HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 113-981
most recent 25 MAR SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 8 NOV 18 by Jon_in_Wessex
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
Reply #2 of 12 posted 23 MAR by Patricia Routley
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 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
Reply #4 of 12 posted 23 MAR by Margaret Furness
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 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
Reply #6 of 12 posted 23 MAR by Margaret Furness
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 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
Reply #8 of 12 posted 24 MAR by Patricia Routley
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 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 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
Reply #11 of 12 posted 25 MAR by Patricia Routley
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 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
Discussion id : 115-852
most recent 24 MAR HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 24 MAR by Patricia Routley
Re the 1971 reference. 48 years later I make it 18 descendants from ‘Lady Mary Fitzwilliam’ as a SEED parent. I am not sure too many of them were “highly influential roses”.
1891. Margaret Dickson
1891. Souvenir de Madame Eugène Verdier (hybrid tea, Pernet-Ducher, 1894
1893. Marquise Litta
1894. Charlotte Gillemot
1894. Comte H. de Choiseul
1895. Joséphine Marot
1895. Rosomanes Alix Huguier
1896. Alice Furon
1899. Tennyson
1900. Souvenir d'Henri Puyravaud
1903. Jenny Guillemot
1903. Prins Hendrik
1905. Louise Casimir Périer
1905. Paul Krüger (hybrid tea, Verschuren, 1905)
1907. Délices de Jeckschot
1911. Nordlicht. (hybrid lutea, Krüger, 1911)
1913. Sonnenlicht
1914. Margrethe Møller
REPLY
Reply #1 of 4 posted 24 MAR by HubertG
I read the 1971 reference to mean that those four roses mentioned were influential, and that they just happened to have LMF as a pollen parent.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 4 posted 24 MAR by Nastarana
I happen to be growing 'Margaret Dickson', which I bought as "Kern White HP". What characteristics might I be looking for as showing inheritance from LMF?
REPLY
Reply #3 of 4 posted 24 MAR by HubertG
Nastarana, in my opinion the photos here of "Kern White HP" display a greater similarity to the early illustrations of LMF than do most of the photos of the present LMF, particularly in the globular shape of the flower and the broad rounded leaves.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 4 posted 24 MAR by Patricia Routley
HubertG - Possibly ‘Lady Mary Fitzwilliam’ used as a pollen parent produced better roses, than when it was used as a seed parent. The list of 18 show it was often used as a seed parent. This counters Norman Young’s (The Complete Rosarian), 1971 words that it “only sired” those four roses.

Nastarana - that is anyone’s guess, but the original ‘Lady Mary Fitzwilliam’ was said to be low, set lots of hips, and had dark foliage,
I am now sure my plant (Provenance: Viv Allen-1; Lyn Chapman-2; in 1999). is not the original rose as it is 120cm high, has blue-ish foliage and sets few hips.
REPLY
Discussion id : 44-518
most recent 9 MAY 10 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 9 MAY 10 by Cass
This rose is identical to the rose in commerce under the name of 'Trovyn de Tronchère.' I believe that the two are identical, that neither is a Tea, and that both are Hybrid Teas. See my photos of the petals, filaments and anthers. Petal count is identical. Both are scentless.
REPLY
Discussion id : 33-030
most recent 21 JUN 09 SHOW ALL
 
Reply #1 of 10 posted 8 JAN 09 by jedmar
Interesting issue, I hadn't realized there was a problem with the identification. Would you agree that according to the references 'Mrs Wakefield Christie-Miller' would have darker reverse petals, while 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam' should actually have lighter reverse petals?

It would also mean that 'Whittle Light-Pink Tea' is misidentified.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 10 posted 9 JAN 09 by Patricia Routley
It has been a problem for decades Jedmar. I was so fascinated with the story that I got the books out and just kept typing. First they realised that Lady Mary Fitzwilliam was lost and the call went out around the world. After many years they found it, then they realised the foundling wasn't it at all, so the search was on again. Then they found another..... Eventually, with the help of Deane Ross' father, who had started their business in Australia in 1906 and was 87 at the time of seeing the picture of the new foundling, said "Now that's 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam', they realised they at last had the real 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam'. I have planted my two roses right next door to one another and they seem correctly identified to me. I'll upload those fascinating references next dark night when the satellite internet allows me some speed. It is a great story.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 10 posted 9 JAN 09 by jedmar
Fascinating! Mrs. Wakefiled Christie Miller seems to have been quite a popular rose in her time, considering the amount of mentions. The breeding date for LMF has just been pushed to before 1880, when it was apparently first presented to the Royal Horticultural Society.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 10 posted 9 JAN 09 by Sandie Maclean
References to the confusion between these two roses can be found in at least two of the rose books that I own:
ROSES by Peter Beales-published in Great Britain in 1992
PAGE 29
After writing of the importance of 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam' as a stud rose he continues...
Quote;"I cannot exclude a personal anecdote at this juncture.
It is about a small illustration that appeared in a small book entitled LATE VICTORIAN ROSES,written by myself,with photographs by Keith Money.
This picture was of an unidentified variety discovered by Keith at Caston in 1975.
We did not state dogmatically that it was 'Lady Mary Fitwilliam',but it was hoped it might create some interest,either confirming that it was 'Lady Mary',or suggesting a suitable name.
Two letters came from Australia,both expressing the opinion that the rose was indeed 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam'.
One was from Deane Ross,a professional rose grower whose father had started the business in 1906,and who,when shown the photograph,was an alert gentleman of eighty seven years.
Deane wrote:'When I showed him your book he said,"Now that is Lady Mary Fitzwilliam."'
Deane went on to say that his father had grown this variety extensively in his early years as a nurseryman,and remembered it well.
This does not necessarily authenticate the rose-photographs are not the easiest means of identification-but it is particularly interesting,since later I acquired a colour print of 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam' which strengthens my belief that the rose may well have been rediscovered.
It came from Mrs Margaret Meier,a neice of Henry Bennett's great-granddaughter, Mrs Ruth Burdett;and Mrs Burdett added support to this belief by informing me that Henry Bennett's son Charles emigrated to Australia and started commercial rose growing there at the turn of the century,doubtless taking with him
ample stocks of his father's roses."
end quote.

There is also a photo on page 29 captioned 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam' with four blooms visible-it is difficult to make out the colour but seems to resemble 'Mrs Wakefield Christie Miller'.

PAGE 389
The entry for 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam' reads;
Bennett UK 1928
'Devoniensis'x'Victor Verdier'
Large,freely produced,soft pink flowers,flushed deeper pink.
Shapely,high centred and scented.Not overly vigorous but quite bushy.
Ample,good,dark green foliage.This is a famous old rose;parent to many of the early British Hybrid Teas.
A rediscovery at Caston,Norfolk,by Keith Money in 1975.

PAGE 394
The entry for 'Mrs Wakefield Christie Miller' reads;
McGredy UK 1909
Flowers High centred,of soft pink-shaded-salmon with brighter reverses.
Foliage leathery,light green.Growth short,bushy.

There is no photograph of 'Mrs wakefield Christie Miller'

The second book is
MACOBOY'S ROSES by Stirling Macoboy published in Australia in 1993.
PAGE 246
Entry for 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam' reads;
Named for a grand-daughter of King William IV,'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam'was raised by Henry Bennett in 1882.
It was greeted with derision:'A weaker and more unsatisfactory grower would be impossible to find',sneered one writer of the day.
However,it is one of the most important ancestors of Modern Garden Roses,and it is still a lovely fragrant bloom in soft pink.
Foliage is pale green and matt.
Beware of imposters-the lovely 'Mrs Wakefield Christie Miller' is sometimes sold as 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam'.

To the right of the entry is a photograph captioned 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam'-this photo shows a rose whos colour resembles that of 'Mrs wakefield Christie Miller'.

PAGE 297
Entry for 'Mrs Wakefield Christie Miller' reads;
They do not name them like that any more!It is probably nearer true modern owners of such names are apt to say,'Oh,do call me Fiona'.There was no such informality in 1909,when Sam McGredy II intrduced 'Mrs Wakefield Chritie Miller'to the public.
Her recent revival was originally due to her masquerading for a while as 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam'.
She is a delight in her own right,the large,fragrant,two toned pink blooms just like the kind you see on Edwardian chintzes.
The growth is moderate,and some pampering will be appreciated.
Foliage is light green and leathery.

Below this entry is a photo captioned 'Mrs Wakefield Christie Miller'
Colouring is correct but appears to have less petals than the rose shown as 'LMF'


One last entry for 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam' from
THE COMPLETE BOOK OF ROSES by Gerd Krussman
Published by Timber Press in Oregon in 1981 after translation from the original German version published in 1974.
PAGE 361
After a diagram showing the pedigree of 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam' the entry reads;
Bennett 1882
'Devoniensis'x'Victor Verdier'
Flesh pink,very large,globose,strong fragrance;foliage pale green.
One of the most important old rose varieties.WPR26.

All the descriptions of 'LMF' describe her as soft pink,pale pink or flesh pink.
On the other hand the descriptions of 'MWCM' invariably describe her as having soft pink upper petals and deeper pink reverses.
From the descriptions these two roses should not resemble each other at all- but all photos I have seen of 'LMF'have the colouring of 'MWCM'
I would dearly love to know where the real 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam' is.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 10 posted 10 JAN 09 by Patricia Routley
Sandie, The articles on the lost-found-lost-found saga are now in the references.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 10 posted 10 JAN 09 by Cass
I don't question that the attribution of "Whittle Beyer Pink Tea" may be wrong. But I must ask this about the photos of Mrs. Wakefield Christie-Miller, which very clearly show the contrast of the two sides of the petals.

Given the obvious contrast in colors, would anyone describe that color of the reverse as vermillion-rose?!

I think not.
REPLY
Reply #8 of 10 posted 10 JAN 09 by Patricia Routley
Cass, a few years back a lady mentioned to me, in connection with 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam' that “This vermilion colour is not what we call vermilion today. But the colour on the outside of the petals is what they called vermilion in the older books”.

Perhaps a look at that older colour chart in the 'Tea Roses' book may help.

And in connection with "Whittle-Beyer", my recorded notes from our trip to the Altaville Catholic Cemetery where we saw the "Whittle-Beyer" rose at site No. 37 on May 21, 2005. The day after I saw 'Lady Sylvia' at Gregg and Phillip's garden and was struck by the similarity - enough to make a note of it.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 10 posted 10 JAN 09 by HMF Admin
THIS is what HelpMeFind is all about. This is how we use a tool like the internet to its real potential. Thank you all.
REPLY
Reply #9 of 10 posted 11 JAN 09 by Sandie Maclean
Update;
I have uploaded a pic-a coloured lithograph found on the Rochester Uni site.
Also Peter Beales' website now has a small close up photo of a pale pink rose named
as Lady Mary Fitzwilliam.
regards
sandie
REPLY
Reply #10 of 10 posted 21 JUN 09 by Allison
I am so glad people other than me have to figure this out. I can't see any resemblance in any of the paintings/drawings to any of the photos--color non-withstanding, the shape of the flower is completely different to me: in the renderings it seems so much more globular and full-petaled than any of the flowers in the photos, except for the one referenced: the back cover of Peter Beales' booklet and one or 2 others,--whereas for example, the Painting of 'La France' looks to be exactly the same flower as in the pictures. Does this depend on the stage the flower was in when the photo was taken? They all seem 'crumpled' or like tires that have gone flat.
This is even more confusing with some of the bi-tone photos still under this rose listing. Can the incorrect photos be moved?
REPLY
Reply #11 of 10 posted 21 JUN 09 by kahlenberg
what a bore! i´m afraid i have to re-label my lmf as well. many sources compare lmf to captain christie, which definitely hasn´t that obvious bi-coloured appearance like the rose in my garden at all - i might have known! by the way: my lmf in disguise is of very globular shape (similar to mme caroline testout) and hasn´t much of a scent.
REPLY
© 2019 HelpMeFind.com