rose question

I don't prune my roses, only I have been hacking off some bottom canes under climbers while I tie the other canes to the poles.
The question I have though is that I have still have the remains of the dead roses on some of the roses even though the bushes have leafed out all over. Do I bother to cut these off or will the extra new growth, by the time the bushes have produced new blooms, have grown around all this and hidden the dead bits unless they have already fallen off by then ? I am just trying to save myself some work if its not really necessary.

Just clarifying the question a bit... do yo umean the dead branches on the bushes? Conventional thinking often says that dead wood left on the bush is a point of entry for other things that can affect your roses. That's why I still do it but I am unconvinced that it makes any difference really. It's just because I don't like the look of the dead wood. I guess it also depends why it died too. If it has some form of dieback then I always cut it back past the dead wood into healthy wood. If it's just cyclical replacement of wood then I'm not so concerned.

Hi Simon. No, I just mean the remains of past blooms.
I cut some dead wood out of roses in Winter, it makes a bush look so much better, so I would have cut the dead blooms off at the same time. But there are lots more I haven't looked at closely. I will get to them before the new blooms come.
I surpose it was a silly question.

Karen, the only thing that might happen some of the new flower heads 'might' hang their heads. They will look stunning when out in flower with so many roses.

David, I am getting stuck into cleanning them up now.
I hope you and Carole will be able to come look at my roses during their prime time of blooming ?
How is Carole ?