HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Maréchal Niel' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 133-685
most recent 22 APR SHOW ALL
Initial post 9 JUL 22 by mmanners
If GoldenAge is still active here, I'll apologize -- answering their query only nine years later! Our 'Maréchal Niel' came to us from Greg Grant, in Texas. Details of his finding it can be found on pp. 114-115 of the book "The Rose Rustlers" by Greg Grant and William C. Welch. 2017. To summarize, Dr. Bill Welch discovered it in the back garden of a home in Bryan, Texas. Greg sent it to me. We tested it for the viruses causing rose mosaic disease shortly after receiving it, and it was not infected. It has since been tested by PCR and remains free of all known rose viruses.

We graft nearly all of our roses on 'Fortuniana' rootstock, and that's what I did with this rose. The result was easily the most vigorous rose I've ever grown, quickly climbing to the top of a 16 ft (3 meter) structure. The description here says it occasionaly repeats, but for us, it is seldom without at least a few flowers.

It deeply resents pruning, and I have killed a plant of it simply by pruning one back toward the top of an 8-foot (2.44 m) trellis.

While I often chip bud roses, I find this one very difficult to bud -- most of the buds die. However, it is extremely easy to cleft graft, so that's how we propagate it (with leaves, under mist).

I'm posting photos today, of our plants.
Reply #1 of 2 posted 9 JUL 22 by Robert Neil Rippetoe
That's a stunner Malcolm.
Reply #2 of 2 posted 22 APR by Peter Egeto
Very interesting and looks fabulous on the photos.
Do you have experience with the same clone grafted to a different rootstock, or grown as own root? Would it repeat just as readily that way?

Thank you,
Discussion id : 160-765
most recent 4 MAR SHOW ALL
Initial post 24 FEB by scvirginia
I posted this comment the other day, but was asked to delete it. I'm now reposting it for my own benefit, so I can remember my own reasoning about why I think Pradel is the breeder of this rose. As I get older, my brain is less likely to retain these details...

The objections made to the long-accepted opinion that Pradel was the raiser of 'Maréchal Niel' seem both weak, and suspiciously tardy. [See the REFERENCES section, especially the references from 'Revue horticole' in 1882, and 'Journal des Roses' in 1895.]

Introduced in 1864 by Eugène Verdier, this rose was already being sold throughout Europe as Pradel's 'gain' by 1865, but the first public objection to this attribution was not made until 1882, when Mr. Castel's son, who was, apparently, too young to know anything first-hand about the circumstances of 'Maréchal Niel' being raised or discovered, nevertheless sent a letter to 'Revue horticole' disputing that Pradel raised 'Maréchal Niel'.

The best case against Pradel's claim to be the originator of this rose is the question of the dates on which Eugène Verdier claimed to have seen (or heard reports of) the cut flowers exhibited at exhibitions in Montauban. Verdier says he first saw the rose in 1858, about the same time Pradel planted the seeds that he said produced 'Maréchal Niel'. Verdier apparently did not revisit Montauban before he requested that his friend Castel send him some scions in 1861 or 1862, which successfully produced 4 roses bushes that bloomed in 1862.

Verdier wrote that he thought at first that the rose displayed without attribution in 1858 was 'Chromatella'. If the testimonies of Dr. Peujade and "G. T." are truthful, the obvious reason is that it *was* 'Chromatella'. The cut flowers that the elder M. Castel exhibited then came from a part of M. Château's garden where a 'Chromatella' died c. 1860, and was replaced c. 1861 by Pradel's rose.

Probably, Verdier never saw M. Château's rose bush growing in his garden; he just saw the bouquet of roses displayed by his friend, the elder M. Castel. Castel probably noticed that the decrepit old rosebush had been replaced, but he may have assumed that the new rosebush was propagated from the old plant; if he noticed a difference in the flowers themselves, it would be natural to assume that blooms from a young plant would be superior to those from a dying plant.

Soon after the time (c. 1861) that Dr. Peujade and "G.T." attest that M. Pradel planted his seedling rose as a replacement to the lost 'Chromatella' in M. Château's garden is when Verdier first displayed an interest in acquiring and commercializing the rose. It's otherwise hard to explain Verdier's lack of interest in the late 1850's, contrasting with his later urgent quest to acquire enough stock to put the rose into commerce by 1864. Probably, he didn't realize that a new rose had replaced the old 'Chromatella' that he had accurately ID'd when he first saw its blooms displayed in 1858.

As far as I know, neither Verdier or his friend the elder M. Castel ever publicly disputed Pradel's claim that he raised this rose. Perhaps Pradel's explanation that he had replaced the 'Chromatella' in M. Château's garden with his own rose, 'Maréchal Niel', made sense to them.

Even when Verdier responded in print to the younger M. Castel's public objections in 1882, he did so by claiming that it was too confusing for anyone to be able to know for sure how 'Maréchal Niel' came to exist. If Verdier *did* introduce Pradel's rose without Pradel's knowledge or permission, this claim that he still thought the rose was a foundling may have been an attempt to save face.

I wouldn't say that Verdier botched the introduction of this rose to commerce, but, by his own account, the rollout did not go smoothly. Demand greatly exceeded supply of budding material, and perhaps 25% of the budwood sent from Montauban to various competing rose growers apparently came from 'Isabella Gray'. For at least a few years, rose lovers were confused with stories of there being two forms of 'Maréchal Niel'.

After reviewing various accounts of this rose's origins, the editor[s] of 'Journal des Roses' concluded in 1895 that there wasn't sufficient reason to doubt that Pradel originated 'Maréchal Niel', and I agree.
Reply #1 of 3 posted 1 MAR by odinthor
Solid reasoning. I agree.
Reply #2 of 3 posted 1 MAR by scvirginia
For me, the 1862 reference makes it clear that Pradel is the raiser of 'Maréchal Niel'.
Reply #3 of 3 posted 4 MAR by jedmar
The story of the origins of ‘Maréchal Niel’ raises a number of questions in my mind, especially as there are discrepancies in the statements of M. Peujade in the Journal des Roses of June 1895. There is a need to check facts and research the original published information prior to 1865, from when on the rose was attributed to Pradel jeune.
Fact is that MN was introduced by Eugène Verdier in 1864. There is (yet) no record that Pradel introduced this rose into commerce in 1863 as claimed by Peujade. This is strange, as we have many records of New Rose introductions from French breeders in many magazines.
Pradel introduced a Maréchale Niel in 1861 (meaning Mrs Maréchal Niel), but this was a pink HP. This ties in with the story by G.T. in JdR June 1895 that Pradel went in 1862 to Toulouse to unsuccessfully present a rose bush to Mme Niel.
On May 22-26, 1861, M. Rupin, Directeur d’enregistrement (tax office) of Montauban, exhibited a collection of roses from Montauban at the Horticultural Exhibition of the town. The report says: This exceptional collection, which could not be part of the competition because the roses belonged to no one in particular, but to everyone, included two Roses which caught the attention of the jury by the beauty of their form and richness of their coloring; one yellow in tone resembled Chromatella, but its form was noticeably different, could not be definitively identified by the jury and has to remain until a further informed one [judges it], which will take place in another exhibition”. Why did this rose not belong to anyone in particular?
At the meeting of June 13, 1861 of the Société Impériale et Centrale d’Horticulture in Paris, a letter was presented by Léonce Bergis, Secretary of the Société d’Horticulture et d’Acclimatation de Tarn-et-Garonne (located in Montauban), with three seedlings by Pradel jeune, one of which was a yellow Tea. Unfortunately, the roses arrived too late for the meeting and could not be judged.
In a report of the Society in Toulouse on the 1862 horticultural exhibition in Montauban, it is reported that Pradel jeune again submitted three seedlings, one yellow tea named after Maréchal Niel, the honorary president of the society in Montauban. Strangely enough, the presentation of MN seems to have consisted of a bloom only, without foliage or canes. As a result, Pradel jeune received only a bronze medal. This is quite unusual, as breeders present whole plants of their new seedlings for judging. Why did Pradel not have a plant accessible? Was it because the only plant existing was in the garden of M. Chateau?
M. Peujade in 1895 states that M. Rupin saw the rose in the garden of M. Chateau in 1862 and asked permission from Pradel to propagate it. Pradel is said to have planted it the previous year (1861) in that garden. We know, however, that Rupin actually exhibited the rose already in May 1861 and that the origin was at the time unknown.
Eugène Verdier writes in 1882 to the Journal des Roses 1882 that he first saw MN in an exhibition in Montauban in 1858, that he then received four plants from Castel in 1861. These flowered in 1862 and 1863 (so were ready for distribution in 1864 after propagation). Verdier doesn’t mention Pradel, but that Castel was the exhibitor in Montauban. The timing of 2 years to prepare sufficient roses for introduction is realistic.
Some further facts: Both Pradel père et fils and Castel fils were horticulturists in Montauban in the late 1850s and 1860s. We have several mentions of both nurseries. There were indeed horticultural exhibitions in Montauban from 1858 onwards. In 1858 and 1862 Castel received awards for his roses in pots. No Pradel exhibits are mentioned in 1858 and 1862. In later years, Pradel never commented on MN, but Castel did. Pradel père et fils mainly bred Bourbons and Hybrid Perpetuals. Few of their cultivars have survived to date, not their 2 Noisettes from 1860/61, and only one Tea from 1874.
If MN was indeed a seedling of Pradel jeune, it was a freak success. But maybe it was an open pollinated seedling in a garden in Montauban. It seems to have been in several gardens already before the introduction by Verdier.
The full reports of the exhibitions in Montauban is probably in the “Annuaire de la Société d’horticulture et d’acclimatation de Tarn-et-Garonne” (1861-1869), which seem unfortunately not to be available digitally.
Discussion id : 160-716
most recent 20 FEB HIDE POSTS
Discussion id : 130-147
most recent 15 DEC 21 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 15 DEC 21 by Margaret Furness
The roses labelled Marechal Niel in Australia now are predominantly Duchesse d'Auerstadt or "Fake Perle" (which isn't a climber). We are looking anxiously for a true one.
© 2024