Coat of Arms question

[Lindsay]

Not something I've had to concern myself with before. :)

I've found a description of John Stace's memorial (1661) in Buckinghamshire which apparently featured the Stace coat of arms. I'm trying to understand if he was entitled to use it.

I know John was living in Bucks in the 1630s, yet his name doesn't feature in the Visitation Of Buckinghamshire of 1634, which supposedly included all the families entitled to a coat of arms.

Moreover John's brother, who lived at John's property in Kent, is listed in the Visitation of Kent (1663) as a Disclaimer (as far as I can make out, someone who couldn't prove their right to a coat of arms).

Does anyone know how accurate the Visitations were? Is it possible John and his brother were entitled but couldn't prove it, or is it more likely their only connection was the name?

[Olde Crone]

Lindsay

then, as now, many people laid claim to Arms when not entitled to them. The visitations were accurate in as much as they reported what people TOLD them and they would have then checked they were entitled to the Arms.

OC

[Lindsay]

Yes, I wondered if they were were telling porkies - none of John's descendants seem to have used the coat of arms.

It's a shame, because if John was entitled it might have given me a clue where he came from!