The Astrological Journal November 2016
Victor Olliver's Editorial
"How did you come to astrology?" Wade Caves asks stargazers in this issue. He first put the question up on Facebook. And I, ever the rapacious magpie, spotted it and thought: ah yes, that'll do nicely. Happily I am not a plagiarist or copyright pirate. So I dropped Wade a note asking whether he'd like to develop the idea for AJ. He jumped at the chance. I would say it's a series that could run and run as more and more astrologers dip into their unwritten memoirs to offer us a truncated extract on what drew them to the horoscope. As Wade himself notes, a good many people owe it all to the Love Signs creator Linda Goodman as well as Julia and Derek Parker for the initial remote nurturing of their zodiacal journeys. It never ceases to amaze me that many of the people who have gone on to embrace astrological academia freely credit as their inspiration the very same media Sun sign columnists they now disdain as "trivialising". That's life - forever perverse.
Part 2 of this series beckons for our Jan-Feb 2017 issue - and if you're keen to tell all (briefly) drop us an email. As I say, this one could run and run... to be followed by the book anthology, the stage play, the film adaptation, etc.
I can't believe that I have been in post as editor for two years already. I'll never forget the AA board member who, shortly after my appointment, stopped me in the corridor at Wyboston and asked me without malice, "But who are you?" It was a good question, and here I am, still asking myself that. As if to illustrate my nebulosity, this issue is especially eclectic (formless?), veering from the glamour of Bowie, as we approach the first anniversary of his death, to R. Hakan Kirkoğlu's in-depth essay on a technique new to me called 'continuous horoscopy', which takes three specific days of the Moon as equivalent to the three key stages of our lives. It really does work. I was also very taken by Theo Naicker's piece on the perplexing astrology of Queen Victoria whose nativity by traditional rules is not promising for childbirth - yet she had nine children. Theo proposes in effect (I put this crudely) that one way to improve fecundity potential is to elect a marriage chart that's more promising for the production of babies. Or, to put it another way: the case is made for the use of electional astrology in conjunction with natal work in tackling sensitive client questions, such as fertility. Also included in this issue is Bernadette Brady's acclaimed work on US presidential elections. It was first published in 2008 and has been much discussed. Using the Venus cycle that's functionally coincident with the timing of US elections, she forecast that for the next 12 years (from 2008, starting with Obama), America would be governed by Democrat presidents. As I write this I cannot know whether Clinton or Trump is now heading for the White House though I made my forecast three years ago. Am I right? If I am wrong what should I do? Whose good example should I follow?
Someone not afraid to confess she got a public vote result wrong is Helena Paterson who supported Remain in the EU referendum. Instead of beating herself up about it she looked again at the astrology of 23 June, this time through her understanding of Celtic lunar lore. And she spotted something big that she had overlooked first time around. You see, astrology continues to speak to us even if we've been listening to something else.
This is the editorial from the November 2016 edition of the Astrological Journal, the UK's premier astrological magazine.