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

All

Just to follow on from Julian's post. We have in our archives "The Records of the 1/24th 1689-1905 and 2/24th 1804-1813". this is essentially a handwritten daily diary.

In 1879 there is the following entry:

"At the gallant defence of Rorke's Drift under Lieuts Bromhead & Chard, the following men of the 1/24th Regiment were present:

Sergeant E Wilson
Private P Desmond
Private Nichols
Private D Horrigan
Private D Jenkins
Private Paton
Private Beckitt
Private W Roy
Private W Waters


Notes:
Paton = Payton
Beckitt = Beckett

So, with regard to Pte D Jenkins, there you have it. I do realise that this entry could raise questions about other men. What I would say to that, is read Julian's excellent "England's Sons" for the latest position.

Bill

Well - you don't get any clearer than that.
This is obviously why the NAM and other museums now include David Jenkins on the roll.
Most evidence is circumstantial and balance of probabilities stuff, but this, this is black and white Primary Source material.
Let's all David Jenkins - Defender of Rorke's Drift.

Quote :

Dave
I've forgotten when exactly it was accepted that Jenkins was at RD - some time ago - 2002 or 2003

So who made the decision? To add “Jenkins to the roll call” Was it a collective choice, between Historians or by a regimental board of enquiry.

There must be a protocol to adjusting Military records. If there wasn't anyone could make alterations.

Whatever that protocol is, It wasn't followed. Jenkins was been added by unauthorsed personnel...

No one is altering military records John, the military records are as they are - see Bill's post above.
If the NAM and museum at Brecon wish to include a new name on their official RD rolls, and if historians choose to include a new name based on primary source evidence, it is up to them, but they are the most knowledgeable authorities on such matters.
This is not altering military records, this is history and history is a dynamic, fluid subject. Nothing is set in stone.

Correction of Military Records needs to be done officially. You can not just add someone to a roll call at the drop of a hat, you need to make the correction through the correct channels.Only then can the alteration be accepted!!!

Which military record has been corrected?

Hi Tasker.
All i want to know, is who authorised the alteration to be done.

I am not sure anyone had to authorise anything John! History does not work that way in this country!

All
I've pm-ed Tasker but in case any of you were wondering - David Jenkins was no relation to Watkin or Matthew - he had one brother William.
Impi and John
I don't understand what you mean by 'adding Jenkins to the official Roll of RD'. There is no 'official' Roll, there is no 'authority' engaged in or responsible for such a task. There is simply continuing research which is published which if not disproved becomes part of the accepted canon.

Quote :

Which military record has been corrected?

Julian wrote: Dave

Quote :

I've forgotten when exactly it was accepted that Jenkins was at RD - some time ago - 2002 or 2003

So who was this accepted by????

Hi John, I would imagine that at the NAM, it would have been done by a committee of qualified people based on the evidence in front of them.
At the RRW museum in Brecon, it sounds like Martin Everett the erstwhile curator supported it as does Bill Cainan today.
Authors of future text books which include RD rolls are likely to include the name of Jenkins etc etc.
In time it will become accepted like every other name on the roll.
But does it matter? It is not relevant.
History evolves.
You don't have to believe the evidence in front of your eyes if you don't want to, indeed, some people today do not believe the Holocaust happened, some do not believe in the Theory of Natural Selection, but history evolves.
No one in the free world has the power or right to authorise or officiate over new or changing history John!

impi
It became generally accepted by those at the Museum - Martin Everett - that this was the case in view of the weight of the body of evidence.

Fair enough, so it not offical. That's all some of us wanted to know. He has been added by some well known Zulu War Historians who had access to records, and not The secretary of a military department, acting through a board for correction of military records.

impi
You don't seem to understand that there was no 'official' to start with. Therefore there is nothing to alter. There was a roll produced for the newspapers, the 'Chard' Roll (by Cantwell), Bourne's Amended 'Chard' Roll, and Dunbar's list, among others.

Great!! So it’s a case of it being accepted, and not official!!

John
What do you mean by 'official'? History does not, and military records did not, work in this way. Define official.

I think he means, as being there conclusively and not based on him be added 2003 by Historian's.

Conclusively? There's no such animal. We do not live in the National Curriculum. All history is a gradual accumulation by historians. Hitler died in his Bunker. Probably, yes. Blair forced MI5 to dress up the WMD file. Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. Cantwell compiled the 'Chard' Roll and forged Chard's signature. In all probability, yes. The Moon Landings were a CIA fake. Highly improbable.
On the other hand maybe none of these things are as they seem. Especially if someone subsequently proves they're not.
You pays your money and takes your choice.

Or join me as a member of the flat earth society.

History is only "official" in North Korea, Russia, China etc etc.

It is actually quite nice to see members converging towards some kind of acquiescenece.
Do you believe that miracles really do happen, Springy?

Im living proof Tasker.

Hi all

How is it that researchers such as Norman Holme, author of 'The Noble 24th' and, presumably Maj. Martin Everett who assisted Norman Holme 'on a daily basis' with his research, and all the other researchers, including Ian Knight, who have studied this subject over many years, did not know about this ledger at Brecon or the Pte David Jenkins 'story' ?

The Zulu War Historical Society have confirmed they have never heard of it and have already requested a copy of this page as Adrian Greaves was assisted by both Maj. Smith and Martin Everett during the years of preparation for his book, Rorke's Drift - never saw or heard of this ledger.

As this is all getting a bit odd - should this page of the ledger be submitted for proper analysis - as Norman Holme did - when he proved Chard's signature was a fake? (See Adrian Greaves' Rorke's Drift and Norman Holme's The Silver Wreath for details).

Regards

David

Skirting around the issue!!. Only to be expected.. But it still remains, that his presence at RD is based on an assumption made by Historians. Not a genuine body of officials, who have looked at the same evidence and came to the same conclusion, and who have officially amended the roll call based on facts. The correction would be, adding Jenkins to the roll...Therefore it is up to the individual to believe whether or not Jenkins was at RD. Perhaps the roll call should have a section. “Presumed to have taken part, in the defense of Rorke’s Drift.

24th wrote:

, that his presence at RD is based on an assumption made by Historians.

The correction would be, adding Jenkins to the roll....

Your reasoning is all upside down!

It is his EXCLUSION from the roll for many years that was based on an assumption by Historians - incorrectly as it turns out (not his presence).

Secondly, the correction would be RESTORING the second Jenkins to the roll, not adding it.

See the oldest, original Chard's Roll.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
There are 2 Pte Jenkins on it:

Jenkins the killed (number 17 on the list), no argument with this one.
Jenkins, 1083 (munber 11 on the list). This is the mistake. Not that there WAS a second surviving Jenkins - his name is on the roll, but they got the wrong Pte Jenkins of the 1/24th. It was David, not Watkin.

Quote :

Secondly, the correction would be RESTORING the second Jenkins to the roll, not adding it.

So you acknowledge a correction is necessary. How can it be restored, if it wasn't added until 2003 :p;:

Mr David Payne wrote:

Hi all

How is it that researchers such as Norman Holme, author of 'The Noble 24th' and, presumably Maj. Martin Everett who assisted Norman Holme 'on a daily basis' with his research, and all the other researchers, including Ian Knight, who have studied this subject over many years, did not know about this ledger at Brecon or the Pte David Jenkins 'story' ?

Bill Cainan knows about it and he has copied it on to the previous page, word for word, including spelling mistakes, to show that D Jenkins was recorded by his own battalion/regiment as being present at RD.
I would suggest that if you do not believe Bill, you go to Brecon and examine the diary for yourself.

24th wrote:

Quote :

Secondly, the correction would be RESTORING the second Jenkins to the roll, not adding it.

So you acknowledge a correction is necessary. How can it be restored, if it wasn't added until 2003 :p;:

It was not added in 2003, the second Pte Jenkins was restored back to its rightful place with the appropriate correction of regimental number and first name.
It was originally present in the original roll. Look for yourself - I provided the link above.

David Payne
Norman Holme never used the 24th Records of Service for his great opus.  He died before the Jenkins evidence came to light.
Martin Everett did know about the 24th Records of Service.  He only became aware of the import of its content after Norman's death.
The AZWHS is not aware of many things, I presume, and is certainly not the gatekeeper of knowledge on the subject.  And what exactly do you mean by the AZWHS?  Does it have a 'corporate' ear or mouthpiece such that it can confirm or deny statements?
I think you'll have to ask Mr. Greaves why his researches never included the 24th Records of service.  None of us can answer for him.
Re analysis, I suggest you go and see the Records of Service for yourself.  I'm sure Bill Cainan would accommodate your wishes if possible.
24th
Is the Times report stating that Jenkins was sent back with the guard party an assumption?  No.  It's a fact.
Is the entry confirming Jenkins's presence at RD in the Records of Service an assumption?  No.  It's a fact.
Is the sending of Jenkins as a RD participant (with others) to Lady Butler for the painting of portraits an assumption?  No.  It's a fact.
Is it an assumption that Jenkins received a Rorke's Drift bible inscribed with his name?  No.  It's a fact.
Is it an assumption that a man named Jenkins was seen in the hospital (and died there) and a man named Jenkins was seen afterwards at the wall by Chard himself?
No.  It's a fact.
Is it an assumption that Lady Butler named a drawing Jenkins?  No.  It's a fact.
Is it an assumption that Jenkins with other survivors was introduced to the King?  No. It's a fact.
Is it an assumption that the name Jenkins appears on the 'Chard' Roll TWICE?  No.  It's a fact.
Is it an assumption that on the occasions that he was 'paraded' with other RD participants that no-one exposed him as a fraud?  No.  It's a fact.
There are no assumptions made by historians.  There is a response to facts.
I really don't think you understand anything at all about the nature of historical research or discovery when you talk of "a genuine body of officials", and "officially amending the Roll Call".  Such bodies and such actions do not exist.  It's sheer nonsense to write in this way.

Tasker, if they are so sure of their findings, why don't they have it documented through the proper channels. You are entitled to believe what you want, but there are some who need a bit more persuading other than Bill and Julian’s say so.

Tasker read Julians post Today at 8:48 am

24th
There you go again...what proper channels? May I remind you that it's not my say-so. It was Martin's say-so (as then representing the 24th Museum) and it is Bill's (as now representing the 24th Museum). I've seen the same evidence with my own eyes and reached the same conclusions. I have a right to air that conclusion. Have YOU seen the evidence with your own eyes? Do so, and then criticize.

24th
But the Roll does record the presence of TWO men called Jenkins, one recorded with the wrong service number. Easily done.
And you recorded that I wrote at 8.48; it was 9.48. An error. Easily done.

Hi David

It is obviously not for me to say why this piece of evidence may have been overlooked - however, as you can imagine, our archives are quite extensive. As this item is not specific to the AZW it is not filed with the AZW specific material. I can therefore easily see why someone going through our AZW archives may not have seen it. Nevetherless, Julian (Whybra) has seen it
as of course have others.

It is my opinion that the majority of AZW historians/researchers believe that David Jenkins WAS at Rorke's Drift based on the available evidence - including this reference.

As Tasker has said, I will make the item available in the Museum should anyone want to see it for themselves. I will scan a copy of the relevant page and send it to Adrian G. in due course.

I am looking at the diary as I type this - I can assure you it is NOT a figment of my imagination !!!!!

Bill

So why was he missed off the roll in the first place. And why has it taken so long for this evidence to come to light.

Why would he have sent a letter to his father, which would suggest he was at Isandlwana?

He was evidently presented with a RD Bible, Why did this information take so long to surface.

24th wrote:

So why was he missed off the roll in the first place.
.

He wasn't - there were 2 Jenkins' on the roll in the first place. They got his service number wrong. It was one mistake of many on the original roll.
8.48, 9.48. They were humans, we still are, mistakes happen/happened.

I am hypothesising that Sgt Wilson may have made this error. He is the obvious candidate who would have been asked, "this private Jenkins in your party, what's his number and christian name?" Not being sure, probably never spoke much to this young private before, he either responded with the name off the top of his head, picked it off the roll whatever.
Was it he, who accidentally named the wrong Jenkins? Sgt Wilson is not unlikely to have been the one responsible for the erroneous inclusion of 1083 Pte Watkin Jenkins in the original Chard roll, when he should have correctly identified David Jenkins?
Alternatively, the additional details of this survivor "Private Jenkins" recorded by Chard, were added later by Cantwell,the roll compiler, playing eeny, meeny, miny moe.

Not going to get too involved in this one as it’s all over the place, and it was established a while back on another thread that he was at RD.

The fact he was issued with the RD Bible should be proof enough, he was there. There were two Jenkins at RD. One Killed and the other is our man.

"Chard's 2nd extended report, c. 1880:

"...While I was intently watching to get a fair shot at a Zulu who appeared to be firing rather well, Private Jenkins 24th, saying 'look out, Sir,' gave my head a duck down just as a bullet whizzed over it. He had noticed a Zulu who was quite near in another direction taking deliberate aim at me. For all the man could have known, the shot might have been directed at himself..."

Reynolds account c. 1879:

"The only men killed in the hospital were three, excluding the Kafir, [sic], under treatment for a compound fracture of the femur. Their names were Sergeant Maxfield, Private Jenkins, both unable to assist in their escape (being debilitated by fever), and Private Adams, who was well able to move about but could not be persuaded to leave his temporary refuge in a small room, and face the danger of an attempt at escape to the laager..."

I don't think we will ever no Jenkins’s movements after RD. but as he was originally in G (Rainforth’s) Company 1/24th which was held in reserve at stores depot at Helpmekaar

Therefore he may well have left the Drift earlier than the rest answering the question why his father received a letter from shortly after. That's one theory, unless someone knows his movements after RD.

[quote]"Chard's 2nd extended report, c. 1880:

"...While I was intently watching to get a fair shot at a Zulu who appeared to be firing rather well, Private Jenkins 24th, saying 'look out, Sir,' gave my head a duck down just as a bullet whizzed over it. He had noticed a Zulu who was quite near in another direction taking deliberate aim at me. For all the man could have known, the shot might have been directed at himself..."

Reynolds account c. 1879:

"The only men killed in the hospital were three, excluding the Kafir, [sic], under treatment for a compound fracture of the femur. Their names were Sergeant Maxfield, Private Jenkins, both unable to assist in their escape (being debilitated by fever), and Private Adams, who was well able to move about but could not be persuaded to leave his temporary refuge in a small room, and face the danger of an attempt at escape to the laager..." [quote]

Ok fair comments. But you base your argument on

Quote :

"The fact he was issued with the RD Bible that should be proof enough, he was there"

Where is this Bible, no one to my knowledge has seen it... Its no good saying they have seen it, an image will need to be posted..

Quote :

Where is this Bible, no one to my knowledge has seen it... Its no good saying they have seen it, an image will need to be posted

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

impi wrote:

Where is this Bible, no one to my knowledge has seen it... Its no good saying they have seen it, an image will need to be posted..

If you read the article in SergioD's original post, post 1, page 1 of this thread, that should answer your question. If Rees the gt grandson posted a photograph of the fly leaf, we could say it was faked couldn't we, as we could with all documents? A little scepticism is a good thing, but if we can't believe the word of professional historians, authors and journalists of reputable publications etc who have certain reputations that they do not need tarnished, then we really must get down to the museums, track down and visit the relatives who posess the material and do the research ourselves to check out the primary material first hand.

It might just be worth taking a bit of time and reading through this thread right from the beginning, to get it everything straight in your mind.

littlehand wrote:

Quote :

Where is this Bible, no one to my knowledge has seen it... Its no good saying they have seen it, an image will need to be posted

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

Before any one else jumps in, how do we know this aint forged Littlehand?

You don't But I will let you debate that one...

24th
"So why was he missed off the roll in the first place. And why has it taken so long for this evidence to come to light."
Tasker has answered this.

"Why would he have sent a letter to his father, which would suggest he was at Isandlwana?"
He didn't. He said he "was one of ten who escaped out of the five companies", not escaped the battle. In other words he was lucky that he wasn't at the camp. It's a question of interpretation.

"He was evidently presented with a RD Bible, Why did this information take so long to surface."
Because no record was kept of who these were given to.

littlehand wrote:

You don't But I will let you debate that one...

Not me. I'm off to work. But I can't prove that one.

Me too. See you in the morning.

Quote :

Before any one else jumps in, how do we know this aint forged Littlehand?

He has a point!!!

I have always wondered if the Battle at Rorke's Drift actually did take place. Or was it a cover up…

:p;:

impi, you could still argue, why did Jenkins suggest to his father he had been at Isandlwana.

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

If you wanted to!!!