Post removed.

[Chris Green]

Just a topical aside about what constitutes a gentleman.

Today at Westminster a man caused a disturbance in the House of Commons gallery by shouting and throwing a bag of marbles. When questioned he apparently said: "I'm an English gentleman, I have the right to say my bit". In my opinion he was probably no gentleman since: 1) he should first have caught the Speaker's eye before attempting to engage in the on-going debate, 2) a gentleman should have no occasion to inform strangers that he is a gentleman, and 3) he had clearly lost his marbles.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11179761/Man-hurls-marbles-at-MPs-in-House-of-Commons-security-breach.html

[JMcMillan]

In the American South, at least, it would not occur to us to suppose that having lost one's marbles was necessarily incompatible with being a gentleman. Every good family has at least one or two crazy uncles back up the family tree.

[Chris Green]

In the American South, at least, it would not occur to us to suppose that having lost one's marbles was necessarily incompatible with being a gentleman. Every good family has at least one or two crazy uncles back up the family tree.

True enough. Many a family among the English gentry contains or contained members whose "eccentricity" is a byword. However they would be tolerated because they restricted their eccentricities to their estates, the local village (which they might well own) and their London club. Losing one's marbles in the public areas of the House of Commons would be considered an unforgivable faux pas. (in the House of Lords however - if they were noble - would be perfectly acceptable)

[Edward Hillenbrand]

Just to rekindle this one. I needed our medical director's signature of some awards. I wrote his name out and used his put after his name MD, Esq. He then changed Esq to JD. I asked him why. He states that has been the norm for many years now in the US as Esquire or Esq is a title for a gentleman and that many lawyers are no gentlemen. He then went on to explain that it is really in part because of the confusion with Europe, titles of nobility and that Esq is not the degree, rather JD is is the degree and we are putting degrees after our names, titles go in front of names.

If you are wondering if he is a new lawyer, no. He is 68.

[andrewkerensky]

Post removed.

[Chris Green]

Just to rekindle this one. I needed our medical director's signature of some awards. I wrote his name out and used his put after his name MD, Esq. He then changed Esq to JD. I asked him why. He states that has been the norm for many years now in the US as Esquire or Esq is a title for a gentleman and that many lawyers are no gentlemen. He then went on to explain that it is really in part because of the confusion with Europe, titles of nobility and that Esq is not the degree, rather JD is is the degree and we are putting degrees after our names, titles go in front of names. If you are wondering if he is a new lawyer, no. He is 68.

So your medical doctor is also a doctor of law (JD = Juris Doctor, a post-nominal not used in the UK), which I suppose is possible. In that case he was entitled to have JD placed after MD but not otherwise. The US use of Esq has developed in a somewhat different manner to its use in England and is largely restricted to attorneys at law, most of whom do not have an entitlement to JD and use Esq as an affectation rather than an entitlement (though the fraudulent use of Esq to pass oneself off as a qualified attorney would be illegal).

The English "rule" sometimes quoted is to use post-nominals or Esq, not both, a rule most often honoured in the breach! However what often happens is that a lawyer would probably be addressed in writing as: J Smith Esq MA LLD. The alternatives would be Mr J Smith MA LLD, J Smith MA LLD or simply Dr J Smith (it would be wrong to use Dr as a prefix as well as the LLD post-nominal). Of course in the UK the legal post-nominal is QC (Queen's Counsel), so J Smith Esq QC. But only the cream of barristers get to be QCs. The others, and all solicitors, have to make do with their degree post-nominals, I can't prove it, but would guess that very few English lawyers outside academia use the title Dr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-nominal_letters

[Chris Green]

I figured nothing ventured nothing gained so I've asked the College of Arms via e-mail if they could clarify their position on the useage of 'Esquire' and 'Gentlemen' when issuing grants.

When my grant of arms was being processed back in '84 I reminded York Herald that as an Officer of HM Diplomatic Service I was an Esquire by virtue of Letters Patent signed by HM The Queen. My Grant thus describes me as an Esquire. But the "norm" I believe is to describe the grantee as Gentleman if no other status has been granted.

Incidentally, going back to lawyers, A (male) QC would be an Esquire as his Letters Patent from HM The Queen describe him as such. A female QC would not be an Esquire, which in the UK is still considered to be a male title. Female attorneys in the USA are I believe referred to as Esq.

[JMcMillan]

Incidentally, going back to lawyers, A (male) QC would be an Esquire as his Letters Patent from HM The Queen describe him as such. A female QC would not be an Esquire, which in the UK is still considered to be a male title. Female attorneys in the USA are I believe referred to as Esq.

Weirdly enough, yes, they can be. At one level it makes sense: if male lawyers are going to arrogate to themselves an honorific style, one cannot expect their female counterparts to do without one. But it still hurts my ears, and, as I think I said earlier in this thread, my impression is that the self-application of the title by either male or female attorneys is inversely correlated with the reputation/status/prestige of their practice.

[Ryan Shuflin]

A female QC would not be an Esquire, which in the UK is still considered to be a male title. Female attorneys in the USA are I believe referred to as Esq.

What would a female QC be then? a Lady?

[JMcMillan]

A female QC would not be an Esquire, which in the UK is still considered to be a male title. Female attorneys in the USA are I believe referred to as Esq.

What would a female QC be then? a Lady?

She would be "Miss/Mrs/Ms Jane Smith, QC."