The Creation of UGLE

[eckywan2]

Correct Richard , once again Mr Benn has encapsulated the circumstances in a way that avoids disharmony,
and while I agree with that need , I cant watch quietly when people repeat things they know to be wrong and have admitted
then go on regardless eg "lets party anyway"
MR Benn I don't "think" there is a problem , its admitted by all and sundry . UGLE was established at Kensington Palace in 1813. Full stop.
Im a retired cop, used to telling the true whether it suits me or not, the whole truth, including evidential problems , and nothing but the truth
As everyone at UGLE and here know 1813 is correct why is this still going on and why am I slapped down for continuing to tell the truth?
Im not making a point,

Merry Christmas everyone

[Trouillogan]

May I apologise again for my lack of clarity - probably due to my recent house move. My comment about 'let's party anyway' was intended to express what seems to be the desire of UGLE who wish to hold a celebration. It's not my own view at all.

Personally, I feel that events should properly be commemorated in accordance with the historical records as we know them to be. In this particular instance, those who take the trouble to study these things are as sure as we can be that the 'Grand Lodge Era' of Freemasonry existed significantly earlier than the Londoners like to think and that the London Grand Lodge can only truly be said to have started whith its first recorded minutes.

Do you remember that 2012 report 'The Future of Freemasonry' by the Social Issues Research Centre? The opening sentence of which commences with these words: 'As the tercentenary of the United Grand Lodge of England approaches . . .’ It seems to me that the fact that this report was promulgated to the public and to the membership, says a lot about those who let it pass. The full text of the body of my letter to FMT was as follows:

SIRC Report 2012
I have read the report several times and, to me, much seems to have been copy/pasted from sociology textbooks. Nowhere do I detect an indication of what audience it is targeted towards.

If it's for the general public, then I doubt they are interested enough to plough through 44 pages.

If it's for the 'antis' then they certainly won't read it, having been commissioned by UGLE.

If it's for us, then why? I just hope it didn't cost us too much!

Further, as its stated aim is to look at the future of Freemasonry (excluding the quotes, headers and page footers) why, in the whole 44 pages, does the word 'future' appear only seven times?

Incidentally, right at the beginning, in the very first sentence no less, there is a completely false statement: ‘As the tercentenary of the United Grand Lodge of England approaches . . .’ Is it really 300 years since December 1813? How much background research has this outfit done?

As to comments by the Grand Secretary, he can only speak for himself as an individual and should have made that very clear. No one speaks for Freemasonry as a whole; it's an individual thing about which each of us has his own path and his own view. It is not a corporate body or entity and has no overall policy. He and his staff do a very valuable job in taking care of the administrative aspects of the organisation and that is not to belittle the task; it is an enormous one. The public ‘voice’ comes from each and every one of us, as individuals.

I didn't really expect FMT to publish it!

[admin]

Masonic orogins have been a subjest of debate for amny, many years.

There are two options to debate.
Freemasonry [ as a concept ]

Freemasonry [ as an organised society ]

Freemasonry [ as a concept ] I would say takes us back to the beginnings of time. The day the first man laid the first brick or stone on top another to build something to shelter his family and friends.

For those who may not know.
Freemasonry [ as an organised society ] my own pet theory is The Normans. 1066 PLUS saw the mass building of stone Castle throughout England and Scotland and Wales, slightly later in Ireland. These replaced the old Timber built keeps.

However , fast forward. December 1813 was the amalgamation of the prior two Grand Lodges [ Ancients and the Moderns ]

1717 was actually - On 24 June 1717 four London Lodges, which had existed for some time, came together at the Goose and Gridiron Tavern in St Paul’s Churchyard, declared themselves a Grand Lodge and elected Anthony Sayer as their Grand Master. This was the first Grand Lodge in the world.

There were Lodges before but no Grand Lodge.

Therefore the argument is - was what we know today as UGLE the same Grand Lodge as was created in 1717 or did it start anew in 1813.

UGLE will argue that it was an amalgamation and continued but with a change of name. Much like the Grand Charity has just changed its name but is doing the same job.

Others will argue that it started 1813.

[eckywan2]

There is no argument
UGLE was established at Kensington Palace in 1813
admitted by all.

fraternal greetings as always

[admin]

Just supplying the facts.

Lets call it a difference of opinion then.

[MrBenn]

UGLE is a bit like Triggers Broom

[admin]

Moving some posts over from another thread which are more relevant here.

[admin]

More info from Wiki reference links supplied.

Progress towards union remained slow, until the Moderns formed the "Lodge of Promulgation" in 1809, for the purpose of reverting their ritual to a point where it was in step with the Ancients, the Scots and the Irish. One of their resolutions was that the ceremony of installation (of a new master of a lodge) was part of "Antient" masonry.

They then obliged their own uninstalled masters and the masters of the London lodges to undergo the ritual in three meetings during December 1810 and January 1811.[17] That year, the Moderns formally told the Ancients that they had resolved to return to the older ritual, and the process of union began. At the end of 1812, the Earl of Moira resigned to take up the post of Governor of India, and the Duke of Sussex became Grand Master on the resignation of his brother, the Prince Regent. On 1 December 1813, the Duke of Atholl resigned the leadership of the Ancients. Duke of Kent, the older brother of Sussex and the father of Queen Victoria took over.

He had already united the Ancients and Moderns in Canada. He simply merged the lodges of the Moderns with the nearest lodge of the Ancients. In other words, he abolished the Canadian Moderns. So it was that on the Feast of St. John the Evangelist, 27 December 1813, the two English Grand Lodges came together to form the United Grand Lodge of England, with the Duke of Sussex as Grand Master.

Ref : Phoenix Masonry R. F. Gould, History of Freemasonry, vol II, (rev Wright 1936), p. 229
Ref : Encyclopedia of Freemasonry retrieved 17 July 2012

A couple of interesting things come from this article.

1] The First Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England was the Grand master of the Ancients. Duke of Sussex

2] The explanation of the duplicity of the Saint Johns.

The original Grand Lodge was created on 24th June 1717 ‘St. John the Baptist Day ‘

The merger of the two Grand Lodges was the Feast of ' St. John the Evangelist ', 27 December.

[Lazza21]

I really cannot see eckywan's point. He doesn't dispute that the first Grand Lodge was formed in 1717 sparking the birth of Grand Lodge Freemasonry from
the scattered independent lodges where dating their length of existence prior to 1717 is not clear. So why not celebrate and who else to organise that than UGLE.
I am not a particular fan of UGLE but the tri centenary needs to be celebrated and in London where it started seems the most appropriate place.

[eric384]

Lazza

It's quite simple. If they were saying it's a celebration of the founding of the Premier Grand Lodge at the Goose and Gridiron, that would be fine. However, we are being told it's the tercentenary of UGLE which clearly it is not.

[admin]

It all depends on the words used The terminology.

Tercentenary International Conference celebrating 300 years of Freemasonry
http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/news/lo ... reemasonry

June 2017 is an important landmark in the history of Freemasonry as it marks the three hundredth anniversary of the first meeting of the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster; the first Grand lodge in the world.

I do not think anyone has actually said 300 years of UGLE.

[Trouillogan]

It all depends on the words used The terminology.

Tercentenary International Conference celebrating 300 years of Freemasonry
http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/news/lo ... reemasonry

June 2017 is an important landmark in the history of Freemasonry as it marks the three hundredth anniversary of the first meeting of the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster; the first Grand lodge in the world.

I do not think anyone has actually said 300 years of UGLE.

UGLE's own commissioned report which I mentioned above at 16 Dec 2015 12:13 says so!

[admin]

It all depends on the words used The terminology.

Tercentenary International Conference celebrating 300 years of Freemasonry
http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/news/lo ... reemasonry

June 2017 is an important landmark in the history of Freemasonry as it marks the three hundredth anniversary of the first meeting of the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster; the first Grand lodge in the world.

I do not think anyone has actually said 300 years of UGLE.

UGLE's own commissioned report which I mentioned above at 16 Dec 2015 12:13 says so!

But as you said
SIRC Report 2012
I have read the report several times and, to me, much seems to have been copy/pasted from sociology textbooks. Nowhere do I detect an indication of what audience it is targeted towards.

not from UGLE

http://www.ugle.org.uk/what-is-freemaso ... reemasonry

Preparations are now beginning to celebrate the tercentenary of Grand Lodge in June 2017.

If UGLE says it was founded in 1717 then that should be corrected.

Google search
UGLE founded in 1717
United Grand Lodge England founded in 1717

does not return a web page by UGLE that says it was founded in 1717.

[MrBenn]

I quote like the timeline they've published on that link Bill - it's quite clear to me (without equivocation or mental reservation) that it is the founding of the original Grand Lodge that is being celebrated - not UGLE itself
Sure, you can tangle things around to make it look as though UGLE is saying 'It is my 300th birthday!!' but it isnt' actually saying that in words itself

[Richard George]

The problem though, is this one ..

http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/ugle-sg ... of-england

Whilst WE know what he was talking about, that's not true for the 'masses'.

[MrBenn]

Yes....headline writer got a bit carried away

[Trouillogan]

The frequency with which the people at GQS are letting this error through, indicates to me that they are starting to believe it.

[admin]

Once in a lifetime – 2017 tercentenary of the United Grand Lodge of England

should read

Once in a lifetime – 2017 tercentenary of the Premier Grand Lodge of England

Now if one of your relation is no longer around is there any harm in celebrating their Birthday. ?

But each is welcome to their opinion.

[Richard George]

None at all, but you make sure everyone knows you're celebrating HIS birthday and not yours!

[eckywan2]

Bill / admin, Mr Benn Richard, brethren all and anyone else!
Admins story of the problems around amalgemation of ancients and moderns was so interesting !
As were the other comments! Although we may disagree I respect it, and even like it, when people stand up for their own beliefs.

However when someone in the position of Bro Lowndes who should know better, takes a position that ignores what his own staff freely admit
I don't know how we get past that! There's no reason not to celebrate and discuss the pub lunch, as such, and I would like to hear more of Yorks attitude then , and now! But please don't call it UGLE's 300th when you know the background. Kensington Palace 1813 remember?

Admin, again I'm glad you changed the United to Premier but who said the 4 groups present in 1717 had or have any right to use that title "Premier"
without permission from York or any consultation elsewhere?

Trouillogan I think your right, when mistakes are made they should be corrected, but don't shoot the messenger
and when they continue to be promulgated please don't get upset when its pointed out.
Its an old tactic to tell a big lie and keep repeating it !

I especially like the comment about 1066 and later rebuilding of motte and bailey timber forts into stone castles
about the same time as the Vatican encouraged similar church building in stone and gave permission for qualified workers in stone and wood to travel
giving them signs tokens and other proofs of their ability to enable them to travel to obtain work and pay, in the building up of castle and religious facilities to counter the threat from Muslims. I also have the humble opinion , that any church official, or local lord , or warlord, wanted to know how these workers were going to build / protect property, and were made welcome ( maybees allowing little option) into the chapterhouses where discussions between stonemasons and what we know call speculatives formed part of our origins. The remains of the chapters at Kilwinning Melrose Jedburgh Perth etc. all speak to that and I'm sure there are many similar all over Ireland Wales and England. ( same at Roslin but that's 1440 ish)

Sorry for blethering on so long But theres another point I want to ask about.
Ive just mentioned York and Kilwinning ( and I must admit a bias as I was born in Kilwinning. ) and have long been aware of a claim that the York rite has origins in advice given by Kilwinning on ritual matters PRIOR to NORMANS ( I have a vague memory of 978 ad) when York had questions on how to conduct ceremonies.
Obviously this was at operative level but is part of our story
I believe there is some document in the Asmolean museum being a copy of the questions from York or the response from Kilwinning, or hopefully both
DOES ANYONE HAVE knowledge or a contact there that can prove OR DISPROVE this or suggest how this story came about?
A copy of anything would be amazing for us all ( and a translation even better!)

I think that's enough from me for now

Merry Christmas everyone