The General Stud Book

FASTHORSES

THE WINNING PEDIGREE

By Acceptance

by Richard Ulbrich

___________________________

The General Stud Book, whether one chooses to acknowledge it or not, has among its pages anomalies… inaccuracies which questions the purity of the descendants of some Families. But, today, its infallibility is acknowledged by acceptance.

Albeit, recall the birth of Plenipotentiary, an amusing insight into ramifications within the thoroughbred arena when instructions are circumvented. Plenipotentiary retired to ringing accolade: "Here stands the crack of his day, as well as every other - a horse such as we ne'er shall look upon the like again, the wonderful, the unequalled Plenipo."

Ah! then… what does one make of the following death-bed confession.

"Audax," a noted racing and breeding correspondent in his time, was fond of recounting the following story:

"My grandfather, who married "Squire" Thornhill's daughter, more than once told me that the great horse Plenipotentiary was not, as recorded, by Emilius, but by Merlin." His grounds for this assertion was based on a confession made by Taylor, Mr Thornhill's stud groom, many years after Plenipotentiary had won the Derby in 1834. Taylor then insisted that when the mare Harriet (dam of Plenipotentiary) came to the stud to be covered by Emilius, a fashionable stallion at that time, he did not think much of her (Harriet), so he put her to Merlin instead!"

One may wonder how many were the times such culpable decisions were made without the knowledge of stud and/or mare owners. But this transgression is/was more amusing than serious.

A more weighty dereliction of duty which could, conceivably has, changed the course of breeding and racing, occurred when the then Keeper allowed Spitfire (1799) entry into the General Stud Book

Can one imagine the thoroughbred today without the presence of those names, Lady Josephine, Mumtaz Mahal, Nasrullah, Sansonnet, Tudor Minstrel, and ah! Mahmoud and the mare Almahmoud, and thus Northern Dancer, Sadler's Wells; and what of Bold Ruler. These names are as familiar to those involved in the sport-cum-industry of breeding and racing as knowledge that the world is round - a miscellany of names, which broadly speaking, encapsulates the twin industries.

Ergo… by acceptance, today the Family is legitimate, but in the mists of times, 200 years ago, the question-mark was hung, for there is weighty evidence that there is a stain on the purity of the Family of Palotta, and her descendants. The blemish in the pedigree of the Palotta branch of the Number 9 Family is not the mote of Americus, as one may readily think, but lies within her English ancestry, 200 years earlier in time, when ineluctable error was committed by the then Keeper of the General Stud Book.

Then, had the pedigree of Spitfire been subjected to deep scrutiny, her questionable pedigree would, without doubt, have surfaced and have seen her registration repudiated…. and different light and shadow would have been cast on the breed.

Of course there must be certain sympathy and allowance made for the Keeper of the GSB some 200 years ago. Communications were primitive, and not of the refinements enjoyed and taken for granted today. And, were then procedures of scrutiny for registration as strict as is now the case? It is more than conceivable that the Keeper of the Stud Book was quite unaware of Spitfire having been sold with a dubious pedigree - and always bearing in mind that her breeder who registered her, was a man of The cloth, with all the respect gathered to that calling.

Spitfire, was bred by the Reverend Percival, of Acomb in Yorkshire, who in due time disposed of her to a Captain William Flint, quoting her pedigree as by Beningbrough out of Quilter's Dam.

Originally, Spitfire, raced as a filly by Beningbrough, and then as Miss Acomb, before acquiring her name Spitfire. She raced only in the Thoroughbred arena, but showed little in the way of racing ability, ending her career at four years in the Doncaster Cup, in which she was unplaced. Then, off she went to stud, where nine years later, she foaled the mare Nancy (1813), dam of the famed Muley Moloch (1830), and his sister Muliana (1831), the tentacle that reached through to Palotta.

Sometime now, the integrity of the august Reverend Percival becomes compromised

The Rev. Percival, before his sale of Spitfire to Captain Flirt, had disposed of her two half-brothers. And it is here that dilemma arises.

For the eldest of these Quilter, he cited the pedigree as: "a chestnut colt by Standard (1790 - BL Fam No 2), dam by Sir Peter Pellet (a son of Espersykes -1775 - BL Fam No. 15) ex "a well-bred mare." Quilter raced in races open only to hunter and/or half-bred horses, thereby acknowledging he was not thoroughbred.

The half-brother to Quilter and to Spitfire, foaled in 1798, was by Overton (1788 - BL Fam No. 11), and raced as the Overton gelding. He also contested races for horses not thoroughbreds.

Ergo, Quilter and the Overton gelding were either half-bred horses or were running in these events spuriously.

Mankato, the correspondent who unearthed this anomaly, stated:

"One is left with the overwhelming evidence that Spitfire was not a thoroughbred, and that her entry into the Stud Book was, to put not too fine a point on it, a deception with a false pedigree, for her Stud Book entry assigns her the pedigree:

`by Beningbrough out of a mare by Young Sir Peter (by Doge), her dam by Engineer out of a mare bred by the Duke of Bolton, by Wilson's Arabian (a chestnut Turk), out of a mare by Hutton's Spot, out of mare by Mogul, out of a mare bred by the Duke of Bolton, by Crab, out of a mare by Bay Bolton, out of a sister to
Mixbury, by Curwen's Bay Barb, out of a mare by Old Spot, out of a mare by the white-legged Lowther Barb, out of the Vintner Mare.

The Wilson Arabian Mare (1755) was a grey, and is shown in Vol I of the GSB as breeding a grey filly by Engineer in 1768, and other grey fillies to the same sire in 1770 and1771. But there is not any record that any of these fillies by Engineer ever bred a filly by Young Sir Peter. It is, of course, possible, though hardly likely, that Mr Percival falsified the pedigree of Quilter and his half-brother in order that they be qualified to take part in hunter races, but bearing in mind the doubt, we cannot, strictly speaking, carry Palotta's female line beyond Spitire 1799."

As Spitfire's pedigree is suspect, we cannot even ascribe her correctly as of the No. 9 Family!

But, casting stones at the GSB is unlikely to win friends. As said at the outset… by acceptance…

Note: An editorial note in the Vth edition of Volume I of the GSB records that a Mr Baker alleged the pedigree of Spitfire was an invention, but the editor, accepting Spitfire's pedigree at face value, also noted "the pedigree is quite possible."