|
|
'Robert Bruce' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
Thanks Virginia for your references for 'Robert Burns'. We did not have this rose listed but the 2007 reference alerted me that it may be 'Robert Bruce'. I have added your references to that file to get the whole picture and it appears that it was called:
Robert Burns from 1852 until 1854-ish. Colour was rose with purple, and it was a semi-double.
Robert Bruce from 1885 until 1936. But the colour of this one was crimson.
So there might have been two roses, both coming from Paul.
In the meantime I have added a synonym of 'Robert Burns' but we might have to separate the two roses at a later date if anyone else comes up with the goods.
|
REPLY
|
|
Hello-
I saw that 'Robert Bruce' had a rose, and thought it was ironic that he would be the one with the "red, red rose", when it was Burns whom I'd have expected to get the crimson rose.
I'll look around for more references to see if they can definitely be distinguished, but the dates and color are different, so I suspect there are two 'Scottish Robert B' roses from Paul & Son.
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 9 posted
4 AUG 15 by
 Cà Berta
|
Among the many descriptions of Robert Burns the most likely to be “the original one" is that reported in Supplement to The Rose Garden edited by William Paul, at the time (1853) active in the nursery of the family.
|
REPLY
|
|
Right you are about the fiery crimson... I'd missed that one.
So, to judge from the combined references as they are now, it would seem that the rose was introduced as 'Robert Burns' in 1850, but later French references have the name as 'Robert Bruce', either accidentally, or possibly because the French introducers intended the name change for the French market...
Virginia
PS There is a 1942 reference from the American Rose Annual that I can't get at (Google snippet view) in which the author mentions that 'Queen Victoria' and 'Robert Bruce' were introduced in 1850, three years after Adam Paul's death. I think Paul's 'Rose Garden' is as reliable an indicator of the original name being 'Robert Burns' as we could hope for, though. Thanks for pointing that out!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 9 posted
4 AUG 15 by
Cà Berta
|
In the same Supplement to The Rose Garden (1853) edited by William Paul, there is no mention of Robert Bruce that, however, is cited in The Rose Garden (1848) and it is the white tea rose. By the way this rose was bred earlier than reported in HMF as is listed in a 1843 reference.
|
REPLY
|
|
I've put the date of the tea back to -1843. Thanks Cà Berta
|
REPLY
|
|
Virginia - The 1942 reference was valuable. I have put the BRED date for three of Adam Paul's roses back to before 1847, his death date, but kept the other dates shown as Introduction dates.
|
REPLY
|
|
I do think the description is in error though, in saying the rose was introduced as 'Robert Bruce'; I think that the only 'Robert Bruce' rose bred by Paul & Son was the Tea Rose. The HP was introduced in 1850 as 'Robert Burns' and the names got muddled a good bit later.
Please have a look at the references to see if you agree. I'm feeling a tad muddled myself...
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
|
I missed that Introduced as, bit. Am glad you are there to pick up my pieces.
Patricia
|
REPLY
|
|
If those roses would just hang onto the names they were given, we wouldn't get so confused trying to keep up with them...
But if I can help you tidy things up a bit, you know I'm glad to be able to help,
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
|
