Fig. 32. Shield with three lions, from a brass at Stanford Dingley, Berks, 1444.
Fig. 33. Shield of the royal arms done in boiled leather, from the tomb of Edward prince of Wales at Canterbury, 1376.
Fig. 34. Shield of the King of France (c. 1259) in the quire of Westminster abbey church.
Another cause of the bad effect of much modern heraldry is the unnecessary adherence to the rules laid down in some of the textbooks and manuals as to the relative widths of ordinaries and subordinaries. The old heralds certainly did not fetter themselves with such shackles. A cheveron, a bend, a fesse, or a cross was drawn of the best proportion to look well (figs. [35], [36]). If charged it would be wider than when plain. If placed between charges it was drawn narrower, if itself uncharged, and thus took its proper relative position with regard to the size and arrangement or the charges. So, too, with a border; if uncharged or merely gobony (i.e. formed of short lengths of alternate colours) or engrailed, it was drawn very narrow, and even if charged it was not allowed much greater width (figs. [38], [39]). It thus never unduly encroached upon the field or other contents of the shield, and yet remained an artistic addition in itself. The curious bordering known as the tressure, which is almost peculiar to Scotland, and familiar to us through its occurrence in the shield of our Sovereign, is drawn sufficiently narrow in all good examples to leave ample room for the ramping lion it fences in, and its frieze of fleurs-de-lis is formed of a good number of flowers, instead of the eight considered sufficient in the royal arms of to-day. Even a chief, if necessary, was enlarged from the 'less than one-third of the shield' of to-day to the one-half of it, or even more, as may be seen in some of the examples of the arms of the monastery in the abbey church of Westminster, or in those of the town of Southampton.