The International Association of Amateur Heralds

From Lord Lyon's twitter page : the arms granted to Sir Robert Menzies KT, prime minister of Australia, in 1965 :



The banner held by the dexter supporter is shown from the back, but the arms on it are depicted as they would appear from the front, with the result that the boars' head face away from the flagstaff.

The banner held by the dexter supporter is shown from the back, but the arms on it are depicted as they would appear from the front, with the result that the boars' head face away from the flagstaff.

For a real banner to look like that it would need to be of double thickness, otherwise the front would show through in reverse on the back. This picture of Garter banners seems to suggest that both methods have been used. There are lions rampant and passant and lions heads facing sinister, suggesting that the back is the front showing through. But the globe is shown correctly, suggesting that the front is replicated on the back.



These Thistle banners are all single thickness. The quality of the Garter banners is apparently markedly superior to those of the Order of the Thistle.



It would be interesting to know what Sir R Menzies' actual Thistle banner looked like.

Chris Green wrote:These Thistle banners are all single thickness. The quality of the Garter banners is apparently markedly superior to those of the Order of the Thistle.

It would be interesting to know what Sir R Menzies' actual Thistle banner looked like.

There's a photo of it here : https://www.facebook.com/simon.frame/po ... 4140425652 . It appears to be single thickness. That would explain why the banner held by the supporter is depicted the way it is.

To judge from the photos, another difference between Garter and Thistle banners is that the former have fringes and the latter do not.

I am no expert in cloth (no expert in many things!), but to me the Garter banners look like silk, and embroidered, whereas the Thistle banners look printed, though whether silk or not I cannot say.

PS: We now know that the picture of Garter banners is in fact of banners of the Order of the Bath in Westminster Abbey.

Arthur Radburn wrote:It appears to be single thickness. That would explain why the banner held by the supporter is depicted the way it is.

Oops! For the banner to be the way it is depicted in Sir Roberts' arms, it would have had to be double-sided. If it were single-sided, with the design showing through from front to back, the design would be reversed. So -- a double-sided banner in his arms, and a single-sided one in the chapel.

For the banner to be the way it is depicted in Sir Roberts' arms, it would have had to be double-sided. If it were single-sided, with the design showing through from front to back, the design would be reversed. So -- a double-sided banner in his arms, and a single-sided one in the chapel.

Absolutely right. The artist who depicted Sir R Menzies' arms was in error. That such an error should have been perpetrated by Lord Lyon's Office is eye-brow raising. Someone may have paid good money for that.

Incidentally, nearly all double thickness banners show the arms reversed on the back.

Why does the kangaroo need a banner anyway? I think the picture could be more balanced with out it. And does anyone know the reason for the plumes? A bit Karnevalish?

Ditto Chris's 9/8 posting -- the banner is backwards! My guess is that the artist (painter) didn't know better, and either no one caught it or it was ignored as too bothersome to repaint. But as noted, just my guess...

Sir Robert Menzies was also made a Knight of the Order of Australia in 1976, so he was also entitled the postnominal AK. The grade of Knight/Dame of the Order of Australia was dormant 3 March 1986 to 25 March 2014. Following the ousting of Primeminister Tony Abbott by Malcolm Turnbull it appears the the Knight/Dame Grade is one more to become dormant.

Are Knights of the Order of Australia entitled to supporters like KGs KTs and Grand Crosses?