Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01038)

I have never seen any direct claim by the TORC to any ?physical?
succession (after all, if The Master The Count helped to start it any mere
mortal could not contribute much of additional value!). Certainly, it had
nothing to do with the Crotona Fellowship, which only acquired a TS
connection when Mabel Besant-Scott (Mrs Besant?s daughter) linked up with
the Crotona group following a split in British Co-Masonry after her
mother?s death. Crotona claimed a succession lost (inevitably) in the
mists of time, although quite a lot has now been published on it. It was,
incidentally, the means whereby Gerald Gardner made contact with those
whom he (but not necessarily they) later alleged to have been the living
continuation of British witchcraft.
I suspect that Wedgwood may have made some inner claim to ?succession? of
some sort via various ?successions? he acquired from John Yarker. Wedgwood
had some (albeit unclear) links with various French occult groups from his
earliest days in the TS. Likewise, Leadbeater?s ER does not seem to have
claimed any ?physical? succession, although privately he claimed some
authority from Memphis and Misraim, etc.
The two standard approaches in such matters seem to be (i) we have an
historical, physical continuity with [here name impressive source] and
documents to prove it, or (ii) we have a direct authority from the
Master/s (which is far better). Theosophical groups (apart from
Co-Masonry, and even there Leadbeater claimed specific authority from the
HOATF as well) tend to go for (ii) which, at least, eliminates the need
for dubious documents, fanciful history and easily demolished claims of
authenticity and historicity (as with AMORC). In modern times, many
Masonic groups (e.g. SRIA) have tended to be more open and honest
regarding their real historical origins as contrasted with their
?traditional? origins. Even AMORC has sort of begun this process with its
most recent volume on its own history (?Rosicrucian History and Mysteries?
by Christian Rebisse) ? not quite history but a lot less myth than Spencer
Lewis and Witteman.
The dilemma of "historical succession" or not is one which has troubled
many groups, notably contemporary clainants to the GD tradition. Can you
have a GD groups without a genuine, historical (tactile?) succession from
a genuine GD group? Some answer "no" (and often then claim usually dubious
successions). Others answer "yes" and argue that it is the "doing" rather
than any succession that matters.

Dr Gregory Tillett