Talk:Esquire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Military rank

Just to point out there is an almost direct contradiction in the 'typical definitions' of an Esquire. Namely that one has to have Captain rank or equivalent or higher in point 14 but yet is open to all officers in point 17.195.92.40.49 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banks, Masters of Arts, Freemasons, Clergy

  • First, which banks accord any of their clients the designation, "Esq."? My bank has always called me "Mr ----- -----".
  • Secondly, somebody I know in the College of Arms has said that (at least some) Masters of Arts are esquires. I asked what he thought qualified somebody as an esquire and he listed sons of peers and knights, officers in the armed forces, and certain office-holders. I pointed out that I knew that he regarded a certain mutual acquaintance as an esquire, despite his not fulfilling any of those criteria. "Why is he an esquire?", I asked. "Because of his degree". The degree in question was MA (Cantab). I think that Cambridge MAs are therefore considered esquires. Presumably MAs of at least some other universities are also considered to count as esquires. I once read somewhere about a supposed equivalence between university degrees and social rank. I think it may have been BA=gentleman, master=esquire, doctor=knight. I don't know where BD, BCL, BM, BMus (etc) would fit. Bear in mind this was back in the days of DD, DCL, DM, DMus, so doctor does not include DPhil/PhD (but might include DSc and DLitt, even though I think they are more recent innovations).
  • Thirdly, since when have Freemasons been regarded as esquires? I've never heard of that one.
  • Fourthly, (a) remember that clergymen are never gentlemen or esquires, but clerks in holy orders; (b) are any of the sons of bishops considered to be esquires? A bishop ranks above a baron, and an archbishop ranks above a duke, so it would make sense, although bishoprics aren't (usually) hereditary, so maybe not.

--Oxonian2006 02:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Crumbs, Oxonian, that's a lot of questions!
On point one, Lloyd's Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland have designated me Esquire.
On point two, I have seen a College of Arms "Memorial" (or petition) which designated the husband of the petitioner (an Oxford MA and a barrister) as "Esquire", followed by a Grant of Arms which reduced him to "Gentleman". That suggests that official policy is more conservative than the conversation you report.
On point three, although I have no doubt that Freemansons accord all sorts of titles and dignities to each other amongst themselves, there is no official rank accorded to them.
On point four, a clergyman can certainly be a gentleman - and a knight too, if so appointed. So I don't see why a clergyman shouldn't be an Esquire. But since I can't envisage a mode of address appropriate to a clergyman in which "Esq" would figure, perhaps you are right.

Cheers Chelseaboy 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


I've had one business letter from the UK which referred to me as "Esq." I called the embassy and they said it was common for business letters. This was in the 1980's. Occasionally, I've received formal invitations addressed as "esquire," but it's uncommon and generally considered a bit pretentious.

I have never heard, or seen in the literature, that a Freemason is entitled to the style of esquire. I do not believe that is correct.

--J. J. in PA 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Last night, I checked the transactions of the Quator Coronati Lodge, A well known research lodge in London. They list the full members in each volume. I looked in two volumes published about 18 years appart. While [usually past] Masonic positions, professional and academic titles are listed, no one is listed as an "Esquire," including those without any other pre or post nominal designation.

The evidence seems to be against Freemasons automatically being styled as Esquire. There is apparently a degree called "Esquire" in some appendant bodies, but it is not the title.

I suggest removal of Freemasons from the list, based on that.

--J. J. in PA 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is armiger a title for those with a coat of arms? eg. John Smith Armiger?

It's not a formal title, more a description - an armiger is one who has (is entitled to bear) a coat of arms. In the UK, armigerousness is historically regarded as a sufficient (but not necessary) condition for the rank of Gentleman. Nicholas Jackson 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the fact that there's an electric guitar called "Esquire" even remotely relevant or noteworthy? Proteus (Talk) 23:19, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the reference to a Bachelor of Physics should be to a Bachelor of Physic (Physic being the old word for Medicine). It makes a lot more sense in this context as Physic is one of the old academic subjects along with Law and Divinity. It is also important for the understanding of the article to note that these are all traditionally postgraduate degrees following the old system of B.A. - M.A. - LL.B./B.C.L./B.D. etc.

30 Mar 2005

Charles Boutell's book English Heraldry adds `Masters of Arts' to the list of qualifying persons. At the time Boutell was writing (in the late 19th century) the MA was essentially the full undergraduate university degree (as it still is at Oxford, Cambridge and the four ancient Scottish universities). Then London started treating it as a postgraduate qualification requiring additional study, and everywhere else followed suit. So, I'd argue that these days, in the UK, any (male) university graduate (and certainly one with a postgraduate qualification) is entitled to the style Esq. Nicholas Jackson 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by "entitled". As the article notes, almost any male may be designated "Esquire" as a matter of politeness, respect or courtesy in the UK at the present day. (In the US it seems to be specific to lawyers). If, however, you refer to the more formal rank recognised by the English heralds, I do not think you are correct. Any graduate will, for practical purposes, be allowed a Grant of Arms, but this will record a (male) grantee with the rank of gentleman, not esquire, unless he qualifies as an esquire on some other basis, such as an office in which he is so designated by the Crown. Chelseaboy 14:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style of esq.

What would be the way of styling "Mr. & Mrs. John Smith," if, in the US, one or both partners were lawyers? Is there a proper way of doing this without separating the two names?

23 Dec 2005

There is no different way of writing that in the United States. Although the Juris Doctor degree is a doctorate, lawyers never use the courtesy title "Dr." before their names, and only those who do use the title "Dr." alter their styling to such things as "Dr. and Mrs. John Smith." Lawyers would simply write "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" even if one or both spouses are lawyers. Only when writing their names individually would they append "Esq." CoramVobis 20:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it not a violation of the US constitution to hold a title?

Article I, Section 8 reads: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

11 Jan 2006

"Holding any profit or trust" is the key phrase, it means that public officials and employees can't hold titles or honors except with the consent of congress. Congress for their part has legislated rules for what can and can't be accepted and by whom. The American use of esquire is not granted by a foriegn anything, it is simply a courtesy title which attorneys have become accustomed to assuming, If it has any conferring authority at all beyond the individual lawyer concerned, it would be in an abstract sense the state bar association or the US court system.

(in response to the initial question on "title") Short answer: hogwash. Esquire as used by American lawyers doesn't mean a person holds the "title" being referred to above. For further reading, see reading comprehension. --- Bobak 02:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Especially since there's no king, prince, or foreign state involved! Doops | talk 00:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distinction between Mr and Esq no longer generally understood in UK

The article says: "The use of Esquire (as Esq.) had become pervasive in the United Kingdom by the late 20th century, for example being applied by banks to all men who did not have a grander title. Although the College of Arms continues to restrict use of the word Esquire in official grants of arms to some (not even all) of those in the table above, it uses the term Esquire in all its correspondence, even to those who do not fall within any of the definitions in the table. Most people in the United Kingdom no longer appreciate that there is any distinction between "Mr" and "Esquire" at all and so, for practical purposes and in everyday usage, there is no such distinction." Sources have been called for. I suggest (1) The first sentence (indiscriminate use of Esquire by banks) (2) The second sentence (indiscriminate use of Esq by College of Arms in correspondence) (3) The thread on an English genealogy forum entitled Good Question?! Esquire or Mr?! What's the difference? None!?. (4) The thread on a student forum which contains such statements about Esquire as "It's just an old fashioned way instead of saying Mr isn't it?" and "It's used to replace Mr on official documents and in formal correspondence" and "Esquire is just the male equivalent of Miss - it's a polite form of address that no-one really bothers with anymore that applies to men without other titles. My brother always gets it on his bank statements."

Editor Wales has now asked me for a source for the College of Arms point. I offer this post by Dan Phoenix, who refers in other posts to having worked at the College of Arms, and says "Whenever I have correspondence with the College of Arms, I'm always given the Esq. after my name, and I understand that's pretty common." Cheers. Chelseaboy 15:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the header has a great deal of truth to it. Certainly the proliferation of an lapse of principal in one generation, may thus manifest itself into the misguided, however, popular opinion in the next generation. The sources to which you refer, are not systamatic nor comprehensive, and represent at the very most, a small collection of opinions. If you arrived at the same form of conclusions, utilizing the same analysis, and posted your opinions, on a different article, lets say, aborortion, etc., you may find that you would be met with the same spirit of resistance. With this said, It may be prudent to first consult with the heraldic authority on this subject, the college of arms, to discover thier opinion and position, and to confirm the above. This would prove a sound basis to support further opinions, weither popular or unpopular. It would be facinating to discover, who, first elected to self elevate themself, or thier associates with the grander title of Esquire. By this same example, people today could very well find it fashionable to style themselves, Dr instead of Mr, or alternatively Esq., instead of Dr and vice versa. This misuse could be further sanctioned, provided that the population was ignorant or simply lacked the necessary respect to acknowledge the distinction. If a Mr is considered the same as an Esquire, then by this same reasoning or example, it may be plausibe to suggest, that an esquire or even a Mr., can now find a precedent should one find it fashionabe to style himself a kt. or knight, and a knight a baron, Lord, and so on. If popular opinion or ignorance finds the planet earth to be flat, and you subscribe to this 'fact', then you have in essence perpetuated the common truth, contrary to its fidelity, and sound principal. Today I with 25 associates, who reside within the U.K., and have queried thier opinion on this topic. From the returns that I have received so far, it would be fair to recommend, that you conduct further research into this matter, before assuming that many people in the U.K., consider Mr and Esquire the same. Moreover, it would be fair to appraise that the use or "abuse" of the title of Esquire, during the last two centuries, is a clear example of misapplication, as the title has been literally in a state of, usurpation, held hostage, by the fruits of ignorance and or the ambitions of the corrupt. Mr. Wales
I'm sure we can agree that there is always a tension between prescribed rules and common practice, certainly in matters of everyday title and language. Usually, common practice wins! I have provided you with a named source from within the College of Arms. I have also provided a number of other randomly culled sources which all verify the passage you keep reverting. Please provide verifiable references to the contrary (a poll of 25 unnamed people in an unnamed office is not verifiable and is original research, you also do not say what they say, i.e. the result of your original research). You seem to accept "the header has a great deal of truth in it" so presumably you would accept an edit which said: "Distinction between Mr and Esq no longer generally understood in UK", or words to that effect? If so, I will do something along those lines. I'm sure we can find common ground and improve the article. Generally, reversion does not improve the Wiki. I would also like you to reconsider the compromise wording which I offered (changing just one word of your edit). Best wishes. Chelseaboy 11:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I messed up in my edit summary, and meant to refer to WP:3RR, not WPP:3RR which doesn't exist. Sorry! Best, Chelseaboy 11:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative for Jr, Third, ect

I remeber reading somewhere the 'Esquire' was a way of differenciating between generaltions. Ie. In a family you fould have -John Doe Esq, followed by -John Doe Jr, followed by -John Doe III, and So one, Esquire simply being another term for senior.

Is this just my imagination, or has anyone else heard this?

Keeperoftheseal 00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It would seem a v odd way of doing it as the latter two make the Esq on the first redundant. There are/were two traditional ways: at public school Esq (if used at all) was for the father and the children were Doe ma (maximus) Doe mi (minimus) or major/minor depending on the number of brothers, the former for >2 the latter for 2. In non titled families it used to be the case that if the Esq was used it was by the father, the eldest son would be Mr Doe (as the eldest did not need to differentiate himself) and each other brother was Mr ChristianName Doe. The same would be true for daughters.Alci12 10:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esquires in the Elks

Odd there is no mention of the office of Esquire in the B.P.O. Elks. He is the equivalent of the Seargent-at-arms, carrying out the orders of thr Exalted Ruler and generally enforcing protocol. He also has certain ritual functions for opening and closing a meeting.

[edit] This looks rather incomplete?

Isn't this the tale end of a more interesting hierarchy? There were/are other ranks below Gent, were there not? I thought you could not be a "Gent" if you were in trade, and even below that was Yeoman freeman etc? Mr wasn't the same as "Gent" either was it? We were taught all this in school but I am not sure they teach it any more. --BozMo talk 15:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esquire or Squire

This article and Squire are strongly overlapping - see Talk:Squire#A lot of over-lap with Esquire..., Blowup 09:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill S. Preston

"Characters who have utilized the title Esquire (without the aforementioned merit) include such personages as Bill S. Preston, "Esquire""

How do we know he is not so entitled - he could be the male line descendant of a peers younger son or knight. It could be said that he is American, and thus such claims under U.K. law no longer apply, in which case he is just as entitled to style himself esuire as any American lawyer :-). - Matthew238 05:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States

"just as Mr. should not be assumed" -- what does that mean? The phrase is nonsensical to me. Anyway, in the United States, it is common (actually, universal) that any adult male would be called "Mr. (last name)" in formal discourse with strangers (although if a person were known to have an appropriate degree or profession, a title such as "Dr." or "Professor" could be used). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.129.45 (talk) 24 May 2007

In the U.S., 'Esq.' is used socially far less often than one would think from the article. The British use of it is rare and archaic here. Esq. is used by attorneys (men and women) professionally, and some do use it socially as well. An American non-attorney demanding that people add esq. at the end of his name would be laughed at. No matter its (or his) origins, it would be seen as pretentious here. I'd like to change that section of the article (I'd leave the naval exception alone), but I'll wait for other comments in case it would be contentious. Ariadne55 (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Female Attorneys

It seems to be the current practice that female attorneys are styled "Esquire," just like male attorneys. J. J. in PA 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I take it you're responding to the question asked by an anonymous editor in the edit summary. Doops | talk 04:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, shouldn't I? J. J. in PA 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely! I just thought that people who came along to the page and saw your answer might be curious to know what prompted it. :) Doops | talk 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

—–––A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.21.71 (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaningless vs. Meaningful

I tried to strike a balance between "meaningful" and "meaningless" by using "little social distinction."

J. J. in PA (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eldest sons of younger sons of peers...

I was wondering, if the eldest son of a younger son of a peer is granted the postnomial Esquire, would this pass to his next brother on his death. Say Lord John Smith, younger son of Bill Smith, Duke of Somewhere, has a son; he would be Charles Smith, Esq. Lord John has a second son, plain old David Smith. Now what if Charles Smith, Esq. dies? Would his "Esq." pass on to David as the eldest living son of Lord John?

Sorry if this is confusing, just an American trying to understand the system :)

Thanks, Prsgoddess187 16:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


I would think so, assuming that Charles doesn't have a child, or at least a son. David would then be the eldest son of Lord John. The way I've seen this type of style used, it is "perpetual succession." My guess is that Lord John would have to be living for David to be the oldest son, as opposed to the "surviving" son.

I hope that someone more familiar with this might pop in with a more authoritative answer. J. J. in PA (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Queen

The Queen's website is www.royal.gov.uk. Googling this search phrase: Ms -sclerosis site:royal.gov.uk returns 81 results. The phrase is used in Buckingham palace press releases and the Court Circular. Here are two recent examples:

Press Releases & Speeches, 13 April 2008, in which Her Majesty appoints Ms Bryce as the Governor-General of Australia.

Court Circular, 7 March 2006, which states, "The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh gave a State Banquet this evening in honour of The President of the Federative Republic of Brazil and Senhora Lula da Silva... The following had the honour of being invited: ... Ms. Jane Lichtenstein and Ms. Rhona Shaw... Ms. Susan Catchpole... Ms. Christina Oiticica... [and] Ms. Roberta Marquez". Ariadne55 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)