In my mind gallicas sucker and have greenish foliage and albas have grayish-green foliage and don't sucker. The latter are often beautiful shrubs in the garden and are handsome for much of the year, and gallicas are not nearly as ornamental when not in flower. However, I grow neither and these are just impressions I've received from reading about them. We'll have to wait for someone who knows them to give an informed and much more constructive opinion.

Oh goody! A chance for me to reinforce what I am learning in class.

Gallicas are one of the oldest roses (some would say it is the oldest rose--think the Apothecary rose or the Red Rose of Lancaster or ancient Rome). They generally have an absence of large thorns, and are either thornless or have small bristly prickles. They have been used for culinary and medicinal purposes, especially in or near Paris during the 17th and 18th century. Most are extremely healthy although they can get powdery mildew. Flowers tend to be mostly mid pink through to purple and some have a fantastic fragrance. Plants tend to be bushy and upright forming a shrub. They tend to be sucker free and bloom once.

Albas are another ancient group. They are tough and can survive in unkempt gardens for a very long time. Their stems are usually smooth with occasional medium sized thorns and their leaves are often grey green. The flowers are either white or pale to mid pink and most have a strong fragrance. They are very healthy although some can suffer from rust badly but it doesn't seem to slow them down to any great degree. They are one of the tallest varieties and some will tolerate some shade. They tend to be once blooming mid summer. They make good backdrops for other plants. I have heard that their foliage smells like apples, but since I don't grow any, I can't confirm that.

mustbnuts… my rose sounds like what you described for Albas, yet everyone on HMF have it as Gallica... I specifically wanted an Alba rose for my collection.. I didn't want another Gallica in particular, for reasons Ingrid said, like the suckering,... so I'm confused...

The beautiful, and well loved Charles de Mills turned me against growing Gallicas. It took 2 years to remove it with his hundreds of off spring, then it came back for another 2 years even after sifting through every bit of soil in that area. Little Charles were coming up under my other roses. The roots went to China.

My only Alba was Celestial. She was blooming less every year, so I said good bye to her last year. Mustb is right about foliage color. I call it blue/green. It was not the green of Chas. de Mills. It is a lovely, delicate looking, strongly perfumed, palest pink rose.

Listen to Christopher, he knows his stuff. What I was going to say is that there are many old roses that are hybrids and show mixed characteristics, and get put into classes that don't reflect all their features. I don't grow 'Bellard', but your confusion suggests this is the case with it. Classic Gallicas are low, suckering roses, generally up to about four feet, that make a thicket of slender canes; they have dark, rough foliage and are bristly, but not thorny, plants; they have flowers large for the size of the plant, fragrant, and usually medium pink to dark purple-ish red. Classic, that is, not noticeably hybridized Albas are tall and tolerably erect, are slow to sucker (they will, in time), with smooth growth and canes with sparse but decisive thorns and an overall grayish or blueish cast to the growth. Their flowers are white or soft pink, scented, with a perfume fragrance. In my garden Gallicas and Albas bloom around the same time, roughly mid-May to mid-June. Albas bear a decided resemblance to dog roses, one of their ancestors: think "dog rose", and you'll have a good idea of the character of classic Albas, only the latter have larger, fuller, perfumed flowers. I know of a dog rose close on the way to town that looks quite a bit like a single form of 'Celestial'.

Yes, Melissa, it was because Chas. de Mills was such a thicket that I didn't notice all the reproducing going on under the mass of canes, until they started coming up under my other roses and his girth was getting much wider. The width was from suckers, not from the original plant. You perfectly described both CdM and Celestial. Mine were directly across the path from one another and bloomed at the same time.

Thanks for all your informative advice here... the puzzle for me is that all the famous rosarians and rose gardens, from GS Thomas to Vintage Gardens to Mottisfont, everyone on HMF, all show it as Gallica, yet what you are describing to be as an Alba, reflects I think the rose I am growing, which I am certain will be the same one as they were all talking about..

So why do they insist it's Gallica? if I should upload a photo of my rose I shall put it on the Alba page [ there is one for Alba and Gallica]... perhaps they should merge the two together, but when you buy a rose as a certain type which you sought after, and later you find that most everyone else is describing it some other way, then it comes as a bit of a shock and disappointment... and of course they all know way more about all this than I do... so I still cannot fathom really how they can be content with Gallica when it looks all over an Alba...

I feel reluctant to merge with the status quo...

I should add that, I bought this rose without checking HMF or any literature about it first, and I got it purely because I wanted what I thought was a classic Alba rose, rare, but Alba, definitely not a Gallica rose, I didn't want one of those... so I was surprised to say the least when looking at HMF to find it shown as a Gallica and that this appears to be the established opinion..

Marl, give it a whirl and see how your rose performs. Whichever class it ends up being, it is a beautiful rose! I am sure it will be wonderful in your gorgeous garden. You can always pot it up for a year or two to see how it performs for you (more like an Alba or more like a Gallica) and go from there. It sure is a pretty little thing!

From looking at the pictures on HMF that show stems and leaves, as opposed to just the flower, that's a Gallica. Actually, Hybrid China may be more accurate, but I'd need better pictures.

Oh well, I think the nursery I got it from is applying the wrong designation to this rose.. it's my fault I should have checked first, I especially wanted an Alba, so I knew I ought to have got Queen of Denmark or Maiden's Blush, something like that... I'd be happy with Hybrid China...

mustbnuts… oh I'll keep it alright, it's in the ground and growing away... I hope I learn to love it but if it starts suckering... I'm not so sure...

thanks so much for all the help here from all quarters..

Melissa... I'm surprised you don't have this rose, I fully expected you to have it in your collection...

I have it (from Trevor Whites) - always considered this an alba (and bought it at the same time as semi-plena. I only grow one gallica (Duc de Guiche) - no similarity whatsoever between the 2 (although DdG has not suckered at all)

Sorry, was just floating by (this is one of my remaining roses which survived my shady wood).

Marlorena, you have a flattering notion of my rose collection: I wish it were as comprehensive as you suppose it. I need to get back to the roses, as it happens. The last few years we've been more focused on infrastructure (hedges, trees, soil preparation, terracing, paths) and survival (getting young plants through drought). And of course there are chores and maintenance, and our own health issues. I do honestly hope to give more time in the future to the roses, studying them and describing them, as I have at times earlier, as they remain the most important and loved plants in the garden (though lilacs, peonies, and violets are strong competitors at certain times of the year). And overall structure, the architecture (not hardscape) of the garden, pulls at me strongly.

Float by again, Camps. You all are making me quite curious about 'Bellard'.