The Grand Lodges and Modern Freemasonry 255ment.* We are somewhat better informed about the Scots and Stuart
lodges founded at the beginning of the eighteenth century.
Unfortunately, as their appearance is coincident with that of the English
lodges created under the aegis of the Grand Lodge of London, their dis-
tinctive quality has not always been noted, nor has the fact that until
1738, the date when the Duke d'Antin was named grand master of the
masonic order in France, there were two categories of lodges in Great
Britain: Scottish lodges and English lodges. The latter were dependen-
cies and creations of the Grand Lodge of London while the former con-
tinued to live and spread based on the traditional rites of freemasonry.
Among these Socttish lodges were the famous Lodge of Saint Thomas,
named in memory of Saint Thomas a Becket, the saint most worshipped
in Stuart England. This lodge was created in 1726 by a famous partisan
of the Stuarts, Lord Derwentwater, about whom we will earn more.
Another Scottish lodge worth mentioning is the famous Lodge of
Aubigny, established on August 12, 1735, in the castle of the same
name owned by the Duke of Richmond, Lennox, and Aubigny, who
had recently inherited his estate from his grandmother, Louise de
Keroualle, the duchess of Portsmouth.^10 In her youth, Louise Renee de
Penancoet de Keroualle had been considered the most beautiful woman
in France. To serve King Louis XIV with the sole weapons she pos-
sessed, her beauty and taste for intrigue, she left France for the court of
London, where she became the mistress of Charles II, who made her
Duchess of Portsmouth. In her older years, she had become a deeply
bigoted Catholic. Repenting of her past errors, she adorned the
churches that sat on her lands with offerings of her piety and even
installed a convent of Hospitaller nuns in her chateau. But her brilliance
at intrigue had not abandoned her. Although she remained a fervent
partisan of the Stuarts, she also frequented the other side, which paid
more attention to her grandson, the Duke of Richmond. He had converted
* G. Bord, La Franc-Maconneries en France, des origins a, 489-90. Most of this author's
assertions are open to doubt although his scientific integrity is never in question. What
is most disappointing about his work is the absence of references. L. Berteloot, who I
knew well and who utilized Bord's line of argument in his own study, told me on sev-
eral occasions that he knew the identity of the references justifying Bord's thesis, but
because they were private sources, they could not be revealed.