HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
"Whittle Light-Pink Tea" rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
Concerning ’Mrs Wafield Christie ’, i found in commerce There are 2 different roses sold as Lmf, one that is lighter Pink , whith more Tea phenotype and weaker necks,and ’ Mrs Wakefield Christie ’( with stout canes , and less of a wrong neck) and this can be seen even here on helpmefind. In italy ’Mrs wakefield Christie’ is in fact lmf one of the 2 lmf in commerce. In italy We have ldmf from a long time , since it had been distributed by a nursery who was buying directly from Peter beales, snd they did not buy one plant , but several and for many years.
So There are many possibilities: maybe Beales realised he was wrong and he tried to correct with another rose . Or in case this rose had been imported to the Us or australia, it was after it went to the new management, ( which has been on since many decades)and roses were confused, and maybe ’ Hovyn
De Tronchère was sent instead.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
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
|
Reply
#1 of 13 posted
1 JUN 20 by
jennifer
|
Hi. I don't know if you'll see this so many years later...Did you mean Hovyn de Tronchere? Because you are correct, it does look like "LMF". I think my found rose, which matches all photos on HMF of Lady Mary Fitzwilliam, looks like the photos of Hovyn.
My "LMF" was found 20 years ago growing on my newly-purchased property in an area that had been long-neglected. My house was built in 1947 and I understand the original owner had an amazing garden. My rose is more upright, 3.5 feet tall and is nearly scentless. LMF is supposed to be a weak grower by all accounts and was reported to be very fragrant. I wouldn't call my rose a weak grower, at all and maybe has the lightest tea scent when the weather is warm. Most full plant pictures on HMF do not show a weak growing bush. Others have reported no or a very light fragrance on their LMF. I just don't think the rose being sold as LMF is LMF for these 2 reasons. I want it to be because it is sad to me when we lose a rose, I try to imagine a fragrance, but alas it is very light.
My secret hope was that my rose was the long-lost My Maryland as John Cook's nursery was several miles from my home. My Maryland was supposed to be scented, too and from the watercolor photo posted on HMF, a brighter pink than my rose. I have Mrs. Wakefield Christie Miller and she matches all HMF photos.
|
REPLY
|
|
This file really needs separating into two files:
‘Lady Mary Fitzwilliam’ - which I believe is extinct. See 2019 reference
“Lady Mary Fitzwilliam - in commerce as”
Syn. “Whittle Light Pink Tea”. (presuming these two roses are the same)
It is a big job when one looks at all the photos that need to be moved. To date, I have never had the time to tackle it
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 13 posted
2 JUN 20 by
jennifer
|
I also do not think the rose currently being sold/grown as LMF is true. I know that catalogs often exaggerate the strength of a rose's fragrance, buy to say this rose has a strong fragrance would be completely untrue. I'm always asking visitors to my garden to smell it and they get little to nothing. I did have a visitor once say the fragrance was strong, but he is a contrarian, so he must be ignored. ha ha
|
REPLY
|
|
There is a confusing Note on the main page which says:
"Whittle Light Pink Tea" is a study name for this rose, which APPEARED in the collection of The Huntington.
Then there is the 2001 reference:
Whittle Light-Pink Tea ('Lady Mary Fitzwilliam?) Tea. Found Angel's Camp Prot. Cemetery...
I recall being shown a rose in a cemetery in 2006 when it was called the Whittle-Beyer (Cass’ photo spelling) or Whittle-Byer (Mashamcl’s photo spelling.
Can we presume the “Whittle Light-Pink Tea” is the same as the “Whittle-B[whatever]” rose?
|
REPLY
|
|
It is useful to remember that detection of fragrance varies quite a bit from person to person, and also varies for individuals according to time of day, temperature, windiness, age of bloom, etc. Also some fragrances need to be smelled by putting one's nose near the bloom, but others 'waft', and you need to stand a little ways away from the flower to allow the scent to reach your nose.
I think most experts recommend warm, still mornings as the best time to try to detect rose fragrances.
I have allergies, so picking up rose fragrances only happens occasionally.
|
REPLY
|
|
I am puzzled by the note on the description page saying there was a note that 'Lady Alice' was given as a synonym. By whom, I wonder?
And I have to say that when I saw that, I was already thinking these photos look very much like the illustrations and photos of 'Lady Alice Stanley'. Any thoughts?
|
REPLY
|
|
The files are now separated into
‘Lady Mary Fitzwilliam’. and
“Lady Mary Fitzwilliam - in commerce as”
‘Lady Alice’ was referenced in 1936 by Rosenlexikon.
I think ‘Lady Alice Stanley’ seems to have a deeper-coloured center than “Lady Mary Fitzwilliam - in commerce as”.
Besides, Peter Beales published a photo of 'Lady Alice Stanley' In his booklet Edwardian Roses 1979
as well as the Money-Beales version of ‘Lady Mary Fitzwilliam in his booklet Late Victorian Roses.
Both he and the photographer, Keith Money would have known they were different.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#10 of 13 posted
8 JUN 20 by
jennifer
|
Thank you! That task must surely have taken some time.
|
REPLY
|
|
It did Jennifer. But only because I went about it the long way, and I hadn’t opened my eyes to realise there was a much shorter way to move the references.
Somewhere I have seen a hint, or presumption, of an identification name. It was a lady’s name and I have searched everything twice and cannot now find it.
|
REPLY
|
|
Nice work creating separate records, Patricia!
Do we have an approximate date for "Whittle"? Can't be later than or earlier than dates? Some of the HMF photos of 'Comtesse Vandal' look similar, although some do not...
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks Virginia. Now all we have to do is keep our eyes open for a no-fragranced, no hipped, upright beauty.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 13 posted
6 JUN 20 by
HubertG
|
Virginia, I found this in an 1894 Australian newspaper (The Broadford Courier & Reedy Creek Times, 14 Sep, page 5):
"Synonymous Roses.
At a meeting of the committee of the British National Rose Society, held recently, the regulation
relating to synonymous roses, and binding on all affiliated societies, was altered to read as follows:-- "The following roses which are bracketed together are considered synonymous, and must not be shown in the same stand. For instance, Grand Mogul must not he shown in the same stand as Jean Soupert:"
It then goes on to list 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam' and 'Lady Alice' bracketed together.
So it seems to have originated as an exhibition regulation.
|
REPLY
|
|
So it seems that 'Lady Alice' was either not a stable sport of 'LMF', or the difference was too subtle for exhibition boxes.
Thanks!
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
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
|
-
-
|
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 19 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
|
|
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 19 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
|
|
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
|
|
|
