In the commission for Anthony Collamore in 1692

Page last updated 29/03/14

In the commission for Anthony Collamore in 1692 (excerpt below) he is
referred to as "gentleman". Was the term "gentleman" reserved for
persons from a gentry family? I have seen in past posts that
referring to someone as "Goodman" usually meant that the person was
probably not descended from a gentry family.

Captains Commission

"Sir William Phips Knt. Captain General and Governor in Chief in and
over their Majesty's Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England.
To Anthony Cullimore Gentleman Greetings. Reposing True and
Confindence to your Loyalty........"

Thank you.

mn

Gentleman did not necessarily imply gentry family - A master Tailor, retired
(i.e he no longer used his hands) was termed as a gentleman as were all
masters of Trades who were retired.
If the word Armiger followed the name then the person was armigerous and
therefore of a gentry family. It could be said that the term meant a
'Professional', someone who employed others to do the work for them.
I have come across the appelation gentleman many times when the person is
either a retired lawyer or the master of his craft or trade.
regards
peter de Loriol

Peter,
I am going to differe with you a little. Orginally the term gentleman met
of noble birth or not common esp during medieval

Ie: defined as : A man of gentle or noble birth or superior social position:

Your term
Armiger

A bearer of armor for a knight; a squire. A person entitled to bear heraldic
arms.

The term after ones name Esq was used later on with lawyers etc anyone who
served in a goverment office.

this meaning above has more to do with service then nobility -----

Betty

In message of 7 Nov, winteros@wt.net ("Betty Owen") wrote:

> Peter,
> I am going to differe with you a little. Orginally the term gentleman met
> of noble birth or not common esp during medieval
>
> Ie: defined as : A man of gentle or noble birth or superior social position:
>

I think the word 'noble' gives the wrong impression other than a
derivation from 'nobilis' the latin for well-known. Further 'gentle' is
more likely to be derived from the latin 'gens' meaning race. As my
earlier note shows, they were nothing if not racially prejudiced in
those times.

But I would grant you 'superior social position' as they ruled the
'lower orders'.

> Your term
> Armiger
>
> A bearer of armor for a knight;

Armiger more likely means someone who has authority to use a coat of
arms and has little to do with knighthood. I think that 'armiger' is a
late medieval word and not common through most of the medieval period.

A bearer of arms for a knight might have been a servant. Though an
esquire might have been in attendance and carried the odd sword.

Further, of course, in later medieval times there were not a few knights
who were not fighting men.

As an aside I have seen a learned paper that showed that the earliest
heraldry, in the early 12th century, is to be found in seals and not on
knights nor in tournaments. Heraldry is a graphical system of person,
or family, identification and thus vital for legal documents when the
signatories could hardly read and write.

> a squire. A person entitled to bear heraldic arms.

I don't believe that one. That was armiger who bore a coat of arms. I
have no clear idea what a squire was. The more modern use was for
someone who owned much of the land in a village. Latterly it has become
merely a, somewhat rare, term of affection.

> The term after ones name Esq was used later on with lawyers etc
> anyone who served in a goverment office.

That developed perhaps in the 16th and later centuries and remains the
usage, I understand, in the USA. In Britain 50 years ago 'Esq' merely
meant 'male' but even that is almost totally out of use now.

> this meaning above has more to do with service then nobility -----

I've done 'nobility'!

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe

PLM: I have written the Lord Lyon and Christie's Auction House (London and
Edinburgh offices) in the past ten years, and each reply they used Esq. after
my name; so it is not entirely out of use:-) I thought the word Advocate was
used to indicate Lawyer. I have the Will of Lewis Grant, Esq. proved 1854, and
his brother is named Robert Grant of Kincorth Advocate. Robert and Lewis Grant
were twins born in 1801, and I presume Robert was slightly older, since he
held his father's estate. Lewis Grant, Esq. does not mention any nieces or
nephews; so I assume that his brother Robert Grant of Kincorth did not have
any children; so in this instance, Lewis could have inherited Kincorth had he
out lived his brother Robert. Lewis Grant Esquire's father was Landed Gentry;
so I have seen no clear definition of the usage of Esq., as yet.

Best Wishes,
Phil

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:43:30 +0000 (UTC), moodyprime@cox.net ("Phil
Moody") wrote:

>Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
>
>> > The term after ones name Esq was used later on with lawyers etc
>> > anyone who served in a goverment office.
>>
>> That developed perhaps in the 16th and later centuries and remains the
>> usage, I understand, in the USA. In Britain 50 years ago 'Esq' merely
>> meant 'male' but even that is almost totally out of use now.
>
>PLM: I have written the Lord Lyon and Christie's Auction House (London and
>Edinburgh offices) in the past ten years, and each reply they used Esq. after
>my name; so it is not entirely out of use:-) I thought the word Advocate was
>used to indicate Lawyer. I have the Will of Lewis Grant, Esq. proved 1854, and
>his brother is named Robert Grant of Kincorth Advocate. Robert and Lewis Grant
>were twins born in 1801, and I presume Robert was slightly older, since he
>held his father's estate. Lewis Grant, Esq. does not mention any nieces or
>nephews; so I assume that his brother Robert Grant of Kincorth did not have
>any children; so in this instance, Lewis could have inherited Kincorth had he
>out lived his brother Robert. Lewis Grant Esquire's father was Landed Gentry;
>so I have seen no clear definition of the usage of Esq., as yet.

Advocate does not mean lawyer in a general sense. It is the Scottish
equivalent of the English Barrister, i.e. a person qualified to
represent clients before the higher courts. It Scottish usage a lawyer
without such rights might be a Solicitor or a Writer, the latter short
for "Writer to the Signet".

As usual there is an exception to the rule which is that solicitors in
Aberdeen have the right to style themselves as "Advocates in Aberdeen"
due to their having loaned money to one of the kings of Scots who was
not quite able to pay them back.

Assuming that your Grant is of Kincorth in Moray rather than of the
Kincorth that is now a suburb of Aberdeen, then the usage is likely to
mean that he was a person qualified to represent clients at the higher
courts in Scotland.

I phrase things in this way since it was/is not always neccessary to
have a law degree to be an advocate, though it would probably be
uncommon these days.

James
James Dempster

In the 1613 Visitation of Cheshire, pub Harleian 1909, p. 91, there is a
lovely example of racial prejudice which starts with these words:

"TO ALL MANNER OF MEN that these letters pattentes shall see or heare
we Lawrence Warren John Sauage Edward of Wever Lawrance Fitton John of
Carington & John Mayneringe Knightes Hughe Venables Handkyn Mayneringe
William Venables George of Weuer John Sauage John of Dutton Esquires
henry of Hooton Wm of Dutton Richard of Dutton Piers Bumvylle John
Goldesonne Richard Torfot Hugh of Weuer Gentillmen SENDEN GREETING in
God Almighty FOR AS MUCH AS wee bynne enformed that oure welbeloued
Alye William Dutton of Denbighe is vexed grevouslye in the saide towne
of Denbighe by maliciouse suggestions surmettinge that the saide
William should be welse and his auncestors welshe and of welshe byrthe
..."

This was dated 1432.

Note that the order of man in this letter patent was:
Knights
Esquires
Gentlemen
and that each were different.

There was no mention or armigers because, I suspect, that was a later
term, made common by the Visitation in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Quite what anyone had to do to be classified as an esquire or a
gentleman I do not know. But certainly in later centuries it was common
for merchants and traders in towns also to be esquires, or at least to
be armigerous, in spite of the fact that they were not land owning
gentry.

In all this, I wonder if the use of the word gentleman came from the
latin 'gens' meaning, I think, 'race' and was used above all to
distinguish the ruling, Norman descended classes from the indigent
downtrodden natives. Certainly Burkes continual use of "Descended
from the Conqueror" shows how important that still was some centuries
later.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
> Note that the order of man in this letter patent was:
>   Knights
>   Esquires
>   Gentlemen
> and that each were different.
>
> There was no mention or armigers because, I suspect, that was a later
> term, made common by the Visitation in the 16th and 17th centuries.
>
> Quite what anyone had to do to be classified as an esquire or a
> gentleman I do not know. But certainly in later centuries it was common
> for merchants and traders in towns also to be esquires, or at least to
> be armigerous, in spite of the fact that they were not land owning
> gentry.

My impression was that, a bit later on at least - say by the 16th century -
esquire usually indicated somebody who was not a knight, but bore a coat of
arms, whereas gentlemen usually did not have arms.

But that could easily be a false impression, and I'd be interested in other
people's views.

Chris Phillips

Am I an 'other' person. Well, I shall continue.

In some of the Visitations they include a list of Disclaimers, those who
have not claimed or were debarred from claiming to be armigerous. In
some of those lists the herald uses the phrase "no gentleman" as the
reason for not allowing them arms. Almost there was an equivalence
between "armiger" and "gentleman", though no other definition of either
is proffered.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe

Probably my impression was wrong, if nothing else in assigning far more
precise meanings than these terms bore in practice.

On a lighter note, it might even be questioned whether we are correct in
assuming the inequality:
Knight > Esquire > Gentleman
if a well known anecdote from the reign of James I is anything to go by. In
that reign, honours became so debased that - supposedly - one courtier asked
another whether someone was a gentleman, and the other replied, "Nay, 'tis
but a knight"!

(I say it's well known, but an Internet search fails to turn it up. Can
anyne help with the origin of the story?)

Chris Phillips

And J H Round (Peerage Studies, p. 279) quoted the exchange in
1621 between an earl of Arundel and the newly enobled Spencer:

Spencer was talking of the valour of English ancestors in defending the
liberty of the nation,

Arundel: "Your ancestors were then keeping of sheep"

Spencer: "If they kept sheep, yours were then plotting of treason."

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe

It is certainly consistent with the known pattern of James I's creation
of many, many knights bachelor and his invention of the rank of baronet.
Many of the recipients were from stock that would not have merited the
appelation 'gentleman' under Elizabeth.

Lawrence Stone, _The Crisis of the Aristocracy_ is the classic, albeit
embattled, read on the sociology of the English aristocracy (and the
class system more generally) throughout this period.

Nat Taylor

Chris,

A specific example of a gentleman being armigerous, in the Visitation of
Gloucestershire, 1623 is a pedigree that starts

Arms - Quarterly 1 and 4, Three Bars Wavy, 2 and 3, Quarterly, a Bend

John Browning == Ellenor d. and coheire of Sr Thomas Fitz Nicoll Knt.
Gent.

The arms listed are later described as Quarterly, 1 and 4, Azure three
Bars Wavy Azure for Browning, 2 and 3 Quarterly, Gules and Or, a bend
Argent for FitzNichol.

The arms for Browning descended to John Browning from a John Browning
who married Alice Maltravers, supposed daughter of John Maltravers and
Joan Sandford. Joan was the daughter and coheir of Lawrence de Sandford
who bore these arms. (Cheshire Visitation of 1580)

I don't know what the difference between Knight, Esquire and Gentleman
are but according to Smyth in Lives of the Berkeley Family, this John
Browning, joined his father in law in a Commission of Array in 4 Hen IV.

Just thought I would throw this into the pot.

Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX

One has to be careful of the period under discussion, in England and Wales,
because the use of these terms changed somewhat each century.

An "esquire" started out as an assistant toa knight, but by the time of
Elizabeth I denoted someone who was not a knight, but the most prominent landed
person in his immediate vicinity - a step above gentleman. In heraldic terms,
it was equivalent with armiger, and denoted someone who bore arms.

But at that same time (Elizabeth I), it has been my impression that a
"gentleman" was also one who bore arms, but was not an "esquire" (who was
someone with multiple properties). A gentleman was further down on the scale,
someone who did not have to work the land with their hands and had an income
and status denoting gentility.

"Yeoman" was a step below gentleman, and closer to working the land (though he
had others do it for him).

But the rapid change in econimics during the Tudor period and reign of
Elizabeth I changed things again, what with the money that could be made
through Barley farming, etc. By the end of the reign of Elizabeth and
beginning of the Stuart period a "gentleman" was not necessarily one who had a
coat-of-arms, but someone of sufficient wealth and education as to make them
appear to belong to that certain social status. By that period an "esquire"
was usually one who sat on the county courts, and much of the time would be a
knight based on income. A yeoman was a landed person with a certain amount of
income (we've discussed yeoman before, I believe, so check the archives).

Things had a slightly different take in the City of London, where someone who
rose through the trades quickly enough to wealth could be styled gentleman in
their lifetime, and their wealth would bestow that title on their children
(though they also frequently got a grant of arms). However, the Visitatiosn of
London evidence that not every "gentleman" had arms and was recorded by the
heralds in an account.

Anyway, as to the initial query, by 1692, a "gentleman" could be an entirely
self-made man, without gentle ancestry. A better clue as to gentry ancestry is
their surname, and probate indexes. If the surname appears in Marshall,
Whitmore and Barrow's Guides (see FAQ) that gives you something to look for.
Note, also, that usage was different in New England, where the status of a
person's wealth and eductaion, not necessarily family background, affected the
use of the term gentleman.

These are my impressions.

Paul

Thank you for the response to the initial query. I tend to agree with
your impressions.

By studying the matter further I found that in his Lieutenant's
commission he is not referred to as gentleman. In the interim between
the two military commissions he also inherited a considerable sum from
his relation - Peter Collamore.

The status of already being a comissioned officer and of possesing
wealth may explain the salutation containing "gentleman" later in his
life........

mn

PLM: I believe this attitude is still prevalent among the Peers. They may not
see it as a racist attitude, but rather as a mark of social standing - the
Peers descended from the Normans being superior to those who are not. L. G.
Pine wrote a superb article on this very phenomenon.

Best Wishes,
Phil

Along the same line, since wealth does not always stay with nobility, might
one suppose that a gentleman might be "of a good family" but relatively
impoverished i.e. no longer land-holding?

Janet

PLM: I don't see this as a tenable possibility when speaking of Nobility, but
a possibility with the Landed Gentry. The Nobility tended to retain their
titles even after they lost their land, as with the Counts of Aumale. A modern
example would be Lord Strathspey, who is the male representative of Grant of
Grant, and the Chief of Clan Grant. All of Lord Strathspey's ancestral lands
are in the possession of the Earl of Seafield.

Cheers,
Phil

First, Gents are not in with the Nobility. The gentry were the untitled
landed and usually resident (ie not absentee) proprietors, the nobility
were the peerage; it is even fair to say that the children of a peer
were not 'noble', only the peer was.

The other point to remember is that impoverished descendants of gents
were soon fogotten. They could not afford to mix with their relatives,
so they did not. Sometimes they got written out of the Family
Pedigrees; perhaps no-one would ever mention their name and they
became, in their ancestral family's circle, a non-person. My brother
uncovered a cousin of some ancestors which cousin had been sold into
slavery in the Barbadoes; certainly he had never been seen in any
family tree!

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe

PLM: Before commenting on this paragraph; I just want to say I immensely
enjoyed your slavery anecdote that followed this:-) I agree that the Gentry
and the Nobility are not to be confused, but that does not mean to say that
some Landed Gentry are not descended from Nobility. As you admittedly point
out, not even the children of a Peer are Nobles, and if we consider that only
a finite number of a Peers progeny will become ennobled through inheritance of
their patrimony, or marriages - then where does this leave the rest of the
children of said Peer? In most instances (if they are lucky, and not
dis-owned), they will receive a small piece of land, or the cash to buy some
elsewhere. As an example, let me tell you about a Landed Gentry family I know
something about; albeit modern - it will touch on the medieval period.

Let me begin with Robert and Lewis Grant, whom I've mentioned recently. These
brothers were twins, and the estate of Kincorth was inherited by the eldest
son Robert, and he thus became a member of the Landed Gentry. These boys were
born posthumously in 1801, as their father Robert Grant of Kincorth had died a
couple of months prior to his son's birth.

Their father, Robert Grant of Kincorth had purchased this estate with the
fortune he acquired from the fur trade in Canada upon retiring. He was one of
the founders of the Northwest (fur) Company per his burial Monument in
Cromdale Churchyard (Cromdale is a small village on the south side of the Spey
river about 5 miles distant from the present Grant-on-Spey, Scotland). This
Robert Grant is the brother of my direct ancestor Cuthbert Grant (d.1799),
also a member of the NWC, and for this relationship, see _ Cuthbert Grant of
Grantown: Warden of the Plains of Red River_, by Margaret Arnett MacLeod and
W.L. Morton (assisted by Alice R. Brown).

There are additional details on Robert Grant's burial Monument worth mention;
which were sent to me by a correspondent, and I am told that the information
comes from a book called _Monumental Inscriptions of Strathspey_. It names his
sons, Robert and Lewis, his wife, Ann Grant, the daughter of the Rev. Lewis
Grant of Cromdale (he wrote the entry for Cromdale Parish in the 1st
Statistical Account of Scotland), his parents David and Margaret Grant of
Lethendry, and names him a descendant of the Chiaran Branch of Clan Grant.

Now, the last is most telling, as it is a Cadet Branch of the Chief's Family
(Grant of Grant); so old that it cannot be proven from whom the line
originated; although there is a late 17th century history of the Chief's
family, which states that this Cadet line began with Lucas alias Kiaran (I
can't recall if this Lucas was the brother or uncle of the first historical
ancestor of the Chief's family, Sir Laurence Grant, Sheriff of Inverness c.
1250). So we have one piece of circumstantial evidence that Robert Grant was
related to the Noble family of Grant of Grant - but wait - we have another!

As mentioned previously, Robert's burial Monument named his father as David
Grant of Lethendry, but where and what is Lethendry? I am told by the Gent who
sent me the Burial Monument inscription that there still is a Lethendry farm
adjacent to the village of Cromdale, and more importantly, there still remains
the foundations of an old Castle there (perhaps destroyed during the Battle of
Cromdale in 1690?). As proof that the family of Lethendry was more than just
farmers, we have an inventory of Castle Grant taken in 1880. This is found in
_A History of Clan Grant_, by the now late Lord Strathspey, pub. by
Philiimore, 1983.

I will call your attention to Appendix II, _List of Family Portraits in Castle
Grant (1880)_. In this list of FAMILY Portraits we find one _Robert Grant of
Lethindry (sic), in Cromdale, Waitt, 1725_. So, here we have our second and
most compelling piece of evidence that Grant of Lethendry is related to the
Noble family of Grant of Grant. I do not know precisely how David Grant of
Lethendry was related to the Robert Grant who sat for the portrait, but I have
no doubt that he was in some way.

I surmise that Lethendry was sold to finance the Canadian trading enterprise.
Nonetheless, we have with David Grant of Lethendry, and his son, Robert Grant
of Kincorth, two examples of the Landed Gentry who were in someway related to
the Noble family of Grant of Grant. The Will of Lewis Grant, Esq. shows that a
close relationship still existed between the representative of Grant of Grant
(the Earl of Seafield in 1854), and his family.

"I direct that my best diamond ring, which I believe to be a gem of some value
and which was given to me on the occasion of my departure from India by a
native of [?Ernakulam] in that country, shall be sent enclosed in a purple
velvet case to my friend the Earl of Seafield. I request his acceptance of it
as a mark of my sense of the personal kindness and friendship he has shown me
and also to testify my respect for the noble and ancient families whom he
represents and which I trust will long continue to be represented by him and
his descendants in prosperity and honor." EQ

Best Wishes,
Phil

PS: Lewis Grant addresses his brother thus, "my dear brother Robert Grant Esq.
of Kincorth, Advocate..."

Yes, Phil.... thank you... the term had a change of usage over the
centuries.. ---All you hve to do is look in the dictionary to see the terms
usage. This term comes up btw in the book and (propbably the)movie
Timeline as the modern day persion uses it as we do and they (the medieval
people) misunderstand him meaning that he is of nobility.
And Pine had great insights!!!!!!!!
Betty

In a message dated 07/11/2003 09:36:49 GMT Standard Time, winteros@wt.net
writes:

> I am going to differe with you a little. Orginally the term gentleman met
> of noble birth or not common esp during medieval
> The term meant of 'Gentle' birth - there are various charters I can allude
> to regarding this particular title or appellation - There was a family of
> Quisard, of Savoy (that also emigrated to England), - its 'Stemmfather' Giulio,
> was called a 'Gentilhomme' in 1285, whose great great grandson, acceeded to
> 'Noblesse' in the early 15th Century, and was granted a difference of arms
> because of this. I am not saying that they were not of 'Superior birth', but
> they hadn't been granted a title of nobility/nobility by their suzerain - the
> latin documents relating to this family do not refer to them as 'nobilis,
> nobiles' but 'Gentilis' 'Gentiles' until the concession of nobility when they are
> acknowldeged as 'Nobilis' 'Nobiles'

>
> Ie: defined as : A man of gentle or noble birth or superior social position:
>
> Your term
> Armiger

> Agreed in part - scutifer - the origin of Escuyer/Squire meant the bearer
> of the shield of the milites or knight - he was originally a servant who might
> or might not reach the rank of 'Milites', sometimes of 'noble' birth,
> sometimes of 'Gentle' birth, and other times of 'other' birth....after all this is
> how society progresses....!

But Armiger was, it seems, of later use, for those bearing arms

> A bearer of armor for a knight; a squire. A person entitled to bear
> heraldic
> arms.
>
> The term after ones name Esq was used later on with lawyers etc anyone who
> served in a goverment office.

Esquire_ "the degree below a knight and above a gentleman. Those whom this
title is due by right are all the younger sons of noblemen and their eldest sons
in perputuity, the eldest sons of baronets, of all knights and of their
eldest sons in perpetuity, Kings of Arms, heralds, officers of the navy and Army of
rank of Captain and upwards, sheriffs of counties for life , J.P.s,
serjeaunts at law, King's/Queen's counsel, Serjeaunts-at-arms, companions of orders of
knighthood, certain officers of the royal Household, deputy Lieutenants,
commissioners of the Court of Bankruptcy, masters of the supreme Court, Royal
Academicians, and any person whom the sovereign designs 'Esquire' in a commission."
May I also add any person who holds a 'Civic' post that is conferred by the
government or the sovereign.
The holder of a degree from an University is entitled to call himself, (dare
I say herself)
- Mr - ....Would the woman be 'Madam' or 'Mistress'?

>
> this meaning above has more to do with service then nobility -----
>
> Betty

Begad! I think even then the term Knight was derogatory! When my first cousin
Richard Fremantle married a Miss Eley, daughter of a Sir Geoffrey Eley, the
gossips at the wedding all said that the wedding was doomed because she was an
unequal party, being the daughter of a Knight, from a family of Goldsmiths who
had invented the 'Eley' cartridge, very middle Class unlike the
Cottesloes....My mother and I left early...and the marriage left early too!
regards
Peter

I have in my research notes that in 1363, under "Statues of the Realm", there
was a "ranking" of the social framework of England. This appears to be based
upon the monetary value of the person's estate, beginning with 1000 (pounds),
then 500 (pounds), and then 200 (pounds). The ranks were listed as follows:

       Rank 1- Knights    poorer Knights    Esquires 200 (pounds) poor Esq.
100

       Rank 2 - Merchants, citizens, burgesses, artifrees, & people of
handicraft (1000 pounds)....500 (pounds).

       Rank 3 - craftsmen, holders of office of yeoman rank, grooms, yeoman &
servants of Merchants

        Rank 4 - carters, swine herders, keeper of beasts, husbandry < 40
shillings

        Rank 5 - called independent: clergy (Churches, Cathedrals, Colleges,
Schools, property, < 100 pounds

                    Jerry.

The scottish system is somewhat different from the English one inasmuch as
the Scots have a greater sense of 'Kinship' or 'Family', presumably due to the
Clan system...Manay of my Duff and Gordon ancestors owned little more than
small farms and yet were described as 'noblemen', yet they were fiercely proud of
their heritage, their position in the clan system, their close web of kinship
with some of the greater magnates of scotland.
regards,
Peter (de Loriol)