[ANSTHRLD] Grillage

[tmcd at panix.com]

tmcd at panix.com wrote:
> As for "field treatment": as of the 2nd ed. Pic Dic, Bruce had not
> yet made the ruling that the similar fretty was a charge.  I
> suspect, as Owen ap Morgan writes at
> <http://heralds.westkingdom.org/Templates/Geometric/index.htm>, that
> grillage would most likely similarly be considered a single charge.
> On the other hand, the 12/94 LoAR has
>
>     Avisa of Dun Carraig.  Device.  Azure grillagy Or, on a bend
>     sinister argent a branch leaved vert flowered of a daisy azure
>     seeded Or.
...
>               There was a fair bit of discussion as to whether the
>          grillage should be considered as a primiary charge, as is
>          the case with fretty.  ...

The significance of the 12/94 date is that it was after Bruce's ruling
that fretty == a fret == a charge.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Teceangl <tierna.britt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 1:37 AM,  <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:
> a whole lot of stuff including amusing use of profanity,

I what?  [re-checks] Oh.  I'm sorry about that.  But as I understand
it, period heraldic tracts do contain large amounts of stuff that,
based on the total lack of evidence in real armory, they pulled out of
their ... hindquarters.  Or worse, copied blindly from other authors,
which means that they were pulling it out of other men's ends.

> There is an excellent case for RfS VIII.6.a. in that it seems to
> have been considered heraldic in period

That's Documented Exceptions:

    An armorial design element that is adequately documented as a
    period practice *may* be deemed acceptable even if it violates
    other sections of Part VIII (Compatible Armorial Style).

But that refers to composition.  It also says that it would have to
violate a style rule, and nobody has yet pointed at a style rule that
would forbid grillage.  I think what's more appropriate is VII.2

    Period Armorial Elements - Lines of division, lines of partition,
    field treatments, and other elements used in period armory may be
    registered.

though I've explained why that's iffy, or VII.6,

    Compatible Armorial Elements - Any charge, line of division, line
    of partition, field treatment, or other armorial element that has
    been ruled compatible with period heraldic style may be registered
    in armory.

VII is Compatible Armorial Content and talks about individual armorial
elements, and VIII talks about how they're put together into entire
designs.

(Digression: in the same way, II talks about individual name elements,
and III talks about how they can be put together.  For each part of
the RfS that applies to armory, subtract V to get the corresponding
part for names.
- X is name conflict, so X - V == V is name conflict.
- IV is offensive names, so IX is offensive armory.
- XI is presumptuous armory, so VI is presumptuous names.
)

Anyway.

> A cross may be multiparted and fretted.  Add to Daniel's 'can be
> blazoned as' that 'X pallets fretted with X bars' is another valid
> blazon, based on the real-world reference and the reality of parted
> and fretted crosses.

It *has* been noted multiple times that you can blazon your way out of
a style problem, especially if it's a natural and simple blazon.

Danet de Lincoln
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com