Robin Oakley

The sport of kings

Robin Oakley argues that it was Queen Victoria’s dour disapproval that ironically made racing the sport of kings

Already a subscriber? Log in

This article is for subscribers only

Subscribe today to get 3 months' delivery of the magazine, as well as online and app access, for only £3.

  • Weekly delivery of the magazine
  • Unlimited access to our website and app
  • Enjoy Spectator newsletters and podcasts
  • Explore our online archive, going back to 1828

Christopher McGrath argues convincingly, however, that, over time, Bertie’s racing career established a public confidence in his credentials as a future king, charting progress to the point where ‘his race-horses were no longer mere agents of rebellion: they had opened an artery of public affection long clotted by his mother’. In his lowbrow imperfections his future subjects came to find the warmth and humanity they had missed in Queen Victoria.

If racing boosted Bertie’s popularity, then he returned the service. Leopold Rothschild argued that Bertie did  ‘much to remove  the impression that racing cannot be conducted in a healthy manner in the spirit of pure sport’. On Bertie’s death the Sporting Life noted:

Within living memory the term ‘a racing man’ was practically synonymous with that of ‘vagabond’ in the minds of the middle classes; and it is largely due to the late King Edward that the idea that the racecourse is nothing more nor less than a sink of iniquity has been removed from the minds of all but a few irreconcilables.

There is no shortage of vagabonds in a rich vein of anecdotage across three centuries in Mr Darley’s Arabian — vagabonds who include much of the aristocracy and a sprinkling of prime ministers. A trainer wins a court case prosecuting his jockey for not losing a race as he had instructed. A duellist steps back after his opponent arrives with a coffin bearing his name plate. Aristocrats paid ten guineas for portraits of their wives, and 50 for portraits of their horses.

McGrath’s theme derives from the fact that anywhere in the world, from the Melbourne Cup to the Kentucky Derby, 19 out of any 20 competitors are linked in ‘male tail’ ancestry to the Darley Arabian, perilously imported to Yorkshire from the Syrian desert in 1704. But in ingeniously threading the stories of 23 other horses in the chain from from the Darley Arabian to Frankel, McGrath has produced a racing book like no other — a book of remarkable scope.

For the horseman the racing careers of great horses like Eclipse, the curiously named Pot8os, Nearco and Northern Dancer are there. So are the hideous training methods used in the past, the six- or eight-mile hamster-wheel workouts in rugs and blankets, followed by more trussing and sweating back in the stables, the deliberate dehydration, the half-gallon weekly bloodletting, the savagery used to break a horse’s will until at last English handlers took a lesson from the Arabs and began to win co-operation from their charges with gentleness. Here, too, are stories like those of Tod Sloan, the cocky American jockey whose ‘monkey-on-the-stick’ riding style up the horse’s neck revolutionised racing in Britain.

But McGrath’s book will be read by a much wider public for its lively social history. Every age has had its symbols of luxury with which the successful or the lucky like to parade their wealth. Today perhaps it is yachts or football clubs. Owning a stable of good horses, like the regimental commissions or seats in Parliament which also could be bought, was often a chosen step on the way to a position in society or public popularity. One era was dominated by the great landowners, until the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. Next, studs and stables were bought by coal and steel industrial barons like Glasgow’s James Merry. As McGrath writes:

Finally, after the first world war, a global market economy divided its rewards between professional breeders and the international plutocrats who could afford to buy into their expertise.

Hence Coolmore and Frankel’s owner, Prince Khalid Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in