[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Names - Two Element Requirement) |Next Page (Pile)]
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 Rapiere, August, 1992, pg. 4)
[Gyronny azure and argent, an orle vs. Gyronny azure and argent] The orle, as a peripheral ordinary, is by definition not a primary charge; Rule X.1 cannot be invoked here. (Galen MacDonald, August, 1992, pg. 29)
There was a strong feeling in the College that the double tressure dancetty braced was non-period style, and at first I was inclined to agree. On reflection, however, I found I couldn't put a name to exactly why I felt so. Visually, this is not so different from an orle masculy, or saltorels couped and conjoined in orle, either of which would have raised far less objection. It's balanced, blazonable, and reproducible. The College has in the past registered bars dancetty braced (Katherine d'Argentigny, July 86), so we even have a precedent for this.
I suspect most of the College's objection arose from our long-standing ban on Celtic knotwork, which sometimes extends to anything even resembling Celtic knotwork. As noted in the commentary, though, this isn't Celtic knotwork: the sharp corners and lack of braiding make that clear.
With no substantive reason to return the motif, I've decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. I'm open to further arguments for or against it, and I would definitely count it a "weirdness" --- but not reason for return. (Shire of Otherhill, January, 1993, pg. 4)
The orle is considered a peripheral charge (LoAR of Aug 92, p.29), so its addition does not invoke Rule X.1. (Frithiof Sigvardsson Skägge, May, 1993, pg. 17)
[Per fess purpure and vert, a <charge> within a bordure argent charged with
a tressure per fess purpure and vert, originally blazoned as an orle and a
bordure] The submission caused us a few minutes of heartburn. The equal
width of the outer three stripes, and the fact that the central stripe is
of the field, gave this the appearance of a bordure voided, not of an orle
within a bordure. Bordures voided and fimbriated have been disallowed
since Aug 83. Playing with the widths a bit, to make this a bordure
cotised, would be equally unacceptable. On the other hand, a bordure
charged with a tressure is a perfectly legal design. In the end, we
decided that the latter blazon is the most accurate and reproducible
description of the submitted emblazon --- and since it appears to be legal,
we've accepted it. It also guarantees the device to be clear of [Azure, a
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Names - Two Element Requirement) |Top of Page |Next Page (Pile)]
The orle flory has been disallowed for SCA use: it's too reminiscent of the double tressure flory counter-flory, which is an augmentation from the Scots crown. This precedent has been affirmed as recently as the LoAR of Sept 89. Indeed, given period renditions of the arms of Scotland with an orle flory instead of a double tressure flory counter-flory (e.g. Siebmacher, plate 2), and given a recent statement from the Lyon Office of Scotland declining to register orles flory without the Queen's express command, the precedent seems worth keeping. (Patrick Drake, August, 1993, pg. 19)
[Per fess paly azure and argent, and argent] The upper portion of the device was blazoned on the LOI as four pallets argent on an azure background. Visually, however, this is a striped field partition; and that impression is reinforced by the fact that it occupies only one portion of a Per fess field. There is certainly no heraldic difference between the two blazons; and multiply-divided fields were occasionally drawn with an odd number of traits for aesthetic reasons. (St.John-Hope, Heraldry for Craftsmen and Designers, p.49). (Leidhrun Leidolfsdottir, September, 1992, pg. 10)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Names - Two Element Requirement) |Top of Page |Next Page (Pile)]
[Party of six pieces, three bells] This was blazoned on the LOI as [Per fess, on a pale counterchanged between two bells, a bell]. That would be the normal modern blazon, but not the period blazon. In period, this was considered a field division, not a counterchanged pale ...this [is] a conflict with [Gules, three bells]. [For full discussion, see under FIELD DIVISION -- General] (Laeghaire ua'Laverty, October, 1992, pg. 25)
[Per chevron Or and azure, a pall inverted between three <charges> counterchanged] The previous submission (Per chevron inverted sable and Or, a pall counterchanged Or and gules between in chief a bezant charged with a cross formy fitchy at the foot, and in base two crosses formy fitchy at the foot gules, each within an annulet sable) was returned Sept 83 for over-complexity and non-period style. Laurel suggested at the time that the submitter "Please use a simple pall gules", implying that the counterchanging of the pall over the field division was part of the non-period style.
This resubmission, though greatly simplified, still has a pall (this time inverted) counterchanged over a Per chevron field division. We have in the past registered solidly-tinctured palls inverted over Per chevron divisions (or the same motif inverted); the pall is then understood to overlie the line of the field. The same understanding cannot apply when the pall is counterchanged: the line of the field could legally be under the center of the pall, under one of its edges, or even extending beyond the pall on the other side.
Moreover, the visual effect is that of a pall inverted (the lower limbs narrower than that in chief) and a point pointed azure, all on an Or field. The visual confusion, combined with the problems of reproducibility, combine to make this motif unacceptable. (Allen of Moffat, June, 1993, pp. 20-21)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Names - Two Element Requirement) |Top of Page |Next Page (Pile)]