There are rumors that King Charles will completely ‘wind down’ his mother’s stables

Last week, we learned that King Charles was selling off 14 racehorses from his late mother’s enormous stable. Queen Elizabeth’s passion was horses, racing and horse breeding. She spent decades working closely with her private stable operation to breed the best racehorses in Britain. She spent an endless amount of time and resources to improve her operations for years and years. And now her son is committed to dismantling the whole thing rather than simply hand it off to one of his relatives. The horse world rumor mill is churning over Charles’s reported plans to sell off the entire stable in the next few years.

King Charles has made more than £1million by selling off 14 of the late Queen’s beloved racehorses, reinforcing fears that he might be planning to wind down the royal racing operation. The King sold more than a third of his mother’s racehorses, which he inherited upon her death last month, at the famous Tattersalls October sales in Newmarket, Suffolk this week.

The royal racehorses made him an average of £76,821 each – £1,075,500 in total – with Charles’s first race-winning horse Just Fine being sold for £300,000. Trained by the Queen’s longest standing trainer Sir Michael Stoute, Just Fine won an impressive victory in Leicester earlier this month – the first win since the late monarch’s death on September 8. He was one of four of the Queen’s former horses that sold for six-figure sums.

There are rumours that the new monarch might be planning to wind down, or at least scale back, the royal racing operation. A source close to the Royal Sandringham Stud in Norfolk said there is talk of ‘winding down’ the breeding operation over three years, until it ceases to be a commercial operation…. The Royal stud could be a museum in three years. It would be a real shame.’

A Royal source confirmed Charles will reduce the number of horses but added: ‘The connection between the family and the horse racing industry will continue. The desire is to continue with the traditions and connections with Royal Ascot but not on the same scale as Her Majesty because she had a passion.’

[From The Daily Mail]

I truly don’t understand why Charles is incapable of “giving” the daily operations to one of his relations. Clearly, his heir is too stupid and lazy to do anything with the horses, but Charles has horsey siblings, nieces and nephews who would love to be part of the late queen’s operation. This, to me, would be a perfect “gift” for Princess Anne and, eventually, Zara Phillips Tindall, given their equestrian histories. Anne would whip the stables into shape and probably improve on her mother’s vision for the breeding operation. The fact that Charles would rather end his mother’s stables rather than hand them off says to me that the whole point is Charles destroying something which gave his mother so much joy. Remember that when the Palace issues talking points about how QEII was “so disappointed” in Prince Harry. Remember that Charles couldn’t wait two full months before dismantling one of his mother’s biggest passions.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

67 Responses to “There are rumors that King Charles will completely ‘wind down’ his mother’s stables”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. MaryContrary says:

    That’s so disrespectful to his mother’s memory! How dare he!

  2. Sugarhere says:

    Charles getting rid of his mom’s horses MIGHT be rooted in his ire and resentment at the fact that she wasn’t solely fond of horses but, as rumor has it, of some vigorous man who used to work at her stables during her falling out with Prince Philip, resulting in the birth of her favorite son.

    What Charles is doing -dismantling the maternal stables- only makes sense (he is not in need of the moneys and the horses aren’t a bother to him) as a therapeutic endeavor. He might have been awfully taunted by the aristo lads in boarding school due to the rumor. Charles and Anne look very much alike. I wish someone would explore this lead.

    • Nuks says:

      Well, that’s quite juicy! 👀

      It makes you wonder, if Charles is screeching so much about the Crown portraying him as wanting to jump the gun and ascend sooner, actions like this don’t really support his complaints. I mean Harry delayed his damn back till next year. Why couldn’t he delay this until at least the next calendar year?

      • Sugarhere says:

        @Nuks: Indeed, Chuck isn’t the procrastinating type. Could it be that him ascending the throne as an old king, unlike his predecessors, has created a mental urge to expedite matters rapidly, without poise and proper deliberation? I’ve noticed that Charles has caused more shambles in a matter of 5 weeks than any king or queen in 5 years. He has made selfish, precipitous moves that hint he is aware he might not be a long-reigning monarch. All of this makes him appear unwise, restless, fidgety.

      • Snuffles says:


        Well, the reality is, Charles, at 74, doesn’t have much time on the throne to make an impact. Plus, he’s been itching to get his hands on the reigns and run things his way for decades.

        Another reality is, this is an institution that abhorrent to change, even if it desperately needs it. No matter what Charles does, people are going wail and complain about the changes after 70 years of “tradition”. It’s inevitable. So either Charles doesn’t change a thing (which we know won’t happen), or just rip the bandaid off quickly and hope things settle down into a new norm.

    • Sugarhere says:

      @Snuffles: One cannot blame a newly-crowned king for setting a new norm. However, it doesn’t seem like Chuck has made an effort to do so elegantly. Why not hand the entire stables to someone who cares and split the revenue? Why dismantle the whole structure and trample on other people’s 60-year effort and work on genetic selection? Why such a display of insensitivity?

      • Snuffles says:


        Well, apparently not only was it not profitable, it constantly operated at a deficit. If it was a money pit, then it needed to be axed. There is no elegant way to do that.

    • Elizabeth Phillips says:

      There has to be a logical reason that one son still has a head of hair.

      • zengirl says:

        Baldness, genetically, would come to the males from their mother (X-linked recessive) – but I love this idea of Liz cutting loose 🙂

    • blacktoypoodle says:

      Lord Porchester.
      Google photos of young Lord Porchester and Young Andrew.

    • Emily_C says:

      I totally believe Porchester was Andrew’s father. It also means all Andrew has to do is threaten to take a DNA test in order to keep getting support from Charles.

  3. Chaine says:

    Idk, I can’t fault him for this. Why should anyone be compelled to take on and continue their late parent’s extremely expensive hobby? He is a seventy something year old man, it’s not like he is going to acquire a love of the sport at this late date, and the other family members don’t have the incomes or wealth to take it on unless he subsidizes them.

    • tamsin says:

      Agree completely. The only thing he might have done is just maintain a breeding operation, but still very expensive. We don’t know if any of the Queen’s children took an interest while she was alive, so it’s not something to just “hand over” to someone.

      • Tacky says:

        Anne and Zara are equestrians, not race horse breeders. Horse breeding is a massive undertaking that requires a huge amount of time and expertise. It’s not a hobby for a family member to dabble in.

    • windyriver says:

      And he knows Will has no interest; he and Charles both enjoyed playing polo, but didn’t Will already get rid of the polo ponies a while back? Will will (also) have no interest in spending his own money subsidizing this operation for other family members and none of them can support it themselves. And, that’s also assuming someone else in the family is really interested, which may not be the case.

    • Woke says:

      Same I don’t get the indignation the others family members don’t have the fund to take over. And it’s not like they won’t have horses anymore. Just not at this scale anymore.

    • Tulipworthy says:

      I agree. You don’t have to like or appreciate your parent’s hobbies.

      • windyriver says:

        This is why I never thought it was an issue neither Will nor Harry were interested in running the Prince’s Trust, as a few people here did. It’s reasonable to assume/expect a child might have other goals and interests (even Will), and it’s not in the best interests of an organization to be run by someone without real commitment. True even at micro levels; my long time landscaping company just closed its doors. The two sons who took over from their dad a few years ago decided it wasn’t what they wanted to be doing in their 30’s.

        At the same time, there is sadness seeing something a person spent a lifetime building dissolved after their death. Some years back I saw a pre-auction exhibit after the death of a man who’d built a collection of early American historical documents and objects. It ranged from a contemporary portrait of Washington from an important artist, to an original, but not very important, letter by Ethan Allen. By virtue of auction these items would potentially be disseminated everywhere and anywhere. But the remaining family didn’t share the interest, and hopefully things have moved on to new people who do value them, as will be true for TQ.

        Someone knowledgeable here said if horses bred by TQ’s stables generate winners down the line, they’ll be traced back to their origins, which will be a nice legacy for HM, even if the operation ceases to exist.

      • C says:

        The Prince’s Trust is a little different than the Queen’s horse hobby. Taking hold of the Prince’s Trust would have been a natural transition for William as Prince of Wales. But instead he is a feckless do-nothing. There is nothing keeping him from reorganizing it if he wishes. And it’s not like he’s doing anything else with his time.

      • windyriver says:

        It’s not really different – and, I don’t necessarily call what TQ did, at the level she did it, a “hobby”. Education and employment programs, especially for the young and/or the disadvantaged, has been one of Charles’ interests since he first established the Trust. He has a number of related initiatives under the umbrella of the Prince’s Foundation as well. Nothing William has done/played at (mental health, environment) indicates he has the slightest interest in this area. Charles also established initiatives re: community planning and architecture. Will specifically said in one of the documentaries a few years ago that’s not his interest either. His laziness and general uselessness aside, my point is, I don’t see why he should feel obligated to take on the Prince’s Trust just because it was established by the previous holder of that title, if it doesn’t interest him. Plus, it’s a successful forty year old organization – it doesn’t need to be reorganized just because William needs something to do. (And presumably there’s a governance structure in place to deal with any proposals for changes; I doubt Will could just do something “if he wishes”.)

        His laziness is a separate issue. Pushing him into a job he has zero desire or interest in isn’t going to change that.

      • C says:

        Of course it was a hobby. Horse breeding isn’t one of the roles of the monarch, so it was absolutely extracurricular even if it was an expensive large business.

        There are no set rules for how the Heir should behave. Charles is a terrible person for many reasons but he is responsible for carving out a specific role for the Prince of Wales and it only makes sense that William would continue that. His laziness is not a separate issue because if he won’t take the initiative and forge something for himself the least he could do is helm a positive project for the Crown. The monarchy isn’t going to keep on unless they can maintain that perception of usefulness.

    • Lionel says:

      @Chaine: ITA, thank you! Of all the things to be outraged about, this doesn’t even register. The BRF gives up an expensive personal hobby during a time of national need? Good! And disrespectful to the late Queen? That’s preposterous. Maybe if she’d been a regular non-Royal woman whose one passion was to build a world-class breeding operation from scratch, then sure, it could be seen as insensitive for her son to immediately dismantle it. But the Queen’s legacy is, let’s just say, secure. Her side hustle of racing/breeding is barely a footnote.

      Also, someone correct me, but the association between the BRF and horse racing is literally all QEII, right? It doesn’t go back generations. Saying that Royal Ascot is a BRF tradition to prove that point is like saying the Royal Box at Wimbledon is proof that they’re all tennis pros.

      • equality says:

        Queen Anne started royal ascot in 1711. The Queen’s father and grandfather bred racehorses.

      • Lionel says:

        @Equality: Ah, OK. Disregard my last paragraph then, and thank you for the correction!

      • abritdebbie says:

        I could be completely wrong, but I seem to remember reading that horse racing at Newmarket was started by Charles II as a way of insuring that England would have good quality, fast horses. This was because warfare changed. Horses able to carry a fully loaded knight were less important than fast horses. To ensure England would have plenty of fast horses, the races were started.

        It is a very hazy recollection though.

      • Lionel says:

        @abritdebbie, that is interesting and makes so much historical sense. I apologize unreservedly to all Celebitchies for my inaccurate post! I like to think I know history but I have huge gaps, and this is clearly one of them. I agree that British royalty is totally associated with horsemanship, I never meant to question that. And yes it tracks that monarchs up until the 20th century would be invested in breeding strong horses for warfare (or transportation or pleasure or escape!) I didn’t make the connection between that and modern horse-racing (which as an American I associate with mint juleps and the Kentucky Derby) and that’s my bad, I see now how the one probably evolved from the other.

        So, with thanks to the smart posters here, specifically @equality and @abritdebbie, let me amend my initial post by saying I still think it’s fine, understandable even, for Charles to “wind down” his mother’s expensive hobby so soon after her death, given that her legacy is secure. As there’s more historical significance to the whole BRF endeavor than I realized … well, IMO it’s still the right decision in 2022, but maybe a statement with a nod to the storied history would have been more appropriate and better-received.

    • Jen says:

      I have to wonder at the queen not having the foresight to leave it to a horsier family member like Anne, which then leads to the thought that maybe Anne’s interests in horses does not extend to wanting to manage stables and a breeding program either. Or, it might have to do with the expense. Maybe the queen understood that even if Anne had an interest, if not also left vast wealth to support the endeavour, Anne (* or whatever horsey family member) wouldn’t be able to keep it either, and perhaps the queen did not want to divert more of Charles’ inheritance to Anne*.

      • Maeve says:

        Anne’s done some race riding, but she’s never expressed any interest in the breeding side of things, and it’s a very expensive hobby. I’d imagine if she had any interest it would be in producing eventing horses for Zara, but even that’s eye watering cost wise.

    • C says:

      Well, we’ll have to see how Royal Ascot is impacted by this.

    • Jennifer says:

      Agreed. He’s not a horsey person, he’s not obligated to keep them all.

      I can’t speak as to why he doesn’t gift them to Anne or Zara or whoever, though. Possibly they can’t afford it, I dunno.

    • ML says:

      @Chaine, I completely agree on you with this as well. Race horses are flipping expensive and if there’s someone out there that would be made happier than KC, all the more power to them. Better for the horses, too.

  4. equality says:

    Likely the operation is already under expert management without involving any royals at all. All the royals would be needed for is the funding and KC or possibly PW are the only ones who would be able to afford it. Since duchy money is likely being used to fund it and those funds could hopefully be used to benefit the public is it that great a loss to the UK in general? That is assuming that KC doesn’t just use all the extra money for himself. Where are all the questions about where the money is going like there are whenever H&M earn their own money?

    • Tacky says:

      Horse breeding and training involves millions of dollars annually. There is no way six and seven figure decisions were being left to staff. The queen was deeply, personally involved in the business.

      • equality says:

        She likely was hands on but what is the point of having an expert manager who has devoted his life to breeding horses and not taking his advice? What would make her more qualified than someone with the training and experience for the job?

      • C says:

        I think it was probably a mix of both and they worked in tandem. People have often said that horses were her real passion, followed by corgis. She didn’t even seem to care about races as much as breeding.

    • Maeve says:

      She had a racing manager and the stables had managers but she really loved the breeding side of things – picking which stallions would serve which of her mares etc. She was very knowledgeable about the stud books (basically the genealogy of her horses) an. But it’s a hugely expensive undertaking. – she’s had some good horses but there’s no way she made money on the venture.

  5. Tattletale says:

    I don’t know! Is it a self sustaining or profitable operation or does it cost money? It seems like an easy thing to transfer to Anne or Zara and certainly something Louise would love to do.

    I thought QE made breeding into a very profitable business. But couldn’t she have set this up in her will herself- given some of the horses to Ann/Zara/Louise and funded the operations in part w a trust?

    I can’t blame Charles 100%. If she wanted the horses to be kept, she could have provided a framework for this.

    • Talia says:

      Anything she left to Charles was free of inheritance tax. Anything to anyone else is at 40% if it’s more than the usual exemption (which is £325,000 plus another £325,000 if a deceased spouse didn’t use all of theirs). That covers a lot of people but wouldn’t touch the sides of even the Queen’s horses let alone the rest of her estate.

      No tax is due on lifetime gifts more than 7 years before death either but my understanding is the horses belonged to the Queen up to her death.

    • Lionel says:

      IDK, I think Anne and Zara and Louise have more than enough horses to keep them busy! People who love to race horses don’t necessarily love to breed them, the two pastimes may be related but they attract entirely different personalities. Sorry, but it just strikes me as a bit presumptuous to say that a sheltered 18 year old child you’ve never met “would love to” take over a money and time-intensive business that requires voluminous and detailed amounts of both knowledge and passion to be successful.

  6. Snuffles says:

    I’m of two minds. On the one hand, he’s not obligated to keep it going just because his mother loved it. Especially since he’s been banging on for decades on how much he wanted to slim down the monarchy. Sure, Anne and Zara could have continued to operation but from what I’ve read it was a money suck and usually operated in the negative. If it was an unprofitable hobby of the Queen, why keep it?

    On the other hand, I’m sure he’s taking plenty of glee in dismantling something his mother loved so much and denying preferred siblings an opportunity. Because he’s totally petty.

    • Renae says:

      Perhaps he has long resented the breeding program. He could hold old jealousy for all the time the horses took up. Time his mummy could have spent on him.
      I think his selling it off is not a bad thing. He has no duty to keep it as not even his son seems interested in it.

  7. Jumpingthesnark says:

    Not gonna fault this. He sounds like he isn’t into horses and realizes that optics for continuing an extremely expensive hobby are bad. Im sure the horses will go to places where they are cared for well.

    • KT says:

      Yes, it was the Queen’s expensive hobby. Charles’ expensive hobby is restoring Scottish stately homes. Can’t blame the man for not continuing to fund something he is not interested in. If there had been an interest in Anne or Zara taking over the stables The Queen could have arranged that in her will before she died. This was likely always the plan.

    • Karennotkaren says:

      Can’t fault him on this. Running a stable is a massive undertaking requiring multiple levels of expertise (vets, farriers, trainers, body work (horse) specialists, dietitians, stable managers, grooms, equipment/machinery managers, etc.). Horses require so much attention and, in spite of their size, are fairly fragile creatures. If you’re not fully invested, I can see divesting oneself of the responsibility and enormous costs. Done properly, it’s a more than full-time job. And, the horses will be better off with someone who has the resources AND the necessary passion to take all that on.

      • TheVolvesSeidr says:

        Yes, this. Horse$ are super expensive. The purchase price of a horse is nothing compared to the costs that follow for the entire life of that horse. I only have one and I’ve spent around 20 times his (not that cheap) purchase price on him in the past 20 years. Everything about them is insanely expensive and multiply it by the number of horses in the Queen’s stable. And horses get deathly ill (and die a lot of times) at the drop of a hat. Horse vets are very pricey. Horses are delicate and can die if you look at them wrong (hyperbole) and then all your money is down the toilet and you have to start over. $$$$$$$$$

  8. A says:

    Maybe Charles did float the offer to Anne or Zara, and both of them turned it down? Breeding racehorses seems to me a slightly different task than what Anne or Zara did with the careers. They might simply not be into that aspect of things in the same way their mother was.

  9. Duchess of Corolla says:

    I am aware that The Queen’s horses were likely well-cared for, but the reality is that horse racing is a cruel sport. So, why perpetuate it in any form? If King Charles wants to end the royal family’s racing venture, so be it. Even if making a statement against animal cruelty isn’t the motivation for ceasing the operation, the outcome will be just as good.

  10. Amy Bee says:

    I think Charles always felt that the Queen loved her horses more than him so now she’s dead he’s getting rid of them.

  11. Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

    I said it in the other article but it’s understandable. Charles has no interest in it. William has no interest in it. George might but he can always start it up again when or perhaps, if he gets the throne. So no point keeping an expensive operation around when no one really has a passion for it.

    Sure it could go to Anne and/or Zara but they probably don’t have the funds to run it. Which means they’ll be relying on Charles for money and I am sure he doesn’t want to hand a single penny over. Especially for something he has very little passion for.

  12. Cessily says:

    If I had his money and these horses I would have set up a trust and charity for children and mental health/ptsd. Equine assisted therapy can make a huge difference to so many but it is very expensive. After lifetimes of living off the taxpayers setting something like this up in honor of his mothers passion for horses is another missed opportunity.

    • equality says:

      Highly strung race horses aren’t the best for this type of therapy. Older and more calm horses work better. He could still set something like that up but not with expensive, high-strung thoroughbreds.

      • Lionel says:

        Equality, you beat me to it! My reaction to the idea of equine therapy with thoroughbred racehorses is YIKES! But @Cessily, you have a really, really good idea. The BRF together owns a zillion horses, most of which aren’t going to Ascot. Picking the most temperamentally appropriate horses, and/or having a center where older horses can retire and get world-class care, and then starting a subsidized therapy program would be a phenomenal gift. (Sigh, which is why I suppose it will never happen. 🙄)

  13. Chantal says:

    Sounds like another way for C-Rex to hoard more money. Guess it wasn’t generating enough profits. Destroying his mothers legacy as he tries to build his own is just an added bonus. Giving it to other family members who might make it an even more successful operation is a definite no go.
    He’s tightening the purse strings and eliminating other viable ways for family members to make money to increase their loyalty/dependence on him. It worked for TQ but wont work for him. Many of the extended family members could have been “employed” in this business and likely would have enjoyed it. I suspect more royals and royal adjacents will start appearing on other game shows, talk shows, selling interviews and family trinkets. Maybe even write books, like Unloyal Royal, I’m The Favorite Mistress, Royal Orbs and Sceptors aka Cheaters, or Get Out – the Unemployable Royal edition.

  14. Cate says:

    I have no love for Charles but I really don’t see what the problem is here? His mother had an expensive and likely unprofitable hobby that he isn’t passionate about. My parents have some hobbies they’re into that I don’t personally “get”. When they pass, I’m certainly not planning to hold onto their hobby supplies or start participating in the related communities. I might make a donation in their memory but that’s about it. You aren’t obliged to live your life in memory of someone.

    • Sugarhere says:

      Well, well… If we remove his mother from the equation, we are left with this odd sentiment that the King of England, the expected upholder of monarchical tradition, is ironically selling out the very beacon of aristocratic power: horses. How can Chucky be a king and act in a way that is so blatantly adversarial to what he embodies? Unless he has an ulterior emotional motive to do so.

      • Eurydice says:

        If, as he claims, Charles wants to be a more modern king, then getting rid of the medieval mythology of horses is a step in the right direction.

  15. Dee says:

    This will come up later. Charles sold his mother’s expensive horses, a great “sacrifice.” It’ll be spun as cost-cutting. And then the budget for the royals will be for more and more money. Just watch.

    • Snuffles says:

      I suspect Charles will do a lot of cost cutting but won’t reduce the amount of money The Firm takes from the government, which he SHOULD.

      Maybe he will surprise everyone. I’ve always felt that the Queen had a lot of hobbies that were expensive and pointless. Spent millions annually supporting dozens of cousins and letting them live in “grace and favor” in numerous properties that could be put to better use and made profitable.

      With the billion dollar portfolio of properties and businesses The Firm has access to, one would think they could turn The Firm into a self-sustaining operation that doesn’t require government funding at all.

  16. Sugarhere says:

    Well, well… I we remove his mother from the equation, we are left with this odd sentiment that the King of England, the expected upholder of monarchical tradition, is selling out the very beacon of aristocratic tradition: horses. How can Fidgety Chucky be a king and act in a way that is so blatantly adversarial to what he embodies?

  17. susan says:

    One would think that Anne had right of first refusal on this. Either she passed on the opportunity or Charles is even more of a selfish glassbowl than any of us can imagine.

  18. Serenity says:

    I’m a horse person and I have noticed that every time KC touches one, it has its ears pinned. Doesn’t he understand a horse’s body language by now!?!

    I think it’s disgusting of KC to dismantle (way too soon IMHO) what his mother worked so hard to achieve; however, I’m not sorry for the horses because they should go to people who appreciate them and will treat these beautiful, noble animals with respect. *This* is a huge part of QEII’s legacy, and it’s a shame that her son is trying to erase it so quickly out of decades-long pettiness and jealousy.

    Rant over, sorry it went so long!😔

  19. Renae says:

    So much for “the Sport of Kings…”

  20. AmelieOriginal says:

    I really don’t understand the “outrage” over this? None of the Queen’s relatives as far as I know as ever expressed interest in horse-racing or managing a horse racing operation/breeding program like she did. Charles, William, Andrew, and Harry have played polo on them (can’t remember if Edward ever did?) and Anne and Zara exclusively did/do eventing. Lady Louise does carriage driving. None of those disciplines are similar to horse racing or breeding horses.

    Anne already has her own farm/stable of horses at Gatscomb Park and Zara has her own horses. I doubt either of them want to take on a multimillion dollar horse breeding/racing business that is by all accounts a money pit. I doubt Anne or Zara have the funds/time/interest to take it on, the BRF is not wealthy as they like to pretend. Plus Zara has 3 small kids, she has enough going on. And Charles would not give them the funds to continue the legacy. All things come to an end and if the Queen’s horse people didn’t realize that before she died, they were incredibly short sighted. The horses will be sold to other horse racing farms and be used to race, as stud or brood mares. It’s an expense the BRF doesn’t need anymore since it was the Queen’s thing. It’s not a scandal to have a monarch to have zero interest in horse racing and I say this as not a fan of Prince Charles!

  21. Tina Loman says:

    It’s an expensive sport, but one he could afford. He doesn’t want to. He’ll lose his money on jets, Saville Row suits, and Camilla’s dull wardrobe. Pr. Anne and Zara could have taken over, but I don’t think they have the money to keep it afloat. Pr. Anne couldn’t whip anything into shape she could hire people to whip it into shape. The Queen already employed quite a few trainers.

  22. Emily_C says:

    Charles never gives anything. But if he doesn’t want the horses, meh. Liz was awfully cozy with a lot of rotten people (like Saudi princes) because they shared this horse hobby.

  23. jferber says:

    I’d say he didn’t ride or didn’t like it if he did. Also, Andrew and Edward’s daughter liked to ride, so this is a punishment for them, too. I can agree for Andrew, but not for Charles’ niece. Like all narcissists, if it doesn’t matter to HIM, it doesn’t matter at ALL.

  24. Noxy says:

    If it really was a massive moneysink then I completely understand since he has no interest in horses outside of polo. It seems a little sad because the Queen invested so much passion into the stable, but the horses will still be linked to the stable down the line if they do well.

    Of course, he did it in the least savvy way possible. Because he didn’t release a simple statement saying something like ‘considering the economic challenges facing Britain in these times, after great deliberation I have decided to cease my mother’s breeding programme. Her horses were her pride and joy, and I am certain they will continue to uphold her legacy.’

    It comes across as cold, rather than sensible because he didn’t think to pretend he cared.