|
Post by offramp on May 17, 2019 7:22:38 GMT
Here is one of the popular origin stories of Freemasonry. Stonemasons had their own ritual and Lodges, but as their numbers dwindled they began to accept non-stonemasons, and eventually there were Lodges comprised entirely of speculative Freemasons. Four of these came together in London in 1717 to form the first Grand Lodge.
Have I got that right?
There is a problem with that story that I have not seen mentioned before.
The Great Fire of London was in 1666, and London became a huge building site for about 50 years. Building was going on everywhere. It must have employed almost every able-bodied man in the country.
How could stonemasons' lodges have been short of members?
I do see that Freemasonry is much older than 1666, probably about 100 years older, but when the rebuilding started wouldn't stonemasons have been able to gradually squeeze out the few speculative members that they had?
|
|
|
Post by peter2 on May 17, 2019 7:31:53 GMT
It is interesting to trace the components of Masonic ritual. Some of them are very old
|
|
|
Post by boreades on May 19, 2019 20:39:22 GMT
The creation myths of UGLE are entertaining, but as full of holes as Swiss cheese. e.g.
It is first introduced into English Freemasonry in James Anderson’s book of Constitutions published in 1738 at the request of the Grand Lodge of England. James Anderson was a Scottish Mason and a member of the Lodge of Aberdeen.
UGLE (these days) is strangely shy about mentioning its pre-1717 Scottish lodge roots.
|
|
|
Post by peter2 on May 20, 2019 9:48:02 GMT
>UGLE (these days) is strangely shy about mentioning its pre-1717 Scottish lodge roots.
That was the whole point about the 4 lodges that broke away and were later declared to be time immemorial, despite the oldest of the 4 being only 50 years old.
The problem was that Masonic lodges tended to be loyal to the Stewarts, whose bloodline was claimed by the English to have ceased. The 4 lodges were aligned to the Hanoverian king in London. Apparently there were about 50 other lodges in London at the time.
|
|
|
Post by boreades on May 20, 2019 21:57:31 GMT
The problem was that Masonic lodges tended to be loyal to the Stewarts, whose bloodline was claimed by the English to have ceased. The 4 lodges were aligned to the Hanoverian king in London. Apparently there were about 50 other lodges in London at the time. There was a lot happening in England c.1717. It was only three years earlier that King George moved across from Germany to take over the UK Monarchy franchise. History paints King George as a jolly fat man, and airbrushes out some of the autocratic, feudal and totalitarian tendencies he brought with him from Germany. and Ref : Inconvenient historyA feudal cast-ridden Germany, not liking "trade", and fearing trade societies that encouraged people to develop or improve themselves. King George appears to have brought the same attitudes with him when he moved to England. Hanoverian Georges seem to have regarded the friendly societies as too damn libertarian and a threat to law & order. The friendly societies were viewed as radical free-thinkers, liberal and libertarian. For a while, Freemasons were considered just as suspect as all the rest of the friendly societies. As far as I can tell, the English Freemasons got a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card by swearing allegiance to King & Country. Basically, they promised to be good boys, and have nothing to do with the Jacobite Scotttish and French masons - (cough, officially at least). Promoting the Royal Princes as Honorary Grandmasters might have been part of the same plan to prove their loyalty and protect themselves.
|
|