Which is exactly why I had a little doubt about this identification for my six foundlings (all the same rose). This is a fairly common foundling throughout Australia. Have a look at the HelpMeFind file "Kew Cemetery Pink (Melbourne, Victoria)". If you have knowledge that would help us discount any of the possible identifications, that would be wonderful. Or perhaps if you have any old reference material for 'Lady Ursula'? In the meantime, I will search the old American Rose Annuals for more substantive information.
I havent run across it in the ARS books I own. I own about half of them. It should be publicated more, though, as the breeder was very famous before our time.
Discussing further. I've added the American references I was able to find and it is looking more and more like our "Kew Cemetery Pink" etc. foundlings are 'Lady Ursula'. Mistakenly, I thought searches in the U.K. and Australian literature would be enough. Wish I had looked in the old American Rose Annuals earlier. What do other Australians now think of the 'Lady Ursula' identification please?
We have three plants here. Each one came to us under a different study name ("Sheila Gravett's [not] Mme Caroline Testout" [No 48], "Kew Cemetery Pink" and "BP Bridgetown"), and it took time to realise they are definitely the same rose. The longer I grow them, and the harder I look at the references, the more satisfied I am that 'Lady Ursula' is the correct identity.
Billy, I am inclined to agree with you. However can you discount Edgar M. Burnett 1914 and La Tosca 1900 at this stage? I have discounted 'Glorified La France' and 'Lord Rossmore' for various reasons.
There may be a parentage for 'Lady Ursula' in the following:
We have: 'Mme Melanie Soupert' bred by Joseph Pernet-Ducher (France, before 1904) and Introduced in Australia by Henry Sewell, Payneham Nurseries in 1906
‘Lady Ursula’ bred by Alexander Dickson II (1857-1949) (United Kingdom, 1908) and Introduced in Australia by H. Kemp in 1909. Kemp was the first nursery that I noted in Australia to list 'Lady Ursula'. (I see Sewell's nursery was sold to Kemp much later on)
What do you think of the ‘Lady Ursula’ 1917-28 reference. I suspect that handwritten word might be Sewell, (not Sevell) and that Brundrett (or the owner of the catalogue) had information from Henry Sewell (who first introduced 'Mme Melanie Soupert' in 1906) that 'Lady Ursula' was a seedling of 'Mme Melanie Soupert'.
Looking at the references for both roses, they both had broad petals, of great substance, and large blooms on long stems. The bushes were both upright and vigorous with a branching habit. However, 'Mme Melanie Soupert was semi-double, and Lady Ursula had about 40 or more petals. Lady Ursula bloomed in small clusters.
It could very well be a seedling of 'Mme Melanie Soupert' and I wouldn't be surprised if its pollen parent is a Tea. It does have a somewhat Tea look to it and with only two sports and no seedlings amongst its offspring, it might have been infertile as a parent.
La Tosca should be thornless or have very few prickles, so we can cross that one off as our rose is definitely and defiantly prickly. I haven't ever checked Edgar M. Burnett, but will do so now.
The thing I find that gels in some of the descriptions of Lady Ursula is the way those who have grown it for a long time try to explain why they have come to admire it so much. They say there's nothing especially marvellous about the colour or the form of the blooms, and yet they love it, and combined with the phenomenal recurrence and the toughness and tenacity of the rose, they have come to hold it in high regard.
It crept up on me in just this way. A rose I once thought fairly ordinary, gawky and prickly in its youth, has become one of the most valued roses in the garden. It's completely won me over with its quiet beauty, generosity and resilience.
Edgar M. Burnett makes for interesting reading. It's described as having very few prickles in the Rosenlexikon reference. If this is correct, it would rule it out as a contender for Kew Cemetery Pink etc etc.
Edgar M. Burnett was an exhibition rose. I have deleted it from the list of possibilities. That now leaves 'Lady Ursula' and I am happy to merge the "Kew Cemetery Pink" etc. foundlings with that rose, if everybody agrees.
Two agreements are better than one. I will tidy up the main page and copy here the roses that were considered and rejected.
Admiral Dewey. Too pale and blooms were said to be held erect. Edgar M. Burnett 1914 was an exhibition rose, very fragrant and almost thornless. Glorified La France 1919 Too full and too low La Tosca 1900 is mostly thornless Lady Ashtown References consistently say this has a high-pointed center. The colour seems deeper than our foundlings. Lord Rossmore 1930 colour wrong. Was creamy white, edged pink. Mme. Caroline Testout. It has some similarities but the foundlings are probably double, and more, the height of this Mme. Caroline Testout The prickle shape is different in both these roses. Pedicels are more erect and more prickly and the colour is deeper than the foundling. Mme. Leon Pain The reverse may be too deep in colour. Mme. Segond-Weber was said by Hazlewood to be a good seed setter and perhaps too salmon. Mrs. W. J. Grant, - This rose has been investigated and discounted. Pharisaer discounted because it sets hips. Refer 'The Rose Annual', UK, 1910, page 55. Viscountess Folkestone 1886 was particularly fragrant.
Attention Marcir and Jean Harrison. You have posted photos of 'Lady Ursula' on Helpmefind in the past. Do you recall whether this rose sets hips? Thanks.
My 'Lady Ursula' is a young band from Vintage and it only had a couple of blooms last year. No chance for hips yet. I shall leave some blooms on the plant this year to see.
Thank you so much Marcir. Someone has said that the foundling "Pippie's Pottery Pink" (pictures on Helpmefind) may be 'Lady Ursula' and there is nothing in the literature about whether this rose does or doesn't set hips. "Pippies Pottery Pink" doesn't as a rule, but it has been known to set one or two.
I have this rose, own root, that I purchased from Vintage Gardens some years ago. It thrives in this climate even with lows slightly below zero some years. My understanding when I bought it was that it was an Ophelia sport, and that seems consistent with Ophelia and Madame Butterfly that I also grow, so I would love to know if that is an erroneous understanding. I will make a point of posting some good photos of the entire plant this year.
Dianne - did you ever get around to taking a photo of the entire plant? Marcir and Jean Harrison - have you noted any information about hips on ‘Lady Ursula’? Does anybody have a photo of the San Jose ‘Lady Ursula’ entire bush?
In his 1912 catalogue, Hazlewood has omitted his 1911 words "of great substance" which says to me, that with time, the rose did not appear to have this trait. He often copied Dickson's wording and probably obtained roses from them.
American Rose Annual 7: 25 (1923) What New Roses Does America Need?
Mr. J. D. Eisele, the veteran rose expert in the firm of Henry A. Dreer, who has known of roses for a long lifetime, writes thus:
You are no doubt familiar with the rose Lady Ursula. Though it is not at all a striking rose, there is no other Hybrid Tea which under all weather conditions—warm, wet, dry, muggy, and all the other climatic trials we pass through in this part of the country during the summer—stands up so well as Lady Ursula. I have never seen it affected with black-spot. It has good foliage through the summer and is nearly always in flower. One of my associates looked over the garden of a gentleman near Philadelphia in which some two hundred varieties of roses were growing. The rose-raiser said to my friend, pointing to Lady Ursula, "This is the kind of a rose for the average amateur. It is always healthy and always in bloom."
For form of flower and stem, Los Angeles is my ideal. For fragrance, Mr. Howard's new Fragrant Bouquet is unequaled.
The new rose ought to be like Lady Ursula, plus the colors we want.
