[ANSTHRLD] Conflict check?

[Bob Wade]

"[Per pale azure and argent, a tree blasted and eradicated, in chief three mullets of eight points counterchanged.] This device conflicts with Richenda de Jardin, Per pale azure and argent, a crequier counterchanged. Fortunately, Richenda has provided a letter of permission to conflict. This letter is necessary because, while there is a CD for adding the secondary mullets, there is no significant difference between a crequier and a tree blasted and eradicated. As Boar notes, there exists a precedent that a generic tree eradicated is not significantly different from a tree blasted and eradicated, since "there are period depictions of trees with only a few leaves" [Gabriela Silvana, 07/2000]. There is also a precedent giving a CD between a crequier and a default tree, but not a substantial difference "because early heraldic depictions of trees were sometimes drawn much like a crequier, with one large leaf at the end of each branch" [Lilias de Cheryngton,
 12/2001]. However, the crequier is simply a stylization of a wild cherry tree (see Woodward, p. 318, along with Plate XXIX fig. 4 and p. 344 fig. 72 for a discussion). While it is a particular stylization, it falls within the expected range of depiction for trees in general. There is no reason to treat it differently from other trees, so it is not significantly different from a generic tree. [Mevanwy verch Gwion, LoAR 01/2005, An Tir-A]"
(Collected Precedents of Francois II at http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/sca/armoryprec.html#TREE)
"[Argent, an oak tree eradicated proper and on a chief gules three crosses of Toulouse Or.] The tree is drawn in a highly stylized manner that many did not recognize as an oak tree. However, such highly stylized trees are found in period armory. Gwenllian ferch Maredudd writes:I took a look at the emblazon on the An Tir website, and I would say it is within the range of stylized depictions of oak trees found in period Germanic armory. The entertwined branches are a little odd; most such depictions have a more "candelabra" effect (as Parker notes). Nonetheless, I can't see this depiction as unrecognizable or as more than, at most, a step from period practice. ...Such stylization is unusual for Anglo-Norman armory but not for Germanic armory, in which many types of flora are depicted in very stylized ways. I have, for example, seen linden trees, oak trees, and rose bushes drawn in ways similar to a crequier.Walter Leonhard's Der Grosse Buch der
 Wappenkunst, p. 248, fig. 7, shows a stylized oak tree that looks something like a crequier albeit with only 5 branches. Leonhard says it is an "older depiction." The surrounding pages also show many very stylized trees and plants.As Wreath, Dame Gwenllian ruled "the crequier is simply a stylization of a wild cherry tree (see Woodward, p. 318, along with Plate XXIX fig. 4 and p. 344 fig. 72 for a discussion). While it is a particular stylization, it falls within the expected range of depiction for trees in general. There is no reason to treat it differently from other trees, so it is not significantly different from a generic tree.Given the information provided by Dame Gwenllian, this depiction of an oak tree is registerable. However, it conflicts with Rosamund du Grasse, Argent, a willow tree blasted and eradicated, on a chief gules two geese close respectant argent. There is not a CD for changes to the tree, leaving a single CD for changes to the
 tertiary charges on the chief. [Guilheumes de Garrigis, 10/05, R-An Tir]"
(Collected Precedents of Elizabeth at http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/elisabeth/armory.html
--- On Fri, 3/1/13, Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:

From: Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com>
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Conflict check?
To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
Date: Friday, March 1, 2013, 9:31 PM

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Marie de Blois <erminespot at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Bob Wade <logiosophia at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Thank you for the Precedent Correction, Marie.
>
> You're welcome, though I'll note that I wasn't sure offhand either ;)
> ... I tried the Multicolor first, too, and then Vert, and then asked
> the other herald in the house "trees proper is no difference from
> trees vert, right?", and then one of us checked.

A tree blasted gets no DCs from a tree enleafed, right?

Is there any ruling on a tree blasted proper versus a tree vert?
Yeah, yeah, conflict isn't necessarily transitive, but very often
things that get no DCs are treated as an "equivalence class" in math
terms (e.g., canines is canines, bridges is usually bridges).

Danielis de Lindecolina
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com
_______________________________________________
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org