TOPIC:

Ardmore,

The figures from DNW are correct about the number of RAMC personnel involved in the siege. I imagine the other medical staff in the picture are from other units such as the Kimberley Town Guard which created posts for medics.

The beauty of these old photographs is that they preserve for us the past. One of the frustrations is that they are rarely named (it being a real pleasure when you come across any named examples!).

I found this photo as part of my research into the defence.

We need to uniform expert to differentiate the differenr units in the picture.

Best wishes
David

David,

Many thanks again. It's very good to know that there were just five R.A.M.C. men at Kimberly during the siege. I know that there was one officer, Lieutenant Charles John O'Gorman (aged only 27, only in the R.A.M.C. since January 1898), and my grandfather, Sergeant William Cooper (aged 37-38, an 18-year veteran of the service). Do you know the names of the other three, or anything else about them?

I've been trying to track down some source for the names (and whereabouts) of R.A.M.C. men in South Africa in the period from 1896 to 1906, so far without success -- can you guide me to anything? I've come across the fascinating Army Medical Department "Report on the Medical Arrangements in the South African War" (1904, Surgeon-General Sir William Dean Wilson), which provides a lot of detail about the work of the R.A.M.C. during the war, but of course only gives the names of a few of the officers. I was very interested to learn that in October 1899, there were so few R.A.M.C. personnel in the Cape Colony -- only 15 officers, 2 quartermasters, and 99 other ranks (and similar numbers in Natal -- 39 officers, 1 quartermaster, and 99 other ranks).

From the Army Medical Department report, it looks as though the very small contingent of R.A.M.C. men who were in Kimberley during the siege probably arrived there in September 1899, from Cape Town.

I've been wondering how you've been able to establish that the photograph was actually taken during the siege (i.e. between January 1st and February 15th, 1900), rather than after it. Was it a private photograph, or an Army record of some kind, or a press photograph, do you know?

Thanks very much, once again, for all the help.

Ardmore.

Ardmore,

The men of the RAMC in the siege were:

Capt O’Gorman, in command
S Sgt William Cooper
Sgt Mark Benson
Ptes John Hughes, George Jefferies and George Taylor

Five were located at the Botanical Garden camp and one at Premier Mine.

The six men arrived in Kimberley on 20th September 1899 with the large detachment of Imperial troops.

The photo was sourced from the McGregor Museum in Kimberley and feel sure it was taken during the siege.

There is some debate about when the siege started, the two dates been the 14 and 15 October 1899.

Best wishes
David

David,

Thanks so much, this is all extremely helpful!

I know you have quite a bit of information about Lieutenant O'Gorman (I believe he was promoted to Captain in January 1901) posted elsewhere on this website -- all very interesting. I've discovered a couple of additional things about him: it appears that after the First World War, he returned to Ireland (he was born, grew up and was educated there) and held a senior post at the the King George V Hospital in Dublin until sometime in 1922. He died at a nursing home in Dublin in 1930. He married a Mary Josephine Davis, who survived him. I'll see if I can find out anything more about the other R.A.M.C. men, and if I come across anything of real interest, I'll post it here.

It's good to know that the R.A.M.C. men arrived at Kimberley on September 20th, 1899. I suppose this was with the 1st Battalion of the Loyal North Lancashire Regiment. It certainly appears to place my grandfather at Cape Town in mid September 1899. I'd guess that he'd been based there, anyway, since he arrived in South Africa in 1896.

I'd been intending to get in touch with the McGregor Museum, but hadn't yet gotten around to doing so!

Best wishes,
Ardmore.

Ardmore,

The main bulk of imperial troops arrived on the 20th at the behest of Colonel Kekewich:

On 13th September, Kekewich arrived in Kimberley and he was immediately briefed by Scott-Turner and O’Meara. In their view, the Boers were clearly mobilising across the border and Kimberley was sure to be a target. Additionally, there were no regular troops available and fortifying the town had yet to begin. Further, the Volunteers were well below their authorised strength and their equipment was poor. Kekewich immediately reported back to Milner and Forestier-Walker on the lamentable situation and the report finally convinced the Prime Minister of the need for action. By 18th September, Kekewich had gained agreement for the despatch of some of his own men, the LNLR, some more artillery and ancillary troops and these arrived on 20th September:

23rd Company RGA (with six 2.5-in RML guns on mountain carriages) 3 officers 90 men
7th Company RE 1 officer 50 men
Headquarters and 4 companies 1st LNLR 9 officers 413 men
Detachment Army Service Corps 1 officer 5 men
Detachment Royal Army Medical Corps 1 officer 5 men

Total of 15 officers and 563 men

There is a picture of the troops arriving in Kimberley with the band playing at the front.

Best wishes
David

David,

Thanks -- again, very interesting and helpful information. It would be good to see the photograph you refer to, of the troops arriving in Kimberley with the band playing at the front (I've looked around for it online, so far without success).

My brother wrote to the Army Medical Services Museum at Aldershot to ask about the R.A.M.C. Kimberley 1900 photograph, and has just received the following very interesting reply:

"The two types of headgear, featured in the photograph are the 'slouch hat' (one side turned up) commonly worn by all British & colonial units during the Anglo Boer War of 1899-1902. The second type is the 'side cap' & commonly worn as a part of No 1 dress or when going out of a barracks confines. The pips on the front are not indicators of rank but are buttons with the relevant regimental or corps badge impressed thereon. Some of the soldiers are wearing what is termed a 'trade badge' on the upper right hand sleeve. This indicates that they are trained medical personal. The soldier sitting down on the left has sergeants stripes below the trade badge. A staff sergeant would have a Queen's Crown immediately above the chevrons. There are no other ranks visible as NCO chevrons are placed on the right arm, some of which are not visible. They are attired in the standard uniform of the time though footwear varies. The man looking out of the window may indeed be a soldier - he has a soldierly bearing & would appear to be wearing an issue collarless shirt."

A couple of things have occurred to me. One is that the man sitting on the left is evidently a sergeant, so could possibly be Sergeant Mark Benson. The other is that it's interesting that there are five men wearing "slouch hats", and one (the man in the shed) wearing no hat at all; all the (eleven) others are wearing "side caps" ("commonly worn as a part of No 1 dress or when going out of a barracks confines", according to the Army Medical Services Museum). I wonder whether this might indicate that the five men in slouch hats, plus the one in the shed, were the six R.A.M.C. men present during the siege, perhaps at the place where they were based within Kimberley, and that the eleven others may have been men from the Loyal North Lancashire Regiment, or from the Kimberley Regiment, or from some other force, who may have been working with the R.A.M.C. men during the siege. Of course, if this were the case, the man sitting on the left could not be Mark Benson; but the man in the shed could still be my grandfather!

Best wishes,
Ardmore.