jenkins was indeed at RD. Reading over the threads on Jenkins again, it seems more than obvious that David Jenkins was a defender at RD, and that he has been confused with another Jenkins who was killed in the hospital, and yet another Jenkins killed at iSandlwana.

Guest

Martin

Posts : 588 Join date : 2013-05-07 Location : Brecon

Just to add to the discussion - it is unlikely that the RD bibles were all issued at the same time. It is probable that those for other than members of B Company 2/24th still in South Africa were shipped in bulk to UK (un-named perhaps?) - which includes David Jenkins. My reasons are:

The final parade of 1/24th took place on 26 Aug 1879 in Durban (at this parade Reynolds and Browne received their VCs from Colonel Glyn). Next day the 1st Battalion embarked aboard the transport Egypt for UK - on this date 2nd Battalion (including B Company) was still up country at Utrecht. The 1st Battalion arrived in Portsmouth to be inspected by Duke of Cambridge on 2 Oct 1879.

The 2nd Battalion only reached PMB on 14 Oct 1879 - where they were fated as 'the savers of Natal' and on 21 Oct 1879 they reached Durban. The address from the Mayor of Durban is dated January 1880 - possible parade for distribution of bibles to defenders (less those listed of 2/24th by Dunbar as already returned to UK). The 2nd Battalion arrived in Gibraltar aboard the transport Ontario on 12 Feb 1880.

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

G Company. David Jenkins along with Sgt Wilson, Payton,Edwards,Roy,Desmond. We're assigned to carryout Prisoner escort duties. The Party left Helpmakaar en route to Isandlwana. On arrival there they collected the prisoners then left the forward camp making their way back to Helpmakaar via Rorkes Drift. ( The exact date is unknown ) having reached Rorkes Drift, there return joinery was cut short when Roy was taken ill and admitted to Hospital suffering a bout of Malaria and server eye infection.
On the 22nd Jan Isandlwana was attacked Sgt Wilson, the escort party and the prisoners were stranded at Rorkes Drift.

Source Kris Wheatley, not word for word.

So who were the prisoners! I cannot find any mention of prisoners being at Rorke's Drift during the action. Not one member of those at RD mention them?

Posts : 1261 Join date : 2010-04-12

Why would the whole escort party have stayed, if one man had dropped out ?

Posts : 1603 Join date : 2009-09-21

Chard. The mysteries keep coming?

"
‘There’s A Lot of People Who Say They Were At Rorke’s Drift’
The problems which beset those trying to compile a definitive list of defenders. Ian Knight.

In his seminal work on the rolls of the 24th Regiment at iSandlwana and Rorke’s Drift, The Noble 24th (Savanah Books, 1999), the late Norman Holme observed ruefully that
The defenders of Rorke’s Drift were comparatively few in number, furthermore the garrison mainly consisted of soldiers belonging to one Company of a particular Regiment. On the basis of these facts the accurate identification of the individual men present during the action on 22nd-23rd January 1879 would appear to be a relatively simple task; however, such is not the case.
Indeed, it is not - nor, nearly fifteen years after Holme made that remark, and despite the continuing intense interest in the subject, is the task likely to get any easier.
The fundamental problem lies with the incompleteness of contemporary records. The only valid sources are the rolls compiled by those who were in a position of authority at the time, and, whilst these agree on the majority of those present, there are contradictions, inaccuracies and omissions between them, and the situation is further complicated because it is impossible to arrive at a definitive conclusion on the question of who ought to have been there.
The earliest roll of defenders seems to have been compiled by the senior officer at the action, Lieutenant John Chard of the Royal Engineers. As early as 25 January 1879 - two days after the battle - Chard produced an official report of the battle. This was published in the Natal press as early as 8 February, and in the official British Parliamentary Papers (C 2260) the following month. Chard took great pains to identify and acknowledge the role played by numerous individuals during the defence, and the report included a return listing the numbers of men from the various units present who took part. Clearly, this information could not have been arrived at without drawing up a list of the individuals concerned, although no full roll was included with these first publications. Keen to trace that roll, Holme made a diligent search of various official and private archives but the only surviving document purporting to be a full roll, and signed by Chard, could not be traced back before the 1930s. Moreover, Holme came to the conclusion that this document was most likely a copy, and was perhaps influenced by a veteran of the battle, Bombadier John Cantwell RA, whose widow presented it to the then South Wales Borderers in 1935. Holme offered the opinion that no full roll of the battle had been submitted by Chard to any higher authority with his official report in the immediate aftermath of the battle.
In fact, however, it seems that - whether the 1935 Chard roll was or was not an original document - such a roll did exist, and was compiled, at least on Chard’s authority, shortly after the battle. On 1 April 1879 the Natal Mercury published an account of the battle by ‘An Eyewitness’ (in fact the vicar of Escourt, the Rev. George Smith) which included as an addendum Chard’s report, and with it a full roll of the defenders. With very few minor amendments, this contains the same information as the Chard roll associated with Gunner Cantwell, suggesting that at the very least they had drawn on the same original document. Quite why the roll was not officially published as part of Chard’s report remains unclear, although perhaps in the hurry to send the good news of the defence back to London an abbreviated return was all that was considered necessary. As Holme also noted, proof that a roll had been compiled at the time of the battle was further afforded by a the publication in the Natal Colonist of 15 January 1880 of a roll of the members of the 2/24th present at the battle and signed by Lt. Colonel Dunbar, who was a veteran of the campaign and was then commanding the 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment. This roll had been compiled in connection with a presentation to the defenders by the Mayor of Durban; it did, however, only list men of the 2nd Battalion, and no mention was made of members of other units who were present. Even
so, Holme noted that where relevant the information it contained was identical to that in the Chard roll. These two mentions in the Natal press confirm that a roll was in existence and was available to the senior military at the time, regardless of whether the surviving Chard roll is a copy or not.
Of course, Lt. Chard would not have been able to complete such a roll without assistance, although as senior officer it would have been his duty to approve, sign and submit it. Chard himself had not arrived at Rorke’s Drift - as the commander of an advanced detachment of No 5 Field Company, RE - until 19 January, and whilst he would undoubtedly have met most of his fellow officers stationed there over the next few days, it is highly unlikely that he would have been familiar with the other ranks. Indeed, since Chard and his men had camped down by the river crossing, in order to affect repairs on the over-worked pont, it’s very probable Chard had had very little to do with the ordinary soldiers of the garrison at all prior to the battle. Any roll signed by him must, therefore, have depended heavily on those who did. It’s probable that the other officers present - Lt. Bromhead, who commanded B Company of the 2/24th, Acting Assistant Commissary James Dalton and Surgeon James Henry Reynolds - were able to provide some details of the men under their command, but the attempted thoroughness of the roll hints at the participation of a good NCO.
The most obvious candidate in this regard is Col. Sergeant Frank Bourne, the senior NCO of B Company who knew his men well. Holme, however, was of the opinion that Bourne was an unlikely contributor to the Chard roll because in later years he produced a roll of his own - which is, indeed, the second of the only two contemporary rolls in existence. Holme felt that this would have been a pointless duplication of effort on his behalf, and that - given that in some cases he arrived at different conclusions to Chard - it might even have amounted to a contradiction of earlier work. Yet this is not necessarily the case; being asked to provide help as a young sergeant in the immediate aftermath of an engagement is not the same as attempting to provide a considered document under more mature circumstances years later. Nor was the storage and distribution of information the simple matter then that it is now - Bourne apparently did not have access to any surviving copy of the Chard roll in later life, and may simply decided to draw up a new one from scratch. In addition, the Bourne roll - which is dated 4 July 1910 - was apparently compiled ‘By Special Request’. By whom it was requested Holme was unable to determine - but that request might in itself have been sufficient to prompt Bourne to revisit the task. Among the sources used by Bourne were the Regimental pay rolls. Intriguingly, Holme noted that Bourne’s original roll, while particularly strong, as might be expected, with regard to the men of the 2/24th, whom he knew personally, was less comprehensive otherwise than the Chard roll. In 1937, C.T. Atkinson, however, published his history of The South Wales Borderers , 24th Foot, 1689-1937. This included a facsimile of the copy of the Chard roll, then in the Regimental collection. The publication of this roll seems to have prompted Bourne to return to his personal copy of his own roll, marking each of the names where he was in agreement, and adding most - but not all - of the names he had previously omitted. Thus the two authoritative rolls support one another since, as Holme put it, ‘the Chard roll had finally been examined by a known and extremely well qualified authority’.
And upon these two rolls all attempts to decide the identities of the men present at Rorke’s Drift depend. The problem is, of course, that neither one is flawless, and there remain differences between them. Thus, for example, the Chard roll lists Pte. Charles Bromwich as being present but Bourne replaces him with Pte. 1524 Joseph Bromwich whom, in the light of the pay rolls, Holme agreed was the more likely candidate. Bourne’s original roll included three men (Privates W. Buck, P. Caine and T.Williams) who had served with B Company, but in fact these men had been sent to the Depot in Pietermaritzburg at the end of October 1878 and had not rejoined the company - and do not appear on the Chard roll. Private 1374 J. Williams was included on Bourne’s original roll but had been imprisoned from 13 October 1878 and not released until 1 February 1879, after the battle was over. As Holme noted, individual soldier’s papers were sometimes helpful in resolving these discrepancies, and sometimes not; while some papers mentioned the subject’s participation in Rorke’s Drift, many more did not, and the absence of specific mention of the battle does not by any means suggest that the subject did not take part.
It’s worth noting that both rolls have an inevitable bias towards the fixed garrison at the
post. Chard’s limited knowledge of the members of the garrison has been already noted, although by drawing on others he was presumably able to rectify this to some extent. Bourne would have been intimately acquainted with men of his own Regiment and quite probably acquired a working knowledge of the men from other units left or posted there too. Yet the garrison was by no means static, and there is at least a hypothetical chance that men who were passing through on the 22nd January, and who found themselves caught up in the battle, were missed off the roll because they were not personally known to anyone in authority present, and their presence was largely missed in the excitement.
This does not generally apply to survivors from iSandlwana, whose arrival and departure was noted by several observers after the event. Nonetheless, Rorke’s Drift was merely a point on the lines of communication, and under normal circumstances any number of men might be expected to be moving forward to join the column, or back down the road to Helpmekaar. Lieutenant Smith-Dorrien, the column’s junior transport officer, had arrived from iSandlwana shortly after dawn with orders for Durnford’s column - then camped on the Zulu bank of the river - to move forward, and Smith-Dorrien had visited the mission station to chat with Lt. Bromhead before riding back to the column, arriving - famously - shortly before the battle began. Chard himself had gone forward to iSandlwana that morning with the Sappers under his command, only to return again, leaving them there, having reassured himself that his personal duties related to the pont. On hearing of the Zulu movements at iSandlwana, Major Spalding - who was in command of the line of communication - decided to ride to Helpmekaar two hurry up two companies of the 24th who had been due forward, but not yet arrived, but left behind his clerk, Col. Sgt. Mabin, at Rorke’s Drift. The civilian vicar of Escourt in Natal, the Rev. George Smith, was on his way forward to join the column but had got no further than Rorke’s Drift. There was, in short, a good deal of routine traffic up and down the road that day, and for those moving along it chance alone largely dictated whether they were present at the post when the battle unfolded. It is not inconceivable, therefore, that some individuals found themselves present but slipped through the net when it came to recording their presence.
Is that why, then, so many men claimed to have been at Rorke’s Drift when in fact they were not? Even there, the issue is not quite as simple as it may seem.
Some of those - and in fairness, probably just a small minority - who claimed to be there, but who can now be proved conclusively not to have been, were simply liars. In an age when news travelled infinitely more slowly than it does today, and when people travelled slower still, there was very little chance of anyone making false claims being either publicly denounced or being confronted by someone who knew better, and there must have been many old soldiers who succumbed now and then to the comparatively innocent temptation to cadge a few free drinks on the basis that ‘I was at Rorke’s Drift, you know’. One or two more extreme cases are on record, such as the soldier in uniform trotted out in 1919 by African Film Productions to endorse their silent epic - the first feature film ever made about the Anglo-Zulu War - Symbol of Sacrifice. This man claimed to be a veteran of the battle named Jones who had, no less, won the Victoria Cross at Rorke’s Drift - despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that the only two men of that name who did, Robert Jones and William Jones, were both dead by that point. Whether this man had any actual experience of the Anglo-Zulu War is unknown - if he did, as a veteran, it would probably have been quite easy for him to produce convincing stories of the war, and even of the battle - the outline of which was well known, even by that time - for the benefit of audiences who knew no better.
For many of those who claimed to have been at Rorke’s Drift, however, the situation was more complex. In an interview given to The Cape Times in January 1914, George Mabin - Spalding’s clerk, who had been present at the battle as a Colour-Sergeant in the ‘Staff of the Army’ - observed ‘You see, son, there’s a lot of people who say they were at Rorke’s Drift during the Zulu War. They probably were - months after the battle..’ Indeed, not months but hours after - and many hundreds of men, for of course the remnants of Lord Chelmsford’s command had returned to the post from Zululand early on the morning after the battle. While Chelmsford himself rode on almost immediately to deal with the political and military consequences of the defeat at iSandlwana, his troops were left at Rorke’s Drift to provide a bastion against further Zulu attack. Most of them were still there several miserable weeks later, and many indeed remained there for months. They had arrived in the immediate aftermath of the battle, when the ruins of the hospital building were still smoking, and when wounded Zulus still lay scattered around the post. They took part in the grim task of despatching those wounded, burying the dead and clearing away the debris of battle, and they were condemned to sleep out night after night in the confines of what had been the defended perimeter. They would have formed intense and lasting impressions of their own experiences, and they stood the chance of hearing detailed first-hand impressions from the survivors of the garrison. This was probably particularly true of the men of the 2/24th, who formed the bulk of Chelmsford’s command, and who were, of course, part of the same battalion as B Company. Many of them would have known the men of B Company well, and it is impossible to think that they did not hear first-hand stories of the fight themselves. Chelmsford’s men may not have been at the defence but they were indeed at Rorke’s Drift, and they provided a crucial part of the story - of the post’s relief. Perhaps a few of them were tempted over the years to embellish their role, but more likely such stories had produced an inevitable confusion in the minds of those who heard them, and had led to the impression that the old soldiers who told them had been present at the battle itself. Today, generations later, this still leads to confusion when the descendants of those who were with Chelmsford’s force still cling to the inherited impression that their ancestor had been involved in the battle itself. Yet, if he had not, his experiences were worthy of recognition in themselves, and should not be dismissed lightly.
Finally, there is a small category of individuals for whom there is some circumstantial evidence that they were present at the battle - but who are not mentioned on the surviving rolls. One such is Private 25B/295 David Jenkins of the 1st 24th, whose family are mounting a gallant action to have him confirmed as a defender.
Certainly there was at least one Jenkins at Rorke’s Drift - although Holme noted some confusion regarding exactly who he was. The Chard roll lists Pte 1083 Watkin Jenkins of the 1/24th but
... The man is frequently mis-named ‘Matthew Jenkins’, and in his roll Bourne lists him as ‘M. Jenkins - Killed in action’. In actual fact he was killed at Isandhlwana and not at Rorke’s Drift. It appears that Bourne confused him with 841 Private James Jenkins, 1/24t, who was killed at Rorke’s Drift.
There are, however, anomalies regarding the role of James Jenkins. In his letter to Queen Victoria describing the fight, Chard recalled that,
While I was intently watching to get a fair shot at a Zulu who appeared to be firing rather well, Private Jenkins, 24th, saying look out Sir, gave my head a duck down just as a bullet whizzed over it. He had noticed a Zulu who was quite near in another direction, taking deliberate aim at me. For all the man could have known, the shot might have been directed at himself. I mention these facts to show how well the men behaved and how loyally worked together.
In his account ‘By An Eyewitness’, however, the Rev. George Smith, described how the defenders of the hospital had knocked holes through the interior partitions to effect an escape and ‘one poor fellow, Jenkins, venturing through one of these, was also seized and dragged away’.
It is difficult to reconcile these accounts. If Jenkins was a patient in the hospital, and was killed as he tried to escape - by implication never surviving to fight on the outside barricades - at what point did he ‘duck’ Chard’s head? Chard himself certainly did not fight in the hospital, whilst the anecdote regarding his Jenkins clearly relates to fighting over the open barricade.
One possibility, of course, is that either Chard or Smith was confused in describing the man they referred to as Jenkins - an easy enough mistake in the chaos of battle. Another - and this despite the fact that neither the Chard nor Bourne rolls list any other Jenkins - is that there was another man of that name present at the fight. A clue as to who this second Jenkins might have been is given in a report published in The Times in October 1879 -
The hired transport Egypt ...arrived at Spithead at 8 o’clock yesterday morning, with the 1st Battalion 24th Regiment, invalids and time-expired men from South Africa ... The individual officers who took passage are Major J.R.M. Chard, RE, VC, and Surgeon-Major Reynolds, VC, the heroes of Rorke’s Drift... Among the men of the 1st Battalion of the 24th who disembarked were Sergeant Wilson, Lance-Corporal Roy, and Privates Desmond, Payton and Jenkins, who had been to the rear with prisoners, and who returned in time to join with B Company of the 2nd Battalion in the defence of Rorke’s Drift.
Furthermore, the Record of Service of the 1st Btn. 24th (now in the Museum, Brecon), lists a number of men of the battalion who were present at Rorke’s Drift, including ‘Private D. Jenkins’. This is an apparent reference to Private 295 David Jenkins who left a letter, later published in the Merthyr Express, in which he refers to both iSandlwana and Rorke’s Drift without specifically placing himself at either. Indeed, he merely remarks that ‘I am one of the ten that escaped out of the five companies ... Oh I never saw such a sight’. There is no independent reference to him having been present in the battle at iSandlwana and having escaped, however, nor is this realistically possible since no infantryman of the 24th on foot survived the battle. It is possible to attribute too much weight to phrases such as ‘I escaped the battle‘ because many men considered themselves ‘survivors’ who should have been in the camp but were lucky enough for some reason to be elsewhere when the attack developed on the grounds that they had ‘escaped‘ a fate which otherwise they would not - similar phrases occur frequently in the accounts of the men of the 2nd Battalion who had marched out that morning with Lord Chelmsford. Moreover, the comment that Jenkins ‘never saw such a sight’ is worth noting; it, too, is similar to comments from Chelmsford’s men, who of course returned to the camp and witnessed the devastation after the event. It is a phrase which certainly implies first-hand experience of the battlefield - an experience Jenkins could not have acquired were he at Rorke’s Drift at the time. If, however, Jenkins was present with Chelmsford’s force a new mystery arises since the company to which he was attached - Captain Rainforth’s G Company, 1/24th - certainly was not.
There was, however, undeniably some movement of small groups of men or individuals between the various elements of the column, much of it unrecorded, and the alternative story offered by The Times report - that David Jenkins was part of a party of prisoners under guard - is not inherently implausible. Whilst this report has often been taken as referring to Zulu prisoners it is probable, given that there had been no armed encounters with the Zulus since the attack on Sihayo’s homestead eight days earlier - before the column had advanced to iSandlwana - that they were in fact Army defaulters. Indeed, David Jenkins’ own military record was by no means unblemished, and it is even possible he was one of those under escort rather than on escort duty. The Times report implies, however, that Jenkins was returning to iSandlwana rather than going in the opposite direction but whilst this is consistent with the idea of his returning to the column from some detached duty it conflicts with the fact that Rainforth’s company was one of those still at Helpmekaar. It was not, however, unknown for men to be removed from their companies for other duties - Holme points out that four men of B Company, 2/24th, were unfortunate enough to be ahead of their company, and were at iSandlwana whilst their comrades were still at Rorke‘s Drift - and were killed in the battle there.
Jenkins’ Army papers make no mention of his presence at Rorke’s Drift - but nor do those of many confirmed participants. As further corroboration of his family’s claim, David Jenkins was in possession of the Bible presented by well-wishers to survivors of the battle in Durban, and indeed his copy, with the presentation inscription naming him, is now in the Brecon museum. Since such presentations - including that of the address given by the Mayor of Durban, for which the Dunbar roll was compiled - were given by civilians on the basis of information supplied by the military, there is, of course, a considerable margin for error, especially given the confusion already noted about the identity of the Jenkins (singular or plural!) present at Rorke’s Drift. Holme, for example, points out that Pte. 25B/953 Frederick Evans, who was serving with the Mounted Infantry and was a survivor of iSandlwana, received the Mayoral address despite very clear indications that, although he had ridden past the post at Rorke’s Drift and stopped to warn the garrison, he had not stayed to assist in the defence. Nonetheless, if David Jenkins was taking advantage of the confusion to claim credit to which he was not properly entitled, he certainly displayed some nerve, not least in travelling back to England on the same steamer with the very men from Rorke’s Drift who were in a position to challenge him. Always assuming, of course, that he did make such a claim - one that he certainly did not make in his letters home just a few days after the event.
Moreover, David Jenkins was apparently among those soldiers who modelled for Lady Butler for her famous painting of the battle, and is identified as ‘Jenkins’ in one of her preliminary sketches; whilst this might seem an unlikely and vulnerable position for a man perpetuating a lie to willingly place himself in, there is no contemporary confirmation that Jenkins identified himself to the artist as anything other than a soldier of the 24th recently returned from Zululand.
The sad truth is that, whilst David Jenkins’ case appears stronger than many others who claimed to be at the defence, it is unlikely ever to be satisfactorily resolved. In the absence of any complete and wholly reliable record, flawed and potentially incomplete as they are, the Chard and Bourne rolls remain the only viable touchstone for confirming an individual’s presence at the battle, and there exists ultimately no other way of definitively proving or disproving it - and under the circumstances a modern historian would be wise to resist the urge to shoe-horn such individuals into firm categories. Tempting as it is to mark them up either as ‘he was there’ or ‘he wasn’t there’, the fact remains some such cases can only accurately be filed under ‘maybe he was, and maybe he wasn’t’.
Frustrating as it may be, many an attempt to validate an individual’s participation at Rorke’s Drift is likely to get no further than a brutal truth - that ‘he is not on the rolls’.
Notes
Norman Holme’s The Noble 24th remains an important starting point regarding the records of the men of the 24th who fought at iSandlwana and Rorke’s Drift. Julian Whybra’s England’s Sons (GIFT Ltd, 2004) offers a carefully considered and updated roll of the defenders of Rorke’s Drift and comments regarding the individuals who survived iSandlwana. Rorke’s Drift, By Those Who Were There, by Alan Bayham Jones and Lee Stevenson (Lee Stevenson Publishing, 2003) is an invaluable compendium of eye-witness accounts."

Posts : 558 Join date : 2012-05-05

Did Roy leave an account, letter?

Posts : 1603 Join date : 2009-09-21

There's nothing on the forum!

How do we know, they were prisoner escorts? What documention is there to show this?

Guest

All good stuff! this refuses to go away for some!
dredging up old news! it really is groundhog day!
Staying with Julian! he has shown consistent
solid methodical research ending with with over-
whelming acceptance with those who have eyes
to see, the signature aspect in the end was a
sideshow, which proved mildly diverting in this
other wise grey featureless landscape which we
call winter in england..however you detractors, if
you are right or wrong, Jenkins deserves maximum
respect. defender or not..i say yes.

Les, you only have to read the previous threads on David Jenkins, the proof of him being a defender at RD is all there. Julian has done some great research (which is always methodical), and he has virtually proved that DJ was at RD. I also believe that David Jenkins deserves his new headstone and his place on the RD defenders roll of honour, and like you mate, I too feel that he deserves our respect, as do all who have, and those who still wear the uniform and defend our country.

Guest

Guest

841 private Jenkins James 1877/8/9
killed in action at Rorkes Drift, effect's
claimed by his father under e/7748/2a
agl 79. he was a patient in the hospital
and was killed by the Zulus when he
stuck his head through one of the
' escape holes ' that had been made in
the partition walls of the hospital,
Chard gives this man as being killed at
Rorkes Drift, and also lists 1083 private
Jenkins as a survivor. Bourne omits 841
Jenkins from his roll, but names 1083
M Jenkins as killed. it appears that
correctly 1083 ( real name Watkin )
Jenkins was killed at Isandhlwana. James
Jenkins is buried in the cemetery at
Rorkes Drift and his name appears on
the monument.

Posts : 558 Join date : 2012-05-05

He's just not on the Roll Call, it that simple.

Martin, you have repeated what Les said. scratch

Subject: Pte James Jenkins ' forgotten ' survivor of RD Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:24 am

Ulundi if you look at one of my posts yesterday you'll see Jenkins , both of them , are on a roll , which was used at the 1880
exhibition of de Neuville . I noticed today that de Neuville died in 1885 ! . Glad he got the painting done Salute

90th

Ulundi,

Ulundi wrote:: He's just not on the Roll Call, it that simple.

What Roll Call are you referring to?

Thanks in anticipation,

John Y.

Posts : 558 Join date : 2012-05-05

By what I can see, there is no correct information on any of the rolls ( Apart for the museum makeup roll) that shows Jenkins as being at Rorkes drift. The fact many say Jenkins number is in correct is neither near or there. There is no military documention that puts him at RD. If it was that simple, this discussion would have ended ages ago.

Guest

why cant it just end now! Jenkins
has been accepted by
the people that count ie, family and
Regiment! and solid research has gone
more then the proverbial extra mile
which leaves most intelligent thinkers
to conclude on the balance of prob-
abilitys that Jenkins inclusion is right
and even desirable. and is it not time
to say to detractors..enough you have
had more than your say..democracy it
is then!

Posts : 747 Join date : 2009-10-18

Les don't get involved just sit back and watch, can't see this ending soon! Neutral

Good advice Mr G, Les.................chill bro. Its not about Jenkins anymore !

Shocked

Guest

k am chilled Salute

Last edited by Julian Whybra on Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:15 pm; edited 1 time in total

Chard1879

I changed my mind and decided to summarize for you all the evidence, most of it newly-found, relating to Jenkins’s presence at RD. Only then will you be aware of the huge volume of primary sources which prove his participation and the huge gaps in your knowledge will be filled such that you can properly participate in the discussion.

1. Chard’s Official Report at the end) published in the Natal press on 8th February and in the Government’s Blue Books the following month.

Compiled 25th January-3rd February 1879. States there were 8 (unnamed) surviving and 3 kia 1/24th RD defenders. 11 in total.

2. Western Mail 6.3.79 and 21.3.79; Merthyr Express 22.3.79; Y Gwladarwr 28.3.79; Brecon County Times 26.4.79

Jenkins’s three letters from Zululand 18.1.79, 28.1.79, 11.3.79: taken together they demonstrate his progress from Natal to Isandhlwana and back again with the escort party and explain how he ended up at RD

3. Natal Mercury 7.4.79

‘Smith’ Roll published which names Jenkins as one of the eight surviving 1/24th defenders.

4. The Times 10.6.79

Time-expired 2/24th men return home on 9th June, including several RD men, one of whom, Waters, furnishes “the complete roll of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who were present at the defence of Rorke’s Drift on the 22nd January.” The ‘Waters’ Roll names Jenkins as one of the eight surviving 1/24th defenders.

5. The Times 3.10.79; The Hampshire Advertiser County Newspaper 4.10.79

Jenkins & other defenders arrive home. Jenkins named alongside Chard & others and singled out as one of the escort party, the exploits of which are described; he is introduced with other defenders to royalty.

6. Aldershot Military Gazette 11.10.79

Members of the regiment presented to royalty including Fitzmaurice (Ulundi), Wilson (Isandhlwana) and four RD survivors from the 1/24th including David Jenkins who are feted.

7. Monmouthshire Merlin and South Wales Advertiser 5.12.79

Newspaper report states that only RD defenders were being used to pose for Lady Butler’s painting.

8. Chard’s Account of RD for Queen Victoria 21.2.80

Jenkins’s role in the defence mentioned twice in separate incidents (not to be confused with those anecdotes of the other Jenkins kia): (a) behaviour and conduct under fire commended (b) saving Chard’s life with shouted warning.

9. Unveiling of de Neuville’s painting of RD at Fine Art Society Galleries 11.3.80

Catalogue contains a complete roll of defenders – the ‘Fine Art’ Roll - which names Jenkins as one of the eight surviving 1/24th defenders.

10. Records of the 1/24th compiled datable to 7th June 1881 to 16th August 1882

Includes a list of 1/24th participants at RD and names Pte. D. Jenkins as one of them.

11. South Wales Daily Post 17.7.1900

Publication of Lady Butler’s letter to Jenkins referring to him as an RD defender and thanking him for posing.

12. South Wales Daily Post 20.7.1904; Swansea and Glamorgan Herald of Wales 23.7.1904

Jenkins introduced to the king by Lady Butler’s husband as an RD defender and posing mentioned.

13. David Jenkins’s obituary South Wales Daily Post and Swansea and Glamorgan Herald and Herald of Wales 20th August 1912

Reference made to RD participation, meetings with royalty, posing for Lady Butler.

14. 1929 50th anniversary commemoration

Cantwell’s ‘Chard’ Roll appears and was subsequently published in Atkinson’s Regimental History. Jenkins is named as one of the eight surviving 1/24th soldiers.

All the above are independently verifiable, cross-refer and corroborate one another This is without mentioning the RD Bible and other occasions where Jenkins is mentioned as an RD survivor (South Wales Daily Post, 24th December 1900; The Cambrian, Friday 17th March 1905).

Posts : 1261 Join date : 2010-04-12

Julian what list are you talking about. Did I post one on another thread. Or am I going mad?

Chard1879

Yesterday at 5.50 you posted to me "What list of evidence would that be?" So, I've posted it for you.

Posts : 1093 Join date : 2009-01-14 Location : East London

impi wrote:: G Company. David Jenkins along with Sgt Wilson, Payton,Edwards,Roy,Desmond. We're assigned to carryout Prisoner escort duties. The Party left Helpmakaar en route to Isandlwana. On arrival there they collected the prisoners then left the forward camp making their way back to Helpmakaar via Rorkes Drift. ( The exact date is unknown ) having reached Rorkes Drift, there return joinery was cut short when Roy was taken ill and admitted to Hospital suffering a bout of Malaria and server eye infection.
On the 22nd Jan Isandlwana was attacked Sgt Wilson, the escort party and the prisoners were stranded at Rorkes Drift.

Source Kris Wheatley, not word for word.

So who were the prisoners! I cannot find any mention of prisoners being at Rorke's Drift during the action. Not one member of those at RD mention them?

This is puzzling me? I cannot find any mention of prisoners being at or taken back to Rorkes Drift. Chard and Bromhead makes no mention of them, nor does anyone else. We're they British Prisoners or Zulu. scratch

» Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records
» PTE DAVID JENKINS vs Pte J edmund Jenkins
» David Jenkins topic locked.