Seeking some assistance with English "titles," specifically "Gentleman" and "Esquire" in the 1600s. 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? Thank you for any assistance, Sandy >

In message <262AB7B2-A63C-11D9-9CB8-00039362DB14@earthlink.net>, Sandy <teylu@earthlink.net> writes >Seeking some assistance with English "titles," specifically "Gentleman" >and "Esquire" in the 1600s. > >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. Technically, the eldest son and heir was Algernon Bloggs, Esquire, the younger sons Tom, Dick and Harry Bloggs, Gentlemen. But given mortality rates, a younger son could become the oldest son later on. However, in practice, very few men were labelled with absolute precision anyway. A gentleman was a gentleman, whatever his position in the family. And it really did mean gentleman by birth at that date. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society