J. H. Nicolas writing an article called 'What stories are behind the new flowers?' in House & Garden magazine (October 1934, pages 64 and 65) gives, in a pedigree diagram, the parentage of 'Charles P. Kilham' as 'Lady Alice Stanley' x 'Mme. Ed, Herriot'. Furthermore, he gives the parentage of 'Lady Alice Stanley' as 'Mme. Caroline Testout' x "Hybrid Perpetual (name lost)".
Although it might not be accurate, I find it interesting because I had speculated last November that 'Lady Alice Stanley' might be in the pedigree of 'Peace'/'Mme. A. Meilland' albeit through 'Margaret McGredy' (see comment under 'Lady Alice Stanley'). Admittedly I'm still a little confused about the true breeding of 'Peace', but if it has both 'Margaret McGredy' and 'Charles P Kilham' in its pedigree, and if what I speculated and the parentage that Nicolas gives is true, then 'Peace' could certainly have a reasonable dose of 'Lady Alice Stanley' in its background.
In the same House & Garden article Nicolas gives three of his new roses, namely 'Yosemite', 'Agnes Foster Wright' and 'Condé Nast' as having the same parentage of 'Charles P. Kilham' x 'Mrs Pierre duPont'. I note that the 1935 rose 'Condé Nast' isn't listed here.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting. Unfortunately, the print definition was just not enough for these tired old eyes. I found an online copy that seems much sharper, and I hope it uploads with the same definition. I include the third and final page as well.
Edit: viewing the pages in HMF is now perhaps a bit better, but definitely shows a loss of definition from the copies I uploaded.
The front page of the Buisman Heerde catalog (autumn 1929) contains a color photograph of the rose Charles P. Kilham. This rose is here attributed to: G. Beckwith & Son. It is not the climbing rose. Is this right?
Responding further to Member 1923’s comment in What Is This.
Most references say G. Beckwith & Son was the correct breeder. Modern Roses 2 in 1940 attributed it to Beckwith Modern Roses 5 in 1958 changed it to McGredy and introduced by Beckwith.
This MAY have come about by a list of McGredy-bred roses that the editor of the American Rose Annual received. A paragraph in the 1935 Annual on page 164 as follows: The McGredy roses. Included in the mass of material which came to the editors’ desk concerning the “House of McGredy“, was an impressive list of the roses originated by that firm. While a certain proportion of these roses has disappeared, those that have made history, or are still grown in gardens, make an impressive list. Varieties that won the Gold Medal or the Certificate of Merit of the National Rose Society of England, and others that have become generally useful in this country include: ….[following was a list of 25 roses bred by both Sam II and Sam III. The list does not contain ‘Charles P. Kilham’]
I have added two references from 1937, which clarify that Charles P. Kilham was working for G. Beckwith and Sons. The attribution to McGredy seems to be an error of Modern Roses and I think we can drop it.
House & Garden (1929) 55: 140 How Roses Come By Their Names J. H. Nicolas Again, one day the owner of a large English Rose nursery asked his superintendent, Charles P. Kilham, in charge of hybridization, to point out which he thought to be the best of the many seedlings in process of testing. After the most worthy Rose had been selected, the owner said, "Kilham, in recognition of your many services to the firm, we will name this Rose for you."
