[ANSTHRLD] Grillage

[Teceangl]

Scripsit Daniel, replying to me:

> 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.

I was amused, not offended. You should have seen the period words
Black Stag posted about dragons issuant flame from both 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.

Thanks for the correction.  I'd meant VII.6., wasn't smart enough to
post a cite, and ended up misattributing.

- Teceangl
-- 
Head returns off at the pass -
http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/boing.html