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

Yes thank you Julian, i was aware of that. my
intention was to show that even the NAM
perpetuated myths. that from 'Ashes and Blood'
NAM 1999.

Indeed, the blind leading the blind!  And there are none so blind as those that cannot see (except perhaps those that won't see).

Julian you look, but do not see! You hear but not listen. There are still many unanswered questions.

Is this not just an illustration sketch on the holding of a rifle.

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

from that sketch she created this.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

completely different angle.

The green arrow, show the defender holding a rifle, wrapped in hide.

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


The image below, shows a hand holding a rifle wrapped in hide, taken from the Jenkins sketch. Yet it doe's not show Jenkins holding the rifle like this in the original painting?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That is such a pathetic piece of rebuttal, dear oh dear.   

Springbok If everyone agreed, with each other there wouldn't be any discussions.

I made one comment, regarding the Jenkins artical posted by LIttlehand. And get told, I'm not entitled to the facts.   

John
Name one unanswered question.

Mr Greaves
You wrote:
""I remember him well", is a bold statement to make even 30 years after the event, and then getting the details wrong."
It is precisely the sort of statement a man suffering with Jenkins's condition would make.
This is not a case of people agreeing 'with me'; it is one of people agreeing with the historical evidence - 'the facts' - that is why I wrote to you that you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to the facts, and then listed them. Apologies if you took it personally; it wasn't so intended.

JW wrote:

It is precisely the sort of statement a man suffering with Jenkins's condition would make.

Julian, what was David Jenkins condition, when he quote that statement in the artical posted by LH.

Ulundi, Julian will be unable to say, as he has no hard evidence of Jenkins condition at that stage in his life?

Mr G, I made no such comment to you, or in fact to anyone. And of course I fully agree on the right of debate, however If your outside and sopping wet with water dripping down your neck its odds on your standing in the rain !
There has been so much evidence produced to support the contention of Jenkins presence. The only arguments against have been on the most insignificant aspects. I have yet to see an argument based on a logical repudiation of the facts as a complete package.
I haven't accepted Julians argument on the basis that HE produced it. I researched every single point he made with the object of attempting to debunk the theory, and couldn't. On that basis I accepted as fact David Jenkins being at RD.
I would suggest that other forum members do the same and take a holistic view rather than looking at points in isolation.
In regards to the comments by 24th, I collect sketches, I do own two by Lady Butler, I also own sketches that were concepts for more fuller works by the artist. Some of which are very dissimilar from the final product. To try and use that very artistic exploration of preliminary sketching to cast doubt on the veracity of the abundance of qualified evidence is nothing short of purile.

Regards

Springboks says:
I haven't accepted Julians argument on the basis that HE produced it. I researched every single point he made with the object of attempting to debunk the theory, and couldn't. On that basis I accepted as fact David Jenkins being at RD.Regards[/quote]

A historian / specialist expert approach. Certainly,the only way for a serious and well informed debate. 

Ulundi

I cannot possibly know what Jenkins was like medically on a certain Monday in 1905.  All I can say is that, like Parkinson’s, hemiplegia was worse at some times than others, was progressive in its severity, and would eventually kill him.  Increasing mental confusion is a feature of the illness.

Let’s look at the exact wording included in Hook’s obituary:

“SWANSEA VETERAN RECALLS HIM.                                                                                      
Mr. David Jenkins, who is employed at the Swansea Corporation Yard, is a survivor of the historic Rorke's Drift fight, and to him a ‘Post’ man repaired on Monday.
‘Oh, yes,’ responded the ex-24th hero; ‘I remember Hook well; but he was not in my battalion. I was in the 1st, and he was a private in the ‘B’ Company of the second 24th.  I recollect now,’ continued the veteran, reflectively, ‘that he was on the roof doing his bit towards keeping off the Zulus. We had, as you know, 27 out of 128 killed, but accounted for over 800 of the enemy. No, he wasn’t wounded; but he got his V.C. all right, and well he deserved it.  A quiet fellow, but a good fighter. But, there, we all had to fight!’ ”                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                               
Jenkins says that he remembers Hook well but
"he was not in my battalion" – CORRECT

"I was in the 1st, and he was a private in the ‘B’ Company of the second 24th" – CORRECT

"I recollect now,’ continued the veteran, reflectively, ‘that he was on the roof doing his bit towards keeping off the Zulus." – INCORRECT

"We had, as you know, 27 out of 128 killed" – INCORRECT

"but accounted for over 800 of the enemy" – UNLIKELY BUT A SUITABLY LARGE NUMBER

"No, he wasn’t wounded" – NOT SUCH THAT HE APPEARED IN THE CASUALTY ROLL

"but he got his V.C. all right" – CORRECT

"A quiet fellow" - PERHAPS

Jenkins’s 1st battalion escort party had arrived at RD a few days before the action.  There is no reason to suggest that these men had ever met any of the 2nd battalion men before socially let alone militarily.  There is no evidence to show that Jenkins ever met (or corresponded with) Hook (or Hitch) again after the Zulu War.  

In 1905, Jenkins, almost 60 years old, had clearly partly confused Hook with Hitch in this report.  After 27 years he is approached by a man from the ‘Post’ on his doorstep, told of Hook’s death, and asked for any recollections for Hook’s obituary.  His comments were not being made for posterity, for inclusion in a definitive historical record of RD events; he was caught on the hoof by a newspaper reporter.  And he was suffering from hemiplegia, one of the symptoms of which is mental confusion and memory loss.

The nearest experience I have of this is regarding a particular event in my own history.  At the height of The Troubles I was caught in a bomb blast.  I happened to be on a week’s residential course at the time and had formed a particular friendship with three other blokes of the same age.  As you do on such occasions, you quickly learn names, where they’re from, and brief backgrounds in order to be sociable.  On the second or third evening we went for a drink and were in a bar when the explosion happened.  I have a five-second slow-motion mental image of what happened when the explosion occurred burned in my head and recall lying on the floor, seeing the bloke next to me, dazed with uniform covered in dust, and watching the barman emerge from behind the bar.  Miraculously, none of us were injured.  At the time I made a statement although I don’t have a copy of it and I never kept a note of what happened in my diary.  I never met the three blokes again after that week.  Now in 2014, I can’t recall whether two or three of them were with me, can’t recall their names or what they looked like, nor anything about them, except I remember well that the bloke next to me on the floor had red hair, a moustache, and came from Yorkshire.  So, if you were to ask me about it now, I couldn’t tell you much.  If I had access to my original statement or met one of the blokes again and shared memories I would no doubt be able to have my memory jogged.  But if you questioned me now, with a view to putting it in a history, I would make mistakes.  And I’m not suffering from hemiplegia.

The comments re Jenkins made based on this single newspaper report from the end of Jenkins’s life are unfair and unwarranted considering the mass of contemporary and near-contemorary evidence now available.  This is particularly so when they come from people who’ve not read that evidence.  It is simply unacceptable to make criticisms like ‘Jenkins’s name does not appear on any roll’ when it does.  I don’t mind constructive criticism at all, in fact I welcome it, but when critics haven’t even read the evidence properly or understood the arguments, it makes the whole idea of a ‘discussion’ forum pointless.

Julian, you have the patience of a saint,
why bother responding, those that count
salute your out standing research and do
agree with out equivocation that Jenkin's
was indeed a defender of the mission station!

your detractors are the same people time and
time again.shame on them, there agenda
remains obscure to me!

Les have you managed to figure out the 'tour' as yet?

Cheers

Yes Frank, but i still cant get my head around it!
some folks on here may have guessed i'm a bit of
a technophobe to say the least! but navigating the
virtual tours of Isandhlwana and Rorkes Drift was
an absulute doddle to do! the photography is just
so damn good and the definition is excellent, as i
stroll around the batlefield i can see details i never
imagined, such as the texture of the craggy mount
which is so detailed i felt i could reach out and just
pluck a bunch of grass!. the tour has a very natural
flow to it. i dont need to go there now! you have
brought it all to us!

Son number three has got the latest i phone, and so
he has kindly given me his cast off. lol. but it is a
smart phone, so i'm getting used to sliding and pinch-
ing at the mo..will download the app when i know what
i'm doing.

Thanks Julian. The reason I asked, is that my Grandfather suffered from Dementia in his early 70s. He could not remember what happened 10 minutes ago, by could clearly recollect what happen 30 years ago.

Ulundi
You're welcome, a sensible question deserves a sensible answer. Dementia of course isn't hemiplegia but from what I've read over the last few days about hemiplegia - it is mental confusion that is a feature in the early stages of the illness which then increases with time.
I have no idea when Jenkins first began to suffer with this but he died in 1912, the interview was in 1905, and generally the illness takes around 10 years before it kills its victim.

Hi All,
This subject of mental capacity affecting recall of past events was quite real amongst most survivors of traumatic events
particularly so if advancing age and associated normal decay of functions came into play. There is another  condition referred to as  selective remembering for those wishing to forget past ugly incidents
Specificaly, not  having heard it used  before I  looked up the term hemi-plegia in Arthur S Rebers  " Dictionary of Psychology"
and he lists it as being a condition where neural damage  from a partial stroke which affects the brain function, has taken place.
Dementia, on the other hand, is something else and manifests itself quite early in life and normally  has a fatal outcome. In todays terminology, this is Alzheimers.

regards

barry

JW. You don't seem to have a Military connection to David Jenkins being a RD. Its all Newspapers, personal letters, and Lady Butler. Are you able to show any other defender naming "David Jenkins" RD events. reunions ect.

All of the information regarding Jenkins being at RD actually comes from himself.


What was Jenkins movements during the days leading up to the 22nd Jan.

Chard easy question to answer. Chard, twice.
Then look at the Regimental Records: The Records of 1/24th 1689-1905, hand written records of the men.
Then look at all the other points raised.
While your doing that you will see where Jenkins was.

Cheers

Chard says "Jenkins" there was more than one Jenkins at RD

"The records you mention are not 100% credible as it records events that was compiled years after, as indicated by Martins favourite regiment "SWB" mentioned in the signature"

PS Get Well Soon!!!  

Thanks Chard, right now bored out of my mind.
Have a careful look a few pages back at Julians list of evidence, also my tongue in cheek photos showing how the 'other' Jenkins would have had to run to get to Chard. Tongue in cheek, but very accurate.

Cheers

Chard1879 wrote:

JW. You don't seem to have a Military connection to David Jenkins being a RD. Its all Newspapers, personal letters, and Lady Butler. Are you able to show any other defender naming "David Jenkins" RD events. reunions ect.

All of the information regarding Jenkins being at RD actually comes from himself.


What was Jenkins movements during the days leading up to the 22nd Jan.

Not saying this is the Jenkins inquestion? But if it is, it's puts him in Helpmaarker on the 18th Jan 1879.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Source: The Weekly Mail Saturday March 8th 1879

Hi Littlehand,
Thanks for posting that interesting newspaper article reporting the puported presence of David Jenkins at Helpmekaar prior to the battle.
Whether it was the correct Jenkins  or not, may remain a question for some, but what can definitely be confirmed is that there was a severe electrical thunderstorm , typical of the summer season, at Helpmekaar on the night of 11/01/1879 ( as per the news article).This was the night before the action at Sirayo's kraal.
Here's what another trooper who was also at Helpmekaar that night,  had to say, inter alia,  in his diary about that  storm;

11 January 1879 ;

....Immediatley on arrival in camp (Helpmekaar) I was warned for guard duty and at about 8pm a terrific thunderstorm came on which blew tents down and made us all very uncomfortable.

The above excerpt was  a verbatim transcript from NMP Tpr Clarke's diary, Vol 1/9  page 19.

118 NMP troopers,  drawn from the southern Natal districts, under Insp Mansel , had arrived in Helpmekaar a few days earlier and had spent the day of the 11/01 reconnoitering in the nearby hills for enemy activity.

regards

barry

.

barry wrote:

Hi Littlehand,
Thanks for posting that interesting newspaper article  reporting the puported presence of David Jenkins at Helpmekaar prior to the battle.
Whether it was the correct Jenkins  or not, may remain a question for some, but what can definitely be confirmed is that there was a severe electrical thunderstorm , typical of the summer season, at Helpmekaar on the night of 11/01/1879 ( as per the news article).This was the night before the action at Sirayo's kraal.
Here's what another trooper who was also at Helpmekaar that night,  had to say, inter alia,  in his diary about that  storm;

11 January 1879 ;

....Immediatley on arrival in camp (Helpmekaar) I was warned for guard duty and at about 8pm a terrific thunderstorm came on which blew tents down and made us all very uncomfortable.

The above excerpt was  a verbatim transcript from NMP Tpr Clarke's diary, Vol 1/9  page 19.

118 NMP troopers,  drawn from the southern Natal districts, under Insp Mansel , had arrived in Helpmekaar a few days earlier and had spent the day of the 11/01 reconnoitering in the nearby hills for enemy activity.

regards

barry

.

   Your Welcome.

I don't think the video on the home page, is appropriate just yet!   

Come on John, how much more proof do you need to have before you realise that Pte David Jenkins was indeed a hero of RD. Just look back through the thread, there is lots of evidence that many have posted, and Julian has provided much evidence to show that David was there.

Both Bill and Martin at the museum have accepted that David was there, they are both honourable men and would not just put his name down on the list on their own accord, they would be ostracized if they had just done it on a whim.

I was looking in at 'the other place' (rdvc), the other day, and they have also added Pte David Jenkins to the honours list, so it appears that they have come to realise that David was there amongst his mates fighting alongside them at the defence of RD.

Martin wrote:

Both Bill and Martin at the museum have accepted that David was there, they are both honourable men and would not just put his name down on the list on their own accord, they would be ostracized if they had just done it on a whim.

Martin if they are both honourable men, then they should do the honourable task of having Jenkings place on the roll, via the regiment from which he desended.

John, They must have done the honourable thing, they cannot do things like this without the consent of the regiment that they are the custodians of. And also there was a recent rededication to Pte David Jenkins, and a new headstone was provided for him. The regiment must have accepted that David was at RD otherwise they would not have been in attendance at the rededication, and also Mike Snook must also have accepted that David was at RD, as he was the Colonel of the regiment. I can understand that there may appear to be some confusion when it comes to adding David's name to the honours list, but neither Bill nor Martin can do a thing like that without the say so of the regiment, therefor the regiment must have accepted all the evidence otherwise they would not have agreed to David's name being added, and they would not have agreed to nor attendeded a rededication to David. Therefor, I think it is safe to say that everything was done by the book, and with the consent of the regiment, and that both Bill and Martin have gone about it in the right way.

I'm sure the "Royal Welsh"   would welcome David" Jenkins into their fold. He goes with their Rorke's Drift Battle Honour.

Ahem!!   

Admin wrote:

I'm sure the "Royal Regiment of Wales" would welcome David" Jenkins into their fold. He goes with their Rorke's Drift Battle Honour.

  

Bad lads the pair of you,    consider yourselves both on 'Jankers'   

You can scrub the mess hall with a toothbrush   

  

Admin,

If the Royal Regiment of Wales still existed...

John Y.

Hi LH.

David Jenkins was at Helpmakaar on the 18th, check Julian's post on page 17 of this thread. Julian says that they were on their way back from there when they got to RD. The post is part way down page 17, sorry mate, I don't know how to work these gizmos    to give you the link.

  

LOL, LOL,      Nice one JY, brilliant  

Martin wrote:

John, They must have done the honourable thing, they cannot do things like this without the consent of the regiment.

Martin just out of interest, what would be your take on this, if they had done just that without the consent of the regiment. Would you dismiss it.

Admin. Deleted unnecessary comment.    Stay on topic please John.

because JW and co are who they are...says John.

Hiya John, would you please expand on that statement!.

The decision to add Jenkins to the roll, was not by the regiment. It was by the staff of the museum. They wouldn't approach the regiment, because there is not enough evidence to put Jenkins at RD. if there was they would have made representation already? Col Mike Snook advised them way back.

Chard several of those who thought David Jenkins wasnt at RD have now changed their opinion , I suggest you read ALL the evidence , you may do the same ! . Or have you read it ( ALL ) and still find in inconclusive ? , if so , I , along with many others would like to know why ? . The evidence is on here for all to read , I'd like to see your reasons for believing D.J wasnt there .   
90th

90th wrote:

Chard several of those who thought David Jenkins wasnt at RD have now changed their opinion

Please enlighten me as to who the several are? Don't embrass yourselve by announcing forum members names. But if your referring to member's of the regiment, me and others are all ears.

Martin. Do you have evidence to support, your theory that the regiment have accepted and happy to add Jenkins to the roll.

Don't embrass yourselve by announcing forum members names...Chard..what was that?
are you saying that i ( for instance ) cannot make an informed opinion?. seems to me that your
spitting against the wind. i would have thought even on a basic level, the participation of the
regiment at the rededication endorse's the fact! that DJ was indeed a defender!

Chard '' You and the others are all ears '' , I think it'd be better in your case if YOU became ALL EYES ! . Read the posts on the 32 pages you incredulous person !!! , , if YOU actually read ALL the posts and not every one here and there , you will see where some members apologized to Julian after they read his research ! , I wont embarrass YOU by naming them , you go and find them yourself ! , if you can be bothered that is ! . I'm not here to hold your hand , you can do that yourself .
90th

Doesnt really answer the question. If you can't give a civil answer don't pose the question.

xhosa2000 wrote:

Don't embrass yourselve by announcing forum members names...Chard..what was that?
are you saying that i ( for instance ) cannot make an informed opinion?. seems to me that your
spitting against the wind. i would have thought even on a basic level, the participation of the
regiment at the rededication endorse's the fact! that DJ was indeed a defender!

Les, has JW evidence been sent to the regiment.

Forum members agreeing with JW's work rightly or wrongly doesn't put Jenkins at RD as fact. The Museum has added him, not the Regiment!

Les, has JW evidence been sent to the regiment.

Forum members agreeing with JW's work rightly or wrongly doesn't put Jenkins at RD as fact. The Museum has added him, not the Regiment!............

hiya chard, so what are you saying..that i cant think for myself!

_________________

 Two short planks comes to mind!

Hi Chard
Yes you are perfectly within your rights to broadcast your opinion, this is a discussion forum after all. Again your quite right that agreement by the forum has no bearing on the Regiment.
However there are a couple of salient issues that you need to take cognisance of. The Curator is appointed to manage and oversee the museum and follow the regimental guidelines in managing its history and presenting that to the public.
This is what Bill does, and does it in a very professional manner indeed.
All the available evidence was garnered by the museum long before Julian got involved. Based on that evidence both the Museum, in its capacity of custodian of the regimental history, and the National Army Museum saw fit to believe that the preponderance of evidence put David Jenkins at RD. For what ever reason Julian turned his professional talents onto the evidence trail and put together further items to prove that claim. That evidence was passed through to the museum in the form of the publication and sold via their shop. The concept of submitting to the Regiment has therefore been accomplished, the Museum/ Regiment being indivisible. This is re enforced by the decision of the Regiment to provide a presence at the rededication ceremony, a de facto recognition of his being there.
Since then there has been additional reporting and notice of David Jenkins as being amongst the defenders, and to my mind the only public and written denunciation has come from Adrian Greaves on his web site. He however has not taken into account any of the evidence produced by Julian, in fact his repudiation was posted before Julians publication. I don't subscribe to that website but to this date I don't believe AG has revisited the subject. David Payne also seems to be very quite considering how voluble he was at the earlier stages of the discussion. That particular silence is deafening.
But thats really water under the bridge. Your point was that the Regiment should have final say. They have through their authorised representatives.

Cheers Mate

K its like that! from a thing that cant even spell!
despite a spell checker next to his snout.. tell me
why he was not there! in your own words..off you
trot!.

springbok9 wrote:

Hi Chard
Yes you are perfectly within your rights to broadcast your opinion, this is a discussion forum after all. Again your quite right that agreement by the forum has no bearing on the Regiment.
However there are a couple of salient issues that you need to take cognisance of. The Curator is appointed to manage and oversee the museum and follow the regimental guidelines in managing its history and presenting that to the public.
This is what Bill does, and does it in a very professional manner indeed.
All the available evidence was garnered by the museum long before Julian got involved. Based on that evidence both the Museum, in its capacity of custodian of the regimental history, and the National Army Museum saw fit to believe that the preponderance of evidence put David Jenkins at RD. For what ever reason Julian turned his professional talents onto the evidence trail and put together further items to prove that claim. That evidence was passed through to the museum in the form of the publication and sold via their shop. The concept of submitting to the Regiment has therefore been accomplished, the Museum/ Regiment being indivisible. This is re enforced by the decision of the Regiment to provide a presence at the rededication ceremony, a de facto recognition of his being there.
Since then there has been additional reporting and notice of David Jenkins as being amongst the defenders, and to my mind the only public and written denunciation has come from Adrian Greaves on his web site. He however has not taken into account any of the evidence produced by Julian, in fact his repudiation was posted before Julians publication. I don't subscribe to that website but to this date I don't believe AG has revisited the subject. David Payne also seems to be very quite considering how voluble he was at the earlier stages of the discussion. That particular silence is deafening.
But thats really water under the bridge. Your point was that the Regiment should have final say. They have through their authorised representatives.

Cheers Mate

Not quite true. The museum staff are civilians, the plus is they have access to records that we woundn't see. Their evidence was based on an old ledger, that had information added at various times by various people. With regards to David Payne's silence,we could same the same about Bill who at the early stages gave his opinion then disappeared. The redeadication is neither near or there, that happened prior to JW's research. The fact that JW undertook his research adds weight to the fact there was doubt at the time.