Not that it matters...

I'm afraid I'm a stickler for good naming practices and I'm not fond of the term "English Roses," either. I do, however, find it useful to think of David Austin's roses and those that express his breeding goals as belonging to a group that deserves a distinctive name. His stated goal is to create roses that are cold hardy, disease resistant, shrubby and well branched, remontant, and bearing fragrant flowers that are pretty in bud and open bloom. Of course, it's a descriptive definition of the class. And as with any class description, no rose in the class perfectly matches the ideal.

I wish there were a different nomenclature to refer to Austin's roses and those like them. I think Meilland's "Romantica" term is pretty good, although I'm not sure Meilland has gotten the idea of fragrance being part of the equation quite so well as Austin. I have grown Constance Spry, a rose with big fragrant flowers that makes ten foot long unbranched canes that require some training if it is not to look ridiculous. I see something of that rose in many of Austin's introductions so it seems to me that Austin's roses most closely resemble hybrid perpetual roses in flower form, plant habit, disease (i.e. blackspot) resistance, cold hardiness, and so on. Austin's stated goal of shrubbiness is not a quality that I have seen well expressed by any of the roses of his that I have planted.

When I think of landscape roses I think of plants that are trouble-free and muscular. Roses that paint the landscape with great washes of color for a long time, but do so by making roses that are individually not very pretty. In order to pull off this task they have to be very well branched - much better so than any David Austin rose I have ever grown. And very few of them have rose flowers that are especially pretty or photogenic individually. Landscape roses I see as roses that look great from far away, drawing you into the garden. DA roses draw you near the plant itself so you can stick your nose into a pretty blossom and inhale its delicious scent. Both have an important role to play in the garden; but the roles are different.

I guess I need language to express the distinctions between these two distinct kinds of plants.

The color of the rose made me think of Heirloom, too. But, of course, Heirloom does not make such long canes. It could (theoretically) be any of a few Austin introductions such as Brother Cadfael or Sir Walter Raleigh. I'd not expect to find any of these at a big box store, though.

QE certainly would be a rose one would find at a big box store. The color is pretty close to Queen Elizabeth. And if it blooms just once in a season, it could be the climbing sport of Queen Elizabeth. If it repeats, it could be the original QE which will grow to 10 ft given good conditions. This particular blossom does not have QE's scrolling petals. And QE is a rose that is pretty reliably stiff and formal. I'd have to see a flower with such a form before I would be certain it was QE.

Steve, I agree that most of my Austin roses are not shrubby in nature at all! Maybe if I cut them back, I could get them to branch more and form a dense shrub, but I kind of like them just the way they are.
I plant Knock Outs, carpet roses, "Carefree" anythings, drift roses, Easy Elegance, and some of the Buck roses on the outer perimeter of my property because they do grow into a hedge. That to me is what a "shrub" rose should be.
The Romanticas grow large and blousy, I guess you would say. I love them. I keep them closer to the house because like the Austins, they usually have a fragrance that draws me in.
It would make sense for a nursery to put the Austin roses in a category with Knock Outs because they really are low-maintanence, at least in my region. I don't have to spray any of the Austins. But if we're talking about flower form and scent, they belong in with the lovely hybrid teas. Lady of Shalott and The Dark Lady were absolutely stunning this fall after the hybrid teas had finished for the year. Both had intricate flowers and saturated colors.

I guess that ARS has a "none of the above" category that it calls "modern shrubs." I remember from gardening in NJ that David Austin's introductions and other roses officially in the modern shrub category did much better than most HT roses where frost and blackspot were major threats. I was very pleased with Knock Out as a shrub, but a little less pleased with it as a rose.

I really appreciate knowing about Lady of Shalott and The Dark Lady, because I am always interested in increasing my stock of fragrant, vigorous roses. I found myself buying too many roses this year from VG almost in a single-handed effort to keep them open. Maybe next year I can add a few more DA roses to my stock.