[antir-heralds] Help with a new submission

[Britt]

> In addition, it is my recollection that there is a precedent (and
> not, I did not go diving for it), that a cross clechy voided will be
> either returned for confusion with a cross of Toulouse, or be
> reblazoned as a cross of Toulouse.  I believe in your case that since
> the voiding tincture is the field, this would be merely reblazoned as
> a Cross of Toulouse.

Oh, thank you, David. I'll look. I found no crosses clechy under
voided and fimbriated headers. I'm going back to check crosses now.
Hmm, didn't see it. Is it recent? I could go peruse LoARs, if needed.

I thought a cross of Toulouse was a key cross voided.  David, do you
think there's support for a cross like this voided without the pommety
points? And while we have your attention, I found the following
precedent:

     [a cross formy and bottony] We can do no better than quote Brachet:

         Looking at the drawing in Foster, it seems to me likely that
the blazon is happenstantial
         and this is just a fancy drawing of a cross bottony. Note
that the drawings in Foster are
         not period drawings, they are 19th C. work by the author.

     A bit more research proves confusing. Anglo-Norman Armory II, C.
Humphery-Smith, p309
     blazons the cross of John Benstede (from the Falkirk Roll) as ...
a cross clechy voided and
     bottony argent (and each convex intersection of the cross clechy
has a small trefoil attached!)
     Brault, in Eight Rolls of Arms, p89, gives the blazon from the
Thevet version of the Falkirk
     Roll as "87. Sir John de Benestede port la croys perce' et patee
et botonee d'argent." (There
     are no emblazons in Brault.) In the notes it says that the
tincture of the field is missing in both
     copies of the roll. Looking at the rest of the roll the blazon is
peculiar in several respects, not
     the least of which is the lack of field. If different authorities
in different books have vastly
     different interpretations, enough to change the recorded blazon
in the case of Cecil H-Smith,
     it seems to me that this is good evidence that this cross is a
one-off period weirdness. [Adele
     Krin, 08/00, R-East]

Is this evidence of period use of a cross clechy voided that Vanyev
could use for support?

- Teceangl