Friday, February 21, 2014

A Match Made in Heaven......Givenchy & Hepburn

Hubert de Givenchy, famous French couturier had a birthday yesterday, according to anyway. Wikipedia has his birthday down as today, 21 February. is more reliable, their website has the date and time rated AA (the highest rating for accuracy, birth certification in hand).

I'm not really into haute couture sufficiently to launch into a post on the subject, but who would not be impressed by Givenchy's superb dresses and suits especially designed for Audrey Hepburn in her films, as well as in her private life? She was the ideal "clothes horse" for his restrained, often minimalist styles. She had a simplicity and youthfulness that lifted his designs to a different, more accessible wavelength for all. The two were close friends - soul mates almost, though not in a romantic sense as far as we can tell. He called her his muse. It was a friendship which lasted until Ms Hepburn's untimely death from cancer in 1993.

Audrey Hepburn: His are the only clothes in which I am myself. He is far more than a couturier, he is a creator of personality.

From: HERE
Hubert de Givenchy and Audrey Hepburn - a match made in heaven. Similar ages, the French couturier and Iconic screen star immediately empathized with each other – an intimate relationship that continued into old age.

Givenchy intuitively understood Audrey’s petite frame – the perfect foil it would seem for the sophisticated and ladylike look of the late 1950s and early 1960s – tiny waist, full skirt – often with underlay and a simply cut bodice, often collarless to show Audrey’s swanlike neck.

In turn, Audrey’s iconic movies served as the perfect environment for the ultimate catwalk – raising Givenchy’s profile. And perhaps due to the timeless design of both the couture and the movies both are still much admired decades later.

Hmm. Match made in heaven? There ought to be evidence of that in their natal charts - let's see. Yes! The clearest sign of all of potential for a good relationship is here: his Sun conjunct her Moon. His Sun is at 00 Pisces her Moon at 6 Pisces, additionally his natal Jupiter at 7 Pisces is in even closer conjunction to her Moon. His Mars and her Mercury are conjoined too, though on the cusps of two signs: 29 Taurus and 00 Gemini.

Both Monsieur Givenchy and Ms Hepburn have Air signs ascending, Aquarius for her, Gemini for him, that factor alone makes for easy communication and compatibility. Their natal Suns are quite harmonious too, Givenchy's in Pisces, Audrey's in Taurus, different sensibilities but an easy enough blend of Water and Earth.

The pair both have Sun conjunct Jupiter they share a natural enthusiasm and confidence, possibly even "feeding" those traits to each other. I read somewhere online that Audrey Hepburn had said that in the course of her many wonderful efforts on behalf of UNICEF, when giving speeches, she always felt more confident and able to give of her best when wearing something made by Givenchy.


mike said...

I definitely agree with your explanation of their friendship. I'm struck by Hepburn's chart with lots of trines and sextiles (omitting nodes, asteroids, vertex, and POF). Her Moon in early Pisces 1st house with Neptune (Pisce's ruler and significant for film and photography) right on the cusp of 7th would give her an incredible public allure in the movie industry. "Breakfast at Tiffany's" was a defining film for her, with her signature song, "Moon River".

An interesting aside, I read Nadia Gilchrist's essay, "Out of Sign Aspects: Valid or Not?". You said, "His Mars and her Mercury are conjoined too, though on the cusps of two signs: 29 Taurus and 00 Gemini." Nadia disagrees with that. I'm with you, but I did find her points interesting. I may slightly discount out-of-sign aspects in the future, but only slightly. Always something to ponder with astrology!

Vanilla Rose said...

I doubt that Ms Hepburn needed any personality to be "created" for her. She worked for the Resistance when she was a mere teenager! Source:

mike (again) said...

And I forgot to include Nadia's link:

Twilight said...

mike ~ "B'fast at Tiffany's" was highlight of her career, such a good combination - Audrey and George Peppard! I completely forget many of the films I see, but although it's many years since I last saw "B-fast" I can still recall certain scenes from it very clearly.

Re out of sign aspects - on this I keep in mind a quote of an astrologer (I think), whose name I cannot bring to mind: "There are no walls in space." I've always thought that the signs "bleed" into each other a wee bit, through the cusps - but realise that this is not the accepted theory among "proper" astrologers.

Thanks for the link by the way. :-)

Twilight said...

Vanilla Rose ~ Yes, there was much more to Ms Hepburn than her movie persona.

I guess the remark she made probably related to what she considered Givenchy could do for others rather than just for her. :-)

LB said...

Twilight ~ I always thought Audrey Hepburn was lovely in a very fragile sort of way. Seeing the astrology of the two friends you can see why they were so drawn to one another. I think your explanation makes sense.

About those out of sign aspects - I have them with my husband and sister and feel them very strongly with both. Maybe some people feel them and some don't; I do agree the energy is more subtle (at first) and has less to do with the obvious qualities and characteristics we normally associate with compatible or challenging sign combinations.

BTW, I read Nadia's astrological posts all the time and appreciate her insights.

Twilight said...

LB ~ Yes, I wonder if they were aware of astrology and how it reflected their compatibility. :-)

Re out of sign aspects/conjunctions- we can only judge by our own experiences. I'm a bit naughty when it comes to accepting chapter and verse what text books and trained professional astrologers tell us. I've been known to wax cynical on the topic.

Astrology, as I see it, remains something of a moveable feast, because we don't understand why it works or how. We have many best guesses and instructions based on them, handed down from various sources over the centuries, but that's all they really are - best guesses.
(Better go wash my mouth out now!)

mike (again) said...

The well known astrologers differ quite a bit on their impressions and interpretations, too. Just about everything is up for grabs. Which house system to use has been debatable for centuries. Some astrologers say Pluto shouldn't be interpreted for the individual, only the generational influence, or for those individuals that have great mass influence. Asteroids, which ones, and how many of them?

Along the same lines as out-of-sign aspects, there's the potential to have one, two, or three signs all in one house. With three signs, one sign will be intercepted and the entire 30* is present, with portions of the pre and post signs on the cusps. Each of those signs will lend a different influence, both harmonious and disharmonious. Equal houses takes care of that dilemma to a degree, but it's still likely to yield two partial signs in one house. I've read some astrologers that assign the entire sign to the first house, eg if you have a 12* Aries rising, then the entirety of Aries is the first house...entirety of Taurus is the second house, etc.

It's all open to interpretation (based on experience), but it's surprising the amount of variation that I've encountered. I wouldn't say that there is a "text book" template, except for the rudiments.

mike (again) said...

Twilight, I could have sworn you had a search-this-site function on your home page, but I can't find it.

I know that you did a post on The War of the Roses.

"The War of the Roses was a civil war in England that lasted from 1455-1487. The First Battle of St. Albans opens the War of the Roses on May 22, 1455. The First Uranus-Pluto geocentric conjunction occurred in September 1455. On May 22, Uranus was 2° to its heliocentric synod and Uranus and Pluto were at a 3° orb to their geocentirc conjunction, with Mars about to conjoin the two. This was just into a Jupiter-New Moon lunar cycle conjoined Aldebaran opposite Antares."

Twilight said...

mike (again)~ "Text book" wasn't a good term to describe what I meant, hmmm.....I suppose what I really wanted to say, should have said, was that it irks me when pro-astrologers write books it's as though it's their way or no way, as if they KNOW what it's all about - and they don't.

Or if they do, they should share the knowledge. ;-)

What you describe is why I have some doubts about exactly how much of astrological lore is worthwhile. Sometimes it seems like a way to make anything mean anything - or some kind of complex board game.

Twilight said...

mike (again) ~ War of the Roses?
I do remember mentioning it in a post and you remarking that you weren't aware that the Roses were references to the white rose of the House of York and red rose of House of Lancaster....I'll see if I can find that post.

Mentioned here:

Not in much detail though.

I thought there was a search button on Blogger too - maybe it disappeared when they changed interface some time ago. Hadn't noticed until now.

Twilight said...

mike (again) ~ That's a good website by the way - I shall study it now - thanks for the link.