<<In the documents I'm viewing, a distinction does seem to exist between the two titles, as some men are listed "Gentleman" whereas others are listed "Esquire" both in documents of 1609 and again in 1615. I have a "John Doe, Gentleman" referenced in the 1609 document and a "Capt. John Doe, Esquire" listed in the 1615 document. General thought is that the John Doe of 1609 is one-and-the-same-as the John Doe of 1615. I realize that "Gentleman" and "Esquire" are minor titles, but I am not at all familiar with the protocol associated with titles, so I'm wondering whether the earlier designation of "Gentleman" followed by the later designation of "Esquire" holds any significance? Are the different titles, in and of themselves, any indication that these may be two different men?>> At this period there was a slight difference between gentlemen and esquires - an esquire was of higher status (it was the highest status which could be claimed by someone who didn't actually have a title - the next step up was knighthood), and would normally be wealthier. You could be relatively poor and still be a gentleman by birth, but to be an esquire you had to be well off, and a working definition of an esquire could be just a better off gentleman. However there was no precise, clearly defined distinction between them and it wasn't uncommon for a wealthy gentleman sometimes to be described as esquire, or for a man usually called esquire to be referred to occasionally as a gentleman. Of course John Doe was one of the names used when conveyancing or litigation procedures required a fictional person to be a party to a land transaction or suit (Richard Roe was the other commonly used name). There's no doubt that the John Does you mentioned were real people? If they only appear in records of court proceedings or title deeds they may well have been fictional. Matt Tompkins