Talk:Ancient Grand Lodge of England

Merger discussion
This article is creating a new and separate etry of an already existing article with an modern spelling of the old name. Pvosta 20:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Pvosta: I appreciated your creating the original article under the misspelled name of "Antient Grand Lodge of England," and I enjoyed reading it. However, the proper spelling for the word is "Ancient." The misspelling of "Antient" did not become popular until just after the turn of the 20th century. During the 62-year existence of the Ancient Grand Lodge, all the minutes and records of that grand lodge used the correct spelling ("Ancient"). The most notable example is the well-known Ahiman Rezon (Book of Constitutions), written by Laurence Dermott, Grand Secretary of the Ancient Grand Lodge. In every instance where the word "Ancient" is used in that book, it is spelled correctly.


 * Some Wikipedists have claimed that the misspelled version of the word ("Antient") was the accepted spelling during the latter half of the 18th century when this Grand Lodge existed. That is not the case. Rather, the misspelled version of the word became "popular" among the uninformed during the second decade of the 20th century, about one-hundred years after the merger of the two English grand lodges, because they incorrectly believed that it had been used during the 18th century, and because they believed that it gave the Ancient Grand Lodge an air of antiquity (which, of course, it did not need). It is like someone adding an "e" to the end of the word "Old" to make it appear older. But, rather than achieving the desired effect, it simply makes it look "cheesy."


 * The Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England put this issue to bed once and for all back in 1953 and published his findings in A.Q.C. (Quatuor Coronati Research Lodge). Further, Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia makes reference to his report in a good article about the word "Ancient" and the Ancient Grand Lodge.


 * And so, we are at a "watershed" where we must decide whether Wikipedia will be in concert with other knowledgeable Masonic writers and publications, or if it is going to go backwards and utilize an outdated convention that was popular only during a brief time during the first half of the 20th century. In fact, the whole discussion about "Antient vs. Ancient" should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I maintain that Wikipedists should strive to use correctly spelled words, just as we also strive to use other good language skills, proper syntax, and correct sentence structure, etc. PGNormand 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's look, however, at what UGLE says in the Constitutions: 9. The Grand Lodge of England is a Sovereign and independent Body practising Freemasonry only within the three Degrees and only within the limits defined in its Constitution as ‘pure Antient Masonry’. It does not recognize or admit the existence of any superior Masonic authority however styled. That is from the 2006 edition, and nowhere in that document is the spelling ancient found. --Vidkun 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Vidkun: You stated that "the Preliminary Declaration of the Act of Union of the two Grand Lodges in December 1813, says that it was declared and announced that "pure Antient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more". However, in my four-volume copy of Gould's History of Freemasonry, in vol. iii, between pages 90 and 91 there is a photographic (!) copy of those Articles of Union. And Article II (which was carefully handwritten, by the way, in the original version, clearly states: "that pure Ancient Masonry consists of three degrees, and no more...." using the correct spelling of the word "Ancient". So it appears that the U.G.L.E. has elected, for whatever reason, to purposely change the spelling of that particular word in its 2006 edition. Again, I have no problem with the U.G.L.E. doing that IN ITS OWN publication. But if our long dead brethren who were members and officers of the "Ancient Grand Lodge of England" chose to call themselves "the Ancients," using the correct spelling, then we should do them that courtesy (out of respect to them, if for no other reason). Whatayouthink?PGNormand 04:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone added the note that "this article is a 'stub'" and that it can be expanded. I have done so. I hope everyone likes it. Well, almost everyone. PGNormand 02:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A good question here is, if it was sorted in 1953, why did it never percolate out to webpages and articles and books published after that date? Again, my concern here, as in other places, is relevant hits for information - one will get a lot more with the "t" than without. If the concern was content only, this material could have gone in the old article, but it seems like a POV fork, especially since it's looking like a method being used to circumvent the need for requested discussion of the spelling convention.  The consensus has been to use the "t" spelling, and it has to be standardized one way or the other - otherwise, this is editing against consensus. MSJapan 03:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree... I really don't care which spelling is used (from what I gather, there is good reasoning behind both spellings), but to create an "alternate" article is the wrong way to go about it. We should pick ONE talk page, discuss both views and reach a project wide consensus for all of the Freemasonry articles.  One thing to note... naming conventions on Wikipedia usually go by the most commonly used name for things... not nescessarily the "correct" name.  That does not mean that we can not discuss the "correct" name in the text (in fact, I think we should, no matter which we choose for the title).
 * As for a different I have with this article... In the History secton... we have the following:
 * When four lodges of Modern Masons gathered and formed what they called a "grand lodge" it quickly took on an aristocratic nature and its lodges began to exclude members of the other lodges from visitation. About 1738-39, it was alleged that the Grand Lodge of the Moderns reversed the passwords for the first two degrees as a means of excluding visitors from the other lodges. (bolding mine)
 * To call the London based GLE "Moderns" at this point is placing the cart before the horse... in 1717 (or in 1738-39) the London based GLE was not yet called the Moderns... That term was not used until the 1750s when Ancients/Antients came on the scene and gave them that title. Blueboar 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Blueboar: Ah, but that's not true!!! The members of the Grand Lodge of 1717 were called "the Moderns" almost from the get-go. In 1726, a London newspaper ran an advertisement which stated:  "There will be several Lectures on Ancient Masonry, particularly on the signification of the letter G, and how and after what Manner the Antediluvian Masons form'd their Lodges, shewing what Innovations have lately been introduced by the Doctor and some of the Moderns ...." The Doctor in this instance is Dr. John Desaguliers who was one of the most prominent participants in the early years of the Moderns' grand lodge, and their third Grand Master. In this advertisement, we see Ancient Masons, "Antediluvian" Masons, who are not members of the new Grand Lodge, posting an advertisement disparaging the innovations made by "the Doctor" and the new Moderns' grand lodge. Again, the four lodges that formed the Grand Lodge of 1717 were not interested in including all the Masons of all the lodges that met in London and Westminster at that time. Many of these other Masons were laborers and of lower social order than the aristocratic members of the new Grand Lodge. And so, it was natural for those other Masons -- those left out of the new Grand Lodge -- to disparage the Grand Lodge Masons as not being "genuine Masons" -- "not like us. We're Ancient Masons." Further, it has even been suggested, although unproven, that one impetus for the formation of the Grand Lodge in 1717 was to separate the staunch, loyalist, supporters of King George and the House of Hanover, who made up these four aristocratic lodges, from these other lower-class lodges which were possibly full of riff-raff Jacobites from the poorer parts of town. This was only two years after the Scottish Jacobite rebellion of 1715, and the Crown was very suspicious of any institution that smacked of a Scottish flavor. And what was more Scottish than Freemasonry? Desaguliers himself visited lodges in Edinburgh in the early 1720's, after things cooled down a bit. Is there any wonder why there are no records or minutebooks from prior to 1717 for the so-called "four old lodges of London"? I suspect that they were full of evidence that Freemasonry had Scottish roots. The smartest thing to do would be to burn them -- or hang, trying to explain to the magistrates why you belonged to a secret organization with Scottish roots. As a result, we have numerous minutebooks and records from 17th-century Scottish lodges, but none -- not one! -- from an English lodge prior to 1717. PGNormand 04:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In answer to MSJapan: And a good question it is! My answer is:  "It DID percolate out to other publications after that date!" My first source was Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia published in 1961. And there are any number of others that also call the "Ancients" what the "Ancients" called themselves. I noticed that poor Bernard E. Jones, who published "The Freemasons Guide and Compendium" in 1950, apparently took his book to press just before the release of the A.Q.C. volume LXVI, and so was unable to include the information in his wonderful book. Nevertheless, there are still a lot of old copies of Mackey's Encyclopedia, and others out there that were published back before World War II and are still providing old info to people creating websites today. One of the things that I preach to neophyte Masonic researchers is that you have to be careful about checking multiple sources. Lastly, if relevant hits is our only consideration, and we get more hits with misspelled names, then why not misspell "Moderns" as well! PGNormand 04:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And BTW, the Moderns' grand lodge did not call itself "The Grand Lodge of England" at the point of its inception in 1717. It did not perceive itself to be a territorial grand lodge claiming all of England. Rather it simply saw itself as a "franchisor" with lodges that were essentially "franchisees." I'll have to do some digging to find when it first referred to itself as "The Grand Lodge of England," and I'm fairly sure it only did so as a response to other grand lodges doing the same. If you read John Hamill and other English authors, you will find that they normally refer to the Grand Lodge of 1717 as either, simply, "Grand Lodge," with no other distinction, or as "The Premier Grand Lodge," a term I'm not crazy about. Ciao. PGNormand 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You miss my point... I'm not really talking about exactly when the term "Moderns" was applied ... I am saying that the article needs to establish that the term "Moderns" was used, and explain who used it and why they did so - before we use the term to refer to that body. To start off the article calling them Moderns from the get go leaves out important information.  First there were lodges and no GL... then someone formed a GL... and then someone applied the term "Modern" to that GL because they were making changes. Blueboar 15:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Blueboar: Well, you're absolutely right. That's why editing by someone else is so important. No one can see their own glaring errors and ommissions. That definitely needs elucidation, although you don't want to get too bogged down in the history of Moderns in an article about the Ancients.


 * But as for the other point(s), I don't think I was missing it (them). Maybe I am, but I don't think so. That's why this exchange is a good thing. It helps us understand each other better. And I appreciate your taking the time to do this exercise with me. Another WPist thinks it not significant. You wrote: "To call the London based GLE 'Moderns' at this point is placing the cart before the horse... in 1717 (or in 1738-39) the London based GLE was not yet called the Moderns... That term was not used until the 1750s when Ancients/Antients came on the scene and gave them that title." Now I'm sorry to call you on this, but that just isn't true -- on several levels. First of all, you refer to the grand lodge of 1717 as "the London based GLE." It wasn't just "London based" (implying that London was only the HQ or home base), it was "IN" London and Westminster only. Further, it was not yet, at that point, the "Grand Lodge of England," either in name or in the territorial contemplation of its founders and members.


 * I'll quote from John Hamill (I always reach for Coil too quickly - so I'll use someone else this time), who writes (in "The Craft: A History of English Freemasonry", 1986), "No evidence has come to light to show the G.L. acting in any way as a regulatory body until late in 1720. Nor is there any evidence that it was concerned with lodges outside the Cities of London and Westminster." The reason that knowledgeable Masonic writers don't call it "The Grand Lodge of England" during the 1700's is because its own 18th-century members did not call it that! They did, however, call it "the Grand Lodge," and most English writers today call it "the premier Grand Lodge" because, unquestionably, it was the first.


 * Roy A. Wells, in "The Rise and Development of Organised Freemasonry" (1986), wrote, "Whilst the limits of control for the premier Grand Lodge were stated to be 'London and Westminster' they soon extended far beyond as Freemasonry was being taken by the military and by colonists to other lands ...." And Coil (pg. 232) writes, "The Premier Grand Lodge was not originally the Grand Lodge of England, either by name or in the contempation of its founders. It was simply a Grand Lodge for the metropolis and for whatever lodges subscribed to its government and, according to the Constitutions of 1723, were located in London or Westminster." He goes on to say, "The time when this body became the Grand Lodge of England in fact and in general contemplation cannot be fixed." And, "This Grand Lodge never made any declaration that it had exclusive or any jurisdiction territorially, except as aforesaid, and it accepted with apparent unconcern the advent of first one and then another rival in the same field." (You know, to this day the U.G.L.E. still thinks of itself as "The Grand Lodge of all Masonry" and only refrains from invading other G.L.s jurisdictions out of fraternal courtesy, and not for fear of losing recognition, it is perfectly happy being the G.L. for the members of its own lodges whether it has recognition from other G.L.s or not. And, from time to time, it has had no problem invading other grand jurisdictions if it suits them. Look at what happened in India in the late 1980's -- I think it was -- and Italy in the early 1990's, and Greece shortly thereafter.)


 * The name of the G.L. (of 1717) on the title page of its Book of Constitutions of 1723 states, "Right Worshipful Fraternity of Accepted Free Masons" (excluding the word "England"). The name in the Constitutions of 1738 is given as "The Most ancient and honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons." And so forth. The certificates issued by the Grand Lodge (of 1717) do not say "Grand Lodge of England" until 1810! The seal said "Grand Lodge of Masons, London," right on up to 1813. Too many writers, I'll admit, will blithely state something about "the Grand Lodge of England" in 1755, or 1786, or 1808, etc., without so much as a thought about the fact that there were at least two (and at times more) G.L.s "of England" during the late 1700's. Now that may not have been your main point, but it was a major point and you did make it.


 * On the other hand, I've demonstrated, from the newspaper advertisement of 1726, that "the members of" the Grand Lodge were called "Moderns" from pretty much the beginning. Since there was only one grand lodge at that time, it was "the Moderns' grand lodge." Perhaps we should be careful to not capitalize "grand lodge" when referring to either the "Moderns' grand lodge" or the "Ancients' grand lodge" so it doesn't appear we are saying that was the "name of" the grand lodge. --  Anyway, thanks for letting me go on and on. Hope I wasn't too boring. PGNormand 00:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PG, you are never boring... overly detailed perhaps, but never boring (I am reminded of an old saying: "Ask him what time it is, and he'll tell you how to make a watch"). Seriously... I think you are correct that we don't want to get bogged down in discussing the Moderns in an article on the Ancients... but, we do have to go into the Moderns at least a little bit, if only to explain what the Ancients were so upset about.  I will think about what you said, and see if I can improve the language to meet my concerns.  If we continue to "correct" each other, and work on compromise language we should end up with a fairly good article.  Even if we end up merging this into "Antients" (I'm still undecided on that), this material will be carried over.  It is a pleasure both debating the issues and working with you. Blueboar 13:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * BB: Thanks for going easy on me, you're a peach. I've done a bit of editing with your suggestion in mind. That is, that we DO have to explain a bit about the Moderns' and their grand lodge of 1717 in order to explain who the Ancients were prior to 1751. Tell me what you think. But I agree that its important for the average reader to understand that there were two major "strains" of Freemasonry competing against each other in London during the first half of the 18th century. It could even be argued that, since the two strains (Ancients & Moderns) represented the blue-collar, predominantly Irish Masons, on the one hand, versus the aristocratic, predominantly white-collar English lodges on the other hand, that the competition and distinction between the two (Ancients and Moderns) would have existed whether the Moderns formed a "grand lodge" in 1717 or not. PGNormand 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * BB: On the subject of merging the two articles, I completely agree that we don't need two articles, one titled "Ancient G.L." and the other titled "Antient G.L." And I am now content to let the rest of the fairly "senior" Masonic WPists decide, as long as you let me cast a vote. But here's the problems you run into:  1)  Many will simply vote for "Antient" because ... its "cool," or "quaint", or "unique," or for other similarly ridiculous reasons. All of which underscore my contention, backed up by Coil and the U.G.L.E.'s former Grand Secretary Ivor Grantham, that it is an unwarranted "affectation" or "pretension";  and 2) then once you have a newly merged article titled "Antient G.L. of England," then you have to explain IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF that the members, founders and Grand Secretaries (to include Laurence Dermott himself !) never wrote the word "Antient" with a "t", but always spelled it "Ancient" with a "c";  and then 3) you're going to have to explain why you, as WP editors, have chosen to spell it differently from the way the "Ancient Grand Lodge of England" spelled it. (That's like trying to explain to everyone that the article on the 'Battle of New Orleans' incorrectly states that it was fought in 1814, instead of 1815, because everyone remembers the song that goes 'In 1814 we took a little trip, along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Miss-iss-ipp.' And that we KNOW that 1814 is the wrong date for the Battle, but we like the song better than we like the 'minutiae' of history, so we're leaving it as '1814'."  I just think I've wearied of trying to educate the masses. There are too many of them, and not enough time for me. BTW, I'm leaving for Wash., DC, on Friday, for Sup. Cncl., and won't be back till late next week. So, I leave it in your hands. PGNormand 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, i don't think we need to explain the spelling at all. Which ever we deside to go with, all we need to do is put a paranthetical: (also spelled "antient") or (also spelled "ancient").  Going into detail as to why we spell it one way or the other is far too detailed for a simple Wikipedia article. And to be blunt, the average reader (Mason and non-Mason alike) isn't even going to notice much less care. Heck, the only reason I care is so that we can be consistent.  Blueboar 18:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfourtoonutly yoor probly write. The Avrage Wikipidea reeder won't no the diffrence. More's the pity. As an editer for the past 20 yeers, I've just always felt it was my responsability to spell things correctly, weather my reeders new the diffrence or knot. But, if you "deside" to use the spelling that the Ancient Grand Lodge did not use, then I do think you need to explain your decision, even if its "paranthetical." (Now I think I'll go have a good cry.)PGNormand 18:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient vs. Antient
We seem to be having a project wide revert war over whether to use "Ancient" (with a "c") or "Antient" (with a "t"). We need to hammer this out and reach a consensus, and we should do so in one central location. Since this impacts several articles, I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry to be that central location. Please discuss at that thread. Thank you, Blueboar 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Union issues
I'm very confused on this bit, Pete: In many ways it could be argued that the Ancient Grand Lodge absorbed the older Moderns' Grand Lodge, as the Ancients' Grand Lodge prevailed on most points of disagreement.  I'm confused because, at the time of the meeting of the four Time Immemorial Lodges that formed the Grand Lodge, there were only two degrees. The first reference to a third degree is in either Pritchard or Andersen (don't remember which) around 1725. Are you saying that not only did the "Moderns" drop the Royal Arch as culmination of the Third Degree, but they also dropped the third degree entirely, and the Ancients still had it?--Vidkun 13:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good questions. But there are several things in your question that need addressing. Let me tackle them one at a time. I wrote: "...the Ancient Grand Lodge absorbed the older Moderns' Grand Lodge...." By the second decade of the 19th century, there were far more Ancient Masons than there were Modern Masons. For one thing, the Moderns were restricted to only one grand lodge, being that of the grand lodge of 1717, while Ancient Masons belonged to three of the four grand lodges in the British Isles, being that of the Ancients (England), Scotland and Ireland. By the same token, there were far more Ancients than Moderns in the American colonies, and many of those lodges that originally had warrants or charters from the Moderns had long since become "Ancient" in practice. Poor Ben Franklin, a Modern, died unrecognized by the lodges of Philadelphia which, by the time of Franklin's death, were all Ancient lodges under an entirely Ancient Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, the older Moderns' Provincial Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania having completed died out.


 * The second point I would make is this: The 17 Articles of Union (in the Act of Union of 1813) represent an agreement on what had previously been points of disagreement between the two grand lodges. These 17 differences were the main points of contention between the two. And even though the Moderns had more lodges "in England" than the Ancients did, the Ancients were about equal within the cities of London and Westminster. Adding that to the fact that both the grand lodges of Ireland and Scotland were Ancient, and the membership growth trajectory seemed to favor the Ancients, they were able to negotiate on not just an equal footing, but on a superior footing. As a result, "the Ancients' Grand Lodge prevailed on most points of disagreement." These points included:  1) The Moderns 'admitted' that they had deviated from the true Masonic practice; 2) the forms and working of the Ancients were largely adopted; 3) The Ancient rule of admitting Past Masters to the Grand Lodge was adopted; 4) The Royal Arch Degree was recognized as a part of the MM Degree; 5) All officers and past officers of the Ancient Grand Lodge were accepted as past officers of the new United Grand Lodge; 6) the word "Ancient" (sic) was incorporated into the name of the new Grand Lodge; and 7) the new numbering system of lodges was such that each Ancient lodge was ranked just ahead of its corresponding Modern lodge (so, No. 1 of the Ancients remained No. 1, but No. 1 of the Moderns became No. 2).  Now, whether the word "absorbed" is fair nor not is a matter of opinion. Maybe its too strong. I don't know.


 * Third point: You said:  "...at the time of the meeting of the four Time Immemorial Lodges that formed the Grand Lodge, there were only two degrees." First of all, there is a difference between describing something (like a lodge) as a "time immemorial lodge" versus describing it as an "immemorial rights lodge." The so-called "four old lodges of London" were certainly "immemorial rights lodges," because they were formed under the immemorial right of Masons to form lodges and meet. In a time before grand lodges there was no such thing as a warrant or charter, and so Masons observed the immemorial right to form lodges and meet. A lodge which was formed in, let's say, 1715 was an "immemorial rights" lodge. But that does not make it a "time immemorial" lodge. A time immemorial lodge is a lodge that has existed since, well, "time immemorial." But an immemorial rights lodge formed in recent times (such as the Lodge at Fredericksburg, Va.) is not a time immemorial lodge. Now that we've defined our terms, let me quote from Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia. Coil states:  "The position of the Four Old Lodges in London is somewhat doubtful, although they are usually termed 'immemorial'. None of them had any preserved minutes and there really is no evidence at all that they existed before, say, 1716, when the preliminary meeting was held." In fact, it may very well be that the so-called "four old lodges" had been formed at about the time of the reign of Queen Anne (1702-14). The term "four old lodges" was a term that was not used until later times when the question of lodge precedence arose. I'm not absolutely certain about this, but I believe the term was first used in Anderson's Constitutions of 1738,  some 21 years after 1717, by which time they might have been considered to be "old lodges." Certainly, if there was any question about which of the Moderns' lodges were "older," the four lodges that formed the grand lodge in 1717 would be worthy of recognition. That is not to say that they were the "oldest" as other, older lodges may have joined the grand lodge after 1717 and received a charter, thereby surrendering their precedence to those that had received charters before them.


 * Fourth point: You also wrote:  "The first reference to a third degree is in either Pritchard or Andersen (don't remember which) around 1725."  We don't know when the Moderns first knew about the Third Degree. But whenever it was, they did not consider it to be a part of their system until Anderson's Constitutions of 1738. Undoubtedly, the grand lodge of 1717 had only one or two degrees at the time of its formation. (I won't sidetrack into whether it was just one or two.) But, just because the Moderns' grand lodge had only one or two degrees in 1717 does not mean that the Scottish and Irish lodges (the Ancients lodges) did not have three. Remember, the Moderns' lodges, and the Masonry of the Moderns, was pretty "stripped down." The Moderns were consistently charged with omitting prayers, ignoring the Sts. Johns' Days, failing to properly prepare candidates, abbreviating the rituals, neglecting the lectures and catechisms, failing to recite the Ancient Charges, allowing austerity in their ceremonies, abandoning the esoteric installation of the W.Master, failing to appoint or utilize Deacons, etc. etc. I don't think its a case of the Moderns first having all these things and then deciding to get rid of them. Rather, I think the Moderns' lodge never had them in the first place. I think the Moderns lodges started in the early 1700's from scratch, in imitation of the Ancients lodges of the Scots and Irish, but only started with the basic elements for simplicity's sake.


 * There is quite a bit of evidence available that shows that the Third Degree existed during the 1600's. Various manuscript sources mention "the five points of fellowship," "green divots," "mossy homes," etc., before the formation of the grand lodge of 1717. All of these allude to the themes of death, burial and raising. We know that there were lodges of "Scots Masters," or "Scottish Masters" in London as early as the 1730's, indicating that these lodges conferred a degree of Scottish origin. What we know is that some ceremony, if not the Third Degree itself, in either its Hiramic or Noachite form, was being conferred in Ancients' lodges in Scotland, Ireland and in England much earlier than it was conferred in the Moderns' lodges of London. It is probable that a man was considered a full-fledged Mason with only one degree, and that the conferral of the Second and Third Degree were only performed at special times, in special lodges, and were not considered necessary for full membership. But the fact that the new 18th-century lodges of London and its Moderns' grand lodge did not know about them does not mean that the Third Degree did not exist among lodges of the older Ancients' tradition.


 * Last Point: You asked:   "Are you saying that not only did the 'Moderns' drop the Royal Arch as culmination of the Third Degree, but they also dropped the third degree entirely, and the Ancients still had it?"  No. I don't believe the Moderns 'dropped' the Royal Arch and the Third Degree." Rather, I don't think they had it to start off with. I think David Stevenson and others have shown that Freemasonry in fullest and richest form originated in Scotland during the early 1600's after the implementation of the Schaw Statutes of 1598 & 1599. The records show that the earliest non-operative Masons who were admitted to lodges were in early 17th-century Scottish lodges. From there, speculative Freemasonry spread to northern England and Ireland. Then, in the early 1700's, the white-collar, aristocratic members of London society decided it would be fun to imitate this practice and they began forming new Moderns' lodges in London and Westminster, rather than join the more plebian Ancients' lodges that already existed. Since they were "doing their own thing," they picked and chose from the rich "buffet" of Masonic practices, and put together a set of practices that suited them, on the one hand, but left out a lot of Ancient practices on the other hand. They soon formed what they called a "grand lodge."PGNormand 20:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)