That was a very different story than the one I intended to write when I began researching Thomas Dunckerley. I was not going to write about him at all. He was a distraction, though a welcome one, from another book project. I was running into dead ends trying to figure out what Ebenezer Sibly was up to Masonically. His name was frequently linked to that of Thomas Dunckerley, who seemed to be a much better-known and better-researched fellow. Reading about Dunckerley promised to provide insights that would lead to a clearer understanding of Sibly. But the more I read, the more I became convinced, like Sir Edward Walpole, that it just was not true – none of it. Most historians are closet detectives, so tracking down the fictions and separating them from the facts of Dunckerley's life became an obsession and a pleasure. I was continually impressed by his inventiveness and audacity. For an English Anglican, he had a surprising amount of chutzpah.

Thomas Dunckerley was a fascinating man, full of astonishing contradictions. I am convinced he was tremendously talented and dedicated. He devoted himself to his wife, his king, the Royal Navy (after a fashion) and to Freemasonry. He just had a problem with the truth. Of course, it was impossible to just tell one lie and leave it at that. His was a big lie, and it required dozens of ancillary fibs.