Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are any historical European secret societies still active today and how have their objectives changed?
Executive summary
Historic European secret societies such as Freemasonry, some Templar successor groups, the Orange Order, and various 19th‑century revolutionary networks have continuities into the present day, but many have shifted from clandestine political action to social, charitable, cultural, or ceremonial roles (see [2]; [4]; [9]3). Historians caution that the idea of a single, Europe‑wide conspiratorial network is a myth; nineteenth‑century societies could be large and politically active but rarely sustained centralized, transnational control [1].
1. Old organizations that still exist — from guilds to lodges
Several bodies commonly labelled “secret societies” have institutional descendants or organised continuities today: Freemasonry traces institutional roots to medieval stonemasons and remains an active fraternity with lodges and public museums documenting ritual artifacts [2] [3]. Likewise, modern groups claiming Templar lineage or other chivalric identities — for example associations in France, Germany and Italy asserting descent from the Knights Templar — operate openly in ceremonial, cultural or religious modes and sometimes enjoy recognition from established institutions such as the Vatican [4]. The Grand Orange Lodge (the Orange Order) is another example of a historic secretive body that continues with lodges in Northern Ireland and internationally, now functioning as a political‑cultural organisation rather than a purely clandestine cell [5].
2. How objectives shifted — politics and revolution to charity and networking
Across multiple accounts, a clear pattern appears: many 18th–19th century secret societies focused on disruptive politics, revolution, or conspiratorial reform, but their modern counterparts often emphasize social bonding, philanthropy, tradition, and public civic life [1] [2]. The Carbonari and similar revolutionary cells that once sought liberal or national change were large and politically charged in their eras but could not sustain centralized, long‑term international networks; their successors, where they survive, typically lack the same overt revolutionary mission [1]. Freemasonry’s historical association with Enlightenment politics has relaxed into fraternal and charitable activity in many jurisdictions [2].
3. Persistence does not equal secrecy or single global control
Scholars warn against the popular myth of an all‑powerful European cabal directing events from behind closed doors; nineteenth‑century authorities themselves sometimes overstated conspiratorial unity, imagining a “comité directeur” in Paris that did not exist [6]. Historical research finds overlapping rites and cross‑border contacts, but not a sustained, centralized trans‑European conspiracy; many groups were episodically influential yet fragmented by repression and competition [1].
4. Newer or rebranded movements — continuity by claim, not always fact
A number of modern organisations claim lineage from ancient or medieval orders (e.g., Priory‑style groups, Rosicrucian‑type bodies), but such claims often blend myth, ceremonial revivalism, and marketing as much as unbroken institutional continuity. Public reporting documents active associations “claiming” descent or inspiration from the Knights Templar and Rosicrucian currents, even when direct institutional continuity is historically dubious [4] [7] [8].
5. What historians and reference works emphasise
Reference encyclopedias and scholarly overviews define secret societies by ritual, secrecy, oaths and exclusive membership and stress variety: some are social clubs, others were revolutionary cells, and still others were professional guilds that evolved [2]. The academic literature also highlights how contemporary scholarship treats the category as fluid — what was “secret” in one era is public in another — and urges caution about sensational accounts that conflate all groups under a single conspiratorial label [6] [2].
6. Open questions and limits of available reporting
Available sources document modern activity for some named organisations (Freemasonry, Orange Order, Templar claimants) and discuss the nineteenth‑century secret society phenomenon, but they do not provide exhaustive lists of every surviving European secret society or detailed, contemporary mission statements for each surviving group; for many claimed continuities (e.g., Priory of Sion, Rosicrucian offshoots) the evidence ranges from institutional records to contested or mythic narratives [7] [4] [8]. If you want a country‑by‑country inventory or primary‑source charters from present-day lodges, available sources do not mention that level of detail.
7. Takeaway for readers seeking clarity
Don’t conflate persistence with conspiracy: several historic organisations survive in reconstituted or ceremonial forms and now prioritize community, tradition and philanthropy rather than clandestine political revolutions; nineteenth‑century fears of an all‑European secret directorate were overstated by contemporaries and are not supported as a simple historical fact [1] [6] [2]. For a deeper, sourced dive into any single order’s current objectives, consult that organisation’s own records or focused historical studies not included in the search results above — those specifics are not covered in the current reporting (not found in current reporting).