[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Chevron) |Next Page (Choban)]
This is the correct placement of an orle with a chief: the orle runs parallel to the edge of the chief, and is not surmounted by it. See the arms of the Worshipful Company of Musicians, used by them c.1590. (Bromley & Child, Armorial Bearings of the Guilds of London, p.180). (Guillaume de la Rapière, August, 1992, pg. 4)
[Per pale, a harp and a cross of four lozenges, a chief embattled] The chief was a mark of primary cadency in period (Gayre's Heraldic Cadency, p.153), and it became part of the Stodart system of cadency used today in Scotland. Thus, the addition of a chief to quartered armory would not remove the appearance of marshalling. However, the chief's use as a brisure was never as widespread as the bordure's; where the bordure would be used to cadence all forms of marshalling, the chief would only be used to cadence quartering. In the case of impalement --- which implies a marital coat, not an inherited one --- the addition of the chief is sufficient to remove the appearance of marshalling. (Æthelstan von Ransbergen, September, 1992, pg. 1)
[Argent maily sable, on a chief a scroll charged with quill pens] This was blazoned on the LOI as [Per fess, in chief on an scroll quill pens]. However, the full emblazon didn't quite show a Per fess division, but rather a charged chief. The quill pens are therefore quaternary charges, which are disallowed per Rule VIII.1.c.ii.
The distinction between, say, Argent, a chief gules and Per fess gules and argent was not often observed in early heraldry; indeed, the first examples of Per-fess emblazons were blazoned a chief. (See Wagner's Historic Heraldry of Britain, plate II, for such an example.) However, the distinction was observed by the mid-15th Century, and is observed in the SCA. This may make it easier for us to avoid conflict, but it also requires us to insist on correct emblazons. If this is resubmitted with an undoubted Per fess field, there should be no stylistic problems. (August Kroll, September, 1992, pg. 37)
When a bordure and chief are used together, the chief almost invariably overlies the bordure (Parker 73). The rare exceptions generally don't have tertiaries on the chief; they would be crowded by the bordure, rendering them harder to identify. The handful of SCA registrations with bordures surmounting charged chiefs have subsequently been disallowed as precedent (LoAR of Oct 91, p.17); far more often, such designs have been returned as non-period practice. [Device also returned for conflict] (Justin of Kent, December, 1992, pg. 20)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Chevron) |Top of Page |Next Page (Choban)]
[Three piles and in base a <charge>] There was some question as to whether this could be considered a chief indented. Roger Pye, in a series of articles ("Evolution of the Arms of Douglas of Lochleven", Coat of Arms, N.S. vol.III No.107, Autumn 78; "Development of the Pile in Certain Graham Arms", Coat of Arms, N.S. vol.III No.110, Summer 79), has shown that the indented chief in some Scots arms came to be drawn as three piles palewise, as in this submission. However, the earliest example he cites of such a variation dates from 1672, which puts it beyond our use. If this were resubmitted with a true chief indented, it would probably be acceptable; but I can't see any way to register this with piles, so long as there's a charge in base. (Içiar Albarez de Montesinos, January, 1993, pg. 28)
[A chief Or vs. On a chief double enarched Or, three mullets] There is clearly a CD for the addition of the mullets, but is the double arching of the chief worth a second CD? It has been previously ruled that there is not a CD between a chief singly arched and a plain chief: "the arching here is virtually identical to that shown on period renditions of a plain chief and adds almost no visual difference" (AMoE, LoAR 19 March 1988, p. 12)
Chiefs double arched have been acceptable in the S.C.A. for over twelve years. According to J.P. Brooke- Little, the first use of this line of partition seems to have been in 1806 in a grant to William Proctor Smith: Gules, on a chief double arched Or, three trefoils proper. (Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry, 1969 revision, footnote, p. 75) Therefore, there is no period evidence upon which to base a decision. However, from this example, we can infer that nineteenth century heralds viewed double arching to be different from a straight line of partition; at least a blazonable difference.
From a visual perspective, single arching has been used to give representation to the curvature of a shield, especially with bends. Double arching does not appear to be an artistic method of denoting curvature. It involves a distinct action in the drawing of the line of partition in the same way as bevilling. This makes it one step removed from a plain line of partition. Therefore, we feel a clear difference can be counted between a chief plain and a chief double arched. (Richard Stanley Greybeard, September, 1993, pg. 13)
[A bordure argent, overall on a chief <charges>] "The chief does not, as a rule, surmount other chargers, and consequently, such have often to be debased...when associated with a bordure (unless there is direct statement to the contrary) the bordure would be turned and continued beneath the base line of the chief." (Parker 112) The term overall in the blazon above is the "direct statement to the contrary" needed here. (Basilla la Merciere, October, 1993, pg. 11)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Chevron) |Top of Page |Next Page (Choban)]