Post removed.

[andrewkerensky]

Post removed.

[Chris Green]

You mean of course "Armiger". Anyone who is entitled to bear arms is an armiger, be he a gentleman or a king. The title of Esquire is extremely involved, and I can do no better than direct you to Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire

The use of Esquire (Esq) as a suffix in the US is an eccentricity of the legal profession. In the UK the ubiquitous use of the suffix "Esq" degraded the title to such an extent that any male might receive mail bearing that suffix. It died out with the coming of computers that only accept titles such as "Mr", "Dr" etc that precede the name.

However Esquire is still recognised as a title by HM THe Queen and by the College of Arms. In my various Letters Patent as an Officer of HM Diplomatic Service, Her Majesty addressed me as "Our Trusty and Well Beloved Noel Frank Green Esquire", and the LP with my grant of arms from the College of Arms reflects this rather than the usual appellation "Gentleman".

[andrewkerensky]

Post removed.

[Martin Goldstraw]

Interesting read, it appears the term 'Esquire' in England has become quite ambigious in its modern understanding and regarded the same as 'Gentleman' whereas Scotland has a complete set of rules and even different helmets for clarification. A very good read thanks for directing me to the link.

In reality, Scotland is no different to England in the common degradation of the term Esquire which appears now to be almost universal. Officially there is also little difference. I am noted on my English letters patent as an "Esquire in the Commission of the Peace" and my Scottish matriculation records me simply as "in the Commission of the Peace" without the term Esquire though the helm depicted is that of an Esquire. When I inquired of Lyon Court why the word Esquire had been omitted, I was informed that the word was not used in Letters Patent anymore (though I may have been fobbed off).

[Cameron Campbell]

In the US, it has in many places been assumed by lawyers, but the profession has not been awarded the title by any level of government or authority, and therefore anyone may use it. Naval officers, for example, have been traditionally referred to as such in formal correspondence.

In the case of lawyers, the honorific has simply been assumed. The US government is prohibited by our Constitution from awarding titles.

[Martin Goldstraw]

So....just a quick question for you gentlemen, as you where 'honoured' with the title 'Esquire' officially do you use it as a post nominal? Is it correct to call yourself Chris Green Esquire or Martin Goldstraw Esquire or would that be improper?

Whilst it may be perfectly correct to be be referred to by others in that way (though not necessary for them to do so), it would be presumptuous and even perhaps a little pompous to personally use the term Esquire as a post nominal and I have never seen it so used. I call myself by my name and Esquire does not form a part of my name. I am entitled to use J.P. as a post nominal, but rarely do I use it in correspondence. I should think that nowadays very few people equate the post-nominals J.P. with any form of rank as such things are quite arcane. Justices of the Peace (Magistrates) are formally referred to in Court as "Your Worship" however this form of address is today never used outside the confines of the Court room and it would be somewhat embarrassing to be addressed in such a way elsewhere although I have been addressed as Your Worship by police officers when I have been asked to sign search warrants in my own home; normally though nowadays sir (or madam for the ladies) suffices, even in Court.

[Chris Green]

In most circumstances these days it would be impossible to use the suffix "Esq" or to insist on its use by others since computer forms only allow for prefixes "Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss/Dr". Those with unusual titles are either forced to type it in under "other" or cannot use it at all. Heaven knows what a Duke does.

[Martin Goldstraw]

I know what you mean about the "Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss/Dr" options. Some years ago, my wife (a teacher) asked her classroom assistant to order some equipment for the class on-line. Mrs Poole, the classroom assistant, duly obliged but neglected to notice that the drop down options for "Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss/Dr" had remained set at Dr. When the equipment was delivered, the invoice was marked "For the attention of Dr. Poole" and the delivery driver asked for "Dr. Poole". She never lived it down in the staff room and continues to receive a catalogue annually from the company addressed to Dr. Poole despite on many occassions requesting that the "title" be altered to Mrs.

[Jonathan Webster]

In most circumstances these days it would be impossible to use the suffix "Esq" or to insist on its use by others since computer forms only allow for prefixes "Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss/Dr". Those with unusual titles are either forced to type it in under "other" or cannot use it at all. Heaven knows what a Duke does.

I have myself received post addressed to 'Jonathan Webster, Esq.' as recent as last week, make of that what you will.

[Ryan Shuflin]

I believe the confusion between armiger and esquire comes from the root of the word and possibly French social ranks. Squire or esquire comes from the French/Latin term for shield or armour bearer. Armiger is jargon for a person who has coat of arms.

As far as writing one's name with esq. after it, I think it would be appropriate on business cards and perhaps letterheads. This is perhaps just my American perspective, where it is lawyers who use it, and it is seen as indicative of professional rather than social status.