Tree

From SCA Heraldry Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference.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 to verify the information and use them for your documentation.

Illustrations:

Period sources:

Livro Livro do Armeiro Mor, 1506-09, Portugal, f129, tree with bird

Modern:

Pictorial Dictionary of SCA Heraldry (3rd edition):

See also fruit, leaf.

Vector Graphics:

Annotated Pennsic Traceable Art Project

An Heraldic Primer: Flowers, Trees and Plants (original site defunct)

The animal kingdom is not the only resource which was drawn upon for period armory. There are many forms of plant life which can be used as charges. These include Flowers, trees and Fruit... Trees were also found in armory. Though many different species of trees were used in armory, for purposes of conflict checking, we use the basic shapes of the tree (oval, conical, palm, etc). When the roots of a tree are showing, the tree is termed eradicated and when they are not, it is called couped. When there are no leaves on the tree, it is termed blasted.

tree.gif treecouped.gif pTree.gif
An oak tree eradicated An oak tree couped A pine tree couped


The Fruit from these plants are also the subject of armorial depiction, from humble acorn and garb (a sheaf of wheat), to the pomegranate (badge of Katherine of Aragon).

acorn.gif apple.gif garb.gif pomegranate.gif
an acorn an apple a garb a pomegranate

Parker's Heraldry:

Alder: there is one species of alder bearing berries, and to this probably the arms following refer. > Argent, three bunches of alderberries proper–ALDERBERRY. https://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/index.htm

Almond: parts of the Almond-tree are sometimes found, e.g. > Argent, an almond slip fructed proper–ALMOND. > Sable, an eagle displayed between two bendlets argent; on a chief or three almond leaves vert–JORDAN, Surrey. https://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/index.htm

Precedents:

Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents.html
Morsulus Heralds Website - http://www.morsulus.org/ (to search the LoARs and Precedents)
Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.

Definition:

Registerability:

(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)

March 2011 - weeping willow redux:

"[T]he weeping willow was cultivated in Andalusia in period, therefore we will no longer consider its use to be a step from period practice." March 2011 LoAR

June 2005 - weeping willow:

"Given that the weeping willow is unknown in period (let alone period Europe), its use is considered one step from period practice (a weirdness)." SEE ABOVE [March 2011] FOR UPDATE. June 2005 LoAR Cover Letter


Conflict:

March 2014 - barnacle goose tree vs other trees:

  1. 183 ffride wlffsdotter. Badge. (Fieldless) A barnacle goose tree gules fructed Or.

Blazoned on the Letter of Intent as a barnacle goose, this submission is actually of the barnacle goose plant or tree, not just the bird itself. The period citations of this bird all do show birds growing from a tree or plant, but the depiction of the tree or plant varies widely, and is not the focus of the citations. This then appears to be a tree with birds, either as fructing on the tree or as effectively maintained charges. This badge is therefore returned for conflict with the badge of Walraven van Nijmegen, (Fieldless) A créquier gules. There is a DC for fieldlessness, but nothing for the fructing of or maintained barnacle geese. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2014/03/14-03lar.html

August 2011 - willow vs. weeping willow vs. generic trees:'

On the June 2005 Cover Letter, standards were set out regarding the differences between white willows, weeping willows, and generic trees. At that time, weeping willows were granted a CD from white willows and oak or generic trees, and their use was declared a step from period practice. White willows were not granted a CD from oak or generic trees. Further research... led to declaring weeping willows no longer a step from period practice in March 2011.

We are hereby overturning the June 2005 precedent, and declaring that willows are willows: while there may be a blazonable distinction between a weeping willow and a white willow, there is no CD between the two, nor is there a CD between a willow of any sort and an oak or generic tree. Both are registerable. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2011/08/11-08lar.html


November 2008 - blasting:

"We do not grant difference for blasting: ... no difference between a tree and a tree blasted: 'There is no CD between a tree eradicated and a tree blasted and eradicated, as noted in the August 1994 LoAR... This is because there are period depictions of trees with only a few leaves.' (LoAR July 2000)" [2008 LoAR]

June 2005 - weeping willow vs oak vs generic:

"There is a CD between a weeping willow tree and an oak tree or a generic tree." [This precedent overturned as result of August 2011 LoAR precedent listed above.] [2005 LoAR Cover Letter]

June 2005 LoAR - default willow vs oak vs generic:

"There is not a CD between a white willow, which is the default willow tree, and an oak tree or a generic tree." [2005 LoAR Cover Letter]

June 2005 LoAR - white vs weeping willow:

"There is a CD between a white willow tree and a weeping willow tree." [This precedent overturned as result of August 2011 LoAR precedent listed above.] [2005 LoAR Cover Letter]

June 2005 - willows vs. other trees:

[This precedent overturned as result of August 2011 LoAR precedent listed above.] Of the willows currently registered, the majority of trees blazoned simply as "willows" are weeping willows, not white willows. In nearly every example, the foliage comes almost to the ground, or is depicted as long drooping branches, or both. This makes a difference as weeping willows get a CD from an oak or generic tree. Laurel has ruled "There is a CD between a willow tree and a standard round shaped tree, just as there is a type CD between a pine tree and a standard round shaped tree. [Aleyn More, 09/02, A-Caid]". This precedent applies to a weeping willow tree; not a willlow tree. The compiled precedents do not note that Aleyn's tree is a weeping willow tree, a fact made clear in the device's blazon. We will follow the medieval and modern heraldic convention and use the white willow as the default willow. The registered armory with weeping willows have been reblazoned to reflect the emblazons. PRECEDENT:

  • There is a CD between a weeping willow tree and an oak tree or a generic tree.
  • There is not a CD between a white willow, which is the default willow tree, and an oak tree or a generic tree.
  • There is a CD between a white willow tree and a weeping willow tree...

[2005 LoAR Cover Letter]

June 2003 - tree branch vs tree:

"a tree branch is not significantly different from a tree of the same type" [2003 LoAR]

September 2002 - pine tree vs standard round tree:

"...there is a type CD between a pine tree and a standard round shaped tree." [2002 LoAR]

July 2001 - tree vs tree stump:

"There is substantial difference between a tree and a tree stump." [2001 LoAR]

July 2001 - tree vs tree blasted:

"by the precedent set on the February 1998 LoAR (p. 4, s.n. Wolfgang Schwarzwald) there is a CD between a tree and a tree blasted." [2001 LoAR] [This precedent overturned as result of November 2008 LoAR precedent listed above.]

July 2000 - eradicated vs blasted and eradicated:

"There is no CD between a tree eradicated and a tree blasted and eradicated" July 2000 LoAR [This precedent overturned as result of July 2001 LoAR precedent listed above.] [This precedent was reinstated as result of November 2008 LoAR precedent listed above.]

February 2000 - eradicated vs couped:

[No CD between eradicated and couped] "In both cases there is a CD for fieldlessness, but nothing for the type of tree nor for the difference between eradicated and couped." [2000 LoAR]

July 1996 - tree vs tree eradicated:

[No CD between a tree and a tree eradicated] "The reason for granting no difference for a tree vs.a tree eradicated is obvious if one considers the poor excuses for root systems found in many trees blazoned as eradicated. Without any period evidence that changing a tree couped to a tree eradicated was considered a cadency step, we see no reason to grant any difference between them." [July 1996 LoAR]

Identifiability:

Collected Precedents:


In the Ordinary:

(includes sapling)

Retrieved from "http://scaheraldry.info/index.php?title=Tree&oldid=5784"