An Address on the Occasion of the Award of Time Immemorial Status to
Plantagenet Conclave, RCC

Winston Churchill once said that he could not forecast the action of Russia:  it was “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”.  Churchill was a Freemason for much of his long life, but was never very active in it, and certainly never joined the Red Cross of Constantine; if he had, however, and had been moved to consider its origins with the eye of a great and perspicacious historian, he might well have used exactly the same phrase.  The simple fact is that we do not know a great deal about how this lovely Order actually began, and this is not at all unusual in the history of Masonry, for there are many aspects of it about which we would dearly like to know more, ranging from the most important questions of all – how did it begin, who started it, when, and where, and perhaps even why? – through major conundrums such as how the merger of the two Grand Lodges was actually achieved in 1813, or whether the Morgan Affair in America was a fiction from start to finish – to the comparatively trivial, such as whether Chevalier Ramsay actually did make a speech or not.

It is difficult to imagine that the launch of a new Order nowadays would be shrouded in secrecy such as enwrapped the Red Cross of Constantine, and although the considerations, the negotiations, and the discussions which led to the recent launch – ironically enough, re–launch is a far more accurate term – of the Order of the Scarlet Cord are not necessarily promulgated widely, there is little doubt in my mind that a full record has been maintained in Mark Masons’ Hall, and will surely be available to academic researchers of the future.  This is definitely not the case with the Red Cross, and not only is there an astonishing lack of contemporary information, there is clear evidence that a deliberate attempt was made to mislead both current and future generations on its origins.

It is well known, and generally accepted, that the early history of our Order is shrouded in mystery and, indeed, veiled in allegory, for the version promulgated by its Founder, or, as he preferred to be considered, its “Reorganiser”, Sir Knight Robert Wentworth Little, Grand Recorder, is either partial, or incomplete, or fantastical, or, more likely, a combination of all three.  There is not time to give here details of earlier Orders which could have been “reorganised”, though there are several possible candidates which incorporate a reference to a Red Cross degree.   Little benefit would come from doing so anyway, as none of them is convincing as a source of the ritual.  It is sufficient to note that in its present form, our Order was “reorganised” on 31st May 1865.  Curiously, though, there is no contemporary record that this date is correct, and the first indication of it comes from the Minutes of the General Grand Conclave held on 6th March 1868.  There are two references within these Minutes, in fact:  in the heading of the accounts, which cover the period from that stated date to 5th March 1868, the (first) Triennial Assembly, and in the Annual Report of the Executive Committee, and there is no reason to believe that either reference is wrong – indeed, it would have been foolish, so soon after the date, to pretend that it was correct if it was not, for so many would have known the truth that it would surely have leaked out sooner or later.

It was some time before the organisation was complete and all the offices of Grand Imperial Council were securely filled.  On 3rd November 1866 The Freemasons’ Magazine and Masonic Mirror reported that the Council had met on 30th October 1866, and had, inter alia, admitted to its number the Right Hon. the Lord Kenlis, who became Most Illustrious Grand Sovereign.  This office had become vacant on the death of Sir Knight William Henry White, who had been persuaded by Little, despite his great age and poor health, to become the first Grand Sovereign.  Little had, of course, a good reason for doing this, as it gave a link, albeit pretty tenuous, with a Red Cross Order worked from 1809 to 1813 by Waller Rodwell Wright, which was suppressed by the Duke of Sussex at the Union of the two Grand Lodges, and which was identified by Little, almost certainly wrongly, as the precursor of our Order.

So determined was the Duke to ensure that the newly formed United Grand Lodge and its related Royal Arch Chapter had a clear run towards seniority and superiority without any distractions that he took over all the various other Orders of Masonry which were extant in 1813 and ruthlessly suppressed them during his long tenure of office as Grand Master.  The Duke died in office in 1843 and was scarcely cold in his grave – or possibly even his bed – before steps were taken to revive and establish the Ancient and Accepted Rite and the Knights Templar.  It took much longer to resuscitate the Red Cross, however, if that indeed is what happened – and to explain that enigmatic remark I must take you through what little we do know about the early days of the Order.

Whichever Red Cross Order it may have been, suppressed no doubt it was, and non-existent it must be acknowledged to have been, for over fifty years, during most of which very long period, from 1813 to 1858, William Henry White was Grand Secretary of the Craft.  By 1865 there could have been few still alive of his past seniority in Masonry with any kind of link to the old Order, and it must have been a considerable coup for Little to persuade the old man to lend his weight to the new venture.  Sadly, White lived for less than a year and his death must have been a significant blow to Little’s plans.  We cannot know now quite what was in his mind, but it seems likely that the absence of a reliable contemporary account of the revival of the Order, if indeed that it is what it was, was quite deliberate.  If one may be allowed a mixed metaphor, a fog of deception was woven around the foundation of our present Order which no-one has subsequently been able to penetrate and, unless entirely new evidence is serendipitously discovered, it seems certain that no-one ever will.

If dear old W.H. White was indeed a member of the pre-Union Red Cross, it is difficult to argue that his involvement fifty-two years later in an Order of similar name, which may or may not have worked the same ritual, gives any reliable or respectable degree of continuity.  Actually there is evidence that it was Little himself who wrote the core of our present ritual, probably basing it, as he always claimed, on a surviving record, which survives no more.  What has survived, however, in the archives of UGLE, is an abstract of what are almost certainly the papers “found in the Archives at Freemasons’ Hall” by Little, from which he chose to develop the Constantinian Order we know.  This extract, compiled in August 1977, makes it clear that the ritual in question was identified as the Red Cross of Palestine in the 1930s, when an annotation was added by, most probably, G.E.W. Bridge, Grand Librarian of Mark Masons’ Hall.  The ritual was incomplete and, as the realisation that it was actually the Red Cross of Palestine only came to light after the Constantinian Order had already long been in existence, Little may never have realised that he had misinterpreted what he found.  At any rate, this new evidence reinforces the belief that Little effectively created the Red Cross of Constantine as a new Order in 1865, even if he believed he was merely reviving it.

It will by now come as no surprise to you to learn that it is also unclear when the Original Conclave was formed.  No Minute of its formation, if one ever existed, is extant, and the first independent record that can be cited comes from the issue of Freemasons’ Magazine and Masonic Mirror dated 9th June 1866.  This states that the “anniversary assembly of this ancient and distinguished conclave was held at the George Hotel, Aldermanbury, on the 30th ult.”.   It is interesting to note that the same article refers to the sorrow of the members at the loss of W.H. White, “who for a period of nearly 60 years was a valued and esteemed member of the original conclave in which he was enthroned as Sovereign on the 13th March 1809”.  It seems more likely that this was actually the date on which White joined that Conclave, however, and he was probably never enthroned as its Sovereign.  One must also wonder who were the other members who so “valued and esteemed” White during the 52 years when the Conclave was not allowed to meet!  It may also be noted that it was claimed at the dinner following this meeting that Little possessed “the old minutes of the Original Conclave”, and if this had been true it is all the more surprising that they cannot now be found to exist – one would have expected them to be very carefully preserved indeed, but no-one else has ever claimed to have seen them, either before or since.

The same issue of the Magazine records the first anniversary meeting of Plantagenet Conclave as well.   It was held “at Dicks’ Hotel, Fleet-street (sic), on Tuesday, the 22nd ult.”, which must have been 22nd May 1866.  Not quite a year had passed since the Conclave’s formation, for the Minute of its Consecration on Wednesday 31st May 1865 has survived, and was read into the record by A.E. Collins Nice, P.G.G., on the occasion of the Centenary Meeting.  There can really be little doubt, therefore, that both Grand Imperial Council and Plantagenet Conclave were formed on the same day and consisted of the same people.  It seems certain that Little had decided to launch the Order, and whether or not Premier already existed, or had existed in some dormant form or another for many years, he needed another live Conclave as a matter of considerable urgency.  There is no particular reason to believe that Premier could not also have been revived on the same day, and every reason to suspect that, if it had, Little would have concealed this.

In this context, there are some fascinating intimations to be drawn from the account in the Magazine of Plantagenet’s Anniversary.  Cross-referencing the names mentioned with those in the preceding article concerning Premier’s Anniversary, and with the record of Plantagenet’s Consecration shows that pretty much the same people were deeply involved in all three, and that there was a huge amount of cooperation in making sure that all three meetings were successful.  Contrary to what has sometimes been claimed, it is my opinion that nothing should be read into the Installation into the Chair of Most Puissant Sovereign of the Premier Conclave of Sir Knight Marsh by Little at the anniversary meeting of Plantagenet.  It does not prove that Plantagenet antedated Premier, as some have alleged, and it does not prove anything else either, except that the Grand Recorder was prepared to go to any lengths, constitutional or not, to get his new Order going.  Plantagenet had no fewer than 30 candidates enrolled in its first year, and appears to have been the engine room which drove forward the establishment of the Order.  A number of members of each of the two first Conclaves joined the other, and the cooperation amongst these two entities and the Grand Imperial Council seems to have been exemplary.

To summarise, then, we will almost certainly never know what actually happened in 1865.  It seems likely, from the lack of evidence which most certainly ought to be there, that the claim of Premier to be the genuine descendant of a Conclave which had been dormant for more than half a century and which in any case worked a different ceremony, or that it antedated the formation of Grand Imperial Council by any substantial period of time, is unsustainable.  Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that it had any existence prior to the morning of 31st May 1865, the same day on which both Grand Conclave and Plantagenet came into existence (or, strictly speaking, on that day either, since there is no evidence until some considerable time later even to show when any of its members were actually installed as members of the Order).  We know, or at least can very strongly suspect, that Little did not scruple to invent boldly in pursuance of setting up his new Order, and appears to have been happy to rely on a policy of artful concealment of the truth in a series of half-lies and hints, and a ruthless determination have his new Order hit the ground running.  The senior members of Premier, Plantagenet, and Grand Imperial Council were exactly the same and the presumably deliberate suppression of contemporary evidence of the details of the foundation of two of the three shows that it was more important to Little to give the impression of the antiquity of the Order’s origin than to record the truth.  Overall, it looks as though Premier came into being only a little while before Grand Conclave, being a construct designed to facilitate that happy occurrence, and that Plantagenet was formed upon the same day, as a creation designed to give verisimilitude to what could, if the truth had been told, have been a very bald and unconvincing narrative.

We in Plantagenet can be proud of our contribution to the formation and subsequent progress of Grand Imperial Council, and, as noted above, we also assisted the progress of the Premier by installing its new Sovereign in advance of what was described as an anniversary meeting in order to enable candidates to be installed efficiently.  It is curious that three candidates immediately took important offices (High Prelate, Standard Bearer and Herald), a joining member (from Plantagenet) became Prefect, and another member from Plantagenet became Senior General.  It would be unfair to speculate too far on what this might mean, but it does suggest that Premier had not, by the time of its “anniversary”, been overloaded with those who might act as its officers.  It is recorded elsewhere, though not in the Minutes of Plantagenet, that at its meeting on 22nd May 1866 when all the members of the Senate of Princes were also Grand Councillors, it was resolved to appoint two of them to be Grand Junior General and Grand Architect.  This suggests that there was little discernible difference between Plantagenet and Grand Imperial Council itself, and is the reason why I chose the phrase “the engine room” to describe its influence on the Order.

We know that Plantagenet did not initially have a Warrant from Grand Imperial Council, and worked without one for more than fifty years.  It received a Warrant of Confirmation in 1920, but the circumstances of the disappearance of that document are not known.  It received a second Warrant of Confirmation dated 2nd December 1980, and this, together with the Centenary Warrant of 31st May 1965, is still extant.  It is a matter of the greatest pride to us all that you, Most Illustrious Grand Sovereign, have taken the evidence outlined above into consideration and have acknowledged the enormous contribution of our Conclave to the founding and establishment of the Order by agreeing to restore to us after 90 years the ancient right of working by Immemorial Constitution.  This is an extraordinary occurrence, not just in our Order, but in the whole of Masonry itself, for there is in fact only one known precedent.  In 1967 the Grand Master restored to the Lodge of Fortitude and Old Cumberland No 12, one of the three surviving Lodges which set up the Grand Lodge of England in 1717, the right to work by Immemorial Constitution, and, consequently, Time Immemorial status.

On that occasion there was no ceremony, and the deed was done informally in a garden party held on the roof of Freemasons’ Hall – that was, of course, in the days before ‘Health and Safety’ had been invented, and it was not necessary to wear a hard hat in that lofty situation lest a passing airliner should jettison an engine upon the unwary head.  We, in contrast, are delighted that you, Sir, have come here today formally to grant us this privilege, and we pledge ourselves to a faithful discharge of the duties and obligations which devolve upon us as a consequence of your decision.

R A H Morrow, ‡‡
P.G.H.Chancellor.