|
|
"Lady Mary Fitzwilliam - in commerce as" rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
When I spoke with Keith Money a few years ago he confirmed the 'Lady Mary' growing at Mottisfont (and photographed by Billy) is his 1975 find. So we at least know that :)
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 12 posted
9 NOV 18 by
 HubertG
|
The fact alone that 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam' was well regarded and used as a seed parent in the late 19thC, should eliminate the current rose grown under this name as the real thing, since it doesn't seem to normally set hips.
|
REPLY
|
|
It sure doesn't. Every one of the first spring blooms were hopeless. I watched the later summer crop of blooms carefully, the weather was dry and if they were going to set hips, I think they should have. Here are some photos. The provenance of my own-root plant was Viv Allen-1; Lynne Chapman-2; in 1999.
Jan 27, 2019 030. Receptacles from the summer crop.
Mar 18, 2019. 032. Few receptacles from the summer crop left.
Mar 23, 2019. 034. One hip from the summer crop left.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 12 posted
23 MAR 19 by
HubertG
|
All the time I grew the rose that we have in Australia as LMF it only set one small hip which contained one seed, and that was when it was dying. I never thought the blooms ever really matched the Jekyll photograph either (which was the only photo I knew of it at the time).
|
REPLY
|
|
The "LMF" in the HRIA Collection at Renmark is an old plant of David Ruston's, and likely to have been the source of budwood for much of Australia for years. The photo I posted doesn't show hips but David deadheaded vigorously. We had it budded for this winter, and may be able to observe it more closely.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 12 posted
23 MAR 19 by
HubertG
|
This comment may or may not be helpful because I'm afraid it will be somewhat vague, but please bear with me. When I grew Lady Mary Fitzwilliam close to 20 years ago I enjoyed looking through second-hand bookshops for old rose books and catalogues. I remembering coming across one book which might have dated from the 1970s (at a guess) which spoke about how Lady Mary Fitzwilliam was sourced from an old bush by a German breeder (Kordes??) possibly to use in breeding again (?) but was subsequently lost. However there was a black and white photo of a couple of cut blooms of this LMF which seemed roughly contemporaneous with the book and which looked distinctly unlike the rose I grew as LMF at the time. I actually remember thinking upon seeing it that their rose was probably the wrong one, but over time I'm more inclined to think it possibly could have been the correct variety. Unfortunately I never bought the book but remember it so vividly to this day. Maybe, despite my fuzzy details, this might sound familiar to someone here who has this book and they might be able to upload the photograph. I'd love to see it again, and obviously it could be valuable for identification of this rose.
|
REPLY
|
|
Not the book you mentioned, but Deane Ross's 'Shrub roses in Australia and New Zealand' in 1972 says LMF was lost and rediscovered by Mr G S Thomas - that's before the Keith Money discovery.
I see in the references that Macoboy was the first to say the original Lady Mary was the granddaughter of William IV, which is not what her pedigree says.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 12 posted
23 MAR 19 by
HubertG
|
The details are a bit fuzzy but I'm sure it was a German nursery or breeder. I had Beale's book of Classic Roses at the time and had even picked up at a second hand bookshop those small booklets of his 'Edwardian Roses' etc, so I was familiar with Beale's LMF story and knew that this LMF from Germany was a different story. What remains in my memory of that photo was that the receptacle was unlike the LMF that I grew, being longer and narrow and the bloom was classically cupped. It just looked different to what I knew as LMF. I think the stem also looked a bit bristly but can't be certain after all these years.
I'm sure it will turn up given time.
|
REPLY
|
|
I wonder if it could have been Harry Wheatcroft's 1970 In Praise of Roses? There are a couple of coloured (not black and white) photos by Graham Thomas which I will upload now. Oh - and you might be interested in the 1971 reference.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#9 of 12 posted
24 MAR 19 by
HubertG
|
Very interesting photo, Patricia. I couldn't truthfully say whether that was the image I saw or not, but I'm inclined to say possibly not. I just had a look at the references again and notice the 1959 Collins Book of Roses mention that Kordes was scouring the world for this rose. This at least confirms my memory of a German breeder 's association with the rose. I note that LMF appears in the 1965 Harkness catalogue so I guess it was rediscovered sometime between these two dates.
It's possible that the rose I grew was different to everyone else's LMF in Australia (ie the wrong variety was sent) but it did look identical to most of the photos here of 'Hovyn de Tronchere'. The amber flush at the petal base was very distinctive. I have old glossy print photos of my rose somewhere that I'll find and post.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#10 of 12 posted
25 MAR 19 by
HubertG
|
Patricia, that reference you just added from page 65 of 'In Praise of Roses' corresponds to my memory of Kordes finding LMF then losing it, so very possibly this is the book I remembered in the old book shop and I guess the photo as well. Unless this story is also printed in another old book, I'd say this was what I read and my memory from all those years ago wasn't accurate regarding the photo being black and white.
The strange thing about the story about Gordon Rowley finding it England (after Kordes lost it) and also being the one taking the photographs, is that his photos don't really look like the very old contemporary illustrations and photos.
|
REPLY
|
|
I thought it might be that book.
The rose from Rowley turned out to be 'Mrs. Wakefield Christie-Miller'. I think it was initially found by W. Wallace, who lived at Norbury near Croydon. It was shared with Harkness and also sent to Sangerhausen. I think it was also imported into Australia by Ross Roses in 1965.
The one I can't, at the moment, get my head around is the one that Keith Money found at Caston, Norfolk. I think that might be the one that I have, as surely Ross Roses would have lmported this version sometime after 1979 when Mr. Ross Snr. saw the photo on the back of the 1979 booklet Late Victorian Roses.
This is where provenance is so important. Lynne Chapman, the donor of my 1999 cutting, has confirmed her plant, which she no longer has, grew to about 1.2m. I will take a measuring tape out there this morning (WHEN I get out there....) as my thought was that my, never-pruned LMF was 1.5m and I am sure that is too high to be the original 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam'.
Later edit. My own-root Plant is exactly 44 inches high, which I gather is 1.2m. Lynne has a fantastic memory.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#12 of 12 posted
25 MAR 19 by
HubertG
|
Lol, it's a bit of a mess really. This is where we need an affordable genetic test for pedigree roses where their profiles can then be added to a database. Of the various contenders for LMF, the one which genetically half-matches Devoniensis should be the real one.
Does anyone who grows the "Whittle Light Pink Tea" knows if it sets a fair crop of hips?
|
REPLY
|
|
