How did later Masonic scholars such as Gould and Hughan correct James Anderson’s traditional narrative regarding Prince Edwin and the Assembly at York in 926 AD?

Prince Edwin and the alleged 926 AD Assembly at York were presented by James Anderson in his 1723 and 1738 Book of Constitutions as verified history, claiming that Prince Edwin obtained a charter and presided over a Grand Lodge in York. In Craft Masonry, later scholars such as William James Hughan and Robert Freke Gould re-examined these claims by establishing the authentic school of Masonic research, notably through Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076, relying on evidence-based historical manuscript records.

Gould and Hughan systematically analyzed the manuscript Constitutions known as the Old Charges 1. Their investigation revealed that Anderson had modified the original manuscript texts by inserting modern Masonic terminology, such as Grand Master and Grand Lodge, and adding the date 926 AD, which did not appear in those terms in the earlier manuscripts.

Through historical record-checking, Gould and Hughan also showed that King Athelstan had no recorded son named Edwin, and that the historical Prince Edwin who drowned in 933 AD was Athelstan's brother, refuting Anderson's historical accuracy.

Consequently, Hughan and Gould classified the narrative of Prince Edwin and the 926 AD Assembly as the York Legend 1. While earlier writers like Albert C. Mackey treated the assembly as a plausible historical event 1, the authentic school demonstrated that the account was a traditional guild origin myth preserved in medieval operative manuscripts rather than a verified historical fact 1.