Editing Branch (Charge)

==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

==Registerability:==  

(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)</span>

==Conflict:==  

===February 2009 - spring vs leaves in pall:===  

*http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2009/02/09-02lar.html

===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. ([http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/references.html#51 Anglo-Norman Armory I]], p.442; [http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/references.html#13 Early Blazon], p.270; [http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/references.html#71 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:===  

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;">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 [''a sprig of parsley'']. (Mairin ferch Howell, September, 1992, pg. 40)

*http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/pile.html#plant-sprig

==Identifiability:==  

==Collected Precedents:==  

2nd Tenure of Elisabeth de Rossignol (April 2011 - August 2011) - [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/elisabeth/armory2.html Collected Armory Precedents]