May arms

[Arthur Radburn]

These cricket-themed arms are reported to be those of UK prime minister Theresa May's husband Philip May, granted to his father in 1997. Under College of Arms rules, Mrs May can bear them, with the addition of a small lozenge of contrasting tincture, in the canton, centre chief or other suitable position, to show that they are her husband's arms and not hers.

[Chris Green]

Cricket-themed indeed, but the balls are too small. They should not be able to pass between the stumps (pallets) without touching.

[Martin Goldstraw]

Cricket-themed indeed, but the balls are too small. They should not be able to pass between the stumps (pallets) without touching.

Since when has heraldry had to depict ajacent items to scale?

[Chris Green]

Since when has heraldry had to depict adjacent items to scale?

Are you saying that there are no giant geese, or that red oak trees are not found as bonsai?

But seriously. Heraldic charges are indeed more often than not depicted out of scale. But messing with the laws of cricket? (PS: My cricketing hero was Ted DEXTER; nothing sinister about Lord Ted!)

[JMcMillan]

The balls are not really smaller than the spaces between the stumps. They are merely depicted from the point of view of the wicket keeper, and thus appear smaller on account of being 30 feet or so away.

Which means that the College of Arms introduced the depiction of perspective into a coat of arms, a much more serious offense than not depicting various charges to scale.

[Chris Green]

The balls are not really smaller than the spaces between the stumps. They are merely depicted from the point of view of the wicket keeper, and thus appear smaller on account of being 30 feet or so away.

Which means that the College of Arms introduced the depiction of perspective into a coat of arms, a much more serious offense than not depicting various charges to scale.

Of course!