In 1806 Adam Paul moved from Scotland to Hertfordshire and established the nursery firm of Adam Paul and Sons in Cheshunt. He had two sons, George and his younger brother William (1822-1905). Adam Paul died in 1847 and the sons took over the business. This family partnership seems to have become rocky, as thirteen years later (1860) a split occurred and William set up on his own. He established a rival rose nursery, William Paul and Son, a mere spitting distance away in Waltham Cross.
William (see picture left) had made a name for himself by publishing (at the age of 26) his book "The Rose Garden" which proved a success and went through many editions. His brother George drew less notice and by the 1870s his son George Jr (1841-1921) was running the original nursery in Cheshunt, now called Paul and Son.
There was no love to be lost between the two branches of the family (and their two rival nurseries). This is evident from an ugly spat that played out in the pages of the Gardeners' Chronicle (GC) in 1874.
The facts of the matter are as follows: in July 1874 William Paul made an extraordinary exhibit for the gardens of the Royal Botanic Society. Instead of the usual exhibits of a few perfect prize blooms, William Paul decided to make a massed display of 8000 trusses of bloom - a veritable extravaganza. The GC ran an editorial praising the effort, which had evidently caused a buzz in the staid rose exhibition circles. All this praise being heaped on his uncle was too much for George Paul who wrote a deprecatory letter to the GC.
William Paul replied in the pages of the GC with ill concealed annoyance. "I think I ought to answer the letter of my nephew which appeared in "The Gardeners' Chronicle" of last week, as it seems to me calculated to depreciate what I consider one of my most successful efforts." The editor allowed this back-and-forth to continue in the letters pages of several issues. Most of the points that were argued so hotly concern the philosophy and minutiae of Victorian rose exhibiting, details that seem amazingly arcane today. For example George Paul argues that rose exhibitions have "high educational purposes" in illustrating to the masses the perfect bloom achieved by experts. Massed trusses of bloom, George implies, are mere sensationalism.
This seems to have particularly annoyed uncle William, who fired back:
"It is amusing to find Mr George Paul claiming for himself and colleagues the merit of teaching amateurs by exhibiting, and pluming himself on the 'proofs' (?) that they 'have not taught in vain.' Where are the 'proofs?'"
Which all goes to show that even the loveliest of roses can have sharp thorns.
