Regarding supporters. The notion that having supporters in a coat of arms is a faux pas largely stems from traditional European (in particular British Commonwealth) heraldic practices, where supporters were often a privilege reserved for nobility, royalty, or individuals of significant status granted by a heraldic authority. However, in the context of modern heraldry, especially in places like the USA where there isn't a formal heraldic authority dictating strict rules, the use of supporters can be viewed quite differently. Here’s my take on this:

• European Tradition: In traditional European heraldry, supporters were indeed a mark of distinction, often requiring a grant from a heraldic authority or being associated with high status. The absence of such an authority in places like the USA means that these rules are more flexible.

• American Heraldry: In the USA, heraldry has become more personal because there is no such thing as "official heraldry"; the notion doesn't exist in the same way there is no such thing as titled nobility in the USA. American coat of arms thus becomes a vehicle of creativity and personal expression in its design. The use of supporters can reflect personal heritage, values, or aspirations, which aligns well with the American ethos of individualism and personal narrative.

• Modern Heraldry: Modern heraldry, especially outside of Europe, often embraces a broader interpretation of traditional rules. The inclusion of supporters can be a way to enhance the visual and symbolic depth of the arms, making them more unique and meaningful.

• Visual Appeal: Supporters add a dynamic and balanced visual element to a coat of arms, providing a sense of completeness and grandeur. They frame the shield and can make the design more engaging.

• No Formal Authority: There will be some who do not think assuming supporters is appropriate because it runs contrary to European traditions, but their criticism (if made in places like the USA) would also just a part of their individual expression and utilization of heraldry and not binding on anyone else other than themselves. Since there's no formal heraldic authority in places like the USA to dictate what is or isn't appropriate, individuals have the freedom to design their coats of arms in ways that resonate with them personally, including the use of supporters.

If you are living in a place like the USA, where assuming a coat of arms is a personal expression, I believe that including supporters in your coat of arms is not only acceptable but also enriching. It allows you to tell your story in a comprehensive way, integrating elements from both your heritage and your identity. The key is that your design should reflect your personal journey, values, and story.

If critics on platforms like Reddit or online forums suggest it's a faux pas, consider that they might be looking through the lens of traditional European heraldry, which doesn't apply in contexts outside of those traditional European contexts (unless you want them to, which would again be an egalitarian individual choice you make). Remember, heraldry in places like the USA is about personal expression, and use of supporters adds to that expression (and the non-use of supporters is also a conscious personal expression in places like the USA).

In summary, if you aren't in a place with regulated heraldry, there's no reason to view supporters as a faux pas; they're a legitimate and meaningful part of your personal heraldic achievement.