SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN THE WORLD OF HORSE RACING.

SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN THE WORLD OF HORSE RACING.

Is there any animal more magnificent than a thoroughbred? What is its worth to its owners,  those who see these noble creatures as nothing more than a ticket to a fortune?

We may feel frustrated, jaded, cheated in our 21^st century world. We know that history repeats itself. There can be no comfort in the fact that we did not invent the idea of cheating, doping, squeezing, switching horses. 

Double dealing was, rather, par for the course (I know, I’m sorry about the terrible pun). As a matter of fact, the ruling classes, that comparatively small band known as the landed gentry in 18^th and 19^th century Britain, did more than turn a blind eye to cheating, they practised it rampantly.  Even the royal princes were in on the game and these ruling classes, who are setting the example for the working classes, should take pride in the vigour with which these lessons were learned. Mind you, they didn’t exactly welcome the competition or the ..ah.. new atmosphere that now pervaded this sport of kings, but I’m not here to write about that.

My manuscript Elizabeth’s Daughter is set in 1833 and my protagonist, Hannah, is the daughter of a successful breeder of thoroughbreds. Nicholas Foulkes’ Gentlemen and Blackguards describes horse racing during this era in captivating detail and so I decided to research the winner of the 1833 Derby, run at Epsom.  I was absolutely delighted with what I found.

Dangerous - Wikipedia

The winner of the 1833 Derby was a colt named ‘Dangerous’.  Dangerous’s owner, Mr Isaac Sadler,  went to some trouble to ensure that  Dangerous won. This was not unusual behaviour. The colt’s form before the Derby was nothing spectacular, running seconds or un-placed in previous races. Despite this, Sadler felt confident enough to bet heavily on his own horse, which was also a late entry, on odds of 30-1. Obviously  very few others shared his optimism.

 Sadler then not only collected the prize money but, as apparently his bet was large, considerable winnings as well.

One way of cheating at a race is to enter a four year in a three year old event. The Derby Cup is for three year olds. A four year old of course has more stamina and this is a particularly gruelling race. It is suspected that Dangerous was a four year old when he won. [The History of the Derby Stakes by Roger Mortimer.] One way of telling the difference is to check the teeth. Horses teeth are not fully grown until they are four years old and so checking a horse’s age by looking in its mouths is a simple matter if such a check takes place.

As far as Elizabeth’s Daughter  is concerned that is the end. However, in fact the story for Dangerous didn’t end there. He had won this race by a length after running the one and a half miles of the steep track. Before the race his jockey (in those days called ‘riding groom), Jem Chapple, noticed that Dangerous was lame and after the race he was lame again. Dangerous never recovered from that race. However, only Isaac Sadler, and presumably Chapple, knew this and because of Dangerous’s convincing win no owners wanted to run their horses against him again. Consequently he was given what is called a walk-over and Sadler collected the prize money for the next two races - at Stockbridge and Winchester. Shortly afterwards Dangerous was sold overseas.

Fortunes were won and lost on gambling of all sorts. Quoting from Foulkes's fascinating and erudite book  Lord F….. lost a vast fortune and was forced to raise almost £1 million (today £120,000,000). Foulkes is far from citing an isolated incident. He goes on to reference that it was common for the wealthy classes of the 1820s to bet between £5,000 and £6,000 on one race. This is in an era where he also references an estimate that in the 1860s £1 is the equivalent to £120 in the late 1990s!

Why are there so few Catholics in Regency romances?

Aspiring writers are encouraged to write the story they want to tell. I am an avid fan of Heyer. What writer of historical romance is not? However, when I was a teenager I was a bit curious, just curious, not affronted, as to why, in her many historical romance novels, she mostly avoided the Catholic question that was so rampant in the context of her settings, including the Regency period, where it was hotly debated in parliament. Why did she not write about this subject?

Yes, I know she had Dominica in Beauvallet marry, well Beauvallet, and I know her heroine was a Catholic in an Inquisition-infested Spain. Perhaps that justifies her marriage to a Protestant by Protestant clergy with the implication that her – safe – future in Elizabethan England is assured. But as a Catholic myself, I felt it was a bit of a cop out. I understand that Elizabethan England was not safe for Catholics, that Beauvallet was Elizabeth’s treasured buccaneer and that it was a patriarchal society. I mean I know that now. I didn’t really appreciate it when I was 19.

The novel I have written is set in 1833 during the short reign of William IV, so just before Victoria came to the throne in 1837. It is mostly true that the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 was the last Act of Parliament to grant freedom to Catholics. The Act of 1829 allowed Catholics to vote and to take a seat in Parliament. The first Catholic Relief Act was in 1778. This allowed Catholics the right to buy property, and in an environment where there was an increasing demand for more and more soldiers to fight the many wars on the continent, to legally join the army. It also repealed the penal laws, freeing Catholics from persecution and prosecution (fines, arrests, imprisonment, exile) for practising their faith. It also meant that the lucrative practice of informing against Catholics was stopped. The reward for successful information was £100.00. Now that Catholics could legally own property it also meant that non-Catholic relatives could no longer apply to the courts to be granted the property owned by Catholics.

The Act of 1791 gave Catholics the right to worship freely.

I can’t answer my question as to why Heyer, or for that matter Austen, didn’t treat these issues in their novels, except that apparently Heyer didn’t really set much store by any religion. I suppose that except for Catholics at that time, probably very few people living then cared particularly for a law that would have no discernible bearing on their own lives. But religious intolerance is nothing new, it is not the prerogative of any one country or era so there were Englishmen and women who were certainly very concerned because they distrusted, even hated, Catholics as the following record shows.

ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.

HL Deb 16 April 1821 vol 5 cc220-64 [Lord Mansfield arguing for his objection.]

 For the sake, then, of the Protestants, he protested against this bill. To the securities it provided he alike objected: they went to remedy no anomaly, to reconcile no subsisting difficulty. England had long enjoyed the benefit of her present form of laws. During their operation she had made a rapid progress in all the arts of civilized life: her arms had gained her the highest renown; and her constitution had been the admiration both of Catholic and Protestant: it secured to all the fullest enjoyment of toleration and personal protection. They ought never to forget the fact, that with the existing form of government was inseparably interwoven the Protestant church: the one could not be affected without the other.

So this is some of the history of the story I want to tell in my first novel.  It is a story of a Catholic girl from Scotland who falls in love with an English Protestant Peer.  My working title is Elizabeth’s Daughter.