How 1730s Politics Changed Freemasonry Forever

By: Darren Allatt

It was the same Freemasonry, same ceremonies, same pracitces, but it was percieved in strikingly different ways by the Crown of each nation —this enormous contrast reveals how dramatically political context determines an institution’s evolution.

In this edition of Daily Masonic Progress we will explore:

How chivalric traditions transformed Freemasonry from craftsmen’s guild to aristocratic fraternity in French society

Why identical democratic practices reinforced stability in England yet threatened the absolutism of the Autocracy in France

How opposing political factions weaponized the same Masonic networks for competing geopolitical objectives

By the end, we will learn that while English Freemasonry operated comfortably within a constitutional system that already accommodated elected representatives and religious freedoms; but with the French lodges introducing these same practices into an absolutist environment, the Autocracy found them inherently threatening.

To understand this, we must first examine the cultural soil in which French Freemasonry took root. Why would French aristocrats—steeped in hierarchical tradition and Catholic doctrine—embrace an organization with craft origins?

Chivalric Appeal and Historical Context

When Chevalier Ramsay delivered his influential oration to a Paris lodge in December 1736, he did not create a new paradigm so much as articulate what European aristocrats already wished to believe.

His connection of Freemasonry to medieval chivalric orders tapped into a deep-seated European fascination with knightly traditions that had persisted for centuries. The medieval military-religious orders—Knights Hospitallers (1099), Order of Saint Lazarus (1100), Knights Templars (1118), and Teutonic Knights (1190)—had maintained an enduring hold on the European aristocratic imagination through carefully calibrated social mechanisms.

These orders offered elite exclusivity, with membership typically requiring noble lineage or significant wealth. They featured elaborate ceremonial traditions governing initiation, advancement, and recognition of fellow members.

Their hierarchical structures provided clear chains of command with distinctive titles and regalia that visually reinforced status. Perhaps most importantly, they operated within moral and religious frameworks that offered commitment to ideals transcending mere political loyalty.

For the French nobility in particular, these medieval orders provided ready-made templates that resonated with aristocratic sensibilities in ways that operative masonry’s craft origins simply could not.

The connection to crusader knights proved far more appealing than association with stonemasons and tradesmen, regardless of how metaphorically those trade origins had been reinterpreted. When Ramsay offered a chivalric alternative to craft-based Masonic history, he effectively “pushed at an open door” of aristocratic preference.

While the content of Freemasonry could be adapted to aristocratic tastes through chivalric reimagining, how would the meaning of identical Masonic practices function when transplanted across the Channel in a completely different political system?

Divergent Political Environments

The genius of Freemasonry as an organizational structure lies in its adaptability to contrasting political systems. The same foundational elements—lodges, officers, ceremonies, and principles—functioned entirely differently depending on the political soil in which they were planted.

In England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, power had been redistributed between Parliament and Crown through constitutional mechanisms.

Freemasonry developed within a system that already accommodated elected representatives, public debate, limitations on monarchical power, and a degree of religious pluralism (albeit limited).

In this environment, Masonic lodges with their elected officers and parliamentary-style proceedings merely reflected and reinforced existing constitutional norms rather than challenging them. Freemasonry functioned as a supporting element of the constitutional order, not a revolutionary alternative to it.

By stark contrast, France under Louis XV maintained an absolute monarchy where power flowed directly from the sovereign, the Catholic Church maintained religious monopoly, public debate remained tightly constrained, and representative institutions were either weak or purely ceremonial.

Within this absolutist framework, any organization practicing democratic election of leaders, promoting religious tolerance, albeit at the time meaning tolerance and peace between Protestants and Catholics, emphasizing natural rights, and advocating rational education represented an implicit—and significant—challenge to established authority.

What proved innocuous in London became revolutionary in Paris. The same organizational structure that supported constitutional monarchy in England implicitly questioned absolute monarchy in France. This divergence emerged not from differences in Masonic principles, but from the contrasting political ecosystems in which identical Masonic structures operated.

Given these dramatically different reactions to identical Masonic practices, how might politically astute actors from both sides recognize and exploit these organizational structures for their competing geopolitical objectives?

Masonic Organizations as Political Instruments

Perhaps most fascinating is how both opposing political factions deliberately weaponized Freemasonry for geopolitical purposes. Far from being neutral institutions, Masonic organizations became vehicles through which political leaders advanced competing philosophies, often by installing politically aligned individuals in key Masonic offices.

The Hanoverian/Whig establishment recognized Freemasonry’s potential as a diplomatic instrument. They strategically created English-chartered lodges in Paris specifically to promote constitutional monarchy and Protestant succession principles.

The Duke of Richmond and Jean Theophilus Desaguliers established lodges at Paris and Aubigny deliberately designed for diplomatic penetration and cultural influence.

These lodges propagated Enlightenment rationalism carefully aligned with Whig political philosophy, creating social spaces where French elites could experience English constitutional principles firsthand through Masonic governance.

Simultaneously, the Jacobite movement leveraged Freemasonry as a vehicle for Stuart restoration advocacy. Charles Radcliffe, Earl of Derwentwater, utilized his position as Grand Master in France to provide legitimacy and access for Jacobite interests at the French court.

Under his influence, French Freemasonry adapted more religious and ritualistic elements that specifically appealed to Catholic sensibilities, making the organization more palatable to French aristocrats while maintaining its utility for Jacobite networking.

This deliberate manipulation of Masonic structures by competing political interests reveals the organization’s remarkable effectiveness as a transmission vehicle for political philosophies.

Both sides recognized that Masonic lodges created immersive environments where abstract political principles could be experienced through governance practices, making them extraordinarily effective for political socialization and influence cultivation.

While both political factions recognized Freemasonry’s utility as a vehicle for advancing their interests, what deeper societal implications might arise from members regularly experiencing democratic processes, merit-based advancement, and reasoned debate within these lodge rooms?

Educational and Social Implications

Freemasonry’s educational philosophy represented perhaps the ultimate threat to autocratic governance, marking its most profound revolutionary aspect.

By promoting rational inquiry over dogmatic authority, merit-based advancement over hereditary privilege, election of leaders over divine appointment, and critical thinking over passive acceptance, Masonic lodges created experiential classrooms in alternative governance.

These lodges functioned as micro-republics of equality where members could directly experience governance alternatives to absolutism. Within lodge rooms, men accustomed to hierarchical society participated in voting, debated issues as equals, and elected leaders based on merit rather than birth.

This experiential education in republican principles provided practical demonstration that alternative governance systems were not merely theoretical but functionally viable.

For absolutist regimes dependent on unquestioning acceptance of authority, this practical demonstration posed an existential threat. Specifically, both the French Crown and the Catholic Church viewed these Masonic practices with deep suspicion.

Members experiencing democratic processes within Masonic lodges inevitably began questioning why similar principles could not be applied in broader society. The private experience of Masonic governance likely contributed significantly to the broader questioning of monarchical authority that characterized the 18th century Enlightenment movement.

Interestingly, while this period of French absolutism has long passed, the Catholic Church continues to mischaracterize Freemasonry as based on these same historical principles.

This initial divergence between English and French Masonic practices eventually produced the major division in global Freemasonry that persists today. The “Regular” (Anglo-American) and “Continental” traditions maintain significant differences in ritual approach, governance structures, and religious requirements that directly reflect their origins in contrasting political systems.

This historical bifurcation reveals how thoroughly political context shapes institutional development, even within organizations claiming universal principles.

The lasting differences between Masonic traditions stand as testament to the power of political adaptation, demonstrating how identical foundational principles inevitably transform when implemented in contrasting cultural and political environments.

Two branches growing from the same root took dramatically different forms when shaped by the distinctive political climates of 18th century England and France.

The educational impact of Masonic practice proved revolutionary in absolutist France yet reinforcing in constitutional England—but how would these contrasting adaptations to 18th century political environments produce institutional patterns and divisions that persist to the present day?

Conclusion

The divergent evolution of Freemasonry in England and France reveals a fundamental principle: an organization’s revolutionary potential depends not on its inherent characteristics but on its relationship to existing power structures.

Initial adaptations to contrasting political environments became institutionalized through three key mechanisms: formal codification in constitutions and rituals, development of distinct organizational identities, and establishment of jurisdictional boundaries that hardened over time.

The English system’s emphasis on Enlightenment philosophy, political neutrality, religious requirements (belief in a Supreme Being), and traditional structure evolved into “Regular” Freemasonry, while French Masonry’s philosophical orientation, ritual elaboration, and eventual openness to political discussion formed the foundation of “Continental” Freemasonry.

These distinctions were formally cemented when the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) withdrew recognition from the Grand Orient de France in 1877, institutionalizing a division whose roots lay in 18th century adaptations.
However, it would be remiss of me especially at this time, not to expressly state that UGLE fully recognises Grande Loge Nationale Française as regular and as a Grand Lodge of a Sister Constitution.
But, this enduring organizational divergence—persisting long after the original political conditions disappeared—demonstrates how institutions become permanently shaped by their early relationship to power structures, creating distinctive institutional DNA that continues to influence their development centuries later.

The Square Magazine Podcast

The Square Magazine Podcast