Thursday, August 29, 2013

Planetary Configurations: "The Beauty Queens"*. Princess Diana's t-square.

If we stick to 0-2 degree orbs and we accept that configurations are formed only between bodies and not points (as Kevin Burk suggests) there is only one configuration in Diana’s chart and this is a fixed t-square formed between Moon at 25 degrees Aquarius, Venus at 24 degrees Taurus, and Uranus at 23 degrees Leo.
Let's first take a look at the actual aspects involved in the configuration:
The Moon – Venus square. In Diana’s chart, the two “feminine” planets were in hard aspect to each other. This might have been an indication of the princess’ low self-esteem and bad image of herself (feminine principles in clash) or the constant struggle (square) to get the love and appreciation (Venus) she needed (Moon). It could also show something about Diana’s mother: did she prefer her relationship (Venus) over her children? She was the one to decide to break up from their father, although possibly unaware of how the custody battle would end up for her. Anyways, she chose to “live her life” with an extremely wealthy man she adored (the very “hedonistic” Venus in Taurus) neglecting (square) her maternal (and domestic) “duties” (Moon – and especially, Moon in Aquarius which would make her loving her freedom and independence). I believe that one would not exaggerate connecting this aspect also to Diana’s eating disorders (Moon – the way we nurture ourselves vs. Venus – our image, how we want to attract others).

The Moon – Uranus opposition. I believe this aspect adds an extra Uranian/Aquarian “touch” to Diana’s Moon in Aquarius and that is indicative of her experience of her mother and generally her home situation and childhood. It could describe an (emotionally and physically as it turned out) detached (Uranus/Aquarius) mother (Moon), needing freedom, space and independency (Uranus/Aquarius), possibly ambivalent (Uranus) about motherhood (she was depressive during her pregnancies and early years of her children), a sudden separation / cutting off (Uranus) from her and from the family (Moon) in general (later, when Diana went into boarding school), and thus, a rather unusual, unconventional (Uranus/Aquarius) childhood (Moon). Let’s not forget that oppositions are considered hard aspects and all this had been very stressful for Diana. Diana felt (Moon) like an “outcast” (Uranus) during her life in boarding school (she was choppy and her family situation made her “distinguish” from other children of the upper class) but also during her life in the Palace, she was for sure a lot different from the Royal family. Possibly there was an inner need (Moon) to rebel and shock (Uranus), illustrated by her affairs with men of different religious, ethnical and cultural background (with Hasnat Khan and Dodi – especially with the latter one it was like the two “ostracized” of the Crown came together – the Queen insisted –and still does- on denying Al Fayed the UK citizenship despite his contribution in the country’s economy and Harrod’s emblematic role for London). Another stressful aspect to her Moon most probably emphasized Diana’s eating disorder problem (inconsistent –Uranus- eating habits –Moon- from bulimia to anorexia). The aspect can also be connected to her over-sensitivity to rejection (which of course had its root to her experience of her mother).

The Venus – Uranus square. As mentioned above, Diana was engaged in a series of unconventional (Uranus) relationships (Venus), that did eventually manage to shock and were seen as acts of rebellion, something more or less expected when Uranus and Venus come together. There were not only affairs with men of a different cultural background, but also with men that did not belong to her class, like Hewitt, men who exploited her and sold the details of their relationship to the press for money, leaving Diana profoundly hurt (the stressful nature of the square). Her inability to sustain relationships but also the fear of rejection by men she was related to, can also be associated with this aspect.

As it becomes obvious , the planet that receives squares by both other planets, Moon and Uranus (which are in opposition), is Venus, so Venus is the apex, the focal  planet. 
Configurations like the t-square illustrate life’s main storylines, they describe stories that have been at the center of life since birth. Diana’s t-square is in fixed signs something that informs about ongoing, immovable situations. The truth is that, according to analysts, Diana was a person somewhat “trapped” in repetition, she tended to repeatedly adopt similar behavioral patterns. She wanted to be a “perfect mother” whereas her mother had failed, she wanted to be an affectionate and protective mother in contrast to her experience of her mother. Diana’s t-square describes very well this experience with the Moon - Uranus opposition, Moon – Venus square and Moon’s placement in Aquarius, all analyzed above. 
But it is illustrative of her attitude towards mothering too: her Moon (mothering) is in the 2nd house of values (she valued mothering) while her Venus is in the 5th house of children, a common placement for people who love children and have good relationships with children. Diana had children as soon as she could (hardly a year after the marriage), and, unlike what one would expect from a royal family member, she was always the one to take care of them and she was very protective – something that often happens with those who had an emotionally deprived childhood when they become parents themselves. Diana did manage to become an ideal mother, and not only for her children; she repeated the pattern in all her close relationships (a “mother instinct” brought her close to Charles when they first met), and, even more than that she wanted to “mother” (and did very well with that) the whole humanity. Here one can see her Moon in Aquarius playing out very strongly – a very humanitarian and altruistic Moon that could extend her sympathy to the “plight of the many” (S. Tompkins). And this was her biggest “asset” (2nd house). I found interesting the fact that the Moon – Uranus opposition occurs across the Aquarius – Leo axis: the group, the many, society vs. the person, individuality.   Diana wanted so much to be loved, that she wanted to be loved by everybody, forgetting that the whole world is actually nobody. She was indeed a “queen in people’s hearts” but in her close relationships she suffered, she was married to a man that belonged to another woman, and she engaged herself to a series of relationships that left her emotionally deceived. And this is probably Venus, “natural” ruler of all close relationships, receiving all the stress and pressure – as any apex planet would. 
According to Kevin Burk, when analyzing a t-square we should pay special attention to the houses where the planets in opposition are located, to see where the tension comes from. The opposition occurs not only across the Aquarius-Leo axis, but also across to the 2nd-8th axis. What we think we are worth vs. inheritance – inheritance not only as tangible assets but also as the psychological baggage we carry from our families. Let’s not forget that, as described analytically, this is an opposition that clearly describes the situation in her early home. So, the tension comes from what Diana has inherited, a past without the love and affection a child should receive, something that had a deep impact in her self-esteem too (2nd house). Diana started to value mothering more than anything else, she wanted to succeed with that, not to repeat her mother’s mistakes, and she kept on bring a “momsy” attitude to all her relationships that possibly was unbearable for others, trapped them in a way (the Venus-Moon square). When analyzing the Moon-Venus square and Moon-Uranus opposition I referred to eating disorders. It is the same thing the t-square talks about, just with different manifestations throughout Diana’s life. Eating disorders were the result of trying to fill the emotional gap. The choice of wrong partners was the result of her low self-esteem and desperate need to find love somewhere. And so on and so forth. But what about the fact that Venus is also an indicator for her children in her chart as ruler of her 5th house? Objectively Diana was a good mother, she adored her children and her children loved her very much too. It seems normal when one considers that this is a very strong Venus, in domicile, and in the house she rules. But as the focal planet she is stressed. And indeed Diana was extremely worried about her children, precisely because of what she had to carry with her. Not only was she anxious to give what she had not received, but she was afraid that her children could be taken away from her, like it happened when her mother was denied custody. And this was something that made Diana suffer. I guess that many astrologers would connect the t-square with Diana’s tragic death, an issue I am scrupulously trying to avoid throughout this analysis. Uranus is in the 8th house (also) of death which could indicate a sudden death if other factors agreed and opposes Moon, the 8th house ruler (btw, Uranus does not rule any house in this chart since – even if one included modern rulerships in the analysis- Aquarius is intercepted in this chart). I cannot really go very far with this, I just want to make a comment to show it is something I have started thinking of. 
But finally, did Diana manage to release the t-square energy? It seems that, while approaching the end of her life especially, she was doing pretty well although she was unable to completely leave known patterns behind her and avoid repetition (fixity?) – analysts say the choice of Dodi was exactly the choice mom did, a multimillionaire playboy who knew how to enjoy life (Venus in Taurus in the 5th?) . What helps release the energy of a t-square? Well, the truth is we’ve all seen several interpretations. Some pay special attention to the “empty leg”. In this case the “empty leg” is in the 11th house of social responsibility (among other things). Her charity work did help Diana find some peace, that is something generally accepted. So, finding the anchor needed in the 11th house seems like an interpretation that “fits”. Frank Clifford does not pay that much attention to “empty legs” and suggests to look for a “release” aspect, something foreign to the configuration. In Diana’s case Venus, the focal point, trines Saturn in Capricorn. But there is also Moon trining the MC – for some, it doesn’t necessarily have to be the apex that gives a “way out”, any aspect from the other planets in the configuration could do. Of course the Moon-MC would again indicate that Diana manage to find comfort in the love she received by the people, in her undoubted popularity. 
Another thing that seemed to have helped Diana finally feel  better, was her relationship with Dodi, but I can’t really connect this relationship with any of the trines. The Venus-Saturn trine (which has a somewhat wider orb) could show that a Saturnian, i.e. a committed, long-lasting (Saturn) relationship (Venus) would be what she needed in order to find a constructive way out, but I don’t think her relationship had the time to reach this point. But then again, Venus was also the ruler of her 10th house (Midheaven in Libra), her public image, her “career”: the talent to commit to, to work hard in order to build a concrete public image, a “career” that would last, helped her release the pressure of her t-square.
*term used by my teacher at Kepler College, Carol Tebbs
To write this piece I used:
The Contemporary Astrologer's Handbook by Sue Tompkins (2007)
Astrology: Understanding the Birth Chart by Kevin Burk (2011)
The Anatomy of a T-square by Frank Clifford (published in The Mountain Astrologer, June/July 2012) and,
Femmes Celebres sur le Divan by Catherine Siguret

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Clint Eastwood's Step-by-Step Chart Analysis. Step I: Hemispheres and Quadrants

In Eastwood’s chart, we notice an emphasis on the Southern hemisphere. In particular, there are seven bodies above the horizon against three that are below. Both his Lights, the Sun and the Moon, together with the personal planets Mercury and Venus, Jupiter, and the outer, Neptune and Pluto, are all above the AC-DC axis, while Mars, Saturn and Uranus are below, in the Northern hemisphere.

 
The IC-MC axis divides the chart in Eastern and Western hemisphere. The emphasis here is in the Western hemisphere since there are eight bodies setting against only two rising. In particular, both Lights, together with the inner planets – Mercury, Venus and Mars, Jupiter, and two of the outer planets – Uranus and Pluto, are located in the right part of the chart (Western hemisphere), which leaves only Saturn and Neptune in the left (Eastern hemisphere).

 

The division of hemispheres is not house based. The AC-DC and IC-MC axes are the ones dividing a chart in Northern / Southern and Eastern / Western hemispheres respectively. The placement of the axes does not change as we change house systems, so the distribution of planets in hemispheres is the same, no matter which house system we use.

 

A chart with a Southern hemisphere emphasis like this one, can be indicative of a person who wants to “rise above his/her position at birth”, who is more extroverted than introverted, more social, more objective and less personal. Individuals with “heavy” Southern hemispheres are said to be more focused on the interaction between themselves and others.

 
On the other hand, a Western hemisphere emphasis can show a more reactive and relationship-oriented individual. Those with the majority of planets setting are the ones who “enjoy” more working with others, the “team-players”; they tend to focus on external relationships and are more dependent on the reactions of others and more receptive.

 
The strongest Quadrant in this chart is the third where the majority of “planets” (Lights + planets) is placed. Six bodies –including the two Lights- are located in the space between DC and MC (Q3). In the first Quadrant (AC-IC), there is only one planet, Saturn; 2 planets, Uranus and Mars are in the second Quadrant (IC-DC); and only one planet, Neptune, is located in the space between the MC and AC (Q4).

 
Deciding which is the strongest Quadrant is again something that wouldn’t be affected by the house system we would use as quadrants are not house based but divided by the AC-IC-DC-MC which are the same regardless house system.

 
The 3rd Quadrant belongs both to the Southern and Western hemispheres. A strong 3rd Quadrant would thus indicate an individual who is extroverted (Southern) and reactive (Western). Those with an emphasized Q3 are of course relationship-oriented but tend to focus more on their relationships with society (rather than with their immediate environment). Besides, the phrase “awareness of society” is a key-phrase for Q3.

Planets in Rulership, Exaltation, Detriment and Fall: Definitions and Prince William's Example


Rulership: In classical astrology, the Lights, the Sun and the Moon, ruled the signs of Leo and Cancer respectively, and the –then known- five planets ruled two signs each. The classical system of rulerships was based on the idea that planets have more strength in some signs and less in others. A planet in the sign it ruled was said to be “at home” and it was believed to be no different than any individual at home: he would feel stronger and safer and have the permission to do pretty much whatever he wanted to do. A planet in rulership is strong, it does not necessarily operate in a “good” or “bad” way, but in any case it tends to “rule the roost” (S. Tompkins)* and dominate over other energies.As Kevin Burk** says, planets in rulership are able to express their true nature, their pure energy (I like to use the term “raw” energy).
When outer planets were discovered, modern astrologers wanted to incorporate them in the “rulership system”, actually give them a sign to rule too, associate them with a sign. This introduced the idea of “affinity”; a planet and the sign it rules have things in common, they share similar characteristics. Depending on the astrologer, outer planets can be used as only rulers or co-rulers (of Aquarius, Pisces and Scorpio) or not used as rulers at all.

Detriment: A planet is said to be in detriment when it is placed in the sign opposite to the sign it rules. A planet in detriment is considered “debilitated” but the question is to which extent it is really “weakened”. If a planet in rulership is in the position that better allows it to express its true, essential nature, the problem with the opposite placement is that the planet cannot express itself. So, a planet in detriment is not exactly weak nor does operate necessarily in a “bad” way. It just can’t operate in its best interest and this is what might bring it in a difficult position, what can feel like a disadvantage. As already mentioned, it always helps to think of a planet in detriment as the exact opposite of a planet in rulership. A planet in rulership feels at home and thus comfortable enough to do its own thing. A planet in detriment is in a somewhat unfamiliar environment and thus “afraid” and “worried” when it comes to expressing its energy.

Exaltation: Every planet has a sign in which it is said to be “exalted”. The sign of its exaltation is a “good” placement for any planet, it is strong there. But, if a planet in rulership is like an individual at his own place, a planet in exaltation is like an “honored guest” (W. Lilly). Thus, a planet in exaltation does not operate in such a “selfish” way (having its own agenda as K. Burk says) as a planet in rulership would, but it is still in an environment where it feels comfortable (the host offers the best to an honored guest) and is able to express the best of itself. The sign of its exaltation is thus probably the best placement a planet could be in. It is strong, it is in an environment that suits him and where it can be comfortable, it is able to express itself, but at the same time it remains a guest, so “forced” in a way to behave, to bring out not simply its true self, that could be “bad” and selfish and tending to dominate everything, but its best self. A planet in exaltation can express its “higher nature”.

Fall: A planet is said to be “in fall” when placed in the sign opposite to the sign in which it is exalted. Planets in fall are also considered debilitated (as planets in detriment). They are disadvantaged because they too are found in an unfamiliar environment; Kevin Burk compares them to somebody that has landed to a foreign place, not knowing the language or the customs. And as anybody in an alien, uncomfortable territory and not being able to communicate, planets in fall cannot express themselves easily. Sue Tompkins uses the “expatriate” example too. But she adds that as any individual in such a situation would do, planets in fall tend to focus too much on survival and thus to not care much about others and act quite “selfishly” (as a result of their feeling of insecurity). This could make sense if again we thought of planets in fall as the opposite of planets in exaltation that are comfortable enough to be able to express their “higher nature”.


In Prince William’s chart there are three planets in rulershipAs any planet in rulership, these too will tend to express themselves very powerfully and dominate over other energies in the chart.

William’s Venus in Taurus is in his 5th house (Placidus). This placement is indicative of someone who values (Venus) loyalty and stability (Taurus) in his affairs (and this is not only because Venus generally has to do with relationships but also because here she is placed in the 5thhouse implying that the area where she will express her energy is romance).

From what I can tell, this Venus is very prominent in William’s life. He had a long-term relationship with Kate whom he ended up marrying. It lasted (as an affair and not marriage, which would take us to the 7th house – ok, I know this is a matter of debate, and then it’s Venus anyways) from 2003 to 2011, i.e. almost seven years, quite a long time especially taking into consideration that the couple was –at the time of the wedding- in its late 20s. Overall the relationship seemed to incorporate many Taurean traits, to be grounded, unpretentious, developing steadily through the years - from the dorm to engagement, to walking down the aisle, to having a baby. But this is obviously what William, who declared “not a party animal” during his college years, wants, what dominates his personality. He could well fool around, at least for some time, like a Prince Charming he is, but this Venus in Taurus seems to make him hold on tight. To me it is also interesting taking a look at the aspects this Venus forms, which are actually only two. An almost exact quincunx with Neptune that could “disturb” this very fixed and grounded Venus making her want to escape, to constantly run after the ideal and never feel fulfilled. And an out-of-sign (and thus not an aspect for some) but applying opposition with Uranus that could possibly lead to sudden and unexpected changes in relationships or a marked need for freedom and autonomy as far as they are concerned. But, as it seems at least, Venus here dominates over the other energies she touches. They want to “disturb” her but, as a planet in rulership, she gets to do her own thing, manages to show more strength and remain loyal, stable and persistent enough.

Another “planet” in rulership in William’s chart is his Moon in Cancer. According to Kevin Burk this is a Moon that tends to express herself so powerfully that she might have a hard time “accepting” she is not the only actor in the play! This is an intensely emotional Moon and probably the prince has a sensitive emotional and feeling nature that is very prominent. It is hard to know how sensitive one is, to which extent he tends to overreact, how dependable he is on other people’s support, how much he needs to experience and share emotions with others, especially when talking about a public figure. But apart from one’s needs, emotions and innate behavior, the Moon in his/her chart can also describe his/her experience of his/her mother. As of course she can describe any important woman in one’s life (as long as he turns there for support and nurturing!).

The same could apply to Venus; let’s not forget that for classical astrologers, Venus is used as the mother indicator in diurnal charts (and the one of William is a diurnal chart since the Sun is above the horizon), and anyways, in a man’s chart she is an indicator of the type of woman he is attracted to. In any case, what is interesting in William’s chart, is that both his “female indicators” are so strong, which is something showing that women play a major role in his life. And most probably this is the truth for William. Searching the web for as much information as possible about him, I would find articles and biographies focusing more on his relationship with Kate and of course on late Princess Diana, than on anything about his very own personality.
Probably, women in William’s life do not just play an important role, but are actually experienced as more powerful. A Moon in Cancer almost always shows a very symbiotic tie between mother and child, a relationship that is more powerful than usual. If we compare that very strong Moon in rulership, to William’s peregrine Sun, the father indicator in his chart, it is not difficult to understand that it was his mother that influenced him the most. His Moon-Sun conjunction (a separating one and thus less powerful than other aspects his Moon forms) might be an indicator that the relationship between his parents, despite their problems, was not experienced very “negatively”. Apparently, as the Lights are in the same sign, they had things in common. But the condition of the Lights (one in rulership, the other peregrine) shows that dad had always been on mum’s shadow. And he was indeed. Diana was very popular, “The People’s Princess”. Charles on the other hand was never that likeable. Let’s not forget that apart from father/mother indicators, the Sun and Moon serve as general indicators of the masculine and feminine principal. William grew up seeing his grandmother being a Queen, leading an entire nation, leaving his grandfather again in the shadow. Will William “reproduce” this family pattern? Will Kate be the strong woman, behind the powerful man (especially if he eventually becomes the King)? His Moon in the 7th might be indicative of the fact that his mother had some influence on his selection of partner too (although not with him anymore).
Another thing that is left to be seen is how William will do as a family man. The two “great powers” in his chart, Venus and Moon, are placed –as mentioned already- in the 5th and 7th house respectively, indicating on one hand, that he loves (Venus) children (5th) and he values family, and on the other, that getting married (7th) and having a home and a family is something he really needed and deeply wanted (Moon) and that it would be really important to him. In the signs they are, and being that powerful, his Venus and Moon give me the impression that will play out very strongly also as far as the family he is building now is concerned. I feel that he will be able to support all this, and be a nurturing and loyal father and husband. And maybe this will come out as one of his very prominent characteristics.

Another interesting thing about William’s chart might be the fact that the other “male indicator”, Mars, “the male force”, is in Libra, in the sign of his detriment. This could add to the idea that man figures in his life, and obviously himself too, are not so “worried” about (I guess some would say not able to) doing their own thing and being in control, but put relationships, harmony and balance (Libra) above all and just tactfully let their women have the power (strong female indicators - like grandma).
William’s case makes me think of something I read in Sue Tompkins’ “Contemporary Astrologer’s Handbook”.That there is nothing “good” or “bad” about a planet in detriment. His Mars in Libra, although poorly placed, is actually “good” for him, because this way he is at least somewhat “in sync” with the other, strong planets in his chart. With Mars in Libra he puts a lot of energy intorelationships, relationships are what spurs him into action. Which is something that doesn’t seem to be in conflict with him needing a home and a family and loving children as we mentioned above. A Mars in Aries for example would direct all his energy towards doing his very own thing and satisfying his very own desires, and this could bring some kind of battle.  What I am thinking here is that “good” placements might be “good” for the planets’ interests but not for the individual. Maybe a number of very powerful planets in a chart would be indicative of various very strong energies each one operating in a very autonomous way leading to a situation where the individual would not know where to stand and probably experiencing constant inside battles, feeling that one energy pushes him towards one thing and the other towards something really different.

This is just a thought because on another hand, William’ Mars is in square aspect with his Moon. So, where is this “war”, “the obstacle” the square informs us about when the two “planets” seem to go after more or less the same thing?

Some guesses one could take regarding this square; for William, women are strong, are influential, exercise power, but this should not be confused with the contemporary idea of powerful women who have successful careers, and might be too aggressive and so on. With his Moon in Cancer, William probably feels that women should remain somewhat “traditional”, they should be there to protect, to nurture, to comfort, theyshould not lose their “femininity”. The contact with Mars brings some more “masculine” traits into the picture. He is not a very aggressive Mars this one in Libra, but he still makes them want to fight, and he makes want to fight for their relationships, probably for harmony, peace, fairness and equality in their relationships. It is difficult for anyone to get to know this, but William might had a problem (indicated by the square) with his mother (Moon) leaving her marriage (7th) and her “traditional” role (Cancer) to go after (Mars) a chance to experience a more “fair” to her relationship (Libra), in which she would not experience betrayal, and she would not feel neglected. (in a relationship with a man with different cultural and religious background – Mars in 9th).

But again, this square is formed between a planet in rulership, Moon in Cancer, and a planet in detriment, Mars in Libra, so we would expect the Moon to dominate. And indeed, William did not go into fight with his mother, there was no conflict, there was something challenging there of course, but his overall experience of his mother and family was positive, she was highly supportive, she did try to protect him, she was “momsy” enough despite being a royalty, and she influenced him deeply.
There is something else about this Mars I think of. According to Kevin Burk, planets in detriment might actually be very strong but use their strength in inappropriate ways. In William’s biographies on the web, attention is paid to the royal duties he exercises for themoment. These mostly have to do with travelling abroad and actually taking care of the Palace’s external affairs. A Mars in Libra in the 9th flavor here…But what I thought is that, for something like that to be mentioned in a biography, it seems that it has some impact, it makes people notice. So this is a Mars that despite being in detriment manages to act out strongly. And then there are these inappropriate ways. Maybe William will turn out to be too “diplomatic” for a British loyalty? Maybe he will try to promote more equal and fair relationships (Libra) with foreign countries (9th) and probably this will be in conflict with his heritage (the square with Moon in Cancer)? Maybe this will be considered inappropriate? This is also to be seen.

In William’s chart there is a third planet in rulership, Mercury in Gemini. Most probably William has a quick mind and is capable of communicating in an intelligent way. The truth is that, trying to connect the astrological findings with William’s bio, I could not find any evidence that this is a very prominent characteristic of his, as I would expect. (It is not that I doubt it, I just can’t know it!). Something that might though be connected to Mercury’s placement in Gemini and in the 5th house is the fact that William is known for having many interests which include fishing, skiing, football, riding, shooting, motorcycling, hunting, swimming, and polo. This could be a combination of Gemini’s passion for variety with the 5th house (hobbies, fun). One of course would ask where does Mercury come into this picture. Mercury in the 5th is associated with sports / games / hobbies that need a good level of eye / hand coordination (like shooting). Mercury’s association with vehicles (motorcycling) is also known. Mercury in the 5th could also show one with a talent in writing, and recently William published an article having to do with the Air Force (his Mars trining Mercury?). Managing to communicate his ideas cleverly could possibly show how strong his Mercury is.

Something that also caught my eye while reading William’s biography on biography.com, was the following: William gives the impression of being a well-mannered, responsible and mature young man who shows a strong sense of duty and loyalty to the royal family, fully aware of the role he is to play in the future as the King of England.

To me there is something very “Saturnian” about this paragraph and this is probably what made me notice it.Responsibility, maturity, sense of duty, are all senses clearly related to Saturn, and, more than that, to Saturn expressing himself skillfully. Even awareness of roles (involves maturity, sense of authority, and duty) andloyalty to the royal family (respect for tradition, and for the status quo maybe) have a strong Saturnian flavor. I get the impression that here we have a planet in exaltation (William’s Saturn in Librathat really express the best of himself and gifts the individual with positive traits. And this Saturnian paragraph is the general impression people have about who William really is. So this Saturn in exaltation is what actually defines him and we would thus say that he acts out very powerfully. An interesting thing is that all major aspects he forms are quite wide (over 6 degrees orb) so there are no other energies mixing up very strongly with his own. But in his conjunction with Mars, Saturn would tend to dominate, and thus probably “hold back” Mars’ possible impulsiveness and make him act in a more mature way. (so no fear that Mars in detriment would act in inappropriate ways?)


*The Contemporary Astrologer’s Handbook by Sue Tompkins (2007)
**Astrology: Understanding the Birth Chart by Kevin Burk (2011)