Henley Women's Regatta - A Short History
By Pauline Churcher
‘Rowing is a Growing Sport’. So ran the legend on one of the publicity stickers produced by the Amateur Rowing Association (A.R.A.) some years ago; whether or not it was true at the time, it has certainly been the case during the last 20 years and particularly in relation to women’s rowing. When the author of this history was competing regularly in the early 1960s, the number of serious oarswomen probably numbered less than a thousand throughout the whole country whereas now, according to A.R.A. estimates, women account for over 40% of the total of active registered rowers. Various reasons can be cited for this remarkable increase: the A.R.A. taking full responsibility for women’s rowing in 1968 and providing increasing financial support for their international efforts obviously played a considerable part. From about 1970, partly in order to obtain grant-aid, but also in recognition of changing social trends, more and more clubs began to admit women as full members so that the all-male (or even all-female) club is now the exception rather than the rule. In the context of this article, however, the two most significant factors are almost certainly the admission of women to the previously predominantly male preserves of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges and consequently, to their Boat Clubs, and the lengthening of the women’s international racing distance from 1,000m to 2,000m.
Grace Wilkinson, Regatta Secretary of the Women’s Amateur Rowing Association, used to produce for the benefit of women’s clubs in the 1950s and’60s, an A5 information sheet giving details of those regattas which offered women’s events. In the 1970s, when this publication required four sides of A4 paper, it was abandoned as superfluous. When the National Championships reached the stage of offering a full programme of events for women at heavyweight, lightweight, junior and J16 categories, it seemed that the oarswomen were now fully catered for. It is true that there can hardly be a regatta run under A.R.A. rules which does not now offer some women’s events; nevertheless. The National Championships are regarded, very properly, as being at Elite/Senior I level; they also have the disadvantage, from the students’ point of view, that they are held in middle to late July, well after the end of most university terms. For the student oarsmen, many of whom do not expect to compete in the National Championships, there is one regatta where the colleges and universities have traditionally sorted out the season’s pecking order: Henley Royal Regatta, Henley offers the traditional side-by-side knock-out racing in events which, despite several changes in recent years, still aim to accommodate the student oarsmen. But what of the oarswomen?
‘The Stewards announced in December 1979 that they were considering the possibility of adding certain Events for Women to the Regatta programme. As a preliminary step two invitation events are being held this year, with racing from the Barrier start used for the Special Race for Schools. These events will enable the Stewards to assess the feasibility of including races over the shorter Course during the normal Regatta programme, and the desirability of the considerable extension to the hours of racing which any full Events for Women would necessarily involve.’.
The above quotation from the foreword to the 1981 Henley Royal Regatta programme explained the introduction of Invitation Coxed Fours and Double Sculls for Women. In 1082, a Single Sculls Event was added and the start was moved to Fawley so that the course equated more nearly to the then women’s international distance of 1,000 metres. The entries were limited to four in each event; two from abroad and two from the UK. Whilst it was very gratifying that the Stewards should thus acknowledge the continuing improvement in the standards of women’s rowing, the innovation was not a success. As the intermediate start installations were required for the shorter distance, the races had to take place during intervals in the normal racing programme, i.e. the lunch or tea breaks, which meant that only the dedicated stayed to watch. Moreover, races between British national squad crews and overseas competitors about whom little was known did not enthuse even the sympathetic spectator. Had the events been for club or college crews, whose male counterparts were also competing at the Regatta, the author is convinced that women’s events could have been integrated successfully into the Royal Regatta and would have been received more favourably by the spectators. However, the experiment was abandoned without any mention in the 1983 or subsequent programmes, so it could only be the Stewards did not wish to publish a reminder of what a large number of traditionalists undoubtedly regarded as a most unfortunate aberration on the part of the Regatta management.
Nevertheless, the numbers of women rowing continued to increase during the 1980s; so did the standard. It was the then Women’s National Coach, Rosie Mayglothling (who, as Rosie Clugston, had won the Invitation Double Sculls at Henley in 1982 with her partner, Astrid Ayling) who identified the missing element in women’s rowing and proposed the remedy. During the National Championships of 1987, she called together a meeting of interested parties and suggested that the women should organise their own regatta on the Henley reach, preferably on a day shortly before the Royal so that college crews would be able to take part. The next step was to see what support there might be. At the World Championships in Copenhagen later that year, opinions were sought from the American women and the President of F.I.S.A., the late Thomi Keller. Their enthusiastic reactions encouraged the group to pursue the matter and a second meeting, consisting of most of those who were actively involved in the organisation and promotion of women’s rowing, was held in the autumn to see if the project could be taken further. While the idea struck an instant chord, the problems could well have been horrendous. Naturally, the crux of the matter was the attitude of the Stewards of Henley Royal Regatta. Whilst they do not own the water, they do own most of the land each side of the course, as well as all the installations, and their support was vital. The reaction of the Chairman of the Committee of Management to Rosie Mayglothling’s initial approach was such that the idea appeared to be a non-starter; nevertheless, the polite but determined persistence of Rosie and 
the first Chairman of the proposed event, Christine Aistrop, finally won the day and permission was given for a women’s regatta to be held on the Royal Regatta course in June, 1988.It was made clear from the outset that the ‘Henley Women’s Regatta’ (HWR) could not use the HRR enclosures or boat tents. HWR was to be held three weeks before the Royal and, should bad weather delay the timetable for the regatta installations (as had happened in the past), the course would not be usable by HWR. It was at this point that the project was saved by the enthusiastic help and co-operation of the owner of Remenham Farm, Mr Tom Copas. By offering the use of the farm as the enclosure for HWR, the problems of boating and spectator facilities were largely solved.
In order to make Remenham Farm the focal point of the regatta, the Committee decided to reverse the direction of the course and the inaugural regatta was rowed over a 2,000m course from the Regatta finish down to the upstream end of Temple Island. Once this decision had been made, the Stewards felt able to allow HWR the use of certain facilities at the Regatta Finish, including the Floating Stand. These were used for aligning and starting purposes, which was a great help to that part of the operation. He Stewards also provided a raft for the boating area.
The Committee had really little idea of what the expected response might be. As the National Squad, it was hoped to attract good college and club crews and, if any sponsorship was to be obtained, some overseas entries were desirable, Unfortunately, the non-British competition consisted of some Irish crews and one Dutch sculler, but the entry in College VIIIs and senior II IVs was such that the events had to be subdivided into two and three sections respectively. There were 109 entries requiring 97 races from 9.0 am to 6.50pm. A disappointing feature (possibly the result of excessive doubling-up) was the number of withdrawals which left University College, Dublin with no competition in the University VIIIs. As this seemed shabby treatment after coming all the way from Ireland, the National Squad agreed to race them at the end of the programme.
To judge from the comments by competitors and spectators and the reactions of the rowing correspondents, the event was certainly a success. Obviously there were aspects that could be improved such as the length of the course and whether or not to allow doubling-up but. In principle, it was clear that the regatta filled a long felt want and the Committee felt able to contemplate a second regatta. In 1989, the number of events was increased by the addition of three more for Lightweights and others were substituted for those which had not proved attractive in 1989, e.g. Club eights for University eights was a popular change. The Open events still tended to attract small entries as they were expected to be dominated by the National Squad but there was some excellent racing, particularly in the final of the Open eights between Thames and the visiting College champions from the U.S.A., Radcliffe. The latter also won the Open coxed fours. There were 137 entries and 114 races. The event was improved as a spectacle by the reduction of the course length to approximately 1,500m so that the spectators at Remenham Farm could see the finish.
The formula was much the same for 1990. The junior events had not hitherto been well supported and these were confined to the coxless fours which attracted only 4 entries. The entries for College eights, Senior I and II coxed fours and Open and Lightweight Sculls were so large that they all had to be subdivided; the Senior II coxed fours into four groups, giving a total of 198 entries in 29 events. The net result was169 races, from 8.00 a.m. to 7.12 p.m. at four minute intervals. There was some dissatisfaction over the subdivision of events; the college crews in particular wished to have an overall winner at the end of proceedings. The Committee accepted this as a legitimate aspiration but to do so would require more races and the timetable was already posing problems. Races at four minute intervals gave no leeway for anything to go wrong and, if the entry continued to increase, the racing could not be fitted into one day. The Committee had some thinking to do if the regatta was not to become the victim of its own success.
Changes in 1991 arose partly from the Committee’s decisions and partly from outside agencies. With a tight timetable in 1990, the area between the Regatta Finish and Henley Bridge became very congested at times with crews waiting to race; the National Rivers Authority (NRA, now the Environment Agency) considered this to be a potential safety hazard, as well as causing inconvenience to other river users, and authorisation was only given for the 1991 HWR on condition that, like the Royal Regatta, it was raced upstream. His requirement made it essential for the Committee to consider the question which had been asked more than once: what sort of regatta did they have in mind? It had never been aimed at the novice or less experienced oarswoman but at the top 50% of the female rowing population. The change of direction could lead to quite severe conditions if the weather were bad and this decided the Committee to remove the last remaining Junior event: all other events were classified as Invitation, Open or Lightweight, and no events were subdivided.
After the increased entry in 1989, the Chairman, Margaret Adams had sounded out the HRR Committee of Management on the possibility of HWR becoming a two-day regatta. This had been rejected on the basis that men’s crews racing at Marlow traditionally rowed up to Henley on the Sunday and they would be prevented from 
doing so if HWR was extended to two days. The approach was renewed after the 1990 regatta and, although the proposal for racing on the Sunday was again refused, permission was given for qualifying races beforehand to bring the events with large entries down to manageable proportions. Races in the form of time trials (the same format as HRR) duly took place on the Friday evening in four events, Club and College eights and coxed fours. Even after this pruning of the entries, the Saturday programme still consisted of 121 races at five minute intervals. The crews appeared to be satisfied with the changes; possibly because the regatta was adopting yet more of the Royal Regatta procedures and their wish to have a clear-cut winner in each event had now been achieved. The strong head wind that prevailed for most of the day underlined the point that the Henley course demands a certain level of competence and that the decision to remove all Junior or lower category events had been correct.
For the 1992 regatta, negotiations continued with the Stewards and the NRA for racing on Sunday over 2,000metres. To the great delight of HWR, the Committee of Management relented and gave permission for racing on Sunday afternoon. This would allow crews to row up from Marlow to Henley and the morning service to take place in Remenham Church without interference by or with HWR. Permission was also initially given for racing over 2,000m and this fact was announced in the early publicity for the event, the organisers were engaged in working out how to mark the finish without encroaching upon the area of the Public Enclosure when they received the very unwelcome news of a change of heart by the NRA. The latter had apparently decided that, if the course was extended to 2,000m, all crews would have to continue to the end of the Royal Regatta course and return to the start via the navigation channel: this would revive the congestion in the area between the Regatta Finish and Henley Bridge and therefore HWR must be limited to the same course as in 1991.
Although naturally disappointed, the Committee pressed on with arrangements. The Invitation eights and fours were dropped in favour of Open coxless fours but the events were otherwise the same as in 1991. A worrying fact was the very low entry from the Oxford colleges whose only representative was Somerville, and therefore qualifying racing was necessary on Friday evening. Nonetheless, 163 entries were received, compared with 166 in 1991, and the programme offered 110 races on Saturday at five minute intervals. The semi-finals and finals (40 races) were held on Sunday between 1.30 and 5.00p.m.. Overseas clubs included Alfred R.C. from South Africa in Club eights, Dartmouth College, U.S.A., who were impressive winners of College eights and Ridley College, Canada who lost an exciting final in the College coxed fours to Oxford Polytechnic (now Oxford Brookes University).
Saturday’s programme started unpropitiously. On arrival to start racing at 9.00 a.m. it was discovered that overnight a launch had managed to foul the cables anchoring one of the stakeboats and ripped them all out so they had to be repositioned. The start of racing was delayed until 10.30 and the first few races had to free started from the bank, but with the willing co-operation of crews and officials, the programme was back on schedule by lunchtime. The weather was co-operative and it certainly seemed that the first two-day regatta was most successful. Many spectators came on Sunday and, to judge from subscriptions received after the regatta, were impressed.
Since then racing has continued on the Sunday and racing now starts around 9.00 a.m. on that day with heats and semi-finals and finals. 1997 saw the 10th Anniversary of the Regatta and the departure of Margaret Adams, replaced by Diane Graham the current Chairman. The Regatta has grown considerably over the years with the entry in 2003 exceeding that in the preceding two years. Heats are now held on Friday afternoon for heavily subscribed events. To encourage the overseas entry and make the journey even more worthwhile, a very successful reception for these crews is held at the River and Rowing Museum, sponsored from 1997 to 2002 by Pricewaterhouse Coopers and in 2003 and 2004 by Invesco Perpetual.
It would not be appropriate to conclude this history without mention of the support received in so many ways from so many people and organisations. First and foremost, the HWR Committee wishes to express its profound and 
grateful thanks to the Stewards of Henley Royal Regatta and in particular to the late Chairman of the Committee of management, Peter Coni O.B.E, Q.C. and the present incumbent Mike Sweeney. The active help of Tom Copas has also been equally vital to the success of the event. Without their support, it must now be clear that Henley Women’s Regatta would have remained only a dream. A generous donation was received from the Sports Council (now Sport England) to enable the inaugural regatta to take place whilst a stalwart body of subscribers has made a significant contribution each year, not just in terms on money but in the enthusiasm with which they have supported the event by their presence and interest. In these times of financial pressure, sponsorship is all the more important but individuals and companies notably Price Waterhouse Coopers since 1991, have all given help which is much appreciated.
A new structure of events was introduced for the 2004 regatta to reflect the changes in womens rowing. The 2004 regatta also benefited from an extremely generous injection of money from Henley company and major player in the investment management business, Invesco Perpetual. This allowed more facilities to be introduced for the competitors and a grandstand for viewing. Last but not least the Regatta thanks all those people whose individual hard work on the day and throughout the year has established a prominent place for Henley Women’s Regatta in the domestic and international rowing calendars.