The description "denoting social status" does not necessarily mean high social status; just as the word "officer" can denote a lowly non-commissioned officer, or a general. To return to the issue in question: A marriage usually takes places in the bride's parish, or near to her parent's place of residence, so the groom is sometimes not well known to the official. That official will not want to insult the groom by marking him down as of a possible lower status then he actually is in everyday life, so adds the Esq to the marriage certificate as a mark of respect, or at least as a match to the perceived rank of the bride's parents. And the bride and groom and their families go away happy, or at least not insulted. This withstanding, I would expect that the groom was at least well-spoken and well-dressed to gain this designation, so he probably was at the least a "white collar" worker. Surely, if he marries in 1906, you can find the family in the 1891 & 1901 census to back up or otherwise your suspicions. Go back a few decades, and the status tied to this word would be more definite. Like so many unofficial terms of status it has become "degraded" over time, to the point that it becomes nearly useless and is rarely used, except by organisations wed to tradition. Think yeoman, husbandman, and even gentleman. Chris On 28/01/2008, Walter Morgan <gator@gbta.net> wrote: > I googled the term "Esquire" that was on a Marriage Certificate from 1906. > I came up with a term denoting social status. Does this mean of noble > birth or just meaning wealthy and land owner? > > Take care, > > Walter