you are currently viewing: Discussion Forum
 
 

 
 

The Rorke's Drift VC Discussion Forum
(View Discussion Rules)

** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS **

PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum


(Back To Topic List)

DateOriginal Topic
15th May 2005Was Durnford's dog 'Prince' poisoned ?
By Coll
There have been a couple of accounts that mention Durnford's dog may have been poisoned deliberately.

Was Durnford so despised, that it could have happened to 'get at him' ?

Additionally, Edward described the dog as bearing a resemblance to a Rhodesian Ridgeback. Is this the breed of dog that Prince was ?

Coll
DateReplies
16th May 2005Keith Smith
Coll

The death of Durnford's dog Prince is described on p. 70 of Edward Durnford's "A Soldier's Life and Work in South Africa', which is a panagyric to his brother. There was no evidence, other than a rumour that the deed was to be done, of who was responsible. The dog was said to be in the habit of following 'the lady of the house' to the local butcher, and one might presume he there picked up some tit-bits of meat or offal. A few days after the whisper, he returned home and died very soon thereafter.

Durnford described himself as the 'most hated man in Natal' and much of this was the resukt of a vitriolic campaign by the editor of the Natal Winess over some months.
16th May 2005Michael Boyle
Keith,

Okay. I haven't yet managed to get Edward's book, have only just started Droogleever and don't recall any (or many) derogatory references to Durnford in the Red Book (an awful lot of information to digest there!). So who is this 'lady of the house' other than Miss Colenso, to which house are they referring and why would anyone care? (This is not a 'tabloid' interest on my part.)

Where can I find Durnford describing himself as the 'most hated man in Natal', why did he credit this and why the vitriol over (presumably) Bushman's Pass or his seeming alignment with the Bishop's support of the Zulus?(Or perhaps the wife he left behind who didn't seem to have missed him much!)

A rumour that someone was out to get his dog then the dog seeming to have been 'gotten' would lead one to become more than suspicious, it speaks of petty 'petite mafiosi' activity.(Gimme a break, "His dog sleeps with the rodents"?!?) There would seem to be more than casual animosity here and could figure prominently in Durnford's subsequent corpse being left holding such a large bag.

Background on Durnford is becoming 'curiouser and curiouser'.

Best

Michael
16th May 2005Mike McCabe
Did Edward Durnford explain why they were convinced that the dog had been deliberately poisoned?

MC McC
17th May 2005Keith Smith
Coll

If you know the story of Bushman's river pass, then you will also know that Durnford virtually accused the Natal Carbineers who left him of cowardice. This was particularly apparent in the subsequent court of enquiry, in which Durnford was exonerated of any misconduct, and to the contrary, was considered for a medal for his courage. The principal culprit seems to have been a Sgt Clarke, NC, who led the men away and virtually took command of them. This whole incident and its aftermath led to his virtual ostracism and is probably one of the main reasons why he went back to the Drakensberg to block the passes. His support for the maltreated Phutile (or amaNgwe) tribe followed on this and won him no colonial hearts.

The lady of the house was probably Mrs Colenso, the Bishop's wife.

Mike
The only clue to its being deliberate was the rumour that it was ablout to be done, and it followed only a couple of days later.

Durnford's book, which is a good read, but sometimes inaccurate, can be bought through DP & G.




17th May 2005Michael Boyle
Keith,

I realized the Carbineers started out somewhat miffed that Capt. Barter,one of their own, had not been given command and that they were by no means hardened veterans (nor for that matter was Maj. Durnford, anxiously anticipating his first field command) and eventually fell behind. I wasn't aware of the implications of Durnford's testimony to the court of enquiry but am even now endeavouring to rectify that. My reading thus far has dealt only peripherally with the incident at Bushman's River Pass. (My dropping the 'River' part no doubt a result of Zulu Dawn!) My take having been more along the lines of the "Don't Fire" Durnford aspect, thanks for the new direction.

None the less, killing a man's dog rather than confronting him directly and demanding satisfaction does seem rather, shall we say, undignified. (Or perhaps I'm just juxtaposing the "Code of the West" of the then contemporary American experience inappropriately.)

It would seem though that Lord Chelmsford and others would also have been aware of the animosity, but would that have played a factor in subsequent "explanations" of the defeat at Isandhlwana? (One would think that Chelmsford would be playing to a larger audience than Natal but opening "off Broadway" has always been considered a good gauge of public sentiment.)

Best

Michael



17th May 2005Coll
Keith

Thankyou very much for your replies.

I have the address of D. P. & G. and will definitely get a copy of the book.

Coll
18th May 2005Mike McCabe
Keith,

Thanks for the steer on the dog. Interestingly, 'dog poisoning' is sometimes a feature of Greek village life - where either the owner, or the dog, are for some reason very unpopular. In the Dodecanese dogs are sometimes poisoned simply because they are viewed as unacceptably aggressive, or because the owner is indiscriminate in exercising or clearing up after his dog - cleanliness of village areas being thought essential. A very strong poison is often used so that the symptoms of poisoning are unmistakable, and the point robustly made.

'Small town' Pietermaritzburg might have taken exception to either Durnford - or his dog - or both. Suppose we'll never know.

MC McC
19th May 2005Michael Boyle
Keith,

I've managed to find some references that I lacked. (Thanks to a previous heads up you provided me with!) :

http://rapidttp.com/milhist/vol065sb.html

Including:
"Almost all the Natal colonists turned against him and many abusive letters about him appeared in the press. Vindictiveness reached its peak when Durnford's loyal old friend, his dog 'Prince', was poisoned. This act prompted him to leave the boarding house where he had been staying in Pietermaritzburg and to take up quarters in the garrison at Fort Napier. Durnford never tried to defend himself publicly, but in a letter home he observed: 'I am at present the best hated man in the colony. My crowning fault is that I have branded a portion of their volunteers with cowardice. Of course, I could have made a glorious despatch, but it would not have been true'."

And:
"It was almost a year later that Governor Pine yielded to the persistent clamour by the colonists to have the name of the Carbineers vindicated. A court of inquiry was constituted in November 1874 to consider the Bushman's River Pass affair. In the court's judgement 'the Carbineers were guilty of a disorganised and precipitate retreat, with, however, mitigating circumstances'. These mitigating circumstances were, no doubt, found to soften the verdict and placate the feelings of the colonists."

To those who haven't seen it the article is an interesting read.

Best

Michael

19th May 2005Keith Smith
Michael B.

Well done - I knew there was a reference to his being 'the most hated man' buit just couldn't put my finger on it.

Cheers
19th May 2005Keith Smith
Michael B.

Well done - I knew there was a reference to his being 'the most hated man' buit just couldn't put my finger on it.

Cheers
20th May 2005Michael Boyle
Keith,

I must admit to a feeling of relief that he penned those words himself,not that others didn't at least think them!

Coll,

It wouldn't seem possible that Prince was a Rhodesian Ridgeback as the breed was only standardized in 1922 and, curiously, seemed to stem from a group of dogs being bred for hunting begining in 1879. However many types and sizes of ridged dogs were available from mixed descent with the Khoikhoi dog. See :

http://www.murenga.com/irr.htm

Best

Michael

20th May 2005Coll
Michael

Thanks for your reply.

I've had a look around a few sites with regards to the Rhodesian Ridgeback.

One refers to this type of dog as an African Lion Hound and on looking through the information supplied on this particular site, it does really seem suited to the type of dog he could have possibly had, the dog's nature, it's ability to cope with the African climate, etc.

Apparently, this type of dog was imported by the Boers in the 16th and 17th centuries, and, as you say, bred with other groups of dogs for the purpose of hunting.

Frances Colenso and Edward Durnford both describe Prince as being a 'kangaroo breed'.

In R.W.F. Droogleever's book, I think, Durnford mentions he is considering obtaining a lion cub as he never did replace Prince, so I kind of connected this to the African Lion Hound.

It isn't much of a connection, but when seeing the pictures of this breed of dog and reading about it, I don't know, I just feel it is the type of dog he would have owned.

I'm unsure why I think this, maybe I've just convinced myself, although I hope not.

I've added a couple of the sites to my Favourites list.

Do you not think yourself, knowing what Durnford was like, that this could actually be the type of dog he would chose ?

Coll
20th May 2005Michael Boyle
Coll,

I'd probably reckon him the Irish Wolfhound or Bull Mastiff type, but as those breeds would probably have faired little better than well bred English horses in the SA bush I'd bet he got himself the biggest ridged back hound he could find. (Of course given his financial situation he may have settled for something that didn't eat much.)

Maybe it's just some latent Country & Western in my genes, but it still bugs the heck out of me that somebody killed his dog!

Best

Michael
20th May 2005Coll
Michael

They were probably thinking -

If you can't kill the man. Kill something that is close to him.

He was fond of the dog and I think Edward and also Frances have both commented on it's devotion and loyalty to Durnford.

The poor guy must have been heartbroken, especially if he thought it was something connected to what he had done, that had caused it to happen.

I guess it got to me too, that is why I started this topic, as I feel it was a really low method of making a point, because if they had approached him directly instead and confronted him on any issues that were bothering them, he could have handled the situation face-to-face without the necessity of harm coming to anyone or anything.

He strikes me as the kind of man who could stand his ground in a verbal confrontation, just as good as he stood his ground at Isandlwana.

I know my admiration of Durnford and anything associated with him is becoming a bit boring, but I don't know how else to fight in his corner, except mostly to object to things mentioned about him or his actions that I disagree with, however, I never seem to be able to back it up with anything specific.

I do get really annoyed with myself that I can't give a seriously convincing defence of him in any discussions that have arose, either I don't know enough, or I'm not sure how to put my thoughts into words.

I really am trying though.

Coll
20th May 2005Michael Boyle
In many circles it is the effort rather than the result that is most appreciated. Hence our dedication to the men of Isandhlwana.

Best

Michael