The FREEMASONS

[Muerrisch]

Healdav

Another gem from yourself which will not add to the standards of the Forum.

Douglas

Healdav

Your response is hardly helpful to this thread and shows a lack of respect.

Yours most sincerely

Douglas

It is perfectly in order to show lack of respect [if such that was, which is debatable] to other than fellow members of this Forum.

Healdav [if I understand his view] clearly finds the idea of grown men so disporting themselves as risible. He is not alone in this conclusion.

There are plenty who find Scout masters with knobbly knees and woggles at best funny and at worst sinister.

Men wearing skirts and leggings are another, more modern, example.

So be it!

[Theletterwriter]

It is perfectly in order to show lack of respect [if such that was, which is debatable] to other than fellow members of this Forum.

That should widen the field then. Hopefully this thread will get back on track soon rather than being subjected to infantile comments which would struggle to find a home in Skindles.

Douglas

[Muerrisch]

It is perfectly in order to show lack of respect [if such that was, which is debatable] to other than fellow members of this Forum.

That should widen the field then. Hopefully this thread will get back on track soon rather than being subjected to infantile comments which would struggle to find a home in Skindles.

Douglas

It is precisely comments such as "infantile comments" that are indeed frowned on herein.

Perhaps a constructive criticism of the views, rather than personal abuse, might help the thread get back on track?

[healdav]

It is perfectly in order to show lack of respect [if such that was, which is debatable] to other than fellow members of this Forum.

Healdav [if I understand his view] clearly finds the idea of grown men so disporting themselves as risible. He is not alone in this conclusion.

There are plenty who find Scout masters with knobbly knees and woggles at best funny and at worst sinister.

Men wearing skirts and leggings are another, more modern, example.

So be it!

Could I point out that scout LEADERS not masters, have not worn shorts as part of their uniform since the 1960s, nor do theyvery often wear neckerchiefs and woggles; equally, they are not some secret society that thinks itself way above everyone else in importance (pretension).

In th case of the Masons, I was assured by one leading mason that all the secrecy was necessary so that they could indulge in intellectual conversation in private!!!!!!!!! He was unable to explain why an intellectual conversation had also to involve rolling up your trouser and hanging out you shirts. Sure, it's risible. I also find it utterly bizarre activity. If it wasn't inhabited by all sorts of 'top' people, they would be in padded cells.

[Theletterwriter]

It is precisely comments such as "infantile comments" that are indeed frowned on herein.

Perhaps a constructive criticism of the views, rather than personal abuse, might help the thread get back on track?

Grumpy

The phrase "infantile comments" is pretty hard hitting eh? I hope you have recovered from the shock. To prevent a very interesting thread being hickjacked further, I would also be happy to hear from you offline on how I could make constructive criticism of post 67?

Douglas

[Muerrisch]

Healdav. My Scoutmasters indeed wore shorts and woggles in The Great War. I was one such in the 1960s still shorted woggled and a figure of fun

[Kate Wills]

Can we please curtail digression into sartorial matters, and return to the subject of Freemasons.

[robins2]

well stated

Healdav

Another gem from yourself which will not add to the standards of the Forum.

Douglas

[towisuk]

content deleted

[johnboy]

TOM

Please read post #83 by admin and delete your post before it is closed. Others have been contributing interesting posts. It would be a shame if it were closed because of your post.

[towisuk]

Ok....I'll bring up the topic of loyalty, when in the armed forces and fighting alongside fellow Freemasons ..where does ones first loyalty lie...??

I believe membership to both involve taking oaths of loyalty......

regards

tom

[m0rris]

My grandpa's loyalty (60 years a Freemason + Gallipoli) would have been to his men and superiors. When you're being shelled and sniped at I doubt Freemasonry came into it.

[johnboy]

I agree Will. Men swore an oath when enlisting which was probably quickly forgotten Their priority was probably to keep out of trouble. do their job as instructed and survive. A bond with their immediate comrades was probably very strong whether they were masons or not.

[Ice Tiger]

Let me help by clearing up a few things here.

The "oath" Tom mentions, is about keeping the mystery of freemasonry secret (not that it's very secret as you can easily read about it on the internet), it doesn't mention anything about loyalty to other freemasons or giving them preference above non-masons. There is mention in the ceremony of serving a "friend or brother" in a time of need but this is to be without detrement to yourself.

I think Will & John got it right that your bond with the men you served with would have been very strong and whether they were fellow masons, or not, would have made no diference.

Andy

[NigelS]

Came across this piece Victoria Cross heroes to be honoured in new Freemasons First World War memorial on a local news site (GetSurrey), don't recall seeing any mention elsewhere of the new Freemasons VC memorial pavement at Freemasons Hall on the forum, and, despite its age, this thread seems as good as any to add it to... 

 

Freemasonry Today has this: For Valour: Freemasons awarded the Victoria Cross during the Great War which also mentions  memorial pavement;

 this website also has, from a few years ago, this article The First World War and its impact on Freemasonry

 

NigelS
 

[johnboy]

Thanks for the links.

From the second one

By mid-September 1914, Lord Charles Beresford Lodge, No. 2404, based in Chatham in Kent, had all its two hundred and fifty members serving while forty-three of the forty-five members of Alma Lodge, No. 3534, in Hounslow, whose members were drawn from the Royal Fusiliers, rejoined for war service. The lodge meeting scheduled for September 1914 didn’t take place and the lodge members weren’t to meet again until 1918.

 

I now wonder if any other Regiments from Hounslow had similar Lodges.

 

 

[Steven Broomfield]

On ‎04‎/‎12‎/‎2014 at 16:06, healdav said:

Bearing their breasts. I didn't think women could join (more sense).

 

I believe (I read it in The Times, so it must be correct) that the reason the breast is bared during the Initiation ceremony is precisely to prove the candidate doesn't have a breast - i.e. is NOT female. Seems reasonable.

 

[Ron Clifton]

One breast is bared during the initiation ceremony - first degree. The other breast is bared in the second degree ceremony, and both are bared in the third degree ceremony. Whilst it does provide a method of identifying women who seek the first degree, I think there must be other reasons - expressing vulnerability, for instance - for persisting in the other degrees.

 

I should also point out that this, together with rolling up one trouser leg and wearing a slipper on one foot, appears ONLY in the degree ceremonies, and therefore only within a Lodge itself. In the eighteenth century there were a number of other secret societies which required prospective members to go through ceremonies involving tests and some physical discomfort. Anyone who has seen The Magic Flute will be familiar with this. Even more modern institutions retain some measure of this secrecy, which has its ultimate roots in the craft guilds of the Middle Ages.

 

On the original topic, there were two distinct kinds of Lodge with army connections: military Lodges which travelled about with their parent regiments, and Lodges which sought members only from certain regiments (such as the Household Brigade Lodge). The first type had reduced to two Lodges under the United Grand Lodge of England by the 1920s, and when they were re-warranted as ordinary Lodges the practice was discontinued. (Incidentally the Grand Lodge of Ireland seem to have been one of the more enthusiastic proponents of this practice.)

 

The second type still exists, but so do Lodges recruiting from particular schools, colleges, hospitals, and even public limited companies. Many local authorities also used to have their own Lodges but over the past forty years or so political and social pressure, based on eliminating potential conflicts of interest, has reduced their number.

 

I am not a Mason but I have researched the published material associated with them. They are very keen to distance themselves from allegations of undue influence, though I am sceptical about some of the cases I have seen mentioned, and a friend of mine has personal experience of what I can only call bullying.

 

Ron

[Interested]

The current issue of Freemasonry Today (No. 43 - Autumn 2018) contains a couple of interesting articles:

Pages 57-58 on the birth of the CGWC,

Page 82 on the "travelling Lodges" inaugurated by the Grand Lodge of Ireland in the 1730's, as mentioned in the thread above.

The magazine can be found here:

https://www.freemasonrytoday.com/magazine

You'll need to select the LATEST issue and use the slider to find the appropriate pages.

[Steven Broomfield]

Read that last night. A good read.

[johnboy]

Thank you for the link

[forester105]

On 30/11/2014 at 18:25, maggie_h said:

I have this photo of freemasons in Soltau POW camp between 1916 and 1917. It is from my grandfather's photo collection, he was a POW in Soltau from 1916 to 1918

The reverse of the photo has their names and lodges:

Daniel Cook - Perseverance 1018 (now Clydebank?)

W.R. Simmonds - Mizpah 35 - Medicine Hat, Alberta (from ICRC records I think this is Pte William Robert Simonds of the 10th Canadians wounded at Ypres and prisoner at Soltau 1916-1917)

Hugh A.R. MacLennan - Langside 955 - Glasgow (from ICRC records I think this is Lance Corporal Hugh MacLennan 1 Cameron Highlanders, wounded at Ypres and prisoner in Soltau

Russell Taylor - St Johns 967 - Coatbridge

Geo C. Hughes - 3323 Lebong - Bangal (he is listed in Freemasons Roll of Honour)

Hope this is interesting to Forum members. Grateful for any more information on these men, and whos's who in the photo. Also grateful for any advice on whether any freemasonry or lodge archives would be interested in this photo.

Maggie

Is that not a Sherwood Forester capbadge in the hat ?

[forester105]

On 10/04/2017 at 18:03, Ron Clifton said:

One breast is bared during the initiation ceremony - first degree. The other breast is bared in the second degree ceremony, and both are bared in the third degree ceremony. Whilst it does provide a method of identifying women who seek the first degree, I think there must be other reasons - expressing vulnerability, for instance - for persisting in the other degrees.

 

I should also point out that this, together with rolling up one trouser leg and wearing a slipper on one foot, appears ONLY in the degree ceremonies, and therefore only within a Lodge itself. In the eighteenth century there were a number of other secret societies which required prospective members to go through ceremonies involving tests and some physical discomfort. Anyone who has seen The Magic Flute will be familiar with this. Even more modern institutions retain some measure of this secrecy, which has its ultimate roots in the craft guilds of the Middle Ages.

 

On the original topic, there were two distinct kinds of Lodge with army connections: military Lodges which travelled about with their parent regiments, and Lodges which sought members only from certain regiments (such as the Household Brigade Lodge). The first type had reduced to two Lodges under the United Grand Lodge of England by the 1920s, and when they were re-warranted as ordinary Lodges the practice was discontinued. (Incidentally the Grand Lodge of Ireland seem to have been one of the more enthusiastic proponents of this practice.)

 

The second type still exists, but so do Lodges recruiting from particular schools, colleges, hospitals, and even public limited companies. Many local authorities also used to have their own Lodges but over the past forty years or so political and social pressure, based on eliminating potential conflicts of interest, has reduced their number.

 

I am not a Mason but I have researched the published material associated with them. They are very keen to distance themselves from allegations of undue influence, though I am sceptical about some of the cases I have seen mentioned, and a friend of mine has personal experience of what I can only call bullying.

 

Ron

Minor correction Ron - there are still two military lodges in existence - St Patrick's lodge 295 (Royal Dragoon Guards) which still travel with the regiment and still recruit from within the regiment and Lodge Glittering star 322  (1st Battalion Worcestershire Regiment) which is no longer attached to the regiment (now Mercian regt) but still has members of the regiment. Both these lodges fall under the Irish Constitution. Happy to provide further history on Glittering Star, as it is my lodge. It has a fascinating history

[Steven Broomfield]

14 minutes ago, forester105 said:

Minor correction Ron - there are still two military lodges in existence - St Patrick's lodge 295 (Royal Dragoon Guards) which still travel with the regiment and still recruit from within the regiment and Lodge Glittering star 322  (1st Battalion Worcestershire Regiment) which is no longer attached to the regiment (now Mercian regt) but still has members of the regiment. Both these lodges fall under the Irish Constitution. Happy to provide further history on Glittering Star, as it is my lodge. It has a fascinating history

 

There are rather more than two military Lodges: my mother Lodge is London Scottish Rifles Lodge No. 2310 and it has (obviously) close ties with the regiment, most Brothers being ex- or serving members. We have connections with other extant military lodges and there is, I believe, a network of militar Modges. The Royal Artillery appear to have several Lodges.

[forester105]

Just now, Steven Broomfield said:

 

There are rather more than two military Lodges: my mother Lodge is London Scottish Rifles Lodge No. 2310 and it has (obviously) close ties with the regiment, most Brothers being ex- or serving members. We have connections with other extant military lodges and there is, I believe, a network of militar Modges. The Royal Artillery appear to have several Lodges.

Hi Steve, Thanks for the update.  I was aware of other military lodges that have been created in later years. I was referring to the last true military lodges with travelling warrants that are still in existence and exercise their warrant.