Meghan & Kate – desire and duty

93 thoughts on “Meghan & Kate – desire and duty”

1. Marjorie, I wonder if you ever read the late astrologer David Roell’s analysis of William and Kate’s wedding chart and synastry. It was published in his AstroAmerica newsletters in 2011. Fascinating reads.

   1. This is the wedding chart analysis, pg 1,3-5.

   https://astroamerica.com/newsletters/2011-may03.pdf

   2. He followed up the following week with an analysis of Kate’s chart. He used the 11:33pm birth time, this was written before the 7pm was published, but I wonder if 11:33pm is the correct one especially in relation to the UK 1066 chart.

   Pages 2, 4-5

   https://astroamerica.com/newsletters/2011-may10.pdf

   • very interesting links Farah-and chilling. Love the way he states ‘Charles BRIEFLY inherits his mother’s title’….2 coronations in our lifetimes? 3 for some?

   • Wow Farah, David Roell’s writing is a turn-up for the books. Fascinating! And I’m more shocked as he’s article echo’s Jonathan Cainer who made a similar comment about William years ago – something to the effect of “it’s not about William inheriting the throne it’s about which brother will be King” – cryptic, no?

2. Jennifer E I agree and as an African American? I’m sure you know much more about racism than most?
   We still don’t know what King Charles (and now Catherine!) actually SAID! It’s natural to wonder which side grandkids will look like but I can’t somehow see Charles showing ´concern’ He’s more likely to have joked that he hopes they don’t inherit his protruding ears!
   Considering Meghan claimed on Oprah that they had actually been married days earlier in their garden by the Archbishop of Canterbury we may perhaps sometimes doubt the veracity of everything Meghan says. The Archbishop had to then publicly deny the claim as it would have made the marriage in St George’s Chapel illegal!
   Harry is on record as wondering how his ´ginger genes would stand up to his wife’s’
   when they had children. He also said he hoped his children wouldn’t inherit his´pasty skin’.
   Meghan claims there were ‘several conversations during her pregnancy’, Harry says there was’ one when they first met’.
   This whole furago takes away the spotlight from those who suffer from severe forms of racism. Couldn’t find the right words there I don’t mean to minimise any kind of racism.
   I just don’t think it was the case for Meghan apart from maybe a few idiots on social media.
   She was initially very much welcomed with open arms in the U.K. We were all so happy for Harry to have found love at last.

3. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/12/03/princess-of-wales-duchess-of-sussex-royal-rift/

   • Camilla Tominey is the Middleton family mouthpiece, every time there are negative stories about them she’s trotted out to spin. She is the one who first wrote that silly melodrama about tights. Now, she wants us to know that a woman wearing a sleeveless dress indoors in the winter is an issue, and how are women finding their voice not good for mental health? I do agree that this mental health panel was a turning point in their relationship, but for a different reason. Meghan, the new member of the family was articulate while Kate mumbled timidly like she usually does, I think this aroused Kate’s competitive nature.

     Meghan and Harry are often criticised, rightly so, for airing their petty grievances and their family’s dirty laundry, but the royal family does it too. Instead of books and interviews like Harry and Meghan, the royals do it covertly, using their favourite reporters to tell their side of the story. This gossipy article feels like a rebuttal to Scobies book, the bit about the staff loving Kate is a reaction to Scobie writing about the fact that Kate has gone through 5 private secretaries in 6 years.

     Several journalists are on record that almost every negative story about Harry and Meghan came from Kensington Palace, William and Kate’s base. The leaks and negative stories really took off after reports were published about William’s extracurricular activities and his sudden fondness for rose bushes.

     I find Meghan superficial, irritating, a bit of a con artist and it will unfortunately end badly for Harry, but this narrative of Meghan the witch and saint Kate needs to stop. You can never convince me that Kate Middleton with that astro chart is a nice or even a kind person, how could she when she is using her formidable will power to keep a lid on what must be volcanic levels of frustrations and anger.

     One day, the full and complete story of what happened in this sordid saga will be told and I don’t think William and Kate will come out well.

     • This from Byline Times is what our newspapers will never print.
       https://bylinetimes.com/2023/10/25/exploding-megxit-how-dan-wootton-and-a-cash-for-leaks-scandal-split-the-monarchy/

       • Yes, the mainstream media wouldn’t dare touch this story. I think when Rupert Murdoch finally moves on from this world the floodgates will open.

     • Strongly disagree. Have you watched clips of her interacting with people? She’s pure magic. Her name is Catherine. She hasn’t been known as Kate for several years. I don’t understand why people still refer to her as Kate. Is it misogynistic?

       • I find her performative, the exaggerated hand gestures and facial expressions, the guffawing when every else around her is straight faced, it seems designed for still photographs and the newspapers. Kate is a far better actress than Meghan.

         • Her name is Catherine.

     • I hardly ever mention any other astrologers simply because Marjorie is simply the best, but on the subject of Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, it is worth mentioning Susan Hopkinson’s study of Meghan’ chart and why people find it hard to like her.

4. Samantha is suing her sister because Meghan ruined her professional reputation. And let’s make this clear: when you move next door to your family and drive your kid sister to school Monday through Friday, that is a relationship.

5. A post about Meghan and Kate’s relationship yet most if not all the comments are about Meghan. Meghan Markle is the best thing that ever happened to Kate Middleton.

   I think both brothers chose a spouse based on how they experienced Diana. Harry younger and idealising his mother, fell for Meghan’s con that she is just like Diana. With a Cancer ascendant and a Leo North Node, maybe he saw shades of his mother in her. Meghan I think had been obsessed with Diana for a long time leaned heavily into it and Harry having felt he couldn’t protect his mother, declared war on his family to protect Meghan.

   William on the other hand experienced Diana’s emotional dramas, being her “confidant” and as someone mentioned substitute for Charles, a heavy burden for a child. William having decided no messy emotions for him or any emotions for that matter, married someone once described on this site as being “on remote control”.

   When I see Kate’s chart ,I flinch. That is one truly stressed Moon. Kate’s Moon is opposite Sun square Saturn Pluto on one side and Mars on the other, conjunct North Node. An eclipsed moon at that, Kate was born on the evening of a total lunar eclipse. She maybe custom built for royal life but that is one deeply unhappy woman, who may not even be conscious of it.
   She has achieved her mother’s dream of high social status and will be crowned Queen Consort one day.

   • If she is the last Queen and her children and grandchildren never ascend the throne, she will be much more unhappy. It does sound like that is her fate. It will be said that a commoner brought ill fortune.

     • Interesting last sentence. One wonders apart from bloodline was astrology a reason why royals never married commoners?

       Do people of a certain bloodline have similar charts? Did Prince George “inherit” the commoner chart from his maternal side?

       • In my view, Prince George has no sign of a royal future in his chart, only great personal wealth which he would presumably keep if the monarchy were abolished. He may reject the monarchy. His sister Charlotte is different and has royal potential, which may however never be realized.

         • This reminds me of a belief in my culture that boys take after their mother’s side and daughters after their father’s.

           Let’s see how it pans out in case of monarchy.

6. The composite chart here has some interesting links with Edward VIII’s Abdication in December, 1936 – so that he could marry his American lover, divorcee Wallis Simpson, “the woman I love”. We’ve been talking a bit about the 1930’s with Uranus in Taurus and right wing leaders and dictators lately. I noticed that Edward had a 4th house Pluto, which started this chain of thought! Anyway, a few other things about this ‘royal’ situation and that era caught my attention:

   Abdication Mars: 14 Libra
   Composite Saturn: 13 Libra
   UK 1801 Nodes: 13 Aries/Libra
   Edgar UK Venus: 14 Aries
   Edward VIII Saturn: 18 Libra

   It also struck me that the Abdication’s intense Venus in Capricorn 28, opposing Pluto at 28 Cancer in December 1936, has recently been transited by Mars in Libra, Pluto in Capricorn, and the Moon’s Nodes in Aries. And there are the Meghan/Kate Composite Nodes at 27 Cancer/Capricorn, under transit pressure in recent months and perhaps posing questions of direction and purpose for their relationship, and by extension, their husbands?
   Edward’s natal Mercury was 27 Cancer. And the Sun for the Battle of Hastings, 1066 – a pivotal moment in British history – was 27 Libra.
   This weekend, Venus in Libra squares Pluto at 28 Capricorn, so there’s a women and power theme stirring through all these sensitive degrees, for the individuals and perhaps leading to a wider story as things move forward?

7. Re Aquarius symbolising the established past as well at barrier-breaking futuristic matters, surely this can be seen from its co-rulers of Saturn (tradition) and Uranus (innovation)?

   • Aquarius breaks down the distant past.

8. Could the rejection of MM have more to do with her being American (and not culturally raised with the Monarchy) than her race or natal chart?

   How were the wealthy daughters of American tycoons received in the early 20th Century when they married for titles? Weren’t they considered “aliens”?

   • Good point KateS, and perhaps for some people but not the majority. The ‘Downton Abbey’ phenomena of American heiresses marrying impoverished British aristocracy included dozens of marriages.

     “While some American heiresses found their match on the continent, others were drawn to Britain, whose social structures were upheld by primogeniture and entail. This system ensured that the eldest son would inherit the family estate in trust, preventing assets from being broken up. However, these estates were expensive to maintain and so the noble families of Britain welcomed wealthy American ‘Dollar Princesses’ with open arms.” National Portrait Gallery, 2015

     • Famously Winston Churchill’s mother, Jeanette Spencer-Churchill (née Jerome), was one of those “Dollar Princesses”.

       The Churchills own Blenheim Palace, where Winston was born, as the son of the third son of the 7th Duke of Marlborough.

       • Churchill and Princess Diana were related! So that makes her descendant of the Dollar Princess. “Diana, Princess of Wales, and Winston Churchill, were distant cousins. Charles Spencer married Lady Anne Churchill. They were the five-times-great-grandparents of Winston Churchill and the seven-times-great-grandparents of Diana.”

9. “Aquarius has a reverence for the distant past as well as the future – and the monarchy is rooted in history.” – Marjorie Orr

   That’s interesting to know about Aquarius; I always thought Aquarius was more associated with breaking from tradition and norms, social justice, and humanitarianism….but of course, there’s always a flip side to the planets. I was unaware that appreciation for tradition and the past would be associated with Aquarius.

   My Jupiter is in Aquarius in the 3rd house. I’ve always been a very good writer (I took 3 years of journalism in high school, became a features editor, wrote for a community newsletter in my city, and considered majoring in journalism when I was in college and university), a great public speaker, and….I’ve always been progressive-minded when it comes to political, environmental, and social issues. In fact, in my 20s, I was a hardcore Marxist-Leninist (I adhered to the Hoxhaism branch) and I read everything from Das Kapital, State and Revolution, The Communist Manifesto, to various essays by Rosa Luxembourg, Emma Goldman, and Dr. Angela Davis’s autobiography. Today, I’m a quadragenarian, center-left Democrat, LoL.

   However, at the same time, I’ve always loved studying European History, Art History, and Europe’s Royal families and Aristocracies…and I still am. Even during my Marxist-Leninist years, I was fascinated with all of the world’s royal families – especially the British Royal Family and I had great admiration for Queen Elizabeth II. I was very disappointed when Elizabeth II passed on.

   In June 2001, I became obsessed over the tragic murder-suicide of the Nepalese Royal Family and I had to read any and every news story I could find on the topic. I felt a strange emotional connection to the whole thing…and I even remember being very disappointed in 2008 when Nepal abandoned the monarchy.

   So, I always wondered what caused a part of me to align with Marxism-Leninism at one point in my life….while the other part of me was drawn to tradition, opulence, and royal culture at the same time.

   I used to think that maybe my fascination and admiration for European Royalty was the result of me having Mars in Taurus in the 6th House…or possibly because I have Saturn in Scorpio in the 1st house with Saturn sitting right on my Ascendant. In other words, I never imagined Aquarius having something to do with it.

   • Aquarius keen on archaeology and the sci fi future. Far past and far future.

     • Interesting….because I’m also very interested archaeology….sci fiction and futurism to a much lesser extent. I never thought all of that could possibly be attributed to Aquarius.

10. When I read the words in an another post~~ As far as I’m concerned Meghan is not white, she is black~~ I just sighed.

    The fact that it is biologically not true is one thing, and that the need for representation runs deep is another, but the wild divide of fighting Racism with Racism seems unending at this point – with or without Meghan.

    Where will the upending stop? ( by upending I mean divisive, violent things, not educational or enlightening things).

    All I know is a warm exchange with a stranger of a different hue melts the battleground.

11. @Anna
    “Didn’t the French overthrow the monarchy last time Pluto was in Aquarius? In know we are not the French but the simmer is there.”
    True and yet they promptly had an Emperor within 15 years, followed by a string of other Kings and Emperors.
    Likewise the Russian Revolution got rid of the Tsar and had Stalin within 15 years.
    Radical changes are radically undone.
    Ironically the American and England Glorious Revolutions changed very little on the ground, which is why their impacts lasted.

12. I sympathize with the 4th house Pluto people of the world, having that placement in my own natal chart (additionally, mine is tightly conjunct the IC). In my own case, I *never* felt safe at home, experienced ongoing physical and emotional abuse, and many times I was “thrown under the bus” by people who were supposed to love me. I suspect perhaps some similarity of childhood experience for Meghan too with that aspect. Her NN in Leo, especially if it really is in her 1st house, suggests that for her to develop a strong sense of self-worth is the right thing for her to do in this life. An Aquarius South Node suggests too much of being “invisible” or subordinating their personal desires to the will of the collective. I’m aware that many here see Markle as no more than a publicity-hungry harridan. But the astrology tells a story that must be applied to her with the same interpretations and the same definitions and the same integrity as it is to everyone else. I see her NN saying she is a person who is meant to shine in this life and, indeed, has “permission” from the Fates to do so. But one with this node must also take the lessons of a South Node Aquarius and be an example who people want to follow, which involves both integrity and Leonine dignity, with an eye always, primarily, toward a higher good. She could have done so much good as a royal if she wasn’t still “wearing” and vulnerable to Pluto’s s**t-stains. Honestly, I think it would be so beneficial if both Harry and Meghan were to explore their own astrology with the help of a credible and wise astrological guide.

    • Fascinating. I have the NN in the first house in Capricorn. That is the best interpretation of it I have ever read.

      • Maybe just “sense of self” would have been a better way for me to describe a 1st house NN, as I rather associate “worth” or “value” with the 2nd house and certainly Capricorn too. To me, the difference between Leo and Capricorn is like king vs. merchant–the royal is born to wealth, whereas the merchant acquires wealth by understanding the cost and value of something and uses their savvy with that knowledge to profit.

        • I used to know someone who had NN on their Ascendant and she said she had really no idea who she was which used to irritate her husband. So it seems more than just not understanding how others see you, it is a lack of a strong sense of self-identity – and a tendency to rely too heavily on being half of a pair. As if standing alone was not enough to produce a concrete sense of self.

    • Great post. I have Scorpio in the 4th house, and that was hard enough. Thank you for this. I think she could have done a lot of good in the world if she had stayed the course.

      • Superficially maybe. But I think her inner core is ego and limelight driven. Not charitable or service to others, driven.
        I think where she is right now is her destiny.

        • Meghan does seem to show us only the ego & limelight side of herself.

          With her Pluto in the 4th house, there has to be more going on that she hides from us, as, surely, no one can be so ‘surface’.

          • But Pluto is the planet of deep, often painful – transformation which can take a lifetime to master. In her 4th house, this will be through her relationship with her parents/ in-laws. I think Princess Lilibet and Prince Archie will have a role in her different approach.

    • I too have a 4th house Pluto. I couldn’t have had a lovelier childhood with wonderful parents, a supportive, generous loving home.

    • Another one, here, with Pluto in the 4th house, along with Uranus & a retrograde Venus.

      Things can get intense with Pluto in this house. There can be subterranean ‘things’ going on, especially in childhood, where you cannot control your immediate environment.

      And, I think you’re right, it would help both Harry & Meghan if they could explore their astrological blueprints.

    • Another 4th House Pluto here, conjunct Moon at that too.

      Yes, the home atmosphere could be challenging, particularly with an unfiltered highly opinionated mother telling you exactly what she thought of you, no holds barred. She was loving and caring, but could also be very hurtful.

      I can identify with the emotional abuse. She did not intend to abuse. She just was extremely emotional and saturated others in her emotions.

      • To the above, I would add that my relationship with my parents and brother changed dramatically, for both better and worse, after I moved cities.

        Marjorie, what impact does astrocartography have on interpersonal relationships? Would Meghan’s chart set in London behave differently with Kate’s, compared to Meghan’s at her birthplace and Kate’s?

13. To quote the great Yogi Berra, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” As an American suffering through a host of alarming, volatile and bizarre “Public Servants”, a long established monarchy sounds pretty good to me.

    I respect the British Monarchy. They are a family at the top of the heap living in a fishbowl. How exhausting. They represent a county that’s a big player in the world and they are good at their job.

    Someone has a temper? So did my grandfather. Someone’s cold and a bully? We got a few of those. Someone’s entitled and stupid? Don’t get me started. Family
    is a challenge. Like herding cats.

    I wish them the best.

14. I’ve never understood how anyone can have such deep emotional feelings about someone they have never personally met, but have all sorts of opinions about.

    People act as if they own Harry and the royal family and that people don’t have the option of leaving a dysfunctional family and when they do they get punished for it.

    Let’s be honest folks hate Meghan because she brought out the racists in Britain while people should be angry with themselves.

    • That is nonsense Roderick, not everything is down to racism. If she had behaved decently – the bullying allegations? the paranoid hyper-sensitivity? a narcissistic lack of empathy for the damage she causes?

      • It is funny that someone responded to my post when I never mentioned a specific person

        There’s a saying in America–a hit dog will holla..ha,ha,ha!!!

        Furthermore racism isn’t calling the n-word it is can be something as sneaky as bias and sadly the racist person doesn’t even realize that they are biased.

        You admit that her being a bully were only allegations but you want to claim that that is reason that you dislike her.

        One example is believing the worst in a person when the source is the British tabloids which are notorious for stretching the truth.

        Interestingly, the same tabloids that ran Harry and Meghan out of Britain have trained their sites on the rest of the royal family but folks are still talking about Meghan and Harry.

        it is obvious that lots of people are jealous of Meghan including her pitiful sister who is suing her because Meghan doesn’t want a relationship with her?

        I mean grow up Samantha.

        I have four half-siblings and only talk to one and that is only texting, but people hate Meghan so much that they are cheering Samantha on even though she’s desperately seeking the spotlight which they claim Meghan is doing.

        • People dislike Meghan because of the things she has said and the things she has done, not because of racism or jealousy.

        • The objection to the person is not her skin colour or racism, it is to the way she is behaving to the family and institution that others are invested in.

          She is being treated the same as Wallis Simpson. Got nothing to do with the colour of her skin and everything to do with her behaviour.

      • Too funny Roderick, it appears as if you live in the world where “micro-agressions” are real things.

        Maslow wrote: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.”

    • I’ve had a lot of actor friends, who make or have made their money – or a trade – via acting work. Quite of few of them move in the way she does. Please note, use of the word HAD! 🙂

      Still, I’ve honestly never read any thing about her that falls too far out of sync with many of the working actors I’ve known.

      For *some* of them, the more self-involved they are, the better they are at their job. It’s best not to take their behaviour too personally.

      People seem to take MM very personally. They shouldn’t. Maybe race has contributed to some of that. Most regulars in the UK in particular don’t get exposed to that energy much. Overall, its better received in the US, which I am sure is why she is now based back there.

      I wish her the best, she could have done good work here. Especially in terms of making the monarchy relevant for 2024 and beyond. A lot of younger UK folks needed, and still yearn, to see a face like hers next to Kate and Will.

    • Roderick, I agree with you. There does seem to be a thread of racism running through some members of the public & media with regards to Meghan.

    • Well put Roderick. People don’t realise they actually suffer from unconscious bias. It’s a REAL thing in humans.
      One’s unconscious racism is poo-poo’d

15. I agree the skin color issue is not a big issue especially with people of color families do it all the time.

    It’s not racism it’s curiosity.

    • It is called context. None the royal family isn’t a family color.

      When you’re a member of a family that married relatives to keep the bloodline pure/royal and and you ask what hue the child of the first member of the family that is not completely European will be then one could interpret it as racist.

      • Bloodline pure? They are not thoroughbred racehorses – Anne, Edward, Andrew, William – all married away from the old aristocracy.

        • LOL. So what?

          The first generation to do so doesn’t negate the long list of generations before them who married relatives like Queen Elizabeth married her not-so-distant cousin Phillip.

          • Roderick, find your chill. This is an astro website and your comments are nothing of the sort.

      • Hello. Please check in with facts. Princess Diana had Indian and Armenian ancestry. Queen Charlotte was mixed race. And a Māori man married Lady Davina Windsor in 2004. MM has not presented as African American until recently. She has spent thousands of dollars erasing any trace of African ancestry through plastic surgery. She joined a white sorority and listed her race as Caucasian on her CV. Also, she did not invite any African American relatives from Doria’s side to the wedding. If Prince Charles is racist why did she have him walk her partly down the aisle? And why would she name her daughter after a Queen who was part of a racist family? She could have named her children after relatives from the African American side. Lastly, she has never made any statements in support of Black History Month in the USA (every February). She could publicly embrace that time period for using her voice to recognize issues that are pertinent to the Black community but she chooses not to.

        • Aim, your comments seem a little unfair. I think Meghan Markle is allowed to present as she wishes, it’s nothing to do with us.

          If as you say, she has ‘listed her race as Caucasian on her CV’, the bigger question would be, why, rather than use it as a beating stick.

          Why does she have to make ‘statements in support of Black History month in the USA’ & why does she need to ‘use her her voice to recognize issues that are pertinent to the Black community’?

          She is a human being first and foremost, the same as you are.

          • Haha Pearl, you and Roderick are funny. You set us up with your contradictory reasoning.
            Because under your reasoning MM can present as she wishes and doesn’t need to use her platform for service and raising the profile of social issues that affect my race especially in the US. She was okay in your eyes to abandon her identity but then conveniently use it to capitalise on negatively for power. Yet she is okay to see fit to do nothing positive for same race with the influence she may now have? Hmm….!:

          • This is in response to Jennifer E (I can’t reply to your response directly as there is no reply button).

            I was specifically responding to what Aim had written.

            But, there are issues surrounding Meghan. If as Aim has said, that Meghan spent money on cosmetically removing her black features and if she identified on a CV that she was white, then I would want to know what on earth precipitated this. As far as I’m concerned Meghan is not white, she is black.

            There’s something more complex going on than just the superficial image that the public sees. Maybe, her 4th house Pluto & Saturn, Moon have something to do with whatever is going on with her.

            Whatever it is it isn’t healthy.

            I won’t reespond to the rest of what you’ve said because you have made assumptions about me, whilst not knowing anything about me.

      • The irony is that the British royal family is the one European royal family which is most relaxed about marrying outside other royalty.

        Queen Victoria’s daughter married a non-royal Scottish Marquess, which caused a scandal among other European royal families, which require marrying others of identical rank only. Queen Victoria put them in their place about the rules for British royal marriages.

        The late Queen Mother was the daughter of an Earl, not a princess. And the current Princess of Wales is a commoner, with no aristocratic connections in her immediate family. Indeed, Prince George has two grandparents who are neither royal nor even noble.

        So the one thing you can’t gripe about is that the UK royal family is focused on bloodline purity. That is the one royal family in Europe that has not fussed about point since Queen Victoria.

        I mean the Swedish one (the Bernodottes) are of course more relaxed still. Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden is married to her personal trainer, in a very Hollywood style move.

    • Context, as Roderick has said, is important.

      It is also not up to us, who are not part of the family, to decide whether it is viewed as racist or not. If Meghan felt as though there was a racist undertone to any questions, then that is enough to qualify it as racist for her.

      • No, it isn’t enough to qualify. Feelings do not trump facts.

        • Well, you haven’t presented any facts.

      • Hello Pearl. Meghan “means” Pearl. Pearl was also the name of the Netflix series MM was creating which was canceled. You are most likely not Meghan. But, seriously, she is rumoured to obsessively check social media and the web daily. Is that perhaps reflected in her chart? Have you watched clips from the wedding? IMO, Harry looks sick to his stomach. Definitely not as though he’s marrying the love of his life. I think it’s solely a business arrangement. As far as your statement about Catherine —I think she’s a prototypical Cap—grounded, down to earth, relaxed, warm and earthy. She and her children glow.

16. Side note: While I have no interest what so ever in Wales – Sussex feud, it’s interesting that all this broke out while Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Daniel of Sweden were visiting the Waleses. It’s been rumored younger Windsors have snubbed younger Bernadottes in many occasions. I guess that the visit was partly diplomatic – it’s known British Government and Military are incredibly frustrated by Türkiye holding back Sweden’s NATO ascension. But I’d also say that now that they are all more mature, and next in line to succession strong Cancerian streak William, Kate, and Vickan share may open dialogue.

    • What an intriguing comment re the Windsors and the Bernadottes, why would the former be looking down on the second ones?

    • I don’t think anyone is snubbing anyone else. They just don’t want to be seen as mainly friends with other royals, because that “exclusive” circle winds up citizens.

      All the royal families have been getting more “national”.

      Crown Princess Victoria married a Swedish man, bringing Swedish blood into the Swedish royal family for the first time in centuries.

      The crown prince of Norway married a Norwegian woman, Mette-Marit, bringing in Norwegian blood into the line.

      King Felipe of Spain married a Spanish lady, bringing Spanish blood into the line for the first time in 500 years.

      The Windsors have been doing this for a century. The Queen Mother was a Scot. Diana was English, as is Kate. The foreign-ness is being bred out. Prince George is mainly English and Scottish and will be the first king to have a coalminer in his ancestry – a king of the people.

      But you can’t be a king of the people if you spend all your time hob-nobbing with other royals.

      • @Candy, well, this was certainly an interesting framing, with all the talk about national “blood” coming to royal families. Seems a very 1920’s way of thinking. Also, it takes some kind of mental gymnastics to wipe out the whole class structure of the UK to put down some of the demonstratively most egalitarian societies of the World.

        But effectively, royal families in Europe are still in very unique positions AND family. They do mingle, whether your tabloid of choice in the UK reports it or not.

        Therefore, Princes William and Harry not as much as greeting the guy “bringing Swedish blood” (quote marks, because Prince Daniel’s father is a genealogist and especially proud of his “Forest Finn” heritage) and his brother-in-law Carl Philip at London Olympics was a thing. They would, at the same time, be friendly with Willem-Alexander of the Netherland and Fredrick of Denmark, so this raised eyebrows and did catch the attention of “royal observers”. After all, their royal parents were both at least partially raised by a Mountbatten – Queen Louise of Sweden, who married then widower King Gustaf VI Adolf, was Prince Philip’s aunt.

17. Thanks for this Marjorie, very interesting re sisters, and sisters-in-law relationships too. Also thank you for mentioning Trevor Phillips comments. He is right, as I know from personal experience with both friends and family members. I imagine people may have wondered if their children would have ginger hair as well…..

    Looking at Doria Ragland, Meghan’s mother, if the date is accurate, 2 September 1956, she has Uranus at 4 Leo – conjunct Meghan’s Mercury. Also a Grand trine in water, Mars 20 Pisces, Venus 24 Cancer, Saturn 27 Scorpio. That seems to resonate with the charts you post here. Doria’s NN is 3 Sagittarius, conjunct Kate’s Uranus, which suggests some complicated links between the three women. Family astrology never ceases to amaze.

    • I’m quite interested in Doria as Meghan’s astrology does not convince me that the relationship is as rosy as it’s presented. There’s also that clip of Meghan glaring at her mother in a way that can only be described as medusa-like because she has the gall to interrupt her. I just don’t see a supportive, close relationship in the astrology fwiw.

      Plus, whatever occurred during the discussion about Archie’s appearance, it happened SIX YEARS AGO. It’s been milked it bone dry. There is no more purchase to be made. Move on. Let it go.

      • Marjorie did a write-up on Doria about a year ago … “https://star4cast.com/harry-meghan-trivia-writ-large/”

        • Thanks GD. Good article.

18. What is more ominous about the monarchy is not the Meghan show. Her marriage with Harry will, sadly, probably end soon and she will go the way of the Duchess of Windsor, a person who was in the limelight from time to time but had no major impact in the last decades of her life. What is more significant in the latest book about the royal family is that William appears to have a serious character flaw in the form of an anger management problem. This is not really surprising. Harry has admitted he sought psychological counseling. If William is to be the last king, as I believe he will be, his anger may surface publicly and contribute to the demise of the monarchy. The latest poll, which was brought to my attention by the British republican movement called Republic, has 52% support for the monarchy, about the same level as here in Canada. In both countries, it is declining slowly and steadily. In my opinion, that is an unforeseen consequence of multiculturalism. Immigrants have to swear allegiance to the King, but once that is done they are usually not monarchists.

    • Not sure about that. Harry is more volatile than William – and King George V1 was given to rages. They can’t be expected to be robots. And William was damaged by Diana apart from anything else, who treated him like a Charles substitute when the divorce was going through. And that was unhealthy for a teenage boy. Which would be where some of his anger issues come from which may mellow the older he gets. It’s less likely that Harry will iron out his volcanic reservoir.

      • I understand that, according to Harry, the brothers physically fought over the Meghan-Kate relationship and that William was the aggressor. It seems to me that if such incidents are repeated, his deep-seated anger could dent his image. For him to be the last king, presumably something would happen to make him unpopular.

        • The brothers physically fought as *Harry* reported it. His truth. Something about William stepped towards him, grabbed him his necklace and Harry fell backwards hurting his back on a dog bowl.

          My interpretation is William has probably reached his wit’s end trying to get whatever point he was trying to make into Harry’s thick skull. That he has spent years trying to stay calm and suppressing his frustration and it finally came out.

          And yet it was Harry’s fearful reaction that caused him to back away. WIlliam didn’t try to punch him, he just stepped towards him. Perhaps to grab him by the shoulders or even grabbing him to try and stop him falling. Who knows!?

          Whatever happened I don’t think it makes William a rageholic, just a typical family member frustrated by the idiosyncracies of an idiot younger brother who is now approaching 40 and failing to show any signs of maturity.

          • Didn’t Harry blame William for the fact that Harry wore a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party? I mean, one tries to be impartial where sibling rivalries are concerned, but when all’s said and done it was Harry who chose to wear a Swastika armband and a Nazi uniform and it was Harry who used racist nicknames for his fellow soldiers. Classic darvo.

          • As the mother of two sons I agree. Brothers argue, brothers fight, who would have thought it!
            I think the whole episode was over-dramatised by Harry’s ghost writer. I felt Harry came over as a wimp whining about his broken necklace. I was thinking go Will, try and knock some sense into him. Joking!
            But I know neither of my sons would dream of betraying each other in such a public way however heated their disagreement.
            I think Will was trying to explain to Harry how Meghans attitude was upsetting their staff who were leaving in droves.

      • You’d have thought that both Kate & Meghan would have found some things in common, particularly given that they both have challenging Saturn, Moon aspects on their natal charts & Megan has Pluto in the 4th house.

        For Meghan, is it her Jupiter that offsets the harsher impacts of Saturn, Moon (Jupiter) conjunction, with respect to her mother?

        For Kate, with such harsh Moon aspects & with her Capricorn Sun involved, will it be in old age that we see a warmer, more relaxed person?

    • “In my opinion, that is an unforeseen consequence of multiculturalism. Immigrants have to swear allegiance to the King, but once that is done they are usually not monarchists.”

      Were they ever in Canada? My Finnish Canadian contacts had great respect for the Queen, but their ancestors either came to Canada during Russian Oppression or right after the Independence. Many had sided with the Reds in Civil War, and even the less radical ones might have had family in the US, and had a positive view on republican system.

      That said, immigrant population contributing to decline of popularity of monarchy definitely could be a factor in the UK. Especially for those immigrants whose roots are in colonized countries and less privileged groups there.

    • The decline in support for the monarchy is reflected in the decline of church going over the decades. Arguably though it’s also reflected in the decline of people who are members of amateur clubs, societies or volunteering. With the latter, they can be happy to volunteer for one-off occasions but they don’t want to be encumbered by long-term commitment. Perhaps it’s even reflected in marriage and voting. All of which seems like the Age of Aquarius might be upon us.

      • The age of aquarius will have no time/tolerance for anything like the us and them of monarchy. Aquarius is we, all the same, the collective that moves in one way and thinks the same way-supported by the tech. No more bowing or curtsying to anyone- in the sky or onearth!

        • Aquarius has a reverence for the distant past as well as the future – and the monarchy is rooted in history.

          • Didn’t the French overthrow the monarchy last time Pluto was in Aquarius? In know we are not the French but the simmer is there.

          • The French Revolution was as much to do with Uranus opposition Pluto which brews up revolutions and tends to rouse the underdog from their slumbers. Pluto in Aquarius may have helped but without Uranus Pluto it would not have come about – and anyway they dumped a monarch and ended up with an emperor.

          • The first hard aspect with a major planet for Pluto in Aquarius will be its square to Saturn in Taurus at the end of this decade. This will be difficult for a Scorpio such as King Charles. Perhaps that will be the time that a Starmer government, if it is elected as expected next year, makes good on the recommendation made by former PM Gordon Brown’s constitutional commission of the Labour Party, that the House of Lords be abolished entirely and replaced by an elected senate. Even if Starmer never abolishes the monarchy, that will be seen as the next-to-last measure. I think the 2036 prediction for a British republic is becoming more plausible each year with the monarchy under 50% with under-40s across the UK. As for Uranus opposite Pluto, that won’t happen again until 2047-48. It should lead to violent, abrupt and radical change as it did in the French Revolution, nothing to do with a civilized and rational end to the monarchy to be expected in the UK. It will go when it is time. The French lurched from one regime to another from 1789 until 1870, when the republic was established for good. I do not expect that from the British, although it did happen a long time ago under Cromwell.

          • Out of interest, I briefly glanced at the last time Pluto in Aquarius was in opposition to Uranus in Leo and it brings up the date of October, 1537 where the opposition was at 6 degrees. In connection with the English Royal family, the conjunction saw the births of future king, Edward VI (12/10/1557) and future queen, Lady Jane Grey (13/10/1537). Both individuals born into the melee of the religious wars and revolutions which plagued Europe during the rise of Protestantism. Both individuals’ at the mercy of their elders, both reigns were brief, both died tragically young as teenagers.

          • * the opposition saw the births of future king….

          • And both dates of birth should be 1537. Virus brain.

      • Many years ago, my brother had opined that the decline in support for both theistic religion and monarchy are co-related.

        If one is used to democracy and court systems overturning decisions one disagrees with, the idea that either a monarch or a divine being is beyond appeal and can’t be removed/voted out/have their decisions overturned is alien to them.

        • I think the idea of religion and monarchy being co-related is very interesting. It’s also particularly easy right now to connect these given the religious elements on show in the recent accession and coronation of KC3.
          But, one of the strengths and weaknesses of the UK monarchy is its very longevity and constant if glacially slow evolution. Just about every scenario you can think of has played out over the last 1000 years, from assassination to civil war, republicanism to restoration. English (and Scottish come to that) and British Monarchs – usually by the will of Parliament – have been executed, deposed, forced to abdicate, replaced by their kids. Democratic institutions take the actual decisions, and the constitutional monarchy is constrained by Parliament and the law as voted for by the people.