I tried to add this question onto a previous thread on tenné, but it wouldn’t let me do it. So forgive me for opening a new topic on a fundamental question:
Does anyone know why orange isn’t a regular heraldic color? Why is it any less of a color than vert or purpure?
I realize there’s tenné, but that’s usually considered a stain and in some cases it’s shown as an orangey brown color from what I can tell.
While I understand the resistance to opening heraldic tinctures to a Crayola box of choices, it seems to me orange should be as valid as the other two secondary colors.
Even the other two secondary colors are not viewed as totally reputable in some heraldic traditions—very, very little green or purple in Scandinavia, for example.
Orange exists in French and German blazon, I think, but mostly if not exclusively for things that are naturally orange, like oranges. Tenné apparently is cognate with "tawny," and originally was not something that appeared on a shield but as a description of livery. For example, Parker says under his entry for tenné, "It is very rarely found mentioned, but was one of the colours forming the livery of the royal House of Stuart."
The introduction of livery colors into armory was, I believe, a mistake. If you look through descriptions of liveries in the 15th century (see, e.g. William Herbert’s History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies of London) there are all kinds of specific shades that don’t meet the armorial test. Crimson is distinguished from scarlet; "murrey and plunket" are used interchangeably with "red and blue" in describing the same garments. Others include buff, purple, violet, sanguine, plunket celestyne (sky-colored blue), russet, savy-brown, brown-blew, and puke [sic].
I would suggest that there are two reasons not to add orange to the standard heraldic palette, other than to depict objects that are naturally orange, just as we use brown for tree trunks and animals and gray for steel objects:
1. It’s too hard to distinguish reliably between red, orangish-red, reddish-orange, orange, yellowish-orange, orangish-yellow, and yellow. There are similar issues with shades of purple and green, but they seem less severe.
2. Because we should all take to heart the pledge taken by Leanne Tuohey in the movie "The Blind Side": "I will not wear that gaudy orange." Those from the quadrant of the United States south of the Ohio River and east of the Sabine will know what I’m talking about.
Amen.
Joseph McMillan;78112 wrote:
1. It’s too hard to distinguish reliably between red, orangish-red, reddish-orange, orange, yellowish-orange, orangish-yellow, and yellow. There are similar issues with shades of purple and green, but they seem less severe.
as a fan of orange as a heraldic color, i have to agree with you here unfortunately.
Quote:
2. Because we should all take to heart the pledge taken by Leanne Tuohey in the movie "The Blind Side": "I will not wear that gaudy orange." Those from the quadrant of the United States south of the Ohio River and east of the Sabine will know what I’m talking about.
lol. i thought you were a fan of the Tennessee Vols Joe? a great movie and a great line.
of course…here in Colorado we are used to orange…it is a great color for a football team…and…even more so for the most amazing mile high sunsets and sunrises! 
Joseph McMillan;78112 wrote:
Even the other two secondary colors are not viewed as totally reputable in some heraldic traditions—very, very little green or purple in Scandinavia, for example.
Well I agree with you about Purple, but Green are certainly more common, only in Sweden I find roughly 42 municpal Arms (of 290) with Green in one way or another.And i the database Heraldiska källan I find about 208 Burgher Arms with green.
i want to say, though, that not so long ago i had an Irish-Protestant gentleman who wanted to show his "Irishness" and "Protestantism" in his arms and so he was adamant about using the color/stain of orange in his arms. so in my original design i used an orange St. Andrew’s Cross on white field that was voided of the field. he didn’t like that because he thought that the orange should be more "prominent". so, i redesigned them having Argent, between four trefoils slipped a saltire all Orange. he liked that much better. the orange i used was an acrylic based ink that was simply labeled "orange".
now a lot of my acrylic based inks have a-typical artistic names (lame ones sometimes) like "morning mist" for a bluish tinted light cool gray. but not this one it was just "orange" and that color couldn’t have been mistaken for the others mentioned above.
that said i have to agree with Joe that too often it could be especially if an artist isn’t careful mixing his colors, or, choosing the best one if using a single color instead of a mix.
That particular use of orange stems—as we all know—from the King-Stadholder William III, who was by birth Prince of Orange. It should however be remarked that even in the Netherlands orange does not enjoy much popularity in heraldry. It does appear as the tincture of oranges that were granted as augmentations and also features in ribbons of orders of chivalry, but that about sums it up.
lucduerloo;78146 wrote:
That particular use of orange stems—as we all know—from the King-Stadholder William III, who was by birth Prince of Orange. It should however be remarked that even in the Netherlands orange does not enjoy much popularity in heraldry. It does appear as the tincture of oranges that were granted as augmentations and also features in ribbons of orders of chivalry, but that about sums it up.
And of course in flags, which takes us back to the realm of livery colors, properly understood, as referring to clothes and cloth worn and displayed by followers of a particular lord. Netherlands military colors
http://www.fotw.net/images/n/nl^kmaro.gif
and the Netherlands royal standard
http://www.fotw.net/images/n/nl-konin.gif
are orange, but the arms are blue and gold.
This is one area where I disagree with Joe, and disagree rather strongly (altho always civilly). I would note first that the field of the arms of The University of Texas is tenne and it’s not rendered as burnt orange, either.
I have stated my position in another thread before here, with Joe’s reasoned rebuttal here, and my reply here.
Hugh Brady;78173 wrote:
This is one area where I disagree with Joe, and disagree rather strongly (altho always civilly).
If we never disagreed, the forum would be really dull.
Quote:
I would note first that the field of the arms of The University of Texas is tenne and it’s not rendered as burnt orange, either.
Alas, an otherwise nice design spoiled. Although at least it’s not sanguine—for obvious reasons.
Seriously, Texas is something of a hotbed of good academic heraldry: Texas, Houston, Rice, and Texas Christian all have good solid designs (apart from the unfortunate choice of color discussed above!), and Texas Tech’s is at least correct heraldry, if a bit lucky-charmish.
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/seal.gif
http://www.arocont.com/170px-University_of_Houston_Seal.jpg
(Gules a chevron checky Argent and Gules between three martlets Argent)
http://amazingprofiles.org/images/TCU_Seal.png
(Well, it used to be good until they [recently?] added the date to the base—My old notes show this as Purpure a torch ensigned with a star radiant and on a chief Argent a horned frog Purpure.)
http://petticoatsandpistols.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/texas-tech-seal-240x300.jpg
(Gules on a cross Sable fimbriated Argent between an open book bendwise sinister, a star, a key palewise, and a lamp ten bolls of cotton all Argent—often with the colors totally mangled in recent representations).
Joseph McMillan;78174 wrote:
Assuming that orange is accepted, would it be a color subject to the "rule" against colors on colors, violated above? (I can’t see orange being a "metal," based—I guess—on what my contracts professor would call the phenomonological felicity of the nomenclature, but even so this example would violate the metal on metal rule.)
The leaves would be proper—a bit of a cop-out normally, but I think the contrast is okay in this case.
I’m guessing the same goes for the book (proper), though binding and edging it another color (or even gold) would have served it quite as well as a fimbriation.
So in the case of the Univ of TX, you blazon the field as tenne or orange?
It seems to me if you wanted to field to be orange you should describe it as such because if you describe it as tenne an artist is likely to produce something orangey-brown.
Joseph McMillan;78112 wrote:
I would suggest that there are two reasons not to add orange to the standard heraldic palette, other than to depict objects that are naturally orange, just as we use brown for tree trunks and animals and gray for steel objects:
1. It’s too hard to distinguish reliably between red, orangish-red, reddish-orange, orange, yellowish-orange, orangish-yellow, and yellow. There are similar issues with shades of purple and green, but they seem less severe.
2. Because we should all take to heart the pledge taken by Leanne Tuohey in the movie "The Blind Side": "I will not wear that gaudy orange." Those from the quadrant of the United States south of the Ohio River and east of the Sabine will know what I’m talking about.
I can respect that, even if I haven’t seen "The Blind Side" (<—- that’s only heresy if you’re a Southerner)
Confining heraldry to four colors (including black) and two metals seems to me to be very restrictive. I would think this especially so as the years roll along and people are faced with trying to design original arms that don’t unintentially usurp others. And if you’re going to accept vert and purpure, allowing orange as well seems reasonable - at least more so than bleu celeste.
There is a thread on the members side currently discussing bleu celeste. I am repeating the substance of a post I just made there.
Quote:
It seems to me that orange can be kept distinct from red, but as light blue is an acceptable depiction of azure, it would never be possible to be certain that the blazon deduced from an emblazonment using light blue is correct. Not that I’m advocating orange (haven’t decided yet), but at least there you’re getting something.
