Editing Flowers (Charge)

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
'''WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wiki only to make the content "searchable" and easier to find. If you find the information you seek here, go to the original sources to verify the information and use them for your documentation.'''
'''WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wiki only to make the content "searchable" and easier to find. If you find the information you seek here, go to the original sources to verify the information and use them for your documentation.'''


=Examples:=  
=Illustrations:=  
==Period:==  
==Period:==  
{| class=wikitable
| [[File:Familienwappen des Hohen Adels 40v-flowers-gore.png]]
| [[File:Familienwappen des Hohen Adels 27r-argentflowers-Orchevron.png]]
| [[File:Familienwappen des Hohen Adels 27v-metalflowers-sablechevron.png]]
|-
| Familienwappen des Hohen Adels, 40v, gore with flowers
| Familienwappen des Hohen Adels, 27r, argent flowers on an Or chevron
| Familienwappen des Hohen Adels, 27v, Or flowers on sable chevron
|}
{| class="wikitable"
| [[File:VirgilRaber 1548Arlberg-daisy.png]]
| [[File:Familienwappen des Hohen Adels 25r-four-petaled-rose.png]]
| [[File:Familienwappen des Hohen Adels longslipflowers.png]]
|-
| Wappenbuch der Arlberg-Bruderschaft: Virgil Raber, 1548 German (Weimar, Herzogin Anna Amalia Bibliothek, Fol. 220)
| Familienwappen des Hohen Adels, 25r, four-petaled rose
| Familienwappen des Hohen Adels, long-slipped flowers
|}
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
| [[File:Tulips.jpg|640x437px|Image]]  
| [[File:Tulips.jpg|640x437px|Image]]  
Line 85: Line 63:


* Parker's Heraldry - http://karlwilcox.com/parker/
* Parker's Heraldry - http://karlwilcox.com/parker/
* Riestap's ''Armorial Général - http://www.euraldic.com/lasu/bl/bl_a_aa.html
* Riestap's ''Armorial Général - //http:''www.euraldic.com/lasu/bl/bl_a_aa.html
 


=Precedents:=  
=Precedents:=  
Line 93: Line 72:


==Definition/Defining Instance:==  
==Definition/Defining Instance:==  
===November 2020 - On Oriental===
For several decades, the use of the term "Oriental" has been increasingly seen as tainted by a history of racism against the people of east Asia, their culture, and their artifacts: I myself encountered this fact as a student in the mid-1990s. And while it is true that every person's experience is their own, it is also true that the problems of racism and bigotry remain, and that a term that once simply meant "Eastern" now encompasses other baggage which we do not intend to carry.
Therefore, effective immediately, we are discontinuing use of the term "Oriental" to disambiguate charge variants. New blazon will be determined and appropriate reblazons will occur as we proceed.
Affected charges to be reblazoned soon include:
* Oriental poppy, which appears to have no other name, but which has a central, contrasting coloration different from the Californian poppy will be called a poppy, the unblazoned differences again left to license. The single instance of this in blazon already notes the difference as seeded sable, which will be retained.
https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2020/11/20-11cl.html
===October 2016 - Where the Wild Foils Grow===  
===October 2016 - Where the Wild Foils Grow===  
* Often enough we see submission with flowers of X petals blazoned as X-foils. It is not clear where this originated from, but foils are heraldic depictions of clovers and their leaves have a fairly defined shape (with some minor variations). Using the blazon of an X-foil to describe the emblazon of a flower with X petals, where the petals are typically round and attached to the center at a single point or in such other manner that there's obvious "seeding", does not necessarily ensure the reproducibility of the submitted charge from that blazon. SENA A.1.B states that We register the emblazon, rather than the blazon. Any discrepancies between the image and the description will be resolved by changing the description to match the image. To allow for reproducibility of what the submitter has submitted, we have been and will continue reblazoning X-foils that do not look like actual X-foils as the closest known period flower of X petals, or returning for redraw if no accurate blazon can be found.
* Often enough we see submission with flowers of X petals blazoned as X-foils. It is not clear where this originated from, but foils are heraldic depictions of clovers and their leaves have a fairly defined shape (with some minor variations). Using the blazon of an X-foil to describe the emblazon of a flower with X petals, where the petals are typically round and attached to the center at a single point or in such other manner that there's obvious "seeding", does not necessarily ensure the reproducibility of the submitted charge from that blazon. SENA A.1.B states that We register the emblazon, rather than the blazon. Any discrepancies between the image and the description will be resolved by changing the description to match the image. To allow for reproducibility of what the submitter has submitted, we have been and will continue reblazoning X-foils that do not look like actual X-foils as the closest known period flower of X petals, or returning for redraw if no accurate blazon can be found.
Line 114: Line 84:
===July 1993 - flower slipped vs branch flowered: ===  
===July 1993 - flower slipped vs branch flowered: ===  
In cases [where a slipped and leaved flower consists primarily of the branch portion rather than the flower portion], I will register the plant as a ''branch with a flower''. Moreover, I intend to grant a Substantial Difference (i.e., sufficient to invoke Rule X.2) between a ''branch'' (flowered or not) and a flower. Slipped flowers drawn with the flower dominant will still be considered negligibly different from a plain flower. Flowers whose slips are part of the definition (e.g., trefoil, thistle) will not get extra difference for the slip [for full discussion, see under [http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/blazon.html#blazon-31 BLAZON] (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pg. 7) [http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/bow.html]
In cases [where a slipped and leaved flower consists primarily of the branch portion rather than the flower portion], I will register the plant as a ''branch with a flower''. Moreover, I intend to grant a Substantial Difference (i.e., sufficient to invoke Rule X.2) between a ''branch'' (flowered or not) and a flower. Slipped flowers drawn with the flower dominant will still be considered negligibly different from a plain flower. Flowers whose slips are part of the definition (e.g., trefoil, thistle) will not get extra difference for the slip [for full discussion, see under [http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/blazon.html#blazon-31 BLAZON] (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pg. 7) [http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/bow.html]


==Registerability:==  
==Registerability:==  
Line 123: Line 94:


==Conflict:==  
==Conflict:==  
===March 2020 - From Wreath: Roses and Columbines, etc.===
Recently, the question came up about how much heraldic difference we grant for type of flower. It arose with the submission of Adriana de Fleurs, Azure, three columbines slipped and leaved argent, pended on the LoAR of October 2019. The issue was potential conflict with the registered arms of Jonas Aquilian, Azure, three roses argent. Our current policy allows a DC to be granted for type of flower, but not the Substantial Change sufficient to clear conflict on its own.
When looking to period heraldry for guidance in a case like this, there are two patterns we like to consider: are there examples of one coat of arms containing two different types of flowers? That would suggest that those flowers were distinguished in period heraldry. And are there examples of the same arms recorded in different rolls as having different types of flowers? That would suggest that those flowers were not distinguished.
We've the added issue that we don't know the period blazons of many arms with flowers, and therefore don't know which flowers were intended. (Modern heraldic authors have the same issue: a lot of flowers are simply blazoned flowers by modern authors.) Nonetheless, we've identified a few cases that help us.
Three examples, from British sources, of arms with two different types of flowers would be the arms of Cooke, c.1520: Sable, on a chevron Or between three roundels argent three cinquefoils sable, on a chief argent three columbines azure slipped and leaved vert; the arms of West, d.1533, Argent, on a chevron sable between roses gules slipped vert a lily Or; and the attributed arms of S. Ethelburga or Eadburga, from Peter Le Neve's Book c.1480, Azure, three columbines pendant argent slipped vert crowned Or, in base three roses 2&1 gules seeded Or, all within a bordure gules platy. These suggest that period heralds made a distinction between roses (cinquefoils), affronty and with few petals, and columbines, trumpet-shaped and in profile.
On the other hand, we have multiple examples of the same coat of arms, in different rolls, with different flowers. We have too many examples of arms variously recorded with roses, cinquefoils, or sexfoils to not consider them as pretty much interchangeable in period British heraldry. Other examples are less commonly found, but pertinent: the arms of West, d.1533, shown with either roses or gillyflowers; the arms of Ruthall or Rowthall, 1523, ditto; the arms of Hornby, c.1520, shown with either gillyflowers or marigolds; and the aforementioned arms of S. Ethelburga, with garden lilies inverted instead of columbines. Most confusing were the arms of Forest, c.1525, with a chevron charged (depending on the source) with a rose between two gillyflowers, a gillyflower (pink) between two marigolds, a rose between two marigolds, or three gillyflowers.
The examples suggest that period heralds might not distinguish between trumpet-shaped flowers in profile; might not distinguish between flowers with few petals, affronty; and might not distinguish between multi-petaled flowers (and that the latter might or might not be shown in profile). Any flower not trumpet shaped might be interpreted as a rose simply because roses were so ubiquitous.
Flowers in other categories were too rarely found to allow us to draw concrete deductions. (Thistles, in particular, were much less frequent in period than in the Society.)
We've reached a point where a comprehensive ruling is needed, such as has been done for type of bird (Cover Letter, Nov 2003) and type of tree (Cover Letter, Dec 2018). We therefore rule as follows:
* There is no difference for type between few-petaled flowers affronty (roses, sexfoils, poppies affronty, cherry blossoms, etc.). This is already our current policy.
* There is no difference for type between trumpet-shaped flowers in profile (columbines, lilies, tulips, daffodils, etc.). There can be a DC for orientation (as between columbines and lilies when both are in their default).
* There is no difference for type between multi-petaled flowers affronty (gillyflowers, chrysanthemums, daisies, etc.). Society practice doesn't normally depict such flowers in profile.
* There is SC for type between few-petaled flowers affronty, multi-petaled flowers affronty, and trumpet-shaped flowers in profile.
Flowers that don't fall into the above categories (the all-encompassing "miscellaneous" category) will be treated as individual cases, by type. We are likely, for instance, to grant SC between thistles and the above categories. Lotus flowers in profile, though not an SC from the trumpet-shaped flowers, might still be granted a DC from them; however, lotus flowers affronty will be treated as multi-petaled flowers affronty.
As for foils, our current policies remain in force. We'll still grant difference between, e.g., a trefoil and a cinquefoil: we've not found instances where those charges were conflated. And we'll still grant no difference between a cinquefoil and a rose: we've plenty of instances for those. If further evidence is brought, we can consider it then.
For now, the germane point is that we now grant an SC between roses and columbines, allowing the registration of Adriana's submission.
*http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2020/03/20-03cl.html#2
===July 2007 - no difference for tincture of sunflowers seeds===  
===July 2007 - no difference for tincture of sunflowers seeds===  
"We hereby overturn the November 2000 precedent and allow sunflowers proper to be registered. Just as a thistle proper can have its tuft either gules or purpure, a sunflower proper may have either brown or sable seeds. For purposes of conflict checking, the tincture of a sunflower's seeds is not worth a difference. The presence of these seeds does not count as a tertiary charge. [http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2007/09/07-09cl.html July 2007 LoAR Cover Letter]
"We hereby overturn the November 2000 precedent and allow sunflowers proper to be registered. Just as a thistle proper can have its tuft either gules or purpure, a sunflower proper may have either brown or sable seeds. For purposes of conflict checking, the tincture of a sunflower's seeds is not worth a difference. The presence of these seeds does not count as a tertiary charge. [http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2007/09/07-09cl.html July 2007 LoAR Cover Letter]
Line 185: Line 124:
* The Early Days (June 1971 - June 1975) - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/early/volume1.html Collected Precedents]
* The Early Days (June 1971 - June 1975) - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/early/volume1.html Collected Precedents]


=In the Ordinary=  
=<u>'''In the Ordinary'''</u>:=  
(includes blossum, bud)
(includes blossum, bud)
* Flower - Adonis - see [http://oanda.sca.org/ordinary/F.html#flowerrose Flower - Rose]]
* Flower - Adonis - see [http://oanda.sca.org/ordinary/F.html#flowerrose Flower - Rose]]
Line 307: Line 246:
* Flower - Wisteria - see [http://oanda.sca.org/ordinary/F.html#flowermultifloreted Flower - Multifloreted]]
* Flower - Wisteria - see [http://oanda.sca.org/ordinary/F.html#flowermultifloreted Flower - Multifloreted]]


[[File:Logocaption.jpg|right]]
[[Category:Armory]]
'''WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wiki only to make the content "searchable" and easier to find. If you find the information you seek here, go to the original sources (generally linked) to verify the information and use them for your documentation.'''
 
[[Category:Armory]] [[Category:Charges]] [[Category:Plants]]
Please note that all contributions to SCA Heraldry Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see SCA Heraldry Wiki:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)
Retrieved from "http://scaheraldry.info/index.php/Flowers_(Charge)"