Talk:Grande Loge de France

Regularity
There's a real problem here - the intro states unequivocally that GLDF does not adhere to the Landmarks, and then there's a whole mess about how "similar to regular lodges," etc. There is either a blatant attempt as misinformation, or something needs to be clarified. The GLDF simply cannot be a group that claims adherence to landmarks when it is not recognized by UGLE as doing so. It would be great to have some sort of information, but this is not the place to be politicking or stating a case for whatever reason. Information only. MSJapan (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it was just poor writing... GLDF does require a belief in Diety, and so (on that issue at least) conforms to the Landmarks. I have attempted to clarify the intro.
 * GLDF certainly claims to be Regular. They say (to anyone who will listen) that they adhear to the Ancient Landmarks.  UGLE disagrees (as do the US Grand Lodges).  But why all these GLs disagree is actually quite complicated.  Part of it is politics... UGLE supports GLNF, and rejects all other French bodies.  UGLE feels so strongly about this that they will withdraw recognition from anyone who does not do the same, and they will put pressure on other GLs to follow suit.  This is what happened to the GL of Wisconsin a few years ago.


 * Of course there is more to the issue when you dig deeper. I believe another key issue is who is allowed to visit GLDF lodges.  While the lodges of GLDF may require adhearance to the Landmarks for themselves, they admit visitors from other GLs that don't.  Of course, from UGLE's point of view, doing this contitutes a voilation of the Landmarks.


 * In other words, it is yet another dispute that centers on differing interpretations of what the Landmarks actually are, and where you draw the line between adhearance and non-adhearance. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Regularity revisited
OK... here is another problem concerning Regularity... the first line of the Regularity seciton currently states: In France, there are several Grand Lodges, six of which claim to comply with the requirements for Masonic regularity. This is poor phrasing... I would venture to say that all of the Masonic bodies in France, even the Grand Orient de France, claim to comply with the requirements for Masonic regularity.

I think what the article is trying to say is that GLDF claims to comply with UGLE's requirements for regularity... and the dispute comes about because UGLE and the US Grand Lodges say "no, it doesn't". In other words we have two issues to deal with... what GLDF says about itself, and what other GLs say about it. If we must discuss regularity, we need to do so with complete NPOV. That means we need to discuss both issues, and both points of veiw... without trying to say one is right and the other is wrong. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's discuss it, but not all at once.

We can assure you that the GLDF couldn't care less about the UGLE. In fact they are not at all friendly towards the UGLE and nor id the GOdF. Isepak from first hand knowledge and experience. Do you think for one moment that the GLdF would be in amity with the Grand Lodge of All England if this was a concern for them?

Why should the opinions of one member of one minor Grand Lodge, The Grand Lodge of New York, prevail on Wikipedia to the exclusion of all others? You and they are not the arbiters of Masonic regularity, and never will be. Nor will the UGLE.

Surely you know that difference between Masonic "recognition" and Masonic "regularity"? I have not expressed a point of view at all. All I have done is correct your false statement that we were "started by a small group of "disaffected" ex-UGLE Masons" which is simply not true. Neither is it true that any of our members were former members of the RGLE. Absolkutely NOT true at all. What more can I say? if you will stop being offensive to us and to the GLdF we can work together to put into place a proper history which incidentally excludes our lodge in Paris c.1718. Tgis can be done excluding opinion but including historical evidence and fact. That is my offer to you. Peter Clatworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.147.174 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

More problems
Frenchmason has objected to stating that most of the bodies that are in amity with GLDF are "small", saying that it is inaccurate. I disagree. Most of these bodies have a few hundred members (if that)... which is very small when compared to the thousands that are members of both the typical Anglo/US grand lodge OR the typical GOdF style Grand Orient.

I also have a problem with his wording reguarding Prince Hall recognition. The vast majority of Prince Hall Jurisdictions DO NOT recognize GLdF. Those that do tend to be small splinter groups (Prince Hall masonry being quite fractured in some States).

He says all of this is irrelevant... and I actually agree... I happen to think that all discussion of amity is irrlelevant. I would cut all of the "who recognizes who" sections completely. But if we are going to include them, then we should state the facts as they are, and not as GLdF would like it to be. The fact is that GLDF, not being recognized by the two larger blocks within the Masonic world, has had to reach out to various groups that have split off from the larger ones. These bodies, by their nature tend to be small.

This isn't the place for puffery. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've addressed a lot of it by adding quotes and figures from the sources. A good example is the claim through Bessel that "a majority of US GLs were in amity with GLDF" and it was "the main body in amity".  What Bessel actually shows is that there were only 17.  That was not a majority in 1965 when there were 50, nor in 1894, when there were 44.  furthermore, some states recognized GOF and GLDF, and some only GOF, so there's no "main" about it.  The fundamental problem is that the information is being presented in a slanted manner by the editors of this article.  As I said before, this is a place to give information, not make a case. MSJapan (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the comment that The Grand Lodge of All England was formed by a small group of Freemasons who broke away from The United Grand Lodge of England. In fact, out of its total membership world wide, there are only three individuals who were previously members of the United Grand Lodge of England. The original revival committee (2005) numbered 10, of which only 4 were UGLE or ex-UGLE Masons. It is also untrue to say that it was "formed" in 2006. It was, in fact, "reponed" in December 2005 by an act of constitutional restitution according to English law. The Grand Lodge of All England would like to make it absolutely clear that it is not connected in any way with The United Grand Lodge of England or any other Masonic body unless by Treaty of Amity, as is the case with The Grand Lodge of France, and The United Grand Lodges of India. It is not acceptable for members of the United Grand Lodge of England to interfere and to vandalise this site which should be left to the good offices of La Grande Loge de France. Peter Clatworthy, Grand Secretary, Grand Lodge of All England at York. 14 September 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.221.122 (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(redacted)

Peter Clatworthy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.221.122 (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed once again. Boring! Peter Clatworthy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.157.91 (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well ,Peter, rather than making snippy comments, why not find something else to do? You seem to be under the false impression that Wikipedia is advertising space where one can say what one wants to gain publicity for one's group, and that people not involved with said group cannot participate.  Wikipedia policies state unambiguously that Wikipedia is not advertising, and relies on reliable sources.  As a matter of fact, since you're editing off an IP, I don't even have any proof that you are who you claim to be, and your position doesn't confer any authority on you either as far as Wikipedia is concerned anyway. MSJapan (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't bite the newbies MSJ. For example "You seem to be under the false impression that Wikipedia is advertising space where one can say what one wants to gain publicity for one's group, and that people not involved with said group cannot participate."  I'd also suggest a bit of self awareness as well. JASpencer (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * He's not a newbie; he's User:Grandsecretary using dynamic IPs to avoid being considered a role account. MSJapan (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

MSJapan. I always sign my edits with my proper name and you know where to get hold of me if you have a problem. In your case you hide behind a funny foreign name so that you can act irresponsibly and with impunity. You are well known for it.

(redacted)

FACT: The Grand Lodge of All England was reponed, or revived by a lawful Act of Constitutional Restitution according to English Law, European Law, Masonic law, tradition and practice. That is the history and the law.

(redacted) Peter Clatworthy, Grand Secretary, Grand Lodge of All England. Now please creep back under your rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.157.91 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (redacted) Peter Clatworthy.


 * (redacted) Peter Clatworthy

(redacted)
 * Oh, and by the way... FACT: MSJapan is not a member of UGLE. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC) MSJapan is (redacted).  Peter Clatworthy.

I take it Blueboar that you are. (redacted) Peter Clatworthy.


 * No, I am not a member of UGLE either.
 * As for vandalism... that applies to your editing of my comments more than anything I or MSJapan wrote. You are free to disagree with me, but not to change what I write. As for ownership, you seem to think this article belongs to you... it doesn't. If it belongs to anyone it belongs to the Wikimedia foundation.  Finally, your comments constitute a violation of WP:No personal attacks, which can result in your being banned from further editing of Wikipedia.  If such attacks continue, I will report you to an administrator, and you will be banned.


 * To the ip editor who identifies themselves as Peter Clatworthy; This is an encyclopedia, and uses reliable third party sources to provide references for the content of the articles. Unless you are able to prove that existing content is unsubstantiated by such sources, and provide your own independently reviewed references to verify your own contentions, your edits to the article will continue to be reverted. It is not permitted to make personal attacks on other editors, and I have removed a number of these. Continued violation of this sites rules will result in you being blocked from editing. Per WP:LEGAL, I am also removing any threat made by you and will block any ip being used by you should you continue to convey such threats. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Then don't allow attacks on our Grand Lodge, The Grand Lodge of All England, by both blueboar and MSJapan. These people are simply trying to misinform and mislead to their own selfish advantage.

When I have corrected the Grande Loge of France page, it has been with facts that are fully attributable, and in order to remove historically innaccurate information and political propoganda.

We are, with the GLdF, members of the European Federation and so there is not excuse for removing us from the list. We are also officially in Amity with The Grande Loge de France. The Grand Lodge of France may not be "recognised" by the UGLE - who cares? That is uninteresting irrelevant private UGLE business that concerns it alone, and nobody else. It is certainly not the kind of thing that should appear in an encyclopaedia.

The Grande Loge de France is a wholly regular, highly respectable, highly respected, and highly successful old French Grand Lodge. Any suggestion otherwise is illegal, damaging and undoubtedly actionable. It is certainly not possible to supply a reliable source for the disgraceful claim that it is an irregular Masonic body.

As far as the membership of this Grand Lodge is concerned, NONE of its members, not one, has EVER been a member of the RGLE as claimed, and this Grand Lodge has no connection with it. That was a vicious attack on our Grand Lodge, its officers and members. It was, and is, not possible to supply a reliable source for such a false claim.

This Grand Lodge is the original Grand Lodge of All England by a lawful Act of Constitutional Restitution according to International law. That is an historical FACT and it should be so stated on Wikipedia and not replaced by highly dubious opinion based upon complete ignorance of International law, English law, European law, Masonic law practice and tradition.

What has been done is protected by Acts of Parliament, as is the continuous Charter of York, AD926, and it must be remembered that The Grand Lodge of All England is a legal entity with recourse to the courts to resolve issues which affect it, and to recover damages.

The UGLE is NOT the arbiter of Masonic regularity anywhere in the world. It never has been, and never will be, and any such claim or suggestion is entirely false and should be removed from wherever it appears in your encyclopaedia if your encyclopaedia is to have any credibility. There is not one reliable source to support this claim. The UGLE itself cannot be considered a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination for what is their own highly political and false claim.

That is an historic FACT and I reserve the right to remove any such suggestion which is politically motivated and by inference an attack on the many other perfectly regular Masonic jurisdictions in the world, including this Grand Lodge.

The section entitled "Regularity" is entirely based upon UGLE political propoganda. It is historically innaccurate and wholly unsustainable. I have therefore, removed it. Who says that the GLNF is the only regular Grand Lodge in France? Their own founding Grand Lodge, the UGLE says so. That is NOT a reliable source. That is a political claim for supremacy over French Freemasonry, by an uninvited English Grand Lodge, the UGLE, against the wishes of the vast majority of French Freemasons.

Peter Clatworthy, Grand Secretary, Grand Lodge of All England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.147.174 (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Reguarding the GLoAE being a member of the Confederation of the United Grand Lodges of Europe... Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. If you can provide a reliable source that says your Grand Lodge has joined this body (and your web page does not qualify as such), then you can mention it in the article.  At the moment, however, the only source we have on this confederation is French webpage's reprint an article anouncing the founding of the confederation... which does not list your Grand Lodge among its members.
 * The rest of your diatribe is completely irrelevant to this article, which is about the GLdF, not the GLoAE (historical or modern incarnation). Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I will ask the Federation to update their website and I will expect you to comply when they do.

Now that we are talking, why are you claiming that the GLdF is not a respectable and regular Grand Lodge? Who are you to make that decision? Where is your "reliable source" for that disgraceful, disreputable and entirely false claim?

And if it the GLdF page has nothing to do with us, a Grand Lodge in formal Amity with the GLdF, then it certainly is no business of yours is it, a member of a Grand Lodge in active opposition to it?

And as far as the history of The Grand Lodge of All England is concerned, it was you who deleted our Wikipedia entry "The Grand Lodge of All England", in its entirety, about 18 months or so ago. What excuse have you for that except vicious self-serving partisan politics?

And who are you to deny the laws of England which enshrines Acts of Constitutional Restitution such as ours ("reponement" in Scotland)? Are you a constitutional lawyer of the same standing as those who advise us, internationally? Of course not, but don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices.

And who are you to presume to know the number and affiliations of our founders and benefactors when you and the UGLE clearly haven't a clue? Well, do you? No - of course you don't, so make it up so long as it damages the GLoAE. Facts don't matter we have our own fish to fry.

What is more, you are NOT in a position to make ANY comment about "regularity" or "mainstream" or whatever you want to call it. How dare you, a mere every day member of one Grand Lodge sit in judgement on another legal and respectable Grand Lodge especially as your GLNF is in a small minority in France and is vilified by the vast majority of French Masons as uninvited English carpet baggers?

If you had a genuine interest in the history of Freemasonry, based in fact rather than unproven political prejudices then fair enough. But your entire modus operandi is to hang on to false and failing claims to Masonic supremacy, despite the fact that the UGLE and its satellites are all failing, every single one of them. Why? Because the general public doesn't fall for it anymore. You are not respected any more. They actually dislike you and everything that you stand for.

"Freemasonry started in the back room of a dingy London pub in 1717" doesn't wash any more Mr Historian - does it? If you can't see that, then you're not much of a historian and therefore have little or no right to comment on Masonic history or anything to do with such a deeply religious and important subject, with its true beginnings in the Cathedrals, Abbeys and Churches of Europe, in the sight of God our creator, benefactor and redeemer.

Leave the GLdF alone. They are a giant in Masonry compared to your lot. Peter Clatworthy, Grand Secretary, Grand Lodge of All England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.147.174 (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said that the Grand Lodge de France was not a respectable Grand Lodge... I personally have a lot of respect for GLdF. I do say it is not a "regular" Grand Lodge.  Why? Because the Grand Lodge of New York tells me it is not, and, as a New York Mason, I am governed by GLoNY's rules and edicts on such matters.  If GLoNY ever changes its mind on the matter, so will I.

Oh! - so Wikipedia the encyclopedia has to abide by the opinions of The Grand Lodge of New York? And you call that history? Intolerable. The Grand Lodge of New York cannot be the arbiter of regularity and less so, you. What a cheek! Peter Clatworthy/
 * As for the GLoAE... in addition to issues of regularity, I will tell you that I have absolutely no respect for your body. Why?... because you are forging history, and as a historian that offends me.  If you actually admitted that you have formed a new Grand Lodge I would still consider you irregular, but I would at least respect your opinion.  However, because you are so insistant that you are some sort of legitimate revival of a long defunct Grand Lodge, when it is clear from the historical evidence that you are not, you have forfited any respect I might have had. Blueboar (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC

But nobody cares less about you and your opinions. We certainly don't take your warped, biased and ahistorical views into account, and I doubt that anyone else does. Perhaps you haven't quite understood yet. Wikipedia demands that you do not publish your personal opinions, but report historical facts attributed to "reliable" sources.

So, "reliable sources" please for your opinion about our regularity, and for your opinion about our right to engage in the perfectly lawful reponement of The Charter of York AD926 which is protected by legal precedence and Acts of Parliament.

Who the hell do you think you are claiming that the Grand Lodge of France is irregular when the most irregular Grand Lodge in France is your own GLNF carpet baggers who insinuated themselves upon French freemasonry? And what right have you to stand in judgement over the Grand Lodge of All England, or any other Grand Lodge for that matter.

This clear statement of policy was once again repeated by the Commission of The Grand Master of Masons of North America in its latest report dated 2008 :- "We must state again that even though a Grand Lodge may practice regular Masonry, we only determine whether the Grand Lodge meets all the standards for recognition, as established by this Conference."

And your Grand Lodge is BOUND by this policy statement, a repeat of earlier such firm and unequivocal statements. It is NOT the arbiter of regularity and this is the most reliable source in The United States of America.

Your own Grand Lodge of New York was chartered by The United Grand Lodge of England, itself an un-chartered, un-warranted, self-started, clandestine Masonic body, and one of its members, you, has the audacity to claim that he is a "regular" Freemason and is in a position to make judgement on the "regularity" of The Grand Lodge of France and The Grand Lodge of All England? You do not have the authority so to do, not even from your own local Lodge, let alone your own Grand Lodge.

Leave The Grand Lodge of France alone and get on with your own business. And keep your vile opinions to yourself.

Peter Clatworthy.


 * Peter, please have a look at WP:NPA. It may be an idea to apologise to Blueboar.  If you want to say anything on my talk page you can.  You may have some valuable contributions to make, but no one's going to see that with the current attitude.  (I am not a freemason, UGLE or otherwise, so I've not got an interest in this apart from to maintain some civility). JASpencer (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you JA, I know that you mean well, but blueboar has a vile agenda, to claim Masonic supremacy for his Grand Lodge over all others, and he is prepared to attack us and any other respectable Grand Lodge in the process, and by any means. For instance, he deleted our Wiki page 18 months ago, in its entirety, and without a by your leave after I had spent the best part of a week setting it up. I have asked him here to justify his actions and you will notice that he cannot do so. He is to Masonic history what Rudolph Nureyev was to Aluminiun Electro-Arc Welding. Peter Clatworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.147.174 (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter, you keep asking me to "leave the Grand Lodge of France alone" as if I am in some way "attacking" it ... I am not attacking the Grand Lodge of France. I am not even attacking the Grand Lodge of All England at York. I am simply editing a wikipedia article to reflect verifiable facts.
 * And once again you have your historical facts wrong... GLoNY was not chartered by UGLE... GLoNY's charter comes from the Antient Grand Lodge of England.

'''NOTE: This comment just proves how little this person knows about the history of Freemasonry. The United Grand Lodge of England IS the Antients Grand Lodge with the Grand Lodge of London added to it by Treaty of Compact 1813. Peter Clatworthy'''
 * Finally, you ask... "Who the hell do you think you are claiming that the Grand Lodge of France is irregular?" I don't make that "claim"... my Grand Lodge makes that determination and I follow the rules and edicts of my Grand Lodge.  Every single Grand Lodge in the world is a sovereign body that determines whether every other masonic body is regular or irregular.  There are often disagreements between Grand Lodges over these determinations.  Wikipedia does not take sides.  The Majority of Grand Lodges world wide have determined that GLdF is irregular, a minority (including your Grand Lodge) has determined that it is regular.  Both determinations are opinions that can be discussed in an article.  However, because one view is the majority view, that view should be given a bit more weight.  See WP:NPOV Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''I am not interested in your view, majority or not, and nor is anyone else. History is not made up of "majority view" especially when it is wrong. We must report history, attributing it to RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT sources. The United Grand Lodge of England is not a reliable and independent source in this matter and we must not invent history for our own political ends. The Grand Lodge of France is a respectable and wholly regular Grand Lodge. The United Grand Lodge of England does not have the authority to proclaim otherwise. What authority do you claim over The Grand Lodge of France, and the UGLE certainly has no jurisdiction over France? Peter Clatworthy.'''

Blueboar, you cannot be that naive. I suspect that you have realised that you have stepped over the mark.

By even suggesting, in a widely read public forum such as this, that the GLdF is an irregular Grand Lodge is the vilest and most vicious attack that any Mason can make upon the Grand Master, officers and members of any other Masonic jurisdiction, and it is unforgiveable.

Your Grand Lodge does NOT state anywhere in the public domain, that the GLdF is an IRREGULAR Grand Lodge and I challenge you to demonstrate to us where you say it does. Not your word for it, a reliable source i.e. The Grand Lodge of New York itself. Prove me wrong, I won't mind.

What is clear is that The Grand Lodge of New York is bound by the policies of The Conference of Grand Masters of Masons of North America which has specifically removed any claim to be the arbiters of Masonic regularity, quite rightly, and good on them.

Take a look at their 2007 and 2008 reports. They are on their website and in print in black and white. Incontrovertable historical evidence.

And then you come along. And you arbritrarily vilify The Grand Lodge of France and The Grand Lodge of All England. Bear in mind that I have been, and we are, in contact with the Conference and its Commission on Information over these very issues. They have graciously received our submissions and their statements have been carefully worded accordingly, to include ALL Grand Lodges throughout the world.

This is their and your current OFFICIAL policy:

2007: "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."

2008: "We must state again that even though a Grand Lodge may practice regular Masonry, we only determine whether the Grand Lodge meets all the standards for recognition, as established by this Conference."

Not our words, or the Grand Lodge of France's words, their words. The Conference of Grand Masters of Masons of North America (including the Grand Master of The Grand Lodge of New York) is NOT the arbiter of Masonic regularity - OFFICIAL POLICY.

This is an encyclopedia. There is NO place for personal prejudices and political edicts from any partisan Grand Lodge, yours or ours. History rises above that sort of thing. If you want to express political opinions then write a book and publish it under you own name, but don't call it history. History is neutral.

We can cooperate on the history of Freemasonry on Wikipedia, but we must first agree to eliminate partisan politics or it is a complete waste of time.

By the way, the "Antients" Grand Lodge, properly named The Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons According to the Old Institution is the UGLE. Please read The Charter of Compact 1813; it is quite specific on this matter. Enough said.

And in your version of French Masonic history you have completely ommitted to mention our Lodge which was instituted and based in Paris c.1718 but certainly no later than 1720. You probably don't know about it, but it is this sort of ommission which may be rectified if you calm your passions and your prejudices and get down to the serious business of reporting Masonic history. It is a very big, and I believe important subject which is not served by insisting on UGLE political correctness. The UGLE is NOT Masonic history, it is a small part of Masonic history, and in this case represents a minority of Freemasonry in France.

And finally, I can assure you that the Grand Lodge of France couldn't give a fig for the opinions of the UGLE. Do you consider, even for one second, that if they were the least bit concerned about what the UGLE thought of them that they would have entered into a formal Treaty of Amity with the Grand Lodge of All England? You must think about what you are saying before you blindly leap into expressions of baseless opinion.

Peter Clatworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.147.174 (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Substantiating that GLoNY deems GLdF "irregular"... not a huge problem. I will have to go back through the proceedings of the Grand Lodge to find the exact date and language used (and I don't have a copy of the proceedings on hand)... but give me a few weeks to find time to head over to the Livingston Library here in New York and I will do so. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As for your statement that "The Grand Lodge of New York is bound by the policies of The Conference of Grand Masters of Masons of North America which has specifically removed any claim to be the arbiters of Masonic regularity", I think you may be misinformed as to what that Conference is... it is not a policy making body that has any authority. It is simply a meeting in which the various Grand Masters discuss issues of mutual interest.  It has no authority over the Grand Lodges that attend.  The Grand Lodge of New York is not bound by the policies of the Conference.  The reason why the Conference has "specifically removed any claim to be the arbiters of Masonic regularity" is that such determinations are made by the individual Grand Lodges.  Now, that does not mean that they won't discuss the issue and coordinate their responce... I remember when one US Grand Lodge (I think it was Wisconsin, but I may have that wrong on that) made the mistake of recognizing GLdF a few years ago.  It was the big topic of conversation at the conference, and the majority of Grand Masters agreed that they should go back and convince their individual Grand Lodges to withdraw recognition from that maverick Grand Lodge... but the point was that the Conference could not dictate the policy it could only assist in coordinating it... the actual policy decisions were determined by each Grand Lodge. Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I explained to you how offensive you have been towards the Grand Lodge of France. You said earlier that you had respect for them and then you folow "Irregular" up with "maverick". What a charmer and a lying toad you are. You must be a very unhappy and disturbed individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.147.174 (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * These kinds of comments are entirely inappropriate. See WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. Consider this your final warning, 86..  Please strike them out or redact them immediately.  Any further comments of this sort will lead you to being blocked from editing.--Slp1 (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter, when 50 of the 51 US Grand Lodges are in agreement about something, and one isn't... that Grand Lodge can be termed a "Maverick"... that's what Maverick means: someone who goes against the trend. It isn't an attack... heck, to some people being called a Maverick is a compliment. Blueboar (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of lack of recognition of GLAE by UGLE in article abour GLdF
I believe the part ”[Grand Lodge of All England at York] which is itself not recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England” (in the section ”Recognition”) is irrelevant and should be deleted. Blueboar think it is relevant: ”I think it is relevant, we do not want to give the impression that UGLE recognizes GLdF by way of GLAE”

I believe the argument for relevance that Blueboar states is not a good one. I cannot see how anybody could jump to the conclusion that UGLE recognises GLdF just because GLAE, which is an organisation totally separate from the UGLE, recognises the GLdF. Stating that GLAE recognises GLdF in no way imply that UGLE recognises GLdF. Recognition is only between two grand lodges and are never ( to my knowledge) made throught a third grand lodge.

So why include the statement regarding the lack of recognition between GLAE and UGLE? In an article unrelated to the UGLE? Specifying which grand lodges are/are not recognised by the UGLE should of course be treated in the article about UGLE. And likewise, the recognition of GLAE should be treated in an article about GLAE (if it ever could be such an article). Comments such as this in articles about grand lodges not recognised by the UGLE only perpetuates the biased notion that only grand lodges recognised by UGLE are “real”. All grand lodges are sovereign and make their own decisions regarding regularity and recognition. No grand lodge has surrendered this to be decided for them by the UGLE. Furthermore, UGLE does not view itself as the deciding world authority in these questions. Ergo-Nord (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me take a step back and explain what I am trying to convey... then, we can work together to attempt to achieve it. My concern isn't really with who recognizes who, nor with who is or is not a "real" Mason... my concern is with avoiding misrepresentation.  I want non-informed readers to get an accurate understanding of what this recognition means in terms of Freemasonry as a whole.
 * The blunt statement: "In June 2007 the GLDF exchanged Treaties of Amity with the Grand Lodge of All England at York" will sound very impressive to a non-informed reader... Unless they understand that GLAE really consists of what... 50 members? In terms of Freemasonry as a whole (including Continental as well as Anglo-American Freemasonry) this recognition isn't all that important.  To be honest, I would prefer to simply not mention it.  But if we are going to mention it, I don't want non-informed readers to draw inaccurate conclusions from the statement.  I don't want them to think that GLAE is more important or notable than it is, nor do I want them to think that this recognition constitutes some sort of thawing of the tentions between Anglo-US freemasonry and GLdF (if anything it has made such a thaw less likely, as it pissed off UGLE).
 * Essentially, my concern is with puffery. Making a bigger to do over a given recognition than it is worth. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the aim is to help the non-informed reader then throwing in a comment regarding the recognition by a third and unrelated grand lodge will not clarify anything, only confuse things. It also has the added negative consequence, for wikipedia that should be a neutral dictionary, of spreading and perpetuating the idea that non-UGLE-recognised freemasonry is not “real”.


 * The lack of recognition by the UGLE does not establish anything regarding neither size nor importance of the GLAE. Both small and large grand lodges are recognised by the UGLE and both small and large grand lodges are not recognised by them. Several grand lodges are not recognised by the UGLE which cannot in any way be described as unimportant. Recognition in freemasonry has been, and still are influenced by (mostly?) political issues and issues of power and control. This can not the least be seen when examining the history of which grand lodges UGLE recognise. I think that lack of recognition by UGLE can tell us little in terms of the regularity, size or importance of other grand lodges.


 * The goal to enable the readers to put this in perspective is good. Though I believe that the proper way to do this is to make factual statements regarding the GLAE. I do not believe that the correct way is to use the view of a competing grand lodge as a basis to establish facts. Further, I believe the description of GLAE should, of course, be done in a separate article that we could link to.


 * As to a perception of thawing between Anglo-US freemasonry and GLdF: It is a fact that GLAE and GLdF has recognised each other. Stating that fact in no way whatsoever imply that other grand lodges have or soon will recognise the GLdF. I think that we can trust that the readers are at least moderately intelligent and do not make the incorrect inferences.


 * As a side question: Do you believe that the fact that GldF recognised the GLAE has made any substantial changes in relation to any possible recognition by the UGLE? I mean, had the UGLE changed their long held position regarding the GLdF before that? Had UGLE in any way moved towards a recognition? Ergo-Nord (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now removed ”which is itself not recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England” from he last sentence of the ”Recognition”-section. No convincing argument has been given why this irrelevant statement should be kept. Ergo-Nord (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

looking at the issue from a different angle

 * OK... let's ask a more basic question then... why do we discuss recognition in the first place? In France, there are three Grand bodies (GOF, GLF, and GLNF)... In recent years, there have been some outreach and informal contact between these Grand bodies, but as yet they do not recognize each other.  In addition, all three are part of larger "recognition blocs" that, for the most part, do not recognize bodies in any other bloc (ie there is little or no overlap).  Isn't that really all that needs to be said?  Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right blueboar. "Recognition" is a purely private internal administrative matter for particular Grand Lodges. There is nothing wrong with reporting the recognition issue, as a matter of history, but to then go on and call Grand Lodges that are not "recognised" by one Grand Lodge as "irregular" is not history, it is offensive opinion. Which Grand Lodge is "recognised" by another Grand Lodge is purely an internal matter for those Grand Lodges. To call The Grand Lodge of France "irregular" because it is not "recognised" by the UGLE is TOTALLY unnacceptable, slanderous, damaging, and actionable. The public wants to know the history of Freemasonry in England, France and elsewhere, not the history of the UGLE in isolation. The UGLE was formed by the amalgamation of The Antients Grand Lodge and the Moderns Grand Lodge of London, by Treaty of Compact in 1813. That is the history of the UGLE and it is not in dispute. That is what should be reported here, historical facts. Yes, report the politics, but please do not do so in such a way as to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, by taking sides. Thank you for the changes that have already been made. Perhaps we can get somewhere on the other Wikipedia pages in respect of Freemasonry. I will trust Wikipedia when it reports the history of our Grand Lodge, The Grand Lodge at York. It will NOT be airbrushed out of English history. We need to form a Masonic historical committee where we can argue, debate, dicuss and reach agreements off line. We are NOT anti UGLE, we are pro English history and we have resources that you do not have. Peter Clatworthy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.42.166 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK... running on this, I have cut the entire "regularity" section... and shortened the "recognition" section. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Recognition, is it really that important?
I would like to discuss the following: "The Grande Loge de France was never recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), although it was (briefly) recognized by a few of the Grand Lodges in the United States around the time of the First World War (UGLE and all the American Grand Lodges currently recognise the Grande Loge Nationale Française instead)."

First: Does the statement that the UGLE never recognised the GLdF really enhance the readers understanding of the GLdF? Especially presented like this without any explanation what it could mean or possible consequences? The fact is just presented just like that without any context; any possible reasons why UGLE didn't recognise GLdF, possible Masonic reasons like a wish by the UGLE to start an own GL in France or any sentiments in society at large or political reasons that might have influenced them etc. Or is the fact just included in an attempt to brand the GLdF as not being "really" masonic?

Second: I understand that circa half of the US “mainstream” Grand Lodges recognised the GldF from the time of WW1 to the fifties. Its a period of roughly forty years. So hardly just “a few of the Grand Lodges...” and not just “...around the time of the First World War...”

Third: The fact that UGLE and all American Grand Lodges currently recognises GLNF does not have any place here. Should it be deemed important then the relevant articles to include this information should be either the articles about UGLE and the respective US Grand Lodges, or in the article about GLNF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergo-Nord (talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oldest?
Yes, the earliest Masonic “Grand” body in France was called the “Grand Lodge of France”... but the current GLF is a later revival (dating to 1894). The Grand Orient has been in existence for a longer time, and thus has a legitimate claim to being the “oldest”. I do understand that GLF claims direct descent from the original, but so does GOF. Who is “older” isn’t clear cut. So... I think it best to simply omit this claim (ie not mention the issue “oldest” at all). Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I came from the noticeboard. Blueboar is right. If there is no source for the claim about oldest it shouldn't be in the article. ImThe IP (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove, if even a primary source cannot be found its clearly a hoax claim.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)