Reddit mentions of The Stuarts in Italy, 1719-1766: A Royal Court In Permanent Exile

Tl;dr: Creative rewriting of Hebrew allows you to claim anything means anything else, especially when you then transcribe it back and forth between English, It's five eight screens of bad history filler, then Barrett finally presents his theory of how to misspell words in Hebrew and then mangle them further translating them into English to say whatever you want them to say. Can not recommend.

Pike/de Hoyos presents multiple theories in Esoterika that are much more plausible.

Barrett starts with the old, outdated "Hanoverians-good, Jacobites-bad" view of English vs Continental Freemasonry history.

"On the continent, Freemasonry provided a useful cover for Jacobite conspiracy".

This is an outdated view that does not reflect historical modern research about the Stuart court's time in France.

"Papal criticisms of Freemasonry in the 18th century were instigated by the need to reign in Jacobite troublemakers."

Again, outdated. The Jacobite Court of the Stuarts were guests of a series of multiple Popes in Italy, and were financed and hired out by the Vatican as a kind a consulting service taking on tasks for the overworked Vatican court from 1719-1766. Pope Clement XII's prohibition against Freemasonry of 1738 was a reaction against the creation of an English Hanoverian Masonic Lodge in Florence, Italy in 1733 by the English Freemason Charles Sackville, 2nd Duke of Dorset and a Hanoverian. The prohibition appears to be instigated by the Stuart court then in residence in Italy and close to the Pope at that time. Its effect on Stuart/Jacobite Freemason lodges within Italy appears to have been null.

The statement "To Jews everywhere, the right to be Freemasons was a touchstone of religious liberty and social tolerance, an agent of emancipation and social tolerance." is putting it on quite thick, and makes the mistake of projecting modern social justice movement values onto what was at the time an elitist organization mostly comprised of royals, clergy, and merchants. For a society where 95% of the population still labored in agriculture ...we were remarkably absent of such laborers and instead focused on the top 1%, a group that current social justice movements openly hate.

The statement that Anderson's Constitution "introduced Noah" into Freemasonry ignores multiple historical documents of an earlier Noahchide version of Freemasonry that predate Anderson's Constitutions. (although predate by how much we are not sure, since the 1726 Graham document is believed to be only a transcription of an earlier text) Most theories are the Sin of Ham, once properly understood, caused Noahchide Freemasonry to wane and be replaced by Solomonic Freemasonry.

Given these errors, the rest of his history should be equally held suspect.