This item was on the 09-2017 LoAR
1: Myrgan Wood, Barony of - New Appeal of Kingdom Return of Badge
OSCAR finds the name registered exactly as it appears in October of 1983, via the Middle.
(Fieldless) An elm tree eradicated proper, leaved gules.
The badge was returned on May 16, 2016 Kingdom of Avacal, College of Herald's Decision Letter which stated:
1. Myrgan Wood, Barony of - New Badge, (Fieldless) An elm tree eradicated proper leaved gules.
Conflict with Walraven van Nijmegen "(Fieldless) A créquier gules. Unable to obtain Permission to Conflict (PtC) letter from Walraven.
Note: this was pended from the April 17 2016 letter in order to give the submitter time to obtain a PtC.
Supporting documentation that there is a CD between a creuier and an elm tree:
January 1996 LOAR from the Kingdom of the West stated: Brian of the West. Holding name and device (see RETURNS for name). Or, a créuier gules.
The créuier is sufficiently different from any other kind of tree to be considered a different charge, and its stylization is more than consistent enough for it to be unlikely to be mistaken for any other kind of tree. (Not to mention the fact that we regularly give a CD between radically different types of trees; for example, fir trees and oak trees.) All things considered, I have no problem granting at least a CD for a créuier versus any other tree.
Submitted as Walraven Van Nijmege.
This was stated again on the May 2003 LOAR from the Kingdom of Atlantia: Karl von Lindenheim. Device. Argent, a linden tree eradicated proper within a bordure purpure.
Conflict with O'Connor Don (important non-SCA arms), Argent, a tree eradicated vert. There is one CD for adding the bordure. The SCA has consistently not given difference for the tincture change between a tree vert and a tree proper (vert with a brown trunk). There is no type difference between a linden tree and a default round-shaped tree, as a linden tree has roughly the same shape as an oak tree, which is the model for the default heraldic tree.
One commenter asked if the charge in this device should have been blazoned as a crequier. The charge drawn in this submission is a linden tree, not a crequier. The SCA considers trees and crequiers to be distinct charges, and worth difference from each other:
The créquier is sufficiently different from any other kind of tree to be considered a different charge, and its stylization is more than consistent enough for it to be unlikely to be mistaken for any other kind of tree. (Not to mention the fact that we regularly give a CD between radically different types of trees; for example, fir trees and oak trees.) All things considered, I have no problem granting at least a CD for a créquier versus any other tree. (LoAR January 1996).
In this submission, the linden tree is drawn so that the leaves are only at the ends of each twig (one leaf per twig end, multiple twigs per tree branch). This is not an uncommon way of drawing an early period heraldic tree. The charge's proportions clearly show that it is a tree, not a crequier. The branches and leaves are at the top of the charge, the thick trunk is all that shows in the center of the charge, and the substantial root structure is at the bottom of the charge.
A crequier is also drawn with linden leaves, but the resemblance to a tree generally ends there. The classic crequier is as depicted on plate XXIX of Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry British and Foreign, in the heraldic atlas at http://www.heraldica.org/topics/glossary/pics/380.jpg, and as found in the 14th C Armorials Bellenville and Gelre. It has a distinct, candelabra-like form: it has a thin center stem and a small number of horizontal or slightly rising branches, distributed evenly throughout the charge. Each branch proceeds, without any further branching into twigs, to end in one single, very large, linden leaf.
Note that there do exist some more tree-like depictions of a crequier, as shown on p. 344 of Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry British and Foreign, but even those depictions have the branches issuing throughout the majority of the height of the charge. It is not clear whether the charge on p. 344 of Woodward, which has multiple twigs per branch, would be blazoned by the SCA as a crequier, or as a tree, due to the SCA's need to preserve the distinction between different charge types.
From the Mistholme pages of a crequier: http://mistholme.com/?s=crequier
From commentary, we have pulled the following precedents:
1) In addition to Brian of the West, Mevanwy verch Gwion (Jan 2005, An Tir-A) "Per pale azure and argent, a tree blasted and eradicated, in chief three mullets of eight points counterchanged. This device conflicts with Richenda de Jardin, Per pale azure and argent, a crequier counterchanged. Fortunately, Richenda has provided a letter of permission to conflict. This letter is necessary because, while there is a CD for adding the secondary mullets, there is no significant difference between a crequier and a tree blasted and eradicated. As Boar notes, there exists a precedent that a generic tree eradicated is not significantly different from a tree blasted and eradicated, since "there are period depictions of trees with only a few leaves" [Gabriela Silvana, 07/2000]. There is also a precedent giving a CD between a crequier and a default tree, but not a substantial difference "because early heraldic depictions of trees were sometimes drawn much like a crequier, with one large leaf at the end of each branch" [Lilias de Cheryngton, 12/2001]. However, the crequier is simply a stylization of a wild cherry tree (see Woodward, p. 318, along with Plate XXIX fig. 4 and p. 344 fig. 72 for a discussion). While it is a particular stylization, it falls within the expected range of depiction for trees in general. There is no reason to treat it differently from other trees, so it is not significantly different from a generic tree.
Crequiers are currently listed in the Ordinary under Plant-Other. Morsulus has been instructed to alter this to list them with other trees."
This clearly indicates that crequier conflict with standard tree.
2) From October LoAR 2009 via An Tir:
"Adeliza a Donyng. Device. Or, an oak tree couped vert within a double tressure purpure.
This device is returned for conflict with the device of Orlando dei Medici, Or, a crequier vert. There is a single CD for the addition of the double tressure. We do not grant a CD between a crequier and the default oak tree, because oak trees appear in canting armory, emblazoned in a stylized form like the crequier, in multiple period sources."
Oak trees are considered rounded trees and do conflict with a crequier.
3) For leaves vs truck and branches, "There is a CD for adding the chief but no difference between a tree vert and a tree proper. The trunk and branches of a tree proper are less than half the tincture of the charge." [Johan de Foderingeye. Ealdormere - June 2002] and "There is no difference between a tree proper and a tree vert, nor between a tree couped and a tree eradicated. [Áine O'Shaughnessy, 12/2005, R-Atenveldt]"
With the above, we kindly request rulings for:
1) elm trees. Although categorized as a rounded tree in the OandA, we do not have a precedent that actually states that an elm tree specifically conflicts with either standard tree or crequier.
2) the emblazon as drawn is more 1/2 gules and 1/2 proper. Since we register the emblazon (assuming it could be blazoned), commenters are questioning the previous precedents about tree proper vs tree gules compared the proposed emblazon.
If the above do not provide a DC, then we have the following conflicts:
Walraven van Nijmegen (Jun 1998 via the West):
(Fieldless) A créquier gules.
Anne the Quiet (Aug 1990 via West) Per bend sinister embattled argent and gules, a tree eradicated gules.