Queen Elizabeth II. Top Mason?

reply to post by cutbothways


I am sorry that I have only just seen your original posting. You have exhibited our Grand Lodge Coat of Arms which includes the representation of two cherubs. The cloven hoofed form seems to concern you and so I will give you a full explanation if I may:

The image of the cherubs is a depiction described in the Holy Bible in the Book of Ezekiel, Chapter I. This refers to the "winged chariot of fire". It should be read in its entirety especially verse 28 where it says: "This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD".

I hope that this helps aid understanding of the Coat of Arms, and the inscription, "Holiness to the Lord".

Peter Clatworthy
Grand Secretary
Grand Lodge of All England
York

reply to post by Trinityman


Trinityman,

The suggestion that English freemasonry started in the tiny back room of a London pub in 1717 is just not credible.

Firstly, there are no records that the "four old lodges" met as lodges. It is most likely that just a few disgruntled members took part, firstly at the Cheshire Cheese Tavern (1716) and afterwards at the former Mitre Tavern, locally known as The Goose and Gridiron in St Paul's Churchyard.

These unofficial meetings were made up of of very few members of the four old Lodges out of a total of 129 Lodges still loyal to Old York.

The Grand Lodge that was later reported as having been formed in 1717, was called The Grand Lodge of London and only claimed jurisdiction over its Lodges "in an around the city of Westminster, strictly within the bounds of mortality". No extant minutes or records of this meeting have ever existed.

This London Grand Lodge did not claim English Freemasonry until the publication of its second Book of Constitutions in 1738.

The Old Grand Lodge at York was still very active in 1738 as England's Grand Lodge of All England, until between 1794 and 1801 it was forced into dormancy due to Acts of Parliament passed in support of The Grand Lodge of London: beginning with the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act (1794); culminating in the Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800. This legislation included the: Treasonable Practices Act (1795); Seditious Meetings Act (1795); Unlawful Oaths Act (1797); Newspaper Publications Act (1797); Corresponding Societies Act (1799); Unlawful Societies Act (1799).

This is what Lord Moira, Acting Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of London stated at the time: " I have pledged myself to His Majesty's ministers that should any set of men attempt to meet as a lodge without sanction, the Grand Master, or Acting Grand Master (whomsoever he might be), would apprise parliament."

Apprising Parliament would result in punitive fines, bankruptcy, confiscation of property, imprisonment and exile. This was the true beginning of what has become known as Grand Lodge "recognition". This perfidious doctrine worked through the requirement for Lodge Secretaries to register with the Clerks of the Peace. This, in effect, ensured that only the Hanoverian dominated Grand Lodges were free to continue above ground.

Just because these repressive actions caused York Free Masons to go underground (as was the case in respect of our exiled Masons who formed The Society and Fraternity of Freemasons in Paris), it was unable to prevent generations of Free Masons recognising the genuineness of the York tradition and seeking to follow its philosophy and practice as well as they could. The Hanoverian attempt to monopolise Freemasory for political reasons did nothing to prevent the Grand Lodge of All England at York and its adherent Freemasons from representing true and genuine Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry.

This is what the Grand Lodge of All England stated in the last paragraph of its public manifesto in 1779.

"If he wishes to partake of Masonry in its Original Purity, he will turn his attention to that source, where it hath been Inviolably maintained and continued for Successive Ages to this Day, and where the Legislature of Masonry for this Kingdom stands fixed by its true Title 'The Grand Lodge of All England, Established at the City of York."

This is what the Grand Lodge of Scotland believes:

"After the establishment of the Kilwinning and York Lodges (the jurisdiction and antiquity of the Grand Lodge of York over other English Lodges has invariably been acknowledged by the whole Fraternity), the principles of Freemasonry rapidly spread throughout both Kingdoms and several Lodges were erected in different parts of the island."

I am posting here rather a lot but I am trying to catch you up. I hope that I do not bore you all rigid.

The following ten English Monarchs have been Grand Masters of The Grand Lodge of All England at York.

King Athelstan AD 933; Edward The Confessor, 1040; King Henry I, 1100; King Edward III, 1327; King Henry VI, 1444; King Henry VII, 1500; King James I, 1603; King Charles I, 1626; King Charles II (date unknown); King William III 1693.

Just to say that unlike other posters here, mine are postings as the official spokesman for The Grand Lodge of All England, at York.

I will answer questions on behalf of The Grand Lodge and receive your comments and opinions. Your questions will be dealt with honestly and openly.

However, as you have seen by the quotation gathered from our website I am under certain restraints, not permitted to reveal any of the rituals, modes of recognition, or the administrative proceedings of the Craft of Freemasonry.

Neither do we comment on the internal affairs of other Grand Lodges.

Take note before we start that I am not here to be insulted or treated with discourtesy and I will not tolerate bad manners or filthy language.

This is a unique opportunity for you to ask about Freemasonry, what it stands for, and why we believe that it is so valuable to society. So, don't abuse it because if I withdraw, then that will be it - permanent and irrevocable, and you will be left talking to an empty chair for ever more.

Our Grand Lodge has no connection with the Royal Family other than as normal citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

reply to post by grandsecretary


Fascinating. Now we've got members of irregular and unrecognized bodies shunned by the UGLE posting on ATS under their official position in said irregular body.

Everyone should note this is from a irregular body thats been trying to stir up a legend that they are "more ancient" than the UGLE. Its claims are based off a legend, which has been proven to be only a legend some time ago.

I have no problem with them, just to be clear (free speech is lovely, even when its incorrect), but they have a clear agenda. Its sad though, that these people come to a conspiracy forum - they are basically giving the anti-masons here more cannon fodder.
However...cutsbothways did end up getting the coat of arms of the irregular body and not the actual UGLE, so I guess its appropriate they explain it.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Originally posted by grandsecretary
Just to say that unlike other posters here, mine are postings as the official spokesman for The Grand Lodge of All England, at York.

While impressive sounding titles no doubt would impress your average anti-mason here, it is important that everyone recognize this is no more different than me starting my own United Grand Lodge of AboveTopSecret. I could, and no one would stop me. It does not mean I have an actual masonic authority, nor that my insights were more valuable than any regular member of freemasonry (which I would no longer be, if I started a irregular Grand Lodge).

Unlike this poster, the other masons here are (as far as I know) members of regular bodies which represent what people think of when they think of/see masonry.

Originally posted by grandsecretary
I will answer questions on behalf of The Grand Lodge and receive your comments and opinions. Your questions will be dealt with honestly and openly.

I am concerned when attempts by this irregular body to get attention have now turned to answering posts on a conspiracy forum. Frankly, if the UGLE ever started doing that, I'd think they were way to starved for attention.

Originally posted by grandsecretary
This is a unique opportunity for you to ask about Freemasonry, what it stands for, and why we believe that it is so valuable to society. So, don't abuse it because if I withdraw, then that will be it - permanent and irrevocable, and you will be left talking to an empty chair for ever more.

Its not unique at all. It is a interesting opportunity to look at irregular freemasonry, of which is an interesting but minuscule part of the real politics of the UGLE.

Members should note this guy is basically telling you how important he is and - should you not treat him as royalty - hes leaving and then you'll have nothing. How humorous. I am unconcerned - more knowledge is to be gained from the regular members here about questions actually concerning masonry.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

" ...the first Annual Assembly of the four London Lodges that came together on 24th June 1717 did not constitute in any sense a regulatory body."

(SOURCE: Jeremy Pemberton, President of the Board of General Purposes of the United Grand Lodge of England, at the Centenary Conference of the Grand Lodge of Adelaide, June 1984)

"It admits of little doubt, that in its inception the Grand Lodge of England was intended merely as a governing body for the Masons of the Metropolis (London). The minutes of the Grand Lodge sufficiently attest to this."

(SOURCE: Four Old Lodges by Robert Freke Gould)

"The history of the Order seemed to be one of its best kept secrets. I soon realised that little was known about what happened before 1717. The more I found out about the local history of Freemasonry in Yorkshire the more evidence I saw that it had been around for a long time before that first meeting at the Goose and Gridiron in London. York had a Grand Lodge of its own long before 1717. I found copies of Ancient Charges from well of over a hundred years before Freemasonry was supposed to have begun. None of the Craft’s own stories of its origins fitted the facts.

(SOURCE: Freemasonry - Dr Robert Lomas, Bradford University)

"After the establishment of the Kilwinning and York Lodges (the jurisdiction and antiquity of the Grand Lodge of York over other English Lodges has invariably been acknowledged by the whole Fraternity), the principles of Freemasonry rapidly spread throughout both Kingdoms and several Lodges were erected in different parts of the island."

(SOURCE: A Brief History of Lodge Mother Kilwinning No. 0, Grand Lodge of Scotland, June 1944)

reply to post by grandsecretary


This is smoke and mirrors. Its a classical example of a appeal to authority logical fallacy. The sources have no meaning when the claims you say they make are false:

An organization calling itself the Grand Lodge of All England is presenting itself as a legitimate Masonic Grand Lodge in England. It claims to trace its roots to a Lodge at York, founded in 1705, which later styled itself a Grand Lodge in 1725, first named the Old Grand Lodge at York, and later the Grand Lodge of All England at York. This Grand Lodge went dormant in 1740, was revived in 1761, and went dormant again in 1791, never to meet again. On December 23, 2005, an assembly of Masons met and “reclaimed English Freemasonry on behalf of its rightful custodians.” The Grand Lodge of All England emerged and is said to be a revival of the Grand Lodge that went dormant in 1791.

It must again be stated that the Commission does not determine the regularity of a Grand Lodge; it only evaluates the facts available to determine if the entity meets the standards for recognition, as adopted by the Conference of Grand Masters of North America, and reports those findings to the member Grand Lodges of this Conference for their use.

The Commission cannot validate the claimed legitimacy of origin of the Grand Lodge of All England, since no documentation has been presented that this Grand Lodge was reinstated or reconstituted in 2005 by a recognized Masonic authority. In addition, it cannot claim exclusive territorial jurisdiction since a pact or treaty does not exist to share the jurisdiction with the United Grand Lodge of England. It is therefore the opinion of the Commission that the Grand Lodge of All England does not meet the standards for recognition.

SOURCE: The Conference of Grand Masters of North America, The Commission on Information for Recognition

They've looked at the claims, actually went to primary sources, and found out that the claim is simply untrue, or at the very least, the organization refuses to provide any proof beyond what can actually be researched by anyone else.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

The Grand Lodge of All England wishes to confirm for the purposes of absolute clarity that the legitimacy and authority of The Grand Lodge of All England at York derives from the constitutional restoration effected at York and upon those ancient laws traditions and landmarks obtained through the practices of Freemasonry since time immemorial.

It is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of any other Masonic body, either at home or overseas, including The Conference of Grand Masters of Masons of North America and its Commission on Information for Recognition.

Full information is available from our website www.grandlodgeofallengland.org - Webpage: "Regularity"

reply to post by grandsecretary


Riiiiiiiiiiighhhhhtttttt. So, in other words we're regular because we say so, even though all evidence says were not.

I fully support the right for irregular and clandestine masons to do whatever they want, but lets not get confused: your not regular masonry, and - unless you provide some sort of evidence for which everyone has been waiting for since 2005 - you never will be.

Originally posted by grandsecretary
The Grand Lodge of All England wishes to confirm for the purposes of absolute clarity that the legitimacy and authority of The Grand Lodge of All England at York derives from the constitutional restoration effected at York and upon those ancient laws traditions and landmarks obtained through the practices of Freemasonry since time immemorial.

It is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of any other Masonic body, either at home or overseas, including The Conference of Grand Masters of Masons of North America and its Commission on Information for Recognition.

Full information is available from our website www.grandlodgeofallengland.org - Webpage: "Regularity"

Such 'regularity' to be agreed upon by Masonry world-wide. And by "constitutional" restoration, are you therefor implying that the UGLE is, by extrapolation unconstitutional? I'm sure they'll be most surprised to receive your opinion. Methinks yon grandsecretary represents posing at its worst.

No, if you take the trouble to actually read the words of your own Commission you will see that it states quite clearly that it does not comment on the regularity of Grand Lodges.

The full exchange of communications and our complete submission to your Commission is detailed on our webpage.

What you are doing Brother is spreading disinformation and misinformation, and by so doing proving your detractors here to be absolutely right. On top of this you are foolish enough to deny your own history preferring to believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden, Father Christmas, and that Freemasonry started in the tiny back room of a London pub in London, in 1717.

La La Land.

Peter Clatworthy
York

Originally posted by grandsecretary
No, if you take the trouble to actually read the words of your own Commission you will see that it states quite clearly that it does not comment on the regularity of Grand Lodges.

Well, thats just not telling the truth. The commission states it does not make the decision on regularity, but its purpose is evaluate information on the regularity of organizations claiming to be regular lodges. Their findings? Based on current information, your "grand lodge" is irregular and meets no standards of recognition:

The Commission cannot validate the claimed legitimacy of origin of the Grand Lodge of All England, since no documentation has been presented that this Grand Lodge was reinstated or reconstituted in 2005 by a recognized Masonic authority. In addition, it cannot claim exclusive territorial jurisdiction since a pact or treaty does not exist to share the jurisdiction with the United Grand Lodge of England. It is therefore the opinion of the Commission that the Grand Lodge of All England does not meet the standards for recognition.

In fact, the United Grand Lodge of England - the ONLY regular Grand Lodge of England - also finds your not regular.

Originally posted by grandsecretary
What you are doing Brother is spreading disinformation and misinformation, and by so doing proving your detractors here to be absolutely right. On top of this you are foolish enough to deny your own history preferring to believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden, Father Christmas, and that Freemasonry started in the tiny back room of a London pub in London, in 1717.

I am sure the irony of this statement is not lost on anyone. Your grand lodge is not regular, it has colloquially been described by many as fakemasonry. I, personally, could care less. Anyone is free to start a "lodge" and call themselves masons - you won't get into any regular lodge, but your free to do it.

Its bad when your on a conspiracy board trying to get people to believe in your fake lodge. Is the organization so starved for attention its TRYING to draw the fire of the anti-masons? You can have it, but even the more intelligent anti-masons are going to know that its a irregular/unrecognized grand lodge that is the equivalent of me founding the Grand Lodge of All AboveTopSecret.

I do not believe in fairy tales, I look at the history. The twenty people in the Grand Lodge of all England are not going to be able to spread this disinformation, the facts are against you. I'm not sure why you all are so determined to do this - I doubt anyone has a problem with people claiming to be masons and doing whatever they want, the issue comes when you claim to be regular.

reply to post by cutbothways


This makes more and more sense. This is why she Knighted Sir Paul McCartney.

ATS Thread on Paul McCartney Symbolism

I'm not sure what this "Lodge..."

Has to do with Queen Elizabeth II and whether or not she is the titular head (I couldn't help myself) of Freemasons? Is this upstart Lodge capable of "growing a pair" on her Highness? (my apologies to any Royalists who take offense) If not, I'm thinking a new thread is in order to properly investigate the merit, or lack therein of this "Grand Lodge."

Aunt Monkeys, not just for being your uncle anymore...

[edit on 2/6/2008 by Mirthful Me]

Let me know if you start a new thread and I will be pleased to contribute as much information as possible.

I did send an anonymous post on the Queen Elizabeth issue before I registered but it has not been posted.

Queen Elizabeth II is definitely NOT a Freemason.

However, it is a rule of the United Grand Lodge of England that their Grand Master must be a Prince of the Blood Royal. Their current Grand Master is HRH The Duke of Kent, who is the Queen's cousin.

So, royal involvement yes - but the Queen, not directly.

Does she have influence on Freemasonry? IMHO she could have, if she wanted it. It would not be difficult to invite cousin George round for afternoon tea. Does she? Only cousin George would know.

Originally posted by grandsecretary
Let me know if you start a new thread and I will be pleased to contribute as much information as possible.

Welcome to ATS.

You may also start your own thread in an attempt to clarify what you perceive as misunderstandings or disinformation.

Keep in mind that starting a thread in this Forum, it must include an angle relating to scandal, conspiracy or disinformation in order not to be moved elsewhere (BTS Website).

Enjoy your time here.

Do not respond to this post as not to drift off-topic anymore.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by grandsecretary


Hi Peter

Welcome to ATS. You will find many surprising viewpoints about freemasonry here - some of which may alarm you. They are for the most part rooted in ignorance and there are a number of Freemasons here who do our best to correct some of the more outlandish allegations.

I am very familiar with your organization, but I do not believe this is the best forum to get involved in the nitty gritty of masonic history. The site is designed as a forum for conspiracy theorists and I try to steer away from non-conspiracy related minutiae. Please don't mistake this reluctance though as a lack of knowledge, I am very familiar with the GLoAE and I will say I give it more credence than that other organization which was founded by M. Gabirro. However I do not agree with many of your conclusions regarding the development of the Craft in the UK, and find your claim to lineage with ancient freemasonry at York fanciful.

Enjoy your stay on ATS and I look forward to your contribution.