Victorian Freemasonry

Freemasonry is often regarded as "old" and Masons often try to study the more ancient and less known history.

But there is a history that is well recorded that I feel is greatly over-looked.

The late 1700s to late 1800s saw the height of British and French power; and Freemasonry was in the thick of it all.

The Napoleonic wars took travelling lodges and lodges afloat to distant shores; brother fought brother; and eventually an Empire was forged whose very management were Freemasons.

This I think is a history that should be studied, to better understand Freemasonry's more immediate impact on the world, rather than just it's origins. So let's begin it here?

I don't understand why this thread has not received more attention. The closest the world came to a one world government was during the Victorian-age Britain, where British law ruled the world and Britain acted as arbiter to nearly every civilized nation on the planet.

And at the heart of it was indeed Freemasonry.

Yet this receives nearly no insite?

Strat,what you say is true, the reason for it was, monopoly, not so easy nowadays because of competition.The fortunes that were made all those 00,s of years ago has allowed the monopoly to move even higher and is hidden except to those in control. ie, illuminati, that is of course if you believe it.

Men, who were also Freemasons, were certainly at the heart of it, but there is no evidence to suggest that Freemasonry as an organisation had any meaningful impact on the development of the Empire or the world. Politics isn't discussed behind the closed doors of a Lodge.

Originally posted by Roark
Men, who were also Freemasons, were certainly at the heart of it, but there is no evidence to suggest that Freemasonry as an organisation had any meaningful impact on the development of the Empire or the world. Politics isn't discussed behind the closed doors of a Lodge.

This is such a dogmatic response it's annoying...but I'll try and remain polite.

Firstly; politics used to be discussed behind lodge doors and it wasn't until the Jacobite Revolution and thus schism in Freemasonry that was caused by it and by the creation of the London (English) Grand Lodge that the rule of no politics and no religion came into existence.

Either way; the idea that Freemasonry did not influence those men is over-looking the mere fervor that Freemasonry had on the early 1700s generation and beyond.

Like any organisation (say; the Church) Freemasonry impacted its individuals and they took that impact to the world as they governed it.

It's impossible to say that Freemasonry didn't have an effect on the Empire; merely that (most likely) it did not have a directed effect. No Grand Master of English Masonry (even though they were usually the Kings of England or the Dukes; currently Duke of Kent) sat and said "this year we shall do this with the world" but the effect of the Three Degrees undoubtedly influenced all who partook in both Masonry and the management and construction of the British Empire.

Oh, well thanks for being polite. I truly appreciate it. Maybe you should look at the dates again:

- Zenith of the Empire: late 1700's and 1800's (your reference)

- Birth of regular Freemasonry: 1717

- Jacobite Revolution: 1689 (and onwards)

So my reference to the politics and religion veto in Lodge is perfectly relevant to the time period we're talking about. Were you disagreeing or what?...

Of course Freemasonry (and its 3 degrees) had an effect on its members. So did their schooling. So did their parents. All I meant was that there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that Masonry, as an organisation, consciously directed the development of the Empire like some cabal of puppetmasters.

If you're gonna complain about the lack of answers in your thread, and then condescend to the people who DO respond, well... you can expect some very short threads, mate.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
It's impossible to say that Freemasonry didn't have an effect on the Empire... snip ... the effect of the Three Degrees undoubtedly influenced all who partook in both Masonry and the management and construction of the British Empire.

Jolly good job too, what? Or we might have ended up like Johnny Foreigner. God Save The King and stick one up the Frenchies. Tally-Ho!

Originally posted by Roark
Oh, well thanks for being polite. I truly appreciate it. Maybe you should look at the dates again:

- Zenith of the Empire: late 1700's and 1800's (your reference)

- Birth of regular Freemasonry: 1717

- Jacobite Revolution: 1689 (and onwards)

So my reference to the politics and religion veto in Lodge is perfectly relevant to the time period we're talking about. Were you disagreeing or what?...

Of course Freemasonry (and its 3 degrees) had an effect on its members. So did their schooling. So did their parents. All I meant was that there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that Masonry, as an organisation, consciously directed the development of the Empire like some cabal of puppetmasters.

If you're gonna complain about the lack of answers in your thread, and then condescend to the people who DO respond, well... you can expect some very short threads, mate.

First off you're wrong about the assumption that Masonry began in 1717; artwork alone shows it was much older and then several manuscripts suggest it at least went back to 1392.

What you are suggesting is that men became Masons and then in no way did Masonry alter their perception or behavior. This is rediculous; just as it would be rediculous to claim that a Catholic or Protestant are independent actors of the faiths to which they subscribe.

A Mason unaffected by Masonry is not a Mason; merely some guy contributing money to a lodge.

Robert Burns, Mozart are good examples of the contrary; they put much Masonic reference into their works.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
First off you're wrong about the assumption that Masonry began in 1717; artwork alone shows it was much older and then several manuscripts suggest it at least went back to 1392.

I actually said regular Freemasonry, by which I meant the basic format and structure of the fraternity which we have today. This is widely recognised as being 1717.

I understand what you are referring to, however.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
What you are suggesting is that men became Masons and then in no way did Masonry alter their perception or behavior.

That is the exact opposite of what I said. Read it again.

After re-reading what you wrote; I see we are in agreement Roark, about Masonry's impact on the individuals that built and adminstered the Empire in the 1800s.

But, I will always think of regular Masonry as dating back to time immemorial; after all those who developed the English Grand Lodge thought so.

Stratrf_Rus, i think that the thread would've received more attention initially if there was more there.

roarke
were certainly at the heart of it, but there is no evidence to suggest that Freemasonry as an organisation had any meaningful impact on the development of the Empire or the world

This isn't entirely true. Masonry doesn't operate in a vacuum, and while politics and religion isn't supposed to be discussed in a Lodge, that doesn't mean that Lodgers don't discuss politics and religion.

In this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...
I brought up a number of papers that consider many aspects of freemasonic and secret societies research. In "Hands across the Sea The Masonic Network, British Imperialism, and the North Atlantic World", we see how masonry acts to enable Empire insofar as it soothes the ravages of being an individual operating in the colonial world, how it networks imperialists (and I say that without the usual emotive connotations, Empire was a 'thing' a goal, that england happily worked for, and people in england that supported empire were imperialists, not savage warmongers or something), etc.
And in "The Politics of Ritual Secrecy", we see how masonry permited the "ruling class" of Sierra Leon, that is, foreign black freedmen emigres to the country, to coordinate their actions, maintain their civil society and disctinctive culture while being a minority in a predominately native black africa nation, and regulate the administration of the state itself.

[edit to add: So these are ways in which the institution, as an insitution, affected history, rather than merely serving to 'radicalize' (or what have you) individuals]

Undoubtedly, there are other examples too. I again re-iterate the possible role of masonry in the risorgimento as fertile ground for that sort of research, as opposed to say, its role in the french revolution (there probably wasn't much of a role), or in the american revolution (where it merely served as an exemplar of the ideology of many of the revolutionaries).

[edit on 1-3-2006 by Nygdan]

These are some great examples of Freemasons we have here. The Freemasons got most of their beliefs from Egyptians like the Romans. Which is why we have our present day calendar. The Freemasons, got most of their true secrets from the bible. Their own translation led them to reported a finding that was nothing of materialism. This wasnt gold, nor silver. But because no one knows exactly what it was that the Templar found, it is mostly dismissed. They do study ancient texts, because they started in the medieval ages. So archeology was still in a sense fresh. They soon took over the holy land, and most of you know the story. Today, we have Mason art all over. We are surrounded by their work. The Whitehouse, The Capital, The Buckingham Palace. Modernday Egyptian work is among us. Famous Obelisks are settled around D.C., and NY. Freemasons, basically built modernday U.K., and America.