Shyly

Why we should celebrate shyness- an essay by David Robson last week at BBC's website:

From Agatha Christie and Charles Darwin to Keira Knightley, Francoise Hardy and Morrissey, the socially awkward and anxious have changed the world for the better. Have we forgotten the benefits of being shy?

A good read, I found, and an interesting take on being shy. Mr Robson references a new book by Joe Moran:

How could someone so successful still be so insecure? This is the paradox at the heart of a new book, Shrinking Violets, by the cultural historian Joe Moran, which explores shyness in politics, literature and psychology. Moran’s book portrays this full spectrum. Consider Dirk Bogarde, who, having learned how to hide his feelings from bullies at school, likened himself to a hermit crab hiding in a scavenged shell. “I was safe from predators,” he wrote, “and by predators I meant everyone I met.” He had hoped to conquer his shyness in adulthood, but he found it was “a malady” that “crippled me before I walked into a crowded room, theatre, restaurant or bar”. Acting in the West End, he would throw-up before every performance, saying “you can’t be as frightened as I am now and still be alive. This is as near death, execution, and everything else that I’ve ever come across.” As Moran points out, Bogarde was not taking these words lightly: he had fought at D-Day and in the following battles in Normandy.

Consulting my tattered copy of 20th century British astrologer C.E.O. Carter's "An Encyclopaedia of Psychological Astrology" I found this under "Shyness":

Shyness is a form of Sensitiveness (q.v.) and is to some extent connected with too pronounced a consciousness of the self. It is also to some degree analgous with suspicion and timidity.
Astrologically the usual indications are Saturnian-lunar afflictions in some form or other, and a lack of the positive elements in the map. Cancer is especially shy, and just as the lunar influence is strongest in childhood and then grows weaker, so adults usually grow out of their shyness.

Besides Cancer, Virgo is often extremely shy, and the same is sometimes found in Scorpio or Pisces children (v.Self-confidence).

Under "Sensitiveness" which Mr Carter directed the reader to see, he talked about this being common to all watery signs, especially Cancer, and to the negative signs, excepting Taurus. Leo and Sagittarius probably come next in lack of sensitiveness, he wrote. Also:

Virgo is easily hurt and inclines to adopt an attitude of what is commonly called "huffiness". Capricorn readily feels slights or snubs and is very sensitive to neglect or being overlooked. Libra is easily hurt but has a short memory for such things. Gemini and Aquarius are predominantly mental and do not feel injured over-easily.

Under Self-confidence Mr Carter, among other things, emphasised that a prominent Mars is the chief thing to look for....Moon Venus and Neptune are the least self-reliant, Neptune has much to do with inferiority complexes (q.v.)

A quick look at natal charts of some of the people mentioned in David Robson's essay, to discover if C.E.O. Carter's propositions...erm...hold water.

I'm stating only what immediately jumped out to me from these linked charts, at Astrodatabank, in context of this post:

Charles Darwin


Astro.com has two different times on birth on offer. In one (DD rated, so not reliable) Darwin had Sagittarius rising with Neptune conjunct Saturn on his ascendant. That'd be a shy signature. In a chart with a rectified time of birth Virgo was rising with the Saturn/Neptune conjunction closer to the nadir...still good but not as good.

Agatha Christie


Sun in Virgo, Virgo rising, Saturn in Virgo in first house of self. Yes!

Francoise Hardy


Virgo rising, with Neptune in Libra in first house; Saturn in 10th house of career opposing Venus in Sagittarius. Not as clear a shyness signature, but more of a dampener I'd say. Shyness not out of the question.

Dirk Bogarde


Saturn and Jupiter (not quite conjunct) in Virgo opposing Mercury and Uranus conjunction in Pisces. His Pluto at 6 Cancer trined his Mercury/Uranus in Watery Pisces.

As someone with Cancer rising, I'm pretty sure I have that to thank for intense childhood shyness, which continued into maturity, better hidden. Being an only child didn't help either, I guess. There was less of Cancer involvement in the few charts I investigated, above. Extreme, deeply Cancerian shyness could deter a person from even trying to seek public acclaim or fame and fortune. Characters like those investigated here might be secretly shy, but not cripplingly shy enough for it to act as deterrent. This broad, random proposition could be easily struck down though (said she, shyly).

Any thoughts ?

Music Monday - Labor Day

Short History of Labor Day

Always the first Monday in September, Labor Day was the idea of Peter J. Maguire (although recent research has shown that it might have been his brother Matthew’s idea), a labor union leader who in 1882 proposed a celebration honoring the American worker.

The date chosen was simply “convenient,” according to Maguire, because it was midway between the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving.

Although the day’s focus on organized labor has diminished over the years, the holiday has become a way to mark the end of the summer season—and the start of the school year.

Appropriate song for Music Monday's Labor Day?
This'll fit - in all its forms:
..."And I've been workin' like a dog..."


Peter Sellers performs A Hard Day's Night by The Beatles, in the style of Laurence Olivier's interpretation of Richard III.



The Baroque Chamber Orchestra



Jazzed ... Ramsey Lewis Trio (1966)


Original trailer for the film of the song:

History Ablaze

Following yesterday's pattern, another historical theme surfaces today: 350 years ago this weekend The Great Fire of London consumed a large part of that famous capital city.

From The Book of Days website
SNIP:

THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON

London was only a few months freed from a desolating pestilence, it was suffering, with the country generally, under a most imprudent and ill-conducted war with Holland, when, on the evening of the 2nd of September 1666, a fire commenced by which about two-thirds of it were burned down, including the cathedral, the Royal Exchange, about a hundred parish churches, and a vast number of other public buildings. The conflagration commenced in the house of a baker named Farryner, at Pudding Lane, near the Tower, and, being favoured by a high wind, it continued for three nights and days, spreading gradually eastward, till it ended at a spot called Pye Corner, in Giltspur Street. Mr. John Evelyn has left us a very interesting description of the event, from his own observation, as follows:

'Sept. 2, 1666.-This fatal night, about ten, began that deplorable fire near Fish Streete in London.

'Sept. 3.-The fire continuing, after dinner I took coach with my wife and soon, and went to the Bankside in Southwark, where we beheld that dismal spectacle, the whole Citty in dreadful flames neare ye water side; all the houses from the Bridge, all Thames Street, and upwards towards Cheapeside downe to the Three Cranes, were now consum'd...............

Astrologer William Lilly had predicted the Great Fire years before, via one of his mysterious hieroglyphic drawings. A good relevant essay, by Maurice McCann, is at Skyscript


SNIP

Lilly, it was claimed, had successfully predicted the outbreak of the fire fourteen years before when he had published Monarchy or No Monarchy in England a book containing nineteen hieroglyphic drawings giving carefully disguised predictions. As a consequence of one of these, featuring a large fire, Lilly was seriously suspected of causing the fire. It was also thought that he wished to obtain credit for forecasting the event. Being fearful of what might happen to him, Lilly persuaded the committee that his prediction had not been precise and he was allowed to go.

After the fire?
A snip and Conclusion from an article by Dr John Schofield at a BBC website
London After the Great Fire

SNIP

At least 65,000 people had been made homeless by the Fire. At first they camped in the fields outside the walls, but within days had dispersed to surrounding villages or other parts of London. Rents soared in the unburnt area, but somehow accommodation was found for all who needed it. Much merchandise had been destroyed, and there was virtually no fire insurance, so many people were ruined, and some moved away permanently.

Conclusion -
We have perhaps been overimpressed by the Great Fire, and must place it in context - the Fire, destructive though it was, devastated only about one third of the conurbation of London then standing. Within the area of the devastation a new city of brick and occasionally stone arose, but around it a larger area remained timber-framed for generations to come. Inside the City, if we could have walked down a street like Fenchurch Street in 1675, we would have seen an abrupt change from the brick buildings of the new city to the timber and plaster frontages of the pre-Fire city, at the point where the Fire was stopped. This sudden contrast took generations to erase. But it is also true that the Fire created the opportunity to build, in the central area, a city in a new form, which would quickly become the hub of the British Empire in the decades which followed. So the creation of the Empire owes something to the Great Fire of 1666.

The Queen's Beasts (not especially arty farty this Friday!)

Today's topic might be of no great general interest, but is about something I've investigated and want to record, for future reference.

Around a year ago, husband and I were trawling through a couple of antique stores in a town just to the west of Oklahoma City; on our way out of town we spotted a newly opened small store, popped in to take a look around. It was a bit on the junky side. Just one item grabbed my attention: a big, shallow, display box framed and glassed in, containing 10 decorated glass dishes (each around 4.5 inches square), set in two rows on a background of red velvet. The frame had seen better days, scratched and needing repair to one corner. The little dishes had survived in good condition. They made up a full set, depicting what are known as The Queen's Beasts.
The Queen's Beasts portray the genealogy of Queen Elizabeth II in heraldic form.

I found this photograph of a similar set on an old auction website online

How this item had arrived in Oklahoma is anyone's guess! Having always had an interest in heraldry, I was keen to know its price. The store owner stalled when we enquired, saying that, as he didn't know the significance of the item he had asked a friend to investigate, and was not in a position to quote a price. I suspected he already had a buyer in mind, perhaps another, posher, antique store.

Back home I Googled - like ya do - discovered that the glass dish set, produced by a London company called Georama, probably during the 1970s, was very possibly issued ahead of Queen Elizabeth II's Silver Jubilee in 1977.

Intrigued, I found that it'd be possible to find at least some of the individual glass trays for sale in either the UK or USA on E-bay or Etsy, not a full set though. Individual prices varied from just a few pounds sterling in the UK to around $20 in the US. Mailing costs for such delicate items, either nationally or internationally makes the deals quite uneconomical. I shall content myself, instead, with this blog post. Maybe one day I'll invest in a single little dish and have it framed. The one shown, left, was for sale at Etsy recently.

So... illustrations of the 10 Queen's Beasts.


For these pics and brief descriptions I owe a hat-tip to this heraldic forum.

The Lion of England

“The crowned golden lion of England has been one of the supporters of the Royal Arms since the accession of James I in 1603. The shield shows the Royal Arms as they have been borne since Queen Victoria came to the throne in 1837. In the first and last quarters are the lions of England; the lion and tressure (a double frame) of Scotland appear in the second and the harp of Ireland in the third. Richard Lion-heart, son of Henry II, probably first chose 3 golden lions set one above each on a red field as the Royal Arms of England. Since then, these lions have appeared on the coat of arms of every sovereign of this country.”

The Unicorn of Scotland

“From the end of the 16th century, two unicorns were adopted as the supporters of the Scottish Royal Arms. In 1603, the crown of England passed to James VI of Scotland, who then became James I of England. He took as supporters of his Royal Arms a crowned lion of England and one of his Scottish unicorns. The unicorn holds a shield showing a lion ramping in a royal tressure (a double frame), adorned with fleur-de-lis.”

The Red Dragon of Wales

“The red dragon was used as his badge by Owen Tudor. His grandson, Henry VII, took it as a token of his supposed descent from Cadwalader, the last of the line of Maelgwn, King of Wales. The beast holds a shield bearing a leopard in each quarter; this was the coat of arms of Llewelyn ap Griffith, the last native Prince of Wales.”

The White Lion of Mortimer

“The White Lion of Mortimer descends to the Queen through Edward IV. The shield shows a white rose encircled by a golden sun, known heraldically as a ‘white rose en soleil’ which is really a combination of two distinct badges. Both of these appear on the Great Seals of Edward IV and Richard III, and were used by George VI when Duke of York. Unlike the Lion of England, this beast is uncrowned.”

The White Greyhound of Richmond

“This beast was a badge of John of Gaunt, Earl of Richmond, son of Edward III, but was also used by Henry IV and especially by Henry VII. The Tudor double rose can be seen on the shield, one rose within another, surmounted by a crown, symbolising the union of the Houses of York and Lancaster.”

The White Horse of Hanover

“The White Horse of Hanover” was introduced into the Royal Arms in 1714 when the crown of Great Britain passed to the Elector George of Hanover. This grandson of Elizabeth, sister of Charles I, became George I, King of Britain, France and Ireland. The shield shows the leopards of England and the lion of Scotland in the first quarter, the fleur-de-lis of France in the second and the Irish harp in the third quarter; the fourth quarter shows the arms of Hanover.”

The Black Bull of Clarence

“This beast descended to the Queen through Edward IV. The shield shows the Royal Arms as they were borne not only by Edward IV and his brother Richard III, but by all the Sovereigns of the Houses of Lancaster and Tudor.”

The Yale of Beaufort

“The Yale was a mythical beast, said to be white in colour and covered with gold spots. Its peculiar characteristic was that it could swivel each of its horns independently. It descends to the Queen through Henry VII, who inherited it from his mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort. The shield shows a portcullis surmounted by the arched royal crown. The portcullis (uncrowned) was a Beaufort badge, but was used both crowned and uncrowned by Henry VII.”

The Griffin of Edward III

“The griffin is an ancient mythical beast. It was considered a beneficent creature, signifying courage and strength, combined with guardianship, vigilance, swiftness and keen vision. It was closely associated with Edward III who engraved it on his private seal. The shield shows the Round Tower of Windsor Castle with the Royal Standard flying from the turret (the badge of the present House of Windsor), enclosed by two branches of oak surmounted by the royal crown.”

The Falcon of the Plantagenets

“The falcon was first used by Edward III as his badge. It descended to Edward IV, who took it as his personal badge, the falcon being seated within an open fetterlock or padlock. The slightly open fetterlock (which can be seen on the shield) is supposed to refer to the struggle Edward IV had to ascend the throne - he forced the lock and won the throne.”

September!

Autumn's not here yet, but the gates have opened! And...they reveal an annular solar eclipse today, in Virgo!

But when fall comes, kicking summer out on its treacherous ass as it always does one day sometime after the midpoint of September, it stays awhile like an old friend that you have missed. It settles in the way an old friend will settle into your favorite chair and take out his pipe and light it and then fill the afternoon with stories of places he has been and things he has done since last he saw you.
~Stephen King, ’Salem’s Lot

To the Light of September
By W. S. Merwin

When you are already here
you appear to be only
a name that tells of you
whether you are present or not

and for now it seems as though
you are still summer
still the high familiar
endless summer
yet with a glint
of bronze in the chill mornings
and the late yellow petals
of the mullein fluttering
on the stalks that lean
over their broken
shadows across the cracked ground

but they all know
that you have come
the seed heads of the sage
the whispering birds
with nowhere to hide you
to keep you for later

you
who fly with them

you who are neither
before nor after
you who arrive
with blue plums
that have fallen through the night

perfect in the dew

Capital Punishment

We're on an episode by episode diet of a couple of Netflix's British TV offerings at present.
They are set in different time periods, and in Britain: The Grand set in or around 1920, in Manchester, north of England; and Inspector George Gently set in the mid 1960s in the north-eastern counties of Durham and Northumberland. In episodes of both series, instances of capital punishment have been portrayed, in quick but detailed scenes. Hanging. No gaggle of observers present, as often seen in American movies when the electric chair or gas chamber scenes are part of plots. Basic, fast : hangman, witness and priest. Bag over convict's head, noose round neck - lever pulled down - done and dusted! In a relevant scene from The Grand it was a teenaged female hanged, in the Gently series several murderers convicted before 1965 were hanged in various 90 minute episodes.

The sight of those fictional hangings came as a surprise - gave my sensibilities quite a jolt! For most of my life, in the UK, the death penalty had become a thing of the past. The last hanging in Britain happened in 1965, so since capital punishment was no more an option, I had given little time to considering the pros and cons. Arriving in Oklahoma, though, I was shocked to discover that, here, the death penalty is still "a thing" - in the 21st century! Not only that, but the fact that, in the course of administering said penalty via lethal injection, more than once things have gone wrong due to incompetence, or other excuse.

There are plans for the death penalty to be abolished in the USA, in states still allowing it.
With reference to the Democratic Platform 2016:

In 2012, Democrats wrote that "the death penalty must not be arbitrary." The 2016 platform goes further. We will abolish the death penalty, which has proven to be a cruel and unusual form of punishment. It has no place in the United States of America.
That's not Hillary Clinton's position.

Another empty promise? We shall see.

An interesting piece on the history of the death penalty is at the PBS website HERE. Goodness me! Some of those ancient methods of carrying out the ultimate punishment are worse than anything seen in the most horrific of horror movies: burning, boiling, drawing and quartering, drowning, crucifixion, burial alive, beating to death, and impalement. "The Romans had a curious punishment for parricides (murder of a parent): the condemned was submersed in water in a sack, which also contained a dog, a rooster, a viper and an ape. The most notorious death execution in BC was about 399 BC when the Greek philosopher Socrates was required to drink poison for heresy and corruption of youth."

William the Conqueror seems to have been the only historical "good cop" in a universe of "very bad cops". He opposed taking life except in war, and ordered no person to be hanged or executed for any offense. However, he allowed criminals to be mutilated for their crimes. (I thought there'd have to have been a snag!)

My own feelings on the death penalty: a lifetime's hard labour (and I do mean hard) would be a more appropriate punishment for horrendous crimes. These days death offers (mostly) a quick and easy way out. In cases where further evidence surfaces, proving the convicted person to have been innocent, though unfairly punished for a time, he or she would still be alive, and perhaps eligible for compensation.

“You look at the crime and you look at the criminal. If it's a dope dealer who guns down an undercover narcotics officer, then he gets the gas. If it's a drifter who rapes a three-year-old girl, drowns her by holding her little head in a mudhole, then throws her body off a bridge, then you take his life and thank god he's gone. If it's an escaped convict who breaks into a farmhouse late at night and beats and tortures an elderly couple before burning them with their house, then you strap him in a chair, hook up a few wires, pray for his soul, and pull the switch. And if it's two dopeheads who gang-rape a ten-year-old girl and kick her with pointed-toe cowboy boots until her jaws break, then you happily, merrily, thankfully, gleefully lock them in a gas chamber and listen to them squeal. It's very simple. Their crimes were barbaric. Death is too good for them, much too good.”
― John Grisham, in A Time to Kill.

Wild Imaginings?

Could Donald Trump really become the USA's next president - other than in our feverish nightmares or scary daytime imaginings? Rational analysis says not.

Hillary Clinton Has Edge Over Donald Trump In General Election
This is a piece to watch, ratings will be updated
SNIP :

Hillary Clinton would have a significant electoral advantage over Donald Trump in the general election, based on an NPR analysis.

The Democratic former secretary of state would start out with already exactly enough electoral votes to win the presidency, 270-191, based on states considered safe, likely and to lean toward either candidate. The ratings, which will be updated at least monthly until Election Day, are based on fundamentals — historical trends and demographics, plus reporting and polling (both public and private).

But there is also the potential that this fall's presidential battlegrounds could be re-sorted — pitting white, working-class voters, whom Trump is appealing to, against Latino voters, who appear to be in Clinton's corner. Traditional ways of thinking about the map should and will be challenged. So in addition to our current ratings, we also explore several possibilities and scenarios, including Trump's potential path and even two potential ties, based on Trump doing well in the Upper Midwest and Clinton racking up wins in competitive states where the Latino vote is important.............

However, it's always wise to consider any situation from a different angle. As mentioned before in comments here, this election isn't like yer average general election in the USA. Third parties, this time around, are drawing more interest, due to much disaffection for, and frustration with, Democratic and Republican nominees Clinton and Trump, both have "baggage" which, unless blinded by glass ceilings or white supremacy leanings have to be glaringly apparent.

Why a Trump win in November, against all odds, isn't out of the question:

Donald Trump Is Going To Be Elected by Michael Rosenblum

SNIP

Donald Trump is going to be elected president.
The American people voted for him a long time ago.
They voted for him when The History Channel went from showing documentaries about the Second World War to “Pawn Stars” and “Swamp People.”
They voted for him when The Discovery Channel went from showing “Lost Treasures of the Yangtze Valley” to “Naked and Afraid.”
They voted for him when The Learning Channel moved from something you could learn from to “My 600-lb Life.”
They voted for him when CBS went from airing “Harvest of Shame” to airing “Big Brother”..........