|
|
'Lady Roberts' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
-
-
|
Have just uploaded two shots of my bush (/rose/l.php?l=21.371029 and /rose/l.php?l=21.371030) and a thought occurred to me.
My bush is still small after several years, around 800 mm (30 inches) in height. IIRC there seem to be two variants of 'Lady Roberts': one of which is a large bush like the parent 'Anna Olivier', and the other being a small bush like mine.
There has also been speculation that 'Lady Roberts' does not really exist, and is merely part of the natural colour variation of 'Anna Olivier'. However, if this is the case then surely there would also be examples of 'Anna Olivier' forming small bushes of 1.2 metres or less, instead of its usual 2.5-3 metres.
I'm not aware of anyone ever reporting small examples of 'Anna Olivier', which leads me to think that at least some examples of 'Lady Roberts' cannot just be part of the natural colour range of 'Anna Olivier'.
Has anyone else had thoughts about this?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 15 posted
10 AUG 21 by
 HubertG
|
Many years ago I remember a plant of 'Lady Roberts' in the Rumsey Rose Garden at Parramatta Park in Sydney that was not even knee-high. It was the smallest plant in that bed of Teas and I assume they were all planted at the same time. If I recall correctly I think I had doubts at the time as to whether it was the correct variety. I might have a photo somewhere. Perhaps there was and is a 'Lady Roberts' impostor.
|
REPLY
|
|
All my other Teas planted at the same time, in the same conditions, have grown like typical Teas. Basically, they're monsters. 'Lady Roberts' is the only exception, and it's not being held back by soil or climate. So if it really was 'Anna Olivier' I would expect it to be a monster too.
|
REPLY
|
|
The small one is known as "NZ Lady Roberts"; or "Stiff Lady Roberts". The first time I mentioned it in the HRIA Journal, as one of the mislabelled Teas, I thought it couldn't be a sport of Anna Olivier. Since then some of the Tea Book authors have pointed out that it is similar enough to be a sport or seedling of Anna O, but it is clearly different from the other Lady Roberts, which may just be an unstable colour variation of Anna O (but I've found it harder to strike from cuttings).
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 15 posted
10 AUG 21 by
HubertG
|
The foliage in GiveMeCaffeine's photos looks different to the other photos of 'Anna Oliver' and 'Lady Roberts'. I don't know how typical that is but it looks glossier and has a more holly-like curve to the leaf edges.
|
REPLY
|
|
I am not satisfied that the foundling "Stiff Lady Roberts" is the 'Anna Olivier' sport 'Lady Roberts'. There are some similarities but there are also differences. On the other hand, venerable plants of 'Lady Roberts' that have never lost their identity tend to be indistinguishable from 'Anna Olivier' - both capable of producing blooms that range widely - and wildly - in colour, from very pale to very deep. It seems more likely to me that 'Lady Roberts' was not a true sport but an attempt to capture the deepest, most intense shades in the colour range of 'Anna Olivier'.
|
REPLY
|
|
Ok, that makes sense. So we have an imposter (the small one) and everything else is 'Anna Olivier'. Are there any clues as to the real identity of the imposter?
Edit: I can see I'm going to have to get AO as well.
|
REPLY
|
|
Just my opinion GMC.
AO is a wonderful Rose and I don’t think you would ever regret adding it to your garden. The foliage is so clean and the blooms are gorgeous, whatever colour they choose.
And you will be able to compare them closely with eye, hand, brain and nose.
I tried to find a possible identity among the teas and heavily tea-influenced early HTs in that colour range but was seriously stymied by the lack of useful descriptive detail in the literature. There were a lot of ‘I wonder whether it might be….’s but never enough detail to go further.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 15 posted
11 AUG 21 by
HubertG
|
I wonder whether it might be ... 'Margaret Horton', 1921, from Hicks?
|
REPLY
|
|
A rose I was wondering about is 'Rev. F Page-Roberts'. The coloring seems similar, the name has 'Roberts' in it, and it's a short, compact, not-very-vigorous plant. Also, it's a Dickson rose, and they seem to do well Down Under.
|
REPLY
|
|
That's an intriguing idea.
My "Stiff Lady Roberts" came from Ross Roses (as LR), but that and the Thomas for Roses clone might have been originally sourced from Ruston's.
The bush photo from Araluen shows a darker outer surface to the petals.
GMC's photos might be better moved to the "Stiff Lady Roberts" file.
We may not have a named Rev F Page-Roberts in Australia for comparison.
|
REPLY
|
|
Actually, I was confusing 'Rev F. Page-Roberts' (raised by Benjamin Cant) with 'Dorothy Page-Roberts', which is a Dickson rose.
But even if it's not a Dickson rose, it still seems like it could be a contender.
|
REPLY
|
|
I looked at the photos for 'the Rev'. It appears to have darker reverses on the petals, which my bush does not have.
|
REPLY
|
|
It probably isn't the same, but there are several references from the 20th century discussing how 'Rev F. Page-Roberts' needed careful propagation, because otherwise the two-tone effect would diminish/deteriorate.
|
REPLY
|
|
I didn't know there was a "Stiff Lady Roberts" file. I'm fine with the shots being moved if people think that's a good idea. I could also change my "Plants Grown" to match.
|
REPLY
|
|
I have just moved my two photos over to "Stiff Lady Roberts".
Have also updated the garden listing to the correct name.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
This is a tough one over summer. Has held foliage better than most.
Not a lot of growth yet. It seems to want to flower a lot more than is good for it at this stage, and I've been letting it largely do its own thing. Probably should have disbudded it for the first year.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Conard & Jones 1906
Lady Roberts--An elegant new Hardy Tea Rose just recently imported, has proved a most beautiful and valuable variety of excellent form and substance, reddish apricot passing to deep coppery red with orange shading, a good healthy grower and profuse bloomer.
|
REPLY
|
|
