On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 14:49:18 UTC+1, Thomas Bonnett wrote:
>Visitation gives the arms of Tyrrell as 'Az. A Lion Rampant. Ar. A Border
>Engr. Or' which according to Burkes is for the Tyrrells of Hertfordshire.
>The Tyrrells of Herefordshire have a very similar blazon as 'Az. A Lion
>Rampant. Ar. A Bend Indented Gu.'
Do not trust Burke for heraldry (or for genealogy). He does not give his sources so his entries, if by chance they are accurate, could be from anywhere and at any date before 1850. In this case, both his entries are wrong.
The Parliamentary Roll (c.1312) [1] is a useful source because many of the entries are listed under counties. No. N 937 has 'Sire Roger Tyrel, de azure a un lion de argent od la bordure endente de or' under the heading 'Herefordschire'. Powell's Roll (c.1350) PO 356 has a painted shield 'azure, a lion rampant argent, a border indented or' labelled 's' Roger Tyrel'. William Jenyns' Ordinary (c.1360-80) WJ 292 has a painted shield 'azure, a lion rampant argent, a border engrailed or' labelled 'Mons Hugh Tyrell'.
Burke's entry for 'Az. A Lion Rampant. Ar. A Bend Indented Gu.' is a fabrication. There is no entry for such arms with these tinctures in the Dictionary of British Arms (i. 224) and none for a lion and bend engrailed or indented in any tinctures for Tyrell (or any other spelling of the name).
If I weren't totally opposed to such censorship, I would suggest that all copies of Burke's Armory be ceremonially burned. It is his fault that Papworth's Ordinary, perforce based on his work, is so unreliable.
Peter Howarth