Jeffrey Epstein & Others, and Asteroids

If any stray passing reader, with an interest in astrology, can recall a post from January 2015 about what was then a current scandal:
Jeffrey Epstein - Le Scandale du Jour

they might be interested to read some recently received comments on the topic of that post, from "Vivi Vox". The commenter has been studying asteroids in relation to astrological interpretation, and has come up with some interesting findings in relation to the topic of that post. You can read Vivi Vox's comments at the link above.

Asteroids are not my "thang" - I have reservations about some ingredients used in astrology - other than the basic basics. I have a feeling that when, eventually, some scientist or researcher has a "eureka" moment about the ancient art, astrology will turn out to be either far less than we think - though still with validity - or far more than we think, with complexity beyond the grasp our feeble human minds. However, I do respect anyone with enough interest and enthusiasm to go on research expeditions in whatever far corner of astrology they feel drawn to. So congratulations to Vivi Vox on that score. I also believe that our personal astrological blueprint, our natal chart, directs us towards, or away from, astrology itself, and when it happens to be towards astrology, then it leads in specific directions.

Arms, Meghan Markle's Coat of

Royal weddings are not on my A-list of topics to follow, though Prince Harry's recent marriage to an American made it even harder to avoid the massive information on the internet, here in the USA.
One article, appearing some time after the wedding did interest me though.

Royal Wedding 2018: Meghan Markle coat of arms revealed

A coat of arms created for the Duchess of Sussex that reflects her Californian background has been unveiled.

It includes a shield containing the colour blue, representing the Pacific Ocean, and rays, symbolising sunshine.

The duchess worked closely with the College of Arms in London to create the design, Kensington Palace said.

The lion supporting the shield relates to her husband, the Duke of Sussex, and dates back to the House of Stuart's ascent to the throne in 1603.

The songbird supporting the shield on the right relates to the Duchess of Sussex.

Traditionally wives of members of the Royal Family have two - one of their husband's supporters on the shield and one relating to themselves.

Beneath the shield is California's state flower - the golden poppy - and Wintersweet, a flower that grows at Kensington Palace and was also depicted on the duchess' wedding veil.

As I wrote in a post in 2009, headed "Astrology & Heraldry", "I've had a passing interest in heraldry since my very early working life, as an archivist's assistant back in England. My boss had studied the subject in depth as part of his training, and would often pass on tid-bits of information to his interested young helper. Heraldry is a more complex and strictly disciplined subject than it might at first appear. It hadn't struck me until the other day that astrology could have had a part to play in the way heraldry developed, back in the Middle Ages, 12th century onwards." Much more at the link.

To clarify how the word 'heraldry' connects to coats of arms, and College of Arms:

Heraldry is the system by which coats of arms and other armorial bearings are devised, described, and regulated.
A herald, in this context is an official employed to oversee state ceremonial, precedence, and the use of armorial bearings, and (historically) to make proclamations, carry official messages, and oversee tournaments.

In connection with Prince Harry's side of this coat of arms, the Lion of England, my 2016 post on The Queen's Beasts has more information on this.

UK EVENTS

Cute as wee Princess Charlotte is, I can't work up any enthusiasm for the Royals of Britain (or anywhere else). For any passing reader who can raise enthusiasm there's a post by British astrologer Barry Goddard at Astrotabletalk, and a piece by my favourite astrologer, Jonathan Cainer.
Links:

The Royal Family and State of the Nation by Barry Goddard

The New Royal Baby by Jonathan Cainer

My non-enthusiasm spills over into today's General Election in Britain. Should I care who "gets in"? It could affect my two pensions from there a little bit, one way or the other, via ups and downs of currency exchange (GBP/USD).

I guess if I were still living in England I'd be voting Labour - or whatever it's called nowadays, but definitely not UKIP. As for the astrology, Barry Goddard has a post on that also, at Astrotabletalk:

Why David Cameron will be the Next Prime Minister.

Jeffrey Epstein ~ Le Scandale du Jour

I'd never heard of Jeffrey Epstein until reading about the "scandale du jour" at the weekend.
Epstein's Wiki page.

See also:
Salacious new chapter in Florida billionaire’s sex scandal.

And, regarding Prince Andrew's alleged involvement: Prince Andrew to 'move on' after US underage sex claims

It seems the scandal is not exactly new news, but rather re-conditioned news involving some of the not-so-great and not-so-good regularly indulging their lusts with the help of "sex slaves", some of whom are/were under-age. Britain's Prince Andrew's alleged involvement excites the British press, while a few political commentators in the USA are more interested in Bill Clinton's long association/friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton's own reputation, already besmirched enough from past dalliances could, if he's found to be personally involved in any of the reported orgies etc, affect his wife's possible run for the US presidency next year.

I was interested to see Jeffrey Epstein's natal chart...disappointed to discover what a let-down he is to the Sun in Aquarius brigade - as bad a let down as is Dick Cheney. Dang!

Born 20 January 1953 in Brooklyn, New York. Time of birth not known, so chart set for 12 noon.

Sun just 22 minutes into Aquarius - he must certainly have inherited the mental acuity for which Aquarius is known - and has used it to help in amassing his fortune. Is it going to be possible to identify his other "talent" in his chart though - a talent for sleazy trouble? It's interesting that his natal Mars and Venus (symbolically male and female) are closely conjoined - they are in Pisces, ruled by potentially addictive Neptune. Neptune itself is conjunct Saturn in Libra - I wonder if that might indicate Saturn's limitation on Neptune's addictive tendencies (Epstein has spent time in prison in the past and is a registered sex offender).


Other than that, how about these two Yods? One links the Venus/Mars conjunction to Mercury by sextile then all to Pluto (sex, darkness) by quincunx (150 degree aspects). The other Yod links Pluto to Neptune/Saturn by sextile, then all to the Mars/Venus conjunction. Hmm. All the relevant planets are involved, and tell an accurate story. Another good example of Yods "working"!




UPDATE: See also Jeffrey Epstein - Again

Royal Beloveds in the Times of Scorpio

Shaking out and re-airing an archived post which still continues to attract a hit or two.

Sun in Scorpio days of mid-November have often had significance for Britain's royals - not always positive significance. The outcome of a fairly recent mid-November date of royal significance seems to have been a happy one: the announcement of the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton in 2010. They have since married and produced one son with another child on the way.

On 20 November, in 1947 the then Princess Elizabeth married Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten in Westminster Abbey. They first met when the Princess was just 13, and the story goes that it was "love at first sight". According to news gossip, through following decades, the marriage has not always been trouble-free, but it has lasted - probably more due to royal protocol and the Queen's determination than anything else, or so I'd guess.

On 20 November, in 1992 a fire broke out in Windsor Castle, one of the three principal official residences of the British monarch. The fire badly damaged the castle causing over £50 million worth of damage.






On 22 November, in 1914, the man who was to become what many people considered to be the love of Princess Margaret's life was born: Group Captain Peter Townsend. (Not to be confused with Pete Townsend of The Who!)

Townsend was equerry (personal attendant) to King George VI, father of Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.

For astrology buffs there's Australian astrologer Douglas Parker's interpretation of the natal charts of Princess Margaret and Group Captain Townsend, with the charts available at a linked pdf file.

Princess Margaret's love affair with Townsend was superseded by other stories and scandals in later years, so may have been forgotten or perhaps never known by any stray younger readers. Here are the bare bones of it taken from a website HERE

Townsend was a war hero, sixteen years the Princess's senior and married, although he was soon to be divorced. In her grief over her father’s death, Margaret turned more and more to Townsend for consolation. He too had suffered a loss when the King died.


The relationship had apparently started long before the King’s death and would probably have stayed under the radar, if Princess Margaret hadn’t been caught out brushing a piece of fluff off Townsend’s lapel during the coronation.

Princess Margaret desperately wanted to marry Townsend, but there were several obstacles, the most pressing being that he was divorced. Despite the fact that he was the injured part, divorce in aristocratic and royal circles was still a big taboo in the fifties. As the Queen was the Defender of the Faith and the Head of the Church of England, having her sister marry a divorced man was unthinkable.


Margaret was told, erroneously it turns out, that not only would she have to renounce her place in the succession, but that she would be stripped of her royal title, her civil list allowance and forced to live abroad in exile for the rest of her life like her Uncle. In 2004, it was revealed that Margaret and the Queen were deliberately given misinformation by the government. While Margaret would undoubtedly have had to renounce her place in the succession, she could have kept her royal title and the money. The reason for the subterfuge was that even though the abdication was almost twenty years prior, the wounds were still open. As the Queen had just ascended the throne, it wouldn’t do for her younger sister to be seen marrying a divorcé, no matter how well-connected.



After a two year separation, Townsend had been posted abroad to Belgium as an air attaché and only sporadic meetings, Princess Margaret agreed to give up any thought of marrying him. Despite their love for each other, Margaret had no concept of what it would be like to be anything but a member of the Royal family. The idea of living in exile, on his salary, was too much to be borne. Margaret simply wasn’t the type to have to do her own washing up, and cooking. It was one thing to play at it, knowing that you could also call the servants if something went wrong, another to have that be your way of life.

On 6 May 1960 Margaret married photographer Antony Armstrong-Jones, later given the title Lord Snowdon. She reportedly accepted his proposal a day after learning from Peter Townsend that he intended to marry a young Belgian woman, Marie-Luce Jamagne, who was half his age and bore a striking resemblance to Margaret.

Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon were divorced in 1978. Ironic? Prevented from marrying her first, and possibly best love because of his divorce. I wonder how the Princess's life would have unrolled had she been allowed to marry Group Captain Townsend?

Townsend died in 1995, Princess Margaret in 2002.

It Wasn't Yet Time for Apocalypse

Newly declassified documents made public in the UK last week included a secret 1983 speech written for the Queen, to be broadcast in the event of imminent nuclear war. Full text of the speech is available at this link.

It's strange, but I've searched my memory on the 1980s and can find no recollection of being afraid of nuclear war during that decade. I recall experiencing some feelings of that nature in 1962 - must have been around the time of the Cuban missile crisis in the USA - and that was also the time of my first marriage. I've often thought, since, that it'd have done me a favour if the crisis had become even more intense and stopped the wedding!

Back to the 1980s then. No..... still nothing surfaces along those panicky lines. I was promoted at work in the early 80s, took a wonderful 3-week vacation in Hawaii 1984, had to undergo a major operation mid-decade.....so perhaps my mind was on other, more personal matters.

That speech written for the Queen now reads like something from a dystopian novel. I wonder if there's a comparable speech for the US President stashed away in the archives here? I wonder if there's one prepared for the current and future Presidents in the event of....well, you name it. There's a cornucopia of possibilities now, well beyond nuclear war, and some dangers now even come from within!

The Royal Innocent

Royal baby? I wish the wee thing no ill and hope he will live a long, happy and healthy life. It'll take a while before he discovers what a world of potential hurt he has launched himself into.

That's just about all I have to say on the matter. I have no interest in what name the baby will be given. I'm not a fan of The Royals or the huge clan of aristocracy, hangers on and social climbers attached to them. The whole idea of monarchy and aristocracy gives me the shivers, but they are what they are, and Britain, for now, is stuck with 'em.

For any passing reader who's a fan of The Royals there are four posts in the archives relating to various members of the elite gang. All can be quickly accessed by clicking on the tag "royal family" in the Label Cloud in the sidebar. I'll copy the oldest of those archived posts here - it's brief and does have a vague relevance to The Royal Baby's chances of accessing the British throne before senility. The post is from 2007 :

The Prince of Wales and the British Throne

I've noticed a few predictions recently relating to the heir to the British throne.
The most recent, from astrologer Andrew J. Bevan states that it's likely Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, will shortly renounce his claim to the throne in favour of his elder son Prince William. The astrologer surmises that if this does not occur in the near future, then an announcement is still likely before the end of the year (2007). I recall some discussion along similar lines in Noel Tyl's forum, and elsewhere, in recent months.

Way back in the 1950s and 60s when Prince Charles was young, astrologers or psychics were predicting that he "would never be king". Such predictions have surfaced from time to time, ever since. It'll be very interesting to see whether these long-standing predictions will come true. If they are ever to do so, then the next year or two is a likely time, bearing in mind the Queen's age, Prince Charles' marriage, and the fact that Prince William is approaching an age when it would be reasonable for him to take on the responsibility.

Those predictions bit the dust didn't they? That should serve as a a warning to psychics and astrologers not to push their luck!

CHAIN REACTION

Today, December 10, in 1936 was the date on which King Edward VIII signed the Instrument of Abdication, giving up the British throne to marry Mrs. Wallis Simpson. Thus began a chain of events which led to the fanfare accompanying last week's announcement that Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge are expecting a child - a child who might, if the monarchy survives (and no further hitches emerge to cause a different chain of events), inherit accession to the throne of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth.

Had Mrs. Wallis Simpson proved less attractive to Edward, or had their paths never crossed - think life in another dimension - history could have taken many, many different turns. Diana might still be around - perhaps not as Princess Di, but out there happily raising a gaggle of kids in more than comfortable circumstances, somewhere in the Home Counties. Princess Margaret, not as sister to the heir to the throne, might have led a very different, happier and more serene lifestyle. Perhaps even King George VI, without the stress of being monarch of all he surveyed during a terrible World War, would not have died so young.

Domino effect, causal nexus......chain reaction. It's a funny ol' life!

Cue the song:

THAT Wedding, Those Royals, Lawrence O'Donnell and RJ's Rant

A long-time blog buddy of mine, R.J. Adams of Sparrow Chat, needed to let off steam this week (and rightly so) about some remarks of MSNBC's talking head Lawrence O'Donnell on coverage in the US media of Prince William's wedding, due to take place in Britain shortly. I'm not a fan of the royals myself, nor am I a fan of weddings in general, obscene waste of money in most cases, I reckon! Both of my own were absolute shoestring affairs. So I have not followed any royal wedding story, and am not even sure of the wedding date. Even though I'm no royalist myself, and could care less about their weddings and other doings, I draw the line at the kind of things O'Donnell said - and said with such clear venom!

During the 1970s I'd guess that O'Donnell (right) was one of the Americans (and there were many) cheering on the IRA as they bombed English cities and Northern Irish towns, killing and maiming innocent people....in the name of....what? A 200-year old grudge.

Here's a link to RJ's wonderful rant:

http://sparrowchat.com/2011/04/lawrence-odonnell-has-a-problem/


In case the video doesn't run in the UK or countries other than the USA (sometimes vids are blocked) here's a quick rundown of what O'Donnell said:

O'Donnell started out by sarcastically noting that on April 29th, "nothing more important will be occurring that day in this country or the world than a wedding in England." He then reminded his audience that America came into existence by actually overthrowing the British, and accused the American media of being way too friendly to our allies across the Atlantic.

"It's a good thing our television networks weren't covering our Revolutionary War because they obviously would have been on the side of the British."
That might seem a little harsh, but O'Donnell was just getting warmed up. Here is the rest of his rant, in it's entirety.

"The British crown has spilt more blood around the world and caused more oppression and suffering in the world than any other regime still standing. If your people were among the tortured or the starved or the murdered or the oppressed victims of the crown, then you may not be so welcoming of the British Royal Family in your home, even on your television screen.

If you are the forgiving sort, the type that doesn't hold a grudge for
hundreds of years or decades, depending on when violence was last visited upon your people in the name of the British crown, perhaps you can look at the current crowd of hapless, harmless royals as something other than an indelible bloody stain on your people's history.

If you are good natured and light of heart, perhaps you could see in them the most noble status they could ever achieve, a joke. We all need a laugh, and if the British crown can give the world a laugh after having delivered centuries of pain, then some of us will take that laugh. In the meantime, let's hope the British media continues to make the mistake that the American media's weak-kneed fawning over the Royals represents all of us in the colonies and how we feel about the Royal wedding."
http://www.businessinsider.com/royal-wedding-lawrence-odonnell-seinfeld-video-2011-4#ixzz1KAxgolrI

Another link to the video at MSNBC's site
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42617246#42617246


A look at O'Donnell's natal chart, data from Astrodatabank:



Sun and Mercury in Scorpio - that fits his venomous attitude well - Scorpio's dark side: venom and inability to forgive, a classic Scorpio trait.

Moon in Aquarius ought to know better! Here though Moon is opposed by Pluto in Leo, and Pluto is ruler of Scorpio, so Aquarian humanitarian ideals (O'Donnell professes to being a socialist by the way) are infected - or balanced - by Pluto and its connection to Scorpio as his natal Sun's ruler.

He has Libra rising, if time of birth is accurate. I'm quite surprised that he was this outspoken, in public, on these matters. Libra rising would usually bring forth a more tactful attitude.

Royally Beloved in the Time of Scorpio

These last few Scorpio days of mid-November have often had significance for Britain's royals - not always positive siginificance either. Let us hope that the outcome of the most recent November date of royal significance will be a happy one: the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton was announced this week.

On this very day, 20 November, in 1947 the then Princess Elizabeth married Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten at Westminster Abbey. They first met when the Princess was just 13, and the story goes that it was "love at first sight". According to news gossip, through following decades, the marriage has not always been trouble-free, but it has lasted - probably more due to royal protocol and the Queen's determination than anything else, I'd guess.

On the same day, 20 November, in 1992 a fire broke out in Windsor Castle, one of the three principal official residences of the British monarch. The fire badly damaged the castle causing over £50 million worth of damage.






On 22 November, in 1914, the man who was to become what many people considered to be the love of Princess Margaret's life was born: Group Captain Peter Townsend. (Not to be confused with Pete Townsend of The Who!)

Townsend was equerry (personal attendant) to King George VI, father of Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.

For astrology buffs there's Australian astrologer Douglas Parker's interpretation of the natal charts of Princess Margaret and Group Captain Townsend, with the charts available at a linked pdf file.

Princess Margaret's love affair with Townsend was superseded by other stories and scandals in later years, so may have been forgotten or perhaps never known by any stray younger readers. Here are the bare bones of it taken from a website HERE

Townsend was a war hero, sixteen years the Princess's senior and married, although he was soon to be divorced. In her grief over her father’s death, Margaret turned more and more to Townsend for consolation. He too had suffered a loss when the King died.


The relationship had apparently started long before the King’s death and would probably have stayed under the radar, if Princess Margaret hadn’t been caught out brushing a piece of fluff off Townsend’s lapel during the coronation.

Princess Margaret desperately wanted to marry Townsend, but there were several obstacles, the most pressing being that he was divorced. Despite the fact that he was the injured part, divorce in aristocratic and royal circles was still a big taboo in the fifties. As the Queen was the Defender of the Faith and the Head of the Church of England, having her sister marry a divorced man was unthinkable.


Margaret was told, erroneously it turns out, that not only would she have to renounce her place in the succession, but that she would be stripped of her royal title, her civil list allowance and forced to live abroad in exile for the rest of her life like her Uncle. In 2004, it was revealed that Margaret and the Queen were deliberately given misinformation by the government. While Margaret would undoubtedly have had to renounce her place in the succession, she could have kept her royal title and the money. The reason for the subterfuge was that even though the abdication was almost twenty years prior, the wounds were still open. As the Queen had just ascended the throne, it wouldn’t do for her younger sister to be seen marrying a divorcé, no matter how well-connected.



After a two year separation, Townsend had been posted abroad to Belgium as an air attaché and only sporadic meetings, Princess Margaret agreed to give up any thought of marrying him. Despite their love for each other, Margaret had no concept of what it would be like to be anything but a member of the Royal family. The idea of living in exile, on his salary, was too much to be borne. Margaret simply wasn’t the type to have to do her own washing up, and cooking. It was one thing to play at it, knowing that you could also call the servants if something went wrong, another to have that be your way of life.

On 6 May 1960 Margaret married photographer Antony Armstrong-Jones, later given the title Lord Snowdon. She reportedly accepted his proposal a day after learning from Peter Townsend that he intended to marry a young Belgian woman, Marie-Luce Jamagne, who was half his age and bore a striking resemblance to Margaret.

Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon were divorced in 1978. Ironic? Prevented from marrying her first, and possibly best love because of his divorce. I wonder how the Princess's life would have unrolled had she been allowed to marry Group Captain Townsend?

Townsend died in 1995, Princess Margaret in 2002.

The Prince of Wales and the British Throne

I've noticed a few predictions recently relating to the heir to the British throne.
The most recent, from astrologer Andrew J. Bevan states that it's likely Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, will shortly renounce his claim to the throne in favour of his elder son Prince William. The astrologer surmises that if this does not occur in the near future, then an announcement is still likely before the end of the year. I recall some discussion along similar lines in Noel Tyl's forum, and elsewhere, in recent months.

I recall that, way back in the 1950s and 60s when Prince Charles was young, astrologers or psychics were predicting that he "would never be king". Such predictions have surfaced from time to time, ever since. It'll be very interesting to see whether these long-standing predictions will come true. If they are ever to do so, then the next year or two is a likely time, bearing in mind the Queen's age, Prince Charles' marriage, and the fact that Prince William is approaching an age when it would be reasonable for him to take on the responsibility.