User:Jnestorius/Saint Patrick's saltire in the Union Flag

"The Privy Purse accounts for 1763–72 show regular payments for a Welsh leek (St David's day), a St Patrick's Cross and a St Andrew's Cross on the respective days of the patronal saints of the kingdoms and the principality."

1781 satirical print of Irishman on St Patrick's Day with a cross badge on his hat; the badge is a white Greek Cross on a dark background, ie not at all like the 1783 saltire.

Compare the deisgn of the large ornamental purse for holding the Great Seal of Ireland: The middle angel on the bottom edge has a halo, under an orb, under a square banner; the banner varies:
 * Edward Sugden, 1st Baron St Leonards (LCI 1835 and 1841–1846) christies.com picture seems all gold, though maybe colours have faded
 * James Campbell (LCI 1917–1921) flickr.com picture red saltire on white field — increased Irish consciousness?

Britannia's shield
The shield carried by Britannia usually has a Union Flag on it; sometimes this explicitly has a line splitting Patrick and Andrew, sometimes not; the latter might be taken as indicating the pre-1801 flag, or simply a limitation of the small size. Sometimes the colour or shading indicated all-red or all-white or particolour.

A 1660 medal celebrating the English Restoration had Britannia "sitting under a Cliff by the Sea shore, with a Spear in one hand, and the Union-Shield in the other", in a 1697 description by John Evelyn.

Saltire on Britannia shield on the British Numismatic Society's logo is single-coloured, but that on its Sanford Saltus Gold Medal is double-coloured.

This:
 * To this authority [sc. Nicholas Harris Nicolas] is attributed a pattern much after that appearing on Britannia's shields on our coins. This really shows " the red cross and saltire both  fimbriated" ; and where is the St. Andrew's then ?

"The Penny" from Coins of England and Great Britain by Tony Clayton
 * There are three reverse types for the George IV issues, differing in the representation of the St Patrick's cross on the shield:
 * No central line in saltire (1825, 1826 and 1827)
 * Thin central line in saltire (1826)
 * Thick central line in saltire (1826)

1891:
 * Any one taking up a bronze coin of the present year will see that the saltire on the shield of Britannia is single. Does it belong to Scotland or to Ireland? Clearly to Ireland, for it is fimbriated. The argent of St. Andrew's saltire would need no fimbriation to separate it from the azure field, but the gules of St. Patrick's saltire does. It is Scotland, therefore, that is unrepresented on the shield

silver bullion ‘Britannia’ £2 coin 2005 saltire looks to have a fimbriation but no central division, which matches no actual version.

Complaints about flag
This:
 * Thus we arrive at the very heart of our subject — viz., the details in the present Admiralty flag, which are deemed as certainly capable of being altered for the better.
 * (1st) The fimbriation of the St. George is much wider than that of the St. Patrick — that is to say, you have on the same field two fimbriations, edging independent ordinaries, which vary in width. But even further (2nd), the St. George's border is more than a fimbriation, it amounts to a white cross, with a red cross superinduced. So plainly is this the appearance it conveys, that, at a lecture delivered before naval men, it was spoken of as showing the early White Cross of France, bearing upon it the Red Cross of England, in order to record the ancient union between the two countries, as that story is told on those Royal banners which quartered " the leopards and lilies." We have, by the way, much the same story told of the Norwegian flag (Fig. 3), only with this important difference, that whereas, in this latter instance, the azure cross of Norway is intended to be placed over the argent cross of the Danish flag, no such presence of two crosses should be blazoned on the English banner, because no such blazon is justified. Such a misleading impression as this one of two crosses is one result of the Admiralty's table of proportions. Again (3rd), since the St. Andrew's saltire and the St. Patrick's saltire are counterchanged, they should be of equal size. In counterchanging charges, share and share alike is the rule. This goes without saying — it is a heraldic truism. Fig. D gives an example of two saltires counterchanged as are those on our banner. Now, instead of these being on the neutral field " ermine," let them be placed on a field of some tincture (say, "sable"), which at once necessitates the tinctured saltire being fimbriated. What herald would think of attenuating this saltire in order to fimbriate it, instead of adding on a fimbriation taken from the field ? In fact, who would treat the matter as shown on the sinister side (instead of as sketched on the dexter side) of Fig. E. Yet this erratic rendering is the one adopted in our Admiralty pattern, where the St. Patrick's saltire is narrower (even to the verge of skimpiness) than that of St. Andrew. So much so indeed is this that a Scotchman has described it as "a red stripe run through the arms of the St. Andrew's saltire, for which " (adds the writer in his wrath) " there is no precedent in law or heraldry.'" It is really, by the way, very unfair of any Scotchman to make a party grievance of this ill-used " saltire gules," seeing the grievance is surely all the other way — that is, one against which Pat, not Sandy, has every reason to raise his voice. Besides, the cause (as already hinted at) is so absurd : it is because the edging has been added to the saltire after having been first taken from it. Verily, as quaint a proceeding as that which speaks of the lengthening of a certain pair of historical breeches. Such, then (in a flag otherwise carefully recording recognised heraldic proportions), are the details to which many object. And the annoying part of the matter is that there  seems to be no adequate reason for such  departures from the beaten path. We give here a flag (Fig. F)  drawn strictly to the proportions tacitly recognised by the  Admiralty as governing ordinaries. Let any reader sufficiently  interested colour Fig. B and Fig. F and compare them. Does the  latter look less dignified or less artistic than the Admiralty pattern ?  Besides, are looks or laws to win the day ?

Compare this error-strewn 1909 Canadian book:
 * In the bringing in of the additional red saltire cross of Ireland, the diagonal space previously allotted  in " Draft C, 1707," to a saltire cross is now equally  divided between the white and the red saltire crosses  of the kingdoms, and to give them equal recognition  and honour, the edging of white necessary to separate  the red saltire of St. Patrick from the blue ground of  the flag is taken from its own half of the diagonal  space allotted to it instead of from the Scotland's  blue, and this was duly balanced by the retention of  the full broad white border space around the St.  George, which in the new flag represented both the  white grounds of the St. Patrick and the St. George, as the blue ground did that of St. Andrew's flag.
 * If some of the heralds are not entirely satisfied with the way the divisions are made, due honour has at least been done to each of the Jacks of the three  kingdoms, while at the same time the historical value  of the " Union " has been greatly enhanced, and its  beauty as a flag most certainly increased.

1923:
 * It may seem an extraordinary statement to make, but it is a fact that the Union flag is never made in strict accordance with the original design Plate IV, fig. 2.
 * In the pattern approved for the navy Plate V, fig. 8, which is also that flown on the Houses of Parliament and on the Government Offices, and is that adopted almost universally by private individuals of British nationality, the Irish saltire is reduced in width by having its fimbriation taken from itself instead of from the blue ground. Apparently this has been done to bring the outer boundaries in line across the flag, but it seems neither heraldically nor historically correct, for the saltire representing Ireland^ should be of equal width with that of Scotland.
 * The other pattern in use is that established in 1900 by the War Office, in an attempt to comply with the literal terms of the Proclamation of 1st January, 1801, as interpreted by modern heraldic definitions. In this pattern the two saltires are of equal breadth, but the "fimbriation" of the St George's cross has been reduced to the same width as that of St Patrick's saltire.

FOTW:
 * The Admiralty version of the Union Flag, shown above, is, in fact, a corruption of the herald's original intention. In the Admiralty version (still of course in use today) fimbriation to the saltire of St Patrick is created by taking it from the saltire itself instead of from the field, whereas, according to the original design the saltires of St Andrew and St Patrick should be of equal width with a fimbriation added. The colour illustration (preserved in the Privy Council papers) and blazon supplied by Sir Isaac Heard (Garter King-at-Arms) was - in accordance with Article One of the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland - approved by the King in an Order in Council of 5 November 1800. The Act of Union was then proclaimed in London Gazette No. 15324 dated 1 January 1801, with the blazon (accompanied by a monochrome drawing) reading as follows: "...that the Union Flag shall be azure, the Crosses Saltires of St Andrew and St Patrick Quarterly per Saltire, counterchanged Argent and Gules; the latter fimbriated of the Second surmounted by the Cross of St George of the Third, fimbriated as the Saltire".

In fact the picture on London Gazette No.15324 p.5 shows the red above the white in 3 of the four half-diagonals, including the top-left. jnestorius(talk) 12:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Queen's colours 1900
Hansard:
 * Mr. DUNDAS WHITE asked the Secretary of State for War whether a new design for the Union flag for the King's colour was approved in or about 1900; if so, whether the King's colours subsequently issued have been made in conformity with that design or with the previous design; for how long the previous design had been followed; whether the War Office is the only department which has adopted the new design; whether the War Office has adopted it for other Union flags than the King's colours; and whether he will lay upon the Table papers setting out, both by description and graphically, the two designs of the Union flag, together with a statement of the considerations which led to the introduction and adoption of the new design?
 * Mr. HALDANE An amended design for the Queen's (now the King's) colour was approved by Her late Majesty Queen Victoria in 1900. All Queen's and King's colours issued since that date have been in conformity with the amended design. The previous design appears to have been in use since 1801. The amended design was approved by Queen Victoria only as a standard to govern the dimensions of the flag as represented in the Queen's colours of line battalions and the regimental colours of the Foot Guards. The War Office have not adopted this design for any other purpose than that for which it was expressly sanctioned. The change was made on heraldic grounds in order to bring the Regimental Union into closer accord with the description of the Union flag given in the Royal Proclamation of 1st January, 1801, and at the same time to create a standard pattern for the colours. It is not proposed to lay any Papers on the subject.

I read somewhere that the redesign was to mollify Irish sentiment. Possibly simultaneous with the formation of the Irish Guards?

FOTW:
 * Which brings me to the Great Union of 1900. In preparing a design for the War Office the College of Heralds returned to the original blazon and correctly made the saltires of even width with a fimbriation added, however, whilst it is obvious from the 18th Century illustration that the phrase "fimbriated as the saltire" was intended to mean 'fimbriated in the same colour as the saltire', the late-Victorian heralds wrongly interpreted this as meaning of 'the same *width and* colour'.