A number of supposed “women Freemasons” have received temporary notoriety in the United States. Probably the best authenticated (and that very poor) is Mrs. Catherine Babington, “nee” Sweet, who was born in Kentucky in 1815, married in 1834, and died in 1886. Brother J.P. Babington, her son, of Cleveland Lodge No.202, Shelby, North Carolina, after her death published a biographical sketch of his mother, evidently in the sincere belief that what he heard all his life was true, and giving a plain (if inherently improbable) account of this “lady Mason.”
Comments
The Wife threw her 10 cents in, and said since my Granddaughters middle name is Katherine..I might have to use both to stay out of the Dog House.
I vote for Catherine.
Nah, this is a Chick thing so wide open.
Catherine or Elizabeth
I leave the secret stuff to the Women.
We all know they are better at it ... :)
what ? no secret code .. ? ;-)
In fact you Guys choose shall it be Catherine or Elizabeth?
To break the boredom :)
This is the one i spoke of;
A number of supposed “women Freemasons” have received temporary notoriety in the United States. Probably the best authenticated (and that very poor) is Mrs. Catherine Babington, “nee” Sweet, who was born in Kentucky in 1815, married in 1834, and died in 1886. Brother J.P. Babington, her son, of Cleveland Lodge No.202, Shelby, North Carolina, after her death published a biographical sketch of his mother, evidently in the sincere belief that what he heard all his life was true, and giving a plain (if inherently improbable) account of this “lady Mason.”
Whether Legend or just a story. I go with the Legend
Elizabeth it may be :)
http://masonicworld.com/education/files/artoct02/women_freemasons.htm
Yes Sir you can call me that any time in the dark or the Light.
That is a GREAT NAME..I missed it. Once and only once in the Carolinas
a Women was made a Mason. If I could find her name and I think I can,
It would be perfect..with that at the end. Happy Happy! :)
i meant "illuminatiss" as a slightly feminine name , but in keeping with the context ;-)
ie;
( a way around your rule )
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next