[Detroitpete]

I recently saw an example of an interesting ordinary. I have no idea what it is called, but it looks like an upsidedown Y. Basically a pallet leading to a chevonelle but not continuing to the base of the shield.

Does anyone know the name of this ordinary?

[Detroitpete]

Is it per pall inverted?

[Mr. MacDougall]

The "Shakefork" is a Y which does not go all the way to the edge of the field. I imagine there's no rule against it being inverted. Fox-Davies has this to say about the shakefork:

The pall, pairle, or shakefork is almost unknown in English heraldry, but in Scotland its constant occurrence in the arms of the Cunninghame and allied families has given it a recognized position among the the ordinaries. As usually borne by the Cunninghame family the ends are couped and pointed, but in some cases it is borne throughout.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Both Mr. MacDougal and Detroit Pete are correct. If the arms of the upside down "Y" extend to the edge of the shield it is a pall inverted. If the arms of the upside down "Y" don't touch the edge of the shield then it is a shakefork inverted.

[Detroitpete]

Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown

Both Mr. MacDougal and Detroit Pete are correct. If the arms of the upside down "Y" extend to the edge of the shield it is a pall inverted. If the arms of the upside down "Y" don't touch the edge of the shield then it is a shakefork inverted.

If the pall inverted touches a border-not the edge of the shield, then is it also considered a shakefork inverted?

[Mr. MacDougall]

Depends... is it the same color and with the same edge style as the border? If not, then it's a shakefork.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Originally Posted by Detroitpete

If the pall inverted touches a border-not the edge of the shield, then is it also considered a shakefork inverted?

No. It is still a pall. A shakefork has pointed ends which by design and definition generally do not extend to the edge of the field. So, to be a shakefork you have to be able to see the pointed ends of the shakefork within the bordure, but not touching it. The only way that a shakefork (or a pal) interrupts a bordure is if it is blazoned as being "overall":

Argent a bordure or, overall a shakefork (or pall) gules.

If the pall and the bordure are the same colour (or metal) then the blazon would read:

Argent a bordure gules overall a pall of the second.

In this instance the word "overall" is to be preferred to "within" so that when the arms are exemplified (that is painted) the painter does not diminish the size of the pall and float it within, but not touching, the bordure. If that was the effect desired then the blazon would read:

Argent within a bordure gules a pall of the second.

If it was the intention that the points of the shakefork touch the edge of the field, then it would be blazoned as "throughout":

Argent a shakefork gules throughout.

Or, if the shakefork was meant to touch the bordure:

Argent within a bordure gules a shakefork of the second throughout

Because of the subtleties of blazon, on letters patent one will inevitably find that the blazon is followed by a phrase something to the effect of:

"as more clearly seen in the margin hereof"

which, of course, refers to the illustration of the arms so that no ambiguity exists.

[Detroitpete]

Thanks MacMillan! That's exactly what I was looking for. The two exmaples I was looking at clearly now are palls inverted, neither has points, one with no border but touching the edge of the shleld and one with a border and ends touching said border (border being same color as the ordinary).

[###KILTEDKIWI###]

The pall, pairle, or shakefork is almost unknown in English heraldry, but in Scotland its constant occurrence in the arms of the Cunninghame and allied families has given it a recognized position among the the ordinaries. As usually borne by the Cunninghame family the ends are couped and pointed, but in some cases it is borne throughout.

Here is my attempt at creating something for my family in NZ.

Basically its a rip off of the Irish Cunningham arms? (wrong term perhaps)
Except I use the Southern Crux as a border and overlay it with a Silver Fern for double New Zealandnish.

Thankfully, I have a good mate who is a graphic designer, and he is going to clean it up for me when he gets a chance...2 months and counting.

[Mr. MacDougall]

The motto scroll with the name is not technically part of the device, and should not appear within the stars. I'm not familiar with the Irish Cunningham arms, but in the group I do heraldry for, there need to be two clear differences between any new proposed arms and already-registered arms.

The Shakefork within the cross of mullets is fine, but the tertiary charge of the silver fern leaf is problematic, as it lies partially on the silver field. One of the earliest rules one learns in heraldry is not to put a metal on a metal, for reasons of contrast. Putting the same metal on metal is right out.

You might consider putting the fern leaf entirely on the shakefork.