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 2^nd house of values (she valued mothering) while her Venus is in the 5^th 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” (2^nd 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 2^nd-8^th 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 (2^nd 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 5^th 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 8^th house (also) of death which could indicate a sudden death if other factors agreed and opposes Moon, the 8^th 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 5^th?) . 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 11^th 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 11^th 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 10^th 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