tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8458080909001903011.post996354335164900219..comments2023-09-14T06:40:37.907+02:00Comments on Nick Farrell's Blog: The Death of the AO lineageAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11198094991381684617noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8458080909001903011.post-15648193369219732712013-07-08T00:28:06.564+02:002013-07-08T00:28:06.564+02:00Do you think the AO lineage lives on with the B.O....Do you think the AO lineage lives on with the B.O.T.A or the F.L.O?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8458080909001903011.post-24736468160886226342013-07-06T07:29:35.162+02:002013-07-06T07:29:35.162+02:00Hi
I must say I am shocked, thoroughly shocked t...Hi <br /><br />I must say I am shocked, thoroughly shocked that Desmond Bourke's name is not included in this blog. He is cited as a AO 7=4 from the early 1930's when he was only a young teenager. Since there was nothing during the war or post war my hat is off to him. Studying for 8th grade and being an AO inner order member did pose its problems.<br /><br />Pat<br /><br /><br /><br />Pat Pat Zalewskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8458080909001903011.post-63475364393750148652013-07-05T10:48:44.453+02:002013-07-05T10:48:44.453+02:00Are you saying that there is evidence that Mina sa...Are you saying that there is evidence that Mina saw herself as subordinate to BI (or any mortal :-))? The will named BI as successor was publised a while after Mathers' death and smelt a bit of being a negotiated settlement which was written after the event. My guess was that neither wanted a fight over who was leading the order, it only became an issue much later. <br />What you are saying about the AO in London is pretty much what we used to think by reading King etc (where you have this London 1,2,3 temple thing) In fact the sequence was pretty clear.... BI took over the London Isis Temple which he ran with Berridge and Hayes. DF joined that one but transferred (for some reason) when Mina arrived and set up her new temple with Margaret Boyd. It is my theory that DF was sent as a spy by Hayes and this explains most of the problems Mina had with her. (if you look at some of the charges that Mina made against DF they can be linked to sending messages to Hayes.) Otherwise it is not clear why DF went to Mina at all. Mina's temple was small and had the same problems that BIs did. DF's mentor Hayes was with BI and DF admired BI enough for him to be a major influence on her for Dr Taverner. The two temples operated side by side until the death of Berridge and BI. I don't think Hayes carried on running an AO temple after that as that was the end of the "scottish branch" and Mina would not have had her anyway. Mina's temple chugged along after her death being run by Garston and Hughes. It can never have been big but did have three chiefs. It shut in 1930 according to Garston. So there was no rump to inherit. <br />I have not read Richardson but he once told me about the correspondence DF had with the Beast which went along similar lines. He did not say when the writing took place --- I wonder if it was part of the final DF and Hayes workings when they were keen to get more information on polarity as part of the arthurian workings. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11198094991381684617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8458080909001903011.post-89891009660075272402013-07-05T10:12:55.287+02:002013-07-05T10:12:55.287+02:00Sorry Nick, I think there are too many assumptions...Sorry Nick, I think there are too many assumptions here. "Mina thought otherwise..." might be the impression you have gained, and there's nothing wrong with that, but so far as I can see it's unsupported by evidence. Also, DF joined the AO in 1919 and it's unlikely that Tranchell Hayes was by that time operating a rival temple, it's more likely she inherited after Mina's death the rump of the London AO, so I don't think there's any basis for the "spying" conjecture. DF had left the AO by 1922, and all we have are her personal recollections of a comparatively brief association with the group and not a comprehensive account of its structure and operation.<br />Sorry, should have made clear it was Tranchell Hayes' correspondence with Crowley, not DF's. See Richardson's "Aleister Crowley and Dion Fortune", pp. 51-2. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8458080909001903011.post-12185146432069523382013-07-05T07:36:07.139+02:002013-07-05T07:36:07.139+02:00That is true.... but Mina thought otherwise and BI...That is true.... but Mina thought otherwise and BI never openly engaged her on it. DF thought that Mina was in charge of the order. In any event Berridge and BI did die fairly soon after Mina arrived and their Isis London temple closed. Tranchell Hayes disappeared from the scene until she showed up on Dion Fortune's doorstep to channel the arthurian workings, but it does not seem likely she was working GD at that time. We dont know exactly when she buried her equipment but it is also unlikely that she was not a member of Mina's temple. DF did not mention it. In fact what appears to happen was Moya sent DF to Mina to keep an eye on Mrs Mathers in the rival temple. Mina saw through the spying effort and that was the reason why DF had so many problems with her. Mina's temple was always small and after her death was tiny. DF did write to crowley and they did swap notes. The do what you wilt thing was probably politeness (or even irony) on DFs part. She did admire some of Crowley's stuff but most of her work seems to see him as the archetypal black magician. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11198094991381684617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8458080909001903011.post-29096227673788729232013-07-05T00:38:47.548+02:002013-07-05T00:38:47.548+02:00I recall that Brodie–Innes was named as Mathers...I recall that Brodie–Innes was named as Mathers' successor as head of the AO in the Ahathoor minute book, but the three ruling chiefs were B-I, Mina and Berridge. There was nothing 'schismatic' in AO terms about it. I think Berridge died shortly after and B-I in 1923, B-I naming Carnegie Dickson as his successor. Mina died in 1928, removing the last significant player in the original GD from the AO. Felkin had also died, in 1926, but Carnegie Dickson was still close to Yeats (as his physician) and other senior members of the Stella Matutina. Perhaps the passing of the "old guard" enabled a bit more flexibility in the association of members of the AO and SM, and I wonder if Carnegie Dickson had nominated Tranchell Hayes et al to run the remaining AO temple enabling him to maintain the entire GD community in the UK within his purview. Tranchell Hayes seems to have resumed working with Dion Fortune by the early 1940s, according to Gareth Knight, but I don't know whether this was before or after the closure of her AO temple. Alan Richardson has also found her correspondence with Aleister Crowley - and her letters to him begin "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law..." <br />I think the full picture has still to emerge.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8458080909001903011.post-64332751807559318852013-07-04T20:38:17.211+02:002013-07-04T20:38:17.211+02:00It completely does not matter. A magician is defi...It completely does not matter. A magician is defined by their magic and what they have to teach. The issue is that there are some groups which try to claim superiority over others on the basis of a made up lineage. The point of this is that very few people can claim to have a legit lineage to the GD... but alll GD groups have to show what they can do. Those who make the most claims about their history generally have a problem with their present.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11198094991381684617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8458080909001903011.post-18694778518693291732013-07-04T19:55:05.748+02:002013-07-04T19:55:05.748+02:00Forgive me if you will,
But i don't quite und...Forgive me if you will,<br /><br />But i don't quite understand as to why people care so much about lineages and such.<br /><br />Is magic simply not about understanding the universe? why would one delve so deep into the tit for tat beginnings of long gone orders when it has evolved so much further since then? Is this itself not part of the inner weeding out process for unsuitable people?<br /><br />Forgive me if i am incorrect, but i don't see how this helps humanitys progression into the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com