the field, the one word signifying its colour being employed if it be a
simple field ; or, if it be composite, such terms as are necessary. Thus,
a coat divided " per pale " or " per chevron " is so described, and whilst
the Scottish field of this character is officially termed " Parted " [per
pale, or per chevron], the English equivalent is " Party," though this
99
ioo A COMPLETE GUIDE TO HERALDRY
word in English usage is more often omitted than not in the blazon
which commences " per pale/' or " per chevron," as the case may be.
The description of the different colours and different divisions of the
field have all been detailed in earlier chapters, but it may be added
that in a " party " coloured field, that colour or tincture is mentioned
first which occupies the more important part of the escutcheon. Thus,
in a field " per bend," " per chevron," or " per fess," the upper portion
of the field is first referred to ; in a coat " per pale," the dexter side is
the more important ; and in a coat " quarterly," the tinctures of the
ist and 4th quarters are given precedence of the tinctures of the 2nd
and 3rd. The only division upon which there has seemed any un-
certainty is the curious one "gyronny," but the correct method to be
employed in this case can very easily be recognised by taking the first
quarter of the field, and therein considering the field as if it were
simply " per bend."
After the field has been described, anything of which the field
is sem must next be alluded to, e.g. gules, seme-de-lis or, &c.
The second thing to be mentioned in the blazon is the principal
charge. We will consider first those cases in which it is an ordinary.
Thus, one would speak of ll Or, a chevron gules," or, if there be other
charges as well as the ordinary, " Azure, a bend between two horses'
heads or," or " Gules, a chevron between three roses argent."
The colour of the ordinary is not mentioned until after the charge,
if it be the same as the latter, but if it be otherwise it must of course
be specified, as in the coat : " Or, a fess gules between three crescents
sable." If the ordinary is charged, the charges thereupon, being less
important than the charges in the field, are mentioned subsequently,
as in the coat : " Gules, on a bend argent between two fountains proper,
a rose gules between two mullets sable."
The position of the charges need not be specified when they would
naturally fall into a certain position with regard to the ordinaries. Thus,
a chevron between three figures of necessity has two in chief and one
in base. A bend between two figures of necessity has one above ana
one below. A fess has two above and one below. A cross between
four has one in each angle. In none of these cases is it necessary to
state the position. If, however, those positions or numbers do not
come within the category mentioned, care must be taken to specify what
the coat exactly is.
If a bend is accompanied only by one charge, the position of this
charge must be stated. For example : ".Gules, a bend or, in chief a
crescent argent." A chevron with four figures would be described :
" Argent, a chevron between three escallops in chief and one in base
sable," though it would be equally correct to say : " Argent, a chevron
THE RULES OF BLAZON 101
between four escallops, three in chief and one in base sable." In the
same way we should get : "Vert, on a cross or, and in the ist quarter
a bezant, an estoile sable ; " though, to avoid confusion, this coat would
more probably be blazoned : " Vert, a cross or, charged with an estoile
sable, and in the first quarter a bezant." This example will indicate the
latitude which is permissible if, for the sake of avoiding confusion and
making a blazon more readily understandable, some deviation from the
strict formulas would appear to be desirable.
If there be no ordinary on a shield, the charge which occupies the
chief position is mentioned first. For example : " Or, a lion rampant
sable between three boars' heads erased gules, two in chief and one in
base." Many people, however, would omit any reference to the
position of the boars' heads, taking it for granted that, as there were
only three, they would be 2 and i, which is the normal position of
three charges in any coat of arms. If, however, the coat of arms had
the three boars' heads all above the lion, it would then be necessary
to blazon it : " Or, a lion rampant sable, in chief three boars' heads
erased gules."
When a field is seme of anything, this is taken to be a part of the
field, and not a representation of a number of charges. Consequently
the arms of Long are blazoned : " Sable, seme of cross crosslets, a
lion rampant argent." As a matter of fact the sem of cross crosslets
is always termed crustily, as has been already explained.
When charges are placed around the shield in the position they
would occupy if placed upon a bordure, these charges are said to be
" in orle," as in the arms of Hutchinson : " Quarterly, azure and gules,
a lion rampant erminois, within four cross crosslets argent, and as
many bezants alternately in orle ; " though it is equally permissible
~to term charges in such a position "an orle of [e.g. cross crosslets
argent and bezants alternately]," or so many charges " in orle " (see
Fig. 60).
If an ordinary be engrailed, or invected, this fact is at once stated,
>the term occurring before the colour of the ordinary. Thus : " Argent,
on a chevron nebuly between three crescents gules, as many roses of
the field." When a charge upon an ordinary is the same colour as the
field, the name of the colour is not repeated, but those charges are said
to be of the field."
It is the constant endeavour, under the recognised system, to
avoid the use of the name of the same colour a second time in the
blazon. Thus : " Quarterly, gules and or, a cross counterchanged
between in the first quarter a sword erect proper, pommel and hilt of
the second ; in the second quarter a rose of the first, barbed and
seeded of the third ; in the third quarter a fleur-de-lis azure ; and
attention is paid to these figures. Thus we
should get : " Argent, a chevron between three
102 A COMPLETE GUIDE TO HERALDRY
in the fourth quarter a mullet gold" the use of the term "gold"
being alone permissible in such a case.
Any animal which needs to be described, also needs its position to
be specified. It may be rampant, segreant, passant, statant, or trippant,
_ i as the case may be. It may also sometimes be
necessary to specify its position upon the shield,
but the terms peculiarly appropriated to specific
animals will be given in the chapters in which
these animals are dealt with.
With the exception of the chief, the quarter,
the canton, the flaunch, and the bordure, an ordi-
nary or sub-ordinary is always of greater import-
ance, and therefore should be mentioned before
FIG. 60. Arms of Aymer anv other charge, but in the cases alluded to the
de Valence, Earl of remainder of the shield is first blazoned, before
Pembroke : ' ' Baruly ar-
gent and azure, an orle of
martlets gules." (From
mullets gules, on a chief of the last three cres-
cents of the second ; " or " Sable, a lion rampant between three fleurs-
de-lis or, on a canton argent a mascle of the field ; '' or " Gules, two
chevronels between three mullets pierced or, within a bordure engrailed
argent charged with eight roses of the field." The arms in Fig. 61
are an interesting example of this point. They
are those of John de Bretagne, Earl of Richmond
(d. 1334), and would properly be blazoned:
" Chequy or and azure, a bordure gules, charged
with lions passant guardant or (' a bordure of
England '), over all a canton (sometimes a quarter)
ermine."
If two ordinaries or sub-ordinaries appear in
the same field, certain discretion needs to be
exercised, but the arms of Fitzwalter, for example,
are as follows : " Or, a fess between two chevrons
gules."
When charges are placed in a series following the direction of any
ordinary they are said to be " in bend," " in chevron," or " in pale," as
the case may be, and not only must their position on the shield as
regards each other be specified, but their individual direction must also
be noted.
A coat of arms in which three spears were placed side by side, but
each erect, would be blazoned : " Gules, three tilting-spears palewise in
fess ; " but if the spears were placed horizontally, one above the other,
they would be blazoned : " Three tilting-spears fesswise in pale,"
FlG. 61. The arms of
John de Bretagne,. Earl
of Richmond.
THE RULES OF BLAZON 103
because in the latter case each spear is placed fesswise, but the three
occupy in relation to each other the position of a pale. Three tilting-
spears fessvvise which were not in pale would be depicted 2 and i.
When one charge surmounts another, the undermost one is
mentioned first, as in the arms of Beaumont (see Fig. 62). Here the
lion rampant is the principal charge, and the bend which debruises it
is consequently mentioned afterwards.
In the cases of a cross and of a saltire, the charges when all are
alike would simply be described as between four objects, though
the term " cantonned by " four objects is sometimes met with. If the
objects are not the same, they must be specified
as being in the ist, 2nd, or 3rd quarters, if the
ordinary be a cross. If it be a saltire, it will be
found that in Scotland the charges are mentioned
as being in chief and base, and in the " flanks."
In England they would be described as -being
in pale and in fess if the alternative charges are
the same ; if not, they would be described as in
chief, on the dexter side, on the sinister side, and
in base FIG. 62. Arms of John de
Beaumont, Lord Beau-
When a specified number of charges is mont (d. 1369) : Azure,
immediately followed by the same number of ^m^rft^or, "ver* all
charges elsewhere disposed, the number is not bend gobony argent and
repeated, the words as many " being substituted s ules ' (From his seaL)
instead. Thus : ll Argent, on a chevron between three roses gules, as
many crescents of the field." When any charge, ordinary, or mark
of cadency surmounts a single object, that object is termed " de-
bruised " by that ordinary. If it surmounts everything, as, for instance,
11 a bendlet sinister," this would be termed " over all." When a coat
of arms is " party " coloured in its field and the charges are alternately
of the same colours transposed, the term counterchanged is used. For
example, " Party per pale argent and sable, three chevronels between
as many mullets pierced all counterchanged." In that case the coat
is divided down the middle, the dexter field being argent, and the
sinister sable ; the charges on the sable being argent, whilst the
charges on the argent are sable. A mark of cadency is mentioned
last, and is termed " for difference " ; a mark of bastardy, or a mark
denoting lack of blood descent, is termed " for distinction."
Certain practical hints, which, however, can hardly be termed
rules, were suggested by the late Mr. J. Gough Nicholls in 1863, when
writing in the Herald and Genealogist, and subsequent practice has since
conformed therewith, though -it may be pointed out with advantage
that these suggestions are practically, and to all intents and purposes,
8
B
FIG. 63. A to B, the chief;
C to D, the base ; A to C,
dexter side ; B to D, sinis-
ter side. A, dexter chief;
B, sinister chief ; C, dexter
base; D, sinister base. I,
2, 3, chief; 7, 8, 9, base ;
2, 5, 8, pale; 4, 5, 6, fess;
5 1 fess point.
io 4 A COMPLETE GUIDE TO HERALDRY
the same rules which have been observed officially over a long period.
Amongst these suggestions he advises that the blazoning of every coat
or quarter should begin with a capital letter, and that, save on the occur-
rence of proper names, no other capitals should be employed. He
also suggests that punctuation marks should be avoided as much as
possible, his own practice being to limit the use of the comma to its
occurrence after each tincture. He suggests
also that figures should be omitted in all cases
except in the numbering of quarterings.
When one or more quarterings occur, each
is treated separately on its own merits and
blazoned entirely without reference to any other
quartering.
In blazoning a coat in which some quarter-
ings (grand quarterings) are composed of several
coats placed sub-quarterly, sufficient distinction
is afforded for English purposes of writing or
printing if Roman numerals are employed to
indicate the grand quarters, and Arabic figures
the sub-quarters. But in speaking such a method would need to be
somewhat modified in accordance with the Scottish practice, which
describes grand quarterings as such, and so alludes to them.
The extensive use of bordures, charged and uncharged, in Scotland,
which figure sometimes round the sub-quarters, sometimes round the
grand quarters, and sometimes round the entire escutcheon,
causes so much confusion that for the purposes of blazon-
ing it is essential that the difference between quarters and
grand quarters should be clearly defined.
In order to simplify the blazoning of a shield, and so
express the position of the charges, the field has been
divided into points, of which those placed near the top,
and to the dexter, are always considered the more important. In
heraldry, dexter and sinister are determined, not from the point of
view of the onlooker, but from that of the bearer of the shield. The
diagram (Fig. 63) will serve to explain the plan of a shield's surface.
If a second shield be placed upon the fess point, this is called an
inescutcheon (in German, the " heart-shield "). The enriching of the
shield with an inescutcheon came into lively use in Germany in the
course of the latter half of the fifteenth century. Later on, further
points of honour were added, as the honour point (a, Fig. 64), and the
nombril point (b, Fig. 64). These extra shields laid upon the others
should correspond as much as possible in shape to the chief shield. If
between the inescutcheon and the chief shield still another be inserted,
FIG. 64.
THE RULES OF BLAZON 105
it is called the " middle shield/' from its position, but except in Anglicised
versions of Continental arms, these distinctions are quite foreign to
British armory.
In conclusion, it may be stated that although the foregoing are the
rules which are usually observed, and that every effort should be made
to avoid unnecessary tautology, and to make the blazon as brief as
possible, it is by no manner of means considered officially, or unoffici-
ally, that any one of these rules is so unchangeable that in actual
practice it cannot be modified if it should seem advisable so to do.
For the essential necessity of accuracy is of far greater importance
than any desire to be brief, or to avoid tautology. This should be
borne in mind, and also the fact that in official practice no such hide-
bound character is given to these rules, as one is led to believe is the
case when perusing some of the ordinary text-books of armory. They
certainly are not laws, they are hardly " rules," perhaps being better
described as accepted methods of blazoning.
CHAPTER IX
THE SO-CALLED ORDINARIES AND SUB-ORDINARIES
A MS, and the charges upon arms, have been divided into many
fantastical divisions. There is a type of the precise mind
much evident in the scientific writing of the last and the pre-
ceding centuries which is for ever unhappy unless it can be dividing
the object of its consideration into classes and divisions, into sub-
classes and sub-divisions. Heraldry has suffered in this way ; for,
oblivious of the fact that the rules enunciated are impossible as rigid
guides for general observance, and that they never have been complied
with, and that they never will be, a " tabular " system has been evolved
for heraldry as for most other sciences. The " precise " mind has applied
a system obviously derived from natural history classification to the
principles of armory. It has selected a certain number of charges,
and has been pleased to term them ordinaries. It has selected others
which it has been pleased to term sub-ordinaries. The selection has
been purely arbitrary, at the pleasure of the writer, and few writers have
agreed in their classifications. One of the foremost rules which
former heraldic writers have laid down is that an ordinary must con-
tain the third part of the field. Now it is doubtful whether an ordi-
nary has ever been drawn containing the third part of the field by
rigid measurement, except in the solitary instance of the pale, when it
is drawn "per fess counterchanged," for the obvious purpose of
dividing the shield into six equal portions, a practice which has been
lately pursued very extensively owing to the ease with which, by its
adoption, a new coat of arms can be designed bearing a distinct re-
semblance to one formerly in use without infringing the rights of the
latter. Certainly, if the ordinary is the solitary charge upon the shield,
it will be drawn about that specified proportion. But when an attempt
is made to draw 7 the Walpole coat (which cannot be said to be a modern
one) so that it shall exhibit three ordinaries, to wit, one fess and two
chevrons (which being interpreted as three-thirds of the shield, would
fill it entirely), and yet leave a goodly proportion of the field still visible,
the absurdity is apparent. And a very large proportion of the classi-
fication and rules which occupy such a large proportion of the space
in the majority of heraldic text-books are equally unnecessary, con-
106
THE SO-CALLED ORDINARIES 107
fusing, and incorrect, and what is very much more important, such
rules have never been recognised by the powers that have had the
control of armory from the beginning of that control down to the
present day. I shall not be surprised to find that many of my critics,
bearing in mind how strenuously I have pleaded elsewhere for a right
and proper observance of the laws of armory, may think that the fore-
going has largely the nature of a recantation. It is nothing of the
kind, and I advocate as strenuously as I have ever done, the com-
pliance with and the observance of every rule which can be shown to
exist. But this is no argument whatever for the idle invention of
rules which never have existed ; or for the recognition of rules which
have no other origin than the imagination of heraldic writers. Nor is
it an argument for the deduction of unnecessary regulations from
cases which can be shown to have been exceptions. Too little re-
cognition is paid to the fact that in armory there are almost as many
rules of exception as original rules. There are vastly more plain ex-
ceptions to the rules which should govern them.
On the subject of ordinaries, I cannot see wherein lies the difference
between a bend and a lion rampant, save their difference in form, yet
the one is said to be an ordinary, the other is merely a charge. Each
has its special rules to be observed, and whilst a bend can be engrailed
or invected, a lion can be guardant or regardant ; and whilst the one
can be placed between two objects, which objects will occupy a
specified position, so can the other. Each can be charged, and each
furnishes an excellent example of the futility of some of the ancient
rules which have been coined concerning them. The ancient rules
allow of but one lion and one bend upon a shield, requiring that two
bends shall become bendlets, and two lions lioncels, whereas the in-
stance we have already quoted the coat of Walpole has never been
drawn in such form that either of the chevrons could have been con-
sidered chevronels, and it is rather late in the day to degrade the lions
of England into unblooded whelps. To my mind the ordinaries and
sub-ordinaries are no more than first charges, and though the bend,
the fess, the pale, the pile, the chevron, the cross, and the saltire will
always be found described as honourable ordinaries, whilst the chief
seems also to be pretty universally considered as one of the honour-
able ordinaries, such hopeless confusion remains as to the others
(scarcely any two writers giving similar classifications), that the utter
absurdity of the necessity for any classification at all is amply demon-
strated. Classification is only necessary or desirable when a certain
set of rules can be applied identically to all the set of figures in that
particular class. Even this will not hold with the ordinaries which
have been quoted.
io8 A COMPLETE GUIDE TO HERALDRY
A pale embattled is embattled upon both its edges ; a fess em-
battled is embattled only upon the upper edge ; a chief is embattled
necessarily only upon the lower ; and the grave difficulty of distinguish-
ing "per pale engrailed" from "per pale invected " shows that no
rigid rules can be laid down. When we come to sub-ordinaries, the
confusion is still more apparent, for as far as I can see the only
reason for the classification is the tabulating of rules concerning the
lines of partition. The bordure and the orle can be, and often are,
engrailed or embattled ; the fret, the lozenge, the fusil, the mascle, the
rustre, the flanche, the roundel, the billet, the label, the pairle, it would
be practically impossible to meddle with ; and all these figures have
at some time or another, and by some writer or other, been included
amongst either the ordinaries or the sub-ordinaries. In fact there is
no one quality which these charges possess in common which is not
equally possessed by scores of other well-known charges, and there is
no particular reason why a certain set should be selected and dignified
by the name of ordinaries ; nor are there any rules relating to ordi-
naries which require the selection of a certain number of figures, or of
any figures to be controlled by those rules, with one exception. The
exception is to be found not in the rules governing the ordinaries, but
in the rules of blazon. After the field has been specified, the princi-
pal charge must be mentioned first, and no charge can take precedence
of a bend, fess, pale, pile, chevron, cross, or saltire, except one of them-
selves. If there be any reason for a subdivision those charges must
stand by themselves, and might be termed the honourable ordinaries,
but I can see no reason for treating the chief, the quarter, the canton,
gyron, flanche, label, orle, tressure, fret, inescutcheon, chaplet, bordure,
lozenge, fusil, mascle, rustre, roundel, billet, label, shakefork, and
pairle, as other than ordinary charges. They certainly are purely
heraldic, and each has its own special rules, but so in heraldry have
the lion, griffin, and deer. Here is the complete list of the so-called
ordinaries and sub-ordinaries : The bend ; fess ; bar ; chief ; pale ;
chevron ; cross ; saltire ; pile ; pairle, shakefork or pall ; quarter ;
canton ; gyron ; bordure ; orle ; tressure ; flanche ; label, fret ; in-
escutcheon ; chaplet ; lozenge ; fusil ; mascle ; rustre ; roundel ;
billet, together with the diminutives of such of these as are in use.
With reference to the origin of these ordinaries, by the use of which
term is meant for the moment the rectilinear figures peculiar to armory,
it may be worth the passing mention that the said origin is a matter of
some mystery. Guillim and the old writers almost universally take
them to be derived from the actual military scarf or a representation of
it placed across the shield in various forms. Other writers, taking the
surcoat and its decoration as the real origin of coats of arms, derive
THE SO-CALLED ORDINARIES 109
the ordinaries from the belt, scarf, and other articles of raiment.
Planche, on the other hand, scouted such a derivation, putting forward
upon very good and plausible grounds the simple argument that the
origin of the ordinaries is to be found in the cross-pieces of wood
placed across a shield for strengthening purposes. He instances cases
in which shields, apparently charged with ordinaries but really
strengthened with cross-pieces, can be taken back to a period long
anterior to the existence of regularised armory. But then, on the
other hand, shields can be found decorated with animals at an equally
early or even an earlier period, and I am inclined myself to push
Planche's own argument even farther than he himself took it, and
assert unequivocally that the ordinaries had in themselves no particular
symbolism and no definable origin whatever beyond that easy method
of making some pattern upon a shield which was to be gained by