Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch: One Degree, Several Traditions

The Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch occupies a unique place in Freemasonry. Both an extension of the Master Mason degree and an autonomous system depending on the jurisdiction, it escapes the usual categories and often confuses Freemasons trained in a continental setting. What does the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch really cover, beyond names and approximate equivalences? Why does this degree, central to the Anglo-Saxon world, remain marginal and often misunderstood in Europe?

The Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch cannot be reduced to a mere additional degree. It operates within its own logic, shaped by history, customs, and institutional compromises of the various Grand Lodges. Behind an apparent unity, the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch actually reveals a plurality of forms, narratives, and structures, which bear witness less to divergence than to a living evolution.

Understanding the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch therefore means agreeing to leave behind a linear reading of degrees to enter a more nuanced landscape, where the same symbolic core is expressed across distinct traditions without ever losing its deep coherence.

1. Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch: what are we really talking about?

The Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch refers to a set of Masonic practices specific to British jurisdictions and those derived from them. It corresponds neither to simple AASR higher degrees, nor to a uniform extension of the Master Mason degree, but to a more complex reality, the form of which varies according to the country while retaining a common core.

In Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry, the Royal Arch is generally considered to be the culmination of the Master Mason's journey, without being an additional degree in the strict sense. This ambiguity, inherited from history, largely explains the difficulties of understanding it raises in continental Freemasonries, where initiatory progression is conceived in a more linear manner.

A frequent initial confusion stems from assimilating the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch to the 13th degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, referred to in French as Knight of the Royal Arch. While these two systems share ancient roots, today they belong to distinct structures, both in their organisation and their initiatory function.

Another ambiguity deserves to be cleared up: that surrounding the Royal Ark Mariner, translated into French as Nautonier de l’Arche Royale. Despite the apparent similarity of the terms, it does not involve the same symbolic corpus. In this case, the ark refers to the biblical story of Noah, whereas the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch fits into an entirely different register, centred on the Temple of Jerusalem and what is associated with it.

---

2. Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch: what historical origins?

The origins of the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch remain difficult to establish with precision. While some traditions link it to the ancient usages of the York Lodge, the first documented traces appear more tangibly in Ireland in the 1740s. It was from this Irish centre that the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch spread and then established itself permanently in England in the mid-18th century.

Several hypotheses have been put forward regarding its more distant sources. Some authors have suggested a French influence, linked to the chivalric developments mentioned in the Oration of Chevalier Ramsay in 1736. Without being proven with certainty, this avenue reminds us that the first higher degrees circulated between France, Ireland, and England along routes that are still imperfectly known.

Royal Arch Chapter according to the English tradition.

In England, the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch was initially adopted by the “Antients”, whose ranks included many Irishmen. The “Moderns”, on the other hand, initially opposed it, refusing anything that might appear to be a degree higher than that of Master Mason. This divergence reflected less a doctrinal opposition than a difference in practice and organisation.

The situation gradually evolved until the union of the two Grand Lodges in 1813, which gave birth to the United Grand Lodge of England. The integration of the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch into this new body then required a now-famous compromise: so-called “pure Antient Masonry” was defined as consisting of three degrees, “including” the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch. This formula, both inclusive and ambiguous, left a lasting mark on the special status of the Royal Arch in the English Masonic landscape.

---

3. Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch: a degree… or something else?

The definition adopted in 1813 by the United Grand Lodge of England continues to structure the understanding of the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch, while maintaining a degree of ambiguity. Stating that “pure Antient Masonry” consists of three degrees “including” the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch amounts to integrating the latter without fully acknowledging it as a distinct degree.

This formulation was not an oversight, but a compromise. It allowed the principle of a Masonry limited to three degrees to be preserved, while recognising the importance of the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch in the progression of the Master Mason. One is thus faced with a typically British construct, where coherence rests less on a strictly hierarchical system than on a pragmatic balance between established usages.

In practice, however, the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch functions as an autonomous entity. It has its own structures, its officers, its chapters and its admission procedures. It is not to be confused with the Lodge, even if it is closely linked to it. This duality—symbolic integration on the one hand, institutional autonomy on the other—contributes to its singularity.

The Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch thus appears as an extension of the Master Mason degree, without being an additional degree in the strict sense. It does not add to the initiatory progression; rather, it offers a deepening of it, according to a logic that partly eludes the usual categories of Continental Freemasonry.

---

4. Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch: one narrative, several interpretations

Despite the diversity of its forms, the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch relies on a remarkably stable symbolic core. At the heart of the degree lies the discovery of a subterranean vault, concealed beneath the Temple of Jerusalem, within which a sacred Name is revealed, carrying a special significance for the candidate.

This motif of discovery is not a matter of a sudden revelation, but of a rediscovery. It fits into a long timeline, marked by loss, oblivion, and restoration. The Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch does not offer new knowledge, but the bringing to light of what was buried, preserved, but inaccessible.

In the English, Scottish, and American forms, this narrative takes place within the context of the rebuilding of the Temple after the Babylonian exile. The figures of Zerubbabel, Joshua the High Priest, and the prophet Haggai embody this phase of return and rebuilding, to which are added other characters from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch thus establishes a direct link between the act of rebuilding and that of finding again.

The Irish tradition, on the other hand, places the action in an earlier moment of biblical history, during the restoration of the Temple under the reign of King Josiah. This shift in the narrative setting does not modify the fundamental structure of the degree, but influences its reading: it is no longer a matter of rebuilding after destruction, but of restoring an order that was already established, yet altered.

Through these variations, the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch retains a profound coherence. The hidden place, the descent, the discovery, and the transmission constitute so many constant elements, of which the different traditions offer distinct formats without altering their scope.

---

5. Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch: why do the forms diverge?

While the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch presents undeniable symbolic unity, its ritualistic and organisational forms vary significantly depending on the country. This diversity is not a matter of disorderly dispersion, but is explained by the concrete conditions of its transmission and development in the 18th century.

The Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch was not formed as a single piece, nor around a single centre. It circulated between Ireland, England, and Scotland, carried by lodges, chapters, and Freemasons who adapted practices to their context. This movement favoured the emergence of local variants, which gradually stabilised without ever being entirely unified.

Ireland seems to have played a decisive role in this dissemination. The earliest attested forms of the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch appeared there relatively early, before being introduced into England, notably by Irish Masons. This origin helps to explain certain persistent differences, in the narratives as well as in the regalia and customs.

England, by integrating the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch into its system after 1813, gave it a particular institutional framework, marked by the compromise mentioned previously. Scotland, whilst adopting a similar form, retained certain specific requirements, notably in connection with the Mark Master degree.

As for America, it received these multiple influences and reorganised them within the York Rite, integrating the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch into a structured progression of degrees. This recomposition does not constitute a break, but an adaptation to a different context.

Thus, the differences observed in the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch do not reflect fundamental oppositions, but the traces of a living history, made of exchanges, adjustments and successive transmissions.

---

6. Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch in England and Scotland

In its English and Scottish forms, the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch presents a broadly comparable structure, both in its organisation and in its narrative. In both cases, it is a single degree, conferred on Master Masons, which takes place in a setting distinct from the Lodge, within a Chapter.

The Three Principals occupy a central role within it. They represent Zerubbabel, the High Priest Joshua and the prophet Haggai, figures associated with the rebuilding of the Temple. This triad structures the entire degree and gives it its narrative coherence.

Zerubbabel, Joshua and Haggai during the rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem.

A notable difference appears, however, in the entry requirements. In Scotland, the candidate must hold the degree of Mark Master, generally conferred within the Craft Lodge as a complement to the Fellowcraft degree. This requirement is not formulated in the same way in England, where the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch forms a more direct continuation of the Master degree.

The Masonic regalia also present nuances. The borders of Masonic apron and sashes alternate coloured triangles, the shade of which differs slightly according to jurisdiction: red in England, crimson in Scotland. These distinctions, subtle but constant, contribute to the visual identity specific to each tradition.

Despite these variations, the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch retains a high degree of homogeneity in both countries. It presents itself as a structured extension of the Master degree, set within a stable framework, where differences are more a matter of custom than of fundamental divergence.

---

7. Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch in Ireland: an older tradition?

In Ireland, the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch is distinguished by a different narrative framework, which places it in an earlier period of biblical history. The narrative no longer takes place at the time of the reconstruction of the Temple after the exile, but during its restoration under the reign of King Josiah, as reported in the Second Book of Kings.

The Three Principals embody figures distinct from those in the English and Scottish traditions. The First Principal represents King Josiah, the Second the High Priest Hilkiah, and the Third the scribe Shaphan. This configuration alters the balance of the narrative, placing the emphasis not on a reconstruction, but on a rediscovery and re-ordering of an already existing Temple.

Masonic regalia also differs more noticeably. Collars, sashes and apron borders are red in colour, without the alternating triangles seen in the English and Scottish forms. Red here corresponds to an ancient usage, widely attested in the higher degrees of the 18th century, particularly in systems of French origin, where it is often presented as the 'true Scottish colour'.

As in Scotland, access to the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch in Ireland requires the candidate to be advanced as a Mark Master. This requirement confirms the existence of a close link between these two degrees, while highlighting the internal consistency of the island's Masonic systems.

Through its narrative framework, its regalia and its conditions of access, the Irish Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch thus retains specific features, which can be interpreted as testimony to an older form, prior to the developments that became established in England and Scotland.

---

8. Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch in America: synthesis or recomposition?

The Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch, as practised in America, fits into a significantly different framework from that of the British Isles. It no longer constitutes an isolated degree, but is integrated into a structured system, that of the York Rite, within which it occupies a central place.

In this context, the Royal Arch Chapter administers several successive degrees, including the Mark Master, Virtual Past Master, Most Excellent Master, and finally the Royal Arch Mason. The Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch is therefore no longer merely an end point, but the culmination of an organised journey.

The narrative takes place, as in England and Scotland, within the context of the reconstruction of the Temple. The figures of Zerubbabel, the High Priest Joshua and the prophet Haggai are present, but their distribution differs. Zerubbabel here occupies the position of Second Principal, while the First Principal is the High Priest Joshua, with the Third remaining the prophet Haggai.

The Masonic regalia, for their part, are red in colour and are close to those of the Irish tradition. This convergence, combined with a structure of degrees inherited from other influences, gives the American Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch a composite character.

It thus appears as a form of synthesis, without being a mere juxtaposition. The elements coming from England, Ireland and Scotland are reorganised into a coherent whole, adapted to the American Masonic context, but which hints at the existence of earlier traditions, some modalities of which are no longer directly accessible to us.

---

Conclusion – Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch, unity or diversity?

The Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch cannot be confined to a single definition. Through its various forms, it demonstrates a constant tension between unity and diversity, between symbolic stability and historical variations. What might appear as a dispersion actually reveals a deeper coherence, based on the permanence of the same core, transmitted according to distinct modalities.

From one country to another, the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch adapts without denying itself. The differences observed in the narratives, regalia or structures do not reflect ruptures, but nuances, linked to the contexts in which it developed. Far from weakening the degree, this plurality, on the contrary, underlines its vitality.

The Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch thus invites us to move beyond a strictly linear reading of the degrees. It does not simply add to the Master Mason degree; it illuminates certain dimensions of it, according to its own logic, which partly escapes the usual categories of Freemasonry.

Understanding the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch means recognising that the same initiatory structure can unfold in different ways without losing its unity. Perhaps that is precisely what makes its uniqueness.

By Ion Rajolescu, editor-in-chief of Nos Colonnes — in the service of a fair, rigorous and living Masonic word

---

Discover our collection of English Royal Arch regalia as practised in France, and extend your understanding of this degree through items faithful to current practices.

---

---

Find here the full transcript of the podcast for those who prefer reading or wish to explore the discussions in greater depth.

Podcast – Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch: one degree, several traditions

Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch occupies a unique place in Freemasonry. It often bewilders. Quite simply, it does not correspond to the categories to which Freemasons trained in continental systems are accustomed.

So, what are we really talking about?

Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch is not simply an additional degree. Rather, it presents itself as an extension of the degree of Master Mason, without adding to it in a linear fashion. This nuance is essential. It alone explains a large part of the misunderstandings.

In England, since the Act of Union of eighteen hundred and thirteen, so-called “pure and ancient Masonry” consists of three degrees. And yet, it also includes the Royal Arch. This “including” is not a trivial phrase. It reflects a compromise. A way of maintaining a balance between principle and practice, between structure and usage.

One might see this as a contradiction. In reality, it is a different logic.

In the Anglo-Saxon world, there is no necessary attempt to fit everything into a perfectly coherent system. One accepts that a reality can be both integrated… and distinct. The Royal Arch operates in this way. It is linked to the Lodge, but it possesses its own structures. It extends the degree of Master Mason, but does not overlap it.

This shift in perspective is essential to understanding what is known as Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch.

But this complexity does not stop there.

For behind this apparent unity, the Royal Arch comes in several forms. England, Scotland, Ireland, America: each tradition has preserved the same core, while expressing it differently.

This core, precisely, deserves closer attention.

At the heart of the degree, one always finds the same motif: that of a discovery. A descent into a hidden place. A vault, concealed beneath the Temple of Jerusalem. And in this space, the bringing to light of a Sacred Name.

But this is not a sudden revelation.

It is a rediscovery.

Something was lost. Forgotten. Then found again. And this nuance changes everything. The Royal Arch does not grant access to new knowledge. It brings back into light what was already there, but had become inaccessible.

In the English, Scottish, and American traditions, this narrative is set against the backdrop of the rebuilding of the Temple, after the Babylonian exile. The figures of Zerubbabel, High Priest Joshua, and the prophet Haggai embody this moment of return, resumption, and setting in order.

In Ireland, on the other hand, the setting is different.

The narrative takes place in an earlier era. That of King Josiah. It is no longer a question of rebuilding after destruction, but of restoring what has deteriorated over time. The Temple is still there. But something within it has been lost.

This shift is subtle. But it alters the interpretation.

A word must now be said about the differences between traditions.

In England and Scotland, the Royal Arch takes a very similar form. The degree is unique. It is conferred on Master Masons, in a Chapter distinct from the Lodge. The Three Principals represent Zerubbabel, Joshua and Haggai. The structure is stable, recognisable.

Scotland adds a requirement: that of having received the Mark Master degree. This detail is not insignificant. It highlights a special link between these two stages of the journey.

In Ireland, things change further.

The Three Principals are no longer the same. King Josiah, Hilkiah the High Priest and Shaphan the Scribe replace the figures of the reconstruction. The regalia, too, differ. Red dominates. An ancient colour, widely attested in the higher degrees of the eighteenth century.

Finally, in America, the Royal Arch forms part of a more structured system: the York Rite.

It no longer constitutes an isolated degree, but the culmination of a series. Mark Master, Virtual Past Master, Most Excellent Master… up to the Royal Arch Mason. The journey is organised, progressive.

And yet, the core remains the same.

Same story. Same symbolic structure. But a different organisation. And, sometimes, a distribution of roles that does not correspond exactly to British models.

So, how can this diversity be understood?

Should we see divergences here? Contradictions?

Probably not.

What the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch shows is something else. A way of transmitting the same content without seeking to freeze its form. An ability to adapt that does not call into question the essential.

Unity does not come through uniformity.

It comes through fidelity to a core.

And that is perhaps where the true singularity of the Anglo-Saxon Royal Arch lies.

It obliges one to change perspective. To accept that the same degree can exist in several forms, without losing its consistency.

And, ultimately, to recognise that tradition is not preserved by repeating identically… but by being passed on, alive.