To begin with, the clematis that was planted originally is a type III clematis that generally does need trimming back on a yearly basis. If it is not pruned yearly, the existing stems will get woody over time and any flowering that happens will happen higher and higher on the new wood that is produced each year. Perhaps that was the cause of the diminishing blooms this past year. In addition, it may be suffering from water, sun, and nutrient competition if it is planted in an area where there are large trees and other shrubbery. Any clematis planted in these types of conditions will fail to thrive unless special attention is given to its water and nutrients needs (can't do much about the sunlight). Perhaps with four of the trees removed, this will remedy the light situation in the coming years. Since you are interested in clematis that don't need pruning like the Comtesse does, I have consulted several books that I have and am providing a list of type II clematis that are listed as being able to tolerate shade. Just realize that it is difficult to determine how much shade on a quantitative scale that they require to actually flourish but at least you will have some names of varieties to try since trial and error is going to be your best bet to determine which, if any, will work in your location. From "Simply Clematis" by Edith Malek: Asao Barbara Dibley C. W. Dowman (never heard of this one) Carnaby Charissima Dawn Fairy Queen Gillian Blades Josephine Lincoln Star Louise Rowe Nelly Moser Otto Froebel Peveril Pearl Pink Champagne Proteus Scartho Gem Silver Moon Wada's Primrose From "Clematis for Small Places" by Raymond Evison: C. alpina cultivars C. macropetala cultivars Veronica's Choice Alabast Angelique Cezanne Chantilly Clare de Lune Dawn Fujimusume Guernsey Cream Ice Blue Silver Moon Twilight Having multiple books on clematis I could continue on but this should give you something to start with. Perhaps someone who gardens in a similar situation as yours will chime in and give you some real life choices as well. Good Luck!

I think you could plant Clems in both locations. For the one in the container with a trellis, choose a smaller variety.

I do not need to see 157 different photos of your family if I am merely calling on you to talk to you about the neighborhood association meeting to be held that weekend. I'm NOT your friend. I am a social acquaintance, a term which it seems is not understood in these informal times . There is a different level of interaction expected between someone you barely know and a member of your own family. I feel sad having to explain that fact. It should be self evident that you do not treat strangers as you would your family. The distance from A to D is much further than from A to B. As an acquaintance, I do not expect to be invited into the family areas of your home. Nor do I want to be. It would make me extremely uncomfortable to be in the middle of rambunctious kids playing baseball indoors while your husband reads the newspaper in his underwear. Those displays of poor manners are for those who can stomach them---supposedly your family. Although I could not stomach them in my own family, I suppose someone somewhere doesn't mind, as all formality has been excised from all social interactions and hourly play by play commentary of one's own self importance has become expected, ala Facebook and Twitter. I do not need to know that a work acquaintance is experiencing a bad bout of stomach flu, especially the number of times the affliction has gripped him. That experience was the last time I logged in to Facebook. I prefer not to want to know any intimate details of my acquaintance's lives. That is too closely akin to pornography in my book. TMI. If I were interested in more personal details, the acquaintanceship perhaps would progress to friendship status if the other person agreed with the change. This would leave a still further layer of family status to be pierced. It appears to some to be a quaint and "ridiculous" notion that I can know you and not be your friend or not want any more forced intimacy with you than I have to endure. Braggadocio photographs of your dreadful family fall into the forced intimacy category if they are in the foyer or formal living area of your home where you invite guests that are not family. You are forcing an intimacy that does not exist, and I prefer not to exist. Your living room is certainly "your" home, but it shows a lack of sensitivity to fill it full of objects that would make casual acquaintances feel uncomfortable. I have zero interest in viewing your KKK memorbilia, your daughter's shadowboxed placenta, and your cheesy fake canvas "oil painting" photographs of your children's graduation. Was it so surprising that they were graduated that you need a daily reminder that they actually passed that milestone? These displays are private and are offensive to me because I do not know you well enough to see these items. Frankly, after seeing them, I'm certain that keeping my distance from any further deepening of the acquaintanceship is probably the wisest course.

A friend who was a nurse told me that a question she missed on a test had to do with hand-washing. Something like, which is more effective: paper towels or water? And the answer was that, if you have to choose, wiping your hands with paper towels removes more germs than washing your hands with water (not soap). So I consider drying with paper towels to be the final step in really clean hands. On the other hand, bathrooms littered with paper towels that didn't make it into the bin, or the little fibers that fall off, gross me out. On the third hand, I don't know why we aren't all walking around at death's door, with all these germs. I figure, we are made of pretty strong stuff (hey, we survived this long). So I do my part, but I don't worry about it too much.