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

Julian Whybra wrote:

This is a little difficult because I don't want to say anything specific before 5th Nov.  

Is this the date your latest publication is available from Brecon?  I ask because they listed it some time ago, and I ordered it online, but I haven't received it as yet.  I thought DrummerBoy already had a copy, but perhaps he received his in advance of its official publication?

I'm actually more concerned with Chard than Lady Butler, but keen nonetheless!

JW wrote:

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"

Still if it can be shown to be the case, then that puts element of doubt in the picture. 

If Butler just concentrated on those awarded the VC ( Which makes sense, based on it being commissioned by the Royal family) It would certainly cast some doubt. Why would Butler place a Private Soldier to the front. More prominent that some of the VC winners themselves. I don't think that soldier in the painting is Jenkins. Someone said they thought it was Jones VC?

Quote :

6prd, read the original Jenkins topic. It will all be clear!!

Thanks 24th.  BTW, I meant Cochrane, not Chard, fwiw.

Surely there must be an original proof for the painting. Naming who's who.

Admin
I tend to agree.  Impi is trying to cast doubt based on an unsourced 'quotation'.  I can find no provenance for it and I'm sure he hasn't been able to.  The nearest I can find to it refers to de Neuville's painting - that he "included all the principal actors in the scene". Lady B's painting is clearly not the issue here.  I'd rather wait till 5th Nov.  I'm a patient man and I don't like sources being manipulated.

I think this topic needs adding to the original a some stage. 

Impi, i once challenged JW research in another topic. "The Brave Fugitive"
I could have continued, but after obtaining his publication, it was clear to see, that his research and evidence came to the conclusion, the person he said it was, was. It would be worth while, obtaining the evidence. that shows DJ as being at RD.

littlehand wrote:

I think this topic needs adding to the original a some stage. 

Impi, i once challenged JW research in another topic. "The Brave Fugitive"
I could have continued, but after obtaining his publication, it was clear to see, that his research and evidence came to the conclusion, the person he said it was, was. It would be worth while, obtaining the evidence. that shows DJ as being at RD.

LH. Let's let Impi run his own course!

Just giving him sound advice!

Thanks LH  

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

Click on link above. Look at the images of Lady Butlers Painting, bearing in mind, she mainly concentrated on the VC winners

Also I don't think that is possible that David Jenkins could be recognised from that sketch, as a relative some 120 odd years later.
It's a side view, with a chin strap hiding some features. He's was not awarded the VC. So what's he doing so prominent in the painting. In the link above all the VC winners are mostly facing the front. The others we know of from their wounds.

Julian Whybra wrote:

Admin
I tend to agree.  Impi is trying to cast doubt based on an unsourced 'quotation'.  I can find no provenance for it and I'm sure he hasn't been able to.  The nearest I can find to it refers to de Neuville's painting - that he "included all the principal actors in the scene".  Lady B's painting is clearly not the issue here.  I'd rather wait till 5th Nov.  I'm a patient man and I don't like sources being manipulated.

Here's the un-manipulated source, in Butlers own words.

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

Pages 85-86-87-88-89

Well now we know, somewhere there's a list of names for each defender. 

Butler mentiones, that the queen had met all of the survivors.. Don't recall this being said of Jenkins. 

JW wrote:

"Lady B's painting is clearly not the issue here" 

Julian could you elaborate on this.

24th. There seems to be a hell of alot, that David Jenkins kept to himself. 

Impi

First, in my essay if you'd read it, you would see a letter from Lady Butler saying that she only used RD survivors as models and a second letter from her thanking David Jenkins for sitting for her.  You would also find contemporary sources stating that David Jenkins was a survivor.

Secondly, I know the source you've quoted.  It says "I had managed to show, in that scuffle, all the VCs and other conspicuous actors in the drama...Majors Chard and Bromhead were sufficiently recognisable in the centre, for I had them both for their portraits".  It does not say that she had all the individual VC winners as models for their portraits.  That would have been impossible (think of Schiess). Hook is shown from the back and therefore not facially identifiable.  What she does state she showed are the actions of the VC winners.  Their faces are sufficiently obscured, apart from a few that she would have used as models, to be identified as anyone in particular.  The stated that she used only 24th RD survivors as models in the letter I found - Wilson, Desmond, Jenkins, Payton, Roy I have no doubt were used as models since they were in Gosport when she was there painting and asking for them.
Chard and Bromhead she used.  Reynolds, Hitch and Allan were available.  The painting was finished late 1880 after de Neuville's and displayed for the first time in 1881.  So when you write "she mainly concentrated on the VC winners", you actually mean that she mainly concentrated on the actions of the VC winners.

Recognizing David Jenkins from that sketch, has nothing to do with providing evidence that he was at RD.  The sketch is labelled with his name.  I found irrefutable evidence of his presence.  Read it for yourself.  Wait until 5th Nov when most people will have seen it for themselves.  The fireworks can start then.  This damp squib of yours shows no understanding of historical process. You seem to be more intent on futile attempts to score points than seeking after the truth. It might give you pleasure but it's not history.

Impi

Adding to the wise words of JW – and hoping not to incur the wrath of the forum administrator in the process……..

David Jenkins was well-known in the local community in Brecon before and after AZW. His family had strong links with the Lewis family – Margaret Lewis married CSgt George Chambers 1/24th (killed at Isandlwana) and her brother Bombardier Thomas Lewis was a defender at RD.

It is inconceivable that DJ could put about a story of being present at RD, if this were not true. He would have been immediately ostracised by the community.

Before you post your next flippant response – remember the soldiers of both sides went through hell on 22/23 January 1879 – many of them never recovered from that experience. We continue to salute them.

Julian Whybra wrote:

This damp squib of yours shows no understanding of historical process.  You seem to be more intent on futile attempts to score points than seeking after the truth.  It might give you pleasure but it's not history.

Truer words were never written. I particularly like "damp squib." Inspired!

It's reminds me of the judgement on Balaclava: "Magnificent, but not war." This could be "Pedantic, but not history."

Lets' face it, regardless of the form of human endeavor, some people just prefer to draw attention to themselves.

- Brandon

P.S. Unfortunately, not all of us will have an equal chance to be enlightened further on November 5th as I anticipate AT LEAST another week before Brecon gets it to me in the U.S.

Julian Whybra wrote:

Admin
I tend to agree.  Impi is trying to cast doubt based on an unsourced 'quotation'.  I can find no provenance for it and I'm sure he hasn't been able to.  The nearest I can find to it refers to de Neuville's painting - that he "included all the principal actors in the scene".  Lady B's painting is clearly not the issue here.  I'd rather wait till 5th Nov.  I'm a patient man and I don't like sources being manipulated.

JW wrote:

Secondly, I know the source you've quoted 

 

Kenny,he was that well known. No one knew he had taken part in the defence of Rorke's Drift. Not even his family. He didn't put the story about that he was at RD. that's why we are discussing the issue today  

And yes your correct, I do know that the soldiers went through hell, and that's why is crucial to make sure there are no pretenders in that hall of fame. 


Julian. You are now quoting, from the link to the Butler book I posted. You said you couldn't find providence, I gave it to you. 

The Sketch of whom you claim to be Jenkins, is important as its part of the  evidence, that shows him, one to be in the painting and two at the defence of Rorke' s Drift.

As for scoring points, I'm on my own in this, you have the backing of other members, because of who you are. I will keep looking, until I'm 100% sure you are correct. If that day comes, I will congratulate you on your work and accept David Jenkins was there. 
But if I do find anything that proves otherwise, I will rub it in your arrogant face along with all the others that think the sun shines out of your a**e
 

Admin, no doubt you will receive Emails and PMs.

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.

Julian Whybra wrote:

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.

What's going on Julian.

JW wrote:

 Secondly, I know the source you've quoted.

Impi

Many people today are not familiar with the exploits and lives of their ancestors.  Once they delve into their family tree – they can be surely amazed.  You only have to watch the celebrities on TVs ‘Who do you think you are’.  I only discovered quite recently that my grandfather went to Paris in 1917 as a member of the Massed Bands of Brigade of Guards.

This is what happened to Geoff Rees of Swansea – he did not know until quite recently that his great grandfather had been at Rorke’s Drift.  He was unaware of the existence of the RD bible presented to David Jenkins in 1879 held by another branch of the family. In his search he found the Lady Butler sketch which became his only evidence.  Today, JW has put together the other evidence and published it.

Then its only right, that the truth be justified. The rededication was years ago, JW work is weeks old. Should the research had not been done, to the extend it has been now, at a point before the redication. 

What you are saying, is let things rest for the sake of the family. Very amicable I must say!

Hello all,

What's the finality of this forum?
-Research of truth on the AZW?
-Fight against Mister Julian Whybra in a deliberate and provoking manner?
I have some doubts...

Regard

Frédéric

Been sitting back watching this unfold. But confused  

Julian, say he would like to know the source of the statement ref: VCs awardee's being used in the famous painting by E. Bulter. 

Impi shows the source, only to be inform by Julian he already knew the source.  

So is the source valid.

24th and Dave
Impi was implying from his original post that Lady B had personally sketched each of the VC winners.  At least that was my interpretation.  That was the 'source' I was referring to having looked for.  When it became clear he was simply quoting her reference to including all the VC winners, it became apparent which source was being used.  I'm sorry if I confused you.

Dave
I'm sorry cracks are appearing.  I hope they heal soon.  

Impi
I'm afraid many people knew in the locality, at work, and in his family that Jenkins had taken part in the Defence of Rorke's Drift. He was referred to several times in the local newspapers.  All these sources appear in my essay.

Thank you for supplying the source of the quotation.  It clarifies Lady B's position exactly.  You'll find I've used extracts from the same passage in the essay.  And it's provenance not providence.

You are quite correct in saying that the sketch labelled as Jenkins is an important part of the evidence.  Taken together with the letter of thanks to him from Lady B and the report as to how she only used RD participants as models, it then assumes even greater importance.  Whether or not Jenkins can be recognized in the resulting painting and which figure he is, is another matter.  (Personally I think his stance is used several times.)  What's important is the sketch is labelled as him and that he posed for her.

I don't have the backing of other members, because of who I am.  If I have any backing, it's because of what I've researched and written.  Reputation is all.  If I simply spouted on this forum without evidence-base, my opinion would be worthless.  I am pleased you will keep looking until you're 100% sure I am correct.  I know you will not find anything which gainsays Jenkins's presence.  I don't expect congratulations.  And I shall take no joy in demonstrating that you have been wrong.  But Jenkins's memory deserves better than this.

I am self-confident over Jenkins, but not arrogant.  As I said, your thought patterns lack historical process.  So, when confronted by logic and consistent evidence-based argument, you resort to anger and sometimes abuse.  It can't be easy, if you're not used to it, and I forgive you your temper tantrums.

Dave 24th impi
You would all do better to wait until 5th Nov when no doubt the others will all be very keen to enlighten you as to the primary sources and their content.  You'll be surprised at how many there are.  I was.  In fact, I'm still finding evidence I could have put in.

Old historian
Yes, the source is valid - it's Lady B's memoirs.  But it simply states that she included representations of all the VC winners winning their VCs.  It doesn't say she had them all pose for her.  How could she?  Schiess was in RSA and several of the 24th were in India.

[
Frédéric [/quote]It does no good making comments like that Ymob! 
If a member doesn't agree with another member, it's because they have two different views. It's bound to get heated at some point that's life. 
The issue is not against JW as members keep stating. Impi has always maintained the same stance, and Julian his. 
 
 
In Julian's defence, it can only be good for book sales, as not only members what to know, the evidence he has found, but also the guest to the forum. I say let the debate continue, it will stop eventually. [/quote] 
No doubt!!!
"Arrogant face" for example is certainly a valid comment for the research of the truth isn't it????

Perhaps read the posts prior to Impi remark!

old historian2 wrote:

Perhaps read the posts prior to Impi remark!

I have read all the posts...and it's not only "the Impi remark" (I.E:"for example").

JW wrote:

Thank you for supplying the source of the quotation.  It clarifies Lady B's position exactly.  You'll find I've used extracts from the same passage in the essay. 

Your welcome!

The bibles have been signed by Miss Wilkinson. Who is she?

She was something to do with the methodist Church.

Miss Wilkinson was I believe hon secretary to the Rorkes Drift Testimonial Fund.

Cheers

do we have a photo of this lady?

Hi Dave
Ive never seen one, I would be surprised if there was an individual photo but its highly possible that there was a photo of the committee. I cant say why but there is a niggle that Ive seen one.
Cjeers

Dave wrote:

do we have a photo of this lady?

I saw one not long ago, will try to retrace by web-searches.

I'm unlocking this topic a day early,as I'm not going to be about tomorrow.

I have merged the Butler painting topic with this one, as the posts are more directed at this topic, than E. Butlers painting.

Well looking forward to the members who brought the publication views?

not tonight..just reading it for
the fourth time. i will
let some one else kick off.
so convincing,any thing else
without back up is risible..

so i'm going mad   believe
i posted just a while ago, admin
stop juggling and please restore
my post.   

btw, how long you getting off
for, have you appointed a
stand by moderator, this is apt
to get messy.ie, evidence v ?
cheers

xhosa2000 wrote:

not tonight..just reading it for
the fourth time. i will
let some one else kick off.
so convincing,any thing else
without back up is risible..

Your post is on the other page. It was CTSG post that got deleted. Come on Les. 

Les which post are you referring to?

littlehand,pete, c'mon be serious   its
not that i dont do this all the time, thank
the stars you are watching over me  
but pete if your awol,' who guards the guards'
Les

Hi all,
I have read this night the study written par Mister Whybra on Jenkins.
Exceptional as usual with this author.
There is no doubt in my mind on his presence at Rorke's Drift.

Cheers

Frédéric

being presented to the king,
with comrades looking on..
the third letter..JW. leads
us, baby stepping us through
his finding's. the research is
at times overwhelmingly
hammered home ( and quite
rightly so ) for me there has
never been any doubt
as to the author's contention,
that 295 was indeed a drift
defender/survivor.

i hope that when the counter
argument arrives the author's
will by now have read JW's
conclusions, if not, provide
( actual ) EVIDENCE in support
of their assertions. JW    

dave get a clue,look at the
bigger picture. ( pun intended )  

I would thought there would have been more responces. Disappointing for both me and Julian. So can we take it that only two members of the forum purchased the book?