Mar 26, 2013, 8:56:35 PM3/26/13
I've dabbled in the subject of heraldry over the years and am still very confused about personal and family arms. Repeatedly, it is mentioned that coats-of-arms are personal. Yet, when a name is attached to a coat-of-arms it is the surname and not the first and last name. In my case, I may conjecture that an ancestor did, in fact, have an armorial. However, I certainly can't make a direct connection to this ancestor. Still, I wonder if it is acceptable practice for a descendant - however far removed - to include elements of an ancestor's personal coat-of-arms in one of their own.