[ANSTHRLD] Conflict check?

[Tim McDaniel]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013, Jennifer Smith <jds at randomgang.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2013, Bob Wade <logiosophia at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "[Argent, an oak tree eradicated proper and on a chief gules three
>>> crosses of Toulouse Or.] ... 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
>>
>> Huh, worse than I thought!  Thank you for the precedent dive.
>
> As far as eradicated vs blasted and eradicated, that's right. But is
> that calling conflict between brown/green and RED? Unless Rosamund's
> tree isn't blazoned properly, it's a gules tree.
>
> Either it's an incorrect blazon,

They reblazoned Rosamund's tree (mass reblazon of willow -> weeping
willow) 4 months earlier, so they'd have to have screwed up the blazon
at least twice.  The original device registration was 200007H
({AE}thelmearc), so it's not on the archive CDs.

The original LoI blazon was "Argent, a willow tree blazted and
eradicated on a chief gules two geese respectant argent".  Nebuly
corrected z->s and then suggested other changes.  Brachet wrote "This
willow tree looks neither blasted nor particularly eradicated", and
Nebuly wrote "it is not particularly eradicated".

> ... or someone didn't catch that issue, or the tincture issue wasn't
> discussed in the final decision.

It does say "There is not a CD for changes to the tree", but maybe
they were thinking only of the blasting and eradicating.

Daniel Lincolia
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com