|
|
-
-
|
Lady Mary Fitzwilliam was supposed to be a poor grower..this bush looks hale and hardy. :)
|
REPLY
|
|
She may have been and this plant might well be an old budded plant. It has definitely been left unpruned for some time. In many cases, that's the key to growing these types well. DON'T prune hard so you leave the plant with as much foliage to produce food and as many canes in which to store it until needed, and plant it in an environment where it won't freeze and nothing eats it.
|
REPLY
|
|
One early quoted height for ‘Lady Mary Fitzwilliam’ was 40cm.
Kim, is this bush a presumed ‘Lady Mary Fitzwilliam’ or the “Whittle-Byer/Beyer” rose? It might prove useful later on to note it now in the photo caption.
|
REPLY
|
|
Hi Patricia, Jill Perry can provide you a better answer to that than I. I will bring it to her attention.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
3 JUN 20 by
 Tearose
|
We have Lady Mary Fitzwilliam at the Heritage Rose Garden, imported from Peter Beales. When Whittle -Byer was suspected of being Lady Mary Fitzwilliam, I did a side by side comparison of flowers and foliage, and saw no difference. At the time I also posted the photos to some friends and they agreed. It was a year or more after that that I first saw the plant in San Juan Bautista, and recognized it right away as the same rose. Perhaps the weakness noted was related to climate, and it simply likes California better, or perhaps it just doesn't like being pruned.
|
REPLY
|
|
