I have no experience with most of these roses, but have heard over and over that Gertrude Jekyll's has rather poor repeat and for most people (not all), seems to be one of the least satisfactory Austins, and is perhaps also too large/straggly/thorny? to do well in a container.

Abraham Darby is gorgeous but can also be rather large so may not be suitable for a container, but I stand to be corrected.

Graham Thomas seems to be the only yellow, and it's a fairly strong one, so you might want to consider how that will play out with the other colors you've chosen. I've seen it in a garden that has mostly pinks, whites and purples and it does rather stand out. It's also not nearly as good a rebloomer as Molineaux, which is a bit softer a yellow and seems to be a very good rose for most people.

I'm sure you'll get lots more replies and hope you end up with a combination of roses that really pleases you.

Ingrid

I only grow two you are considering, Munstead Woods which is my favorite red (and is healthier and a little more robust than WS2000 which bit the dust here), and Abraham Darby. Love them both. Abe Darby can be kept small, at least mine is tiny, but it has been struggling due to partial shade and blackspot.

I like Darcey Bussell and it does stay smaller. So has my Ambridge and Carding Mill. None are too thorny. Here my Abe is a sickly set of twigs about to be dug up and dropped off in a garden where they spray. Munstead is very pretty but very thorny and may out grow your barrels quickly

Steer clear of Lady of Megginch. Lovely blooms but would rather have 1.5" thick 12 foot long canes coated with thorns and a few blooms at the tip. It can be pruned but is a lot of work

Since we're in similar zones I'll share my experiences with the ones you mention with some photos, and some additional suggestions. I agree with all the previous posters that you'll have to be careful how big the roses get in our zones to make sure they'd be happy in pots. A huge Austin like Teasing Georgia or The Generous Gardener or Scepter'd Isle just wouldn't be happy in those conditions in my opinion.

For hardiness, I've found all the Austins to overwinter and thrive well in my zone, and since you're a zone warmer that should be fine. I've got both grafted and own root Austins and I don't particularly notice a difference across plants. They seem to like our dry summers as long as they get sufficient rain in between the spring and fall rains. Very double roses like most Austins tend to need more water than other less voluptuous roses, and in a pot that might be more of an issue to keep track of. I don't grow much of anything in pots, so I'm not much help there.

I haven't grown Boscobel but I'm interested in trying it here. I agree that Graham Thomas and Pat Austin are fairly "meh" Austins - nice when they bloom but not frequent enough for my tastes.

Abraham Darby has a reputation for getting huge so I put it at the back of the bed in a prominent spot. Like Lori, mine is still tiny, but it has part shade as well as an extra cold spot of the yard to contend with. Tamora is supposed to be the compact rose and better apricot bloomer, but in my yard they're next to each other and similar heights. In a better spot, it might get huge - I have a colleague here who has one that's the lynchpin of her front garden and drop dead gorgeous.

Abe Darby (after a tough winter and pruned to the ground) - you can see the waist-high yew bush dwarfs poor Abe

{{gwi:330012}}

Carding Mill - I love the color and I have two of them, the following in the somewhat better sun condition. They bloom fine and regularly, but I think under better sun they'd want to get big. This one is topping a 5' fence and it's only June

{{gwi:330013}}

Darcy Bussell - I agree that this one is a keeper. It blooms steadily in less than optimal light and usually keeps the dark color except in very high heat. It seems to like the part shade and stays no more than knee high. The Prince is nearby and does fine, but Darcy is better. I have high hopes for a Munstead Wood that I planted this spring as another dark Austin.

{{gwi:330014}}

I do have to admit that I love the bloom shape of Wm Shakespeare 2000, but he doesn't bloom often enough for me even grafted in great sun.

{{gwi:304941}}

Lady of Shalott looks to be a keeper and great for a pot. So far she doesn't seem to have quite the number of petals of some of the other Austins, but she maintains her apricot color quite well even in the heat and she stays small.

{{gwi:330015}}

I agree with other posters that one of my best rebloomers is Molineux, and I love how the blooms will morph from yellow through apricot shades depending on the heat. He's a good 5' tall for me, and he MIGHT like a pot, but it might be pushing it. Compare this shot during the same period to the nearby Carding Mill above.

{{gwi:330016}}

Queen of Sweden really wants to be 6' or more in a good year. You can see her stretching up beyond the windows already in June last year. She's a narrow bloomer so she might do OK in a pot, but with that height she might be prone to tipping. She reblooms OK for me, but not as well as the nearby Scepter'd Isle.

{{gwi:330017}}

Pretty Jessica stays small and I like the blooms, but it has taken 3 or 4 years to see any on an own root plant. It would definitely fit a pot, as would Tamora or Charlotte (though I don't get much rebloom from any of those, though Harryshoe has a gorgeous photo of Tamora bushing out). Here's Pretty Jessica.

{{gwi:330018}}

My top recommendations for pots in Kansas would be for Darcy Bussell and Munstead Wood, Molineux if he'd handle a pot, and Sharifa Asma below. She stays reliably at a 3' rounded bush, blooms frequently, and the soft pink blooms have a swoon-worthy fragrance. I seek out her and Barcelona when I want a fragrance fix.

{{gwi:327647}}

Hope this helps! As for colors, the Austins seem to blend so well together in both shape and tone that I wouldn't worry too much about blending in. I might not put a dark pink next to an apricot immediately - perhaps a soft pink or yellow in between - but I think whatever will do well in your pots would be fine. Besides, you can always rearrange them if they're in pots and you change your mind.

Have fun

Cynthia

Wow! Thank you so much for your responses.

Cynthia, your roses are beautiful! I really appreciate all of your suggestions and photos. You've given me a selection of some that I haven't even considered. Those photos of Darcey and Molineux have me 100% sold on them!

If I did end up planting some in the ground, do you think I would be able to safely move them in a few years if I ended up getting a new house? That's really my only concern with planting in the ground. I'd hate to lose a rose that I've given so much attention to!

Hi Kansasrose

Glad the photos helped - you have some nice roses picked out. As for planting in the ground then moving, if you KNEW you were going to move I'd probably opt for the pots then you don't have to have the hassle of digging them up to go. In the ground, plenty of people have had good luck moving roses at will within their garden. The trick is to have the new hole dug and ready and to move as much of the root ball as possible. I presume the same principle applies to moving the rose from the ground into a large pot to move.

The bottom line is that planting in the ground and moving them is feasible and people do it all the time, but if you're already thinking about moving I'd do the pots. It's vastly easier to go from a pot to a garden bed in a few years if you decide to stay than ground to a pot, though that's always possible. It's just a pain to dig up and move roses, and I'm too lazy of a gardener to make it work well.

Cynthia