I believe it's supposed to go around the whole shield, because it's for differencing.Isaac M Schneider wrote:Is the bordure engrailed supposed to be encircling the entirety of the shield? I though it would cut off at the chief. Or is this because of it's standing as a differentiation?
Arms of High Commissioners for Palestine & Trans-Jordan
- Arthur Radburn
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: 11 Jul 2012, 09:56
Re: Arms of High Commissioners for Palestine & Trans-Jordan
Regards
Arthur Radburn
Arthur Radburn
- Jeremy Fox
- Posts: 56
- Joined: 19 Dec 2017, 15:14
- Contact:
Re: Arms of High Commissioners for Palestine & Trans-Jordan
All round, because in this case it is clearly blazoned as such - "all within a bordure..."
I approach a blazon as if it were the instructions to a painter. In general, unless otherwise stated, everything should be painted on the shield in the order in which it is blazoned. So, if the bordure is blazoned last it would go over the top of everything, regardless of its original purpose if any. If the bordure were not meant to overlay the chief then the chief would be blazoned last. The phrase "all within" is not strictly necessary, although it is perhaps better to be explicit, rather than rely on an assumption. In this case, "all within" does protect the lion and mullets from being painted over.
I approach a blazon as if it were the instructions to a painter. In general, unless otherwise stated, everything should be painted on the shield in the order in which it is blazoned. So, if the bordure is blazoned last it would go over the top of everything, regardless of its original purpose if any. If the bordure were not meant to overlay the chief then the chief would be blazoned last. The phrase "all within" is not strictly necessary, although it is perhaps better to be explicit, rather than rely on an assumption. In this case, "all within" does protect the lion and mullets from being painted over.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests