There are roses that will live in those conditions, but they are likely to
bloom sparsely.

You can easily get away with half-day sun, but in the conditions you're
describing, I think you may have problems.

How about using something like a climbing species fuchsia?
We grow F. hatschii (sold as F. regia) in similar conditons.

Jeri

No roses like shade but a few will tolerate some dappled shade like you describe.
I had a 15 along a property line where only five of them got more than a few hours of sun daily. Those in the sun were vigorous and bloomed a lot. The others just sort of sat there and existed. They were removed and potted and replaced with shade tolerant shrubs, not roses. Once potted and placed in sunnier locations the poor performing bushes did well.
Like Jeri said, they will not do well and will bloom sparsely.

My Fairy is growing in shade under a tree(holds it's pink color better that way). Knockout says it will tolerate shade(see Helpmefind.com).

While some roses will tolerate "some" shade, I don't know any that like shade, and even in "some" shade, they will probably have more disease-problems, in addition to blooming less. That applies to Knock Out also, in my experience.

Kate

Check out the Hybrid Musks roses. When I do a search for shade tolerant roses on HMF, a lot of them come up. But even they will do better with at least 4 hours of sun.

Secret is a good rose for shade. I had it in the sun for 5-6 hours a day and it didn't do well at all, I then looked it up on HMF and it stated that it was shade tolerant so I planted it in a spot that got only about 1-2 hours of dappled sun and it is doing so good. The new growth on it is so healthty and the blooms are deeper in color and stay quite a while on the bush.

Here is a link that might be useful: HMF - Secret

Roses don't like shade. It takes photosynthesis to produce enough energy for them to bloom. You will end up with lanky, spindly plants that don't bloom very much. Select something more appropriate for the area.

Plants with colorful foliage and contrasting textures would work much better than roses. Roses may be nice for a season by living off previously stored energy, but for the long term, shade plants would be much better.

And from the tree's point of view-- digging in the rootzone of a tree can cause injury. Creating a raised bed at the base of a tree is an even faster way to kill it. Tree roots extend WELL BEYOND the tree's canopy and most are in the top foot of soil. A lot of plants are better equipped for competing with trees than roses are-- like daylilies, which have big fat fleshy roots. I once planted a rugosa hedge too close to a young silver maple and instead of a nice uniform row of plants the roses got smaller and smaller the closer to the tree they were-- and they were NOT CLOSE above-ground. Underground, clearly another story!

I think if you try to make this area a rose garden that you will be dissappinted. If it's not too deep of shade though you could include a few. The best rose I know for shade is Bubble Bath. I've had some luck with Hybrid Musks.

Well, now I'm rethinking this area! lol...I appreciate all your advice.

Musing out loud...wonder if I had some potted roses, I could move them back and forth to the sun...hmmm

We have a couple of areas which get very little sun.
One gets almost none.
The other gets sun for perhaps one or two hours, at the hottest part of the day.

Instead of trying to force these areas to grow sun-lovers, we've actually DEEPENED
the shade, to better grow shade-loving plants.

Ferns are wonderful, if your soil is right for them.
We hang epiphyllums in the shade, and mount Platicerium (Staghorn "Ferns").
Impatiens, begonias, fuchsias, camellias, azaleas are shade plants that flourish here.

A visit to a local nursery may help you find shade plants suited to your area.
A garden with various "rooms," or sub-environments, becomes a lot more interesting
than one where every area is alike.

Jeri

hmmmm..Azaleas...hadn't thought of those...
Thanks Jeri...you have me thinking..

And in the right climate, rhododendrons. :-)

Jeri

You are getting sound advice. You are better off planting shade plants. However, I have to share with you my experience with Red Ribbons, a groundcover rose. I planted 2 under a Locust tree growing in front of the house 5 years ago. Locust is a type of a tree that grows vigorously like a monster weed. Despite aggressive trimming, it gets really dark under that tree in the middle of summer. But, those 2 roses thrived and became huge. They are behaving like climbers, probably looking for the sun in desperation. It gets reflected heat from concrete, and at most dappled sun. But it has bloomed non-stop every season. Not much, but enough to get nice compliments from joggers and dog walkers. So, if you are not quite particular, you may want to try it.

Any chance of trimming those trees?

I'll check that one out, bobblybloom...thanks!

Good News...I've been watching the sun movement all day, and the area where we had planned the new beds does get quite a bit of afternoon sun after all...Yippee! I'll keep ya'll posted on the progress!

Sharon

Sharon

You sound like me. I will stay home different time of the year just to clock how much sun the different parts of my yard get so I know which potted rose to put where depending on the time of year. Good Luck.

If you decide to try some roses---Buff Beauty, Pretty Lady, and Lyda Rose all do well for me with not much sun.

Colleen

Try Ballerina. /Abi

Several online nurseries allow you to search for shade tolerant roses. For example, Pickering nurseries lists 87 roses as being tolerant of "light/part shade," mostly albas, hybrid musks, and rugosas. David Austin has a list and Rogue Valley Roses often mentions shade tolerance in their descriptions.

A few other roses that are reported to be shade tolerant that haven't been mentioned in this thread are Gruss an Aachen, Madame Alfred Carriere, & Zephirine Drouhin. I personally grow Pink Gruss an Aachen (confused in commerce as Irene Watts) and it does well in part shade.

I agree with other posters that it sounds like you have "deep shade" though. I have a lot of shade too, and it's true that roses planted in the shadier spots tend not to do as well, but my yard is what it is, so I try to be satisfied knowing that I'd rather enjoy a few blooms than no blooms. :-)
Dawn