Pile

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wikispace only to make the content "searchable" and easier to find. If you find the information you seek here, go to the original sources as linked below to verify the information and use them for your documentation. Revised {$revisiondate}.

---

Illustrations:

Period:

John Guillim Treatise, 1610, a triple pile flory at the top issuant from sinister base

Armorial

Armorial et Traité d'Héraldique, 1475, f169 - per chevron throughout, piles inverted throughout x 2?

Modern:

Pictorial Dictionary, 3rd edition:

• [[1]]

Vector Graphics:

• Viking Answer Lady - http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/Stars/Heraldry_SVG_Images/index.htm

Brickbat's Armorial Stash

• [[2]]:

---

#x--Sources:Sources:

Academy of St. Gabriel "Medieval Heraldry Archive" - [[3]] Archive of St. Gabriel reports - [[4]] Laurel Armory Articles - [[5]] Period Armorials

---

Precedents:

Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - [[6]] Morsulus Heralds Website - [[7]] (to search the LoARs and Precedents) Restatement Wiki - [[8]] (restatements of Precedents) Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.

#x--Precedents:-Definition:Definition:

February 2008 - Drawing Piles:

There have been many calls recently to return piles for not extending almost to the edge of the shield. Often cited is the precedent: > Grimfells, March of the. Change of device. Sable, on a pile within a laurel wreath Or, a spiderweb throughout sable. Unfortunately, as several commentors noted, there is long­standing precedent in the College for banning charges, including laurel wreaths, below piles on the grounds that a properly drawn period pile would not allow space for another charge to rest, in whole or in part, below the pile. [LoAR 02/1990] Rouland Carre, Owen Herald, noted: > The notion that a period pile necessarily goes all the way to the bottom, or at least very nearly all the way, is simply not true. Early period piles did, but you can find 16th century piles that did not. This is a holdover of the old SCA prejudice against Tudor heraldry. (Like it or don't like it: either has nothing to do with whether or not it is period.) I am a little surprised to see the claim in the Laurel letter as late as 1990. > This is a different question, by the way, from that of allowing a charge below the tip of a pile. Owen cites the illustration of a pile in Legh's Accedens of Armorie,// 1576, fo. 68v, drawn 3/4 the length of the shield. It is, however, the shortest of the Tudor piles we've found, and it is in a heraldic tract, not an actual use of arms. Other tracts of the period (de Bara, p. 28; Bossewell, fo. 76v) show piles which, though still not throughout, are more like 6/7 the length of the shield; and among the Tudor armory as actually used, there are ample examples of piles throughout (e.g. the arms of Jane Seymour, //Oxford Guide to Heraldry, plate 19). Given the weight of examples, we encourage piles to extend at least 85% the length of the shield; given the single, theoretical example of Legh, we will permit piles extending as little as 75% the length of the shield, but will consider them a step from period practice. If further examples of such "shortened" piles are found, especially when used in actual arms, we will accept them without treating them as a step from period practice. We will continue to return piles with charges beneath them, pending period evidence of such use. [[9]]

#x--Precedents:-Registerability:Registerability:

(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)

February 2008 - Drawing Piles:

There have been many calls recently to return piles for not extending almost to the edge of the shield. Often cited is the precedent: > Grimfells, March of the. Change of device. Sable, on a pile within a laurel wreath Or, a spiderweb throughout sable. Unfortunately, as several commentors noted, there is long­standing precedent in the College for banning charges, including laurel wreaths, below piles on the grounds that a properly drawn period pile would not allow space for another charge to rest, in whole or in part, below the pile. [LoAR 02/1990] Rouland Carre, Owen Herald, noted: > The notion that a period pile necessarily goes all the way to the bottom, or at least very nearly all the way, is simply not true. Early period piles did, but you can find 16th century piles that did not. This is a holdover of the old SCA prejudice against Tudor heraldry. (Like it or don't like it: either has nothing to do with whether or not it is period.) I am a little surprised to see the claim in the Laurel letter as late as 1990. > This is a different question, by the way, from that of allowing a charge below the tip of a pile. Owen cites the illustration of a pile in Legh's Accedens of Armorie,// 1576, fo. 68v, drawn 3/4 the length of the shield. It is, however, the shortest of the Tudor piles we've found, and it is in a heraldic tract, not an actual use of arms. Other tracts of the period (de Bara, p. 28; Bossewell, fo. 76v) show piles which, though still not throughout, are more like 6/7 the length of the shield; and among the Tudor armory as actually used, there are ample examples of piles throughout (e.g. the arms of Jane Seymour, //Oxford Guide to Heraldry, plate 19). Given the weight of examples, we encourage piles to extend at least 85% the length of the shield; given the single, theoretical example of Legh, we will permit piles extending as little as 75% the length of the shield, but will consider them a step from period practice. If further examples of such "shortened" piles are found, especially when used in actual arms, we will accept them without treating them as a step from period practice. We will continue to return piles with charges beneath them, pending period evidence of such use. [[10]]

Collected Precedents:

Tenure of Elisabeth de Rossignol (May 2005 - July 2008) - [and PILE INVERTED] The 2nd Tenure of François la Flamme (October 2004 - May 2005) - [and PILE INVERTED] The Tenure of Shauna of Carrick Point (May 2004 - August 2004) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of François la Flamme (August 2001 - April 2004) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of Elsbeth Anne Roth (June 1999 - July 2001) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of Jaelle of Armida (June 1996 - June 1999) - [HTML Document] The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda (November 1993 - June 1996) - the 1st part (Nov 1993 - June 1994) and the 2nd part (July 1994 - June 1996) The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme (June 1992 - October 1993) - [precedents] The 1st Tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda (June 1990 - June 1992) - the 1st year (June 1990 - June 1991) and the 2nd year (July 1991 - June 1992) The Tenure of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane (September 1986 - June 1990) - [Precedents] The Tenure of Baldwin of Erebor (August 1984 - August 1986) - [HTML Document] The Tenure of Wilhelm von Schlüssel (August 1979 - August 1984) - [Precedents] The Tenure of Karina of the Far West (December 1975 - June 1979) - [Precedents] The Early Days (June 1971 - June 1975) - [Precedents]

---

The Ordinary :

• Per pile - see [[11]]
• Per pile inverted - see [inverted]
• [- 1 - Uncharged - Plain line]
• [- 1 - Uncharged - Complex line]
• [- 1 - Charged - Plain line]
• [- 1 - Charged - Complex line]
• [- 2 or more]
• [inverted - 1 - Uncharged]
• [inverted - 1 - Charged]
• [inverted - 2 or more]
• Pily - see Pile and Field division - Other
• Pily bendy - see Pile and [division - Per bend] and Field division - Other

---

Created {$creationdate}