UGLE Magazine - Freemasonry Today

[Trouillogan]

Reverting more generally to the subject of the thread - Freemasonry Today - which of the regular features do you turn to first? For me, it's John Hamill's page as I find what he says to be the most thought provoking item in the magazine.

I agree. Unfortunately I feel, since it has become the 'house magazine,' it is often more style than substance.

I do feel that to be so in a general sense. But as I said above at 21 Jun 2016 10:14, you need to read between the lines of John Hamill's pieces. For example in the Summer 2016 issue, he talks about the accuracy of the records regarding 1717 and what, at that time, would be regarded as 'history'. In his final paragraph, however, his personal view shows through over 'that simple meeting elected a Grand Master to preside over an annual feast'. Incidentaly, the word 'Grand' then, as now, just basically meant 'something larger, more significant than normal'; in that particular case - more than one Lodge meeting together. In other words - 'no big deal' - nothing beyond that was contemplated at the time.

[eckywan2]

Nice to see you posting again David
I was just up at your local loch with a fisherman !! who luckily didn't catch anything too big.
I'm sorry you still haven't resolved your membership situation and glad your still active here !
Perhaps someone/ more brethren in England / will point out to the UGLE that that being 203 years old is not a tercentenary
I think too many people have got power hungry and we need to remember that we are all on the level
"Jock Tamsons Bairns" says it all
and tampering with square and compass will just not gain any new members !

best wishes for whatever " celebrations " UGLE has anyway I'm sure they will enjoy posturing with new logo
fraternally , as always
ecky

[admin]

That is why Lodgeroom is important.

It is here, a place where grass roots Masons can say respectfully what they think.

[eckywan2]

Trouillogan
You have just encapsulated my own readings of 1717 pub meet
I seem to be putting down our neighbours by some who just will not accept truth
Grand it may have been but that doesn't mean it was meant to be in some executive position
as York already was in England without need of some title
and Kilwinning had been for centuries .
Likewise "Premier" doesn't mean UGLE of 1813 was the first , just that it became ( in their own opinion) top dog!.
I try ( honestly) to look at history with an open mind and whenever one side claims something, I look at opposition opinion too
( No Tankie would deny that German Panzers were soooo much better than what the Allies had)
( no sailor would deny the adavances Germany made in submarine warfare in 1916/17 nearly put Britain out of the war)
That's why Bill is so right and its important that grassroot brethren can say respectfully what they think!
thank you Trouillogan

frat
eckywan

[Trouillogan]

Trouillogan
You have just encapsulated my own readings of 1717 pub meet
I seem to be putting down our neighbours by some who just will not accept truth
Grand it may have been but that doesn't mean it was meant to be in some executive position
as York already was in England without need of some title
and Kilwinning had been for centuries .
Likewise "Premier" doesn't mean UGLE of 1813 was the first , just that it became ( in their own opinion) top dog!.
I try ( honestly) to look at history with an open mind and whenever one side claims something, I look at opposition opinion too
( No Tankie would deny that German Panzers were soooo much better than what the Allies had)
( no sailor would deny the adavances Germany made in submarine warfare in 1916/17 nearly put Britain out of the war)
That's why Bill is so right and its important that grassroot brethren can say respectfully what they think!
thank you Trouillogan

frat
eckywan

Interesting what you say about York. The (Grand) Lodge there, according to the various records, operated in a completely different way from the later London and Westminster upstart of, perhaps, 1723. This is well explained by Neville Cryer in his York Mysteries Revealed. Very briefly, other Lodges round about were, if you like, 'outreach' branches of York but working degrees as if they were separate entities, as did their York parent. By contrast, the London method was to have separate subordinate Lodges. Very much later when William Preston had his bust-up with the Moderns he was able to set up a quite legitimate York 'outreach' and to found a couple of 'outreach daughters' as was the York method. It's more involved than that very simple explanation implies but I only want to show just how totally different were the administrative structures.

[russellholland]

...the word 'Grand' then, as now, just basically meant 'something larger, more significant than normal'; in that particular case - more than one Lodge meeting together. In other words - 'no big deal' - nothing beyond that was contemplated at the time.

I rather thought that there was an attempt to establish Masonic lodges that were loyal the German king in London rather than the Stuart line that was favoured by Scottish Masonry.

Hence the need for the 4 lodges (aged from 5 years to 50 years) to claim that they were time immemorial - not needing to acknowledge the GL from which they had recently received their charters.

I can only imagine the ridicule they received from the many other London lodges.

And by 1719 the new GM was complaining that Irish brethren were burning documents so that the new GL could not have them. The new GM called this an irremediable loss - and so it was.

Not long after that (1725) they announced via the new 3rd degree ritual that they did not have the genuine secrets. Their excuse was that the secrets were lost long before the new GL - but is that true?

If so, how did the Hiram version of the new 3rd degree suddenly become an ancient landmark?

What were the Irish Masons so keen to conceal?

[Trouillogan]

...the word 'Grand' then, as now, just basically meant 'something larger, more significant than normal'; in that particular case - more than one Lodge meeting together. In other words - 'no big deal' - nothing beyond that was contemplated at the time.

I rather thought that there was an attempt to establish Masonic lodges that were loyal the German king in London rather than the Stuart line that was favoured by Scottish Masonry.

Hence the need for the 4 lodges (aged from 5 years to 50 years) to claim that they were time immemorial - not needing to acknowledge the GL from which they had recently received their charters.

I can only imagine the ridicule they received from the many other London lodges.

And by 1719 the new GM was complaining that Irish brethren were burning documents so that the new GL could not have them. The new GM called this an irremediable loss - and so it was.

Not long after that (1725) they announced via the new 3rd degree ritual that they did not have the genuine secrets. Their excuse was that the secrets were lost long before the new GL - but is that true?

If so, how did the Hiram version of the new 3rd degree suddenly become an ancient landmark?

What were the Irish Masons so keen to conceal?

So may questions! There are lots of opinions about some of them too. So many occasional Lodges around the country too, as well as in London.

For example, despite the GL records showing that a Lodge existed in Chichester (Sussex) in 1696, of which the 1st Duke of Richmond (Goodwood House) was a member, they won't acknowledge that as a valid date for Chichester Freemasonry. However, I use other methods of making that date known. It was later warranted in 1724 by his son as Grand Master but they won't even let us have that either!

Many unanswered questions!

Be careful, though, in your use of the word 'landmark'. For good reason none is specified in English Freemasonry but see under 'Landmarks, Tenets and Principles' in The Freemason at Work by Harry Carr. There are Grand Lodges that provide various lists but only very few of the items would pass Carr's test.

[David H]

Whatever date "they" will or will not "let us have" I can vouch for the excellence of Freemasonry in Chichester - how I miss it!

[Trouillogan]

Whatever date "they" will or will not "let us have" I can vouch for the excellence of Freemasonry in Chichester - how I miss it!

Great to hear from you David. Here, things are going from strength to strength. We are now part of the Universities Scheme and are making plans for our first intake from the University during the autumn. Do let me know when you are next coming south and even if we have no convenient meeting on in this fair city, you and I can go visiting.

[David H]

Whatever date "they" will or will not "let us have" I can vouch for the excellence of Freemasonry in Chichester - how I miss it!

Great to hear from you David. Here, things are going from strength to strength. We are now part of the Universities Scheme and are making plans for our first intake from the University during the autumn. Do let me know when you are next coming south and even if we have no convenient meeting on in this fair city, you and I can go visiting.

I certainly will do Trouillogan - and the idea of visiting also appeals - I am missing Sussex by the Sea. I have sent you an email concerning the joint Ladies Festival and look forward to hearing any suggestions you might have.

[eckywan2]

David and Trouillogan Scotland only "University" lodge ( was St Davids 36, which has its Installation meeting on Saturday 17th September Come on down!
David I know your due hereabouts but don't know your dates yet so I hope it may coincide. Installations are the only time ( normally) in Scotland where we "sell" tickets prior to the meetings , for catering purposes, so let me know if you can come and I will be happy to obtain both of yours!
David I might need your interpreting skills or find some young student who speaks Sussex!

ecky HM 36

[admin]

Just a reminer you can read the Mag on line

https://www.freemasonrytoday.com/magazine

[David H]

Thank you

[admin]

Magazine site linkasonry-today-magazine