If you really want a rose climbing into a big old apple tree I would start with the tree this year. Apple trees commercially available are invariably sold grafted. Standard (seedling) is the biggest and most drought tolerant rootstock. It is slow to bear fruit, but perhaps you don't care about that. MM111 would grow about three-quarters the size of a standard tree and come into fruit several years earlier than Standard. Most likely none of the rootstocks smaller than these two would give you a tree big enough to support a big climber or rambler. In either case, you will want to wait several years to plant the rose, so it would be a good idea to get the apple in the ground now. Do you want fruit? You will need to plant two trees for cross pollination if there are no other apple trees in the neighborhood. I would recommend one of the highly disease resistant varieties, such as Liberty, Williams' Pride, Pristine, Redfree, Enterprise, Priscilla, or (if you want an heirloom variety) Wolf River (a cooking apple). If you do decide to go with standard rootstock, be aware that few nurseries propagate this way anymore, given that the commercial and home markets are both more interested in dwarf these days. I have included a link below to one nursery that does. Actually I'm considering planting two or three standard apples out in our field. If they can get by without summer water once established, they could be my gift to future generations. I don't delude myself that my rose garden is likely to go on after me. Rosefolly Here is a link that might be useful: Greenmantle Nursery -- Apples and Roses

This is a really interesting thread. I've been following it and reading the replies to discover what gardeners on the forum have to say about these two roses. Climate can make such a difference in terms of shrub size and growth patterns; flower color, size, and petal count; remontancy; etc. I've always been completely peplexed when attempting to distinguish between Cramoisi and Louis P. If you show me a small plant of each, I couldn't ID one or the other to save my life. White streaks or centers? Both at times. Size and petal count? Heck if I know! Jeri, your experience with Cramoisi and Louis P are the opposite of what I'd read or been told in TX, and Organic Kitten's experience is similar to yours. For you both, Louis P is a larger shrub. Mike Shoup and Liz Druitt suggest that Cramoisi will grow up to 6 feet tall and 4 feet wide or so in that region. The Antique Rose Emporium site states that Louis P will grow to about 3'-5' and Druitt says around 4'. In PDX, I chose to grow Cramoisi because I assumed (maybe correctly, maybe not) that a red china would remain a bit smaller here, and I'd always believed Cramoisi to be the larger shrub of the two. If you all keep writing, I'm going to keep reading and learning. Carol

Wow - I looked up honeylocust trees, and in some of the pictures they were huge - 4+ stories tall. How tall is yours? Of course, the answer to your question depends a lot on how big your tree is. If it is big, I might try a vigorous climbing rose, which would climb up into the tree. My climate is so much warmer than yours that I cannot give you a recommendation, but there are climbing roses which have been developed for colder climates. lf the canopy of your tree is way far off the ground, planting a rose under it might work - I would probably start it in a small raised bed, so that it does not have to compete with the tree roots initially. If you have a small tree, a rambler is a good idea, planted to the side of the tree. Here is a pic of 'Apple Blossom' (Dawson, 1890) climbing up our crab apple tree - it is a once blooming rambler which HMF says is hardy to zone 6b. I agree that planting a rose near a small tree, not right under it, is a better idea. Jackie

Butchering a fruit tree should be done in winter while the tree is dormant, as I advised in my initial post. In the spring after the tree has expended it's stored energy into pushing out new leaves puts a lot of stress on the tree. It wants to start collecting the expended nutrients, sugars, and energy from the new leaves but once those leaves are cut off, it has to start over. That tree did, as you said, push out new growth again so the butcher job didn't kill it right away. Looking at the trees in the background and how some seem to still be dormant and others are just starting to push out new growth, I wouldn't discount the tree yet. I think its great you only like a natural growing tree. In my small yard, even a fruit tree on dwarfing rootstock will grow to 15' which is too large for my needs. I keep my trees manageable for what I want. The local avocado and apple growers have been switching from growing standard height trees to growing shorter trees with more trees in a spacing. Lines of trees that were on 20' centers have been cut to the trunk and another tree planted in between to create 10' centers and then the trees are kept to the 10-15' range for ease of picking. The trees are more productive per acre, and there is much less danger in picking them because the picker isn't 25 feet up in the air. I'd like to note that many of use here advised the OP to first thin the branches out to rejuvenate the tree and re-establish the apple growing wood. The option of topping the tree down to the trunk was extreme and not what I would do first, however it was an option should that fit the OPs needs. The question was if the trees were worth saving and if they could be salvaged. I answered with a resounding yes to both and stand by my answer. The trees can absolutely be rejuvenated and for you suggest giving up on that old of a tree because its old doesn't make any sense to me. We have many 100+ year old apple trees in my local mountains still producing fruit.