'Duchesse de Brabant' or 'Comtesse de Labarthe'???

I have been wondering about this for some time now and was wondering what people thought, or knew, about this...

On HMF it says that the registration name for this rose is 'Duchess de Brabant'. The Tea book says it should be called 'Comtesse de Labarthe'. It says that when 'Duchesse de Brabant' was imported into Australia in 1980 and shown to be the same as 'Comtesse de Labarthe' it was then commonly known as 'Duchess de Brabant'. So which one is right. The tea books doesn't say it ISN'T 'Duchesse de Brabant'. It almost sounds that the change in name was because the name 'Duchess de Brabant; preceeds 'Comtesse de Labarthe' and the registration with the ARS as 'Duchesse de Brabant' might also suggest this... it's all very confusing... does anyone have any further insight into this? The references on HMF don't seem to shed any more light on this for me (though I may well be missing something important here that is very obvious ). Has HMF made a mistake?

Simon. I checked in "A-Z of Roses"In the Tea Roses section on page 111 if you have this book it states 'Duchesse De Brabant' other names 'Comtesse de Laberthe' and 'Comtesse Ouwaroff' Year 1857. I hope this helps and doesn't confuse things even more. As now your have three names instead of two.In the picture it is very pretty. Carole

There is a reference on HMF also Carole that says Comtesse Ouwaroff has been shown not to be a synonym of this rose but is very similar looking. The Tea book also says it has been called 'Comtesse Bertha', and 'Shell'... but it's really the two main names I am confused about.

CdL was the name given to the rose in 1857 when it was released. I has been known under this name through to present day.
In 1889 it first appears as syn to DdB. So someone eveidently gave it that new name. This name seems to have been liked and many sold the rose under this new name also.
In my opinion it is and should be called by it's given name by the breeder CdL.

So how come the ARS would have it registered as 'DdB'? I agree that it should have the name given it by its breeder... but I thought the ARS recorded all the official names of the roses when they were registered? Or has HMF made a mistake?

I don't have clue what the American rose society does. HMF has not made a mistake they have listed under both names, so anyone can find it in their country under what ever name it is sold under.

Simon, In Judyth Mcleod's book "Our Heritage of Old Roses" I found on page 37 DdB (CdL, Countess Bertha) 1857 It sounds like a rose that I must have.

cree wrote:I don't have clue what the American rose society does.

That's fine except the ARS is the central registra for all rose registrations in the world. This is why I'm confused about it. The central, global, official, register of roses states the name is DbB according to HMF. This registration would have been made by the breeder/introducer... so... which is right? I don't really have an issue with either. I am just curious about it.

Not meaning to add to the confusion, but some rose growers claim there are two distinct clones of DdB, a white flowered form (1880 - France) and the more common pink-flowered form (1857 - France). There is also the climbing form (circa 1900, origin unknown but possibly originated here in Australia as a mutation of the 1857 French one).
Dates and origins of roses are not always 100% accurate.

The really interesting thing that I find ... the more I look at this rose, the more similar it looks to Redoute's illustration of "Hume's Blush Tea-Scented China". It clearly has Hume's Blush in its direct ancestry.

I find that mine changes colour depending on the season. It will go from pink early on to nearly white as it warms up but in general is lighter than I would have expected. I'm thinking mine is actually Madame Joseph Schwartz.

This is it now:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is it when it is hot at the end of summer:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi Simon, Your rose looks very much like my Duchesse de Brabant. The flower looks more like that of the climbing form, though still a bush rose. Mine is however a bit pinker than yours. The flower is nowhere near as "full" as what I would expect a true DdB to look like. My plant is only young though, so maybe the flower shape and size will develop as the plant matures. I hope so.

Ours stay the same colour all season (all year actually as they flower all year).

Your second photo looks more like our Madame Joseph Schwartz but it never gets as pink as your first photo. The photos on Help me find actually show it pink so maybe yours is a JS.

Our M JS is not all that flash a plant and is actually getting buried by the Com de Labathes surrounding it.

We grow Mme de Watteville but I doubt that it is the correct name. It actually looks more like M J S than anything.

It is all getting too confusing.

Agreed. Sometimes playing the name game gets in the way of just enjoying the roses for what they are, and it can get very confusing when different experts and nurseries apply the same name to roses that are obviously different.

Balinbear, your Com de Labathes is magnificent! I hope you have some cuttings to spare?

That's why, with all the seedlings I register, I'm maintaining a herbarium so that in years to come, when people sit down to argue over such matters, real materials can be consulted

Good idea Simon.

Mme de Watteville as sold in Aus is Mme Joseph Schwartz, as shown by the rose itself - a plant at Ruston's and one at Thomases' both show reversion of a branch to C de L.
The plant I had of Mme Joseph was a weak grower. There's one from Hay that we hope is a climber but time will tell ("Hay Courthouse").

Ours came from Thomas's and I had suspected that there was a mis identifcation ever since the first flower.

No problems though as the one we purchased as Mme JS that we do have is a sick grower.