What species?
Reading that same information, I put R. californica plena in more-than-
half-day shade.
It grows indifferently, has no disease, and almost never blooms.
I need to move it.

Jeri

Research their native habitats. Roses that belong in the woods had better be able to handle shade.

I can't think of any roses that will bloom in all day shade. Half a day of sun or dappled shade yes, some roses will perform great. Rosa carolina comes to mind.

What makes the shade?
If it's buildings, never mind.

If it's trees, R.x fortuniana in my part of the country will happily climb thirty feet up cedar trees to make a spring blooms. So will Lady Banksia and Souv. de la Malmaison.
There's a big species from Europe that is supposed to be twenty + feet, but it wants to bloom, too, in sunlight.
And the climbing version of R. setigera (North American) is a tree climber in some clones.

BUT 1, if it's trees then 2, you need to check if these can handle your fugal pressures (which are very different from mine).

If it's trees, R.x fortuniana in my part of the country will happily climb thirty feet up cedar trees to make a spring blooms. So will Lady Banksia

*** But R. arkansana won't.
So, what species is in question is an important question.

Jeri

I saw R. woodsii in the middle of the woods in Colorado at ~10,000 ft., in what must of been all day shade. While there was a bloom here and there, each plant was small, just a cane or two. In sunnier spots it was larger with more blooms.

Mike

If it is open shade--on the north side of a building or tree and nothing overhead then there are some roses you can grow. I grow Rosa glauca in open shade. It doesn't flower much but it has pretty foliage. A pretty shade combination is Rosa glauca, red laceleaf Japanese maple, hostas or heurcheras, and phormium. Not much flowers but nice contrast of foliage color and texture. You could also consider alba roses. Mme. LeGras de St Germaine does well for me in open shade. The alba rose Celeste is very pretty and does well in the shade for me. It would be very pretty in the above combination.

Rosa gymnocarpa.

Try rosa xanthina. Pretty red canes and fern foliage. Mine get shade until one pm. The ferny foliage looks like it belongs in the shade. I have several what I guess came from open pollinated seed. They have open, airy branches, though, which don't make for a dense hedge. Flowers go from white to yellow.

Here is a link that might be useful: rosa xanthina

In general, I suspect you will be disappointed planting species in full shade. Most bloom sparingly enough already. And yet planted in full sun, something like R. californica will bloom non-stop from late May through October, even while completely laden with hips.

The quality of the shade is important. The two species mentioned here that you don't need to grow for their flowers because they are pretty much non-existent anyway are Rosa glauca and R.gymnocarpa. Glauca will lose all of its leaves every year by mid-September around here. It's really an annoying plant for a warm climate, not well-adapted, subject to sunburn and adapted to a shorter growing season. Gymnocarpa is a little thing. Stick it in with the azaleas or under the rhodies. A hedge of it would not be attractive.

I have Duplex planted right under a deciduous tree. It blooms early, so it gets early spring sunlight. As a result, it flowers over a long period and bears fruit well. It has no disease and does not sunburn under a tree - - which is rare for a European species.

if bought already grown (about 2 feet tall) mutabilis can survive and bloom well also in a spot with virtually no direct sun,if there is not-too-dark shade.

R. gymnocarpa is native to this region and adapted specifically to forest conditions, where its dime-sized flowers smelling of cinnamon and pea-sized bright orange hips produce a perfectly adequate display - especially considering that it is suited to dry shaded ground under trees and can do well there - unlike most other rose species including the two others native here.

Many kinds of roses, wild or otherwise will flower in deciduous shade. I grew R. glauca under a pin oak tree for years, where it produced pleasingly less purple leaves than in sun - and had no trouble flowering and fruiting. R. gymnocarpa is actually quite happy and natural under evergreen conifers.

bboy, I'm not disagreeing with you. My point is that species roses adapted to shade aren't grown for their bloom, which is fleeting and insignificant. It is common to find wild Gymnocarpa growing 30 inches high and bearing no more than one or two hips. The increased rainfall in Washington may produce more bloom, but here it is sparse, not doubt because browsers consume it. It's interesting to collectors, but it ain't much.

Here is a link that might be useful: R. gymnocarpa

My point is that nearly all species roses aren't adapted to shade, and behave accordingly when stuck in very much of it, whereas since this one is adapted to shade the small size of its parts is compensated for by it doing well there. After that it all depends on what the exact conditions are in the planting site and whether or not R. gymnocarpa would be enjoyed by steelrose.