The Heralds' Visitations part 6

The majority of the Coats of Arms recorded in this period are registered simply as borne and as not infringing the rights of any other person. The fact that grants are quoted where they occur proves that in most cases no grant existed, but the arms were simply in use and were then recorded by the Heralds. In the commissions to the Officers of Arms powers were granted to them to deface and mutilate monuments that bore arms used without authority, to proclaim publicly that that persons to whom the Heralds confirmed no authority to bear arms were not entitled to them and to require disclaimers of the use of arms from such persons. The use of these powers does not seem to have been widespread however and we note the sympathetic attitude taken by the Heralds to Coats of Arms that were already in use. In the Visitation of Rutland 1681-2 a list of disclaimers is given: These persons have agreed that “ not being able to show any good proof or right to either of these titles ( Esquire or Gentleman), nor knowing at present of any arms belonging to us, do hereby disclaim all such attributes and arms and do promise henceforth to forbear to make use of either, until such times as we can by lawful authority do the same”
A clue as to the reasons for the disclaimers may be found by looking through the list of them and seeing the notes attached by the visiting officers. George Austin, for example, was described by the bailiff “ to be a good farmer but no pretender to arms”. A schoolmaster and an attorney or not allowed, likewise a draper and a wealthy yeoman. Richard Cheseldyne who was a captain in the territorial army renounced arms but the herald adds “ Yet I am informed he uses the arms of Cheseldyne”.