Thanks Melissa. It's a good article. They're correct about once bloomers in near xeric conditions.

Did they mention that all of the roses at Fairmount have been removed?

Anyhow, thanks. I'll read it when I get back from the Library.

Jeri

No, it doesn't mention roses being removed from the cemetery. It gives a link to the Fairmount Heritage Foundation, and on that page I found another link where the roses are feature. Didn't notice anything on first glance indicating removal of the roses. When did it happen, Jeri?

Melissa

Here is a link that might be useful: Fairmount Cemetery Roses

I have been told that all of them were removed from the cemetery in the last few years. They may have planted some in an organized garden. Wouldn't want anything to interfere with mowing, now.

BTW -- Fairmount's "Mae Fair," mentioned in the article is probably 'Manetti' (Bef. 1835, Italy) -- a splendid once-blooming Noisette hybrid, commonly used in the past as rootstock.

It's a survivor -- and disease-free everywhere I've seen it.

Here is a link that might be useful: Fairmount

Another very common and stunningly lovely rootstock is 'Odorata.' Found often in California.

Jeri

I had no idea they took the roses out of Fairmount. That's pretty shocking.

That's what John Starnes told us. And he's the person who knew those roses best.

It doesn't surprise me. I've seen it happen in other places. They don't want the roses in the way of "maintenance." They don't want the roses to obscure the tombstones.

And the roses CAN -- there is some legitimacy to that concern. (SEE BELOW)

But if you respect the history, and the people, and the families who buried them, you should, I think, respect their choice, to put roses there.

Jeri