rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:47 am

Dear Andy,
your not the only one who has fallen foul of the 'Evesham' birthplace claim,so don't worry.As we speak,we can still see reference to this birthplace being printed in the very latest books on AZW matters.The Vale of Evesham Historical Society had to change its whole display on 593 when I presented the evidence for the Bristol birth to them.I rewarded Gerald Heath,the curator,with copy of 'Heart of a Dragon',for his pains.Nevertheless,we can establish that a young 593 was possibly present in the town from around the early 1840s and this would have been where he lived for the bulk of his formative years,until he joined the British Army in 1858.The evidence thus so far is as follows:593's army records,which can be obtained from Kew,lists his birthplace as Evesham,this is not proof of a birthplace but merely a reference.The 1881-1901 census returns that I have,show the whereabouts of 593 in his post service life,where he lists his birthplace as 'Bristol'.There were a vast amount of 'William Joneses' born around the 1839/1840 period,but suprisingly,only about half a dozen in Bristol.We have obtained a suitable birth certificate to qualify all the data,such as parentage.Just as an extra note,the Evesham birth is referred to a certificate from about 1843 which shows a parentage of Charles and Susan Jones,nee Riddell,which some Evesham Historians have presented as evidence for the Evesham birth.The selection of this certificate is convenient rather than correct;its the only one on the GRO birth indexes that is even remotely suitable to qualify an Evesham birth,but misses the mark by a mile.We all know (in the various family branches) that 593's father was also called William Jones,a stonemason,builder's labourer.How did you get on with the Joshua Lodge grave work.I haven't been to Manchester for over a year but will be up there soon.All the best.

Tony.

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:39 pm

Hi Tony

With the kind help from the Cemetery workers we managed to cut away the undergrowth and locate the plot for Joshua Lodge. I understand after my visit the local grave digger did some tests around the plot reference and discovered a stone buried some distance down and was going to explore the possibility of having it raised. Not had chance to follow it up but as you can appreciate you have to be quite sensitive about such requests - would be nice though if there is a stone with his name on it.

All the best

Andy

Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:12 pm

Dear Andy,
I must say,that when I visit Philip's Park cemetery,it always
leaves me with a feeling of sadness to see this part of the cemetery compared to the rest of the sections which have a variety of splendid headstones.The water table must be quite low in these sections as the River Medlock is only yards away.This must have affected the placement of the stone on 1304 Private Joshua Lodge's grave.These were the sections that many a family in Manchester dreaded their family members being buried in due to poverty.When ex - Private William Jones VC died in 1913,the funeral cortege would have had a long and arduous route to tred from his final home at 6 Brampton Street,Ardwick,to Philip's Park cemetery.There are other cemetaries within yards of Brampton Street which would have been more appropriate final resting place with accompanying dignified route for this brave soldier.

Tony.

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:23 am

Tony

Mea culpa. My apologies. I for one will get it right in future.

Regards

Mike

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:41 pm

Dear Mike,
firstly,its an honour to have a reply from an acknowledged expert on this subject-Cheers.It seems the reference to the Evesham birth was established and embelished around 1911-1913,when 593's memory had begun to fail him.The reference of Evesham was then taken as read and it may be the case that 593 himself told his second family that this was where he was born.I have an article from 1911 where this is stated on 593's behalf by a member of his second family to a newspaper reporter,possibly Emily Goodwin,his step-daughter,or his second wife Elizabeth Frodsham.As it seems 593 as a youngster moved to Evesham from Bristol at a very early age,around 1841,when he wasn't cognizant of this fact,he may have quite possibly forgot 'Bristol' when he was asked by reporters,'where he was from',in the last couple of years of his life. When available,it will be interesting to see what birthplace he lists for himself on the 1911 census to see if indeed he lists Evesham instead of Bristol,which may then be indicative of his sad decline in the last couple of years of his life.My article on William's page on this site lists the census return reference numbers for the period 1881-1901 should anybody need them for any future projects that involves an inclusion about 593.Cheers.

Tony.

Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:06 am

Tony

Increasingly I realize that 'acknowledged experts' are merely those among our little community who are stupid enough to kill themselves slowly by working into the night, trying hard to record and interpret it all for posterity, when sensible people are sleeping!

But any out and out mistake of fact is irritating to me, especially if it is me who has written it down in public (!), though one has to live with the plain fact of life that no programme of research is foolproof. I was hopping mad with myself recently when it suddenly dawned on me that Sub-Lt Griffith was not Griffiths. I shudder to think how many 'facts' the average history book contains. Oh for the 'easy life' of the writer of fiction!!

Would you say then, speaking on behalf of the family, that saying that 593 was 'from' Evesham rather than 'born' there would be both acceptable to you and accurate? (not in a detailed biography of course, where word count is focussed on such details, but in a more general passing reference where word count is directed elsewhere - in this case to the fight at RD).

Regards as ever

Mike

Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:17 pm

Dear Mike,
how ironic that we had a similar situation recently where a branch of the family from days gone by was thought by one and all in this family to be called 'Griffith'.I spent hours searching the GRO indexes and found nothing,but eventully found them on the WW1 Kitchener roles at their known address as 'Griffiths' (they both died in WW1).Life stinks when this happens,especially if you have committed yourself to paper,but hey! we're all human and it seems part of the learning process to decide whether to live and suffer the odd mistake or not venture out at all.As somebody that has only taken the first few steps on the rocky road of research and writing,I can see that writers like yourself,at an accuracy rate of 99.99%,present a standard that isn't a bad yardstick by which to measure any work

Gerald and Helen Heath,the curator and secretary of The Vale of Evesham Historical Society,seemed a little dissapointed that 593 wasn't born in Evesham,but as I explained to them,the connection with Evesham is important and probably stronger and more significant than Bristol.I encouraged them to keep the (small) display of 593-related material on show and suggested that we should add to it.I am lucky in that I only have 593 to concentrate on in my research,and thus can peel away layers of the 'reseach onion' in this case,with the luxury of time that would not be afforded to writers who are writing about the subject in general.I wouldn't knock anybody for previously writing that 593 was born in Evesham,as that is all the information that was known about 593's birth place.I would therefore conclude that your proposals as regards the Evesham reference are perfectly acceptable.The 593 story is a very tangled and thick plot that needs much unravelling.I'm sure I will discover more truths as time goes on.Cheers.

Tony.

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:05 pm

,
To Mike Snook .
Who was it said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing ? , a lot of authors in the subject of the Zulu war tend to " copy " from other publications , as is the case with William Jones VC ( 593 ) ,to be more accurate in the case of William Jones VC as Tony his descendant states , " born in Bristol , lived in Evesham. For far too long the fact as proven that William had a son born in Dover in 1876 living with his grandpaRENTS ( SEE 1881 CENSUS ) is a fact all too often missed in various publications , to see this fact accurately reported in his book ( Alister Williams ) Heart of A Dragon is heartwarming to see . The fact that William has relatives with the name Albert Ulundi Jones ( born Frodsham later called Jones ) adds to the mystique of not only William Jones VC but all others of this fascinating period of military history.

Due to the data stated by Tony Jones the nature of the ground at the burial site of Pte Joshua Lodge it may not be feasible to erect a stone at his burial plot . I hope some form of memorial can be sought for this oft forgotten soldier and companion of William Jones VC . With an eagle eye for correct data you will see that the birthplace of Pte Deacon Power is actually London and not in Hampshire or Yorkshire as so often reported . I am certain you have looked at the website ( www.zuluwar-usuthu.com ) where accuracy is a bye word . After all these years the need for accuracy is paramount , even such a well known person as QM Bloomfield 24th has been reported in error , having been married twice with three daughters . Let`s hope the keen amateur will continue to check and recheck the " facts " . It was a short time ago i found out the exact time of death ( and date ) of Cpl { C/ Sgt } Rowland Herbert Miller AHC who assisted Surgeon Reynolds VC on that fateful day back in 1879 . it never ends but i must , Graham .

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:02 pm

Dear Graham,
the details of the Goddard son birth was passed on to you by me based on a cryptic piece of information handed down to me via my branch of the Jones family.It would be a little unfair to expect any expert or even the most thorough of researchers to uncover this unless they
had access to this 'insider information',bearing in mind that this information has been withheld by the Jones family this side of the departure of HMS Himalaya from Chatham on 1st Febrauary 1878.I've explained the reasons for the origin of the 'Evesham birth' reference and that's the reason this piece of information has stood for so long.There should be no 'gloating' over the errors of the past made by previous authors in this area as it takes a certain amount of guts and commitment to put your pen to paper and put yourself at the mercy of the public's 'critique'.As I have the luxury of only having to reseach 593,I'm not to upset at anybody quoting an Evesham birthplace based on what 593 himself had told people.There has to be the scope to update and validate information based on the available sources available at any particular time.The advent of the internet has produced a branch of 'armchair researchers' in most fields now who have easy access to indexes and information that once required a 'personal pilgrimage'.My feet are still sore from tramping round Evesham getting to the bottom of whether it was actually 593's birthplace or not.A writer engaged in AZW research in general would find this effort dissproportionate to their end goal i.e. a general work about the subject and unfeasible (financially) to conduct such in depth research about one soldier unless they were writing about that man in depth.I'm lucky that I only have one ancestor to research;I'm sure there will be even more 'new' discoveries as time goes on.

Tony.

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:43 pm

,
To Tony Jones .
Dear Tony , i take your point about gloating and family knowledge regarding ANY element of research , i acknowledge all and every piece of information , past present and future . A good researcher pursues every avenue and scrap of information , hopefully with family involvement which makes life esaier of course with co-operation . I take no accolades in finding out the TRUTH and if any of my grammar or meaning is not clear again i apologise for this . No one is going to find out everything but with full co-operation and diligence , not trying to mask facts we all go along the path of full enlightment , " Sapper " .

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:17 pm

Dear Graham,
even the best researcher or expert can only pursue avenues that are open to him or her at any particular time.The point I'm making is that the information about the birth of the Goddard child and 593's birthplace was not open to any researcher or expert (even yourself) due to the fact that these avenues were closed off within the Jones family.If you just deal with black and white situations it fails to take into consideration that there is a grey area between the overlap of black and white.The references you are drawing are strictly to black and white areas
which is 'all' avenues,that is,the number of open,given avenues that are available to the researcher at any given time.Restropective correction is an easy tool to correct the work of others from the comfort of new and previously hidden sources of information.We need to allow people a little breathing space for a certain percentage of errors;the world is not a perfect place,neither is the pursuit of AZW research.Sure,there's been mistakes made in the past in this area,but poorer is the person who doesn't make mistakes in any pursuit and not learn from them.

Tony.

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:28 pm

Tony & Graham

This a very interesting discussion because it encapsulates a good deal of what is continually debated on this forum - the accuracy of a historian's research and published material.

With the explosion of interest in genealogy during the last 20 to 30 years it is inevitable that enthusiastic family historians will find errors in published statements contained in books about, say, the AZW, which involve individuals and their origins or families. In this way, previously accepted assumptions can be revised and corrected. However, because most of these revisions relate to data which is in the hands of private individuals and are not easily available to the author during his/her research, even if they appear on websites dedicated to the family or families, we can't always expect authors to be aware that some of the long accepted "facts" are actually not facts at all. These often detract not one whit from the quality of the book but will inevitably irk the relative or the "anoraks" amongst us, and most of us fall into that category sometimes!

More to the point, the military historian (or an author in most other genres) cannot be expected to dig into the background of every single individual he/she mentions or the author would never get the book published without employing an army of researchers. This is not to say that they can relax their efforts at accuracy and truth - far from it - but they will inevitably have to rely on secondary works here and there (and make their own assessment of the reliability of such) if they need to make a comment about someone's personal details. However, if Mike Snook or Ian Knight, for example, slip up on a minor point such as a birthplace or a date, this will rarely detract from the quality of the book if the rest of the work is demonstrably well researched and argued. A balance has to be struck somewhere, and a reliance on existing secondary sources has to suffice in many cases for minor points

The exception might be a biography, such as IK's superb With His Face to the Foe or Barry Johnson's comprehensive Hook of Rorke's Drift , or in a compilation such as the Who's Who of the AZW or the biographical section of the forthcoming David Rattray book, in which the biographical detail (including minutiae) does become important - if included. Another exception might be - such as in some of the books discussed here over the years - a mistake in a name, rank or unit, which might appear minor to one reader but will infuriate another because it may suggest the author has totally misunderstood a vital point. Some of the individuals involved at Isandlwana have been mis-identified in some books over the years and their units misunderstood, leading to major and serious misconceptions. These are important - but in the same work, if the author mentioned "a Merthyr man" or "a soldier who hailed from Evesham", it is surely undoubtedly minor.

My own hobby-horse might lie in the inaccuracies which have dogged published statements about Smith's career. Reputable authors have perpetuated errors relating to his life by following the one little book which has been published on him, and assuming or hoping that it was accurate when, in very many cases, it isn't. That's not necessarily shoddy research, just bad luck, as it doesn't really matter if his year of sailing is regularly given wrongly, or his status is confused, or the christian names and surnames of his missionary friends are mis-spelt, if the main thrust is OK. It does matter, however, if the chap who ordained him is mis-identified, because it suggests a complete misunderstanding of what had been occurring in South Africa during the preceding decade, or if sweeping statements are made relating to the subject's character when they can easily be refuted.

As a genealogist I can never depart from methods of research which are sound and ensure the highest chance of accuracy - often to the point of pedantry - but I think we have to accept that small inaccuracies will always appear in otherwise well researched works which have a much broader sweep as their priority.

Peter

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:38 pm

Dear Peter,
you've echoed my sentiments perfectly.It would be unfair to castigate and condemn any author on the basis of the fact that there was a 0.1 error rate within their work.The point I am trying to get across to Graham is that it would be unreasonable for the authors you mention to be expected to have,for example,accesss to individual interviews with family members and descendants of AZW campaigners.This assumption represent a rather idealistic 'rose-coloured spectacle' view that such interviews and access,to what is sometime delicate and painful memories and information, is freely and automatically available to any author that contacts any descendant.If this was the case within my own family,I wouldn't have had to obtained information by having to 'shoe-horn' it out,or working from cryptic and scant clues that has seen me trudge round Manchester,Evesham,Farnham,Philip's Park cemetery and other cemetaries in Manchester,local archives and writing letters to relatives who I've never met,who usually don't reply.These are the 'grey' areas I mention,the areas that take a lot of judgement and skill to interpret accuretly.We'll all fall foul of the odd 'slip' even from official sources such as the GRO indexes where somebody has deliberatley given the wrong information to a registrar to suit a particular occassion and purpose,but generally the error rate over a total work,like you say isn't worth worrying about.

Tony.

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:16 pm

Graham

I thought I could usefully give an author's perspective on this. An understanding of the basic theory of the way history works is essential before digging oneself in and casting stones about - I know by the way that you are not getting at me in your posting above - as you have separately been very kind about my books, so don't think I have taken umbrage or anything like that. But it is as Peter and Tony point out possible to be too evangelical and to do oneself no favours in the process. You are right by the way on the crucial role of what you call the amateur historian - but don't forget that I like you am also an amateur historian. But I am an amateur military historian, not an amateur genealogist. I am interested in the dynamics of battle, leadership, tactics, firepower and so on. So I am not going to research an individual player in the way that you might - I am going to rely on what I deem to be reliable secondary sources - typically say Norman Holme or Julian Whybra, who put years and years of effort into their hugely important work and have published into the public domain.

Nobody dislikes making errors more than me believe me. What I like about this forum is that it gives people like me the chance to come on and say - sorry ladies and gentlemen, be aware that I got this little point wrong. I do that because like you I believe in the importance of accuracy and in getting the historical record right. A good example of a minor howler by me is my rendering of Griffiths not Griffith. Another is that I misspelt Godwin-Austen in HCMDB because I thought I knew how to spell it. Look in LWOTF and you will see that I have rendered it differenty and correctly - that's because people are kind enough to drop a line in the post saying - loved the book - by the way I think you might have got that little detail wrong. I should say in my own defence that there have been very few such examples. Some authors might not like that sort of correspondence but I appreciate it, as one should always strive in life to learn from mistakes if one is to die a wise man - which is about all any of us can hope for. The mis-rendering of names such as I've described above is just a trick the mind plays - you think you know something and all the while your mind has mis-registered it. When you commit to print, you spend days, weeks, month after month checking and re-checking detail after detail. But inevitably some mistakes get through - whilst we might strive for perfection there is of course no such thing. I edit my own stuff so often that by the time a book is published I am heartily sick of the sight of it, I've gone through it that many times. I don't sit around admiring my own books when they are published because to me that was last year's news, if you see what I mean.
So that's attention to detail. What about the way history works. You used the word copying, I fear completely out of context. History does not occupy a defined or constrained space. Rather it is limitless. As time goes on it changes size, shape and direction. New authors bring new lines of thought and enquiry to the party. All historians go back to the existing array of work before setting out on a new project. It is important that they have something new to say or there is little point in writing a book. So they have new ideas which they want to expose, and the accepted background history which they have to incorporate for the sake of completeness and presenting a readable and cogent whole. Let's take my books and the future. They contain lots of background which is common to any book on the subject and my thoughts on the close military detail of the two big fights on January 22, much of which is original thought based on my interpretation of the primary sources, and of field work to examine the ground - notice the use of accurately guaged distances for example.

If at some point in the future somebody who trusts my interpretation and attention to detail wants to pick up one of my books to look up a minor detail such as the names of NNC company commanders, they are perfectly at liberty to do so. That is not what you termed 'copying' - it is using my work as a secondary source. They'll incoporate my book into their bibliography and job done. It would be stupid if they referenced my book just to indicate that that's where they acquired the names of the NNC company commanders. If however they wanted to follow a whole line of original argument which I have advanced, then as a courtesy they would incoporate a reference to my book. This is the conventional academic way of presenting historiography. An alternate approach applied in 'popular history', and one which I prefer is to say in your preface that I have drawn extensively on so and so for the background history. I think off the top of my head I mention in the opening to HCMDB, Ian Knight, John Laband, Julian and Norman. I can only speak for myself when I say that following the academic approach would, I estimate, add about 40-50% to the time it takes to complete a project and as a part-time author I simply cannot afford to do that. It is readers who would suffer because they would die of boredom waiting for a new book to come out! As an amateur I don't have to impress my fellow professors at the university and justify my research grants and my career. Because I am not a professor, don't get any grants and don't have a career in academia, I don't have to worry about the purist approach. As a 'popular' writer my goal is to provide stimulation and enjoyment to the reader. So when you look at the historigraphy of Isandlwana you would look at my stuff and Ron and Peter's stuff which is the most modern and work back from there. By reading my preface you establish - ah Snook thinks highly of Knight. I daresay if you look at Ian's prefaces you will find a generous acknowledgement of David Jackson, which as Peter has rightly pointed out is a seminal work, but is also very purist in its approach and would not necessarily go well in the popular market, no matter how highly it is regarded by the expert 'community' (hate that word!). In this way you are tracing back the historiography of the subject. And I agree with Peter that you reach a parting of the ways in the 1960s - where Morris led off down one trail and Jackson down another. Since I criticize Morris in places you will ascertain which path I think is the right one. On the other trail is a string of literature running up to the 1990s with NNC companies breaking at the so-called 'knuckle', bungling incompetent quartermasters, a mythical military genius called Durnford and a disgarcefully inaccurate bumbler called Pulleine who hides from it all in his tent by writing goodbye letters - such a laughable concept for a battalion ciommander in action that people should have seen through it years ago.

More than enough from me - I hope that throws some light on how it all hangs together - or doesn't - as the case may be!!

As ever

Mike

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 am

'a mythical military genius called Durnford'

Well, not a myth, but perhaps you might have a point reference his military ability! Smile