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

The non-military documention JW has does. Get both side to agree job done! Col Mike Snook advised them how to bring it to the regiments attention. They haven't !...says Chard!

So who turned up at the re-dedication then? who were those troops? re-inactors. i dont
think so! so in fact the regiment sent that party....did'nt it! think about it, its not that hard.

We have to remember it was NAM that brought the story to light. Not the Staff at Brecon or JW. So perhaps it's them that jumped the gun.

Chard/Impi

Military documentation putting Jenkins at RD is lacking. The regiment cannot manufacture it or add anything.

Incidentally, they have had every opportunity to say they do not agree that he was a defender, but have not done so. Neither have they, so far as we know, taken up Snook's suggestion and he does not appear to have pursued it either with Bill or the regiment. Perhaps because it is very hard to do?

More than that, the regiment has supported the re-dedication. I really think they do not wish, or need, to do any more and I think they are right.

You want them to go through the motions of rubber stamping it before you will agree Jenkins was a defender, and that's also fine for you.

But I, and I suspect many others, think that would be meaningless, unnecessary and a hostage to fortune in the circumstances.

Steve

Les, I have only seen this photo of the re-dedication. No sign of the Regiment. Can you post the one that shows the regiments involvement. Thanks in advance.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Snook's suggestion was aimed at members on another forum. Suggesting Martin Everett poses the evidence. He was merely advising them!

No, i cant! sorry..

Here's an idea, why dont you drop a polite
e mail to the Royal Welsh, i'm sure they
would be willing to assist you!   

Take a look at this and tell me the regiment don't accept he was a defender. Chaplain to the Royal Welsh.

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

Steve

he's small enough to look after himself, read his post that kicked me off!
i want to be nice always, if one insult's me out of the blue, expect..
flight or fight, guess which one i am!

Les, I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it. Grow up and get back on topic. He only asked for a photo!.... another unwarranted insult this time by you! but i will let it go,this time!
i was on topic, you and your cronies, sort your head's out..PLEASE..

Outstanding Steve,   

rusteze wrote:

Take a look at this and tell me the regiment don't accept he was a defender. Chaplain to the Royal Welsh.

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

Steve

What happened to the regimental mascot. Look at the other redications on the forum.

Last word from Col Mike Snook on military protocol.

"Such matters would rest with the descendant regiment, on the basis of the best historical advice it can obtain. That would undoubtedly be channelled through Martin. Maybe he should convene a panel of wise men to arbitrate the case!! He's out of the country at the moment, but I'm sure will comment upon his return."

Good night chaps.     

What happened to the Regimental mascot ?

The Goats are all on the forum methinks.

As for the "Snook erism" the salient word is "maybe" ?

Can I take it the debate on this is at an end.

Steve

Mea Culpa, for my part..sorry guy's.

rusteze wrote:

What happened to the Regimental mascot ?

The Goats are all on the forum methinks.

As for the "Snook erism" the salient word is "maybe" ?

Can I take it the debate on this is at an end.

Steve

Deleted Unecessary comment

"Maybe" Martin could, but he didn't ?

Yes debate over, in our favour! You can carry on with you mud pies  

The question of whether David Jenkins was an RD defender has come up on Ian Knight's AZW Group Facebook page . This site is cited and so I thought I would reciprocate [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] You need to scroll down a little and open the replies. We have discussed ad nauseam, but IK gives his view and says he firmly believes that there should be more shades of grey in the criteria for categorising claims to have been a defender. Not sure I altogether agree but an interesting approach.

Steve

It seems that it's just  a point of view, not an analysis.
Unfortunately, he gives no argument to suport it, except that DJ was not in the official rolls.
Frédéric

I agree with IK. A name added to the museum roll by museum staff doesn't really count. The fact he wasn't on the official roll adds weight that he wasn't there.

Statistics from Admin:
Most viewed topics: Pte David Jenkins n°1 (14972 views)
Most active topic: Pte Jenkins n°6 (990 replies)
and n°10 (715 replies)
As Steve wrote"....discuted ad nauseum".
There are also 2 or 3  published essays written on the subject.
For those who are still "hungry": good game!
Cheers
Frédéric

I don't think it is necessary to return to the discussion about him being a defender or not - it is proved beyond reasonable doubt to my satisfaction. What I do not really go along with is this idea about the need for "shades of grey". Ultimately he was there or he wasn't - no shade of grey. I don't think you can say he was probably there but a doubt remains because some do not agree. It surely requires an analysis of why they do not agree - what is their evidence compared to the evidence that he was there. You then make a judgement about that. Which is pretty much where we got to last time.

Steve

Steve the grey area is, he's not on the roll.

Dave / impi
You are both wrong.  He IS on the roll.  Look at it.  Chard Roll nos. 11 and 17.  Two Jenkinses. Both 1/24th. One killed in action; one survived.  There in black and white.

We had that disagreement. If we hadn't the debate would have ended ages ago.

Steve here is the original grey areas.

"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."

You make my point I think. You will remember that the long piece that you re-posted was subject to detailed discussion and, at least to my satisfaction, was found to be wanting. In other words, my judgement is that it does not outweigh the evidence that Jenkins was a defender. It is not, in my view, a grey area at all and should not be accepted as such. You cannot reserve judgement simply because someone disagrees - it depends entirely on the credibility of the argument.

Steve

Perhaps you should concentrate on the records that were checked, listed in the long artical I re-posted.

Listing the records that were checked is not the point. The question is do you find the resulting argument convincing? I do not - you do. Neither of us is left with a grey area just a different conclusion.

Steve

Impi you cant '' agree '' with IK , IK thinks he was there from how I read it .
90th

Impi

Oh impi really!
"We had that disagreement. If we hadn't the debate would have ended ages ago."
We did.  And the debate did end ages ago.

Dredging up these outdated and now-known-to-be inaccurate pre-2013 'arguments' is not a valid response.  It's one of the reasons I researched and wrote my essay.  The above 'arguments' include none of the documents I found, refer to just one ambiguous letter from DJ, and exclude the detailed unpublished letter written 26th April 1879 (and others), the newly-found contemporary Smith and Waters Rolls, the entry in Regimental Records of the 1/24th, and a myriad of other contemporary docs, all of which include David Jenkins explicitly.  As you know no-one has been able to refute anything I wrote in it since.  Not one word.

By the by, Kris Wheatley at no time 'dropped' David Jenkins from her work and has no intention of doing so.  The Jenkins family has at no time ever dropped its claim that DJ had during his lifetime stated that he was an RD defender.

Repeating the old pre-Sept 2013 arguments is NOT a positive response; it's a negative one and doesn't move any possible debate further forward.  I proved beyond any doubt that DJ was an RD defender.  Grey area candidate?  Not at all.  Those who still profess doubts have simply not read the evidence.

90th wrote:

Impi you cant '' agree '' with IK , IK thinks he was there from how I read it .
90th

Well if that's the case, I don't agree with IK either.

Julian.
A Greaves , D Payne and I Knight all checked Chards roll and all stated D Jenkins wasn't there.
Anyway as Steve thought this discussion is going back to the old one in fact I can't really see why this discussion has been restarted. There are loads of Grey areas and so I guess it's up to individuals to make up there own minds. As I said a museum roll is just for the Zulu War enthusiast's.

There nothing else really for me to add to this thread. But I will be interested to see how it pans out. Not that it will.

Bill wrote.

PostSubject: Re: Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records   Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:51 am

Hi all

The stance of the Regimental Museum of The Royal Welsh is exactly as Julian has stated. This was all resolved many years ago. It is not "new" news as the flurry of recent newspaper articles has intimated.

Bill

Prior to the original Jenkins debate starting on here. How many years had it already been resolved, or what year was it resolved.

impi
Look at Chard's Roll yourself. It's there. Jenkins kia, Jenkins alive and well. Nos. 11 and 17.
Chard's roll is based on the contemporary Smith & Waters Rolls, neither of which the writers you name examined when they wrote their opinions. The evidence is presented in Studies in the Zulu War Volume II pp. 59-85 with photographs of all the docs incl. the relevant section of the Chard Roll.
I don't know if you've read it but until you do you are unable to refute or concur with anyone's opinions.

Dave
2013.

Bill's post was in 2013, so why is he saying it was resolved years ago?

Dave
I gather that in the minds of previous curator(s) of the Museum, sufficient evidence was presented to them at an earlier date which directed their attention to the presence of David Jenkins at RD and his omission (along with many others) from Holme's work.  I don't know the exact day or year when this happened (you would have to ask Bill Cainan and Martin Everett) but I suspect at some time between 2010 and 2013 (hence "years ago").  I do know that Martin did excellent work in establishing the identities of a significant number of men similarly omitted from Holme's work.  I also contributed to this with my article 'More Noble 24th'.
2013 was the year that my 'Jenkins' essay was published which not only summarized previous evidence but added a welter of new irrefutable evidence specifically naming David Jenkins and affirming his presence at RD on 22-23rd Jany 1879.  This was the first time that a definitive 'proof' was published.

Which is why I am a little perplexed that a respected AZW historian still sits on the fence. Hence this little flurry of discussion. As I said, no need to re-open the debate the facts are now irrefutable.

Steve

rusteze
What one does not acknowledge as existing, what one does not refer to, what one has not read, what evidence one has not seen or examined, one does not have to respond to.
It's analogous with ignoring all the evidence of the Wannsee Conference and only using documents dating from the pre-1980s to argue that Hitler had no knowledge of the Final Solution or ignoring all the evidence post-Philbrick to argue that Custer kept his command together in one final Last Stand.
What isn't within one's remit or compass, one does not use.
"And still the Sun goes round the Earth."

Bravo JW! Poetic for a wednesday morning I must say. So much sand, so many heads and so many holes.

Steve

I believe that there is 'much soar grapes' here amongst the so called AZW historians. Many of them are mere publicity seeking amateurs on the subject military research and more interested in promoting their own egos.  I regularly go to the National Archives at Kew and have also been to the many important archives in South Africa - I have yet to come across many of the so called 'eminent AZW historians' in the archives.

Poor Pte David Jenkins 1/24th was present at Rorke's Drift - who are we to disagree with the likes of the dear Ladies of Durban.

We should remember all soldiers went through challenging conditions in the difficult campaign.  One only has to drive today from PMB, through Greytown to Helpmekaar (about 4 hours) - then realise that the soldiers in 1879 did this on foot over many days with no comfy bed at night to recover.  We should salute all those who took part in the AZW.

This no 'official' roll of defenders of RD (i.e. Signed by the Commander in Chief and published in the London Gazette).  The soldiers present received nothing - except those given gallantry awards. For those who say Pte Jenkins should not be added to the Official Roll. What official roll?  Many of the comments above make reference that Jenkins was not mentioned by others present - he was 1/24th and would not have been a familiar face to the soldiers of B Company, 2/24th.

You only have to go to RD - and sit on the veranda of the museum (rebuilt hospital) and imagine what it was like on the night of 22/23 January - would I have wished to be there? - certainly not.  I suspect you would be sh----ing in your pants.

Hear, hear, re the 'official roll', thank you, Kenny.
As a by the by, Jenkins was of course mentioned by one defender, twice, and that was Chard himself: in the 45th and 60th paragraphs of his Official Report - the second of which occurring after the Jenkins in the hospital had already been killed (I mention this just to establish that there can be no possible confusion between the two men).  What better witness for the defence!

impi
The thread will not pan out; it has panned out.

Julian Whybra wrote:

Dave
I gather that in the minds of previous curator(s) of the Museum, sufficient evidence was presented to them at an earlier date which directed their attention to the presence of David Jenkins at RD and his omission (along with many others) from Holme's work.  I don't know the exact day or year when this happened (you would have to ask Bill Cainan and Martin Everett) but I suspect at some time between 2010 and 2013 (hence "years ago").  I do know that Martin did excellent work in establishing the identities of a significant number of men similarly omitted from Holme's work.  I also contributed to this with my article 'More Noble 24th'.
2013 was the year that my 'Jenkins' essay was published which not only summarized previous evidence but added a welter of new irrefutable evidence specifically naming David Jenkins and affirming his presence at RD on 22-23rd Jany 1879.  This was the first time that a definitive 'proof' was published.

So why didn't Bill Cainan and Martin Everett bring this new found information to light sooner rather than waiting for a newspaper report by the Rees's, If they were so sure David Jenkins was at RD,or would they have just sat on it for their own entertainment.

John
You would have to ask them. They are neither of them authors so where should they have done what you suggested? Indeed why should they? It's no big earth-shattering deal. It doesn't require a headline in The Times!
When the Rees family's newspaper report appeared the Museum was asked to respond, I believe, and did so without making a mountain out of a molehill.

Julian Whybra wrote:

Hear, hear, thank you, Kenny.
As a by the by, Jenkins was of course mentioned by one defender, twice, and that was Chard himself: in the 45th and 60th paragraphs of his Official Report - the second of which occurring after the Jenkins in the hospital had already been killed (I mention this just to establish that there can be no possible confusion between the two men).  What better witness for the defence!

impi
The thread will not pan out; it has panned out.

Chard's report mentions Private Jenkins twice. There were two Jenkins present, how do you know Jenkins had already been killed in the hospital?

Julian Whybra wrote:

John
You would have to ask them.  They are neither of them authors so where should they have done what you suggested?  Indeed why should they?  It's no big earth-shattering deal.  It doesn't require a headline in The Times!
When the Rees family's newspaper report appeared the Museum was asked to respond, I believe, and did so without making a mountain out of a molehill.

Come on Julian, Martin was the curator of the museum if he wasn't at that time Bill was. Information like that would have all most certainly been posted on the RDVC website where they both played an active part. Bill & Martin’s silence on this matter is almost deafening.

John #1 11.12 post
I know that the other Jenkins had already been killed in the hospital because Chard's Report was arranged chronologically from start to finish.  Paras. 48-55 deal with the hospital.  The other Jenkins was killed in the 50th para.
The 60th para. in which David Jenkins is mentioned deals with events behind the line of biscuit boxes after the loss of the hospital and after it has been evacuated and is being burnt to the ground.  Jenkins saved Chard's life at this point.  He had to be alive and well to do that.

John #2 11.18 post
I'm sorry John but the world does not revolve around the RDVC website. Martin and Bill had more important things to deal with than to satisfy the curiosity of a couple of dozen weirdos like us. Why, they'd be on-line every minute of the day otherwise. But as I said, I cannot answer for them. You will have to ask them.

Julian Whybra wrote:

Dave
I gather that in the minds of previous curator(s) of the Museum, sufficient evidence was presented to them at an earlier date which directed their attention to the presence of David Jenkins at RD and his omission (along with many others) from Holme's work.  I don't know the exact day or year when this happened (you would have to ask Bill Cainan and Martin Everett) but I suspect at some time between 2010 and 2013 (hence "years ago").  I do know that Martin did excellent work in establishing the identities of a significant number of men similarly omitted from Holme's work.  I also contributed to this with my article 'More Noble 24th'.
2013 was the year that my 'Jenkins' essay was published which not only summarized previous evidence but added a welter of new irrefutable evidence specifically naming David Jenkins and affirming his presence at RD on 22-23rd Jany 1879.  This was the first time that a definitive 'proof' was published.

Posted by Bill.
Search in: GENERAL DISCUSSION AREA    Subject: Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records     Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:07 pm

Kopie

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

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

So the research was undertaken around 2006 !!! not 2010-2013

John
Thanks for finding that. There you are then. The museum was presented with evidence fit to convince them in 2005-06. no doubt Martin could tell you exactly when if you really want to know.

QUESTION STILL REMAINS WHY SIT ON THIS INFORMATION??? Both Anglo Zulu War Historian's.

Bill say's

"We would also consult with some of the leading AZW researchers and historians for their views. For example, I would strongly recommend Julian Whybra's "England Sons" where Julian has also looked at "possibles" (ie people who were probably were not at Rorke's Drift)."

So apart from yourself, what other AZW researchers and historians were asked for their opinion?

No doubt you won't know!!

Was the evidence ever submitted to the descendant regiment for their verdict?

John

You seem to have a strange concept of how historical perceptions evolve.  Talk of 'official rolls', 'submission of evidence' and 'verdicts' are more akin to the courtroom than to the history book.
Things just don't happen that way.  Your question is one that I am unable to answer as I was not involved in any such formal process as you imagine occurred.

You are also mistaken when you write "So apart from yourself, what other AZW researchers and historians were asked for their opinion?"  I'm afraid I do not recall ever being asked for a formal or informal opinion or pronouncement on David Jenkins's presence at RD or having any input at all.  If you read the above posts carefully you will see that Bill merely refers readers to England's Sons.  I did have conversations about Jenkins with Martin in 2006 but it was really going over what I knew of him at the time and what information/docs the family had brought forward; it was certainly not with any 'official' view in mind such as you're suggesting.  Indeed back in 2006 I wouldn't have had even a thirtieth of the information I'd amassed by 2013 for my essay so could not have spoken with conviction one way or the other.  As to which "AZW researchers and historians" were asked, I have absolutely no idea as I was not involved.  As I keep saying, you need to ask Martin or Bill.

I wonder if John or Impi in the intervening passage of time, have
read England's Son's?. or are they simply rehashing the old debate!.
to what possible end?.