snelson;104091 wrote:
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)?
Sebastian,
Yes, I have seen it. The College of Arms will refer to US citizens who are granted honorary arms as either "esquire" or "gentleman" in their Letters Patent; depending on their meeting the guidelines, etc.
At one time senior officers in the Royal Army could/would have senior NCOs that were their valet (I believe the term was "batman"). Since these men essentially ‘squired’ to their respective ‘knight’, how would they be known socially? Would they rate squiredom?
StarScepter;104151 wrote:
At one time senior officers in the Royal Army could/would have senior NCOs that were their valet (I believe the term was "batman"). Since these men essentially ‘squired’ to their respective ‘knight’, how would they be known socially? Would they rate squiredom?
On the last question, no.
I don’t know how high up in the ranks these batmen were drawn from, even for very senior officers. But they would have been addressed and referred to the same way as any other soldier of the same rank.
JJB;104142 wrote:
Sebastian,
Yes, I have seen it. The College of Arms will refer to US citizens who are granted honorary arms as either "esquire" or "gentleman" in their Letters Patent; depending on their meeting the guidelines, etc.
Perhaps practice has changed? The Chabot grant illustrated higher up in this thread describes the recipient as a former judge of probate, which would surely make him an esquire by English rules, but accords him only the style of "gentleman."
I’m not sure if an associate professor (more or less equivalent to a British senior lecturer) with a Ph.D. would automatically be an esquire in England, but Prof. Brian Ragen’s grant also styles him "gentleman."
Dear Scott,
All officers of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces would have had the services of a ‘batman’ or equivalent whether they were officers of the Royal Navy, Army or Royal Air Force. Junior officers would have probably shared a ‘batman’, whilst the most senior officers would have been able to call on their own ‘batman’. As Joe has mentioned they were serving sailors, soldiers or airmen who would have been addressed by whatever rank they held. I am none too sure when the practice as such was discontinued - in all probability during the late 1950’s or 1960’s. Certainly senior officers still have drivers (military or civilian) and orderlies who look after some of the duties of the old ‘batmen’. The ranks of the ‘batmen’ would generally been of private soldier rank or the equivalent in the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force or, perhaps, junior NCO rank.
Although, so saying I recall undertaking a course in the early 1980’s at a military establishment where a civilian was employed as the equivalent of a ‘batman’ to see to wants of the officers on the course in relation to their kit.
With every good wish,
John
Joseph McMillan;104154 wrote:
Perhaps practice has changed? The Chabot grant illustrated higher up in this thread describes the recipient as a former judge of probate, which would surely make him an esquire by English rules, but accords him only the style of "gentleman."
I’m not sure if an associate professor (more or less equivalent to a British senior lecturer) with a Ph.D. would automatically be an esquire in England, but Prof. Brian Ragen’s grant also styles him "gentleman."
Hmm…oh well. The only evidence I have right now is the Memorial/Petition, on which the officer of arms had written “esq.” But Letters Patent are pending. Well—Warrant issuance pending I assume. But I’ll see if they alter the Memorial’s wording on the LP for Americans. I suspect they will leave it since it doesn’t do any harm.
Dear All,
I believe (and here I stand to be corrected) the possession of a university degree be it doctor, master or bachelor would not ordinarily admit an individual petitioning the Earl Marshal to be cited as an ‘esquire’ unless qualified to be so by the criteria previously posted. The default position would be for most petitioners would be ‘gentleman’. If one holds a university degree of whatever status and is, say, of the rank of Captain or its equivalent in the British or Commonwealth Armed Forces or holds an office under the Crown, or any of the other combinations cited one would undoubtedly be styled an ‘esquire’, but not when in the possession of a degree or other professional qualification alone. Whether the College of Arms takes note of a petitioner for honorary arms let’s say a Captain or equivalent in the United States Armed Forces and would be prepared to style him as an ‘esquire’ in a petition and in the body of the subsequent grant text I know not.
With every good wish
John
John,
Yes; this case falls in with what you said. In the recent example that I cite above, the styling of "esq." was on the basis of attaining the rank of Army captain (US Army, which must not make a difference). Again though; "esq." has only been written on the petition drafted by the officer of arms. I do not know if this would stay the same on the official grant.
Dear Jeffry,
It will be interesting to see what is stated in the finished text of your grant which will then give a notion of the College’s policy is at present.
With every good wish
John
The latest College of Arms newsletter in yesterday’s email included a brief mention of a Japanese TV program (lecture) by York Herald on The English Gentleman. The content of the talk should be interesting, and maybe (or maybe not) would relate to this thread.
Michael F. McCartney;104058 wrote:
Curious about the seal on the commission signed by Thomas Jefferson in Joe’s posting above - do we know what inscription or image is on the seal?
Looking for something completely different, I found this color photo of a similar commission in the collection of the Virginia Historical Society. The seal is clearly the "Sic semper tyrannis" seal of the commonwealth of Virginia.
http://vhs4.vahistorical.org/vhsimages/manuscripts/Mss2/MSS2W86853a1.jpg
Interesting that the person being commissioned is always a "gentleman" and Jefferson is an "esquire" on this pre-printed form.
I’d love to see if there are any examples where the "gentleman" portion is crossed out and "esquire" written in due to a higher social status of the commissioned individual.
Follow the link below for an excellent law review article that touches on this subject:
David,
That was a very interesting essay. It makes me ask myself, "where do we draw the line"?
I’m ambivalent on the whole subject myself. That’s because Esq. really is only a courtesy title. Contrast that with the address of "Don so-and-so", which implies descent from Spanish nobility below a knight. Of course, the use of "don" has evolved a number of ways so that many people, like the elderly and respected (not to mention pirates and criminal bosses) might have been addressed as such out of courtesy. In spite of its possible incorrect use in this way, the address of Don differs from esquire in that Don asserts one as being part of an actual royally-sanctioned lower-level nobility. Esquire does not. It’s really no different than Americans addressing each other as "gentleman". It’s true that the word gentleman may have meant something more specific in England at one time. But we’ve taken it in the US and the term essentially is used out of courtesy or to imply respectable manners.
Sadly not everyone can use Esq. in the US, because its association with lawyers has become so ubiquitous that people might think someone is misrepresenting themselves if he writes "Esq." after his name. And to be fair, the majority of the newer young lawyers I know don’t use Esq. on their cards because they think it’s pretentious.
On where we draw the line, I think of my mom’s dad. I grew up with him introducing himself always as "Colonel ______". That’s how he answered the phone and everything. I only think he simply couldn’t stomach the idea after retiring of being of being plain old Joe Bag O’Donuts. It sounds pretentious, but he was a dominating figure with a colorful personality and people liked him. And people addressed him or referred to him as "Colonel" without irony (at least to my ears). My point is, why would we accept that if we don’t allow the use of "So-and-so, Esq." or "Don Guapo"?
I know that, like lawyers with "Esq.", retired colonels and such don’t go by their formal address anymore. Even PhDs outside their classrooms modestly go by their first names; and I find out what they are through a third party. Because even when they discuss their job, it’s just, "I teach at ___". Sure, it’s nice that we all have such parity in this world of first names only. But it makes life a little dull, doesn’t it?
Dear Jeffry,
I am retired and have been for some time.
Personally, I do not like the use of "What can I get you guys" from the very young waitstaff nor the use of my first name after it is known by equally young staff. I find it very irritating.
I little courtesy and "Thank you, Mr Boyd" to one of their elders goes a very long way with me.
Regards,
Iain Boyd
