Raswan photo of Gulida and Rabanna, from Terry Doyle
Terry Doyle kindly shared with me this unique photo of Dr. Joseph Doyle’s foundation mare and 100% Old Crabbet broodmare Gulida (Gulastra x Valida), along with Richard Pritzlaff’s Rabanna (Rasik x Banna) which was taken by Carl Raswan at their farm in Iowa in the 1950s. Rabanna was there for a breeding to Ghadaf (Ribal x Gulnare). This is probably one of the most precious photos featured on this blog.
I cropped the photo to zoom in on the two mares. The larger photo has a view of the pasture and of some of Gulida’s offspring.
Wonderful photo, what happened to Gulida with her neck???
Yes I noticed it as well, must have been a horrific wound
Gulida had that scar when my father and I first went to see her in Nebraska in 1948. Her owner said the scar was caused by a barbed wire injury. It was a huge cavity in her neck and shoulder into which two fists could fit. One could see her shoulder bone moving beneath the skin. This disfigurement did not diminish her value in my father’s eyes. It did not harm her movement, overall health or reproductive ability. He purchased her to be the foundation mare of his breeding program. She did not disappoint him. Terry Doyle
Hey Terry,
How can I get a hold of you. I have a descendant of Rabanna.
Terry, do you remember whether he also considered other foundation mares at the time? How did he know about her existence? Was it through Carl Raswan?
Gulida has a special look of a real broodmare. I like her very much1
Edouard, why do you consider that *Ghazala was a Crabbet mare? As with other horses from Sheykh Obeyd Garden such as Saadun and Kerima, *Ghazala was never part of the Crabbet Stud.
Well, technically you’re right.. but Sheykh Obeyd was Crabbet’s Egyptian branch of sorts, no? Take Yashmak, who never set foot in England, but had a son who went there? Was she a Crabbet mare?
No, I don’t think Yashmak was a Crabbet mare, although Ibn Yashmak and *Shahwan were Crabbet stallions.
Lady Anne Blunt wrote to Spencer Borden on July 5, 1909: “I shall be extremely pleased to let you have Ghazala for 200gs. Her description is in the Sheykh Obeyd Stud list enclosed which I have just had printed up to date, everything sold being deducted. That Stud is my entirely separate undertaking, absolutely independent of the English ones.”
Lady Anne herself did not consider Sheykh Obeyd to be a branch of Crabbet, although some of us now so far removed from her in time and place might see it differently from our perspective.
In the 1880s and 1890s, Sheykh Obeyd served as a gathering point for horses the Blunts shipped to England. Eleven horses went to England in 1897 and 1898, but after that, I agree with Lady Anne that Sheykh Obeyd developed as a separate breeding program.
If you think about it, it corresponds to the death of Ali Pasha Sherif in 1897. 1897-98 is when she abandoned the “First Attempt” at Sheykh Obeyd and began the “New Venture.”
Re: the “First Attempt”, it consisted mostly of Tahawi mares.. also is it true that Ferida transited by SO for several months before going to Crabbet?
Yes, Ferida spent some time at Sheyhk Obeyd; this was during the “gathering point” stage, Ferida was covered in Egypt by Merzuk and Mesaoud.
For what it may be worth I don’t see SO as separate from Crabbet; my understanding was that the original intention had been to maintain a unified stud and send horses back and forth, but this was given up after Rataplan and Jeroboam were lost at sea on the way to Egypt in 1887.
Lady Anne’s comment to Borden in 1909 was post-Partition, and I suggest the separate ownership of her Egyptian horses was emphasized to avoid complications which might arise from the Partition agreement.
Certainly it could be argued both ways. I know that the intent in the 1880s was to send horses back and forth, but as matters actually worked out, Rataplan and Jeroboam never reached Egypt, no others were ever sent from Crabbet, and Sheykh Obeyd developed as a separate breeding program after 1898.
True, Feysul was sent to England in 1904 along with two of his sons, but at the time, the sons were thought not to have an Ali Pasha Sherif dam line so I’m not sure they were regarded as sire prospects. Later Azz was sent to England but that was in the vain hope of getting a foal from a barren mare, not to transplant her strain of Dahman Shahwan to Crabbet.
Don’t want to be splitting hair here, but what’s the difference between “getting a foal from a barren mare” and “transplant her strain … to Crabbet”. Is this difference based on the assumption that mare and foal were to return to SO had this worked?
I’m making a distinction based on intent. As you probably know, Azz was injured the last time she foaled, before Lady Anne bought her from one of the Ali Pasha Sherif sons. She later complained that he knew about it and had “swindled” her. Azz was sent to England in the hope that English veterinary practices could get a foal from her. So my point is based on the decision being veterinary. Contrast with Feysul, who was sent to England because another sire was wanted for the Crabbet mares. Azz was sent to England for access to more advanced veterinary care, not because Crabbet needed another dam line.
As I said, it could be argued both ways. Crabbet and Sheykh Obeyd can be seen as one group of horses all owned by the same family and interchanged right up to the time of Azz. But I think the Sheykh Obeyd herd was distinct as a breeding group.
For whatever reason, Lady Anne did compartmentalize the horses in her mind. In the Partition years, separate catalogues were printed for Wilfrid Blunt’s horses at Newbuildings, Lady Anne’s horses at Crabbet, and Lady Anne’s horses at Sheykh Obeyd. Michael suggests this was to distinguish legal ownership rather than distinct breeding programs, and he might be right.
I think people are complicated, and Wilfrid and Lady Anne were two of the more complicated people around. So I am sure that their intents changed over decades as they grew apart and as their knowledge of horses grew. As RJ says, it can certainly be argued both ways, and being a complicated person myself, I can see it both ways!
I suppose it depends on how fine a brush is useful to you.
Ha ha Jeanne I don’t know about you being complicated, but I think that seeing it both ways is a sign of wisdom, the truth is rarely simple.