HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Gloria Dei' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 128-953
most recent 30 AUG HIDE POSTS
Initial post 30 AUG by MADActuary
My Peace is blooming "oddly" - first year plant from Edmunds' is growing quite well - no complaints there. It's the blooms that look odd. It seems like the flower buds never quite fully develop before the sepals come down and flowering begins. The coloring of the bloom has a lot of white with very little yellow or pink. But the biggest thing is a rather large and green vegetative center. Has anyone ever experienced this with their Peace rose?

It's not overfertilization - my Peace has been under-fertilized if anything. Only organics have been used on Peace like Chicken manure, Fish emulsion and Kelp. I am trying to figure out if I need to replace my Peace next Spring.

That said, where can you get the Peace Rose where it has been heat-treated to rejuvenate it and looks like the Peace of 50 years ago?
Discussion id : 10-220
most recent 26 JAN 21 SHOW ALL
Initial post 2 OCT 05 by Paul Barden
There is some question as to the correct parentage of 'Peace'. There is an article in the October 2005 ARS Magazine in which some data is missing/incorrect. Particularly the parentage listing, which has one of the parentheses missing. The missing parenthesis belongs immediately after the 'Souv. de Claudius Pernet', thus: ((George Dickson X Souvenir de Claudius Pernet) X (Joanna Hill X Charles P. Kilham)) X Margaret McGredy

I have always felt that such use of parentheses should be done this way (using a square paren. when multiples are needed) to avoid confusion:

[(George Dickson X Souvenir de Claudius Pernet) X (Joanna Hill X Charles P. Kilham)] X Margaret McGredy

You might also note a misspelling in the parentage, which I find very amusing: The pollen parent's name is spelled "Margaret McGreedy" in the ARS article!

In Alain Meilland's book Meilland: "A Life in Roses", Alain clearly states the parentage to be the same as it is listed in HMF:

Joanna Hill X (Charles P. Kilham X Margaret McGredy).

Surely Meilland would not have allowed an error of pedigree to be published? (Although the book was co-authored with someone else, and perhaps there was an error introduced inadvertently. Perhaps it was even intentional! Who knows. It is not unheard of for breeders to put other hybridizers "off the trail" by publishing misleading breeding data, though I cannot imagine why that would be warranted some 35 years after its introduction.) Yet clearly there are numerous references to the more complicated parentage, including the listing in MR10 (a resource that is not without its share of errors, admittedly). Perhaps Dr. Tommy Cairns can provide provenance for that listing?

I have Antonia Ridge's book, "For Love Of A Rose", which is referred to in the ARS article, and without reading the whole thing through, I cannot find any reference to exact parentage in her writings. (I have been saving the book for Winter reading, you see!) Perhaps the ARS author did not find this parentage listing is Ridge's book but gleaned the data from Modern Roses. This makes it more important to determine provenance of the ARS's data.

Which one is correct? I don't know for certain. Someone with a better source of information needs to submit their knowledge.
Reply #1 of 9 posted 6 OCT 05 by HMF Admin
Thank you Paul. This is what HelpMeFind is all about. Collecting the expertise, and opinions, of people from around the world. That expertise can be the observation of a beginning rose gardener or the knowledge of an esteemed authority like Paul Barden. We are very grateful to have all levels of expertise contributing to HMF.

Reply #2 of 9 posted 6 OCT 05 by HMF Admin
We broached the subject with another of the rose community's noteworthy, Bill Grant, and he contacted Meilland. Speaking with his friend Jacques Mouchotte (in charge of all the hybridizing programs at the Cannet des Maures) he was told "The Modern Rose genealogy of Peace is perfectly correct, absolutely right. That's exactly what it is".

As such, we are updating HelpMeFind's parentage for 'Peace' but we share Paul Barden's wonderment of the erroneous listing in Alain Meilland's book.

P.S. Thanks Bill. You seem pretty knowledgeable about this rose stuff - you should consider writing books or giving lectures maybe.
Reply #4 of 9 posted 8 MAR 06 by Paul Barden
The parentage listing currently presented here at HMF is the correct one:

Seed: [ George Dickson × Souvenir de Claudius Pernet ] × [ Joanna Hill × Charles P. Kilham ]
Pollen: Margaret McGredy
Reply #5 of 9 posted 8 MAY 06 by Unregistered Guest

Thank you so much.  So the legend of an unknown seedling X Margaret Mcgredy can be scrapped. 

I also have a note from somewhere that Joanna Hill and Peace share the parentage of rose Michelle Meilland ??   Do you think Meilland Roses - or another site - would have a chart with the complete family?

Reply #6 of 9 posted 18 AUG 20 by jedmar
Surprise, surprise! The page from Francis Meilland's notebook which allegedly shows the cross 3-35 of 'Peace' reported in the Meilland book states the parentage to be 'Joanna Hill' x seedling 103-32-A, which according to the book was 'Charles P. Kilham' x 'Margaret McGredy'. This used to be the parentage listed by HMF prior to 2005.
The only thorn in my side is that the notebook has originally pencilled cross 3-35 on June 3, 1935 as
'Joanna Hill' x (127.7 x Dr. Eckener). This pollen parent is mentioned in a further cross above as no. 99.32 (non-repeating yellow large bloom). 2 such plants were budded. The notebook has then been modified to show 55 plants budded on June 15 with the cross 'Joanna Hill' x 103-32 A.
Was the original cross of June 3 discarded and the number replaced with a new idea on June 15? Or the notebook doctored to tell the story in the book?
Reply #7 of 9 posted 19 AUG 20 by Jocelyn Janon
Reply #8 of 9 posted 24 JAN 21 by Alain Meilland
"(...) Or the notebook doctored to tell the story in the book?"

Seriously ????????????... As if Peace is not already a story of its own.

If I can post the page (you could have cite me) on HMF, because I don't know where you read (127.7 x Dr. Eckener)

No magic... the cross was done partly 3rd of June and continued 15 of June (more flowers... more pollen)

Then the 1st notation was showing the cross of 103-32-A (if you can read the code... I'm amazed, because I can't and I have the notebook), and after was completed by the full number (Cross 1932 - Selected during spring 1935...nothing magic)

55 was the number of flowers hybridized, not plant budded, as in June 1935, the seedling 3-35-40 was just an idea in a young 22 years old French breeder notebook.

Seedling of the 3-35 cross (with the N°40 selection) will bloom for the 1st time in Spring 1936.

Please ask us when you have questions on our varieties, we will be delighted to help you

Matthias Meilland
Reply #9 of 9 posted 25 JAN 21 by jedmar
Matthias, we can discuss it here. I was looking at a scan of this page which you had published earlier on fb. My point was that seedling 3-35 was originally pencilled as Joanna Hill x (127.7 x Dr. Eckener). 52 flowers were hybridized on June 3. The pollen sedling was also used in cross no. 1-35 with the remark "non remontant jaune grosse fleur"
Later this entry was modified with a stronger pencil:
- June 3 is now June 15
- 55 plants instead of 52
- the pollen parent was replaced by 103-32 A

Anyway: Joanna Hill x 103-32A is also not the complex parentage which was announced at a later stage.
Reply #10 of 9 posted 26 JAN 21 by Alain Meilland

"My point was that seedling 3-35 was originally pencilled as Joanna Hill x (127.7 x Dr. Eckener). "

- 127.7 cannot be a seedling number for us (We always use "cross number - year - seedling number"). I can "see"(1277 x Dr. Eckener) but it could have been the intended cross, as Francis was working on it during the winter. But still 1277 or 127.7 is not a number from us, so we might "read" something that we cannot understand.

"52 flowers were hybridized on June 3."

- I don't see 52 on it, only a 2 is clear.

"The pollen seedling was also used in cross no. 1-35 with the remark "non remontant jaune grosse fleur""

- Yes. and it is noted Yellow also on this cross.

" June 3 is now June 15"

- Because the page contains 3 other crosses made June 3 (traditionally, we start early June in Lyon), it is logic, but we don't see the 3 (but we see the 15 was added later). We can only assume.

- If you look, even the year date on 3-35 was rewritten...

"55 plants instead of 52"

- Not plants, (FL = Fleurs / Flowers) The 52 added in a ink pencil is the number of fruits harvested (52 fruits on 55 flowers)

My point was that we don't doctored Francis' notebook. This is the original notebook, but this notebook was written by a 22 years old, and it is not the only element to base the History of Peace ;)

Don't hesitate if you have any questions about it

Matthias Meilland
Discussion id : 105-476
most recent 11 JAN 21 SHOW ALL
Initial post 10 SEP 17 by Give me caffeine
'Peace' has reverted to growing neither forwards nor backwards. Or, to be specific, doing both alternately, with overall progress being conspicuous by its absence. Still a small bush, often quite manky, but throws out proper 'Peace' flowers when it's in the mood.

The current one was only a hardware store body bag, on dog knows what rootstock. Could be on lantana for all I know.

I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to source another one, on multiflora. Might do better.
Reply #1 of 6 posted 10 SEP 17 by Margaret Furness
The old grey mare, she ain't what she used to be... Peace is one of the roses which is said to have lost vigour, due to over-propagating. Your best bet is to grow it (or get someone to strike it for you) from a cutting from an old plant.
Reply #2 of 6 posted 10 SEP 17 by Patricia Routley
....from a vigorous old plant.
Reply #3 of 6 posted 11 SEP 17 by Give me caffeine
Yep. I was wondering if T4R had a good old plant as their scion stock.
Reply #4 of 6 posted 15 MAY 20 by mmanners
I just now posted this to Facebook, and I see it's relevant here: "As you likely know, there was a lot of discussion in the late 1980s and early '90s (and still to some degree today) about "genetic decline" of roses -- the idea that "overpropagation" had made plants weaker and less desirable than they had been when new. And Peace was given as a prime example -- it had lost its pinkness and become more just pale yellow, as well as becoming far less vigorous than people remembered. I always doubted the idea of the mechanism, in that the "overpropagation" theory made no biological sense. Yes, if you make millions of copies of a rose, you'll see mutations among them. But they won't ALL mutate in the SAME way, which is what the overall degeneration seemed to indicate. Another concept, less popularly believed, was that it was one or more viruses that might be causing the overall decline. Again, a challenging concept, in that the whole population would need to catch the same virus(es). Nevertheless, we did discover, early in our heat-therapy work, that some older roses really seemed to be rejuvenated by the process, whether or not they tested positive for any known viruses. And Peace was one of them -- the heat-treated form was far superior (and in the memories of those who knew Peace back in the 1940s and early '50s, back to its good old self). I remember Mel Hulse exclaiming that the heat-treated form was Peace as he remembered it. So it is my suspicion (for which I have no further evidence or proof) that one or more viruses may be involved in this thing we call decline, in older rose varieties. And if heat therapy or some other method used to remove viruses is used, it MAY rejuvenate the rose. Alternatively, there may be some form of "aging" that happens in some (but certainly not all -- think Autumn Damask) roses, that is controlled epigenetically, and perhaps heat therapy resets that clock in some way. Pure conjecture of course; but at least we do have good, vigorous, pink-tinged Peace!" And oops, realizing this has been discussed on other threads, here, in the past. But I was reminded of the topic this morning with our lots-of-pink Peace flowering in our garden.
Reply #5 of 6 posted 15 MAY 20 by Give me caffeine
This sounds all very groovy, but does anyone have such stock in Australia? I have a nasty suspicion the answer is currently "no".

The plant I had (since gone kaput) looked like a real 'Peace' when it was happy. It had the pink tones and the great foliage and was much as I remembered the ancient monster that grew where I lived several decades ago. The problem was that it couldn't hold onto its foliage in this climate, and couldn't get going enough to bulk up to a good sized shrub. It eventually gave up the ghost.
Reply #6 of 6 posted 11 JAN 21 by Daniel Alm
I don’t know about Oz, but in the USA, Star Roses is the direct distributor of Meilland Roses, with growing grounds in Wasco, California. Peace from Star Roses is the rejuvenated version and worth seeking out. Wasco is also the growing grounds for Weeks Roses and they also carry Peace — although I don’t know for sure if there is a difference. Anecdotally speaking, in the past few years I have noticed a higher quality of Peace roses in big box stores like Home Depot & Lowe’s, and have attributed this to the better budwood being passed around. Perhaps the Virus Indexed budwood of Peace from UC Davis is the provenance? In any case, it is now worth replacing a poorly performing specimen of Peace with a new plant and giving the iconic variety a second chance.

Caffeine: Who is the Meilland Roses wholesale distributer in Australia? I bet they would have the rejuvenated Peace.

Discussion id : 124-628
most recent 27 DEC 20 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 27 DEC 20 by Cambridgelad
Introduced as Peace in the UI by the Wheatcroft Brothers in 1949.

National Rose Society Annual 1949 p173
© 2022