[ANSTHRLD] Conflict check, please
Cisco Cividanes
engtrktwo at gmail.com
Tue Oct 21 14:45:42 PDT 2008
Okay, sorry, I'm just a little lost here. Still learning... albeit slowly.
Does my origional blazon "Vert, a cross throughout between four
dogwood flowers argent" Conflict or not?
Ivo
On 10/21/08, Jennifer Smith <jds at randomgang.com> wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
>> Anyway. What's a "dogwood flower"? The only precedent I see is from
>> <http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/precedents/wilhelm/wi
>> lhelmcombined.html>,
>> with
>>
>> The difference between a rose and a dogwood blossom is basically
>> five instead of four petals, plus barbs. There is thus not enough
>> difference. WVS [36] [LoAR 23 Feb 81], p. 7
>>
>> So I don't see an SCA definition in compiled precedents. With so much
>> variation, and two different types, and with the ban on Linnaean
>> heraldry, I think a good case can be made that "dogwood blossom"
>> can't be registered because it's ambiguous and non-reproducable, or at
>> least that it's not the dogwood that Americans are familiar with.
>>
>> So am I raving insanely again?
>
> Not entirely. You're just missing newer information. From the March 2008
> LoAR:
>
> Adaleide de Warewic. Device. Per chevron azure and gules, three
> dogwood blossoms one and two and a tower argent.
> [...]
> The submitted device does not conflict with the device for
> Aldgytha of Ashwood, _Per saltire gules and sable, four roses
> argent barbed and seeded proper_. There is a CD for changes to
> the field. Dogwood blossoms are essentially quatrefoils, and
> thus have a CD from roses. This is in line with the precedent:
>
> {AE}rne Clover. Device. Or, a four-leaved clover
> saltirewise slipped vert. This is clear of conflict
> with Kathleen Regina the Wild Irish Rose, Or, a rose
> vert, its stem nowed sable, in chief two lions rampant
> gules. The type comparison between the primary charges
> in the devices is, effectively, the difference between
> a rose and a quatrefoil, and these two charges have a
> type CD between them: "Quatrefoils and roses do not
> appear to have been considered equivalent charges in
> our period" (LoAR of October 1995). [LoAR 08/2002]
>
> This overturns the October 1998 precedent (v. David Cade) which
> said that there is no difference between dogwood blossoms and
> roses.
>
>
> So -- acceptable blazon, four petals instead of five, giving a CD from roses
> but not one from other quatrefoils (which means we need to make sure that
> category is checked...).
>
> -Emma
>
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
>
More information about the Heralds
mailing list