Which itself was to confer upon medical school graduates a sense of importance equivalent to academic doctors (doctor from L. docere: to teach).
You know, I’d heard that West Virginia was beknighted…
Are you the person that said we should play nice?
Nifty. Very happy for you. I didn’t. Doesn’t mean he was out of line for posting it.
Actually, as Alan Smithee pointed out in an earlier post while that is something that lawyers often use, there is no formal meaning to the title here and anyone can use it. Generally speaking lawyers are the only people who bother to use it, but you’d be ill advised to assume someone is compentent to represent you based solely on the fact that he/she signs letters with “Esq.” tacked on the end. There is no formal awarding of the title.
None of this explains why you got so upset at someone for offering some background information that you claim to have known already. That’s what I was responding to, your attack on another poster for offering information that you asked for. Although now I wonder why you needed to ask the question since you knew the answer.
Tsk, tsk. We’re not in the Pit.
What’s the matter? Are you afraid of dogface, he said basically the same thing as I did.
you asked if i would be happy if he said :
Yes, that would have been an acceptable response to me. It is fine if you lack basic understanding of history, but in a discusion about American Attorneys it is not terribly enlightening to assert that Mr. is a term indicating one who owns land because it clearly does not have such meaning. If the poster you are attempting to defend had said something to the effect of it used to have such meaning, I would have not had a problem. However, the poster attempted to assert that it has that meaning today, which is absurd.
Excuse me? Since when is knowledge of the original English usages of Mister and Esquire “basic understanding of history?” Again, glad to hear that you knew it. I didn’t and I’m not afraid to admit it. I come here to contribute and to learn. You might try it sometime.
What’s with the personal shots outside the Pit? First, I’m “young or a knuckleHead” [sic], now I’m “afraid”? Calm down.
Again, you asked a question, JWK tried to answer it. Had you said “Yeah, I understand all that, but why would it be considered redundant now given that those two titles no longer carry those meanings?” You never would have heard from me. It was the FREAKIN way you responded that got my goat.
At one time, they were distinct and seperate titles indicative of rank. Today, both are courtesy titles and are considered equivalent in both the US and the UK, as well as the rest of the English Commonwealth. I fail to see why this is worth getting excited about. 
Everyone with a bank account in the UK has the title “equire,” which just means an owner of property. Money in the bank counts.
[Official Moderator Whistle] > TWEEET!! < [/Official Moderator Whistle]
I dunno quite why this topic is arousing such heat. In this forum, we play nice. No personal insults are permitted. askeptic, you are hereby officially advised to tone it down.
Some of the rest of you are hereby official advised to get a sense of humor. I don’t know how anyone can think a comment like “The American Revolution was fought to get away from confusing British titles” was anything but a joke. And a kinda cute one, I thought.
Finally, let me try to get some consensus on the term “esquire.” The usage has clearly varied by country (US and UK), and perhaps regionally (or by state), and certainly over time. Agreed? Anything that has so much variation, you’re going to find some people insisting that the usage shouldn’t have changed since 1920 or whenever, because the language should be frozen in stone. And "impact should be a noun, not a verb. And so on. And we find other people claiming that any completely incidental usage today in some popular magiziine is as authoritative as a dictionary. Thus, “manage” should be changed to “peoplage” to avoid sexism, and so forth.
It’s not worth yelling about.
Less than a week on subscriptions and already they’re buying you fancy new equipment, huh?
“Doctor” means “doctor”. “Doctoris” means “doctor’s”.
So does that mean if I have a JD that there is two of me, or just that the J is mine.
Oh my. I make one little joke and chaos erupts. Thanks for watching my back, Rube.
Returning to our muttons:
Isn’t this confusing social standing with academic qualifications? A J.D. isn’t an honour, nor is it an inidication of social standing. It indicates an earned academic qualification.
“Esquire” on the other hand is just an indication of social standing, with no indication whatever about academic abilities. Freddie Threepwood, Esq. was about as vacuous a second son imaginable, but he wore the right clothes, had the right ties, and so on. That’s about all an “esq.” traditionally indicated. I doubt that universities could grant an esquire, since it’s not an academic qualification.
Gosh Darnit, NorthernPiper, Is it so hard for you to understand that WE IN THE COLONIES (THAT WERE THE FIRST TO HAND YOU BLOKES YOUR HEADS ON A PLATTER) may have not only abondoned your ancient definitions, but along with kicking you empirialist asses out, may have also adopted some of our own definitions.
I.E. Esquire means "One who has earned a Degree in Legal Studies, not a land owner.
Is that so hard to comprehend? No wonder we won our freedom so easily, and beat you in 1812, and saved your asses in 1918 and 1945. Give me a break! We killed more of ourselves during the Civil War than you limeys ever threatened. We killed more Turks (a side show) than you limeys ever threatened.
Why the Heck are you trying to cast aspersions now, when we are the only thing that kept Uncle Joe off your backs? Is it because Uncle Joe is gone? You have no concept of gratitude?
Dear me - such irritation! Well, let’s deal with your points as they come up.
First, when you’re going to bandy about derogatory ethnic terms, it’s so much more effective if you use terms that actually relate to the person you’re talking to. A “limey” is a term for an English person. You’ll recall from one of my earlier posts that I’ve self-identified as a Canadian, so if you want to insult me you really should use a derogatory term for Canadians. Admittedly, there isn’t a great number of such terms, but you could try “Canuck”. Even if it’s not very strong, it would indicate that you had at least followed the discussion. Here, let me help you: you could try calling us “beaver-bangers” or “moose-humpers”, for example, or there’s always the old stand-by, “a nation of Dudley Do-rights.” I’m sure you could think of stronger terms if you turned your mind to it, instead of using the “caps lock” key as a substitute for witty repartee.
Second, as our kindly mod indictated when he blew the whistle a few posts back:
I understood Mr. Smithee’s comments to be a further attempt to explore the broader meanings of “esquire” and its relationship to academic degrees, and I wanted to join in that discussion. If Mr. Smithee and I were using the term in a more extended sense than you do, with greater reliance on its historical roots, I don’t see why that should bother you as much as it evidently did. It’s your position that “esquire” has one and only one meaning in American speech. Fine, good on you. But that doesn’t mean that the rest of us are required to accept your interpretation. (In fact, in an earlier post you asserted that anyone can use it, as an aspect of their First Amendment rights, so you yourself appear to recognise that there is some variation in the usage.)
Third, even with the more restricted American usage, I’m not sure you’re accurately describing the situation. My understanding from the various posts is that “Esquire” is used when addressing correspondence to a practising attorney, which is a different thing than someone who has earned a degree in legal studies, as you contend.
Fourth and last, I’m rather baffled by your reference to me casting aspersions on Americans. As I explained in one of my earlier posts, I’m puzzled why American lawyers, who presumably are republicans (in the broader, non-partisan sense of the word) would use a term that is undeniably a carry-over from a monarchical/aristocratic political and social system. I’m particularly struck by the fact that Canadian lawyers, who are actually citizens of a constitutional monarchy, feel no such need to use the term. I’m don’t see why that counts as an aspersion, simply an inquiry as to a variation in professional and social practice between the two countries. So far, all you’ve been able to contribute to the discussion is that it just is, just like Aussies putting shrimp on the barbie, and Canadians saying “Ay” [sic] and, apparently, that anyone who dares to ask for any more detail is casting aspersions. I hate to discomfort you, but that approach doesn’t seem very helpful, and certainly isn’t consistent with the SDMB’s mission, which is to allow free and frank discussions to resolve ignorance. I freely admit that I don’t know the answer to this question, that I’m in a state of ignorance, and would welcome rational discussion. Apparently you find that questioning to be some sort of insult. I’m sorry it has that effect, but frankly, it suggests to me that you don’t like the trend of the conversation, and hope that by yelling and questioning my motives, a possibly uncomfortable discussion will be averted.
As for the rest of your ill-informed historical insults, they’re best just ignored, in hopes of keeping the discusion on track.
Respectfully submitted,
N. Piper, LL.B., LL.B., LL.M.*
*degrees inserted to respond to Mathochist’s comments.
Northern Piper, please excuse, or at least ignore, the commentary from askeptic. His type give our profession a bad name.
He is factually incorrect, as well. It is simply untrue to state that in the United States, the only people who use the appellation “Esq.” are practicing attorneys; admittedly rare, but not unheard of. Still, the net effect of such usage is that most anyone who uses Esq. will be assumed to be an attorney here; thus the reason I use it in my old AOL screenname, which, being at the time limited in character length, allowed me to convey the message concisely. 
DS, you are walking periously close to the line between free speech and libel, Considering your comments are directed at my profesional abilities then probably libel, per se.
Nevetheless, you said that what I have stated is factually incorrect, while at the same time giving a farily accurate, if innept, summary of my comments thus far. I have said that in the US, the appelation Esq. no longer implies land ownership, that for the most part Esq. is used primarilly by lawyers to indicate their profession, that it is not exclusively used by attorneys, and that anyone may use the term if they wish, but that if they do it is probable that others will assume they are an attorney, that they can only get into legal trouble if they attempt to practice law without a lisence, but not for merely useing Esq.
What is factually incorrect about those statements?
Actually, I should say they are rather clearly directed at your spelling, your grammar, and, most of all, your ill courtesy.
While I admit that my spelling is atrocious, and my grammar may be less than perfect, I have a secretary to fix it (at least at work) I am not paid to be an English scholar, I am paid to provide legal analysis. (most likely I am overpaid, but you should see the competition) There are many many people who have skills superior to mine, but I manage to make a living.
By all means, if you SHOULD say something, then do so. I would like to know to what you are refering when you say THEY? I would also be interested in a cite to my “ill courtesy”. If I was in fact lacking in courtesy, I will offer my sincere apology.
PS Are you one of THE Kennedys’?
Well, mine says “Juris Doctorem,” but (not actually knowing any Latin) I suspect that there’s an inflection involved just based on the grammar of the sentence on the certificate.