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.
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.
That's interesting. We still recognise the difference between common law and equity here. There's also still a Chancery Division of the High Court. It tends to deal with trusts etc. just as there is a Probate Division and Probate Registries where one proves wills. However, all courts administer the same law. One can ask for an equitable remedy in any court, not just the Chancery Division. There are of course lawyers who specialise in particular areas of law but they all are admitted as solicitors or barristers in the same way as each other. We still have a split profession here. That has strengths as well as weaknesses.
Compared with those for clearly defined topics, like land law or tax, the standard textbooks on equity read slightly oddly to those who aren't used to how the legal system works because equity operates as a sort of gloss over the whole legal system rather than being a specific topic.
In mediaeval times, the Lord Chancellor was sometimes a churchman rather than a lawyer (Thomas a' Beckett) and the Court of Chancery was viewed as a court of conscience rather than the letter of the law. Attorneys, practising the common law, were popularly regarded as a set of rascals (see Dickens, passim). But of course the Court of Chancery was by the nineteenth century notorious for endless quibbles and delays (see Bleak House). I was personally involved, as a humble articled clerk (legal trainee), in a case in the Chancery Division over the administration of a will that was still going on 10 years after a Judge had declared that it was a disgrace and should be settled immediaely. It had not been reolvedwhen I left the firm three years later. But still, 'Why fritter the estate away on the beneficiaries?'.
That's interesting. We still recognise the difference between common law and equity here. There's also still a Chancery Division of the High Court. It tends to deal with trusts etc. just as there is a Probate Division and Probate Registries where one proves wills. However, all courts administer the same law. One can ask for an equitable remedy in any court, not just the Chancery Division. There are of course lawyers who specialise in particular areas of law but they all are admitted as solicitors or barristers in the same way as each other. We still have a split profession here. That has strengths as well as weaknesses.
Compared with those for clearly defined topics, like land law or tax, the standard textbooks on equity read slightly oddly to those who aren't used to how the legal system works because equity operates as a sort of gloss over the whole legal system rather than being a specific topic.
I only speak here of NSW. The other colonies, as they then were, adopted the Judicature Act changes not long after they were made in England. That meant that in NSW, equity continued to be administered in the Equity Division and common law in the Common Law Division. Similarly there were separate Divisions for matrimonial causes, probate and admiralty. There were judges assigned to matrimonial causes, but the Equity judges dealt probate disputes and the Common Law judges with admiralty. But the distinction which went in England in 1870 or so, and the other States shortly afterwards, had to wait until 1 July 1972 to vanish from NSW.
Similar conservatism saw the delay in the merger of the branches of the profession in NSW way beyond other States. So, I was admitted firstly as as a solicit etc, and later as a barrister. By and large, however, there remains in fact the traditional division between the bar and solicitors in NSW, Victoria and Queensland; to a lesser extent in the other States and in the Territories. The smaller the jurisdiction, the more less the division. At the Bars, NSW abolished the rank of QC in 1993. Until then, QCs had been appointed by the State Attorney-General on the recommendation of a wide range of interested parties. The rank has been replaced by that of Senior Counsel (SC), granted by the Bar Association after a very formal procedure. Other jurisdictions thought of that but rejected it, the argument being that the QC appellation was recognised in Singapore, Hong Kong and the various Pacific countries; SC was not. The alteration has not seen any diminution in the flow of work to the NSW from these other jurisdictions.
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.
Yes, this is my experience too. I was brought up that you wrote Name Surname, Esq on the envelope to any man who wasn't a Dr or had any other title. It was incorrect, or Not Done, or something, to write "Mr."
My Mother still does use Esq thus and when she found out (during my years living in USA) that it's used by lawyers, including women lawyers, in USA, it just boggled her mind!
40-odd years ago an old friend of mine was sent in his first teaching post in Wilcannia New South Wales ( beyond civilisation). It was an isolated life, he had no phone and during term time we exchanged letters. I addreesed mine to R***** L****** Esq, Wilcannia Central School to the amusement of both him and his colleagues. He replied to Sojourner Etc ( to include the boyf now spouse)
Note on "posh". In usage in my locale, places are referred to as posh but people never are. They'd be said to be stuck-up if they flaunted wealth and behaved as if they were "all that". I think it's perhaps cultural to denigrate stuck-up people. It's certainly political suicide provincially to appear rich and behave like you're better than everyone else.
40-odd years ago an old friend of mine was sent in his first teaching post in Wilcannia New South Wales ( beyond civilisation). It was an isolated life, he had no phone and during term time we exchanged letters. I addreesed mine to R***** L****** Esq, Wilcannia Central School to the amusement of both him and his colleagues. He replied to Sojourner Etc ( to include the boyf now spouse)
/tangent/ One of my teachers' college dorm neighbours was promoted to executive teacher at Wilcannia early in his career. Within a week of his arrival, everyone senior to him in the executive team had transferred out and he was the acting principal. Cue a meteoric rise through the Departmental hierarchy rising to the Senior Executive Service before he was 50. If you stayed the distance of an appointment at Wilcannia, you could virtually write your own ticket for the next school. /end tangent/
My poor friend did not. He was medically retired after 4 years, however 30+ years later he is in an equally remote town in SW NSW where he and the local
Elders have put together a course in spoken and written Wiradjuri ( the tribal indigenous language of southwestern and midwestern NSW)
Question for those in London. I've visited London frequently, and lived there briefly, but... How would you pronounce Hainault? I've never had to say it, and I've never heard it spoken. My guess was hay'-now(l)t, with the 't' perhaps 'swallowed' rather than being a stop.
Question for those in London. I've visited London frequently, and lived there briefly, but... How would you pronounce Hainault? I've never had to say it, and I've never heard it spoken. My guess was hay'-now(l)t, with the 't' perhaps 'swallowed' rather than being a stop.
Yes, but the "ault" is pronounced with the vowel in "old". Good God, of course the "t" is pronounced, what do you think we are, Cockernees?
More likely 'Ay-nolt, with a very nasal "ol" sound, says the person who has actually been there, for work, geocaching and Guides events in Hainault Forest, and heard all the tube announcements.
Listening to Biden's speech to the servicepeople in England yesterday, I was struck by how he pronounced "strength," with a very short "e", almost and "i"
In any case, I found some words that are unique to Delaware. See if you can guess what they mean without looking them up.
... 'Spicket' reminds me of various terms for an alleyway.
Isn't that a 'snicket'?
@Gramps49 I have to admit that I've never heard any of those words before. As a complete guess is a 'Toad Choker/Frog Strangler' a tie, as in 'collar and tie'?
@Gramps49 I have to admit that I've never heard any of those words before. As a complete guess is a 'Toad Choker/Frog Strangler' a tie, as in 'collar and tie'?
“Frog strangler” is an old Southern (American South) term, quite possibly used elsewhere too, for a very heavy rain.
Comments
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.
Granted. I just hadn't seen anyone toss in the American experience, so I thought I'd do so.
Compared with those for clearly defined topics, like land law or tax, the standard textbooks on equity read slightly oddly to those who aren't used to how the legal system works because equity operates as a sort of gloss over the whole legal system rather than being a specific topic.
I only speak here of NSW. The other colonies, as they then were, adopted the Judicature Act changes not long after they were made in England. That meant that in NSW, equity continued to be administered in the Equity Division and common law in the Common Law Division. Similarly there were separate Divisions for matrimonial causes, probate and admiralty. There were judges assigned to matrimonial causes, but the Equity judges dealt probate disputes and the Common Law judges with admiralty. But the distinction which went in England in 1870 or so, and the other States shortly afterwards, had to wait until 1 July 1972 to vanish from NSW.
Similar conservatism saw the delay in the merger of the branches of the profession in NSW way beyond other States. So, I was admitted firstly as as a solicit etc, and later as a barrister. By and large, however, there remains in fact the traditional division between the bar and solicitors in NSW, Victoria and Queensland; to a lesser extent in the other States and in the Territories. The smaller the jurisdiction, the more less the division. At the Bars, NSW abolished the rank of QC in 1993. Until then, QCs had been appointed by the State Attorney-General on the recommendation of a wide range of interested parties. The rank has been replaced by that of Senior Counsel (SC), granted by the Bar Association after a very formal procedure. Other jurisdictions thought of that but rejected it, the argument being that the QC appellation was recognised in Singapore, Hong Kong and the various Pacific countries; SC was not. The alteration has not seen any diminution in the flow of work to the NSW from these other jurisdictions.
Yes, this is my experience too. I was brought up that you wrote Name Surname, Esq on the envelope to any man who wasn't a Dr or had any other title. It was incorrect, or Not Done, or something, to write "Mr."
My Mother still does use Esq thus and when she found out (during my years living in USA) that it's used by lawyers, including women lawyers, in USA, it just boggled her mind!
/tangent/ One of my teachers' college dorm neighbours was promoted to executive teacher at Wilcannia early in his career. Within a week of his arrival, everyone senior to him in the executive team had transferred out and he was the acting principal. Cue a meteoric rise through the Departmental hierarchy rising to the Senior Executive Service before he was 50. If you stayed the distance of an appointment at Wilcannia, you could virtually write your own ticket for the next school. /end tangent/
Elders have put together a course in spoken and written Wiradjuri ( the tribal indigenous language of southwestern and midwestern NSW)
Can’t keep a good man down
Yes, but the "ault" is pronounced with the vowel in "old". Good God, of course the "t" is pronounced, what do you think we are, Cockernees?
Grew up nearby-ish (we used to drive to Hainault Forest to walk the dogs).
MMM
In any case, I found some words that are unique to Delaware. See if you can guess what they mean without looking them up.
Ingert
Baggin-up
Delunaware
Thrashers
Scrapple
Toad Choker/Frog Strangler
Spicket
Beggle
'Spicket' reminds me of various terms for an alleyway.
@Gramps49 I have to admit that I've never heard any of those words before. As a complete guess is a 'Toad Choker/Frog Strangler' a tie, as in 'collar and tie'?
Point goes to jedijudy.
Yes. A hot one and a cold one. Unless you've got single handle tap.
Continuing on a watery theme, we're getting eavestroughs replaced soon. I think this isn't the term for these everywhere.