Post removed.

General Heraldry subjects
User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3621
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: Armiger versus Esquire?

Postby Chris Green » 17 Mar 2015, 08:15

andrewkerensky wrote:The best thing about the previous post in my opinion is that it is academically well referenced not just some bloke expressing an opinion. We need to all think about that really.

But that's just your opinion! I am not sure that I appreciate being referred to as "a bloke expressing an opinion". Indeed I am sure I do not.

But seriously ... Even "academically well referenced" material can be wrong. Chambers dictionary is widely respected and its world-wide sales are probably greater than any other dictionary including the Oxford Dictionary. It is a multi-million dollar business that employs professionals to ensure that its products are comprehensive and accurate. But yet it makes silly mistakes.
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 1400
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 17:27
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Armiger versus Esquire?

Postby Martin Goldstraw » 17 Mar 2015, 09:50

Chris Green wrote:
But seriously ... Even "academically well referenced" material can be wrong.


But the material referred to is not just "academically well referenced" it is the words of an "institutional writer" and as was pointed out, in Scots law an "institutional writer" may be used, evidentially, as authoritative i.e. that is the opinion we should believe. Unfortunately, I have personal experience of Innes of Learney being considered, in the Court of Session, as being an "institutional writer" when he was quoting himself as the source of his own opinion, contradicting his own views written elsewhere, and generally talking nonsense.

I don't accept that that Chambers dictionary gives a fair modern understanding of the general meaning. It seems to me that there is no general understanding of the term esquire and as for squireens and lairds, those companies who have a vested financial interest in the terms have worked hard to skew their meanings out of all acceptable recognition.
Martin Goldstraw
Cheshire Heraldry
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3621
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: Armiger versus Esquire?

Postby Chris Green » 17 Mar 2015, 11:12

But the material referred to is not just "academically well referenced" it is the words of an "institutional writer" and as was pointed out, in Scots law an "institutional writer" may be used, evidentially, as authoritative i.e. that is the opinion we should believe.


I was not suggesting that Lord Bankton's opinion was wrong, merely that it is, as you point out about Innes of Learney, dangerous to accept that all "academically well referenced" material is correct.

I happen to think in this instance however that Chambers dictionary gives a fair modern understanding of the general meaning rather than its historical meaning which has little relevance today.


So it is OK for Chambers, or any other dictionary, encyclopedia, or even Wiki, to repeat erroneous material because a lot of people these days believe it to be true (having obtained their info from the same sources)? Thus the "truth" becomes embedded. It's in the dictionary/Wiki so it must be true. Most people believe it to be true so that's what we'll put in our dictionary.
Chris Green
IAAH President

Bertilak de Hautdesert

User avatar
JMcMillan
Posts: 613
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 22:33
Location: United States

Re: Armiger versus Esquire?

Postby JMcMillan » 17 Mar 2015, 13:11

To clarify: when Bankton is described as an institutional writer, he is (as both Martin and I observed) taken as authoritative in matters of law. In the 18th century, these styles and titles were considered of legal significance.

Whether he is also factually correct is another matter. Mackenzie of Rosehaugh is also an institutional writer, and a lot of the history embedded in his writings can now be shown to be nonsense, but that doesn't affect the authoritativeness of his legal pronouncements.

In this case, Bankton must be taken as authoritative when it comes to the law of ranks, styles, and titles as it existed at the time. As I said, much of that law has since been overturned by statute, notably by the Abolition of Feudal Tenure Act. But apart from his standing in Scots law, he is also an informed and detailed observer of the practices in use on such matters as they existed during his time. Thus, when he says that people accorded physicians the style of esquire, as a matter of common practice, not of law, we may reasonably suppose that they actually did so.

The most important point is that Bankton does NOT accord the style of esquire, either in law or in common usage, to every landowner, or laird. Some landowners were esquires and others were not; some esquires were landowners and others were not. Which is where we started.

Esquire ≠ laird. Not now, not ever.
Joseph McMillan
Alexandra, Virginia, USA

User avatar
Martin Goldstraw
Site Admin
Posts: 1400
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 17:27
Location: Shropshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Armiger versus Esquire?

Postby Martin Goldstraw » 17 Mar 2015, 15:08

JMcMillan wrote: //snip// The most important point is that Bankton does NOT accord the style of esquire, either in law or in common usage, to every landowner, or laird. Some landowners were esquires and others were not; some esquires were landowners and others were not. Which is where we started.

Esquire ≠ laird. Not now, not ever.


Hear hear. And, to once more get back to where we started, it was never the case, not even in the fantasy times of Innes of Learney, that anyone referred to themselves as Laird of ******* as though it were a title.
Martin Goldstraw
Cheshire Heraldry
http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk

Ryan Shuflin
Posts: 582
Joined: 26 Jul 2012, 13:00
Location: Germany

Re: Armiger versus Esquire?

Postby Ryan Shuflin » 18 Mar 2015, 14:13

As far as Lairds go, there also existed several terms, such as bonnet laird, that referred to lairds who worked their own land.

Ryan Shuflin
Posts: 582
Joined: 26 Jul 2012, 13:00
Location: Germany

Re: Armiger versus Esquire?

Postby Ryan Shuflin » 07 Apr 2015, 05:06

I was reminded of this comic: https://xkcd.com/978/ I think this process is fairly old. Research used to be a lot harder, so people made stuff up all the time.

User avatar
Chris Green
Posts: 3621
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 13:06
Location: Karlstad, Sweden

Re: Armiger versus Esquire?

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


Return to “General Heraldry”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests