The Style of Esquire

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
11 April 2015 11:14
 

Joseph McMillan;103932 wrote:

But this (both supporters and helm positions) are like words. In paleo times they were just meaningless grunts, and if you liked the way it sounded, you said it. But over the centuries they acquired meaning—different meanings in different languages, but still meaning.

If you expect to be understood today, you use the words with the meanings they actually have. (Certainly the meanings change with use, but generally by evolution, not because someone wakes up one day and decides "I think ‘red’ should mean ‘blue’.") And sometimes the meanings they have don’t match up with what they may have meant in the past. "Condescending" for example. To be condescending used to be a compliment, circa 1800. It meant a person of high rank had the common touch, didn’t put on airs. Moreover, that’s the etymology—"to come down among." The same is true of "officious." In the early 18th century, it had the connotation of "helpful, courteous." But if we call someone officious and condescending today, it isn’t a compliment, and it won’t help to offer an etymological excuse when they take offense.

 

Same with supporters. There’s no logical reason that they should be anything other than decorative, but by centuries of practice they are. That’s why, in most places, when knowledgeable heraldists see newly assumed arms adorned with supporters they know that the armiger is either an ignoramus or a poseur.

 

Same with barred and open helms. In most heraldic languages (English, for sure) an open helm is a statement of social rank. There’s no reason for it, it may be silly, and all the explanations are undoubtedly contrived and post hoc. Nevertheless, when I, in the year 2015, put an open helm atop my shield, it asserts that I am a knight. If I am, in fact, not a knight, then either I’m either heraldically illiterate or lying about myself. "I don’t think it should mean that" or "it didn’t always mean that" does no more good than "oh, I think of officiousness as a good thing" or "in Jane Austen’s time, condescending meant…."


Joe, I agree with you on this.  When there’s an accepted meaning of a word or sign within society, it’s futile to try and "reclaim" that word or sign.

 

You mentioned it before, but "Esq." is one of my pet peeves too.  After boring several folks in my office about how it’s silly that lawyers in the US use "Esq." to mean "lawyer", and how it’s actually a social rank, and how it’s doubly silly for female lawyers to use it [since esquire, like knight, is a term to denote men (contrast "Dame") of a certain social rank], I’ve simply given up.  I never use and still detest it, but have given up trying to explain to them that, "I don’t think that word means what you think it means."

 

Barred helms, open visors, and supporters all have a settled meaning in the international heraldic community.  In the absence of a legal authority in the US to enforce these meanings, I think we should be guided by consensus and custom and refrain.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
11 April 2015 11:33
 

David Pope;103935 wrote:

You mentioned it before, but "Esq." is one of my pet peeves too. After boring several folks in my office about how it’s silly that lawyers in the US use "Esq." to mean "lawyer", and how it’s actually a social rank, and how it’s doubly silly for female lawyers to use it [since esquire, like knight, is a term to denote men (contrast "Dame") of a certain social rank], I’ve simply given up. I never use and still detest it, but have given up trying to explain to them that, "I don’t think that word means what you think it means."


I’ve actually come to the conclusion that using the term "esquire" for American lawyers is not as inappropriate as Brits seem to think it is.  In the British system of a divided legal profession, "esquire" is reserved for (male) English barristers and Scottish advocates, i.e., those who have been admitted to plead at the bar of the Queen’s courts.  Mere solicitors are not esquires, at least not by virtue of being solicitors.

 

In the American system, all lawyers have been admitted to plead at the bar of the highest courts of their respective states, making them formally equivalent to English barristers, even if their actual practice is made up mainly of work that in English would be performed by solicitors.

 

That said, I’ve never liked the practice of applying any kind of honorific to oneself.  Lawyers should bill themselves as "John Doe, attorney-at-law" (or, in the glorious old style formula, "attorney and counselor at law, solicitor in chancery and proctor in admiralty").

 
mghofer
 
Avatar
 
 
mghofer
Total Posts:  46
Joined  14-09-2014
 
 
 
11 April 2015 19:57
 

Joseph McMillan;103936 wrote:

I’ve actually come to the conclusion that using the term "esquire" for American lawyers is not as inappropriate as Brits seem to think it is.  In the British system of a divided legal profession, "esquire" is reserved for (male) English barristers and Scottish advocates, i.e., those who have been admitted to plead at the bar of the Queen’s courts.  Mere solicitors are not esquires, at least not by virtue of being solicitors.

In the American system, all lawyers have been admitted to plead at the bar of the highest courts of their respective states, making them formally equivalent to English barristers, even if their actual practice is made up mainly of work that in English would be performed by solicitors.

 

That said, I’ve never liked the practice of applying any kind of honorific to oneself.  Lawyers should bill themselves as "John Doe, attorney-at-law" (or, in the glorious old style formula, "attorney and counselor at law, solicitor in chancery and proctor in admiralty").


So, as unhappy many of us are about it, words are not immutable. They change their meaning slightly over time and geography. Thus undercutting the original point of the analogy (or enriching its effect, depending on how you feel about the original point).

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 April 2015 08:57
 

mghofer;103949 wrote:

So, as unhappy many of us are about it, words are not immutable. They change their meaning slightly over time and geography.


Well, they do, but in this case the example is to the contrary. American lawyers’ use of the honorific "esquire" reflects continuity of meaning from 17th century England, not change.

 
mghofer
 
Avatar
 
 
mghofer
Total Posts:  46
Joined  14-09-2014
 
 
 
12 April 2015 12:07
 

Joseph McMillan;103970 wrote:

Well, they do, but in this case the example is to the contrary. American lawyers’ use of the honorific "esquire" reflects continuity of meaning from 17th century England, not change.


It is both change and homage.  "Esquire" does not mean the same thing in the U.S. as it does in England, and is therefor a change (even if small).  It is a link to the 17th century (and therefor homage), but it does not mean the same thing as it did then and especially before then.

 

We are poor judges of the change that take place in our time and we often romanticize what has gone before, making any changes that happened long ago seem inevitable and usually for the better.  My main contention on this subthread (related to, but not the original topic) is that we should not rule out change or innovation because it is change or innovation.  Nor should we welcome it on the same grounds.  Instead we should judge each one on its own merits.

 

Headgear is certainly a better place to recognize individual accomplishments (I’ve been using this word instead of achievements to avoid confusion) than is the chief for reasons discussed in that sister thread. However, for reasons discussed earlier in this thread, there certainly has to be a better way to represent that accomplishment in the armorial achievement of the individual.

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
12 April 2015 17:38
 

mghofer;103972 wrote:

It is both change and homage.  "Esquire" does not mean the same thing in the U.S. as it does in England, and is therefor a change (even if small).  It is a link to the 17th century (and therefor homage), but it does not mean the same thing as it did then and especially before then.

We are poor judges of the change that take place in our time and we often romanticize what has gone before, making any changes that happened long ago seem inevitable and usually for the better.  My main contention on this subthread (related to, but not the original topic) is that we should not rule out change or innovation because it is change or innovation.  Nor should we welcome it on the same grounds.  Instead we should judge each one on its own merits.

 

Headgear is certainly a better place to recognize individual accomplishments (I’ve been using this word instead of achievements to avoid confusion) than is the chief for reasons discussed in that sister thread. However, for reasons discussed earlier in this thread, there certainly has to be a better way to represent that accomplishment in the armorial achievement of the individual.


Well put; agree on all points.

 

I, too, was of the belief that esquire, in original English usage, was simply an honorific appended to the names of everyone of the gentleman class whether or not they had been called to the bar.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 April 2015 18:19
 

zebulon;103976 wrote:

Well put; agree on all points.

I, too, was of the belief that esquire, in original English usage, was simply an honorific appended to the names of everyone of the gentleman class whether or not they had been called to the bar.


A good book to look at on this subject, if you want to get into the details, is the late Maurice Keen’s Origins of the English Gentleman (2002).

 

"Esquire" was originally simply another word for "squire," the young man of good family serving as a knight in training. Then it came to be applied to all men of the knightly class who for whatever reason didn’t proceed to full knighthood. As the class of "mere" gentleman came into being between 1400 and 1500 as a term for substantial landowners of less grand ancestry (before that, "gentlemen" was merely a collective term for lords, knights, and esquires), it became the practice to accord "esquire" not only by virtue of blood but also to "mere gentlemen" who occupied certain offices of trust, a category which at some point (before English colonization of North America) came to include barristers.

 

By the way, as Keen, explains, the boundaries between lords and knights and between between knights and esquires are clearly and legally demarcated, but the ones between esquire and gentleman and between gentleman and those below not so, which gives people interested in such things lots of space for argument. It also provided plenty of grist for disputes over precedence in the Court of Chivalry in the 16th and 17th centuries.

 

And I’m now guilty of going off topic. To bring it back on topic (slightly), Keen cites a 14th century statute stipulating that esquires at a tournament would wear their master’s arms in their caps, but not could not wear their own.

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
12 April 2015 18:29
 

Joseph McMillan;103981 wrote:

A good book to look at on this subject, if you want to get into the details, is the late Maurice Keen’s Origins of the English Gentleman (2002).

"Esquire" was originally simply another word for "squire," the young man of good family serving as a knight in training.  Then it came to be applied to all men of the knightly class who for whatever reason didn’t proceed to full knighthood.  As the class of "mere" gentleman came into being between 1400 and 1500 (before that, "gentlemen" was merely a collective term for lords, knights, and esquires), it became the practice to accord "esquire" designation not only by virtue of blood but also to "mere gentlemen" who occupied certain offices of trust, a category which at some point (before English colonization of North America) came to include barristers.

 

By the way, as Keen, explains, the boundaries between lords and knights and between between knights and esquires are clearly and legally demarcated, but the ones between esquire and gentleman and between gentleman and those below not so, which gives people interested in such things lots of space for argument.  It also provided plenty of grist for disputes over precedence in the Court of Chivalry in the 16th and 17th centuries.

 

And I’m now guilty of going off topic.  To bring it back on topic (slightly), Keen cites a 14th century statute stipulating that esquires at a tournament would wear their master’s arms in their caps, but not could not wear their own.


That’s fascinating, however, a bit off topic. I (and I assume mghofer) were responding to ...


Joseph McMillan wrote:

American lawyers’ use of the honorific "esquire" reflects continuity of meaning from 17th century England, not change.


As noted, use of esquire by attorneys does not reflect continuity of meaning from 17th century England.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
12 April 2015 21:09
 

Mark,

The whole ethos of heraldry is that it is inherently conservative.  Of course innovations do occur on occasion, but with the caveat that heraldry as an art and science should not be in thrall to fashion otherwise there is a tendency to blur and skew the edges so to speak.

 

Heraldry cannot be all things to all men however much someone would wish to break the mould by introducing a radical and new concept which is at a distance from the perceived traditional and accepted norm.

 

Heraldry like many forms of human endeavour needs certain constraints, laws and guidelines.  Again, however one is proud of the fact they have obtained a degree or reached a certain career goal it does not mean that it should reflected or alluded to by the adoption of certain visual expressions of that degree or attainment in one’s heraldic achievement.  As I have said before it would just ‘over egg the pudding’ for its own sake.  Heraldry has developed over the centuries a certain number of types of helm which admittedly from the British perspective that indicate the rank of the armiger (ie: Gentleman/Esquire, Knight/Baronet or Peer) there is no harm in that; and as Joe has already intimated the system of the use of the helm in Continental European is decidedly convoluted.  As the USA is a republic it is perfectly acceptable for an armiger to use the helm of a Gentleman/Esquire be it a tilting helm, barrel helm or a helmet with a closed visor for from the American perspective it need not be indicative of rank.  As is now the sensible practice in the British Isles such a helm may conform to the attitude of the crest.  There is, therefore, no need whatsoever to consider the introduction of non-traditional forms of headgear.

 

On another tack.  The rank or appellation of Esquire although it has lost in its impact in the UK over the last 100 years or so due to its use by correspondents writing to any male over the age of majority as ‘George Washington, Esq’ rather than ‘Mr George Washington’ without any due consideration of the qualification for the rank or style of Esquire.  So saying, it appears with modern business and office practice (and, perhaps, through automated business systems) its use has generally fallen out of favour of late.  In itself, Esquire is still a rank in that where gentlemen have no other rank (ie: knighthood, etc), they would be described in commissions and other appointments from the Crown when appointing them to certain offices as ‘John Smith, Esquire’.  Such appointments are published in HM Government’s official newspapers of record (ie: the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes).  There is also a list of individuals who would qualify to hold the rank and style of Esquire, but much of this has been blurred by ignorance of how it should be used over the last century or so.  A case in point, I often receive correspondence describing myself as an Esquire in combination with my territorial designation, but there is no need to do so as the use of a Scots territorial designation infers that I am an Esquire without the need to be so described.

 

With every good wish

 

John

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
12 April 2015 21:18
 

zebulon;103985 wrote:

As noted, use of esquire by attorneys does not reflect continuity of meaning from 17th century England.


Barristers in the 17th century were accorded the style of esquire.

 

A barrister is a lawyer who is qualified to plead at the bar of the king’s courts.

 

The same style of esquire was accorded in the colonies to lawyers qualified to plead at the bar of the king’s courts in the colonies.

 

At independence, the king’s courts became the courts of the respective states.  Lawyers who appeared at the bar of these courts continued to be accorded the style of esquire.

 

All American lawyers today are by definition qualified to plead at the bar of the highest court in their respective states.

 

According them the style of esquire is continuity.

 

 

 

.

 
zebulon
 
Avatar
 
 
zebulon
Total Posts:  65
Joined  23-12-2013
 
 
 
12 April 2015 23:23
 

Joseph McMillan wrote:

American lawyers’ use of the honorific "esquire" reflects continuity of meaning from 17th century England, not change.

zebulon wrote:

As noted, use of esquire by attorneys does not reflect continuity of meaning from 17th century England.

Joseph McMillan;103988 wrote:

Barristers in the 17th century were accorded the style of esquire.


Lords of manor, and a host of others in the gentry, were also accorded the style of esquire. That a vast swath of people were titled "esquire" - and a minority of that swath happened to include lawyers - does not in any way equal "American lawyers’ use of the honorific "esquire" reflects continuity of meaning from 17th century England."


Joseph McMillan wrote:

At independence, the king’s courts became the courts of the respective states.


That’s most certainly not the case.

 

There was not a seamless continuity of judicial authority. Prior to independence, during the start of insurgency, magistrates commissioned by the Committees of Safety - or, in the case of political crimes in Virginia and N.Y, the Committee to Detect Conspiracies - constituted a separate judiciary from those commissioned by the Crown and post-independence courts were a continuation of the former, not the latter. Crown courts entered permanent abeyance.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
13 April 2015 05:36
 

zebulon;103990 wrote:

Lords of manor, and a host of others in the gentry, were also accorded the style of esquire.


Max,

 

At the time of which you speak Lords of the Manor in England and Wales as well as Lords of the Manor or their equivalent in the thirteen colonies and those others who were considered ‘gentry’ would have in main been undoubtedly armigerous (if would be unusual if they were not) so would have been accorded the style/appellation of Esquire and in case they were not deemed be to of the rank of Esquire they certainly would been accorded the style/appellation of Gentleman and therefore allowed the armorial incidents of an Esquire/Gentleman, ie: a closed helm whether it be a tilting helm, barrel/pot helm or a helmet with a closed visor.

 

With every good wish

 

John

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
13 April 2015 05:36
 

zebulon;103990 wrote:

Lords of manor, and a host of others in the gentry, were also accorded the style of esquire.


Max,

 

At the time of which you speak Lords of the Manor in England and Wales as well as Lords of the Manor or their equivalent in the thirteen colonies and those others who were considered ‘gentry’ would have in main been undoubtedly armigerous (if would be unusual if they were not) so would have been accorded the style/appellation of Esquire and in case they were not deemed be to of the rank of Esquire they certainly would been accorded the style/appellation of Gentleman and therefore allowed the armorial incidents of an Esquire/Gentleman, ie: a closed helm whether it be a tilting helm, barrel/pot helm or a helmet with a closed visor.

 

With every good wish

 

John

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
13 April 2015 08:26
 

John,

Do you mind further describing the current conventions surrounding who is accorded the styles of Esquire and Gentleman in England and Scotland?

 

What sort of thing makes John Doe become John Doe, Gent. or John Doe, Gent. become John Doe, Esq.?

 

Where do officers in the Forces fall?  Are there particular offices or professions that automatically qualify for one of these terms?

 

Is there an expectation that one is armigerous if a Gentleman?  Does a grant of arms necessarily carry with it the style of Gentleman?  Does Esquire signify a Gentleman who is armigerous?

 

Thanks so much,

 

David

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 09:06
 

zebulon;103990 wrote:

Lords of manor, and a host of others in the gentry, were also accorded the style of esquire.


...

 

To say "all A is B" is not the same as to say "all B is A."

 

Thus "all barristers [members of the bar] are called esquire" does not mean "everyone called esquire is a member of the bar."

 

So even if it were true that all lords of the manor were esquires (and it isn’t), that wouldn’t have any effect whatever on barristers being deemed to be esquires.


Quote:

That a vast swath of people were titled "esquire" - and a minority of that swath happened to include lawyers - does not in any way equal "American lawyers’ use of the honorific "esquire" reflects continuity of meaning from 17th century England."


Royal governors during the colonial period were styled "His Excellency."  So are governors general of Elizabeth II’s non-British realms today.  So were most governors of the American states immediately following Independence, notwithstanding the bumps and grinds of getting from royally appointed governors to governors selected directly or indirectly by the people.

 

http://mariettaoh9-12project.com/wp12/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Foster1790.jpg

 

The Federal government also used this same style to refer officially to governors of the states in the early decades after the adoption of the Constitution.

 

* "By the mail of last evening I received a letter from his excellency John Hancock, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts…" (George Washington, message to the Senate, Feb 18, 1790)

 

* "His Excellency John Jay, Esquire, Governor of New York, has informed me ..." (John Adams, message to the Senate, May 3, 1798)

 

Ambassadors from foreign countries are also styled His/Her Excellency.

 

And a number of American states continue, to this day, to refer to their governors in official, formal settings as "Excellency."

 

Now, your logic would have it "That a vast swath of people were titled "Excellency" - and a minority of that swath happened to include governors of American colonies - does not in any way equal "American governors’ use of the honorific ‘Excellency’ reflects continuity of meaning from the 17th century colonies."

 

You’re right, it doesn’t.  What does reflect continuity is that colonial governors were called "Excellency" before Independence, the newly independent states continued to call their governors "Excellency" after Independence, and some states continue to do so today.

 

The use of "Excellency" for governors-general in the Commonwealth also reflects continuity, in a divergent stream.

 

That foreign ambassadors are also called "Excellency" is irrelevant to the question of whether the American gubernatorial usage is "continuity" or not.  So are the facts that the Federal government no longer recognizes or uses the term "Excellency" to address governors or any other American official, or that American cabinet secretaries no longer address communications to the President "Your Excellency," as many did in the early years.  These are all red herrings.

 

The logic is precisely the same with respect to the style of esquire as used for lawyers.  It doesn’t matter how many other people were styled esquire, or that the term has ceased to be used in this country for virtually every other category of person once accorded that style.  Members of the bar were accorded the term in England at the time the colonies were settled, members of the bar in the colonies were accorded the term in colonial days, members of the bar in the newly independent United States continued to be accorded the term despite the disruption of the court system in 1776, and they were still being accorded the term in 1856 (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary).

 

I don’t know how else "continuity" can possibly be defined.


Quote:

There was not a seamless continuity of judicial authority. Prior to independence, during the start of insurgency, magistrates commissioned by the Committees of Safety - or, in the case of political crimes in Virginia and N.Y, the Committee to Detect Conspiracies - constituted a separate judiciary from those commissioned by the Crown and post-independence courts were a continuation of the former, not the latter. Crown courts entered permanent abeyance.


Fair enough.  I was speaking of what happened functionally, not institutionally.  And yet the Federal district courts for the Eastern District of Massachusetts and Southern District of New York consider themselves the successors in title of the royal vice-admiralty courts of Boston and New York and, when considering admiralty and maritime cases, accordingly display the oar-shaped maces used by their predecessors.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 09:24
 

liongam;103993 wrote:

At the time of which you speak Lords of the Manor in England and Wales as well as Lords of the Manor or their equivalent in the thirteen colonies and those others who were considered ‘gentry’ would have in main been undoubtedly armigerous (if would be unusual if they were not) so would have been accorded the style/appellation of Esquire and in case they were not deemed be to of the rank of Esquire they certainly would been accorded the style/appellation of Gentleman and therefore allowed the armorial incidents of an Esquire/Gentleman, ie: a closed helm whether it be a tilting helm, barrel/pot helm or a helmet with a closed visor.


Given that we’re talking about an era (16th-17th centuries) when heralds all across Europe were developing ways to express armorially everyone’s precise station in life, perhaps the use of the same helmet for esquires and "mere" gentlemen (as Keen calls them) might reasonably be interpreted as a tacit acknowledgment that there was no clear cut boundary between the two categories.