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

AG and DP have largely dismissed the RD bible presented by the ladies of Durban and inscribed specifically to DJ as evidence. Yet this bible was presented by the family to the regimental museum and its format and presentation matches four other RD bibles held by the Brecon museum. Are they suggesting the bible is now a elaborate hoax - for what purpose?

Why don't you ask them.

Quote :

Are they suggesting the bible is now a elaborate hoax - for what purpose?

If you read Davids post, there is a reasonable explanation. From a John Williams account I think!

From David's post.

Quote :

" 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"

The bibles were given to soldiers present at RD on 22/23 January 1879 - not just B Company 2/24th.

1/24th (including DJ) embarked at Durban aboard the transport Egypt for UK (Gosport) on 27 August 1879. 2/24th were still upcountry in Zululand at this time.

2/24th embarked at Durban aboard the Ontario on 21 October 1879 - nearly 2 months later. What is the relevance of the report of B Company defenders receiving RD bibles quote recently put forward by DP to negate DJ's case? It is possible that DJ received his RD bible before he departed from Natal or he could have received it later whilst at Gosport or Colchester.

Most of AG and DP response on the forum was written/started from the initial stand-point that DJ could not be present - as AZWRS were not previously consulted - and is therefore, in my opinion not truly balanced. The modern authors (used in much of the supporting evidence by AG and DP) do not have time to 'raw' research - it is easy to take a published book down from the nearest shelf - rather than actual going and doing hard research at the Killie Campbell in Durban or the KZN archives in PMB. A large amount that we read about AZW, I feel, is not based on true original research but the same text recycled over and over again.

Ulundi wrote:

Surgeon Reynolds account of the Battle
“The only men actually killed in the hospital were three, excluding a Kaffir under treatment for compound fracture of the femur. The names were Sergeant Maxfield, Private Jenkins, both unable to assist in their escape, being debilitated by fever”
Here we have Reynolds saying (High-Lighted)

Padre George Smith's account from his diary
“One poor fellow (Jenkins), venturing through one of these was also seized and dragged away”

Then we have Smith saying (High-Lighted) Killed while trying to escape.

Good question

Ulundi wrote:

last one tonight.

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

Name Burial Place
Pte. David Jenkins Cwmgelli Municipal Cem. Swansea
Pte. David Jenkins Cefn Cem. Merthyr Tydfil

When he was alive he was in two place at once. Isandlwana Rorkes Drfit.

And when he died he was in two places.

Very Good Question??

Sounds like a shade of Livingstone...

Heart in Africa, body in Britain.

Or perhaps some put his name in by mistake?

Or may be there were two David Jenkins at Rorke's Drift?

So sure they named him twice

Hi All

We are still searching and now have the following

Regulations Field Forces South Africa.
General Order - By Lt. Gen. Lord Chelmsford
Pietermaritzburg November 1878.

(From the Original owned by Durban Museum - photo copy held by AZWHS/AZWRS )

Reg. 30. A camp police will be established with each column, consisting of a sergeant who will be mounted by the Transport Dept, and six privates.

Comment No mention of moving prisoners.

Reg. 79. No soldier to be allowed to ride in a wagon without a pass from an officer.

Comment; It's a very long way from RD to Pietermaritzburg on foot, all those rivers to cross and while suffering a STD.

Reg 171. Officers commanding columns and districts will furnish the Dep. Adjt. General every Monday with a weekly return of the forces in the field under their command.

Comment; There may well be a copy somewhere.

Reg.172. They will, at the same time, transmit a diary of all occurrances of a military nature, movements of troops, details of arrivals, departures etc.
This includes, under the headings,
' A - Weekly State' details of all ranks, horses weapons and ammunition, and
' B Return of Troops in the Field'.

Comment; There may well be a copy of these return somewhere.

Note; these regulations deal with procedural and administrative matters for the columns - down to the issue of blankets, stationery and daily rations. In other words - there is no official room for individual thought or action.

Does anyone have a copy of any of the Returns mentioned.

We are still waiting for other lines of evidence to come in and will let you all know as and when.

Regards

David

Mr Payne,

Can I pick you up on this point:

Quote :

Reg. 79. No soldier to be allowed to ride in a wagon without a pass from an officer.

Comment; It's a very long way from RD to Pietermaritzburg on foot, all those rivers to cross and while suffering a STD.

But those suffering from the STD's had made as far as Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift, and I cannot believe that there weren't men out skirmishing with Chelmsford at Mangeni who were also suffering from the same complaint!

Please get over the fixation with STD's - for I'm sure they were men who fought and died bravely at Isandlwana with STD's - it doesn't matter at all. Surely it must also cause some angst for descendants to have their forebears' medical conditions made public through the medium of the internet? In my opinion it is little different to tabloid press sensationalism.

Regards,

'Jimu

DJ's letter home is headed .................'Zululand' - January 26th 1879.

So this current topic of this thread appears ill-relevant to the case - regarding DJ swift trip down to PMB with STD - although the letter itself would be taken by fast courier from Helpmakaar to PMB (see Soldier Artist in Zululand - page 99 and 109 for illustrations of 1879 postal courier service).

The postscript to that same letter says ..... I think we will go down to the colony to get re-fitted, as we have lost everything. No.295 David Jenkins. ‘G’ Company, 1-24th Foot. Pietermaritzburg, Natal.

This PS strongly suggests to me that DJ was either at Helpmakaar or RD on 26th January when he wrote the letter - even though those places are not actually in Zululand but they are pretty close.

DP would be best to stick to Accountancy rather than research.

According to his medical records Jenkins was treated for gonorrhea twice n 1875/1876 - there being no further entries for treatment for an STD during the period of the Zulu campaign....perhaps his 'condition' wasn't quite so severe as is being made out...in fact he went on to complete his time with the colours, followed by army reserve and indeed was subsequently recalled to the colours without any further mention of STDs.

With regard to his letter of course it is also possible that he began the letter on the 26th Jan in 'Zululand' but finished it later on...

Can somebody please confirm this but In what letter does C/Sgt Edwards state that Jenkins was to the rear with prisoners? If he does actually state that, does he mention any other men as part of this party?.....
I know that Edwards mentions Private Desmond receiving 50 lashes for insubordination...(this letter dates from around 13th Jan 1879 apparently). Presumably 50 lashes would be enough to put him in hospital, (at Rorke's Drift), and possibly under guard. Does that then count as being to the rear.....

Sherman,

Your remark based on David Jenkins' service record:

Quote :

According to his medical records Jenkins was treated for gonorrhea twice n 1875/1876 - there being no further entries for treatment for an STD during the period of the Zulu campaign....

This must cast serious doubt in the Greaves' hypothesis relating to that angle. Especially as he appears to have been mistaken over which ailment it was:

Quote :

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?

If Jenkins were alive such a slight might be consider as libel, but as he is not may be Adrian Greaves - in the light of your findings - might consider removing the remark from his intended publication?

'Jimu

David
All very well quoting rules and regulations in the general context but as we know Lord Chelmsford was not well known for obeying standing regs.
To put your post into context, please provide some form of proof that these regulations had in fact been implemented. ( Sure as hell werent at isandlwana or RD )




Regards

Springbok, that's a bit lame

Impi
To answer your questions...
1. David Jenkins was added to England's Sons in 2006.
2. I have not responded to AG/DP's comments because I feel there is nothing in them to respond to. If you'd like an opinion on a specific point I'll happily oblige but nothing I have seen, in my opinion, refutes D Jenkins's presence at RD, and nothing contradicts the evidence presented to support his being there. I echo Bill Cainan's remarks.
For your info...
I normally wait for a sizeable build-up of new information before issuing a new edition of England's Sons and I added a whole new section in the latest one. My original idea was to have a volume which could be updated easily to give the very latest in research in a cheap format. With the latest edition the printer was able to produce a softback book format at the same price as a ring binder format so it became possible to produce something in a more presentable book form (something I think CTSG asked about over a year ago). Note that the price covers production costs - my intention was and still is tthat any small profit from its sales (and it IS small) goes to the museum.
I've not joined in this discussion much because I've been busy and there's not really been anything 'new' to respond to but as I said I'm happy to answer anything specific either in the forum or by pm.

Glad you are still with us Julian, I thought you might have deserted us with all the ill thought out remarks and abuse that you have been getting from some of the members.

The way I see all this is that a genuine mistake was made with David Jenkins' number on the Chard roll. The number shown on the roll is 1083, but this is totally impossible because 1083 Jenkins was KIA at iSandlwana, and of course the other Jenkins shown on Chard's roll was 841 Jenkins, and he was killed in the hospital, so the Jenkins that warned Chard of the zulu about to fire at him must have been 295 Jenkins, as he was with the prisoner escort party 'sent to the rear' (RD).

Martin.

Martin. We all know what you are saying, you have said it often enough. It's your opinion that regimental numbers were mixed up. If that's what you think, then you are in your right to suppose David was there.

Mr. Cooper,

Rather than refer to it as the Chard roll, better to refer to it as the alleged Chard roll.

'Jimu

kwajimu1879 wrote:

Mr. Cooper,

Rather than refer to it as the Chard roll, better to refer to it as the alleged Chard roll.

'Jimu

Or the Brecon Museum Staff Roll.

John wrote:

kwajimu1879 wrote:

Mr. Cooper,

Rather than refer to it as the Chard roll, better to refer to it as the alleged Chard roll.

'Jimu

Or the Brecon Museum Staff Roll.

I do keep an open mind with regards to the various rolls concerning Rorkes Drift. But I do bear in-mind that these Battles have been far more researched today than they had been back then.

Martin
Thanks. No, I've not deserted. I've kept a watching brief for a while that's all. I also agree with you - two men named Jenkins on the Roll and the mistake is ever-after repeated. There are plenty of errors on the Roll but this fell victim to an 'easy' explanation re the Jenkins kia Isandhlwana.
CTSG
I've not said it yet but good to see you back. In terms of historical reference the document is still known as the Chard Roll - I don't think there's any 'alleged' about it - no-one seriously thinks it was compiled/signed by him (though it may have been ordered by him). Perhaps 'Chard' Roll might suit as being more accurate.

My theory is this.

We clearly know that David Jenkins wrote to his father, the letter giving the impression that he was at the Battle of Isandlwana and escaped.
How could he have then gone home, to declare that he hadn’t in fact been at Isandlwana, but was at Rorke’s Drift? At the time of his sending of the letter, Isandlwana was the most talked about battle, Rorkes Drift hadn’t really hit the limelight what with all the VCs

David Payne says

Quote :

“Pte David Jenkins never claimed to be a Rorke’s Drift defender, why would anyone attending a reunion need to challenge him”

Perhaps Jenkins’s was unable to tell the truth, for fear of up-setting his family, and there would have been no need for other defenders to challenge him, they knew him and as far as his family were aware he was just attending a 24th reunion.
Poor old Jenkins I think got himself in to situation, where he had no choice and continued to let his family believe he had taken part in the Battle of Isandlwana. He probably hid he bible away and carried on with his life the best he could.

24th
With respect, a close reading of his letter does not clearly give the impression that he was at Isandhlwana - merely that he was one of ten [1/24th] who had escaped the slaughter at Isandhlwana (by being at RD presumably?). I grant you that the letter COULD be read in the way you suggest but it needn't be.

I must admit that this statement in his letter threw me off course for a while, especially where he stated that he had never seen such a sight. But thinking about it for a while, I came to the conclusion that he had 'escaped' meaning that he was lucky to have been with the escort party, and that by saying he had never seen such a sight, he meant that he had heard from others of the horrible sights that they had witnessed when they had returned from Mangeni on their way back to RD. The images conjured up in his mind by other soldiers saying what they had seen must have been very vivid, and he therefor wrote his letter in that way.

The men that actually witnessed those sights must have had nightmares for many nights to come, and for the rest of their lives.

Martin
To say 'I've never seen such a sight!' in the mid to late Victorian period meant the same as 'unheard of!', 'I've never known such goings on!', 'I've never heard the like!', 'loads of' in modern parlance. It needn't actually mean Jenkins 'saw' anything, he was just trying to convey that it was a very great number of bodies beyond his compass.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Springbok, that's a bit lame

:p;: :p;: :p;:
Considering some of the posts that have been put up its damn near rocket science.

Cheers

PS Its a fact though

So far it is looking like more research should have been done, but yes!

:p;: Good God man, that comment made me choke on my single Malt. :p;:

Quote :

Oh I never saw such a sight. Please pray to God to continue to save my life.

I think the word "Continue" shows he is trying to say he was at Isandlwana and survived that?

Impi

As Julian has said you can intepret the first sentence in two ways:

1. That he was at Isandlwana and escaped - However, were not all the men who did get off the battlefield, mounted ? If that was the case, you would have thought he would have made some reference to the manner of his escape.

or 2. That he was one of ten men belonging to the five (he may not have been aware Pope's company had been left at Isandlwana) companies of the 1/24th who remained alive - ie he escaped death, but not necessarily the battlefield. It is interesting to note that he says FIVE companies and not SEVEN (his company and one other were of course at Helpmekaar). This would seem to imply him being at Isandlwana at some time, but clearly not there when the camp got over-run.

You have clearly interpreted this letter in one way without acknowledging that it is equally valid to intepret it another way. That is up to you. However, I doubt it does your cause any good by expressing your opinions in such a coarse manner.

Whether you agree with Julian or not, you need to realise he has done substantial research into this subject , whereas you yourself have publically expressed that you would consider it "a waste of time" to come to Brecon to look at primary source material.

Bill

Quote :

Whether you agree with Julian or not, you need to realise he has done substantial research into this subject , whereas you yourself have publically expressed that you would consider it "a waste of time" to come to Brecon to look at primary source material

Highlighted. That we cant doubt. but if you look at Julians other posts he shows how he came to a conclusion. He 's not so forthcoming.

The letter can clearly be interpreted 2 ways, and am I correct in thinking that it has also been translated from Welsh? Colloquial Welsh at that.

In any case, whether DJ was trying to claim he escaped the Isandhlwana battle field, or whether he was spared/ saved the Isandhlwana battle field, the letter has very little relevance to this discussion - ie the fact that the evidence proves with a high degree of probability, that he was at Rorkes Drift.
As Greaves and Payne have already pointed out, DJ never claimed to have been at RD. It is just that the evidence shows he was almost certainly there.
Perhaps, he wished he had been at Isandhlwana with his mates.

I spent yesterday reading through my copies of the original documents relating to Jenkins’s presence at RD and reading through all the pages of postings on this subject on this forum. Two things became apparent.
First, forum contributors have ignored the fact that there were clearly TWO 24th men named Jenkins at Rorke’s Drift.
Secondly, some of the contributors’ posts are either wrong or inaccurate (some of them written by those who purport to know better). I write this not as an opinion but as a statement of fact since they obviously are not au fait with all the primary source documents. The result has been to mislead others. Many of the subsequent posts are therefore based on false premises and muddy the waters still further. Those with already-entrenched views will find that entrenchment is not an historical virtue.
So I have decided contributing to this thread any longer would be pointless. I have been preparing for publication Studies in the Zulu War 1879: II in which, by way of a sort of supplement, I’d included an updated essay on all those soldiers Norman Holme ‘missed’ when he compiled The Noble 24th and its predecessors. In it there is already a brief paragraph on David Jenkins. I have decided to extend this paragraph considerably and present all the documents and arguments in a readily visible format, as I did with The Brave Fugitive, so that readers may reach their own conclusion.

Julian how long before publication.

Ray63 - I would hope 6-8 weeks but don't hold me to it.

Impi

Please explain to me why you think the RD Bible presented to DJ is not a piece of evidence?

Extract from David Payne's post

"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".

Impi and 24th

1. Geoff Rees has been quoted often in this forum during this thread - he had no influence in the decision to add DJ to the RD list.  His comments are modern hearsay/reporting and the story he quotes were not facts used in making the decision.  He is naturally proud that his relative was present at RD on 22/23 January 1879.

2. Again AG/DPs reference to John Williams VC and the Mayor of Durban's address again have no relevance to the case - the Address was given to 2/24th before the battalion departed Durban (January 1880).  By that time JD and members of 1/24th were already in the UK.  So I still ask why is the RD bible inscribed to DJ is not considered by you as one of the pieces of evidence in the case to add DJs name to the list.

Kenny wrote:

1. Geoff Rees has been quoted often in this forum during this thread - he had no influence in the decision to add DJ to the RD list. His comments are modern hearsay/reporting and the story he quotes were not facts used in making the decision. He is naturally proud that his relative was present at RD on 22/23 January 1879.

2. Again AG/DPs reference to John Williams VC and the Mayor of Durban's address again have no relevance to the case - the Address was given to 2/24th before the battalion departed Durban (January 1880). By that time JD and members of 1/24th were already in the UK. So I still ask why is the RD bible inscribed to DJ is not considered by you as one of the pieces of evidence in the case to add DJs name to the list.

Ok Kenny i will break it down.

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’.

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 .

impi wrote:

"Geoff Rees writes: I hope that you do not mind my contacting you about my ancestor, Private David Jenkins, 1/24 S. Warwickshire Regiment, who was a local Brecon man before joining the army and spending five years in South Africa. David was a defender of Rorke's Drift and it has been established with the help of Major Everitt of the Regimental Museum in Brecon that he saved the life of the commanding officer, John Chard, during that action.

Martin Everett has assumed this was David Jenkins. Show me primary source evidence that says it was Pte David Jenkins. That saved Chard's life.