The Defence of Rorke’s Drift, a work by W H Dugan

The Defence of Rorke’s Drift, a work by W H Dugan. As anyone seen this painting ?

hiya 24th, the image is very well known,
forms the front cover of Michael Barthorpe's
Zulu War, their is a ' copy ' in the regt museum
of the Royal Welsh, the original i think resides in
Australia ( not one hundred percent about that )

Supposed to be the earliest painting of this action!

Wonder where this painting is now!! Royal Collection perhaps?

Hi All

The Duggan painting is displayed in the Anglo-Zulu War room in the Regimental Museum, Brecon.

Bill

The painting has recently been cleaned...............it looks great.

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

oop's from me. Bill, Kenny   so its the De Neuville thats in Austrailia.
leaving the Butler in the royal collection?, seem to recall Prince Harry
talking in front of it?.

I see " Duggan " issued some of the Zulu's with MH Rifles! Based on those rifles supposedly taken from Isandlwana!

What's the date of this painting.

The earliest oil painting of the campaign was 'The Siege of Rorke’s Drift', a work by W H Dugan of Southsea, Hampshire.  The painting which was completed in May 1879, was viewed by General HH The Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimer and Colonel Frederick Stanley (later Earl of Derby), Secretary of State for War, both of whom applauded the artist for tackling a difficult subject with the paucity of information available.  It went on public display at the Yorkshire Fine Arts Society's exhibition in Leeds in 1880.

Realizing the public interest in the campaign, and particularly Rorke’s Drift, the Fine Art Society of New Bond Street commissioned the eminent French battle artist, Alphonse de Neuville, in late April 1879, to execute a picture of the heroic defence and they placed an appeal in several journals: for possible information on the subject, such as photographs, details of uniforms, personal narratives of the defence; sketches of the localities; Zulu arms and dresses.  The artist was in great demand and was regarded as superior to any British battle artist of the day, so it was a coup for the Fine Art Society to secure his services and they were quick to advertise the fact.

'The Defence of Rorke’s Drift' was completed by de Neuville in early 1880 and exhibited at the Society’s rooms in March of that year, receiving excellent reviews.  The canvas remained on exhibition until the end of July 1880 when it was bought by the newly formed art gallery in Sydney, Australia in 1881, but not before it had been engraved by Leopold Flemeng in Paris for commercial purposes.  

Queen Victoria had been very moved by the events of the war, particularly the defence of Rorke’s Drift.  She had followed the news with a deep fascination and in August 1879, it was announced that the Queen had commissioned Elizabeth, Lady Butler for a fee of £1,000 to paint a representation of the defence of Rorke’s Drift, and a picture portraying an incident in the Afghan War.  Apparently the choice of subject had initially been left up to the artist and she was tempted to paint the discovery of the body of the Prince Imperial by the 17th Lancers, but the Queen although interested at first suggested that Rorke’s Drift would be preferable.  By mid-December 1879, Lady Butler submitted a sketch of her picture to the Queen and in March 1880 both Butler and de Neuville submitted their respective paintings of Rorke’s Drift for Her Majesty’s inspection.  Queen Victoria thought that de Neuville’s piece was ‘far less real and effective’.  The Queen suggested that Lady Butler add more portraits, which meant that the picture would not be finished in time for the Summer Exhibition at Burlington House. In May 1880, the Prince of Wales visited the artist’s studio to examine the progress of the painting, which was finally shown at the 1881 Royal Academy exhibition, attracting a ‘great crush’.  Lady Butler’s painting of Rorke’s Drift is in the Royal Collection and hangs at the top of the main staircase in the State Apartments in St James’s Palace.

Hi xhosa.
Yes , as Kenny has posted , it's de Neuville's RD painting which is in the Sydney Art Gallery out here in Australia .
90th   

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(Isandula Collection)

90th    yeah Kenny was all over that! 43 degrees
for you, tough breed you lot    have you been over to
see it, i know its HUGE..would..if i had it spend the quantas,
just to see it.  Isandula. what a treat..    

Some interesting shots when the frame was being conserved.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Steve

Hi Steve .
Thanks for the pics , it's a decent size .
Les
No , I havent seen it at the Art Gallery , I havent been to Sydney for a year or so and didnt have time to check it out .
90th.

Isandula, Rusteze
Thank you for those postings, I love the odds and sods connected with the war, those two are classics. Again well done.

Cheers

A contemporary key to some of the defenders taken from Description of Mons. De Neuville's Picture "The Defence of Rorke's Drift"
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Now the some text from the some publication that I just know Martin will enjoy reading:

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

John Y.

Nice one John, now people who read this sort of tripe will be able to see my point about all the 'false welshness' that was wrongly attributed to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment. Both Jones's were English, one from Bristol, England, and one from Monmouth (which was English at that time), and Hook was from Gloucestershire, England. The writer also appears to have got it wrong about 1395 Williams W., it should have been Williams J., and was he not actually called Fielding? but no matter, Williams/Fielding also came from Monmouth, so he was yet another Englishman. For the writer to write "Welshmen, like most of the 24th", is just utter nonsense and totally false, and to assume that men with the surnames of Jones and Williams are automatically 'welsh' is just being a total twerp. Did the bloke who wrote this tripe do any sort of research I wonder, or did he just fall into the trap of assuming that the regiment was 'welsh', just like most of the uninitiated who watch 'the film' seem to do. No wonder the poor old 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and its mainly Englishmen get the short straw all the time when this sort of stuff is allowed to be published, and back in 1964 (before Britain became a 'do what you want it doesn't matter' sort of country), we used to have morals and standards, so I am surprised that the film board didn't make Baker re-shoot some of the blatant false welshness, lies and mistakes in the film, and where were the critics of the day I wonder? Others may like to pretend that they were 'welsh', but I for one will NEVER forget that they were mostly England's Sons.

"The county of Monmouthshire has never been part of England. Henry VIII, through the Act of Union of 1536, created Monmouthshire, together with the counties of Breconshire, Denbighshire, Montgomeryshire, and Radnorshire, from Welsh lands previously owned by the Marcher Lords. As a result, the number of Welsh counties increased from eight to thirteen.
The belief that Monmouthshire was in England arose from the fact that in 1542, justice and administration for Wales were vested in the officers of a new court - the King's Great Session in Wales. The Great Session for Wales was organised into four circuits, each consisting of three counties, and which would each have two justices.

The four circuits covered the following counties:
1. Anglesey, Caernarfon and Merioneth
2. Flint, Denbigh and Montgomery
3. Cardiganshire, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire
4. Glamorgan, Breconshire, and Radnorshire

Monmouthshire was omitted from this scheme, and was placed under the jurisdiction of the Courts of Chancery and Exchequer at Westminster. Ecclesiastically,  the county remained in the Welsh diocese of Llandaff, and culturally, linguistically and in every other respect continued to be Welsh. Later, in the reign of Charles II, Monmouthshire was transferred to the Oxford circuit, together with Oxford, Gloucester, Worcester and Hereford.

There can be no question about the ethnology of the county of Monmouth. It may be true that even the blood of England is more Cymric than Saxon, and that we have reason herein to moderate, and even forget all national antipathy as between Welsh and English [see panel, right]. The people of Monmouthshire, to say the least of it, are as much Cymric as are the people of Glamorgan or Brecknock and, barring the change brought into the counties of Monmouth and Glamorgan within living memory by the influx of English-speaking persons, the language spoken by the natives still continues to testify to their race. In these respects, therefore, Monmouthshire is now, as in past times, a part and parcel of Wales"

"Of the 24th Regt. at the defence, the numbers (Source: 'The Noble 24th. by Norman Holme), 49 were English, 18 Monmouthshire,16 Irish, 1 Scottish, 14 Welsh and 21 of unknown nationality. 'This is a Welsh regiment, although there are some foreigners in it mind"

And of course there were some South Africans !   

Springy,

The South Africans were the attackers, not the defenders...

John Y.

John
  
Both sides actually

  

SOUTH WALES BORDERERS (BATTLE HONOUR).

HC Deb 17 April 1934 vol 288 c878 878
25. Captain A. EVANS (for Mr. TEMPLE MORRIS) asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the petition by the Natal provincial council for the grant of the battle honour of Rorke's Drift to the South Wales Borderers; and whether he can make any statement as to the attitude of his Department on this matter?

Mr. COOPER With regard to the first part of the question, I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press. I am unable to say in advance what the attitude of the War Office would be if such a request were referred to them.

Martin any relation?