16
Hi Gunhilde,

I guess the approach you suggest is check the nation first and find a chart to hang on that rather than visa-versa. I agree a national chart should resonate at least to some extent with perceived national identity. However, it also needs to tie into some historical facts too. In regards the 1066 chart I have a few objections:

1 There is no exact time and endless rectifications

2 William I was not the first king of England

3 Using the 1066 chart totally ignores the role of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which form part of the modern UK.

I dont think that is 'splitting hairs' or being pedantic for the sake of it. Astrologers that lightly ignore such crucial facts are in my opinion demonstating their own ignorance of the nations they are seeking to analyse

In my experience many Americans are totally unaware of such distinctions. Hence the fact the United Kingdom is commonly referred to as ''England''. ( I am not addressing that point or the previous one at you or any other skyscript contributor personally by the way!) .

One sometimes sees this attitude from some (by no means the majority) of English astrologers too. However, in their case it is diffficult to see this as anything but cultural chauvanism as they must be fully aware the United Kingdom is much more than just England.

The 1066 chart is perfectly vaid for looking at England on its own. I also think there is a basis for its use for the British Royal family. Although I have personally been doing research into the 1917 House of Windsor chart myself.

Still there is a question on whether such ancient charts as 1066 have a sell by date for ? In regards English identity has nothing changed in 1000 years? The Romans were regarded as amongst the most awesome fighters of the ancient world but modern Italians do not have quite that reputation ( no offense!). Over such long periods of time surely even national character itself changes?

I think there is something of a lag between the national sterotypes of nations in the outside world and the modern reality of an evolving culture.
Britain for example today is marked by a general disrespect for any authority figures. Although it is still conservative in terms of its institutions. An interesting paradox.

Incidentally, in terms of historical evidence to support it the Gemini rising chart is undoubtably the weakest of all the July 4th charts proposed. The most popular ones apart from are the Sagittarius or Scorpio rising charts. However, even Virgo and Libra rising have been proposed.

Many people posted quite exhaustively on that question last year. Check out this mega thread on the USA chart if your interested:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3151
Last edited by Mark on Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

17
I think for the monarchy the 1707 coronation of Anne, Or Even Victoria's Coronation would be better suited, These are Monarchs of Great Brittain and NOT of sepperate nations as done previously, and for UK itself as a collective nation, THAT might possibly resonate with either the William and Mary chart, or that parliamentary chart fromthe 1800's I think it requires a bit of homework. No matter what dates people try to align US with, the US aligns itself to July 4, no time really works out. Possibly because we identify George Washington and 4th of July with the Country's birth and the allegation is, he read the Declaration to the troops and people assembled in Trenton, NJ on 4 July 1776. It was Published in Philiadelpia at the same time, but first Public reading was allegedly by Washington tot he Troops. (I am trying to find verification of this these days, but it lends a more solid foundation as to why people associate most strongly with that date and not with either the Paris Peace Treaty or constitution, etc. well that and Policy is much more boring than profound statements of being)

John Hancock thought July 2nd would be the day celebrated, :) guess he was off. But I think a group of people resonate with a day and time and the country will reflect that. When does UK see itself as UK and not as English?

Granny

18
When does UK see itself as UK and not as English?
When they are from Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland (heh, and possibly Cornwall!):)

But surely when looking at a concept such as 'monarchy', we should take the chart that embodies the date when Britain (whatever its shifting territorial heritage) became a monarchy...or maybe a monarchy *again*, so, Charles Stuart (II) and the Restoration? Before that we might have looked for a 'monarchy' chart in the lineage (historical, but not unbroken!) of William the Conquerer (the first monarch to unite the 'land' and import a true feudal system, however dubiously) through Charles I. Then the Monarchy is broken, of course, and for a short time becomes whatever-it-was that Cromwell thought he was (dictator, perhaps?), and then chart the 'new and improved' monarchy, which stands in its current form (titular head; Parliamentarian powers overrule) from the (re)coronation of Charles II?

I'm sure this has been argued elsewhere on the site ad infinitum. I agree with you, MarkC, that the 'monarchy' is something different than 'Britain' as an economic/territorial entity.

GH :)

19
When does UK see itself as UK and not as English?
A deep question. Although there has been a political union since 1707 ( excluding Ireland) I would say the widespread recognition and acceptance of multi-national pluralism in Great Britain has only come about since WWII.

I think the development of a multi-racial society through immigration in the post war period may partly explain this more inclusive concept of nationhood.

In reality many English people feel English first and British second and most Scots are Scottish first and British second ( unless they are outright separatists-about a third are.). Lets not start on Northern Ireland. :???: So in a sense British people have a kind of dual identity. I suppose it could be compared to being say a Texan and an American.

Still I think its hard for such an exceptionally patroitic nation like the USA to comprehend a country like modern Britain. Outside sporting competitions expressions of national pride are usually viewed with suspicion.

Watching Obama's iinauguration speech brought home how much American identity is built on positivist ideals and faith in the American dream and the 'city on the hill'. Americans take pride in this myth and clearly find powerful emotional inspiration in it.

The idea of singing the national anthem in Britain would usually be met with laughter in many circles. Expressions of English national pride has been especially repressed due to its symbols being adopted by racist far right politics. The Scots have been more comfortable expressing their separate national identity and taking pride in that. Maybe Scotland really is ruled by Cancer....Certainly that Cancerian Sun for any July 4th chart ( forget the rising sign!) seems totally appropriate for the USA. I remember visiting the US and being struck that the state ( or is it federal law) of Florida had a law that noone can fly a foreign flag without the US flag beside it and the US flag has to be higher! While many Americans happily display the stars and stripes outside their home in Britain you would be seen as quite suspect if you had the Union Jack flying! Maybe its collective guilt over our imperialist past.

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

20
Maybe its collective guilt over our imperialist past.
Good answer. America clearly feels no guilt over its imperialist present!
8)

I think overt displays of any sort of emotion, patriotism or otherwise, 'just aren't done' in Britain, particularly England...unless its about football.

GH :)

21
William the Conquerer (the first monarch to unite the 'land'
Thats a common perception but I'm afraid its not accurate. There was a cultural, political and legal sense of England well before William the Conqueror. Moreover, I have made the point already on another thread that the Anglo-Saxon King Athelstan was the first monarch to hold de facto power over the whole of mainland Britain. Athelstan was the grandson of King Alfred The Great who led the succesful victory of the Kingdom of Wessex over the Vikings.

During his reign Athelstan became the first king to exercise control over all the English, and was also acknowledged as overlord by the Scottish kings and the princes of Wales. In 935, his coinage bears the title 'King of all Britain'. If we are looking for an origin to monarchy over all Britain I think most historians would agree that King Athelstan is undeniably the true starting point not William the Conqueror.

If anyone wants to look at the chart for the coronation of Athelstan its September 4th, 925 AD, at Kingston-Upon-Thames, near London. Untimed so a noon chart seems advisable. I cannot confess to having tested this chart out yet. I suppose its time I did!

Of course there are those that argue an unbroken line of succession from William the Conqueror onwards. However, that doesn't bear up to much scrutiny. For example: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 32666.html :)

22
Thats a common perception but I'm afraid its not accurate. There was a cultural, political and legal sense of England well before William the Conqueror. Moreover, I have made the point already on another thread that the Anglo-Saxon King Athelstan was the first monarch to hold de facto power over the whole of mainland Britain. Athelstan was the grandson of King Alfred The Great who led the succesful victory of the Kingdom of Wessex over the Vikings.
I am aware of all of this; I am something of an Anglo-Saxon history fan...but the fact of it is, when the Saxon dynasties were defeated at Hastings, there was a 'sea change' in the path of Britain's history...because Britain (whatever you want to consider that Britain is or was at that time) was no longer ruled by the 'native' people (and I use that advisedly). William I represented a 'new' dynasty, or philosophical approach; never mind that he and Harold were related!

I guess I view history in terms of Big Umbrella philosophies; so, Saxon kings; Norman kings, leading in a hotly-disputed but unbroken *path* (in other words, there was a king and no regent) to the second Stuart king, Charles I. THEN the 'philosophy' was broken by Cromwell, so, a 'new' start. THEN came the Restoration and a NEW era had begun...which continues up until the present day, with the sitting monarch but a ruling Parliament.

This is perhaps too simplistic and assumes too much territory as 'British'; in other words, I am being too Anglocentric. But the monarchy whose seat is in England, has had jurisdiction (economic, at least) over these other territories (however much disputed, sorry Scotland and Wales) for a good, long while.

That was the angle I was coming from.

GH :)

23
I am aware of all of this; I am something of an Anglo-Saxon history fan...but the fact of it is, when the Saxon dynasties were defeated at Hastings, there was a 'sea change' in the path of Britain's history...because Britain (whatever you want to consider that Britain is or was at that time) was no longer ruled by the 'native' people (and I use that advisedly). William I represented a 'new' dynasty, or philosophical approach; never mind that he and Harold were related!
Yes thats all true I agree. However, as I stated William I never reigned outside England. The point I was making about Athelstan was that he was the first genuinely ''British'' King in a way that the Normans kings right up to the Tudors never were. Although Edward I did come exceptionally close to achieving this objective by his conquest of Wales and for a time Scotland too. Nevertheless, its not until James I that the whole of Britain was reigned over by a single monarch again. Thats why I think the 1603 date is very significant. Granny's point about Queen Anne is well taken though as Britain was not one kingdom or politically unified until her reign.

The point on the restoration is interesting. Here the line of succession was carried on as before after a short experiment with Republicanism. I see the point that this was a sea-change as when monarchy returned it was on very different terms. Gone was the divine right Kings ignoring parliamentary power. Although the 'glorious revolution' of 1688 with William and Mary 'imported' as Protestant monarchs actually set the foundations for the modern British constitutional settlement with the supremacy of Parliament formally acknowledged and capitalism given a free hand.

From wikipedia:
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is considered by some as being one of the most important events in the long evolution of the respective powers of Parliament and the Crown in England. With the passage of the Bill of Rights, it stamped out once and for all any possibility of a Catholic monarchy, and ended moves towards absolute monarchy in the British kingdoms by circumscribing the monarch's powers. These powers were greatly restricted; he or she could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes, make royal appointments, or maintain a standing army during peacetime without Parliament's permission. Since 1689, government under a system of constitutional monarchy in England, and later the United Kingdom, has been uninterrupted. Since then, Parliament's power has steadily increased while the Crown's has steadily declined
I guess I view history in terms of Big Umbrella philosophies; so, Saxon kings; Norman kings, leading in a hotly-disputed but unbroken *path* (in other words, there was a king and no regent) to the second Stuart king, Charles I. THEN the 'philosophy' was broken by Cromwell, so, a 'new' start. THEN came the Restoration and a NEW era had begun...which continues up until the present day, with the sitting monarch but a ruling Parliament.
I agree there are many starting or transitional moments one can take. Many more than even you list above. I think thats the point I have been trying to make in all my posts. History has many decisive transitional moments so for astrologers there is never going to be one chart that sums it all up.
This is perhaps too simplistic and assumes too much territory as 'British'; in other words, I am being too Anglocentric. But the monarchy whose seat is in England, has had jurisdiction (economic, at least) over these other territories (however much disputed, sorry Scotland and Wales) for a good, long while.
Actually 'the seat' of monarchy is now in Scotland with the Stone of Destiny back in Edinburgh :lol: