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

I think impi forgot to stipulate that Snook's decision must be made on a boiling hot Sunday in December during the reign of George VII. That should get him out of the hole into which he has dug himself and off the hook nicely.
As he well knows, there is no precedent for what he describes, there is no authorization for it, and there is no 'Official' list (and never has been) to add anyone to.
His remarks (and CTSG's endorsement from the sidelines) simply demonstrate how little they know of these things and how historical truths are established.
R.I.I.

xhosa2000 wrote:

and after all that,if you got your
' wish list ' you are still doomed
to disappointment! king canute.

your up against the establishment
now..and your continually dissin
the memory of a deceased patriot.
i hear your concerns, but they dont
hold water because of your constant
vacillation's you leap on each tenant
presented with the same entrenched
dogmatic view. " its wrong but for the
life of me i cant state with any athor-
ity why that is the case!. impi. s..t
or get off the pot. its nice you have
sycophants i hope they are a comfort
to you. dont be so crass and insensitive.
there are living descendents hearing
your crap. .   cheers xhosa    

But that could work both ways. I'm sure the family would rather know the true. Confirmed and official.

springbok9 wrote:

Why on earth would Julian Whybra a pretty senior researcher of international repute need to get approval from a man who has written two semi fictitional books on the AZW. Albeit he is an ex Colonel of the regiment, the Ex being the operative word. He holds virtually no standing in the world of research and academia.
Julian Whybra has done what he does, published a paper on the results of his research. If there is disagreement with this from his peers then so be it let it happen. To date there has been none at all. Possibly responses are being considered AFTER due analysis of the paper. I personally look forward to those responses.
Its not up to JW to change the "Official Role" but the men in charge of the Regimental History, this I would assume being the trustees of the museum who would I think look at available argument for and against and make a judgement based on that fact. On going research into the numbers at RD is just that, ongoing. Norman Holmes etc have worked on this for years, I don't recall to many objections in the past?
If there is objection therefore may I suggest that it be taken up with the relevant authorities at the regiment and lodge an official objection based on sound argument.
Sound argument is something which is totally lacking at present. Ive seen emotional objections, God knows why, and a lot of rhetoric but to date no one has answered the key questions put to the forum.
David Payne et al published a counter argument that I was really keen to see but it produced nothing of substance and a fare amount of misleading information.
To the forum detractors, good on you, you rightly make your voices heard. But, put up some counter argument instead of just negative insults and comment.
Answer the questions put up by the 'fors' and provide a good 'against' platform.

So far any arguments have led to personal attacks and purile sarcasm. Put that away and do what this forum was designed for............discussion.

Mike Snook. Replied to a question posed on the RDVC He was just replying. By telling them who they should approach.

What ARE you all talking about? There is no 'officially'. What Snook describes, occurred under Martin in 2006 (but Snook was only hinting at what one might do under such circumstances as there is no precedent). 24th, if there WAS an 'official' mechanism, do you not think I would have done it? Impi's words are appalling - almost akin to book-burning. I'm waiting for the rest of you to read the evidence and simply put him straight.

There must be some protocol, for adding defenders to the roll. I don’t see how anyone can change history, based just on research.

There is no protocol and accepted history can only be changed by research - how else can it happen?
Take the entitlement to medals,  research has often proved that individuals who were not included on the original victorian official medal rolls were present at an action. No one goes back to the National Archives after 100 years and changes the originals, nor would they be allowed to, it is just accepted when sufficient proof is made available to satisfy interested parties.

Steve

Rusteze
Exactly.

24th
You must remember that there was NO roll to add people to. The Chard Roll is not contemporary (dating only to 1929) even though Jenkins's name is on it. That's why it was so important to find a contemporary roll and why I've devoted so many pages to it in the essay (and for Jenkins's name to be on it).
And hence, there is no protocol such as you describe.
If you don't see how anyone can change history based on just research, then you don't understand how history is written. That's all any history book is - the result of research.

Julian, you must have the patience of Job my friend.  

24th wrote:

I don’t see how anyone can change history, based just on research.

   Extraordinary!

That is how history works, surely! History changes and updates as new research uncovers previously undiscovered documents!

I know there is no official roll, but I would have thought that the most significant, important and accepted roll, would be the up-to-date roll accepted and used by the Museum of the 24th Foot, at Brecon?

I am guessing that there is now MORE known documentation that proves David Jenkins to have been a RD defender, than there is for the vast majority of the other defenders who are accepted to have been there, some perhaps whose participation is confirmed solely by one document, known to have mistakes in it - confirmed only by the Chard roll of 1929 that contains their name !!!

Kopie

"I know there is no official roll, but I would have thought that the most significant, important and accepted roll, would be the up-to-date roll accepted and used by the Museum of the 24th Foot, at Brecon?"

What roll would that be, Kopie??? I think you'll find that the museum simply keeps a record of the most recent research and annotates Holme's work. I doubt that Bill Cainan actually holds a separate sacrosanct roll which is the Holy Grail of the Royal Welsh.

"I am guessing that there is now MORE known documentation that proves David Jenkins to have been a RD defender, than there is for the vast majority of the other defenders who are accepted to have been there, some perhaps whose participation is confirmed solely by one document, known to have mistakes in it - confirmed only by the Chard roll of 1929 that contains their name !!!"

You are quite correct. David Jenkins now has more ticks against his name than a couple of dozen of the other defenders.

As I've written in England's Sons there are at least three men who MIGHT have been at Rorke's Drift but whose presence research has not yet been able to verify. In fact, there is a fourth whom I'd previously written off, but who, as a result of the research I did on Jenkins, has moved in my estimation from a definite no to a possible. The jury is still out on these three (four) but who knows what will be uncovered in the future?

Julian Whybra wrote:

What roll would that be, Kopie???   I think you'll find that the museum simply keeps a record of the most recent research and annotates Holme's work.

Well, that then! So not a "roll" but a "record" ?

But no, thank you for that reply.
I hope that if these other 3 or 4 other possibles really were defnders, then one day, you, or a budding historian of the future (such as Drummerboy16) is able to discover the pertinent documentation and prove the fact.
If these heroes have been ommitted from the "record", then it is 134 years too long! Give them, even if it is just their immortal names, the recognition which they earned and deserve!

That's my position!

Martin says " you must have the patience
of job ". concur. a must for any serious
researcher/historian. i cant add anything
at the moment, ordered my copy last
wed, zip, nada.. i'm not best pleased. as
i hopefully want to contribute. but patience
has its own rewards as they would have it.
just makes me peed off. lol. xhosa

Me too xhosa, ordered mine last week. If I get it by the weekend I will be impressed, as they are a museum, not a book dealer. But I think I will butt out of this debate now until I have received and read the essay and looked at the evidence. Nothing more to add really until then.

Regardless of what's been written, and what people think about JW publication, the fact remains that David Jenkins presence is not confirmed by any official account from the time. End of! 

got you kopie. got you impi.

Julian Whybra wrote:

I think impi forgot to stipulate that Snook's decision must be made on a boiling hot Sunday in December during the reign of George VII.  That should get him out of the hole into which he has dug himself and off the hook nicely.
As he well knows, there is no precedent for what he describes, there is no authorization for it, and there is no 'Official' list (and never has been) to add anyone to.
His remarks (and CTSG's endorsement from the sidelines) simply demonstrate how little they know of these things and how historical truths are established.
R.I.I.

As I said " arrogant "

 

This is exactly the same thing as what happened with Adenorff, despite there being clear evidence he was at RD people still believed he wasn't based on nothing other then speculation.

Julian Whybra wrote:

Kopie

"I know there is no official roll, but I would have thought that the most significant, important and accepted roll, would be the up-to-date roll accepted and used by the Museum of the 24th Foot, at Brecon?"

What roll would that be, Kopie???   I think you'll find that the museum simply keeps a record of the most recent research and annotates Holme's work.  I doubt that Bill Cainan actually holds a separate sacrosanct roll which is the Holy Grail of the Royal Welsh.

"I am guessing that there is now MORE known documentation that proves David Jenkins to have been a RD defender, than there is for the vast majority of the other defenders who are accepted to have been there, some perhaps whose participation is confirmed solely by one document, known to have mistakes in it - confirmed only by the Chard roll of 1929 that contains their name !!!"

You are quite correct.  David Jenkins now has more ticks against his name than a couple of dozen of the other defenders.

As I've written in England's Sons there are at least three men who MIGHT have been at Rorke's Drift but whose presence research has not yet been able to verify.  In fact, there is a fourth whom I'd previously written off, but who, as a result of the research I did on Jenkins, has moved in my estimation from a definite no to a possible.  The jury is still out on these three (four) but who knows what will be uncovered in the future?

But nothing Official from the time. 


I think we all need to except, that a roll exsitsts in the Museum where Bill works. That roll has been complied from the names published in " England's Son" written by the well known Zulu War researched Mr Julian Whybra. It is based on roll calls made by various people who took part in the defence, although DJ wasn't included on any of those rolls.


Julian's research has uncovered some information that suggests DJ could have been at RD. Based on that evidence, a small group have decided he should be added to the roll of the gallant defenders who took part in the defence of the mission station at Rorkes Drift. No different to adding another train to one's train set if they had one! 


The museum roll.


Perhaps it should state, that the roll call has been compiled by a group of Zulu War enthusiasts who have undertaken research into indivuals they believe may have taken part in the defence of the mission station Rorkes Drift 22nd/23rd Jan 1879. However has they are not mentioned in any offical capacity from that time. The roll can only be assumed to be correct!

DrummerBoy 16 wrote:

 

This is exactly the same thing as what happened with Adenorff, despite there being clear evidence he was at RD people still believed he wasn't based on nothing other then speculation.

Some still doub't he was there! Search the web!

its your call admin, but please dont shut this down.
its a very important debate which seems to be at
the critical mass stage, were all grown up people
here, and one way or another consensus, might or
might not be reached, there is no right or wrong
only opinion.. but inference will be drawn, and will
be remembered! hopefully, again democracy and
persuasion will have the last say. no axe to grind
anywhere. cheers all xhosa

CTSG wrote:

Perhaps it should state, that the roll call has been compiled by a group of Zulu War enthusiasts who have undertaken research into indivuals they believe may have taken part in the defence of the mission station Rorkes Drift 22nd/23rd Jan 1879. However has they are not mentioned in any offical capacity from that time. The roll can only be assumed to be correct!

That would do nicely!

Kopie
To be precise, before A. N. Other misquotes me, I wrote “a record of the most recent research and annotates Holme's work”. This is very different from a roll.

Impi
You wrote:
“the fact remains that David Jenkins presence is not confirmed by any official account of the time. End of!”
I’m afraid you will find that he is. Read the essay.

CTSG
Arrogant, possibly, but justifiably so. And in this case, true. But it's nothing personal. It's just that if you're not basing your comments on anything which is demonstrable then that needs to be made clear.

CTSG
You wrote:
“But nothing Official from the time.”
Yes there is.

“I think we all need to except [sic], that a roll exsitsts in the Museum where Bill works.”
No roll but, as I wrote to Kopie, a record of the most recent research and annotations to Holme's work.

“That roll has been complied [sic] from the names published in " England's Son" written by the well known Zulu War researched Mr Julian Whybra.”
Untrue. It will have been based on the work of several authors including the inimitable Norman Holme.

“It is based on roll calls made by various people who took part in the defence, although DJ wasn't included on any of those rolls.”
I’m afraid he was. Read the essay.

“Julian's research has uncovered some information that suggests DJ could have been at RD.”
Untrue. I’ve uncovered some information that proves he was at RD. Read the essay.

“Perhaps it should state, that the roll call has been compiled by a group of Zulu War enthusiasts who have undertaken research into indivuals they believe may have taken part in the defence of the mission station Rorkes Drift 22nd/23rd Jan 1879. However has they are not mentioned in any offical capacity from that time. The roll can only be assumed to be correct!”
The whole point of research is to discover all mentions in an official capacity and to do away with assumptions. Everyone on my list in England’s Sons can be accounted for in this way. The three (four now) who cannot are listed separately as possible.

CTSG
You wrote re Adendorff:
“Some still doub't he was there! Search the web!”
Some aren’t au fait with the latest research. But if the web is the extent of their research, what do you expect…?

Admin
I agree. I would much rather close this thread down for a fortnight till a number of people have read the essay and can comment in an informed way. It would stop all this daft speculation and unproductive ‘propaganda’ based on an absence of knowledge.

i agree with Julian's last point.
a short pause. xhosa

Cmon Les, you believe it will make a difference?
Seem to recall a saying from my youth 'up north': Theres non so blind as those that wont see.
Cheers mate

Admin wrote. "I will take the latter, but will monitor"

I haven't got a problem with that, I have nothing to hide! Perhaps JW could enlighten us, as to why he would like it locked down 

nah frank your right it wont.
i have great faith in some of
the people on this forum,and
i trust in Julian's research and
honesty implicitly, i have not
got anything further to add to
this debate at this moment.

I got a nice e mail off Celia
Green earlier, she confirmed my
copy had been reserved and has
been dispatched. hope your well  
xhosa

Hi Les
Yeah Ive gone through the essay with care, it all worked before it was published, the new areas that Julians dug up merely confirm things. Theres no doubt in my mind.Look forward to your opinion.
Unfortunatly the Jenkins Essay over shadows a couple of other really good studies. In particular 'Moderation and Forbearance', it changes a few perceptions I had about the build up. In particular the build up between Frere and Chelmsford. Frouds influence is well documented, pretty sure your going to enjoy it as it covers some of the reasonings weve gone through.
All good stuff.

Cheers Mate
PS The apps gone to Apple for approval, should be available next week. Pretty excited about it.

Cheers Mate

springbok
Thanks. I put a lot of work into the Moderation and Forbearance essay. I realize it's delving into the political background rather than the military and it is a very complex subject but sometimes the 'reasons why' are just as important as the 'what happened'. Anyway I felt had something fresh to feed into this area and I'm glad you enjoyed it.

"The Defence of Rorke’s Drift. St. James’s Palace (Buckingham Palace no. 3350). 119.4 by 211.5 cm, 47 by 83 in. Item 186. Signed and dated 18 EB 80.

In No. 186 the Zulus are attacking the north-west corner of the outer perimeter of the station, which at that point rested on a rock ledge. The roof of the hospital in the background has caught fire. For the identification of the figures, se below. In recognition of the heroism displayed by the defenders, eleven Victoria Crosses were awarded; Chard and Bromhead were promoted to brevet Major.
     Painted for Queen Victoria who had, according to the artist, asked her, through Sir Henry Ponsonby, if she would paint for her ‘a subject to be taken from a war of her own reign’. Although urged by her friends to take ‘Rorke’s Drift’ as a subject, she first proposed to the Queen the finding of the body of the Prince Imperial. This was at first approved by the Queen and Mrs Butler began to plan the composition; but she received a message that the Queen thought it better not to paint that subject and she was therefore compelled ‘to chose the popular Rorke’s Drift’. (1)
     The commission from the Queen was also discussed in letters between Sir Henry Ponsonby and his wife. On 7 June1879 Ponsonby wrote that the Queen wanted two pictures of scenes from the Zulu War, but that Mrs Butler was only to do one: ‘none equal to her for English soldiers’. Lady Ponsonby discussed the commission with the artist, who was under, or gave, the impression that she was to paint in due course two pictures for the Queen, and proposed £800 as the price for the ‘Zulu one’, which was to be full of figures, and if the Zulus are to be got at she will make them sit… She says the Queen has always shown such a peculiar and detailed interest in soldiers, not looking upon them as machines, as people do, that she particularly like to think she is painting it for her. I thought her charming…’ The price was settled, in fact, at £1,000. The Royal family had clearly been interested in the picture, The Remnants of an Army, which Mrs Butler had exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1879 (582).
     After the 24th had returned home, ‘some of the principal heroes’ were first summoned to Windsor and then ‘sent on’ to the artist. She went to Portsmouth, where the 24th was quartered, in order to make all the necessary studies from life. She received every assistance from the officers of the regiment and the staff and stated:
‘they even had a representation of the fight acted by the men who took part in it, dressed in the uniforms they wore on that awful night. Of course, the result was that I reproduced the event as nearly to the life as possible but from the soldier’s point of view of the thing. What caused the great difficulty that I had to grapple with was the fact that the whole mass of those fighting figures was illuminated by firelight from the burning hospital. Firelight transforms colours in an extraordinary way which you hardly realize till you have to reproduce the thing in paint’. 
  The ‘one salient figure’ among the Zulus was painted from ‘a sort of Zulu’ produced for the artist by Dr Pollard (letters of sir Henry Ponsonby, 7, 10-13 and 16 June, MSS. In W.RA.; Mary Ponsonby, ed. Magdalen Ponsonby (1927), pp. 148-50; Elizabeth Butler, An Autobiography (1922), pp,186-190). In an undated letter from the painter to Val Princep, preserved in papers in the possession of his grandchildren, she writes about her efforts to find for her ‘a Negro model’ who may have been needed in painting 186.
     A modern key attached to the back of the picture is unreliable. One of Elizabeth Butler’s sketchbooks, in the National Army Museum, contains two rapid sketches for the whole composition, a sketch of the figure of lt. Bromhead and four studies of of the figures firing over the mealie bags in their left foreground. One of these is inscribed ‘Jenkins; by the artist, but no soldier of this name is recorded as having been at the action. |the following identifications are suggested.
In the right foreground, with his shoulder bandaged and carrying ammunition, Private Frederick Hitch, VC., 24th Regiment, who was severely wounded; behind him, attending to a wounded man, Surgeon Major Reynolds, VC., Army Medical department; and, with his right arm flung upwards, Acting Commissariat Officer James Dalton, VC., who had urged that the station should be fortified ands, if possible, defended and was wounded in the shoulder. (1)   In the centre of the composition are Lt. Chard, VC., pointing with his left arm, and Lt. Bromhead, VC., holding his sword. Both of them had sat to mrs Butler. Behind them can be seen the Rev. George Smith, chaplain, who was active throughout the battle in encouraging the defenders and in replenishing the supplies of ammunition at the perimeter. The soldier lying on the ground and looking towards chard and Bromhead is probably Corporal Frederick Schiess, VC., of the Natal Native Contingent; and the figures in the left foreground are said to include Privates Robert Jones, VC., and William Jones, VC., both of the 24th Regiment (C. Wilkinson-Latham ‘The Defence of Rorke’s Drift’ Tradition, no 55, pp.6-8)
 The artist herself stated that she had ‘managed to show, in that scuffle, all the V.C,’s and other conspicuous actors in the drama’. The names above do not , however, include Private John Williams, Private Hook or Corporal William Allen, who was wounded in the arm, is identified in the modern key as the figure identified by Mr Wilkinson-Latham as private Hitch. On one of the leaves of the sketch book ) See pic) the artist noted ‘Private Hitch in London’ beside studies of a whiskered civilian who cannot readily be identified with anyone seen in the picture. It has been pointed out by P. Usherwood and J. Spenser-Smith, Lady Butler Battle Artist 1846-1933, National Army Museum (1987), no. 33, that the artist had no previous experience in including portraits of living people in her compositions.
     Mrs. Butler took the picture, ‘in its pale, shallow, early stage’ to Windsor so that THE queen sould see it. It was examined on 16 December 12879 by the Queen, Prince Leopold, Princess Louise and Princess Beatrice, as well as by Lord Beaconsfield; and the artist explained to the Queen ‘every figure, even the most distant’. The Queen described the picture as ‘sketched in with some heads, nearly finished. It will be splendid & the drawing is most powerful;. Mrs. Butler was there herself. She is very ladylike and pleasing, and explained everything with great enthusiasm. The figure of Private Hitch, is the most finished, & wonderfully like. All officers, & men, are portraits, & everything is painted from descriptions, & just as it was, drawn to the very smallest detail. She made them put themselves into the attitudes in which they were. Major Chard is also very like (2) Major Bromhead is to be painted near him’ (Journal); both Chard and Bromhead had been invited to Balmoral. It was the artist’s ‘wonderfully correct drawing’ which the Queen specially mentioned in a letter to the Crown princess, 17 December (W.R.A. Add. U32). On 11 March 1880 she saw, at Buckingham Palace, De Neuville’s painting of the same subject, but thought it ‘far less real and effective’ than Mrs Butler’s, which she saw again on 13 March, ‘much advanced’ (Journal). The artist was paid £1,000 by the Lord Chamberlain’s department in September 1880. The picture was received at Windsor from the painter on 14 July 1880.
     Exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1881 by permission of the Queen, it attracted a ‘great crush’ Art Journal (1881) p.230; Athenaem, 28 May): also shown in 1881 at the Egyptian Hall. Later at St. James’s; transferred to Clarence House in 1946, but returned to St. James’s. 

References

(1) He was, however, leaning over the barricade when he received his wound.
(2) Sir Henry Ponsonby records the hope that Chard would not appear: he was so ugly it would spoil the work of art.

Key
"

John
That's probably one of the most interesting posts ive seen in a while, nice one.

Cheers

Before everyone leaps up and down. They have to read Julian Whybra's latest work on the subject of the Lady Butler painting.  The description posted above was written by Oliver Miller who worked for the Royal Collection between 1971 and 1987. His views on the presence of a soldier named 'Jenkins' at Rorke's Drift was based on limited information available at that time.

Kenny
Quite right. I found the article interesting more for the history of the painting.

Cheers

John
What was the point of your highlighting the sentence re Jenkins in this post? You must have realized it is 30 years out of date? David Payne had mentioned this, even quoted the same line, in his post weeks ago on the Jenkins thread. It was dismissed then and will be even more so now that the new evidence has come to light. I don't quite see why you've bothered to highlight it????

Agree with Springbok, good post John.

The painting in-question, and described above, is how I would have expected it to be. Deplicting the VC winners only. Intersting to see 
"Jenkins" being mentioned. (ie) " but no soldier of this name is recorded as having been at the action" also intetesting to see it says "A modern key attached to the back of the picture is unreliable."


Reading john's post its possible, that someone named "Jenkins" stood in as a model "Only" as one of the VC winners. 


However we should have more views, on JW publication on or after the 5th November.

Julian Whybra wrote:

John
What was the point of your highlighting the sentence re Jenkins in this post?  You must have realized it is 30 years out of date?  David Payne had mentioned this, even quoted the same line, in his post weeks ago on the Jenkins thread.  It was dismissed then and will be even more so now that the new evidence has come to light.  I don't quite see why you've bothered to highlight it????

I repeat good post John, there some information that is new to some of us. 
I'm guessing the reason you highlighted Jenkins, is because it's associated with another topic that is locked.

Impi,

As the 2/24th (and B Company) was in its way to Gibraltar. The only option was for Lady Butler to visit 1/24th at Gosport (Portsmouth) and the only RD defenders were the group from 1/24th which included Jenkins to use for her sketches. There were no VC defenders at Portsmouth at the time of her visit.

Excepting Chard and Reynolds - they arrived home on the same ship as Jenkins, Wilson, Desmond, etc.

Kenny this is not in reply to your comment! As we already know that. That's why she used actors just as Jenkins, to sit in for those that were there. 

"The artist herself stated that she had ‘managed to show, in that scuffle, all the V.C,’s"


Look at the painting inquestion, and count those defenders that stand out among the rest. Remembering 11 VCs were awarded. Why would Bulter paint a image of a Pte Soldier possiby at the closes point to the front of the painting than anyone else. The Soldier who, himself never ever claimed to have been at RD. 


Anyway no more from me until the 5th November. 

Impi

This is a little difficult because I don't want to say anything specific before 5th Nov. However, I managed to find out that Lady B. did use Jenkins and other RD participants as models. I'm afraid neither is it the case that Jenkins never claimed to have been at RD. He did so claim. The evidence for all this is in the essay which, I'm sure, others will comment on after 5th Nov. The painting wasn't finished until well into 1880 by which time several of the 2/24th wounded had arrived home - Hitch, Allan, etc.

I'm also a little perturbed by the sentence
"The artist herself stated that she had ‘managed to show, in that scuffle, all the V.C,’s"
which has been attributed to Lady B. I've been unable to find an attribution anywhere. I'm starting to wonder if this isn't apocryphal or was said by someone else about the picture. I'd certainly be interested if anyone can actually find the source of this remark.

The South Wales Borderers (24th Regiment of Foot) 1881-1969 compiled by Martin Everett, published in 1999.

Does anyone have this book. If yes does it contain information on RD? Roll call ect.

Remember, Remember the 5th of November, Gunpowder, Treason and Plot !

Steve

Perhaps myself and JW, are just to passionate about our views, to wait until the 5th November! Which in hindsight isn't a bad thing! 

Not an Achilles' heel for me at any rate. Looking at the painting there are only seven private soldiers whose facial details are shown in any recognizable form as it is - 3 full face, one three-quarter face, and 3 side view. One more is shown in the distance side view. The rest are simply indistinct. It is is difficult, impossible even, to ascribe names to all of them. If the source of the alleged remark can be traced, i.e. the precise wording, I wonder whether it will turn out to be that she 'represented' all the VC winners' presence rather than provided individual portraits of them.

I’m obviously missing something. The Jenkins topic was locked down until the 5th November, in order for members to receive Julian’s publication, yet we have a discussion, in full swing regarding the same subject? So I can either lock this one down, or merge it with the original discussion, and monitor the posts. Please let me know.

I'm happy to have the two merged. Based on the discussion as turn to the painting by Butler. The other issue regarding David Jenkins and Julian's new evidence can wait until November 5th, as there do point in discussing until then.

   

i'm more confused than usual