[ANSTHRLD] Blazon

[tmcd at panix.com]

"Haines, Paul" <PHA at allseas.com> wrote:
> To my thinking, charges that are in the direction of an ordinary (in
> fess, in pale, in bend, in chevron) would be smaller in scale, such
> that they could effectively fit on an ordinary in which direction
> they are being displayed, than their mutiple charges on a field.

No.  Consider the arms of England,
    Gules, IN PALE three lions passant guardant Or.
depicted inter alia at the first and fourth quarters of
smaller:
    <http://www.blountmansion.org/object/july/elizabeth_queen.GIF>
honkin' huge:
    <http://www.british-towns.net/britain/history/monarchs/windsor/royal_current.gif>

Although the lions are "in pale", they extend to almost touch the
edges of the quarters they're on, way way wider than a pale would be.
"In xxx" just refers to their relative position; their sizes are as
normal for their placement.

Daniel "beyond the pale" de Lincolia
--
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com; tmcd at us.ibm.com is my work address