Are Lords of the Manor Esquires?

[r***@gmail.com]

Esteemed Readers,

Was doing some reading a couple days ago and found a citation on Wikipedia that gave me pause. I thought I might write to you and ask your opinions.

The articles related to Lord of the Manor, Squire and Esquire all reference that Lords of the Manor held/hold the rank of esquire by prescription. Meaning, in the 17th-early 20th century a Lord of the Manor (likely still holding the manorial title, land and rights) would be addressed as "Squire" by his tenants. I did a bit more research online and found some corroborating evidence to support this existing for several hundred years though the traditions surrounding the use of "Esq." (and lordships for that matter) have fallen into disuse as of late.

My question is while I can find a great deal of anecdotal citations and evidence of this tradition, I cannot seem to find anything in Debretts or one of the more formal sources. Perhaps I missed it?

Questions & Assertion:

1. Would a 21st century Lord of the Manor (perhaps one with a verified title registered with HM's Land Registry) still be within their right to style themselves as "esquire" or even (really stretching here) the very traditional "squire"?

2. As you know, the official order of precedence still ranks esquires above gentlemen. It is often stated here and elsewhere that manorial lordships are not "titles" or "dignities" at all and have no place in the honors system. However, if manorial lords were/are entitled to the rank of esquire by right of their position would this not stand as a direct contradiction to the earlier argument of their non-relation?

A) Lords of the Manor are esquires by right/prescription
B) Esquires are ranked above gentlemen in The Order of Precedence
C) Thus, lordships provide both rank and title by right of ownership

Does that logic check out? Thanks for your help making sense of this. Admittedly, I'm a bit confused myself as for so long I had accepted the standard assertion that these "titles" existed totally apart.

I appreciate your time. Cheers!

[Louis Epstein]

Post by r***@gmail.com
Esteemed Readers,
Was doing some reading a couple days ago and found a citation on Wikipedia that gave me pause. I thought I might write to you and ask your opinions.
The articles related to Lord of the Manor, Squire and Esquire all reference that Lords of the Manor held/hold the rank of esquire by prescription. Meaning, in the 17th-early 20th century a Lord of the Manor (likely still holding
the manorial title, land and rights) would be addressed as "Squire" by his tenants. I did a bit more research online and found some corroborating evidence to support this existing for several hundred years though the traditions
surrounding the use of "Esq." (and lordships for that matter) have fallen into disuse as of late.
My question is while I can find a great deal of anecdotal citations and evidence of this tradition, I cannot seem to find anything in Debretts or one of the more formal sources. Perhaps I missed it?
1. Would a 21st century Lord of the Manor (perhaps one with a verified title registered with HM's Land Registry) still be within their right to style themselves as "esquire" or even (really stretching here) the very traditional
"squire"?
2. As you know, the official order of precedence still ranks esquires above gentlemen. It is often stated here and elsewhere that manorial lordships are not "titles" or "dignities" at all and have no place in the honors system.
However, if manorial lords were/are entitled to the rank of esquire by right of their position would this not stand as a direct contradiction to the earlier argument of their non-relation?
A) Lords of the Manor are esquires by right/prescription
B) Esquires are ranked above gentlemen in The Order of Precedence
C) Thus, lordships provide both rank and title by right of ownership
Does that logic check out? Thanks for your help making sense of this. Admittedly, I'm a bit confused myself as for so long I had accepted the standard assertion that these "titles" existed totally apart.
I appreciate your time. Cheers!

I would attribute being an Esquire to the status of being Lord of the Manor,while regarding "Squire" as pertaining to being the landlord of the tenants.
One doesn't call ONESELF "Squire".

The modernists are generally happy to call any man "Esq" if they use it for anyone at all.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Edward Hillenbrand]

This discussion has been held many times in the last few years. The simplest answer I have seen is this: any armiger is an "Esquire" by Right of their arms, but not all Esquires are Lords. This is especially true in the US where "Esq" after the name indicates a lawyer and "Esq" as an honorific confuses the post office. 😉 Recall this as well: Squires were traditionally young nobles learning how to be Knight while a Lord of the Manor is titled noblity.

[StephenP]

Post by Edward Hillenbrand
This discussion has been held many times in the last few years. The simplest answer I have seen is this: any armiger is an "Esquire" by Right of their arms, but not all Esquires are Lords. This is especially true in the US where "Esq" after the name indicates a lawyer and "Esq" as an honorific confuses the post office. 😉 Recall this as well: Squires were traditionally young nobles learning how to be Knight while a Lord of the Manor is titled noblity.

My understanding is slightly different. An armiger is at least a gentleman ( Arms do not make you a gentleman, they denote your gentlemanly status). The status/rank of esquire is/was determined by your military rank, offical appointment or noble rank of the father. Regardless of whether or not I was armigerous, I was a gentleman whilst holding the rank of Lieutenant and then an esquire when I was a captain or major.

[r***@gmail.com]

Thanks to each of you for your replies.

Can anyone verify whether or not Debretts cites manorial lords as esquires by right of their office? Is there another source that can be checked?

Does The College of Arms grant esquires a special helm as The Lord Lyon does (pot helm trimmed in gold if I'm not mistaken)?

Cheers!

[e $$iri k_i]

Post by r***@gmail.com
Can anyone verify whether or not Debretts cites manorial lords as esquires by right of their office? Is there another source that can be checked?

I've seen that cited before also, that manorial lords are the equivalent of esquires and rank just below esquire members of knightly orders in precedence. Don't remember WHO cited it, however. The same source stated that Lord "name" of "somewhere" manor was okay, but calling oneself Lord "name" without the manor title was simply NOT done, as it would be insinuating nobility, and a a manor lord is NOT a noble in the British system. (how COULD it be, if it ranks below a knight and other esquires?)

Other sources point out that any armiger that is armiger by any kind of right, is the equivalent of noblesse petite on the continent, however. According to the English Gentry = Continental petty nobility theory. (if u buy the theory that any non-burgher arms are marks of untitled petty nobility..)

[r***@gmail.com]

Very interesting. Thank you for your reply.

I definitely agree that "Lord X" would be inappropriate. "Lord of the Manor of X" would be correct and "Lord of X" would be a stretch but one nonetheless used quite frequently. I also agree that manorial lords are not nobles though there are some that would argue this. Murky waters.

My question was not an effort to belabor this much discussed point. I merely hoped to find a reliable source that could either confirm or deny the assertion that Lords of Manors are granted the rank of "esquire" due to their station. Further, are esquires granted a special helm by The College of Arms denoting their rank as The Lord Lyon does in Scotland?

Still hoping one of you can settle this for me. Thanks for your time. Cheers!

[Robert dCZ]

But lords of the manor who were not otherwise titled were usually
referred to (and often addressed as) Squire, or even The Squire, where
manors comprised lands and specific rights.

Thus, Carl Cavendish, Esq.
Lord of the Manor of Threetrees in Derbyshire
(yes the complete title always includes a geographic identifier)
would be referred to as The Threetrees Squire in the region.

So, to answer your question, yes, every lord of the manor is an Esquire unless otherwise titled, and one who has lands and tenants is also The Squire. But no, lordships do not provide rank and title; lordships ARE titles (and rights), but any rank claimed is predominantly given by convention, not by formal rule.

Thus while the rank of gentleman is somewhat below that of an
Esquire, it is only by convention and that is very much the way with most titles and honorifics where the Gentry is concerned (as opposed to the actual peerage).

[Robert dCZ]

Just to clear up one item,
Lordsships ARE titles IN THE SENSE of property.
So a lordship is a title of ownership of certain rights (and/or property).
They are NOT titles in the sense of nobility.

[r***@gmail.com]

Great info. Thank you, Robert. I especially appreciate the reference to Cavendish. Was that a real person or just a "straw man" illustration you created for the purpose of providing an example?

I realize and concur that lordships of the manor are not (currently?) a part of the nobility. I think it would be fair to say that (long?) before 1660 they arguably were - at least those holding in capite or directly of The Crown (the "baro" argument). That's another issue though and one we'll keep out of things for now.

I'm simply surprised that manors currently elevate an owner to anything more than they previously were by simple ownership. Here and elsewhere manorial titles are often flogged as having almost no real merit. I've read they are more equivalent to "landlord" than "lord" and completely apart from the world of nobility or peerage. If indeed they make someone an esquire, and thereby a higher rank in The Order of Precedence, that would stand in complete contradiction to these prevailing opinions.

Thoughts? Opinions? I'm eager for everyone's feedback here. Still waiting for some sort of definitive "yes" or "no" statement from Debrett's or something similar. Thanks so much and cheers!

[Robert dCZ]

No Carl Cavendish was a figment of my imagination, but I picked this name to gently remind readers that lordships of the manor often went to send and third sons of noble fathers, and even to husbands of their daughters. This already then was a way to bestow rank on lesser members of the family.

There is also the issue that lordships were the way for the Gentry to slowly work their way up the pecking order. A successful entrepreneur buys a large estate with a lordship or two, marries his daughter to a second or third son of a regional magnate, and has his firstborn son marry a daughter of someone titled whose fortunes have hit a rough patch. The grandchildren are then good matches all round and chances are that a little barony or even an earldom is in their future.

Under the Hanoverians the rank of Baronet was introduced, styled as Sir, which is essentially what replaced the lords of the manor of old. In modern times, of course, all of these now do coexist, even though the rank of a gentleman has become rather obscure.

[m***@le.ac.uk]

Post by Robert dCZ
No Carl Cavendish was a figment of my imagination, but I picked this name to gently remind readers that lordships of the manor often went to send and third sons of noble fathers, and even to husbands of their daughters. This already then was a way to bestow rank on lesser members of the family.
There is also the issue that lordships were the way for the Gentry to slowly work their way up the pecking order. A successful entrepreneur buys a large estate with a lordship or two, marries his daughter to a second or third son of a regional magnate, and has his firstborn son marry a daughter of someone titled whose fortunes have hit a rough patch. The grandchildren are then good matches all round and chances are that a little barony or even an earldom is in their future.
Under the Hanoverians the rank of Baronet was introduced, styled as Sir, which is essentially what replaced the lords of the manor of old. In modern times, of course, all of these now do coexist, even though the rank of a gentleman has become rather obscure.

This really isn't right. Manors were certainly valued possessions, but principally as income-producing estates. They were distributed among family members in order to confer income and wealth, not to bestow rank.

There was certainly prestige in being a landowner, but whether a landed estate was owned through the medium of a manor or simply by freehold or leasehold ownership was not terribly important. It had been a bit different back in the high middle ages before the disappearance of villeinage, a time when possession of a manor with its court and villein tenants conferred a small but real dominion over men, but by the early modern period manors had become little more than just another form of estate ownership.

Ownership of a manor did not confer any kind of rank. Anyone wealthy enough to own a manor was likely also to have the status of a gentleman at least, but that or any higher status was not a consequence of owning the manor. In particular, ownership of a manor has never conferred the rank of esquire and any Wikipedia page which asserts that is mistaken. Landowners were addressed as 'Squire' because they were the dominant landlord in a parish or township, whether they owned their estate through a manor or by some other form of ownership.

Baronetcies were introduced by James I (the first Stuart - a century before the Hanoverians) and their invention owed nothing to manorial lordships. Their prime purpose was to raise revenue for an impecunious king trying to rule without parliamentary taxes - the first baronetcies were granted to anyone who could to pay £1,095.

Matt Tompkins

[r***@gmail.com]

Matt,

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the feedback very much indeed.

Wikipedia is notorious for being inaccurate. I don't hang my hat on much of anything said there. That said, the initial wiki post made me do some reading and I found a couple sources that seemed to confirm the assertion. Additionally, one source referenced that Debrett's includes lords of manors among those that rank as esquires. Thus, my continued request for some sort of definitive citation from Debrett's (or a similar trustworthy source) that would answer this one way or another.

Still waiting on that part! Can anyone help?

Cheers!

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by r***@gmail.com
Matt,
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the feedback very much indeed.
Wikipedia is notorious for being inaccurate. I don't hang my hat on much of anything said there. That said, the initial wiki post made me do some reading and I found a couple sources that seemed to confirm the assertion. Additionally, one source referenced that Debrett's includes lords of manors among those that rank as esquires. Thus, my continued request for some sort of definitive citation from Debrett's (or a similar trustworthy source) that would answer this one way or another.

Who writes Wikipedia? Who writes Debrett? In both cases it could be
any old hack and I know of no peer review by people of knowledge and
competence that were involved in the background of these articles.

On the other hand we have had Matt's views. He is a very knowledgeable
and competent scholar. He can do peer reviews sitting on his fingers.
His opinions, to which you refer above, are based on scholarship and
excellent knowledge of history. Why not accept them?

Post by r***@gmail.com
Still waiting on that part! Can anyone help?

You have been helped. I suspect you are trying to prove a negative and
that is notoriously hard to achieve.

Lords of the manor were not much more than the people who lorded it over
the manor. In the early days they were the law, in the later days they,
or their stewards, implemented the customs of the manor. Eventually the
role ran out of steam as justice was administered more and more by the
sovereign's courts. Esquire is also an out-of-date term; its meaning,
which was never more than imprecise, has been lost.

Give up and find something a bit more interesting.



PS: Have you bought yourself a lordship of a manor yet. Many would
proffer assistance if you have not. Someone would be delighted to take
a few coins off you for absolutely nothing in return. And then laugh
all the way down to the bank.

[r***@gmail.com]

Thank you, Tim. Your help was much appreciated. However, your tone was less so. Was just trying to understand a contradiction found in study.

Cheers.

[m***@le.ac.uk]

Post by r***@gmail.com
Matt,
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the feedback very much indeed.
Wikipedia is notorious for being inaccurate. I don't hang my hat on much of anything said there. That said, the initial wiki post made me do some reading and I found a couple sources that seemed to confirm the assertion. Additionally, one source referenced that Debrett's includes lords of manors among those that rank as esquires. Thus, my continued request for some sort of definitive citation from Debrett's (or a similar trustworthy source) that would answer this one way or another.
Still waiting on that part! Can anyone help?
Cheers!

I'm afraid I don't know what Debretts says on the subject, but I'd be very surprised if they say what you are hoping for. First, because it would be historically inaccurate, and second, because it would not reflect current practice in Britain and the Commonwealth, which for more than a century now has been that the statuses of 'gentleman' and 'esquire' are effectively interchangeable and can be applied to the entire adult male population.

Post by r***@gmail.com
Esteemed Readers,
Was doing some reading a couple days ago and found a citation on Wikipedia that gave me pause. I thought I might write to you and ask your opinions.
The articles related to Lord of the Manor, Squire and Esquire all reference that Lords of the Manor held/hold the rank of esquire by prescription. Meaning, in the 17th-early 20th century a Lord of the Manor (likely still holding the manorial title, land and rights) would be addressed as "Squire" by his tenants. I did a bit more research online and found some corroborating evidence to support this existing for several hundred years though the traditions surrounding the use of "Esq." (and lordships for that matter) have fallen into disuse as of late.
My question is while I can find a great deal of anecdotal citations and evidence of this tradition, I cannot seem to find anything in Debretts or one of the more formal sources. Perhaps I missed it?
1. Would a 21st century Lord of the Manor (perhaps one with a verified title registered with HM's Land Registry) still be within their right to style themselves as "esquire" or even (really stretching here) the very traditional "squire"?

In 21st century Britain anyone can style himself 'esquire', though few do. Styling yourself 'squire' risks derision, however (one rather eccentric member of an ancient landowning family in my county insists on calling himself 'Squire XXX', to the bemusement of those around him.)

Post by r***@gmail.com
2. As you know, the official order of precedence still ranks esquires above gentlemen. It is often stated here and elsewhere that manorial lordships are not "titles" or "dignities" at all and have no place in the honors system. However, if manorial lords were/are entitled to the rank of esquire by right of their position would this not stand as a direct contradiction to the earlier argument of their non-relation?
A) Lords of the Manor are esquires by right/prescription
B) Esquires are ranked above gentlemen in The Order of Precedence
C) Thus, lordships provide both rank and title by right of ownership
Does that logic check out? Thanks for your help making sense of this. Admittedly, I'm a bit confused myself as for so long I had accepted the standard assertion that these "titles" existed totally apart.

I'm afraid the logic fails at the first proposition - lords of manors are not esquires by virtue of their ownership of the manor.

Matt Tompkins

[Robert dCZ]

Post by m***@le.ac.uk
I'm afraid the logic fails at the first proposition - lords of manors are not esquires by virtue of their ownership of the manor.

And yet, they are the only ones I have seen adding the ESQ behind their names, other than people in the legal profession, and a few from old financial houses. It may well be true that everyone can claim the position of gentleman and/or esquire these days, but few actually do. Whatismore, neither of them seems to have been a rank that could have been bestowed in the past either, but more of a honorific that was earned in one way or another. Still, the owner of "homefarm" of an estate was usually The Squire, and is often still referred to in this same way today.

[Peter Howarth]

Post by Robert dCZ

Post by m***@le.ac.uk
I'm afraid the logic fails at the first proposition - lords of manors are not esquires by virtue of their ownership of the manor.

And yet, they are the only ones I have seen adding the ESQ behind their names, other than people in the legal profession, and a few from old financial houses. It may well be true that everyone can claim the position of gentleman and/or esquire these days, but few actually do. Whatismore, neither of them seems to have been a rank that could have been bestowed in the past either, but more of a honorific that was earned in one way or another. Still, the owner of "homefarm" of an estate was usually The Squire, and is often still referred to in this same way today.

I do not understand under what circumstances a lord of a manor would ever add Esq to his own name. If it were done at all, it would be by other people when writing to him. I agree that when I was young fifty years ago, there were still those who used Esq on envelopes and I did likewise because, as my children liked to say, I was born old-fashioned. But it didn't actually mean anything even then. Banks gave up using it when computers came in and Esq had disappeared long before I retired as a solicitor.

Nowadays I no longer use the title except under one special circumstance. In mediaeval times, the Latin for esquire was 'armiger'. So when writing to my contact at the College of Arms it seems appropriate to add Esq to his name. He returns the compliment.

Squire is not the equivalent of esquire. In the past it may have been used of the owner of the 'Big House', but nowadays he is referred to by name or perhaps, by those who work on his land, as the boss. The last time I heard someone using Squire was a market-stall holder who used it to address all his male customers.

It is interesting that in the OED, the latest quotation for Squire meaning the principal landowner in a village is from 1875; 20th-century quotations use it like my market-stall holder; and using Squire for a justice of the peace or a lawyer is American usage which has not (yet) crossed the Atlantic.

Peter Howarth

[Edward Hillenbrand]

On the American use of "Esq" I'd like share what a lawyer who is a medical doctor told me.

He signs his name as Dr. John Smith, Esq. as he is both a medical doctor and a lawyer.

Myself, being neither, but being an armiger would properly sign my name as "Esq. Ed Hillenbrand,BA,MS,EMT-P" (the US medical field is tying itself in knots over letters that few know anything about this century, sorry). The logic for the order is: title, name, degree (s).

Now, that is all well and good, but I live in a rural community and if anyone except the Queen, and maybe the President (maybe), insisted on all that formality Mary at the diner would dump your coffee in your lap!

So, like heraldry, this is fun to study, it does have a time and place. Sadly the time for Esquires has passed.

[Robert dCZ]

Thanks for all the input and for correcting some gaps in my knowledge on the subject or memory as the case may be.

[Robert dCZ]

So, if I get this right, I could use an ESQ in front of my name as an armiger, and ESQ. behind my name as a lawyer, be a squire as the principal land owner in the parish, and when I inherit the feudal barony and lordships of the manors, they will not add anything to my double-esquire squireship?

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by Robert dCZ
So, if I get this right, I could use an ESQ in front of my name as an armiger, and ESQ. behind my name as a lawyer, be a squire as the principal land owner in the parish, and when I inherit the feudal barony and lordships of the manors, they will not add anything to my double-esquire squireship?

Yes, this is a free world as long as you do no harm.

And you would also give much merriment to those who find your antics
quite hilarious if not also totally pretentious.

[m***@le.ac.uk]

Post by Robert dCZ
So, if I get this right, I could use an ESQ in front of my name as an armiger, and ESQ. behind my name as a lawyer, be a squire as the principal land owner in the parish, and when I inherit the feudal barony and lordships of the manors, they will not add anything to my double-esquire squireship?

The thing is, in the UK (and I think also the rest of the Commonwealth) for the last century and more the custom has been that any adult male can be styled an esquire.

Though, as Peter Howarth commented, it is vanishingly rare for anyone to style himself an Esquire - the usage occurs far more frequently in references to individuals by third parties. Like Peter I used to be a practising solicitor in England, in the 1980s and 1990s. It was then the invariable practice of the entire legal profession, and all the other professions, to address all letters to men with no other title, whether they were owners of substantial country estates or petty criminals of no fixed abode, as 'J. Smith, Esq.', and then to begin the letter 'Dear Mr Smith'. No one ever signed a letter as 'John Smith, Esq.', however (lawyers included, who in the UK claim no special entitlement in this regard).

Incidentally, Esq. is never placed before the name - always afterwards.

Matt Tompkins

[Louis Epstein]

Post by m***@le.ac.uk

Post by Robert dCZ
So, if I get this right, I could use an ESQ in front of my name as an armiger, and ESQ. behind my name as a lawyer, be a squire as the principal land owner in the parish, and when I inherit the feudal barony and lordships of the manors, they will not add anything to my double-esquire squireship?

The thing is, in the UK (and I think also the rest of the Commonwealth) for the last century and more the custom has been that any adult male can be styled an esquire.
Though, as Peter Howarth commented, it is vanishingly rare for anyone to style himself an Esquire - the usage occurs far more frequently in references to individuals by third parties. Like Peter I used to be a practising solicitor in England, in the 1980s and 1990s. It was then the invariable practice of the entire legal profession, and all the other professions, to address all letters to men with no other title, whether they were owners of substantial country estates or petty criminals of no fixed abode, as 'J. Smith, Esq.', and then to begin the letter 'Dear Mr Smith'. No one ever signed a letter as 'John Smith, Esq.', however (lawyers included, who in the UK claim no special entitlement in this regard).
Incidentally, Esq. is never placed before the name - always afterwards.
Matt Tompkins

Probably relevant is usage in the London Gazette.I recall a list of
persons elected to the House of Commons enumerated with marks of station;
the default for men was Esquire,though certain people had notations,
such as "Rhodes Boyson,Esquire (now Sir Rhodes Boyson,Knight)" and
"Colin Berkeley Moynihan,Esquire,commonly known as the Honourable
Colin Berkeley Moynihan".

(Courtesy-title holders are esquires as of right,and titleholders
only by courtesy...the esquire designation is who they "really" are
when one isn't simply being polite).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@le.ac.uk

Post by Robert dCZ
So, if I get this right, I could use an ESQ in front of my name as an armiger, and ESQ. behind my name as a lawyer, be a squire as the principal land owner in the parish, and when I inherit the feudal barony and lordships of the manors, they will not add anything to my double-esquire squireship?

The thing is, in the UK (and I think also the rest of the Commonwealth) for the last century and more the custom has been that any adult male can be styled an esquire.
Though, as Peter Howarth commented, it is vanishingly rare for anyone to style himself an Esquire - the usage occurs far more frequently in references to individuals by third parties. Like Peter I used to be a practising solicitor in England, in the 1980s and 1990s. It was then the invariable practice of the entire legal profession, and all the other professions, to address all letters to men with no other title, whether they were owners of substantial country estates or petty criminals of no fixed abode, as 'J. Smith, Esq.', and then to begin the letter 'Dear Mr Smith'. No one ever signed a letter as 'John Smith, Esq.', however (lawyers included, who in the UK claim no special entitlement in this regard).
Incidentally, Esq. is never placed before the name - always afterwards.
Matt Tompkins

I have come to this rather late and so the point I wish to make may well have already been made however, since this is a heraldry forum, it should be noted that mere ownership of manor would not of itself qualify a person to petition for armorial bearings from the College of Arms. I know of one specific case where the owner of a manor petitioned for arms and was refused because he did not meet the requirements*; given this fact, it is highly unlikely that the College of arms would accord the rank of esquire to the owner of a manor.

* From the website of the College of Arms "There are no fixed criteria of eligibility for a grant of arms, but such things as awards or honours from the Crown, civil or military commissions, university degrees, professional qualifications, public and charitable services, and eminence or good standing in national or local life, are taken into account. "

Clearly the College of arms do no even think that the ownership of a manor (which is simply an item purchased for relatively little money) is even at a stretch "eminence or good standing in national or local life".

Regards,
Martin

http://cheshire-heraldry.org.uk

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by m***@le.ac.uk

Post by Robert dCZ
So, if I get this right, I could use an ESQ in front of my name as an armiger, and ESQ. behind my name as a lawyer, be a squire as the principal land owner in the parish, and when I inherit the feudal barony and lordships of the manors, they will not add anything to my double-esquire squireship?

The thing is, in the UK (and I think also the rest of the Commonwealth) for the last century and more the custom has been that any adult male can be styled an esquire.
Though, as Peter Howarth commented, it is vanishingly rare for anyone to style himself an Esquire - the usage occurs far more frequently in references to individuals by third parties. Like Peter I used to be a practising solicitor in England, in the 1980s and 1990s. It was then the invariable practice of the entire legal profession, and all the other professions, to address all letters to men with no other title, whether they were owners of substantial country estates or petty criminals of no fixed abode, as 'J. Smith, Esq.', and then to begin the letter 'Dear Mr Smith'. No one ever signed a letter as 'John Smith, Esq.', however (lawyers included, who in the UK claim no special entitlement in this regard).
Incidentally, Esq. is never placed before the name - always afterwards.
Matt Tompkins

I have come to this rather late and so the point I wish to make may well have already been made however, since this is a heraldry forum, it should be noted that mere ownership of manor would not of itself qualify a person to petition for armorial bearings from the College of Arms. I know of one specific case where the owner of a manor petitioned for arms and was refused because he did not meet the requirements*; given this fact, it is highly unlikely that the College of arms would accord the rank of esquire to the owner of a manor.
* From the website of the College of Arms "There are no fixed criteria of eligibility for a grant of arms, but such things as awards or honours from the Crown, civil or military commissions, university degrees, professional qualifications, public and charitable services, and eminence or good standing in national or local life, are taken into account. "
Clearly the College of arms do no even think that the ownership of a manor (which is simply an item purchased for relatively little money) is even at a stretch "eminence or good standing in national or local life".
Regards,
Martin

Doubtless you are right. But the fact remains that thoroughly
disreputable people can inherit, and keep, their arms. (Writing as one
such inheritor by the rules of the game.)

[a***@flutterbypress.com]

Wouldn't a single or double barrelled Esq. have to be prepared to take up his arms for his country when required and probably muster a few serfs as well, as the original apprentice knights would have had to do, when they were looking after the horses or something in the service of the Lord of whatever manor they came from, a bit like prominent crime families.and gangs do today, without the oath of allegiance to the monarch, obviously. They refer to their patches as manors after all. I was brought up to address letters to my father as James Dalton Murray Esq. CMG, which is known as Call Me God in diplomatic circles, and continue to use it when I write to people who are of a higher rank than me, because I have no handle. I call all sorts of people Sir, including beggars. Most of my Friends who do have impressive handles prefer not to use them at all.

Yours aye, Alex