Postby Chris Green » 07 Apr 2015, 06:08
The title of esquire was widely abused even by the 16th century. True
Technically an esquire is a person of higher social rank than a gentleman, and less than a knight. True
In writing, a gentleman would be 'Mr Bloggs', and an esquire 'Fred Bloggs, Esq.' (not 'Mr Fred Bloggs, Esq.'). True
Over the years the rank varied in seniority, so in the 14th century it meant approximately the same as a knighthood, Very doubtful, evidence? while in the 19th century it meant little more than gentleman. True
Debrett's gives a (long) list of those who might be entitled to be addressed as esquire. This list includes, for example, male heirs of peers and knights, sheriffs and Justices of the Peace, officers of the royal household, QCs and senior judges, senior military officers, and holders of postgraduate degrees. True
Despite widely held belief, the title of esquire does not merely signify a gentleman or a landowner, although it has often been thus misapplied. True In practice, as their ouch! is no formal legal ruling on the use of Esquire, it has become rather haphazard. True In practice, it is difficult to object to the use of the title by anybody — even the College of Arms routinely uses it in correspondence with people who have no grander title. The College may use the title in correspondence, but it does not do so in Letters Patent, it uses Gentleman unless the Grantee has a higher entitlement.
Chris Green
IAAH President
Bertilak de Hautdesert