Talk:Star (heraldry)

Giebenac

Who knows how to blazon the charge in the arms of Giebenac, Basel-land, Switzerland?[1] --Daniel C. Boyer 19:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A mullet voided and interlaced. —Tamfang 05:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible move

Since mullet and estoile (which is currently virtually unknown to WP) are such small topics, I'm thinking of incorporating both here and moving it to Star (heraldry), with redirects from Mullet (a dab page) and Estoile. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing this. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mullet vs. estoile

The article currently states "Unlike estoiles, mullets have straight (rather than wavy) rays and may have originally represented the rowel of a spur, rather than a celestial star." However, Woodward & Burnett in A Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign (1892), available on Google Books, cite no less an authority than James Planché for the proposition that the rays of an estoile "should not be wavy unless the star be said to be rayonnant." They go on to suggest that a straight-rayed star should be presumed an estoile unless the charge is pierced, in which case a mullet is intended.

I find some independent confirmation for both of these points. De Mailhol's Vocabulaire du blason, ou l'Art héraldique mis à la portée de tous (1898) seems to corroborate that a simple estoile has straight rays like a mullet, and only an estoile rayonnante has wavy rays. Duhoux d'Argicourt's Alphabet et figures de tous les termes du blason (1899) indicates that the crucial distinction between a mullet and an estoile is that a mullet is pierced and an estoile is not.

These sources contradict what is currently in the article. Does anyone know of other scholarly authority on the distinction between mullets and estoiles? --Chredoc (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, Chredoc! I am always excited to learn new information on different heraldic traditions, and I feel that Wikipedia's heraldry articles focus far too much on British heraldry and give very little attention or useful information on continental heraldry. On the other hand, I was not aware that Planché was regarded as any particular authority on the topic. Quite a number of authoritative writers agree on the point of wavy rays being the primary distinction of "estoiles" from "mullets". In further note, we must also take care not to be confounded by linguistic matters when reading from foreign-language (particularly French) sources: English blazon is derived from, but not the same as, French terminology. Since the modern French term for star is etoile, I have little doubt that the French would not see any difference between a (straight) "star" (etoile in their language) and one wavy unless specified to be wavy. As per your request, however, I have returned to the sources I used to write the article as it is, and here is what I found:

Woodcock & Robinson (1988). The Oxford Guide to Heraldry. ISBN 0192116584:

An image on p. 67, which reproduces a page cited as Stephen Martin Leake, Garter (Coll. Arms, SML 56), which shows a straight-sided five-pointed star captioned "A Mollet", and a wavy-rayed six-pointed star captioned "An Estoile", along with a number of other charges. The Oxford Guide defines Estoile as "A star with wavy limbs," and Mullet as "A figure resembling a star with straight limbs, usually of five points in England," in its glossary.

Neubecker (1976). Heraldry: Sources, Symbols and Meaning. ISBN 0070463085:

Neubecker states on p. 140 that "the star or estoile drawn with wavy lines is typical of English heraldry." (emphasis on "estoile" in the original)

Boutell & Aveling (1890). Heraldry, Ancient and Modern: Including Boutell's Heraldry:

Boutell's glossary gives the following definitions:

Estoile - A star with six wavy rays. This differs from the mullet, which consists of five plain rays. (p. 144)
Estoile of Eight Points - When there are more than six rays, they are alternately straight and wavy. (p. 144)
Mullet or Mollet - Supposed by some writers to have had its origin in the rowel of a spur; but this can scarcely be so, as the Mullet appears before the introduction of spurs. It has five points, and is sometimes pierced or voided, but when so, it is generally described as such. Some ancient writers contend that the Mullet should invariably be pierced. The Mullet should not be confused with the star, which generally has six points. The Mullet is one of the marks of cadency. (p. 176)
Star, Etoile, or Estoile - A star is represented as having six wavy points or rays; when there are more rays than six they are generally represented alternately wavy and straight. The star has always been an ensign of knightly rank, and a star is in some form or another always part of the insignia of all the Orders of Knighthood.

Fox-Davies (1909, 1978 printing). A Complete Guide to Heraldry. ISBN 0517266431:

Fox-Davies says "Spur-Rowels, or Spur-Revels, are to be met with under that name, but they are, and are more often termed, mullets of five points pierced." (p. 286.)

On p. 295, Fig. 545 shows a wavy six-rayed star, captioned "Estoile"; Fig. 546 shows a straight five-pointed star, captioned "Mullet (Scottish star)"; and Fig. 547 shows a straight five-pointed star pierced, captioned "Mullet pierced (Scottish spur-revel)". On p. 296, Fig. 548 shows a striaght six-rayed star, captioned "Mullet of six points"; and Fig. 549 shows a straight eight-pointed star, captioned "Mullet of eight points". Thus:


Fig. 545. Estoile	Fig. 546. Mullet (Scottish star)	Fig. 547. Mullet pierced (Scottish spur-revel)	Fig. 548. Mullet of six points	Fig. 549. Mullet of eight points

Of "stars", Fox-Davies says:

"Stars, a very common charge, may be instanced as borne under that name by the Scottish shield of Alston. There has, owing to their similarity, been much confusion between stars, estoiles, and mullets. The difficulty is increased by the fact that no very definite lines have ever been followed officially. In England stars under that name are practically unknown. When the rays are wavy the charge is termed an estoile, but when they are straight the term mullet is used. That being so, these rules follow: that the estoile is never pierced (and from the accepted method of depicting the estoile this would hardly seem very feasible), and that unless the number of points is specified there will be six (see Fig. 545). Other numbers are quite permissible, but the number of points (more usually in an estoile termed "rays") must be stated. The arm[s] of Hobart, for example, are: "Sable, an estoile of eight rays or, between two flaunches ermine." An estoile of sixteen rays is used by the town of Ilchester, but the arms are not of any authority. Everything with straight points being in England a mullet, it naturally follows that the English practice permits a mullet to be plain (Fig. 546) or pierced (Fig. 547). Mullets are occasionally met with pierced of a colour other than the field they are charged upon. According to the English practice, therefore, the mullet is not represented as pierced unless it is expressly stated to be so. The mullet both in England and Scotland is of five points unless a greater number are specified. But mullets pierced and unpierced of six (Fig. 548) or eight points (Fig. 549) are frequent enough in English armory.

The Scottish practice differs, and it must be admitted that it is more correct than the English, though, strange to say, more complicated. In Scottish armory they have the estoile, the star, and the mullet or spur-revel. As to the estoile, of course, their practice is similar to the English. But in Scotland a straight-pointed charge is a mullet if it be pierced, and a star if it be not. As a mullet is really the "molette" or rowel of a spur, it certainly could not exist as a fact unpierced. Nevertheless it is by no means stringently adhered to in that country, and they make confusion worse confounded by the frequent use of the additional name of "spur-rowel" or "spur-revel" for the pierced mullet. The mullet occurs in the arms of Vere, and was also the badge of that family. The part this badge once played in history is well known. Had the De Veres worn another badge on that fatal day the course of English history might have been changed. The six-pointed mullet pierced occurs in the arms of De Clinton." (pp. 295-6)

Since no other authors come to mind who are any more authoritative than these, I will let the subject rest here. I hope the foregoing has helped to illuminate this admittedly muddy subject. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National flags

Depending on the definition used for "national", it might also be worth adding the flags of the Cook Islands, Tokelau, Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the Cayman Islands, and the Northern Marianas to this list. Grutness...wha? 08:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

This article seems a bit confused about its own topic. It was a little bit of a stretch when the article was only trying to parse heraldic "stars", "mullets" and "estoiles", but since a lot of vexillological content (easily half the article's current content) was added about two years ago, stars in flags have added to the apparent tergiversation of this article's topic. Should we talk about splitting off the vexillological content? If so, what title would we use? Star (vexillology), or something else? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this issue still has not been addressed during my long absence. I will seek commentary from the heraldry and vexillology project. Please add commentary here. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the motivation for the split. Does a star have a different appearance or meaning on a flag than it does on arms? Is there a precedent for splitting articles on heraldic charges in this manner? Ibadibam (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

we usually treat heraldic charges together with their vexillological analogues. Unless there is some pressing reason not to I don't see what is gained by a split. Clearly the use of stars in flags is directly derived from their use in heraldry (e.g. File:Wapen 1545 110.jpg is simply a flag showing the coat of arms of Maastricht, it is pointless to distinguish a "vexillological mullet" on the flag from the "heraldic mullet" in the coa). Of course modern flag designers care less and less about heraldic principles (hence "tergiversation", I suppose), but that's just a historical trend we're going to have to report on, our coverage of heraldic topics cannot be "prescriptive" as might be the case with dedicated heraldry projects. --dab (𒁳) 12:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I can understand that the star in particular has been exceptionally popular in vexillology, for whatever reason. I do see a reasonable case for separating vexillological listcruft. The concept of "star/mullet/estoile in vexillology" would still be on topic here, but List of national flags with stars could very well be a list page (as could list of coats of arms with stars, the distinction is not vexillological vs. heraldic but list vs. non-list). --dab (𒁳) 12:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Star (heraldry)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Star (heraldry)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Economist":

From Nauru: "Paradise well and truly lost". The Economist. 20 December 2001. Archived from the original on 30 November 2006. Retrieved 2 May 2006.
From Flag of Europe: "Real politics, at last?". The Economist. 28 October 2004. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
From Venezuela: "Venezuela The homecoming". Economist.com (23 February 2013). Retrieved on 20 April 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]