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

Ummm.

I thought there would have been some 'fireworks' on this topic today (Nov 5th), however, there are plenty of 'fireworks' going off up here at the moment, it's like the barrage at El Alamein outside,   some people must have money to burn  .

Martin what no in-put from you on Julian's book?

Sorry CTSG, not getting drawn in. I think I posted enough about Pte David Jenkins being at RD before Julian's book was published, so everyone on the forum already knows my opinion, ie; He Was There.

I'm with Martin , I also thought he was there before Julian's publication . I dont want to bang my head against a brickwall , I dont have the inclination or the time . Some will never believe Jenkins being at RD , and they will find it very challenging to prove he wasnt !   . Not patting Julian on the back he doesnt need it , but those who wish to prove he wasnt there arent in the same league as JW when it comes to tracking down the research , that to me is quite apparent from their previous track records !  
90th

90th.

 

Well that's good enough for me, obvisouly the publication doesn't seem to have convinced, the many who purchased the book. Which still casts doubt on David Jenkins being at RD. The book should state that although it contains new evidence, purchasers should have an opened mind, and form their own opinon as to whether or not Jenkins was there? But as he has only been added to the museum roll, it matters not!  

Impi

I am not sure there is an 'official' roll which you continually refer to.

If many years ago, Norman Holme had access to all the archive material that we had today, he would have correctly resolved the Jenkins query.  Had he done so, we would not be debating the David Jenkins's story today.  Norman started his research over 30 years ago because of his passionate interest in medal collecting.

What would be interesting if today the DJ campaign medal came up for sale today.  I sure our recent debate would have influence on the price and reflect the current value of those awarded to RD defenders.

impi wrote:

obvisouly the publication doesn't seem to have convinced, the many who purchased the book.

 

Where's that come from, anyone who was the publication and posted has stated that it provides enough evidence for them to agree he was present.

Impi
Did you actually read the posts of ymob, xhosa, springbok, old historian, drummer boy, Martin?  Perhaps there were some words you didn't understand (like provenance, perhaps)? Since you haven't read the essay yourself, please refrain from comment one way or the other until you have.  It's simply not good form, does nothing for your popularity rating, and will prevent people taking anything you say you seriously.

Dave wrote:

Dave wrote:

Impi. Your not alone in this as you say, I personally think your comments are relevant, more so JW says there is no source , to veryfy that all the VCs were used in the painting. You then post a link to a book by the artist who in her own words say's she used them all. JW then claimes to know the source. About turn or what?  Cracks are appearing my friend.

It's also odd in all the names JW mentions along with Jenkins taking part in the painting, only Jenkins is named. 

On the 5th of November, don't expect anything that is relevant, all you will get, is members saying JW is correct, Weldone Julian, Pat, Pat. Pat.

It's turned out how I said it would. Nothing new has been brough to the table. They are just agreeing with you.

Dave 

Because they have bought the article, read it and agreed with what it contains.

Dave
How do you know this if you've not read the article? As it turns out there are four new pieces of evidence brought to the table - all clinchers. But you don't seem to be interested.

The new research puts David Jenkins' presence at Rorke's Drift beyond any doubt. If you ain't read it you really can't comment and expect to be taken seriously. As for bringing new things to the table, there is no reason on earth why those who have invested in reading the evidence should subsidise those who will not.

Steve

The idea of the delay until the 5th of November was for those who brought the book to give an overview, all that has happened is what I said would happen. No ground has been gained. I don't think any more has been shown that shows him to be at RD. if other well know Zulu War Historians agreed with your finds, then i guess it would be excepted!

Julian Whybra wrote:

Impi
Did you actually read the posts of ymob, xhosa, springbok, old historian, drummer boy, Martin?  Perhaps there were some words you didn't understand (like provenance, perhaps)? Since you haven't read the essay yourself, please refrain from comment one way or the other until you have.  It's simply not good form, does nothing for your popularity rating, and will prevent people taking anything you say you seriously.

Yes I read all comments, and more than happy with them, as it still shows the Jenkins issue unresolved. 

Impi

You appear to be ducking the issue - you have not read JW article have you? - and then made up your mind from the facts published. A number of people posting on this site have never undertaken any real research into the Zulu war themselves. Their comments have to be treated therefore with some scepticism.

No ones Ducking. Just tell us what changed you mind.

Having read the essay in question a number of times now and looked at the evidence on which it is based, all I can say is that it proves Jenkins was at RD beyond reasonable doubt. I also asked one of my best A level history students to read the essay this week. She returned the book to me today and I told her that David Jenkins was probably not at Rorkes Drift! The look on her face said a lot. She thought I had lost my mind! Perhaps I have! No jokes please!
(Unless of course, UNLESS - Whybra or ANOther has faked the evidence!)

impi, Dave, CTSG - I warn you - DO NOT read it! If you do, you will be obliged to apologise to Julian Whybra and eat humble pie!
(Unless of course you want to carry on the charade and pick up the baton by arguing that all the sources Julian has referenced are faked)!

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Just tell us what changed you mind.

Reading the article.

This puts the topic firmly back on the rails, it will answer the question certain members have been waiting for. 


"In an effort to provide you with the information you require this is the last time I am writing on this thread. After this you can write what you like and pursue your own agenda.
The essay I wrote is necessarily complex and cumulative in its case-building.
The essential NEW components are these:
A THIRD lengthy letter from David Jenkins dated 11th March published in The Brecon County Times in which he states categorically that he was not at Isandhlwana, that he was at Rorke’s Drift, how he came to be there, and what happened there.
Newspaper reports describing the arrival at Spithead of the ship Egypt with Chard, Reynolds and five men (incl Jenkins) from Rorke’s Drift. It names them and describes how they came to be there.
An examination of the 24th Rolls to determine that there was only ONE man called Jenkins, who was in the 24th and alive at the time to whom these and other reports could possibly be referring.
An examination of all the references to ‘Jenkins’ at RD to demonstrate that there was one incapacitated in the hospital and unable to move and one healthy one.
A disclosure that Chard’s second report was in fact arranged chronologically and has chapter headings which are normally not published. This shows definitively that two men are being referred to in it. Actions of the live Jenkins are referred to after the deceased Jenkins has been kia.
The existence of three new CONTEMPORARY (i.e. 1879-80) Rolls naming Jenkins as a survivor – all with a common origin (one of them from Pte Waters) – on which Cantwell’s Chard Roll of 1929 was based and indeed replicates.
An examination of the 1/24th Records naming Jenkins as a survivor and a delineation of the time frame in which the record was written to show that it was CONTEMPORARY and not a much later addition.
A newspaper report from Oct 1879 describing a royal visit to Gosport in which Pte Wilson (Isandhlwana) and four RD defenders – including Jenkins – are introduced. Their presence and actions on 22nd are explained.
A newspaper report from Dec 1879 which records that Lady Butler had asked the col of the Regt for permission to use only RD defenders as models for her painting.
A newspaper report which reproduces a letter from Lady B to Jenkins thanking him for sitting for her.
Numerous newspaper reports describing events where royalty and other VIPS visit Swansea and are introduced to Jenkins IN THE PRESENCE of other known RD defenders. One of these is Lady B’s husband who passes on his wife’s regards and thanks for posing.
There is much more of which you have already been made aware in the thread or which simply endorses the above and links them inextricably.

Posted on behalf of Julian Whybra.

yeah tricky pete.your quite the juggler!
and apparently a traffic cop,holding
up genuine discussion.why. BECAUSE
AN AUTHORS COMING THROUGH. no
offence Julian. you made the case a
very long time ago.excellent research.
thank you so much. xhosa

Not at all! No one gave the answer to the original question, when the topic was reopened on the 4th November.

Julian has put together information that answers that question. Prior to this it was not a discussion. As I said the topic is now back on the rails, and it would be nice to keep it there!

fair enough admin.thank you.  

"Prior to this it was not a discussion".
what, like all that discussion never
happened.. like a dream..ahh, nice.

L   L - Not to be in agreement with Julian, it must be an "expert" or rather a s ....

Les read the posts, prior to lock down. It was back biting? Not discussing. You may well like the arguing side of debates, most of us don't!

If your not happy, with the moderation of the site. Start you own website.

thank you dave, i dont argue,but
i do like to debate thats true.and
its nothing to do whether i like how
the site is moderated,thats none
of my business. start my own web
site, now why would i want to do
that?.

This is a good example. Me and you taking this discussion of topic!

then lets leave it there.

Admin wrote:

This puts the topic firmly back on the rails, it will answer the question certain members have been waiting for. 


"In an effort to provide you with the information you require this is the last time I am writing on this thread. After this you can write what you like and pursue your own agenda.
The essay I wrote is necessarily complex and cumulative in its case-building.
The essential NEW components are these:
A THIRD lengthy letter from David Jenkins dated 11th March published in The Brecon County Times in which he states categorically that he was not at Isandhlwana, that he was at Rorke’s Drift, how he came to be there, and what happened there.
Newspaper reports describing the arrival at Spithead of the ship Egypt with Chard, Reynolds and five men (incl Jenkins) from Rorke’s Drift. It names them and describes how they came to be there.
An examination of the 24th Rolls to determine that there was only ONE man called Jenkins, who was in the 24th and alive at the time to whom these and other reports could possibly be referring.
An examination of all the references to ‘Jenkins’ at RD to demonstrate that there was one incapacitated in the hospital and unable to move and one healthy one.
A disclosure that Chard’s second report was in fact arranged chronologically and has chapter headings which are normally not published. This shows definitively that two men are being referred to in it. Actions of the live Jenkins are referred to after the deceased Jenkins has been kia.
The existence of three new CONTEMPORARY (i.e. 1879-80) Rolls naming Jenkins as a survivor – all with a common origin (one of them from Pte Waters) – on which Cantwell’s Chard Roll of 1929 was based and indeed replicates.
An examination of the 1/24th Records naming Jenkins as a survivor and a delineation of the time frame in which the record was written to show that it was CONTEMPORARY and not a much later addition.
A newspaper report from Oct 1879 describing a royal visit to Gosport in which Pte Wilson (Isandhlwana) and four RD defenders – including Jenkins – are introduced. Their presence and actions on 22nd are explained.
A newspaper report from Dec 1879 which records that Lady Butler had asked the col of the Regt for permission to use only RD defenders as models for her painting.
A newspaper report which reproduces a letter from Lady B to Jenkins thanking him for sitting for her.
Numerous newspaper reports describing events where royalty and other VIPS visit Swansea and are introduced to Jenkins IN THE PRESENCE of other known RD defenders. One of these is Lady B’s husband who passes on his wife’s regards and thanks for posing.
There is much more of which you have already been made aware in the thread or which simply endorses the above and links them inextricably.

Posted on behalf of Julian Whybra.

Thanks for posting this. At least it gives us an overview of JW's publication. More than the members who supposedly brought the publication did.

However there is no point in continuing with this discussion, as JW has stated the above is his last on the subject. 
So we are at where we was before, prior to the publication being written. 

Impi

The topic was locked down so we could buy the article and give our views on it, if you haven't read it then your comments won't be productive to the topic.

I've read it and i believe that Jenkins was indeed a defender.


Cheers

Impi

It appears that eating humble pie is not part of your diet. One of the vital pieces of evidence was David Jenkins's letter to his brother confirming that he was at Rorke's Drift during the battle. This was published in the (Brecon) County Times - if this assertion was not be true, he would have been immediately ostracised within the local Brecon community.

During this Remembrance weekend, we should be proud of all the young soldiers who did there duty, whatever the conflict, in difficult circumstances for British people. David Jenkins did his duty. They had no option but to stick it out and fight.

Kenny.

 

Kenny wrote:

Impi

It appears that eating humble pie is not part of your diet.  One of the vital pieces of evidence was David Jenkins's letter to his brother confirming that he was at Rorke's Drift during the battle. This was published in the (Brecon) County Times - if this assertion was not be true, he would have been immediately ostracised within the local Brecon community.

During this Remembrance weekend, we should be proud of all the young soldiers who did there duty, whatever the conflict, in difficult circumstances for British people. David Jenkins did his duty.  They had no option but to stick it out and fight.

Just like the letter he wrote ot his father. Putting himself at Isandlwana. 

This is my last, in this topic. Kenny you had plenty of time to post this prior to JW posting his. Your now taking snips from JW above text. The truth is, you don't have the book either! 

No more from me. There is still doubt he was there, and always will be. You can all believe what you want, but there are many, who don't.

Can we trust the letters he wrote, based on the letter to his father.

Mr Greaves wrote:

Can we trust the letters he wrote, based on the letter to his father.

There backed up by many other sources.

None of the evidence i wrote in my article on Adenorff was necessary new, i found it through various places, but once its all put together its clear he was a defender, same with Jenkins
there is plenty to say he was a defender and none to say he wasn't - its that simple.


Cheers

DB. I hate to burst your bubble, but you wrote nothing new about Adendroff. You used others research. 
The same with Durnfords orders. 

You stated the Jenkins research was backed up br Many other resources. List those resources. 

I may sound harsh, but you need to stand n your own two feet, and have your own opinion.

Admin wrote:

This puts the topic firmly back on the rails, it will answer the question certain members have been waiting for. 


"In an effort to provide you with the information you require this is the last time I am writing on this thread. After this you can write what you like and pursue your own agenda.
The essay I wrote is necessarily complex and cumulative in its case-building.
The essential NEW components are these:
A THIRD lengthy letter from David Jenkins dated 11th March published in The Brecon County Times in which he states categorically that he was not at Isandhlwana, that he was at Rorke’s Drift, how he came to be there, and what happened there.
Newspaper reports describing the arrival at Spithead of the ship Egypt with Chard, Reynolds and five men (incl Jenkins) from Rorke’s Drift. It names them and describes how they came to be there.
An examination of the 24th Rolls to determine that there was only ONE man called Jenkins, who was in the 24th and alive at the time to whom these and other reports could possibly be referring.
An examination of all the references to ‘Jenkins’ at RD to demonstrate that there was one incapacitated in the hospital and unable to move and one healthy one.
A disclosure that Chard’s second report was in fact arranged chronologically and has chapter headings which are normally not published. This shows definitively that two men are being referred to in it. Actions of the live Jenkins are referred to after the deceased Jenkins has been kia.
The existence of three new CONTEMPORARY (i.e. 1879-80) Rolls naming Jenkins as a survivor – all with a common origin (one of them from Pte Waters) – on which Cantwell’s Chard Roll of 1929 was based and indeed replicates.
An examination of the 1/24th Records naming Jenkins as a survivor and a delineation of the time frame in which the record was written to show that it was CONTEMPORARY and not a much later addition.A newspaper report from Oct 1879 describing a royal visit to Gosport in which Pte Wilson (Isandhlwana) and four RD defenders – including Jenkins – are introduced. Their presence and actions on 22nd are explained.
A newspaper report from Dec 1879 which records that Lady Butler had asked the col of the Regt for permission to use only RD defenders as models for her painting.
A newspaper report which reproduces a letter from Lady B to Jenkins thanking him for sitting for her.
Numerous newspaper reports describing events where royalty and other VIPS visit Swansea and are introduced to Jenkins IN THE PRESENCE of other known RD defenders. One of these is Lady B’s husband who passes on his wife’s regards and thanks for posing.
There is much more of which you have already been made aware in the thread or which simply endorses the above and links them inextricably.

Posted on behalf of Julian Whybra.

Highlighted in red was new to me and indeed the clincher. All this is contemporary, primary source evidence.
I did not feel it was for me to post up on a public forum the content of JW's work, but if Admin has done so, then I am sure it is with Whybra's permission.
CTSG, there will of course be "nothing new" here. This material (primary source evidence) has been lying around for over 134 years, (so it certainly isn't new), waiting for someone to analyse it, order it and put it into an easily understandable form to prove David Jenkins was a RD defender. Which I am saitisfied JW has done.
Ironically, there is now MORE evidence to prove that David Jenkins was a Rorke's Drift defender, than there is for about 100 other men "known"? to be Rorke's Drift defenders. And I was open minded on this issue until I had read JW's work, and I remain open -minded to that of other men who may/may not have been RD defenders.
impi is correct - there are those who still doubt that David Jenkins was at Rorke's Drift. I am not sure what he means by "lots of others", but he and the other "others" have every right to keep their doubts and believe what they want to believe, in much the same way that they are entitled to believe that the tooth fairy is real, that Santa Claus, ghosts and UFOs exist, and that man was created 3000years ago and did not evolve over hundreds of thousands of years from an ape.

PS - this is my last post on the David Jenkins topic, as there is nothing more to write on the issue and I am particularly uninterested in reading the posts of those who have not read JW's essay as they have no (valid) opinion.

No Santa Clause? Hell you really know how to bugger up a blokes sunday afternoon don't you.    

This whole debate, that has turned in to an argument, many times, originally was started, to find out why Jenkins had been added to the roll, and by whome? The fact, that a redication had gone ahead, without the evidence found and produce by Julian Whybra. What makes it worst as pointed out by Kenny, it's that this evidence has been laying around for 134 years, yet certain people were happy enough to say Jenkins was at RD based on an old ledger, sketch, and bible. Those people should take a leaf out of Julian book and do things correctly first time round. 

On what I have seen, I'm convince David Jenkins was present at RD.

For Impi's part I have been more than happy with his defence then Jenkins was not at RD. reading the posts both Impi and Julian have taken a lot of stick for other members, perhaps Julian Whybra was going to research Jenkins prior to this discussion. But this discuusion no doubt push the issued of Jenkins to the forefront of Julian's list. 

But what must be remembered is that, there is still no offical records form 1879 to show Jenkins as being Rorkes Drift. Blame the record keeprs of the day. If there were any!

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

The same with Durnfords orders. 

 

Nope actually, i did have new information for the Durnford orders article - the accounts of the people who were present when his body was found were stored in the RE museum. I was sent them and wrote them into my work.

My own opinion was stated previously, he was a defender at RD.

John Chard was compelled to write a report in haste, for the consumption of the government, the British Press and the public in the immediate aftermath of the heroic defence of RD, which is dated 25th January 1879.
In Chard's second report to Queen Victoria, which he was able to write at leisure some months after the action at RD, in which he includes a much greater depth and detail, he writes:

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

Did the confusion over the identity of this particular "Private Jenkins" (who we now know could ONLY have been the David variety, from either battalion of the 24th) prevent him from receiving greater recognition than this "mention in despatches" ?
When reading about the feats of other men who were awarded VCs in the AZW - and saving the life of an officer - particularly a commanding one, seems to have been a pretty sure way of receiving a VC back in 1879.

Having featured prominently in Lady Butler's painting of the action, and having been personally introduced to royalty and other high ranking members of society on a number of official engagements, it is clear that not only was David Jenkins a RD defender; he was a very prominent and highly thought of defender back in the day.

So you don't think Glyn asked Chard to write a report of what happened while the events were still fresh in his mind. Makes sense to do so. 
And I'm sure I would remember first time around the name of the man who saved my life?

The Chard report you posted in the link was made a year after the event.

And no I don't think Jenkins deserved the VC. For two reasons. (1) Its a personal opinion as to whether he was at RD. (2) Possibly every man, there save someone's life at some point during the Battle!

Thanks for that chard.
The reason the first report was ordered, was that LC and his staff needed a a report on the heroics at RD for public consumption, to soften the blow of the disaster at Isandhlwana - PDQ!
It is not the case that Chard did not remember the name of tha man who saved his life in the first report, it is that the report was brief and Chard didn't mention it in his first report.
As you say, the second report was written the best part of a year after the first and Queen Victoria wanted a detailed and in depth report, particularly accounts of some of the actual heroic deeds that took place that day. Let me pose a question; would you EVER forget the man who saved your life? I know Chard was not he sharpest tool in the box academically speaking, but even a year after the event, his memory was up to the task of remembering that it was "Private Jenkins" who saved his life at the wall.
On the subject of David Jenkins being there, I really think it is time to move on - that debate is dead and buried.
The evidence that he was a RD defender is clear and unequivocal, it is certainly not a matter of personal opinion; the facts and primary resource documents are there for all to see and read for themselves. There is no room for revisionism, ostriches, or holocaust-deniers in history.

All speculation! It still stands, that there is no offical documentation, that shows Jenkins as being at RD.