Branch (Charge)
WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wikispace only to make the content "searchable" and easier to find. If you find the information you seek here, go to the original sources as linked below to verify the information and use them for your documentation. Revised {$revisiondate}.
Illustrations:
Period:
Grapevine involved, redorte, rose branch involved:
| Wappenbuch | https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11060046_10205847123679216_409762585341144948_n.jpg?oh=17ac641ab24e0955cd44eb29ac031d5a&oe=55CFF11A | https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11062264_10205847119679116_3658548163978301424_n.jpg?oh=96f8bcc12f1cdba0e5bc39cada78e176&oe=55E14A40&gda=1441117769_9c239cffd31bd7e734ae35b6d8eb2aa0 |
| Wappenbuch de Arleberg-Bruderschaft, Virgil Raber, 1548, f9r, a grapevine involved (in a spiral) | Siebmacher 1605, a redorte (stylized twisted branches), FB image courtesy of Rayne Evynwod. | Siebmacher 1605, a rose slipped and involved, FB image courtesy of Rayne Evynwod. |
Modern:
Pictorial Dictionary, 3rd edition:
Vector Graphics:
- Viking Answer Lady - http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/Stars/Heraldry_SVG_Images/index.htm
| ====Brickbat's Armorial Stash==== | ||
| * [[1]]: |
Pennsic Traceable Art Project:
- [Ash]
- [Olive (fructed)]
- [Rose]
Sources:
Academy of St. Gabriel "Medieval Heraldry Archive" - http://www.s-gabriel.org/heraldry/ Archive of St. Gabriel reports - [[2]] Laurel Armory Articles - http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/armory_articles.html
New Heraldic Primer (Heraldry for Non-Heralds) - http://heraldry.sca.org/armory/newprimer/ Pictorial Dictionary of Heraldry (PicDic), 3rd Edition - @http://mistholme.com/pictorial-dictionary-of-heraldry (in progress) Period Armorials Parker's Heraldry - http://karlwilcox.com/parker/
Precedents:
Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - [[3]] Morsulus Heralds Website - [[4]] (to search the LoARs and Precedents) Restatement Wiki - [[5]] (restatements of Precedents) Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.
Definition:
October 1976 - slip vs sprig vs whatever:
A "slip" is a twig with three leaves. If with five it may be called a "sprig." "These rules are not rigorously followed," says Parker. (KFW, 22 Oct 76 [8], p. 9) http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/karina/ptoz.html#slip
#x--Precedents:-Registerability:Registerability:
(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)
#x--Precedents:-Conflict:Conflict:
February 2009 - spring vs leaves in pall:
Ellen Hughes. Azure, on a pale between two domestic cats combatant argent, three holly leaves conjoined in pall inverted vert fructed gules. While the orientation of the sprig is a blazonable detail, sprigs are depicted in so many orientations, both in the SCA and in period armory, that orientation of the sprigs is not worth difference. [[6]]
February 1995 - plant vs slip:
Plant-Miscellaneous [a Mugwort plant vert vs a slip of three leaves vert and an almond slip fructed proper and Rose-wort proper and St. John's wort proper] In each case there is a CD for the field, but nothing for either the type or tincture of the foliage. (Alysoun Beauchamp, 2/95 p. 11) http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/daud2/armm2q.html
July 1993 - slips vs. branches:
The difference granted for the slipping and leaving of flowers is one of our perennial problems [as it were]. The practice seems to have been uncommon in medieval armory; of the rare examples that had been discovered, none seemed to demonstrate a cadency change --- that is, the change one would expect to see between the arms of a cadet branch of a family and those of the main branch. For that reason, we've granted no difference between, say, a rose// and //a rose slipped and leaved. Nonetheless, there have been suggestions that we should grant a CD for slipping and leaving//, when the slip is so large as to constitute the majority of the charge --- in effect, when the charge is better blazoned //a branch with a flower// rather than //a flower with a stem//. I've found period evidence supporting this suggestion, in the arms of the Counts of Rapperswil, c.1232: //D'or a treis rosers sur checkune roser une rose de goules checkune roser verte (Or, three rose branches vert, on each rose branch a rose gules)//. The comital line went extinct in 1283, but //rosiers// (rose branches) are still found in the modern arms of Rapperswilstadt, in the Swiss canton of St. Gall: //Argent, in fess two rose branches vert, each with a rose gules//. These are drawn just as they're blazoned: large stems (few or no leaves) with small roses. They are clearly artistic variations on //branches//, nor roses. ([Armory II], p.442; [Blazon], p.270; 10000 Wappen von Staaten und Städten, p.288.) In cases that follow this example, 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. I welcome suggestions on how we should count difference between flowered branches (e.g., between a //branch vert with a rose gules// and a //branch vert with an iris gules); it should be at most a single CD, but I'm not convinced we could even grant that. I think this new definition will bring us closer to period usage, and ease up a bit on conflict. It will also, I concede, make it temporarily harder to interpret old SCA blazons ("It says rose slipped//. Does this conflict with a //rose//, or with a //branch?"), but we can reblazon devices with branches as they come up in commentary. (24 July, 1993 Cover Letter (June, 1993 LoAR), pg. 7) http:heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/blazon.html#blazon-31
September 1992 - types of sprigs:
[A branch of rosemary// vs. //sprig of three bluebells] There's [not a CD] for type of sprig. There were also a number of other conflicts, all based on granting no difference for type of sprig: e.g., [a slip of three leaves//], or sprig of parsley. (Mairin ferch Howell, September, 1992, pg. 40) http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/pile.html#plant-sprig
#x--Precedents:-Identifiability:Identifiability:
Collected Precedents:
2nd Tenure of Elisabeth de Rossignol (April 2011 - August 2011) - [Armory Precedents] 1st Tenure of Elisabeth de Rossignol (May 2005 - July 2008) - BRANCH //see also// PLANT
The 2nd Tenure of François la Flamme (October 2004 - May 2005) - Collected Armory Precedents The Tenure of Shauna of Carrick Point (May 2004 - August 2004) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of François la Flamme (August 2001 - April 2004) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of Elsbeth Anne Roth (June 1999 - July 2001) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of Jaelle of Armida (June 1996 - June 1999) - [HTML Document] The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda (November 1993 - June 1996) -
The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme (June 1992 - October 1993) - [[7]]
The 1st Tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda (June 1990 - June 1992) -
The Tenure of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane (September 1986 - June 1990) - [Precedents] The Tenure of Baldwin of Erebor (August 1984 - August 1986) - [HTML Document] The Tenure of Wilhelm von Schlüssel (August 1979 - August 1984) - [Precedents] The Tenure of Karina of the Far West (December 1975 - June 1979) - [Precedents] The Early Days (June 1971 - June 1975) - [Precedents]
In the Ordinary:
- [branch] (includes alk slip)
Created {$creationdate}