King Cuo of Zhongshan (reigned 327–309 BC) was the fifth ruler of the state of Zhongshan during the Warring States period in ancient China. He reigned for 15 years. In 323 BC, he styled himself "king" along with the rulers of Han, Wei, Yan and Zhao, becoming the first ruler of Zhongshan to do so.
So I think @Gee D could style themselves 'your majesty' (assuming that the Warring States period used a similar style to modern monarchies). Which is better than 'Esq.'
Of course, we may also be suitably impressed with @Gee D 's age - well over two millennia, and still posting to SoF!
No idea about a CUO, but my understanding matched @TheOrganist's that in the UK, Esquire was applied to men who are armigerous (link to Collins) - come from a family with a coat of arms.
Heraldic pedantry alert: families do not have coats of arms, businesses based on selling family coats of arms notwithstanding.
Arms belong to individuals. They can be inherited, and various members of a family might have arms based on the arms of the senior member of the family, but with identifying differences. But there really isn’t such a thing as family coats of arms.
And full disclosure: Yes, my family has had the hand-painted, framed “family coats of arms” somewhere in the house as long as I can remember, as do my wife and I now. As my mother-in-law says (about using the “wrong” dish or piece of flatware), “It’s alright as long as you know better.”
/pedantry
john holdingEcclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
A bit wider than armigerous, I think. Graduates of Oxford and Cambridge (and Trinity College, Dublin, I suppose), and commissioned officers in the armed forces, at least by courtesy, can be addressed as Esq. Clergy of the church of England could be (under the 19th century assumption that they are Oxbridge products and male), though I suspect that there's a custom somewhere that says that like clergy Knights they don't use the title.
No idea about a CUO, but my understanding matched @TheOrganist's that in the UK, Esquire was applied to men who are armigerous (link to Collins) - come from a family with a coat of arms.
Given that anyone with a degree or a professional job can apply for arms, that's not much of a bar, and by courtesy, one assumes that male correspondents have the minimal necessary distinction.
Heraldic pedantry alert: families do not have coats of arms, businesses based on selling family coats of arms notwithstanding.
Arms belong to individuals. They can be inherited, and various members of a family might have arms based on the arms of the senior member of the family, but with identifying differences. But there really isn’t such a thing as family coats of arms.
And full disclosure: Yes, my family has had the hand-painted, framed “family coats of arms” somewhere in the house as long as I can remember, as do my wife and I now. As my mother-in-law says (about using the “wrong” dish or piece of flatware), “It’s alright as long as you know better.”
/pedantry
Only true in Scotland.
In England, all legitimate male line descendants of the original armiger inherit the arms equally as long as they still have the surname.
There used to be a system of labels showing which son you are, but it gets very complicated very quickly so it's only really used in the Royal Family now, and their arms have rules of their own.
Thanks for the correction to my pedantry, @GarethMoon. I thought the rule in England was that the right to bear a coat of arms wasn’t automatic as a matter descent, but rather that if descent can be proven, the College of Arms can confirm the right to bear the ancestor’s arms, but it’s certainly possible that I’ve misunderstood that, and I’m happy to have that misunderstanding cleared up.
Thanks for the correction to my pedantry, @GarethMoon. I thought the rule in England was that the right to bear a coat of arms wasn’t automatic as a matter descent, but rather that if descent can be proven, the College of Arms can confirm the right to bear the ancestor’s arms, but it’s certainly possible that I’ve misunderstood that, and I’m happy to have that misunderstanding cleared up.
I'm not sure that this is an either/or position. If I slightly reword @Nick Tamen 's statement thus:
in England (...) the right to bear a coat of arms (is) automatic as a matter descent (:...) if descent can be proven, the College of Arms can confirm the right to bear the ancestor’s arms
We can see that there's not necessarily a contradiction between the two statements such that only one can be true. If my formulation is right (and the rules for inheriting arms are yet another entry on the long list of things that I know nothing about but still feel free to comment on) then the College only need become involved if there's doubt over someone's right to bear particular arms.
Thanks for the correction to my pedantry, @GarethMoon. I thought the rule in England was that the right to bear a coat of arms wasn’t automatic as a matter descent, but rather that if descent can be proven, the College of Arms can confirm the right to bear the ancestor’s arms, but it’s certainly possible that I’ve misunderstood that, and I’m happy to have that misunderstanding cleared up.
I'm not sure that this is an either/or position. If I slightly reword @Nick Tamen 's statement thus:
in England (...) the right to bear a coat of arms (is) automatic as a matter descent (:...) if descent can be proven, the College of Arms can confirm the right to bear the ancestor’s arms
We can see that there's not necessarily a contradiction between the two statements such that only one can be true. If my formulation is right (and the rules for inheriting arms are yet another entry on the long list of things that I know nothing about but still feel free to comment on) then the College only need become involved if there's doubt over someone's right to bear particular arms.
Both could be true from the statements we both made. However they are not both true in actual fact.
It's a common misunderstanding; going from assuming every name has "family coat of arms", to believing that just 1 individual has the arms, back to believing in "family arms" for a line rather than a surname.
And then you realise that someone just made it all up a long, long time ago and some king said "mmm I can make some money here by forcing people to register them!"
As Barnabas Aus says, Cadet Under Officer - Army cadets at school.
Thanks, and my apologies. I wonder if @Barnabas_Aus and I cross-posted, as I didn’t see his post until reading your post just now.
And thanks, @Fawkes Cat and @GarethMoon. Just so I’m clear, the case in England is that arms can be borne by any legitimate male descendant, resulting in what could be called “family line” arms, as opposed to generic family or surname arms?
And then you realise that someone just made it all up a long, long time ago and some king said "mmm I can make some money here by forcing people to register them!"
Yes, having been bombarded by "surname arms" by various spam accounts they don't have any relationship to the actual arms that apply to the line I'm descended from. I'm female, no right to bear arms, ever, but I do know what the arms of my paternal grandfather's family look like.
What if the Americans have got it all wrong, and the Second Amendment giving them the right to bear arms never had anything to do with guns? Maybe it just allowed them to wear T shirts with fancy patterns.
What if the Americans have got it all wrong, and the Second Amendment giving them the right to bear arms never had anything to do with guns? Maybe it just allowed them to wear T shirts with fancy patterns.
What if the Americans have got it all wrong, and the Second Amendment giving them the right to bear arms never had anything to do with guns? Maybe it just allowed them to wear T shirts with fancy patterns.
Every now and then, there's a re-emergence of the silly argument that the right to bear arms was a reference to a coat of arms.
I'm finding the discussion on the use of "Esq" interesting; my late father (who was a local council chief official - director of education) quite often received letters addressed to A. Piglet, Esq.* but AFAIK there was no entitlement to a family coat of arms.
Yes, having been bombarded by "surname arms" by various spam accounts they don't have any relationship to the actual arms that apply to the line I'm descended from. I'm female, no right to bear arms, ever, but I do know what the arms of my paternal grandfather's family look like.
Are you sure? To me it seems like while as a female you could not pass the arms to your offspring, would it be possible to bear a lozenge with the pattern but no crest if your dad had inherited the arms?
Yes, having been bombarded by "surname arms" by various spam accounts they don't have any relationship to the actual arms that apply to the line I'm descended from. I'm female, no right to bear arms, ever, but I do know what the arms of my paternal grandfather's family look like.
Are you sure? To me it seems like while as a female you could not pass the arms to your offspring, would it be possible to bear a lozenge with the pattern but no crest if your dad had inherited the arms?
If she, her father or grandfather wasn't born within wedlock, that would nullify any right to use the paternal grandfather's family arms.
If she is married then she wouldn't be allowed to use those arms (unless she is the eldest daughter and there are no brothers, and even then it's complicated).
"A married woman may also bear either her own arms or her husband's arms alone on a shield with the shield charged with a small lozenge to distinguish her from her husband."
It doesn't say whether this only applies to an heiress who inherited a title as well as the arms, so I don't know.
ETA: And, of course, there is the matter of a woman being granted her own arms.
I'm finding the discussion on the use of "Esq" interesting; my late father (who was a local council chief official - director of education) quite often received letters addressed to A. Piglet, Esq.* but AFAIK there was no entitlement to a family coat of arms.
* not his real name
My father had none of the ways suggested above, that might entitle him to be addressed as esq. However I remember him getting letters addressed to him as esq
Esq. as a title for lawyers would be correct in England, as by Act of Parliament, Solicitors of the Supreme Court are ranked as Gentlemen, which mere attorneys were not.
Esq. as a title for lawyers would be correct in England, as by Act of Parliament, Solicitors of the Supreme Court are ranked as Gentlemen, which mere attorneys were not.
Source please? This isn't just to be pedantic, but because stating who is a gentleman isn't the sort of thing I'd expect an English (or British, or UK) parliament to formally bother itself about.
I was certainly taught (no citation, I’m afraid), that barristers were entitled to be called Esq. (hence my comment earlier on this thread). However, I don’t know whether there was an Act, that sounds unlikely, though I’m happy to be told I’m wrong on that. I don’t know whether solicitors are so entitled.
And referring to ‘attorneys’ always sounds slightly odd to this English lawyer’s ears.
I was certainly taught (no citation, I’m afraid), that barristers were entitled to be called Esq. (hence my comment earlier on this thread). However, I don’t know whether there was an Act, that sounds unlikely, though I’m happy to be told I’m wrong on that. I don’t know whether solicitors are so entitled.
And referring to ‘attorneys’ always sounds slightly odd to this English lawyer’s ears.
MMM
I was admitted as a Solicitor, Attorney and Proctor in NSW over 5 decades ago, - Solicitor in Equity, Attorney at Common Law, and Proctor in Probate was the then explanation.
Does Australia even have "attorneys" now? As far as I'm aware the only distinction that exists is between solicitors and barristers, in those places that still have even that distinction. To my ears "attorney" is an American term now, except for the political office of Attorney-General.
From memory, the Legal Profession Act of 1987 in NSW basically did away with the differences, and qualified people were admitted as legal practitioners. As things turned out, people practised either as solicitors or barristers and obtained the relevant practising certificate. There were short but different practical training courses for each branch of the profession. I now don't remember the precise details, even whether I'd need to undertake the practical course were I to want to return to practice.
Other States may well be different. I had been admitted to practise as a barrister in NSW, Victoria and the ACT before all these changes came in. Just don't commit the error that Lonely Preacher's Kid did and think that when Keith Mason appeared as Solicitor-General for NSW, he did so as a solicitor.
I was admitted as a Solicitor, Attorney and Proctor in NSW over 5 decades ago, - Solicitor in Equity, Attorney at Common Law, and Proctor in Probate was the then explanation.
That is the correct explanation but the distinction has had no meaning in England and Wales since the three separate legal systems were united in 1875. I don't know whether any of the jurisdictions in Australia ever transposed the distinction in the first place.
I was admitted as a Solicitor, Attorney and Proctor in NSW over 5 decades ago, - Solicitor in Equity, Attorney at Common Law, and Proctor in Probate was the then explanation.
That is the correct explanation but the distinction has had no meaning in England and Wales since the three separate legal systems were united in 1875. I don't know whether any of the jurisdictions in Australia ever transposed the distinction in the first place.
From what I can recall from law school, New South Wales kept distinctions between common law and equity much, much longer than any other State.
I hadn't been conscious, though, that this translated into lawyers actually being admitted into separate roles. I suppose I read in law reports about cases where you had a judge in equity.
The Act conferring the rank of gentleman would be the statute that unified the profession in the 19th century. Alas, I have long ceased to practice and cannot give you a specific reference now, but I think there was a reference in the delightful book 'Miscellany-at-Law', by Sir Robert Megarry, Vice-Chancellor of England. Solicitors practised in the Court of Chancery, and were rated above Attorneys, who practised in the Common-Law court, so when the professions were united under the title of Solicitors the higher social standing would apply to all. I'm sorry, but without access to a law library I cannot be more specific off the cuff. Wikipedia is no help at all.
I found this in the font of all knowledge (Wikipedia):
By the early 20th century, it came to be used as a general courtesy title for any man in a formal setting, usually as a suffix to his name, as in "Todd Smith, Esq.", with no precise significance. In the United Kingdom today, it is still occasionally used as a written style of address in formal or professional correspondence.
I think it is talking about the UK. This is my experience. It is sometimes used, with no particular significance, in formal settings. It comes across to me as just being stuffy.
From what I can recall from law school, New South Wales kept distinctions between common law and equity much, much longer than any other State.
I hadn't been conscious, though, that this translated into lawyers actually being admitted into separate roles. I suppose I read in law reports about cases where you had a judge in equity.
The distinction was retained here until 1 July 1972. The other States were probably still colonies when they followed the English change of the mid 1870s. As far as NSW was concerned, there were very different forms of pleading as well as the complete separation of law and equity. FWIW, I can still do old forms of pleading for a whole range of disputes, a now totally useless skill.
There were Judges in Equity, as distinct from the present appointment of Judges of the Court assigned to different divisions. As far as admission, I doubt that anyone was ever admitted to just one of the 3; there was very little practical difference.
Comments
Wikipedia* tells us
So I think @Gee D could style themselves 'your majesty' (assuming that the Warring States period used a similar style to modern monarchies). Which is better than 'Esq.'
Of course, we may also be suitably impressed with @Gee D 's age - well over two millennia, and still posting to SoF!
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cuo_of_Zhongshan
Copper Oxide?
Chief Underwriting Officer?
Arms belong to individuals. They can be inherited, and various members of a family might have arms based on the arms of the senior member of the family, but with identifying differences. But there really isn’t such a thing as family coats of arms.
And full disclosure: Yes, my family has had the hand-painted, framed “family coats of arms” somewhere in the house as long as I can remember, as do my wife and I now. As my mother-in-law says (about using the “wrong” dish or piece of flatware), “It’s alright as long as you know better.”
/pedantry
Given that anyone with a degree or a professional job can apply for arms, that's not much of a bar, and by courtesy, one assumes that male correspondents have the minimal necessary distinction.
Only true in Scotland.
In England, all legitimate male line descendants of the original armiger inherit the arms equally as long as they still have the surname.
For any person to have a right to a coat of arms they must either have had it granted to them or be descended in the legitimate male line from a person to whom arms were granted or confirmed in the past.
There used to be a system of labels showing which son you are, but it gets very complicated very quickly so it's only really used in the Royal Family now, and their arms have rules of their own.
As Barnabas Aus says, Cadet Under Officer - Army cadets at school.
I'm not sure that this is an either/or position. If I slightly reword @Nick Tamen 's statement thus:
We can see that there's not necessarily a contradiction between the two statements such that only one can be true. If my formulation is right (and the rules for inheriting arms are yet another entry on the long list of things that I know nothing about but still feel free to comment on) then the College only need become involved if there's doubt over someone's right to bear particular arms.
Both could be true from the statements we both made. However they are not both true in actual fact.
"Armorial bearings are hereditary. They can be borne and used by all the descendants in the legitimate male line of the person to whom they were originally granted or confirmed. "
https://college-of-arms.gov.uk/services/proving-a-right-to-arms
It's a common misunderstanding; going from assuming every name has "family coat of arms", to believing that just 1 individual has the arms, back to believing in "family arms" for a line rather than a surname.
And then you realise that someone just made it all up a long, long time ago and some king said "mmm I can make some money here by forcing people to register them!"
And thanks, @Fawkes Cat and @GarethMoon. Just so I’m clear, the case in England is that arms can be borne by any legitimate male descendant, resulting in what could be called “family line” arms, as opposed to generic family or surname arms?
Yes, if only!
Every now and then, there's a re-emergence of the silly argument that the right to bear arms was a reference to a coat of arms.
Well in the West Wing they did find a typo in the Bill of Rights!
* not his real name
Are you sure? To me it seems like while as a female you could not pass the arms to your offspring, would it be possible to bear a lozenge with the pattern but no crest if your dad had inherited the arms?
If she, her father or grandfather wasn't born within wedlock, that would nullify any right to use the paternal grandfather's family arms.
If she is married then she wouldn't be allowed to use those arms (unless she is the eldest daughter and there are no brothers, and even then it's complicated).
Assuming it's English arms.
"A married woman may also bear either her own arms or her husband's arms alone on a shield with the shield charged with a small lozenge to distinguish her from her husband."
It doesn't say whether this only applies to an heiress who inherited a title as well as the arms, so I don't know.
ETA: And, of course, there is the matter of a woman being granted her own arms.
Trespassers William of Rights
My father had none of the ways suggested above, that might entitle him to be addressed as esq. However I remember him getting letters addressed to him as esq
Genius. Well done Mousethief.
Mousethief wins the internet today. Gold Star.
Source please? This isn't just to be pedantic, but because stating who is a gentleman isn't the sort of thing I'd expect an English (or British, or UK) parliament to formally bother itself about.
And referring to ‘attorneys’ always sounds slightly odd to this English lawyer’s ears.
MMM
I was admitted as a Solicitor, Attorney and Proctor in NSW over 5 decades ago, - Solicitor in Equity, Attorney at Common Law, and Proctor in Probate was the then explanation.
Other States may well be different. I had been admitted to practise as a barrister in NSW, Victoria and the ACT before all these changes came in. Just don't commit the error that Lonely Preacher's Kid did and think that when Keith Mason appeared as Solicitor-General for NSW, he did so as a solicitor.
From what I can recall from law school, New South Wales kept distinctions between common law and equity much, much longer than any other State.
I hadn't been conscious, though, that this translated into lawyers actually being admitted into separate roles. I suppose I read in law reports about cases where you had a judge in equity.
I believe the shipmate in question is Sober, not Lonely.
The distinction was retained here until 1 July 1972. The other States were probably still colonies when they followed the English change of the mid 1870s. As far as NSW was concerned, there were very different forms of pleading as well as the complete separation of law and equity. FWIW, I can still do old forms of pleading for a whole range of disputes, a now totally useless skill.
There were Judges in Equity, as distinct from the present appointment of Judges of the Court assigned to different divisions. As far as admission, I doubt that anyone was ever admitted to just one of the 3; there was very little practical difference.
Sure, but I guess the question is whether it’s American stick-up-the-ass lawyers that do this, or stick-up-the-ass lawyers more widely.