Where do you live? What is your climate? And are your soil and water in the acidic range? Or the alkaline range.

These things matter when you discuss 'Reine des Violettes.'

In my rose-showing days, my entry of 'Reine des Violettes' (which WAS a swirl of shades of lavender, as it should be) was disqualified by a Los-Angeles-based judge who had grown RdV there. He "knew" that it should be hot pink ... and for him, in a hotter climate than mine, I am sure it was.

We had RdV for exactly 20 years, and it only bloomed pink when the weather was hot. It also required constant fertilization, using things like soil sulfur and Ironite, to maintain a pH it could tolerate. If that wasn't done to her satisfaction, she "pouted" by letting her foliage turn a soft shade of ivory, edged green.

In its 20th spring, after a colder-than-average winter, it burst out with ALL of its foliage marked by virus. Then, it died.

Also be aware that with Reine des Violettes, there are two versions out being sold these days under that name. The "real" one reblooms, is thornless and has the haunting purple tones when the weather is cool, but pinks out when it gets hot. The "not" Reine des Violettes (the first one I bought) is thorny, blooms only once, and has a peppery smell to the foliage. I don't know if the real one has this foliage feature or not. It's still a lovely rose and to my eye the blooms look pretty similar, but the reblooming is something I miss in my "not" RdV. I bought a real one from Burlington to pair with the not real one, so I'll enjoy both of them.

My impression in response to your question is that the color of any given rose varies a TON with the weather as well as the soil issues Jeri describes. The same rose can go from hot pink to blush to white in different weather conditions, or screaming apricot to pale yellow-cream. The variability is part of what makes rose growing exciting in my world.

Cynthia

Cynthia -- Good warning. We had the thorny one for a while.

There is a theory that RdV is a SPORT, rather than a SEEDLING of Pope Pius IX and the thorny RdV that's in commerce sneaked in as a reversion.

Interesting, Jeri! I'd love to call my thorny critter something other than "not" RdV, since it's a perfectly lovely rose on its own, just not a rebloomer. I was intrigued with your theory on Pope Pius IX so I looked it up on HMF. It notes that PPIX is also supposed to be thornless, so the reversion of RdV to PPIX wouldn't necessarily explain the thorns, unless it's another sport of PPIX. In the world of old roses, in which labels get lost and arbitrarily reassigned over the years, anything is possible I suspect!

Cynthia

This isn't very pertinent to the discussion, but, while I was passing through the dry, dry garden yesterday, wading through a sea of sun-shrivelled blooms, one rose offered a good show of pink, double, fragrant, shapely flowers: 'Reine des Violettes'. Why? How? I don't know, but it certainly was a welcome sight.

That idea about the "not RdV" being a 'Pius IX' reversion was something I thought up a little while back. I remember reading in the Vintage Gardens catalog that someone complained that a part of her RdV had started throwing thorny canes, and their blooms didn't have the blue-violet tones. Those canes seemed more vigorous. The Vintage Garden guys determined this to be an incident of RdV reverting to PIX. With that bit of info, I thought that perhaps this reversion occurred before, perhaps overwhelming the RdV parts, and what was left was PIX growing behind a RdV label. Material was taken for propagation without awareness of the reversion, and thus the "not RdV" entered into commerce.

Most of that Vintage Gardens excerpt can be found as the first reference for Pius IX on HelpMeFind.

:-)

~Christopher

It sure is beautiful!

There is also more than one rose masquerading as RdV, particularly here in Europe. My not RdV, is still to be ID'd but it's a remontant pink, fuller bloomed. Varies between this paler pink to vivid hot pink depending on the weather and light levels.

Rd has more medium size blooms and flatter, but it look mine a couple of years to offer more than small blooms.

My blooms on RdV were certainly larger than Seil's. But maybe that was well-into the 20 years it lived here. (It's been gone now for a decade.)

But, Seil . . . . Looking at your photos, and thinking "2-Inch-Blooms" . . . I am reminded strongly of THIS:

This is "Forest Ranch Pom-Pom" found in NoCal, at two sites associated with "General" John Bidwell, who operated in Chico, CA, the state's first nursery. It is an arching plant, and thornless, other than low-down on the more mature canes.

Here it is in the Sacramento City Cemetery:

Thank you for all your replies!

I'm in Minneapolis, zone 4. I know my soil is not acidic, Jeri, as I can never grow blueberries but not sure how alkaline it is. My Reine de Violette has no thorn and the plant always looks healthy with green leaves (sort of a fresh medium green). The bud in Seil's photo looks similar to it as well as the white center of the bloom, except mine doesn't seem to have so many tiny curled up petals. Its color is lighter pink as in Fduk_gw's "not RdV" photo, with a slightly more lilac tint and a few outer petals in deep eggplant. Unfortunately, I moved it and had to cut off the wilting buds. Sounds like this rose can vary a lot so I'll have to wait as it matures to see what changes it might have.

Christopher, the original 'RdV' definitely had thorns- pink ones. It then disappeared for a while with only a few mentions for 30-40 years, then resurfaced in the 20th century. It's an open question if any of the various versions of RdV found in Europe, Oz and the U.S. include the original plant.

If 'Pius IX'and 'RdV' are "sporting types", there certainly could have been a thorn-free sport along the way as well as pinker versions, but the original description and illustration of 'RdV' in L'Illustration horticole in 1860 mentioned and depicted pink thorns.

I think it may have been confused in commerce early on- possibly with Mille-Mallet's 1859 rose 'Triomphe d'Amiens'?- since even in the 1860's it was described as having a crimson center while the introductory description said it had a white center. 'Triomphe d'Amiens' also had thorns, so that's not likely to be the thornless 'RdV' in commerce, although it might be one of the contenders.

Virginia

WOW! Virginia, you are a wonder!

You know, I was thinking about RdV this morning, while deadheading, and wondering who it was who came up with "our" RdV, and decided it was that.

It's certain that it went through the hands of Roses of Yesterday and Today. I wonder if it was a find of Francis E. Lester's.

Nice to know that this is another of those roses that are "in wide commerce as . . . " and not necessarily what we think it is.

As to my "Forest Ranch Pom-Pom" -- knowing that it was almost certainly in commerce in CA in the 1800's -- I can say that one huge difference between it and the rose we know as "Reine des Violettes" is that it does not suffer from chlorosis in my conditions.

It is thornless most of the way down the canes, but has a nice collection of nasty little prickles from ground-level, up 10-12 inches.

From 'L'Illustration horticole', 1860, plate 259:

ROSE REINE DES VIOLETTES.

(hybride-remontante.)

ROSACEÆ.

Cette belle, fort belle Rose, nous remet en mémoire, par son coloris violet foncé, teinte rare dans ce genre, une congénère, maintenant perdue peut-être, oubliée sans nul doute, malgré la vogue dont elle a joui longtemps, la fameuse Rose ardoise!*

La Reine des Violettes a été gagnée de semis par M. Mille-Mallet, horticulteur, à Amiens, et fut fort admirée des connaisseurs h l'Exposition dernière de la Société impériale et centrale d'Horticulture de Paris, où elle a valu une médaille d'argent et des félicitations à son obtenteur. Le dessin ci-contre a été exécuté dans l'établissement Verschaffelt, d'après des fleurs envoyées par celui-ci, et nous pouvons répondre de son exactitude. Elle est dès ce moment à la disposition des amateurs, et chez l'obtenteur et dans l'établissement de notre éditeur, aux mêmes conditions de vente que celles établies par le premier.

L'arbrisseau est d'une vigueur et d'une fertilité florale tout exceptionnelles. Le feuillage en est ample, à stipules, pétioles et pétiolules rouges; ainsi que les aiguillons des rameaux. Les fleurs en sont de première grandeur (0,11 de diamètre), formées d'innombrables pétales arrondis, très serrés; au centre, ils forment un cœur comme divisé en plusieurs autres et d'une teinte blanchâtre, lavée de violet plus pâle: nuances qui ajoutent beaucoup à l'aspect attrayant de l'ensemble.

Il est hors de doute que tout amateur va s'empresser d'accueillir la nouvelle venue dans sa roseraie ou dans ses parterres.

Ch. Lem.

CULTURE. (Plein Air.)

Rien de particulier à recommander pour la culture de ce nouveau Rosier. Il n'a rien à craindre des intempéries de l'hiver.

ROSE REINE DES VIOLETTES.

(Hybrid Perpetual.)

ROSACEÆ.

This beautiful, extremely beautiful Rose, reminds us, with its dark purple color, a rare color in this genus, of a similarly colored Rose, now lost perhaps, forgotten without a doubt, despite the vogue which she enjoyed for a long time, the famous Rose Ardoise!*

Reine des Violettes was raised by M. Mille-Mallet, a horticulturist in Amiens, and was much admired by connoisseurs at the last Exhibition of the Imperial and Central Society of Horticulture in Paris, where she was awarded a silver medal and congratulations to the breeder. The drawing opposite was executed in the Verschaffelt establishment, depicting flowers sent to them, and we can answer for its accuracy. From this moment it is available to Rose amateurs from the breeder and from our publisher's establishment, under the same conditions of sale as those established by the former.

The shrub is of exceptional vigor and floriferousness. The foliage is ample, with reddish stipules, petioles, and petioles; the prickles on the branching canes are also red. The flowers are of the first size (11 cm. in diameter), formed of innumerable rounded petals, very compact; in the center, they are heart-shaped, and of a whitish tint, washed with a lighter violet shade, which adds much to the attractiveness of the whole bloom.

There is no doubt that all amateurs will hasten to welcome this newcomer to their rose gardens or flower beds.

Charles Lemaire

Care for Plants grown Outdoors.

There are no special recommendations for this new cultivar. It has nothing to fear from cold winter weather.

*Rose Ardoise was a rose that was considered lost in 1860, but HMF considers it as a synonym for 'Charles de Mills'. None of the photos of CdM show him in slaty-purple mode, so that is also suspicious.

If anyone has a better translation for "au centre, ils forment un cœur comme divisé en plusieurs autres et d'une teinte blanchâtre", please share; that part of the sentence didn't quite make sense to me.

Looking at the HMF references, there is a German reference from 1861 supposedly claiming that RdV is thornless (and having a red center). That was fast! Who knows what happened there?

Virginia

Virginia that's amazing. It's incredible how a text can reveal as much as a photo. I feel that my rdv does not correspond to this description at all (pink stipules though it may have).

The part about the center: the center of the flower is as though made up of many centers (quartered?), and whiteish in colour.

Btw, impressive translation!

Virginia, you are a treasure. And thank you for a great translation. I noticed on HMF that someone translated the last paragraph from this same source and that 'pétales...très serrés' were translated as "serrated" when, despite the similarities in wording with English, it should be as you translated, "compact" (or "tight"). I did wonder about the description of prickles in the original and wasn't sure what "as well" referred to - that there are prickles on stems "as well" or that it referred to the red color, mentioned earlier in the sentence for petioles. I think you must be right because the picture you so kindly reproduced here shows reddish prickles. Hope you have time and energy to do more translations from these invaluable sources, because yours is flawless.

No. The rose we now know as RdV does NOT remotely match this original description.

Soooooooooooooooo . . . My next question is . . .
When did the deliciously lavender-swirl-sometimes-hot-pink rose that we call 'Reine des Violettes' turn up? And where?

And who decided that this was 'Reine des Violettes'?

I'm sure we've all read Graham Stuart Thomas's description, and it is clear that he was writing about the rose we have NOW.

I just have this funny feeling that it might possibly have gotten to England via the same route travelled by "Cl. Sombreuil"-aka-"Colonial White". I need to go back and find that quote from Thomas -- unless you have it handy, Virginia.

Virginia, I cannot for the life of me find a way to message you. I need to ask you something. Can you email me? Message me?

Jeri, I just e-mailed you.

Virginia

Jeri, I don't have GST's book, but there's a blurb from his The Old Shrub Roses, 1971, at HMF under the RdV references:

Two roses often classed as Hybrid Perpetuals can very well be grouped with the Bourbons, as they approach them in all characters. They are 'Reine des Violettes' (1860)...fine, large shrubs up to 5 or 6 feet with good foliage...having a greyish sheen, assorting well with the flowers...beautiful arrangement of the incurved petals forming a wide, flat, quartered flower with button eye. From a pale blush-mauve centre the petals flush to a rich parma violet, with a touch of cerise and purple here and there.

Yes, I agree that he's probably describing the rose we now consider the real 'RdV'.

Virginia

It does seem odd to me that Virginia's reference rather anomalously mentions red stipules and prickles, but just one year later another describes its lack of prickles -- and this is repeated for the next few years. I wonder if the wrong -- or, at least a different -- rose was described in the first reference. Just because something is published doesn't mean it must be true -- I can think of quite a few errors found in some of my modern gardening books which, if referenced a century and a half later, might engender some sort of mystery due to not matching later references. We must remember that old references are just as prone to human error as are modern references. I wonder if there was any later disagreement, correction, or retraction made in this journal -- especially in light of references following just a short time later containing different descriptions.

:-)

~Christopher

My thanks to all you scholars, Virginia in particular.

That did occur to me also, Christopher. But the description was written by Charles Lemaire, an eminent botanist, who vouches that the illustration is an accurate depiction of the rose. That same illustration is then referred to in the same German publication that says the rose has a red center and no thorns. I think that's weird, but I also think it points to the primary source as being considered reputable.

And it seems unlikely to me that the description and illustration would be published without feedback/ correction from the breeder, given that this was a cultivar being advertised for sale for the first time. And the publisher of L'Illustration horticole was also selling the rose- introducing it in Belgium.

If you can find a retraction or correction, that would indeed be of interest.

But assuming that you doubt the original description, the question is: does the modern version of RdV have a red or crimson center? No- so far as I can see, it has a white or whitish center. So either you go with the very first description and illustration introducing a red-thorned 'RdV' to the world, or you go with the thornless rose with the red or crimson center. Neither of these early descriptions quite fit what is in commerce today.

At this point, I'm mostly curious about why RdV disappeared to the point that her absence was lamented in the 1904 Journal des Roses, but she is now one of the more famous of the old rose cultivars. I think it is a false assumption that RdV has been popular and available continuously since her introduction in 1860.

I want to search American catalogs (or any catalogs, but I seem to mostly only have access to American ones via the Biodiversity Heritage Library) to see who carried it and when. I know that Peter Henderson Nursery of NYC carried RdV from 1872-1880 (and possibly before, but the earliest catalog I find is 1872). Her absence from other catalogs is remarkable. She is also listed in the 1880 Baudriller catalogue (Angers, France).

I'm hoping to get a better feel for who liked her, who sold her, did she really disappear and- if so- when did her 20th C. revival begin, and who began it?

If anyone knows of a free online source for old British/European nursery catalogs, I'd appreciate a heads up.

Virginia

This is not a catalog, but could be of interest as a survey done by a German horticulturalist in the early 1880s about "the most beautiful roses" in different categories and colors. The survey was massive, polling rose societies, nurseries, and "amateurs" from many countries (France, Germany, US, England, Italy, Belgium, ...) and some prominent rose breeders as well. It doesn't describe each variety, except for noting the origin year & breeder, but it gives an idea of the popularity of different roses.

RdV turned out to be the second most popular violet HP, behind Pierre Notting, though not popular overall. One of the most remarkable features I found in this survey was the section with top choices in each category selected by Guillot fils, Schwartz, Lambert, and other prominent rosarians. General survey results are not broken down by country, but it seems that RdV was more popular on the continent because none of the individual rosarians from the UK and USA lists her among their favorites. Both Schwartz and Guillot fils ranked her as the #1 violet HP.

This last third edition from 1883 is available online. It's multilingual in German, French, and English.

https://archive.org/details/ranglistederede00schngoog

Virginia . . .

I thought to check Ellwanger, from 1882 . . . A U.S. source which does not enthuse about either RdV or her parent:

"Pius the Ninth,
vig. Vibert, 1849. Violet-rose, a very sullied shade, flat form, very full, free blooming, very hardy."

"Reine des Violettes, free. Mille-Malet, 1860, Raised from Pius the Ninth, Violet-red, a muddy color."

I wish Ellwanger had expanded further, but the descriptions of color as " . . . a very sullied shade, . . ." and " . . . a muddy color" don't sound much like the swirls of shades of lavender that Thomas enthused about, a century or so later.

In other parts of the book, Ellwanger lists roses that are favorites for various uses, and RdV is not among the so-favored roses.

Ellwanger in the U.S. was clearly not a fan, and there was a busy rose writer in England who wrote very unflattering things about 'RdV' when she was introduced to that country (and later gloated that he had been proved right about her, and she was only fit to grace a dung-heap)... This charming fellow went by the moniker of "D.", and lived in Deal.

It sounded like he had an outright vendetta against this rose. Or perhaps anything that smacked of Frenchified tastes. Or perhaps against the nurseryman, William Wood, who had apparently purchased good stock of 'RdV' in anticipation of her popularity in England being equal to the good opinion of the French nurserymen... Jules Margottin and Eugène Verdier being two well-respected rosarians who praised 'RdV'.

At any rate, Ellwanger and this English writer both had a tendency to sneer at roses which doesn't particularly sit well with me. I am all for honesty in reviews of any kind, but I do think it's sufficient to say "she's not my type", or "she's not good in my garden", and explain why. Given that tastes and growing conditions vary, it seems obvious that most roses introduced to commerce will do well for somebody, somewhere.

As for 'muddy' or 'sullied', that could just mean that there was a fashion for clear or pure colors in roses, and Ellwanger didn't think 'RdV' fit the bill.

Virginia

Yes. He WAS a bit "sneery", wasn't he?

OTOH, I've probably sneered at a few roses myself, from time to time. <G> ;-)

Well, to be fair, it is a "muddy" color (at times). Same can easily be said of 'Cardinal de Richelieu', which ages to a very dirty hue. (A friend once described the Cardinal as "the color of day old liver left drying in the sun", which, to be honest, is rather accurate of its late-stage coloring)

The point being, if you dislike these muted, complex violet hues in roses, you sure ain't gonna like 'Reines des Violettes'! Heck, I'm no fan of retina-searing orange in roses and I've not been shy in stating it. Above all, say what you think, right?

By the way, there have been multiple discussions on the identity of 'Reine des Violettes' and it has become apparent there are several roses making the rounds under this name. Heirloom sold for years an imposter that is unlikely related in any way - its just another mauve HP.

Real and Faux

Heirloom's page for the roses offers conflicting information: the description sounds right, but the photo seems to represent the "Faux RdV". Without acquiring a plant from them, its impossible to know for sure how correct this is, of course.

I was cured of Heirloom long, long ago. :-)