Typically used for astrological assessment of romantic relationships, a composite chart gives insight into the thurst of the combined energy of two people.
The highlights of the composite of Britain’s two new leaders: (1) Libra moon (naturally adaptive ability to smooth trouble situations and reconcile conflicts of opinion), (2) Jupiter in Leo (ambitious, warm and dignified approach to exercise of power), and (3) Sun,Venus,Mercury stellium in Sagittarius ( bright, lively, and enthusiastic expansion of philosophic ideals).
Further, when compared to Britain’s own natal chart*, we find that (1) diplomatic composite Libra moon within minutes of Britain’s MC (place in the world from point of view of others), (2) in sextile (working easily and effectively) with that warm and ambitious composite Jupiter, and (3) in sextile (again, working easily and effectively) with those bright and enthusiastic ideals of the Sagittarius stellium. Not only that, but that shiny stellium is placed right at Britain’s ASC (way of experiencing itself in the world).
Most astrologers would agree, these placements did not occur by accident.
So what might it mean for Britain’s future? I predict a warm, open, and enthusiasm approach to governance that will heal our cynical view of politics (and politicians). It may also signify a return to world preeminence for Britain in the role of diplomacy and mediation. Fingers crossed that I’m right.
*12 April 1927 (0.01)/London, UK
An astrologer for whom I have great respect, once told me that Pluto transits are like psychic diarrhoea – they don’t feel particularly good but are absolutely necessary to clean out the waste which would otherwise kill us. Never forget that Pluto is the God of the Underworld. In the end, Pluto always wins.
Throughout 2010-2011, the UK (as a political entity*) has transiting Pluto squaring it’s midheaven (symbolising the highest and most visible point the sun reaches each day). This signifies an enforced change of national direction and political leadership – it won’t be comfortable but it could not have been any other way.
When Pluto comes calling it’s better to ‘go with the flow’ rather than trying to resist the change. The more you resist, the bumpier the ride. This reality came home to roost when while dragging my feet about the inevitable end of my first marriage, I literally ended up in the emergency room with a strangulated bowel. Gangrene had set in and I was headed for big trouble.
That I’m writing this now means I survived the whole affair – got stronger and wiser from the experience – and all that good stuff.
The point is, that as we (individuals or nation states) navigate the tides of time, there will be moments when change is thrust upon us. We’re best off to embrace the changes and move on.
*using the 12 April 1927 (0.01 AM)/London/ chart
Researching for my new novel (Lords & Lies), my husband and I recently watched the film ‘The Duchess’ – which is based on the true life story of the Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire (an ancestor of Princess Diana).
In her time (1757-1806), Georgina was beautiful, glamorous, and a trendsetter in fashion and politics. She was also a compulsive gambler, a drug addict, and an adulteress.
Not only was Georgina married off at age 17 years to ‘the only man in town who didn’t love her’, but she was also forced to live under the same roof as her husband’s mistress (cheery menage a trois – you ask? perhaps….). Although she was privileged and adored by both her public and her children, her personal problems got the better of her.
So long ago, her life. Yet still today, her story resonates in our hearts and minds – the details of which could easily be ascribed to any number of modern celebrities.
What does this tell us about human nature?
More importantly, what does it tell us about the nature of ‘progress’?
I don’t have the answers. Do you?
BTW, if you’re interested, Amanda Foreman has written a splendid biography of Georgiana, called The Duchess (Harper Perennial, 1998).
I just finished reading Anthony Trollope’s brilliant novel The Way We Live Now.
Although written in 1872, Trollope’s portrayal of the ultra-greedy businessman, Melmotte, has much to show us about the way we really do in fact live right now. As another character comments, Melmotte is ‘a sign of degeneracy’, not the cause.
Not unlike bankers and (some) politicians today, Melmotte’s claim to fame was that he ‘manufactured’ money from issuing more and more (bad) debt. In pursuing this career, he almost manages to crash the markets in the City of London.
The interesting thing is that rather than being the worldly and elegant gentleman he professes to be, in reality he’s a no-body from no-where trying to make the world believe he’s something that he’s not.
Perhaps a lesson to be learned is that ‘money doesn’t make the man’ and that such a lesson is as important today as it was in 1872.
So ladies and gentlemen, what should we make of this?