":  Well, you're absolutely right. That's why editing by someone else is so important. No one can see their own glaring errors and ommissions. That definitely needs elucidation, although you don't want to get too bogged down in the history of Moderns in an article about the Ancients. 

 ::: But as for the other point(s), I don't think I was missing it (them). Maybe I am, but I don't think so. That's why this exchange is a good thing. It helps us understand each other better. And I appreciate your taking the time to do this exercise with me. Another WPist thinks it not significant. You wrote:  ""To call the London based GLE 'Moderns' at this point is placing the cart before the horse... in 1717 (or in 1738-39) the London based GLE was not yet called the Moderns... That term was not used until the 1750s when Ancients/Antients came on the scene and gave them that title."" Now I'm sorry to call you on this, but that just isn't true  on several levels. First of all, you refer to the grand lodge of 1717 as ""the London based GLE."" It wasn't just ""London based"" (implying that London was only the HQ or home base), it was ""IN"" London and Westminster only. Further, it was not yet, at that point, the ""Grand Lodge of England,"" either in name or in the territorial contemplation of its founders and members.  

 :::I'll quote from John Hamill (I always reach for Coil too quickly - so I'll use someone else this time), who writes (in ""The Craft: A History of English Freemasonry"", 1986), ""No evidence has come to light to show the G.L. acting in any way as a regulatory body until late in 1720. Nor is there any evidence that it was concerned with lodges outside the Cities of London and Westminster."" The reason that knowledgeable Masonic writers don't call it ""The Grand Lodge of England"" during the 1700's is because its own 18th-century members did not call it that! They did, however, call it ""the Grand Lodge,"" and most English writers today call it ""the premier Grand Lodge"" because, unquestionably, it was the first.  

 ::: Roy A. Wells, in ""The Rise and Development of Organised Freemasonry"" (1986), wrote, ""Whilst the limits of control for the premier Grand Lodge were stated to be 'London and Westminster' they soon extended far beyond as Freemasonry was being taken by the military and by colonists to other lands ...."" And Coil (pg. 232) writes, ""The Premier Grand Lodge was not originally the Grand Lodge of England, either by name or in the contempation of its founders. It was simply a Grand Lodge for the metropolis and for whatever lodges subscribed to its government and, according to the Constitutions of 1723, were located in London or Westminster."" He goes on to say, ""The time when this body became the Grand Lodge of England in fact and in general contemplation cannot be fixed."" And, ""This Grand Lodge never made any declaration that it had exclusive or any jurisdiction territorially, except as aforesaid, and it accepted with apparent unconcern the advent of first one and then another rival in the same field."" (You know, to this day the U.G.L.E. still thinks of itself as ""The Grand Lodge of all Masonry"" and only refrains from invading other G.L.s jurisdictions out of fraternal courtesy, and not for fear of losing recognition, it is perfectly happy being the G.L. for the members of its own lodges whether it has recognition from other G.L.s or not. And, from time to time, it has had no problem invading other grand jurisdictions if it suits them. Look at what happened in India in the late 1980's   I think it was  and Italy in the early 1990's, and Greece shortly thereafter.) 

 ::: The name of the G.L. (of 1717) on the title page of its Book of Constitutions of 1723 states, ""Right Worshipful Fraternity of Accepted Free Masons"" (excluding the word ""England""). The name in the Constitutions of 1738 is given as ""The Most ancient and honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons."" And so forth. The certificates issued by the Grand Lodge (of 1717) do not say ""Grand Lodge of England"" until 1810! The seal said ""Grand Lodge of Masons, London,"" right on up to 1813. Too many writers, I'll admit, will blithely state something about ""the Grand Lodge of England"" in 1755, or 1786, or 1808, etc., without so much as a thought about the fact that there were at least two (and at times more) G.L.s ""of England"" during the late 1700's. Now that may not have been your main point, but it was a major point and you did make it.  

 ::: On the other hand, I've demonstrated, from the newspaper advertisement of 1726, that ""the members of"" the Grand Lodge were called ""Moderns"" from pretty much the beginning. Since there was only one grand lodge at that time, it was ""the Moderns' grand lodge."" Perhaps we should be careful to not capitalize ""grand lodge"" when referring to either the ""Moderns' grand lodge"" or the ""Ancients' grand lod