@Sojourner, my favourite line regarding washcloths and sponge baths, probably repeated by many people in many contexts, was from my aunt when she was a student nurse, quoting the instruction she claimed to have been given on how to give sponge baths to a bed-ridden patient. The official instruction was "starting at the face, wash down as far as possible; starting at the feet, wash up as far as possible ... but eventually you'll have to wash Possible."
In my family, cleaning one's own or a sick person's private parts is still sometimes referred to as "washing Possible."
I could always tell the children in swimming lessons who had had their faces always washed with flannels. They wouldn't put their faces in the water. I would send them home with homework - putting their face over the basin and rinsing it with their hands. Turning over in the bath and splashing their faces.
My grandmother, reputedly, according to my mother, used the "down as far as possible" etc rule - she would have been using a wash stand with a bowl and jug. And a matching soap dish and gazunder.
I use a "face" washer all over in the shower, but it probably doesn't actually get used on my face much at all (and if it did that would be the starting point anyway).
I mean, my face is happily getting the most rinsing direct from the showerhead. Plus it can also get washed when I'm standing at the sink at other times if necessary.
Plus, you know, not that interested in putting soap in my eyes.
@Sojourner, my favourite line regarding washcloths and sponge baths, probably repeated by many people in many contexts, was from my aunt when she was a student nurse, quoting the instruction she claimed to have been given on how to give sponge baths to a bed-ridden patient. The official instruction was "starting at the face, wash down as far as possible; starting at the feet, wash up as far as possible ... but eventually you'll have to wash Possible."
In my family, cleaning one's own or a sick person's private parts is still sometimes referred to as "washing Possible."
Although I would call the implement in question a facecloth (or sometimes a flannel), the one part of my anatomy it doesn't wash is my face; that gets rinsed many times under the shower-head and occasionally treated to a lather of a proprietary liquid called "face-wash" that's supposed to do wonders for your complexion.
We've just received a letter (a friendly one!) from a female lawyer in New York who followed her signature with 'Esq', which I had always thought of as a strictly male designation. After getting over my initial astonishment I asked Auntie Google what she knew about it, and sure enough, it is accepted American usage in the legal profession. Seemed weird to me, but there you are. I wonder how it began?
When I was training (London) in the 70s, we were told we were entitled to use Esq., though I don’t think any of us (women) did. However, in the shops in Chancery Lane, we were called ‘Sir’ quite regularly. We thought it was amusing.
We've just received a letter (a friendly one!) from a female lawyer in New York who followed her signature with 'Esq', which I had always thought of as a strictly male designation. After getting over my initial astonishment I asked Auntie Google what she knew about it, and sure enough, it is accepted American usage in the legal profession.
There’s “accepted” and there’s “common,” and as with so many things, it varies depending on where in the US you are. In some states it’s commonly used, while in others it’s not. Use of “esquire” by both male and female attorneys is accepted in my state, but it’s also rare for either to use it. In 30+ years, I could count on one hand the lawyers I’ve encountered who use it.
In the UK, there is no inference that someone with the suffix "Esq." is a lawyer. Which can make for some interesting exchanges of letters with Americans.
According to a Canadian lawyer friend I contacted after making the original post, 'esq' is never used in Canada by lawyers. It seems to be only US legal usage. I am still curious to know how this originated, as I had always understood that it designated otherwise untitled gentlemen.
Lawyers are among the groups that are very good at holding onto tradition just because it's tradition, not because they understand the original context.
Its use had all but completely stopped here when I commenced practice 55 years ago - just a very few crusty old practitioners and their even crustier secretaries.
King Cuo of Zhongshan (reigned 327–309 BC) was the fifth ruler of the state of Zhongshan during the Warring States period in ancient China. He reigned for 15 years. In 323 BC, he styled himself "king" along with the rulers of Han, Wei, Yan and Zhao, becoming the first ruler of Zhongshan to do so.
So I think @Gee D could style themselves 'your majesty' (assuming that the Warring States period used a similar style to modern monarchies). Which is better than 'Esq.'
Of course, we may also be suitably impressed with @Gee D 's age - well over two millennia, and still posting to SoF!
No idea about a CUO, but my understanding matched @TheOrganist's that in the UK, Esquire was applied to men who are armigerous (link to Collins) - come from a family with a coat of arms.
Heraldic pedantry alert: families do not have coats of arms, businesses based on selling family coats of arms notwithstanding.
Arms belong to individuals. They can be inherited, and various members of a family might have arms based on the arms of the senior member of the family, but with identifying differences. But there really isn’t such a thing as family coats of arms.
And full disclosure: Yes, my family has had the hand-painted, framed “family coats of arms” somewhere in the house as long as I can remember, as do my wife and I now. As my mother-in-law says (about using the “wrong” dish or piece of flatware), “It’s alright as long as you know better.”
A bit wider than armigerous, I think. Graduates of Oxford and Cambridge (and Trinity College, Dublin, I suppose), and commissioned officers in the armed forces, at least by courtesy, can be addressed as Esq. Clergy of the church of England could be (under the 19th century assumption that they are Oxbridge products and male), though I suspect that there's a custom somewhere that says that like clergy Knights they don't use the title.
No idea about a CUO, but my understanding matched @TheOrganist's that in the UK, Esquire was applied to men who are armigerous (link to Collins) - come from a family with a coat of arms.
Given that anyone with a degree or a professional job can apply for arms, that's not much of a bar, and by courtesy, one assumes that male correspondents have the minimal necessary distinction.
Heraldic pedantry alert: families do not have coats of arms, businesses based on selling family coats of arms notwithstanding.
Arms belong to individuals. They can be inherited, and various members of a family might have arms based on the arms of the senior member of the family, but with identifying differences. But there really isn’t such a thing as family coats of arms.
And full disclosure: Yes, my family has had the hand-painted, framed “family coats of arms” somewhere in the house as long as I can remember, as do my wife and I now. As my mother-in-law says (about using the “wrong” dish or piece of flatware), “It’s alright as long as you know better.”
/pedantry
Only true in Scotland.
In England, all legitimate male line descendants of the original armiger inherit the arms equally as long as they still have the surname.
There used to be a system of labels showing which son you are, but it gets very complicated very quickly so it's only really used in the Royal Family now, and their arms have rules of their own.
Thanks for the correction to my pedantry, @GarethMoon. I thought the rule in England was that the right to bear a coat of arms wasn’t automatic as a matter descent, but rather that if descent can be proven, the College of Arms can confirm the right to bear the ancestor’s arms, but it’s certainly possible that I’ve misunderstood that, and I’m happy to have that misunderstanding cleared up.
Thanks for the correction to my pedantry, @GarethMoon. I thought the rule in England was that the right to bear a coat of arms wasn’t automatic as a matter descent, but rather that if descent can be proven, the College of Arms can confirm the right to bear the ancestor’s arms, but it’s certainly possible that I’ve misunderstood that, and I’m happy to have that misunderstanding cleared up.
I'm not sure that this is an either/or position. If I slightly reword @Nick Tamen 's statement thus:
in England (...) the right to bear a coat of arms (is) automatic as a matter descent (:...) if descent can be proven, the College of Arms can confirm the right to bear the ancestor’s arms
We can see that there's not necessarily a contradiction between the two statements such that only one can be true. If my formulation is right (and the rules for inheriting arms are yet another entry on the long list of things that I know nothing about but still feel free to comment on) then the College only need become involved if there's doubt over someone's right to bear particular arms.
Thanks for the correction to my pedantry, @GarethMoon. I thought the rule in England was that the right to bear a coat of arms wasn’t automatic as a matter descent, but rather that if descent can be proven, the College of Arms can confirm the right to bear the ancestor’s arms, but it’s certainly possible that I’ve misunderstood that, and I’m happy to have that misunderstanding cleared up.
I'm not sure that this is an either/or position. If I slightly reword @Nick Tamen 's statement thus:
in England (...) the right to bear a coat of arms (is) automatic as a matter descent (:...) if descent can be proven, the College of Arms can confirm the right to bear the ancestor’s arms
We can see that there's not necessarily a contradiction between the two statements such that only one can be true. If my formulation is right (and the rules for inheriting arms are yet another entry on the long list of things that I know nothing about but still feel free to comment on) then the College only need become involved if there's doubt over someone's right to bear particular arms.
Both could be true from the statements we both made. However they are not both true in actual fact.
It's a common misunderstanding; going from assuming every name has "family coat of arms", to believing that just 1 individual has the arms, back to believing in "family arms" for a line rather than a surname.
And then you realise that someone just made it all up a long, long time ago and some king said "mmm I can make some money here by forcing people to register them!"
As Barnabas Aus says, Cadet Under Officer - Army cadets at school.
Thanks, and my apologies. I wonder if @Barnabas_Aus and I cross-posted, as I didn’t see his post until reading your post just now.
And thanks, @Fawkes Cat and @GarethMoon. Just so I’m clear, the case in England is that arms can be borne by any legitimate male descendant, resulting in what could be called “family line” arms, as opposed to generic family or surname arms?
And then you realise that someone just made it all up a long, long time ago and some king said "mmm I can make some money here by forcing people to register them!"
Yes, having been bombarded by "surname arms" by various spam accounts they don't have any relationship to the actual arms that apply to the line I'm descended from. I'm female, no right to bear arms, ever, but I do know what the arms of my paternal grandfather's family look like.
What if the Americans have got it all wrong, and the Second Amendment giving them the right to bear arms never had anything to do with guns? Maybe it just allowed them to wear T shirts with fancy patterns.
What if the Americans have got it all wrong, and the Second Amendment giving them the right to bear arms never had anything to do with guns? Maybe it just allowed them to wear T shirts with fancy patterns.
What if the Americans have got it all wrong, and the Second Amendment giving them the right to bear arms never had anything to do with guns? Maybe it just allowed them to wear T shirts with fancy patterns.
Every now and then, there's a re-emergence of the silly argument that the right to bear arms was a reference to a coat of arms.
I'm finding the discussion on the use of "Esq" interesting; my late father (who was a local council chief official - director of education) quite often received letters addressed to A. Piglet, Esq.* but AFAIK there was no entitlement to a family coat of arms.
Yes, having been bombarded by "surname arms" by various spam accounts they don't have any relationship to the actual arms that apply to the line I'm descended from. I'm female, no right to bear arms, ever, but I do know what the arms of my paternal grandfather's family look like.
Are you sure? To me it seems like while as a female you could not pass the arms to your offspring, would it be possible to bear a lozenge with the pattern but no crest if your dad had inherited the arms?
Comments
In my family, cleaning one's own or a sick person's private parts is still sometimes referred to as "washing Possible."
My grandmother, reputedly, according to my mother, used the "down as far as possible" etc rule - she would have been using a wash stand with a bowl and jug. And a matching soap dish and gazunder.
It's important to wash them in a certain order.
I mean, my face is happily getting the most rinsing direct from the showerhead. Plus it can also get washed when I'm standing at the sink at other times if necessary.
Plus, you know, not that interested in putting soap in my eyes.
Better than unmentionable😂
Like it!
MMM
Of course Buck House famously sends letters to males addressed "Mr XYZ" if they are not British and "XYZ, Esq" if they are British and non titled.
Wikipedia* tells us
So I think @Gee D could style themselves 'your majesty' (assuming that the Warring States period used a similar style to modern monarchies). Which is better than 'Esq.'
Of course, we may also be suitably impressed with @Gee D 's age - well over two millennia, and still posting to SoF!
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cuo_of_Zhongshan
Copper Oxide?
Chief Underwriting Officer?
Arms belong to individuals. They can be inherited, and various members of a family might have arms based on the arms of the senior member of the family, but with identifying differences. But there really isn’t such a thing as family coats of arms.
And full disclosure: Yes, my family has had the hand-painted, framed “family coats of arms” somewhere in the house as long as I can remember, as do my wife and I now. As my mother-in-law says (about using the “wrong” dish or piece of flatware), “It’s alright as long as you know better.”
/pedantry
Given that anyone with a degree or a professional job can apply for arms, that's not much of a bar, and by courtesy, one assumes that male correspondents have the minimal necessary distinction.
Only true in Scotland.
In England, all legitimate male line descendants of the original armiger inherit the arms equally as long as they still have the surname.
For any person to have a right to a coat of arms they must either have had it granted to them or be descended in the legitimate male line from a person to whom arms were granted or confirmed in the past.
There used to be a system of labels showing which son you are, but it gets very complicated very quickly so it's only really used in the Royal Family now, and their arms have rules of their own.
As Barnabas Aus says, Cadet Under Officer - Army cadets at school.
I'm not sure that this is an either/or position. If I slightly reword @Nick Tamen 's statement thus:
We can see that there's not necessarily a contradiction between the two statements such that only one can be true. If my formulation is right (and the rules for inheriting arms are yet another entry on the long list of things that I know nothing about but still feel free to comment on) then the College only need become involved if there's doubt over someone's right to bear particular arms.
Both could be true from the statements we both made. However they are not both true in actual fact.
"Armorial bearings are hereditary. They can be borne and used by all the descendants in the legitimate male line of the person to whom they were originally granted or confirmed. "
https://college-of-arms.gov.uk/services/proving-a-right-to-arms
It's a common misunderstanding; going from assuming every name has "family coat of arms", to believing that just 1 individual has the arms, back to believing in "family arms" for a line rather than a surname.
And then you realise that someone just made it all up a long, long time ago and some king said "mmm I can make some money here by forcing people to register them!"
And thanks, @Fawkes Cat and @GarethMoon. Just so I’m clear, the case in England is that arms can be borne by any legitimate male descendant, resulting in what could be called “family line” arms, as opposed to generic family or surname arms?
Yes, if only!
Every now and then, there's a re-emergence of the silly argument that the right to bear arms was a reference to a coat of arms.
Well in the West Wing they did find a typo in the Bill of Rights!
* not his real name
Are you sure? To me it seems like while as a female you could not pass the arms to your offspring, would it be possible to bear a lozenge with the pattern but no crest if your dad had inherited the arms?