HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
-
-
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
|
-
-
|
Such interesting info about climate and not pruning I hadn't considered that! In my Maryland zone 7 garden my "LMF" is 3.5 feet tall and is only ever lightly pruned to deadhead or to remove dead canes. Does anyone get much of a fragrance from your LMF? I don't. She was supposedly very fragrant. I tried to read all the comments in the discussions but I may have missed fragrance already being discussed elsewhere.
|
REPLY
|
|
I photographed this approximately three hours from my home. I don't grow it so I can't check the scent. Being fragrant to one nose and not to another is not unusual. Scent is comprised of oils and alcohols which express themselves, or not, depending upon humidity, temperature and light levels. Humans are all "the same", except chemically we vary a great deal. It is very common for the same flower, at the same time, to smell like differing things to differing people, or even not at all. Cardinal Hume, to my nose, is intensely scented of "Red Hots" candy, like a hot, spicy cinnamon. A good friend, who had a very educated nose, detected nothing from the blooms I smelled at the same time with him. My spouse, who is a gourmet cook and can taste and smell food and tell you what the spicing is in it, tastes and smells things completely differently from how I taste and smell them.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Thank you for posting!! Notice the small prickles. My "LMF" does not have small prickles. I just went out and reconfirmed. My LMF also has maroon-ish red canes near the blooms.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
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
|
|
|
