Richard astrology
Richard astrology
http://m.sexualastrology.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sexualastrology.com%2Fmarsinaries.html&utm_referrer=#2641
Very strong sex drive; wants what he wants can be heedless of consequences. This is selfishness too.Venus in Saggitarius; Needs freedom in love.
Re: Richard astrology
A J
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:
I have a belief in natal charts because mine conjunct a so accurate. I used the traditional date for his birth. He recorded it in his book of hours. Oct 11 1452 Fotheringhay Castle 9 am.. Absolute precision is not necessary His Mars is in Aries Venus is Saggitarius. This guy would have a hard time with fidelity. Here's what I got.
http://m.sexualastrology.com/? url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. sexualastrology.com% 2Fmarsinaries.html&utm_ referrer=#2641
Very strong sex drive; wants what he wants can be heedless of consequences. This is selfishness too.Venus in Saggitarius; Needs freedom in love.
Re: Richard astrology
On Apr 17, 2017 1:59 PM, "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:
Have you adjusted for the change in the calendar made in 1752? October 2nd in 1452 is more like October 11 nowadays (may be off a day or two). Why 9 AM? - doesn't the time of day also need to be reasonably accurate?
A J
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I have a belief in natal charts because mine conjunct a so accurate. I used the traditional date for his birth. He recorded it in his book of hours. Oct 11 1452 Fotheringhay Castle 9 am.. Absolute precision is not necessary His Mars is in Aries Venus is Saggitarius. This guy would have a hard time with fidelity. Here's what I got.
http://m.sexualastrology.com/? url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sexualast rology.com%2Fmarsinaries.html& utm_referrer=#2641
Very strong sex drive; wants what he wants can be heedless of consequences. This is selfishness too.Venus in Saggitarius; Needs freedom in love.
Re: Richard astrology
Very strong sex drive; wants what he wants can be heedless of consequences. This is selfishness too. Venus in Saggitarius; Needs freedom in love.
Re: Richard astrology
Karen,I think it is the other way round, without the birth hour you can only say in which sign the planets are and what the aspects between them are, but not fix the ascendant and consequently not the houses.As we have no birth hour of Richard, we don't know his ascendant. Only Rous' assumption that it is Scorpio. May be it is. I personnally don't believe in it. I think he just chose Scorpio so he could compare Richard's character with the scorpio with its poisonous sting.
There is no birth hour recorded in Richard's book of hours.
Eva
---In , <karenoder4@...> wrote :
I found his birthdate in an astrological website so it should be fixed already. Birth hour doesn't much affect planets in houses. It affects rising sign and aspects. Trust me the man who charged at Henry Tudor is a Mars in Aries.
On Apr 17, 2017 1:59 PM, "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:
Have you adjusted for the change in the calendar made in 1752? October 2nd in 1452 is more like October 11 nowadays (may be off a day or two). Why 9 AM? - doesn't the time of day also need to be reasonably accurate?
A J
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I have a belief in natal charts because mine conjunct a so accurate. I used the traditional date for his birth. He recorded it in his book of hours. Oct 11 1452 Fotheringhay Castle 9 am.. Absolute precision is not necessary His Mars is in Aries Venus is Saggitarius. This guy would have a hard time with fidelity. Here's what I got.
http://m.sexualastrology.com/? url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sexualast rology.com%2Fmarsinaries.html& utm_referrer=#2641
Very strong sex drive; wants what he wants can be heedless of consequences. This is selfishness too.Venus in Saggitarius; Needs freedom in love.
Re: Richard astrology
On Apr 17, 2017, at 4:13 PM, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:
There is no birth hour recorded in Richard's book of hours.
Eva
---In , <karenoder4@...> wrote :
I found his birthdate in an astrological website so it should be fixed already. Birth hour doesn't much affect planets in houses. It affects rising sign and aspects. Trust me the man who charged at Henry Tudor is a Mars in Aries.
On Apr 17, 2017 1:59 PM, "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:
Have you adjusted for the change in the calendar made in 1752? October 2nd in 1452 is more like October 11 nowadays (may be off a day or two). Why 9 AM? - doesn't the time of day also need to be reasonably accurate?
A J
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Karen O
karenoder4@... []
<@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I have a belief in natal charts because mine conjunct a so accurate. I used the traditional date for his birth. He recorded it in his book of hours. Oct 11 1452 Fotheringhay Castle 9 am.. Absolute precision is not necessary His Mars is in Aries Venus
is Saggitarius. This guy would have a hard time with fidelity. Here's what I got.
http://m.sexualastrology.com/? url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sexualast rology.com%2Fmarsinaries.html& utm_referrer=#2641
Very strong sex drive; wants what he wants can be heedless of consequences. This is selfishness too.
Venus in Saggitarius; Needs freedom in love.
Re: Richard astrology
Richard Liveth Yet
On 17 Apr 2017, at 23:13, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:
Karen,I think it is the other way round, without the birth hour you can only say in which sign the planets are and what the aspects between them are, but not fix the ascendant and consequently not the houses.As we have no birth hour of Richard, we don't know his ascendant. Only Rous' assumption that it is Scorpio. May be it is. I personnally don't believe in it. I think he just chose Scorpio so he could compare Richard's character with the scorpio with its poisonous sting.
There is no birth hour recorded in Richard's book of hours.
Eva
---In , <karenoder4@...> wrote :
I found his birthdate in an astrological website so it should be fixed already. Birth hour doesn't much affect planets in houses. It affects rising sign and aspects. Trust me the man who charged at Henry Tudor is a Mars in Aries.
On Apr 17, 2017 1:59 PM, "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:
Have you adjusted for the change in the calendar made in 1752? October 2nd in 1452 is more like October 11 nowadays (may be off a day or two). Why 9 AM? - doesn't the time of day also need to be reasonably accurate?
A J
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <rich ardiiisocietyforum@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I have a belief in natal charts because mine conjunct a so accurate. I used the traditional date for his birth. He recorded it in his book of hours. Oct 11 1452 Fotheringhay Castle 9 am.. Absolute precision is not necessary His Mars is in Aries Venus is Saggitarius. This guy would have a hard time with fidelity. Here's what I got.
http://m.sexualastrology.com/? url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sexualast rology.com%2Fmarsinaries.html& utm_referrer=#2641
Very strong sex drive; wants what he wants can be heedless of conse quences. This is selfishness too.Venus in Saggitarius; Needs freedom in love.
Re: Richard astrology
Other factors have to be considered though, such as personal beliefs and the quality of the person's relationship with their partner. The main problem for someone with Mars in Aries is that they often get caught up in the moment and think about the consequences later. A chart comparison between Richard and Anne indicates that they were strongly committed to their marriage and that there was genuine affection. Fidelity may not have been easy for him, but he had other aspects in his chart - particularly the Sun/Saturn conjunction that opposed his Mars - which would have given him the discipline to overcome temptation and behave with discretion in the event of the odd lapse. Such a lapse would be most likely to occur in a highly stressful, male orientated environment such as the Scottish campaign rather than in day to day life. As for Venus in Sagittarius; there there is an adventurous spirit and a need for a certain amount of freedom, but if an outlet for that could be found in other areas of life, he would be less likely to stray.
Mars isn't just about sex. It determines energy levels and aggressiveness. In Aries, it bestows courage, physical activity and decisive (but often impulsive) decision making. Richard may have had a quick temper, but his chart does not suggest the sadism or malice that he has been accused of. As Karen said, the charge at Bosworth was a very typical Mars in Aries reaction - a mindset that normally made him an excellent military leader, but unfortunately, with all the treachery around him, on that day the result was tragic.
The 9:02 am birth time from Rous does give Scorpio rising, which would have made Mars the ruler of the chart. Generally, I agree with that, but it seems a few degrees out. The rising sign is important because it shows the general outlook on life and how the planets' energy is distributed. 'Loyalty binds me is a very Scorpio motto.'
Nico
Re: Richard astrology
From: "nico11238@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 9:38
Subject: Re: Richard astrology
I take astrology seriously too and have been doing charts for more than 20 years. While astrology doesn't specifically answer the question as to whether someone is faithful or not in their marriage, it does give insights into someone's temperament and inclinations. Karen is right about men with Mars in Aries having a high and rather impulsive sex drive. In Richard's case, this is further emphasized by the position of Mars in the 5th house of pleasure, creativity and recreation, meaning that he would have found sex an extremely enjoyable activity.
Other factors have to be considered though, such as personal beliefs and the quality of the person's relationship with their partner. The main problem for someone with Mars in Aries is that they often get caught up in the moment and think about the consequences later. A chart comparison between Richard and Anne indicates that they were strongly committed to their marriage and that there was genuine affection. Fidelity may not have been easy for him, but he had other aspects in his chart - particularly the Sun/Saturn conjunction that opposed his Mars - which would have given him the discipline to overcome temptation and behave with discretion in the event of the odd lapse. Such a lapse would be most likely to occur in a highly stressful, male orientated environment such as the Scottish campaign rather than in day to day life. As for Venus in Sagittarius; there there is an adventurous spirit and a need for a certain amount of freedom, but if an outlet for that could be found in other areas of life, he would be less likely to stray.
Mars isn't just about sex. It determines energy levels and aggressiveness. In Aries, it bestows courage, physical activity and decisive (but often impulsive) decision making. Richard may have had a quick temper, but his chart does not suggest the sadism or malice that he has been accused of. As Karen said, the charge at Bosworth was a very typical Mars in Aries reaction - a mindset that normally made him an excellent military leader, but unfortunately, with all the treachery around him, on that day the result was tragic.
The 9:02 am birth time from Rous does give Scorpio rising, which would have made Mars the ruler of the chart. Generally, I agree with that, but it seems a few degrees out. The rising sign is important because it shows the general outlook on life and how the planets' energy is distributed. 'Loyalty binds me is a very Scorpio motto.'
Nico
Re: Richard astrology
Hear hear Eva!
PaulRichard Liveth Yet On 17 Apr 2017, at 23:13, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:
Karen,I think it is the other way round, without the birth hour you can only say in which sign the planets are and what the aspects between them are, but not fix the ascendant and consequently not the houses.As we have no birth hour of Richard, we don't know his ascendant. Only Rous' assumption that it is Scorpio. May be it is. I personnally don't believe in it. I think he just chose Scorpio so he could compare Richard's character with the scorpio with its poisonous sting.
There is no birth hour recorded in Richard's book of hours.
Eva
Re: Richard astrology
Re: Richard astrology
On Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 11:57, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I'm sorry to sound harsh but I think all this talk about astrology is going to feed fodder to the Ricardian bashers. I think it's irrelevant anyway..how does it prove anything. Let's stick to the facts...
Re: Richard astrology
Gilda
On Apr 18, 2017, at 6:02 AM, PAUL BALE bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Have to agree Eileen.Paul
On Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 11:57, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
I'm sorry to sound harsh but I think all this talk about astrology is going to feed fodder to the Ricardian bashers. I think it's irrelevant anyway..how does it prove anything. Let's stick to the facts...
Re: Richard astrology
On Apr 18, 2017 4:38 AM, "nico11238@... []" <> wrote:
I
take astrology seriously too and have been doing charts for more than
20 years. While astrology doesn't specifically answer the question as
to whether someone is faithful or not in their marriage, it does give
insights into someone's temperament and inclinations. Karen is right
about men with Mars in Aries having a high and rather impulsive sex
drive. In Richard's case, this is further emphasized by the position of
Mars in the 5th house of pleasure, creativity and recreation, meaning
that he would have found sex an extremely enjoyable activity.
Other
factors have to be considered though, such as personal beliefs and the
quality of the person's relationship with their partner. The main
problem for someone with Mars in Aries is that they often get caught up
in the moment and think about the consequences later. A chart
comparison between Richard and Anne indicates that they were strongly
committed to their marriage and that there was genuine affection.
Fidelity may not have been easy for him, but he had other aspects in his
chart - particularly the Sun/Saturn conjunction that opposed his Mars -
which would have given him the discipline to overcome temptation and
behave with discretion in the event of the odd lapse. Such a lapse
would be most likely to occur in a highly stressful, male orientated
environment such as the Scottish campaign rather than in day to day
life. As for Venus in Sagittarius; there there is an adventurous spirit
and a need for a certain amount of freedom, but if an outlet for that
could be found in other areas of life, he would be less likely to stray.
Mars
isn't just about sex. It determines energy levels and aggressiveness.
In Aries, it bestows courage, physical activity and decisive (but
often impulsive) decision making. Richard may have had a quick temper,
but his chart does not suggest the sadism or malice that he has been
accused of. As Karen said, the charge at Bosworth was a very typical
Mars in Aries reaction - a mindset that normally made him an excellent
military leader, but unfortunately, with all the treachery around him,
on that day the result was tragic.
The
9:02 am birth time from Rous does give Scorpio rising, which would have
made Mars the ruler of the chart. Generally, I agree with that, but it
seems a few degrees out. The rising sign is important because it shows
the general outlook on life and how the planets' energy is
distributed. 'Loyalty binds me is a very Scorpio motto.'
Nico
Re: Richard astrology
As for accounts of Richard being 'feminine' ..this is the first I have heard about this and I think you are getting confused with Jo Buckley on the Leicester Uni team who described his bones as being slight and feminine in build. She did not mean feminine in nature. So I think you are barking up the wrong tree there.
Re: Richard astrology
On Apr 18, 2017 9:34 AM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
Karen I do not know where you are coming from with all this birth chart stuff. You wrote you want to 'destroy the assumption that Ricard was shy, in awe of brother, the ugly duckling of the family'. No such assumptions have been made here on this forum in regard to that. This is not Mills and Boone.
As for accounts of Richard being 'feminine' ..this is the first I have heard about this and I think you are getting confused with Jo Buckley on the Leicester Uni team who described his bones as being slight and feminine in build. She did not mean feminine in nature. So I think you are barking up the wrong tree there.
Re: Richard astrology
Re: Richard astrology
OK. Thank you. I didn't say he was necessarily promiscuous, but I want to kind of destroy the assumption that Richard was shy, in awe of his brother, the ugly duckling of the family, The shortest (John Ashdown Hill tells us George was three inches shorter. Now, being an amateur I take this from a search of Richard III birth chart. 1 He hated being alone. He was a talker and not shy at all. He loved the limelight. It says he had a great love of music (( we know this) 2.https://toniallenauthor.com/category/astrology-2/richard-iii-astrology/This site puts his Venus in Scorpio. I would suggest that novelists look at charts of historical people when creating their characters. 3. He was a student of occult mysteries and channeled his emotions into religion. 4. Back to that Mars. Mars is how we act. It isn't the totality of what we are. Accounts of his being 'feminine' do not gibe with this placement.
Re: Richard astrology
Re: Richard astrology
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 15:35
Subject: Re: Re: Richard astrology
It should be remembered that the Society are looking for excuses to cut ties with this forum. If members of this forum are getting their sources from websites such as sexualastrology.com its playing right into their hands and we are very shortly going to get the order of the boot. So carry on...
Re: Richard astrology
Remarks like "This guy would have a hard time with fidelity",,"very strong sex drive, wants what he wants, needs his freedom in love' and from a website called sexualastrology.com..give-me-strength!
Re: Richard astrology
Re: Richard astrology
On Apr 18, 2017 10:03 AM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
Can you name your source for that please?
Re: Richard astrology
A J
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:
http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_ 0_riii_appearance.phpNicholas described him as gracile.
On Apr 18, 2017 10:03 AM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Can you name your source for that please?
Re: Richard astrology
'King Richard is & a high-born prince, three fingers taller than I, but a bit slimmer and not as thickset as I am, and much more lightly built; he has quite slender arms and thighs, and also a great heart'
From http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php
He uses the words "slimmer", "slender", and "lightly built", not "gracile".
Webster (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gracile) has this definition of "gracile": "(of a hominid species) of slender build." "(of a person) attractively slender or thin."
This is a very gender-neutral definition.
Mariaejbronte@...
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:33 AM, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:
Going to your link I find neither the word Nicholas nor gracile. I have a pretty good acquaintance by now with what was written in Richard's time, and do not recall ever encountering the word gracile. I *do* recall seeing it used by academics at University of Leicester.
A J
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_ 0_riii_appearance.phpNicholas described him as gracile.
On Apr 18, 2017 10:03 AM, "cherryripe.eileenb@googlemail .com []" <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
Can you name your source for that please?
Re: Richard astrology
From: "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 16:33
Subject: Re: Re: Richard astrology
Going to your link I find neither the word Nicholas nor gracile. I have a pretty good acquaintance by now with what was written in Richard's time, and do not recall ever encountering the word gracile. I *do* recall seeing it used by academics at University of Leicester.
A J
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:
http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_ 0_riii_appearance.phpNicholas described him as gracile.
On Apr 18, 2017 10:03 AM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Can you name your source for that please?
Re: Richard astrology
Even Rous, who did not like Richard, did not describe him as 'feminine' nor did Sir Thomas More, or Croyland...or Shakespeare who would have jumped on the chance.
Re: Richard astrology
Re: Richard astrology
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 18 avr. 2017 à 18:32, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> a écrit :
It was Jo Appleby from the Team Leicester that described Richard's remains as those of a hunchback..on camera..such is the way legends are made.
Re: Richard astrology
Is astrology too trivial a topic for the forum? I would like to think not, as long as it is in moderation and relevant to the topic. Obviously, we should focus on the historical facts, but it can be interesting as an adjunct to what we do know. Also, astrology was a big part of peoples' lives in the 15th century. High status people consulted astrologers all the time. Henry VII couldn't keep away from them. The reason given for the Richard III Society dissociating from the forum was lack of interest, so I think the fastest way for that to happen would be if we aren't discussing anything, so it is probably best if we keep an open mind about what we can discuss.
It does seem that there is some question about Richard's birth time. You can cast a chart without a exact time and get a lot of useful information using a sunrise or noonday chart, but the picture is more complete if you do know the ascendant, which can often be calculated by examining events in the subject's life. Personally, I think Scorpio rising does suit him, but Rous timing is slightly out.
Some astrology books and websites are better than others. Karen, if you are learning astrology, I would recommend Parker's Astrology as a good start.
Nico
Re: Richard astrology
On Apr 18, 2017 1:47 PM, "nico11238@... []" <> wrote:
I hope my post on Mars in Aries didn't offend anyone. I normally prefer to keep astrology out of my posts, but I did want to say that while some of the rather general things you find on some books and websites have an element of truth, you have to consider the overall picture and how the various aspects synchronize with each other. I haven't seen anything in Richard's chart that makes me think less of him; in fact a chart analysis shows many positive things about him. (Although I have seen interpretations where the astrologer just thinks of the Princes in the Tower and interprets the chart negatively because of that association.)
Is astrology too trivial a topic for the forum? I would like to think not, as long as it is in moderation and relevant to the topic. Obviously, we should focus on the historical facts, but it can be interesting as an adjunct to what we do know. Also, astrology was a big part of peoples' lives in the 15th century. High status people consulted astrologers all the time. Henry VII couldn't keep away from them. The reason given for the Richard III Society dissociating from the forum was lack of interest, so I think the fastest way for that to happen would be if we aren't discussing anything, so it is probably best if we keep an open mind about what we can discuss.
It does seem that there is some question about Richard's birth time. You can cast a chart without a exact time and get a lot of useful information using a sunrise or noonday chart, but the picture is more complete if you do know the ascendant, which can often be calculated by examining events in the subject's life. Personally, I think Scorpio rising does suit him, but Rous timing is slightly out.
Some astrology books and websites are better than others. Karen, if you are learning astrology, I would recommend Parker's Astrology as a good start.
Nico
Re: Richard astrology
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Tuesday, April 18, 2017, 6:47 pm, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
I hope my post on Mars in Aries didn't offend anyone. I normally prefer to keep astrology out of my posts, but I did want to say that while some of the rather general things you find on some books and websites have an element of truth, you have to consider the overall picture and how the various aspects synchronize with each other. I haven't seen anything in Richard's chart that makes me think less of him; in fact a chart analysis shows many positive things about him. (Although I have seen interpretations where the astrologer just thinks of the Princes in the Tower and interprets the chart negatively because of that association.)
Is astrology too trivial a topic for the forum? I would like to think not, as long as it is in moderation and relevant to the topic. Obviously, we should focus on the historical facts, but it can be interesting as an adjunct to what we do know. Also, astrology was a big part of peoples' lives in the 15th century. High status people consulted astrologers all the time. Henry VII couldn't keep away from them. The reason given for the Richard III Society dissociating from the forum was lack of interest, so I think the fastest way for that to happen would be if we aren't discussing anything, so it is probably best if we keep an open mind about what we can discuss.
It does seem that there is some question about Richard's birth time. You can cast a chart without a exact time and get a lot of useful information using a sunrise or noonday chart, but the picture is more complete if you do know the ascendant, which can often be calculated by examining events in the subject's life. Personally, I think Scorpio rising does suit him, but Rous timing is slightly out.
Some astrology books and websites are better than others. Karen, if you are learning astrology, I would recommend Parker's Astrology as a good start.
Nico
Re: Richard astrology
Sent from my iPad
On 18 Apr 2017, at 18:55, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:
Thank you. I have analyzed my own chart in detail. I do know Parker's. I have astrolog on my computer. I did redo the birthdate to Oct 2 And that gives him Venus in Scorpio. A bit jealous.
On Apr 18, 2017 1:47 PM, "nico11238@... []" <> wrote:
I hope my post on Mars in Aries didn't offend anyone. I normally prefer to keep astrology out of my posts, but I did want to say that while some of the rather general things you find on some books and websites have an element of truth, you have to consider the overall picture and how the various aspects synchronize with each other. I haven't seen anything in Richard's chart that makes me think less of him; in fact a chart analysis shows many positive things about him. (Although I have seen interpretations where the astrologer just thinks of the Princes in the Tower and interprets the chart negatively because of that association.)
Is astrology too trivial a topic for the forum? I would like to think not, as long as it is in moderation and relevant to the topic. Obviously, we should focus on the historical facts, but it can be interesting as an adjunct to what we do know. Also, astrology was a big part of peoples' lives in the 15th century. High status people consulted astrologers all the time. Henry VII couldn't keep away from them. The reason given for the Richard III Society dissociating from the forum was lack of interest, so I think the fastest way for that to happen would be if we aren't discussing anything, so it is probably best if we keep an open mind about what we can discuss.
It does seem that there is some question about Richard's birth time. You can cast a chart without a exact time and get a lot of useful information using a sunrise or noonday chart, but the picture is more complete if you do know the ascendant, which can often be calculated by examining events in the subject's life. Personally, I think Scorpio rising does suit him, but Rous timing is slightly out.
Some astrology books and websites are better than others. Karen, if you are learning astrology, I would recommend Parker's Astrology as a good start.
Nico
Re: Richard astrology
On Apr 18, 2017 3:13 PM, "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []" <> wrote:
Jan here.I haven't posted for ages so I hope this works. Keith Thomas's book "Religion & The Decline of Magic" has an excellent chapter on astrology. He deals with c16 & c17 material but the origins of many beliefs at that time went back much earlier. It's not an easy read but I find it absorbing. You can get it on Kindle.
Sent from my iPad
On 18 Apr 2017, at 18:55, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Thank you. I have analyzed my own chart in detail. I do know Parker's. I have astrolog on my computer. I did redo the birthdate to Oct 2 And that gives him Venus in Scorpio. A bit jealous.
On Apr 18, 2017 1:47 PM, "nico11238@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I hope my post on Mars in Aries didn't offend anyone. I normally prefer to keep astrology out of my posts, but I did want to say that while some of the rather general things you find on some books and websites have an element of truth, you have to consider the overall picture and how the various aspects synchronize with each other. I haven't seen anything in Richard's chart that makes me think less of him; in fact a chart analysis shows many positive things about him. (Although I have seen interpretations where the astrologer just thinks of the Princes in the Tower and interprets the chart negatively because of that association.)
Is astrology too trivial a topic for the forum? I would like to think not, as long as it is in moderation and relevant to the topic. Obviously, we should focus on the historical facts, but it can be interesting as an adjunct to what we do know. Also, astrology was a big part of peoples' lives in the 15th century. High status people consulted astrologers all the time. Henry VII couldn't keep away from them. The reason given for the Richard III Society dissociating from the forum was lack of interest, so I think the fastest way for that to happen would be if we aren't discussing anything, so it is probably best if we keep an open mind about what we can discuss.
It does seem that there is some question about Richard's birth time. You can cast a chart without a exact time and get a lot of useful information using a sunrise or noonday chart, but the picture is more complete if you do know the ascendant, which can often be calculated by examining events in the subject's life. Personally, I think Scorpio rising does suit him, but Rous timing is slightly out.
Some astrology books and websites are better than others. Karen, if you are learning astrology, I would recommend Parker's Astrology as a good start.
Nico
Re: Richard astrology
After commenting, I checked Richard's chart again, and Venus is at 27 Scorpio not Sagittarius. I don't know how I forgot that. It is actually a factor that would increase the likelihood of him being faithful to Anne. As for Edward he was born in Rouen on April 28 1442 at 2.44 am (Pisces Rising). This birth time was given to me by Marie and I think it was from a contemporary source. AstroDataBank gives 1:56 am (Aquarius Rising), but I preferred the Pisces Rising chart and that is one that used for the astrological analysis that I have posted in this Forum's Files. It is in 3 parts - character, major events and relationships with other people based on chart comparisons. It is rather long, but I had to go into some detail to back up what I was saying especially when examining events such as the precontract and what he might have died of. I plan to post Richard and Henry's charts, but I am still deciding how to organize my notes to be as user friendly as possible, as I wasn't 100% happy with the format I used for Edward. Henry is being a bit of a challenge as I'm undecided about his ascendant. Elizabeth of York's is accurate though. Those two were a real surprise. He was a mummy's boy with an unexpected soft, emotional side, whereas her chart shows an extremely ambitious, charismatic risk taker who was possibly could be a bit ruthless if necessary.
Nico
On Wednesday, 19 April 2017, 0:00, "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <> wrote:
Thank you. HT is a cool Aquarius I think. I don't think we have an accurate birthdate for Edward IV. I wonder sometimes whether some people have past lives with him and that explains some of the devotion. You didn't offend me either.Interestingly I remember reading in a biography of Henry VIII how he had to answer very intimate questions to his doctors about his sex life. They took it very matter of factly. If the King was not paying enough nightly visits to his wife the privy council wanted to.know why.
On Apr 18, 2017 3:13 PM, "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []" <> wrote:
Jan here.I haven't posted for ages so I hope this works. Keith Thomas's book "Religion & The Decline of Magic" has an excellent chapter on astrology. He deals with c16 & c17 material but the origins of many beliefs at that time went back much earlier. It's not an easy read but I find it absorbing. You can get it on Kindle.
Sent from my iPad
On 18 Apr 2017, at 18:55, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Thank you. I have analyzed my own chart in detail. I do know Parker's. I have astrolog on my computer. I did redo the birthdate to Oct 2 And that gives him Venus in Scorpio. A bit jealous.
On Apr 18, 2017 1:47 PM, "nico11238@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I hope my post on Mars in Aries didn't offend anyone. I normally prefer to keep astrology out of my posts, but I did want to say that while some of the rather general things you find on some books and websites have an element of truth, you have to consider the overall picture and how the various aspects synchronize with each other. I haven't seen anything in Richard's chart that makes me think less of him; in fact a chart analysis shows many positive things about him. (Although I have seen interpretations where the astrologer just thinks of the Princes in the Tower and interprets the chart negatively because of that association.)
Is astrology too trivial a topic for the forum? I would like to think not, as long as it is in moderation and relevant to the topic. Obviously, we should focus on the historical facts, but it can be interesting as an adjunct to what we do know. Also, astrology was a big part of peoples' lives in the 15th century. High status people consulted astrologers all the time. Henry VII couldn't keep away from them. The reason given for the Richard III Society dissociating from the forum was lack of interest, so I think the fastest way for that to happen would be if we aren't discussing anything, so it is probably best if we keep an open mind about what we can discuss.
It does seem that there is some question about Richard's birth time. You can cast a chart without a exact time and get a lot of useful information using a sunrise or noonday chart, but the picture is more complete if you do know the ascendant, which can often be calculated by examining events in the subject's life. Personally, I think Scorpio rising does suit him, but Rous timing is slightly out.
Some astrology books and websites are better than others. Karen, if you are learning astrology, I would recommend Parker's Astrology as a good start.
Nico
Re: Richard astrology
Oh yes, Monday (“dies lunes”) 28 April 1442 according to William of Worcester – except that that date was a Saturday. Did he mean Saturday or 28 May, which was a Monday or even a different year? A different chart in any case
Some people do act according to astrological predictions, of course, regardless of the validity of the subject matter.
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: 19 April 2017 10:40
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Richard astrology
After
commenting, I checked Richard's chart again, and Venus is at 27 Scorpio not
Sagittarius. I don't know how I forgot that. It is actually a
factor that would increase the likelihood of him being faithful to Anne. As
for Edward he was born in Rouen
on April 28 1442 at 2.44 am (Pisces Rising). This birth time was given to
me by Marie and I think it was from a contemporary source. AstroDataBank
gives 1:56 am (Aquarius Rising), but I preferred the Pisces Rising chart and
that is one that used for the astrological analysis that I have posted in this
Forum's Files. It is in 3 parts - character, major events and
relationships with other people based on chart comparisons. It is rather
long, but I had to go into some detail to back up what I was saying especially
when examining events such as the precontract and what he might have died
of. I plan to post Richard and Henry's charts, but I am still deciding
how to organize my notes to be as user friendly as possible, as I wasn't 100%
happy with the format I used for Edward. Henry is being a bit of a
challenge as I'm undecided about his ascendant. Elizabeth of York's is
accurate though. Those two were a real surprise. He was a mummy's
boy with an unexpected soft, emotional side, whereas her chart shows an
extremely ambitious, charismatic risk taker who was possibly could be a bit
ruthless if necessary.
Nico
On Wednesday, 19 April 2017, 0:00, "Karen O karenoder4@... []" < > wrote:
Thank you. HT is a cool Aquarius I think. I don't think we have an accurate birthdate for Edward IV. I wonder sometimes whether some people have past lives with him and that explains some of the devotion. You didn't offend me either.
Interestingly I remember reading in a biography of Henry VIII how he had to answer very intimate questions to his doctors about his sex life. They took it very matter of factly. If the King was not paying enough nightly visits to his wife the privy council wanted to.know why.
On Apr 18, 2017 3:13 PM, "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []" <> wrote:
Jan here.
I haven't posted for ages so I hope this works.
Keith
Thomas's book "Religion & The Decline of Magic" has an excellent
chapter on astrology. He deals with c16 & c17 material but the origins of
many beliefs at that time went back much earlier. It's not an easy read but I
find it absorbing. You can get it on Kindle.
Sent from my iPad
On 18 Apr 2017, at 18:55, Karen O karenoder4@...
[] <@
yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Thank you. I have analyzed my own chart in detail. I do know Parker's. I have astrolog on my computer. I did redo the birthdate to Oct 2
And that gives him Venus in Scorpio. A bit jealous.
On Apr 18, 2017 1:47 PM, "nico11238@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I
hope my post on Mars in Aries didn't offend anyone. I normally prefer to
keep astrology out of my posts, but I did want to say that while some of the rather
general things you find on some books and websites have an element of truth,
you have to consider the overall picture and how the various aspects
synchronize with each other. I haven't seen anything in Richard's chart
that makes me think less of him; in fact a chart analysis shows many positive
things about him. (Although I have seen interpretations where the
astrologer just thinks of the Princes in the Tower and interprets the chart
negatively because of that association.)
Is astrology too trivial a topic for the forum? I would like to think
not, as long as it is in moderation and relevant to the topic. Obviously,
we should focus on the historical facts, but it can be interesting as an
adjunct to what we do know. Also, astrology was a big part of p eoples'
lives in the 15th century. High status people consulted astrologers all
the time. Henry VII couldn't keep away from them. The reason given for
the Richard III Society dissociating from the forum was lack of interest, so I
think the fastest way for that to happen would be if we aren't discussing
anything, so it is probably best if we keep an open mind about what we can
discuss.
It does seem that there is some question about Richard's birth time. You
can cast a chart without a exact time and get a lot of useful information using
a sunrise or noonday chart, but the picture is more complete if you do
know the ascendant, which can often be calculated by examining events in the
subject's life. Personally, I think Scorpio rising does suit him, but
Rous timing is slightly out.
Some astrology books and websites are better than others. Karen, if you
are learning astrology, I wo uld recommend Parker's Astrology as a good start.
Nico
Re: Richard astrology
On Apr 19, 2017 5:40 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:
After commenting, I checked Richard's chart again, and Venus is at 27 Scorpio not Sagittarius. I don't know how I forgot that. It is actually a factor that would increase the likelihood of him being faithful to Anne. As for Edward he was born in Rouen on April 28 1442 at 2.44 am (Pisces Rising). This birth time was given to me by Marie and I think it was from a contemporary source. AstroDataBank gives 1:56 am (Aquarius Rising), but I preferred the Pisces Rising chart and that is one that used for the astrological analysis that I have posted in this Forum's Files. It is in 3 parts - character, major events and relationships with other people based on chart comparisons. It is rather long, but I had to go into some detail to back up what I was saying especially when examining events such as the precontract and what he might have died of. I plan to post Richard and Henry's charts, but I am still deciding how to organize my notes to be as user friendly as possible, as I wasn't 100% happy with the format I used for Edward. Henry is being a bit of a challenge as I'm undecided about his ascendant. Elizabeth of York's is accurate though. Those two were a real surprise. He was a mummy's boy with an unexpected soft, emotional side, whereas her chart shows an extremely ambitious, charismatic risk taker who was possibly could be a bit ruthless if necessary.
Nico
On Wednesday, 19 April 2017, 0:00, "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Thank you. HT is a cool Aquarius I think. I don't think we have an accurate birthdate for Edward IV. I wonder sometimes whether some people have past lives with him and that explains some of the devotion. You didn't offend me either.Interestingly I remember reading in a biography of Henry VIII how he had to answer very intimate questions to his doctors about his sex life. They took it very matter of factly. If the King was not paying enough nightly visits to his wife the privy council wanted to.know why.
On Apr 18, 2017 3:13 PM, "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Jan here.I haven't posted for ages so I hope this works. Keith Thomas's book "Religion & The Decline of Magic" has an excellent chapter on astrology. He deals with c16 & c17 material but the origins of many beliefs at that time went back much earlier. It's not an easy read but I find it absorbing. You can get it on Kindle.
Sent from my iPad
On 18 Apr 2017, at 18:55, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Thank you. I have analyzed my own chart in detail. I do know Parker's. I have astrolog on my computer. I did redo the birthdate to Oct 2 And that gives him Venus in Scorpio. A bit jealous.
On Apr 18, 2017 1:47 PM, "nico11238@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I hope my post on Mars in Aries didn't offend anyone. I normally prefer to keep astrology out of my posts, but I did want to say that while some of the rather general things you find on some books and websites have an element of truth, you have to consider the overall picture and how the various aspects synchronize with each other. I haven't seen anything in Richard's chart that makes me think less of him; in fact a chart analysis shows many positive things about him. (Although I have seen interpretations where the astrologer just thinks of the Princes in the Tower and interprets the chart negatively because of that association.)
Is astrology too trivial a topic for the forum? I would like to think not, as long as it is in moderation and relevant to the topic. Obviously, we should focus on the historical facts, but it can be interesting as an adjunct to what we do know. Also, astrology was a big part of peoples' lives in the 15th century. High status people consulted astrologers all the time. Henry VII couldn't keep away from them. The reason given for the Richard III Society dissociating from the forum was lack of interest, so I think the fastest way for that to happen would be if we aren't discussing anything, so it is probably best if we keep an open mind about what we can discuss.
It does seem that there is some question about Richard's birth time. You can cast a chart without a exact time and get a lot of useful information using a sunrise or noonday chart, but the picture is more complete if you do know the ascendant, which can often be calculated by examining events in the subject's life. Personally, I think Scorpio rising does suit him, but Rous timing is slightly out.
Some astrology books and websites are better than others. Karen, if you are learning astrology, I would recommend Parker's Astrology as a good start.
Nico
Re: Richard astrology
On Apr 19, 2017 5:40 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <> wrote:
After commenting, I checked Richard's chart again, and Venus is at 27 Scorpio not Sagittarius. I don't know how I forgot that. It is actually a factor that would increase the likelihood of him being faithful to Anne. As for Edward he was born in Rouen on April 28 1442 at 2.44 am (Pisces Rising). This birth time was given to me by Marie and I think it was from a contemporary source. AstroDataBank gives 1:56 am (Aquarius Rising), but I preferred the Pisces Rising chart and that is one that used for the astrological analysis that I have posted in this Forum's Files. It is in 3 parts - character, major events and relationships with other people based on chart comparisons. It is rather long, but I had to go into some detail to back up what I was saying especially when examining events such as the precontract and what he might have died of. I plan to post Richard and Henry's charts, but I am still deciding how to organize my notes to be as user friendly as possible, as I wasn't 100% happy with the format I used for Edward. Henry is being a bit of a challenge as I'm undecided about his ascendant. Elizabeth of York's is accurate though. Those two were a real surprise. He was a mummy's boy with an unexpected soft, emotional side, whereas her chart shows an extremely ambitious, charismatic risk taker who was possibly could be a bit ruthless if necessary.
Nico
On Wednesday, 19 April 2017, 0:00, "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Thank you. HT is a cool Aquarius I think. I don't think we have an accurate birthdate for Edward IV. I wonder sometimes whether some people have past lives with him and that explains some of the devotion. You didn't offend me either.Interestingly I remember reading in a biography of Henry VIII how he had to answer very intimate questions to his doctors about his sex life. They took it very matter of factly. If the King was not paying enough nightly visits to his wife the privy council wanted to.know why.
On Apr 18, 2017 3:13 PM, "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Jan here.I haven't posted for ages so I hope this works. Keith Thomas's book "Religion & The Decline of Magic" has an excellent chapter on astrology. He deals with c16 & c17 material but the origins of many beliefs at that time went back much earlier. It's not an easy read but I find it absorbing. You can get it on Kindle.
Sent from my iPad
On 18 Apr 2017, at 18:55, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Thank you. I have analyzed my own chart in detail. I do know Parker's. I have astrolog on my computer. I did redo the birthdate to Oct 2 And that gives him Venus in Scorpio. A bit jealous.
On Apr 18, 2017 1:47 PM, "nico11238@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I hope my post on Mars in Aries didn't offend anyone. I normally prefer to keep astrology out of my posts, but I did want to say that while some of the rather general things you find on some books and websites have an element of truth, you have to consider the overall picture and how the various aspects synchronize with each other. I haven't seen anything in Richard's chart that makes me think less of him; in fact a chart analysis shows many positive things about him. (Although I have seen interpretations where the astrologer just thinks of the Princes in the Tower and interprets the chart negatively because of that association.)
Is astrology too trivial a topic for the forum? I would like to think not, as long as it is in moderation and relevant to the topic. Obviously, we should focus on the historical facts, but it can be interesting as an adjunct to what we do know. Also, astrology was a big part of peoples' lives in the 15th century. High status people consulted astrologers all the time. Henry VII couldn't keep away from them. The reason given for the Richard III Society dissociating from the forum was lack of interest, so I think the fastest way for that to happen would be if we aren't discussing anything, so it is probably best if we keep an open mind about what we can discuss.
It does seem that there is some question about Richard's birth time. You can cast a chart without a exact time and get a lot of useful information using a sunrise or noonday chart, but the picture is more complete if you do know the ascendant, which can often be calculated by examining events in the subject's life. Personally, I think Scorpio rising does suit him, but Rous timing is slightly out.
Some astrology books and websites are better than others. Karen, if you are learning astrology, I would recommend Parker's Astrology as a good start.
Nico
Re: Richard astrology
Re: Richard astrology
Re: Richard astrology
Re: Richard astrology
Again..i think Neil should take a look at these recent messages..if he hasnt done so already..and say something on this matter because someone isnt taking the hint. Its off putting not to mention sad it come to this.
Re: Richard astrology
Although the 'Astral' topic was interesting at the beginning, I feel it has drifted on to areas that are probably not relevant or the subject matter is best suited to another forum and for this reason I would like to bring it to a close please.
Regards,
Neil
Moderator
On Wednesday, 19 April 2017, 13:50, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
Im sorry...but I really do think Neil should have a word here..
Re: Richard astrology
Re: Richard astrology
Re: Richard astrology
"http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.phpNicholas [von popelau] described him as gracile."
Carol responds:
Or rather, he described Richard as slender (with no implication of feminity--note that he also ascribed to him "a great heart," which in the context of their conversation seems to indicate courage). "Gracile" is a term that anthropologists and paleontologists are fond of (as in "gracile Australopithecine"). Jo Appleby was using it in that sense. *She's* the one who thought he looked feminine. No one made such a remark in his lifetime (though Archibald Whitelaw commented on so much spirit and virtue in such a small body, as you must have seen when you consulted the R III Society page you linked to).
Carol
