Natal Chart for Richard

I found a site with Richard's natal chart. No idea how they decided the
time of his birth is 9:02 a.m., and I don't know if they've taken into
account the nine days shift from the Julian calendar.

The analysis is...interesting...to say the least.

www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Richard_III_of_England#hbiographie

~Weds

Wednesday McKenna wrote:
>
> I found a site with Richard's natal chart. No idea how they decided the time of his birth is 9:02 a.m., and I don't know if they've taken into account the nine days shift from the Julian calendar.
>
> The analysis is...interesting...to say the least.
>
> www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Richard_III_of_England#hbiographie
>
> ~Weds

Carol responds:

Since William of Worcester didn't include the time of Richard's birth (though he did include times for some of the older brothers and sisters), we don't have that information. The makers of that natal chart must have taken Rous's statement that Richard's rising sign was Scorpio as fact (even though he got the birth date itself wrong and said that Richard was two years in his mother's womb). Notice the predominance of Scorpio as you scroll down to the bar graph near the bottom.

But even is Scorpio rising were a fact rather than Rous's invention so that he could depict Richard as a Scorpio (his sun sign, Libra, being altogether unsuitable for the purpose) and even if we believe in astrology, which I don't, 9:02 is much too precise. There's no way to determine his exact time of birth based on the information we have.

The biography and "astrological portrait" are surprisingly favorable to Richard, but I've seen another astrological analysis, based on the same dubious "information," that reached the opposite conclusion. Essentially, both of them are using the same "data" to "prove" their own preconceptions.

Carol

Thanks Weds, that is very interesting. I will print and study, as it has a lot of information not usually seen in natal charts.

On Mar 28, 2013, at 4:12 PM, "Wednesday McKenna" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:



I found a site with Richard's natal chart. No idea how they decided the
time of his birth is 9:02 a.m., and I don't know if they've taken into
account the nine days shift from the Julian calendar.

The analysis is...interesting...to say the least.

www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Richard_III_of_England#hbiographie<http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Richard_III_of_England#hbiographie>

~Weds

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Thanks Weds, that is very interesting. I will print and study, as it has a lot of information not usually seen in natal charts.

Carol responds:

But it's based on "information" that is not available--or on Rous, whose comment about Richard being born with Scorpio rising is sheer spiteful propaganda with no basis in reality. Rous got the date of Richard's birth wrong. How could he possibly have known the hour of his birth?

Carol

One of the best men I've ever known was a Scorpio with a wicked sense of humor.

Anyway, I meant the natal chart to be a bit of fun, like a fortune cookie with the message, "Help, I'm being held hostage by a vicious lack of contemporary documentation. XXXOOO Dickon."

If I have time, I'll try to find another that doesn't have Scorpio rising. Or his Moon in it. Or...you know.

Sorry.

~Weds


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But it's based on "information" that is not available--or on Rous, whose comment about Richard being born with Scorpio rising is sheer spiteful propaganda with no basis in reality. Rous got the date of Richard's birth wrong. How could he possibly have known the hour of his birth?
>
> Carol
>

Some astrologers "say" they can look at life experiences and accurately determine the hour of birth. I tend to be VERY skeptical about that. I think it will just be interesting conjecture, like so many other things we dip into. Even if we had the exact time, it would be a broad stroke of interpretation. Like so much else, we just do not know.

On Mar 28, 2013, at 7:15 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Thanks Weds, that is very interesting. I will print and study, as it has a lot of information not usually seen in natal charts.

Carol responds:

But it's based on "information" that is not available--or on Rous, whose comment about Richard being born with Scorpio rising is sheer spiteful propaganda with no basis in reality. Rous got the date of Richard's birth wrong. How could he possibly have known the hour of his birth?

Carol

Thanks Weds,
Anything out there on Richard is interesting even if just to see what is being said out there. Even tho there is no credible evidence as
to the time of Richard's birth.

What I have a problem w/, beside the obvious quakery! is some of the "history". Here's an example-

Accession to the Throne
On the death of Edward IV, on 9 April 1483, the late King's sons (Richard's young nephews), King Edward V, aged 12, and Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York, aged 9, were next in the order of succession. Richard, however, had the king's guardian, Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers, (brother of Elizabeth Woodville, Edward's Queen Consort) and other advisors arrested and taken to Pontefract Castle, *allegedly for planning to assassinate Edward V*. *He then took Edward and his younger brother to the Tower of London*.

Over the course of the following months, *a number of regular visitors to Edward in the Tower were arrested for alleged treason and executed*.

Where do they come up w/ these things?

T


--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I found a site with Richard's natal chart. No idea how they decided the
> time of his birth is 9:02 a.m., and I don't know if they've taken into
> account the nine days shift from the Julian calendar.
>
> The analysis is...interesting...to say the least.
>
> www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Richard_III_of_England#hbiographie
>
> ~Weds

> *a number of regular visitors to Edward in the Tower were arrested for alleged treason and executed*.
>
Deep breath! I have been breathing very deeply for last couple of months........:/

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:33 PM, "tbuck55" <tandjules@...> wrote:

> Thanks Weds,
> Anything out there on Richard is interesting even if just to see what is being said out there. Even tho there is no credible evidence as
> to the time of Richard's birth.
>
> What I have a problem w/, beside the obvious quakery! is some of the "history". Here's an example-
>
> Accession to the Throne
> On the death of Edward IV, on 9 April 1483, the late King's sons (Richard's young nephews), King Edward V, aged 12, and Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York, aged 9, were next in the order of succession. Richard, however, had the king's guardian, Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers, (brother of Elizabeth Woodville, Edward's Queen Consort) and other advisors arrested and taken to Pontefract Castle, *allegedly for planning to assassinate Edward V*. *He then took Edward and his younger brother to the Tower of London*.
>
> Over the course of the following months, *a number of regular visitors to Edward in the Tower were arrested for alleged treason and executed*.
>
> Where do they come up w/ these things?
>
> T
>
> --- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> > I found a site with Richard's natal chart. No idea how they decided the
> > time of his birth is 9:02 a.m., and I don't know if they've taken into
> > account the nine days shift from the Julian calendar.
> >
> > The analysis is...interesting...to say the least.
> >
> > www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Richard_III_of_England#hbiographie
> >
> > ~Weds
>
>

"wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> One of the best men I've ever known was a Scorpio with a wicked sense of humor.
>
> Anyway, I meant the natal chart to be a bit of fun, like a fortune cookie with the message, "Help, I'm being held hostage by a vicious lack of contemporary documentation. XXXOOO Dickon."
>
> If I have time, I'll try to find another that doesn't have Scorpio rising. Or his Moon in it. Or...you know.
>
> Sorry.

Carol responds:

Sorry, Weds. I didn't mean to stifle something fun. I just think it's important that Rous reported to an unprovable and probably fictitious Scorpio rising to depict Richard as a scorpionlike Antichrist (because his sun sign, Libra, had all the wrong implications for his propaganda purposes), so, to me, it's just another myth that we need to stamp out, not perpetuate.

Not that I believe in astrology, but some people do. More important, it should be exposed as the lie it is, intended to "prove" that Richard was a monster born. That the makers of the "astrological profile" managed to make it pro-Richard is to their credit, but it's part of the same scenario as "two years in his mother's womb, born with teeth and hair flowing to his shoulders." While it's quite possible that he had hair (though not to his shoulders like that of a fifteen-month-old), a much smaller chance that he was born with a tooth or two (but not a full set), and a one-in-twelve chance that he had Scorpio rising (though there's no way to know that detail without a horoscope or record of his birth time), all of it serves the same propaganda purpose that the imaginary withered arm does in More.

I say, the more myths we can bury, the better. Sorry if I sounded testy, but this is important to me. We need to expose Rous, not treat his nonsense as if it had any sort of validity, even in fun.

Just my opinion, and I'm not trying to take the moral ground, only to hold back the myth, which is spreading like a contagion all over the Internet.

Carol

Carol, as stated yesterday, I am skeptical about the horoscope. And all signs and placements have both positive and negative aspects. My, don't we all. I think we all agree that drip by drip, we need to, must do, what we can to correct or at least debunk the awful horrible propaganda.

On Mar 29, 2013, at 9:37 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



"wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> One of the best men I've ever known was a Scorpio with a wicked sense of humor.
>
> Anyway, I meant the natal chart to be a bit of fun, like a fortune cookie with the message, "Help, I'm being held hostage by a vicious lack of contemporary documentation. XXXOOO Dickon."
>
> If I have time, I'll try to find another that doesn't have Scorpio rising. Or his Moon in it. Or...you know.
>
> Sorry.

Carol responds:

Sorry, Weds. I didn't mean to stifle something fun. I just think it's important that Rous reported to an unprovable and probably fictitious Scorpio rising to depict Richard as a scorpionlike Antichrist (because his sun sign, Libra, had all the wrong implications for his propaganda purposes), so, to me, it's just another myth that we need to stamp out, not perpetuate.

Not that I believe in astrology, but some people do. More important, it should be exposed as the lie it is, intended to "prove" that Richard was a monster born. That the makers of the "astrological profile" managed to make it pro-Richard is to their credit, but it's part of the same scenario as "two years in his mother's womb, born with teeth and hair flowing to his shoulders." While it's quite possible that he had hair (though not to his shoulders like that of a fifteen-month-old), a much smaller chance that he was born with a tooth or two (but not a full set), and a one-in-twelve chance that he had Scorpio rising (though there's no way to know that detail without a horoscope or record of his birth time), all of it serves the same propaganda purpose that the imaginary withered arm does in More.

I say, the more myths we can bury, the better. Sorry if I sounded testy, but this is important to me. We need to expose Rous, not treat his nonsense as if it had any sort of validity, even in fun.

Just my opinion, and I'm not trying to take the moral ground, only to hold back the myth, which is spreading like a contagion all over the Internet.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Natal Chart for Richard


> While it's quite possible that he had hair (though not to his shoulders
> like that of a fifteen-month-old),

He might well (like me) have been born with hair growing *on* his
shoulders - this is quite common and is a sign that a baby is about two
weeks premature. Iirc it's called lanugo. With those thin bones he was
probably a very skinny infant, and his mother had had so many she was
probably having trouble keeping them in....

I still think Rous was having a laugh. Wasn't he the one who accused
Richard of being "goggle-eyed"?

Claire wrote:
> He might well (like me) have been born with hair growing *on* his > shoulders - this is quite common and is a sign that a baby is about two weeks premature. Iirc it's called lanugo. With those thin bones he was probably a very skinny infant, and his mother had had so many she was probably having trouble keeping them in....
>
> I still think Rous was having a laugh. Wasn't he the one who accused Richard of being "goggle-eyed"?
>
Carol responds:

No. That was a later addition (Hall, I think). In terms of Richard's physical appearance as an adult, all he said was that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other. And I very much doubt that Rous had a sense of humor. He was making Richard look like that Anti-Christ--hardly a humorous concept for an aging cleric (who evidently resented Richard for not making Edward of Warwick his heir after Richard's own son died). As for lanugo, that's not what Rous (who never saw the infant Richard) was talking about. He was, as far as I can determine, trying to describe an infant born after two years in the womb, which would, of course, have longish hair and about twelve teeth, though Rous's ideas of toddler teething would have been vague at best). Such an infant would also, of course, have been monstrously large. More adds, tongue in cheek, that his mother could not have delivered it "uncut," and since Cecily would have died from a Caesarean section, it's self-evident that she didn't have one. (Shakespeare turns this myth around and has him born so prematurely that he's still "unformed.")

I think possibly you're attributing your rather dark sense of humor to people to whom it doesn't apply (Henry and Rous). More, yes. I think that you and he might have appreciated the same sly, dark jokes. If I've mischaracterized you, please forgive me.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Natal Chart for Richard


> He was making Richard look like that Anti-Christ--hardly a humorous
> concept for an aging cleric (who evidently resented Richard for not making
> Edward of Warwick his heir after Richard's own son died).

Maybe... but then everybody seems to agree that Rous was very loyal to the
house of Neville, and Richard was a Neville, so it seems unlikely he would
turn on him to that extent and *mean* it. It seems to me more like he's
just saying what he's required to say to please the new regime, and going
overboard out of a sort of sarcasm.

Carol earlier:
> > He [Rous] was making Richard look like that Anti-Christ--hardly a humorous concept for an aging cleric (who evidently resented Richard for not making Edward of Warwick his heir after Richard's own son died).

Claire responded:
> Maybe... but then everybody seems to agree that Rous was very loyal to the house of Neville, and Richard was a Neville, so it seems unlikely he would turn on him to that extent and *mean* it. It seems to me more like he's just saying what he's required to say to please the new regime, and going overboard out of a sort of sarcasm.
>
Carol responds:

If so, that sarcasm had devastating consequences for Richard's reputation and was not taken as such by Vergil. (More, maybe, but few people recognize his ironic sense of humor, again with devastating consequences.

But I'll just agree to disagree here since I don't think Rous had a humorous bone in his body. He evidently had some grudge against Richard that developed after the beginning of his reign, when Rous definitely viewed him favorably (see the English Rous Roll). I think it was Richard's supposed selection and then rejection of Edward of Warwick as his heir--as if Richard would reverse the attainder to make a boy who would then be ahead of him in the succession his heir! He might as well declare Titulus Regius invalid and abdicate in favor of Edward V (assuming that he was alive).

At any rate, I think Rous still grudgingly saw good qualities in Richard and knew perfectly well that he wasn't the Anti-Christ. He could only have written such blatant propaganda with some purpose in mind (certainly not a high position for himself given his advanced age). But whatever he hoped to achieve for the Nevilles, he failed, and instead fathered an ugly legend that kept growing and has yet to die.

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> I think it was Richard's supposed selection and then rejection of Edward of Warwick as his heir--as if Richard would reverse the attainder to make a boy who would then be ahead of him in the succession his heir! He might as well declare Titulus Regius invalid and abdicate in favor of Edward V (assuming that he was alive).
>

Do you think the Warwick-as-Richard's-heir thing might be a misunderstanding instead of complete misinformation? I've often wondered whether it was something like Anne wanting her share of the Neville lands to go to her nephew, and then it was misunderstood, as so many things were.

Yes, there's nothing wrong with Scorpios. I'm one! : ) It's nice to have that bit of a connection with R3, however tenuous.


--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> One of the best men I've ever known was a Scorpio with a wicked sense of humor.
>
> Anyway, I meant the natal chart to be a bit of fun, like a fortune cookie with the message, "Help, I'm being held hostage by a vicious lack of contemporary documentation. XXXOOO Dickon."
>
> If I have time, I'll try to find another that doesn't have Scorpio rising. Or his Moon in it. Or...you know.
>
> Sorry.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > But it's based on "information" that is not available--or on Rous, whose comment about Richard being born with Scorpio rising is sheer spiteful propaganda with no basis in reality. Rous got the date of Richard's birth wrong. How could he possibly have known the hour of his birth?
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

"Ms Jones" wrote:
>
>
> Yes, there's nothing wrong with Scorpios. I'm one! : ) It's nice to have that bit of a connection with R3, however tenuous.

Carol responds:

But Richard was a Libra, a sun sign that didn't work well with the scorpion/anti-Christ image that Rous wanted to create, so he resorted to inventing a Scorpio rising sign for Richard. (He couldn't possibly have known the hour of his birth. He didn't even get the day right.)

I have nothing against Scorpios. It's just that Richard wasn't one, and, somehow, the Scales of Justice just don't have the sting of a scorpion's tail--but they do fit the Richard we know nicely if we want to take astrology at face value (which I don't).

Scorpions, though, I could live without. We have them in Tucson, but, luckily, I've never had a close encounter!

Carol

--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I found a site with Richard's natal chart. No idea how they decided the
> time of his birth is 9:02 a.m., and I don't know if they've taken into
> account the nine days shift from the Julian calendar.
>
> The analysis is...interesting...to say the least.
>
> www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Richard_III_of_England#hbiographie
>
> ~Weds
>
>
>
>
LOL "what hellish charm you have!" but it is fascinating and very thorough, would be interestinh to see mine donr that way

Nicole