Comments on: Masonic Variations: Prince Hall and Women’s Freemasonry

By: An O.W.F. member.

An O.W.F. member. — Tue, 11 May 2010 20:09:13 +0000

I accept your take, whilst agreeing to differ!

By: Ghostwoods

Ghostwoods — Sun, 09 May 2010 17:43:58 +0000

You’re too modest — the Commonwealth is entirely international! (Unlike, say the International House of Pancakes, who are mainly confined to the mid-West, or the International Hockey League, who have a few franchises in Canada…)

By: An O.W.F. member.

An O.W.F. member. — Sun, 09 May 2010 17:39:02 +0000

Gracious is he who accepts a mistake!

Regarding “international”: Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, is head of the Commonwealth (basically, Great Britain and her established settle nations, sort of – remains of the Empire). As such; The Order of Woman Freemasons have Lodges within this vast domain, encompassing Great Britain, Spain, Australia, South Africa and Canada – but not beyond the Commonwealth so we most certainly cannot claim to be “international”.
I cannot comment on the other Order, for I lack total insight (obviously), but on your side of the pond, what’s seen as “international” is deemed by this side as merely European (Spain) and Gibraltar is less European and considered English!

I bet you’re glazing over by now!

By: Ghostwoods

Ghostwoods — Thu, 06 May 2010 12:17:10 +0000

Yes, absolutely. My apologies if sloppy phrasing gave the impression that I was suggesting Co-Masonry is considered regular. I’ll have a look at the wording.

By: An O.W.F. member.

An O.W.F. member. — Thu, 06 May 2010 09:12:30 +0000

Sorry, but the above is incorrect. Only the respective Women’s Orders (and primarily The Order of Women Freemasons, at that) are deemed to be “regular” by U.G.L.E.
Co-Masonry is not (shall we say) commented upon by either O.W.F. or U.G.L.E.