David Pope;104083 wrote:

Based on the information that Joe has provided, it seems also to be incorrect.

Incorrect by traditional rules, certainly, but consistent with modern British social practice.  By the traditional rules, many of us here wouldn’t even rate having our mail addressed as "Mr,"  "Mrs," etc.

Quote:

My understanding is that physicians wouldn’t be styled Esquire, solely on the basis of their profession.

I’m not sure whether that’s the case.  In the quotation I provided from Lord Bankton, we know that as of the early 18th century it was considered appropriate in Scotland to address physicians as "esquire," and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was also true in England.

This reminds me of the whole "two great peoples divided by a common language" business.  The bonnet and boot of a MiniCooper becomes hood and trunk when it crosses the pond; ad seeming infinitum.  While the old-world etymology of words, whether physical objects or social constructs, can certainly be intèresting, it’s all academic.  And vice-versa for Brits amused (or alarmed ) by what the former colonials have done with HM’s English.

Geez, we can’t even keep it straight from coast to coast or between various branches of our military.  Expecting, or even hoping for, trans-Atlantic consistency is a Quixotic exercise at best.  Great fun but not to be taken all that seriously.  Not quite the Biblical Tower of Babel, but if we strike the"tower" part ...

David Pope;104083 wrote:

Based on the information that Joe has provided, it seems also to be incorrect.

My understanding is that physicians wouldn’t be styled Esquire, solely on the basis of their profession.  If that’s the case, then using Esq. for everyone else without a professional prenominal actually inverts the order of precedence.

To clarify, my recollection is that clergymen were addressed as Rev. and elected (or formerly elected) officials as Hon., but I can’t recall how physicians and Ph.Ds were dealt with. I just remember that Esq. was the default postnominal.

Wilfred Leblanc;104086 wrote:

To clarify, my recollection is that clergymen were addressed as Rev. and elected (or formerly elected) officials as Hon., but I can’t recall how physicians and Ph.Ds were dealt with. I just remember that Esq. was the default postnominal.

Wilfred, thanks for that clarification.  I had wrongly assumed that you were referring to Dr.

It’s ironic that the categories which usually result in the use of Hon. seem to be those where the person’s traditional social rank was Esq.

The deeper you dig, the harder it is to generalize, especially without specifying the place and timeframe.

A list of attendees at a meeting of the Lord Proprietor’s Council of Maryland on 20 July 1726 lists the governor and all the councilors as "honble" and appends the designation "Esqr" to all those who don’t have a military rank. Thus, the first two members after Governor Calvert are "the honble Colo[nel] William Holland" and "the honble John Hall Esqr."

The minutes then open with a reference to "His Excellency the Governor."

In the parallel body, a few months earlier, and two colonies to the south, from Colonial Records of North Carolina, a list of attendees at a Council held in Edenton of 19 Jan 1726/27 lists the governor as "The Honoble Sir Richd Everard Bart" and all of the members by first name, last name, and Esq, without "honorable."

But then, in 1749, the same body, the same place, but two decades later, the North Carolinians have caught up with the earlier Maryland fashion:

Quote:

Present His Excellency the Governor.

The Honble Eleazer Allen Esqr Member of Council

The Honble Roger Moore Esqr Member of Council

The Honble Will Forbes Esqr Member of Council

The governor has become Excellency and all the members are now honorable.

While, in that same year, north of the provincial border in Virginia, we find the Governor listed simply as "The Governor," and the members as "John Robinson, Thomas Lee, Lewis Burwell, John Blair Esqrs, William Dawson D.D. & John Lewis Esqr." Note that the first four are all esquires, they just have one plural mention of the term. Then we have the Reverend Dr. Dawson (whose academic/ecclesiastical doctorate of divinity suffices to define his rank) followed by another esquire. No use of "honourable," despite its contemporaneous use for equivalent officials in both neighboring colonies.

As my father used to say (with reference to similarly inexplicable things the U.S. military does), "There’s no reason; it’s just policy."

To the notion of using esquire to advertise status, especially by those with no other title, I’m reminded of this description of the audience at a medieval tournament in Scott’s Ivanhoe:

"The lower and interior space was soon filled by substantial yeomen and burghers, and such of the lesser gentry as, from modesty, poverty, or dubious title, durst not assume any higher place. It was of course amongst these that the most frequent disputes for precedence occurred."

...or "the right way, the wrong way, and the Army way"

Out of curiosity, does anyone here know if any American recipients of grants of honorary arms from the College of Arms or grants/matriculations from the Court of the Lord Lyon have been referred to as esquire in the text of their patent(s)?

Dear Sebastian,

I am sure that my memory is not playing tricks, but I recall that grants/matriculations from Lyon Court do not use the ranks/descriptions of either ‘Gentleman’ or ‘Esquire’.  Presently, I cannot find an example of a honorary grant to a citizen of the USA to examine, but I am sure that both the texts of the Memorial to the Earl Marshal and the subsequent grant would describe the Memorialist or Grantee as a ‘Gentleman’ when no other social rank pertains.  If I can track down an example I will let you know.

With every good wish

John

Dear Sebastian,

I have just found one example of an honorary grant to a citizen of the USA in which the grantee is described as ‘Gentleman’.  As mentioned in my last post the norm when no other social rank is available.  The grantee concerned was Brian Abel Ragen who was granted honorary arms in 1998.

As ever

John

Many thanks John!

Not directly on topic for this thread, but what were those arms?

An image of the patent would be ideal, but even without the eye candy the blazon should give us a mental picture.

Thanks!

Michael F. McCartney;104098 wrote:

Not directly on topic for this thread, but what were those arms?

An image of the patent would be ideal, but even without the eye candy the blazon should give us a mental picture.

 

Thanks!

Here is an image of Brian’s grant:

http://www.brianabelragen.net/patent_files/barpatent.jpg

There are larger versions of the image online too:http://www.brianabelragen.net/patent.html

Here are a few more images of grants of honorary arms:

Peter von Braun:http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/06/43/53/1719025/7/628x471.jpg

Raymond Chabot:http://www.wyverngules.com/Webmasters/RJCgrant.jpg

Thanks!!  All quite beautiful, but also quite different formats / layouts for the letters patent, especially the pictorial border of the Regan grant.  Attractive and (dare I use the word) innovative, at least for a formal heraldic document.

I especially like the relatively simpler style and easier legibility of the Chabot grant but the variety of styles is IMO a nice plus.

And to stay somewhat on-topic, at least two of then call the grantee Gentleman; couldn’t read the middle one on my tablet.

We’re getting far afield from the topic of the thread, but I’ll indulge myself in one further observation on the Chabot letters patent:  the alternation of maple leaves (for the grantee’s place of ancestry) and grapevines (from the arms of his home state, Connecticut) in the decorative border of the document.