skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Traditional vs. modern
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 469

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:12 am    Post subject: Traditional vs. modern Reply with quote

Hello, yet again,

To those who came from modern astrology into traditional astrology,

I am interested to know amongst those methods that you have studied in modern astrology, which (if any) that you still retain in your current practice as traditional/ancient/medieval astrologer.

Let me go first. I was exposed to modern astrology before I found horary astrology and found that it was mind blowing (to say the least). I studied all materials I could get on horary before I then went into natal ancient/traditional astrology and of course, got myself hooked. The power of prediction (which traditional/ancient deal with a lot) is seductive...I have not used many of the modern techniques I learnt (they didn't seem to sing to me - even when I first learnt them!). Having said this, there are a few modern methods that I still apply as they still work well for me:-

1) The big three (triad of Asc, Sun and Moon) in determining and personality. It's still realiable (at least for me) in judging character of a person. Of course, the whole chart must be studied and although the traditional method (humors) is better (in many ways), I still use this big three as a quick scan of character.

2) There are arguments whether the ancients did use secondary progression. If they didn't, then it's considered a modern technique. I still use secondary progression esp. with moon progressing into houses and her progressed phasing. Whenever I look into progressed moon, I would also look into transiting Saturn as the progressed moon and transiting Saturn cycles are about the same (27-30 years).

3) I still use the modern planets but more as generational effects and their locations in houses e.g. I would take Neptune in 10th H seriously (esp. if it conjuncts MC) and delineate that but I never use any of the modern planets as rulers of any sign/house (I was never comfortable using them as rulers even when I was still "modern").

4) I only use traditional Ptolemaic aspects. I only use quincunx in horary for questions on sickness and negotiations for they almost always show renegotiations (in negotiation charts) and illness is serious (in health charts). In natal astrology I only use Ptolemaic aspects... anything other than Ptolemaic aspects is considered a detriment (in aversion) unless mitigated by antiscions, contra-antiscions and like engirding (disposited by same ruler).

5) Things that I don't use: asteroids, those trans-Neptunians, minor aspects, tertiaries, ...



What about others? I am interested to know which part of modern that you still keep in your traditional astrological toolbag (assuming you did come from modern and now more into traditional...)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting question. One by one I shed modern techniques, minor aspects, midpoints, outer planets, solar arc directions, aspect configurations, etc. It is not as though they never work, it's just that after working with the traditiion for a while, they became less necessary.

I believe, but I am not 100% certain, that secondary progressions were developed by Placidus in the 17th century. That would make it a late traditional technique. I also believe Morinus used them or something like them, in addition to primary directions. Since he died in 1656 or thereabouts, it is an indication that secondaries pre-dated Placidus, but again I'm not absolutely sure about either Placidus or exactly what Morinus used.

Directions use the actual dirunal motion of the planets and sidereal time is converted to symbolic time. Secondary progressions move in the direction of the zodiac. They movement is actual, the time is symbolic. Solar arc directions are purely symbolic as the movement of the planets, except the Sun, is artificial. The time associated with the artificial movement is symbolic. Again this is not to say they don't work, only that they are not natural.

For me the major difference between traditional and modern is not simply technique, but there is also a vastly different mindset. If modern astrology is going to make psychological judgments based on transits or progressions, there is no reason why they couldn't do the same with primary directions or antisicia. It is the approach that separates the two viewpoints, not the techniques.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Sun-Moon-Asc.- triad
I still use the Sun-Moon-Asc.- triad. Kind of. One thing Iíve learned is that in traditional astrology signs themselves werenít as important as they are in modern astrology. ďIím a Cancer with Sagittarius risingĒ isnít the talk of the old astrologers. In traditional astrology the sign serves very much to point to an important planet. Iíve found that this is especially the case with the Ascendant. I continue to think that a Sagittarius Asc. does have meaning, but when it comes to the Sun-Moon-Asc. triad the Ascendant for me in this case serves more as an indication that Jupiter and its condition in the chart is to be considered as an important factor.

I really donít care for the modern idea of the Ascendant as a mask. Thatís much too Ďyour friendly neighborhood analystí for me.

I do find Sun and Moon signs to be useful and meaningful, but once again I find the ruling planet of their signs to be more important than is usually the case in modern astrology. Modern astrology tends to stop with the signs themselves. My guess is that itís probably due to the Sun sign astrology of the twentieth century. Signs gained an importance that I donít believe they ever quite had in traditional astrology. The general public has heard of Capricorn and Aquarius, but many people would probably be surprised to learn that Saturn plays a role in the birth chart.

I now have the Greenbaum temperament book (havenít read it yet). I suspect that it will give me step one of natal chart delineation and I may retain the triad as a second or third step.

Elements and Modalities
This has changed for me in just the past 2 or 3 months. Whereas I used to dutifully tally up the elements with weighted scores I came to realize that it was usually minor or almost meaningless, unless there was a severe imbalance with one element powerfully dominating the others. This happens with relatively few charts. Modern astrology loves the elements. This sounds like Jung and his alchemy studies to me. Your other friendly neighborhood analyst.

The modalities are another story. Iíve found that a severe dominance of cardinal, fixed or mutable isnít necessary to accurately describe a person; a more modest emphasis (but still an emphasis) is very descriptive. I donít know why this should be, but thatís what Iíve found. Modern astrology doesnít talk about the modalities nearly as much as it does the elements. Thereís probably no Jung connection.

Solar Arc Directions, Primary Directions, Secondary Progressions, Transits.
Solar Arc Directions: The Greatest Show on Earth consists of one clown balancing a peanut on his nose. I want my money back.

Primary Directions: When traditional astrologers decide how to calculate and use them Iíll take a look.

Secondary Progressions: I really donít know what to say. I havenít seen much yet to excite me, but I havenít given them an honest chance. Iíve been somewhat impressed with the progressed Moon, mostly by conjunction and opposition to natal planets. The progressed Sun by sign ingress and aspect has also sometimes been interesting. The progressed angles havenít been impressive at all yet for me. But then deciding how to calculate them is important. Iím still open to progressions and will be giving them more of a chance to show me what they can do.

Transits: I love Ďem! This is where Iím most in agreement with modern astrology. Transiting Venus conjoins your Ascendant tomorrow? Donít sit at home! Get out there and knock their socks off with your dazzling smile! (If you have Capricorn rising: fake it.) Iíve seen it too many times Ė these things work.

Saturn transits are crucial. I see no need to start with a backdrop of primary directions or secondary progressions. The transits of the furthermost easily visible planet stand on their own as major markers in the nativeís life.

Outer Planets (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto)
Yes and no. As often as possible I like to first look at a chart without them. Lordy, thereís so much to be had from the seven traditional planets and the essential and accidental dignities, receptions and aspects. Then it can be fun to finally display the chart on screen with the outers and see if they add anything of interest.

Uranus is the one that Iíve found canít be easily ignored. It seems to be almost as worthy of consideration as Saturn. Maybe thatís because itís visible if the sky is dark and clear and you know where to look. Itís almost one of the ĎTrad 7í. Just in the last couple of weeks Iíve broken the ĎOuter Planetsí into two categories: Uranus and Neptune/Pluto. The ĎOuter Planetsí classification seems too artificial and based only on the fact that they werenít part of traditional astrology.

House placement alone is meaningless for me. There must be contact with another planet or angle by aspect. I need to have a reason to include these three in chart delineation.

Aspects
Aspects donít have orbs (modern), planets do (traditional). Planetary orbs and moieties are here to stay with me Ė thereís no going back. Even when I was a periodic dabbler in contemporary astrology it seemed more logical that the Sun would be within orb of aspect at a greater distance than little Mercury would. But nobody ever talked about this. Until I discovered traditional astrology.

Iím happy with the Ptolemaic aspects. I may branch out in the future. I kind of hope not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1393

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:53 pm    Post subject: To kirk about progression MC and ASC Reply with quote

Kirk, I start to get better results in prediction using the progressed ASC, MC using the oldest rule, 1 year for 1 degree in oblique and right ascention... forget naibod keys and stuff, stick to the basics :-)
The most important is the degree of the prog ASC
Look for:
1- Natal planets contacting the pr ASC (outer planets count only by conj, not by aspect), I personally also use antiscia for this.
2 - In the solar return, is there any planet making aspect to this point ?
e.g mars in libra trining the pr asc in aquarius will probably bring a lot of s$?t when the aspect become
a - exact (mainly for Jupiter and saturn who are slow)
b - similar to the original, example, when mars will be squaring the pr ASC in taurus (mar would be again in detriment)
3 - See the lord of the term of the pr ASC, and his condition in the solar return, and his natal and SR rulership
Yuzuru
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
>Primary Directions: When traditional astrologers decide how to calculate and use them Iíll take a look.<

Sadly, this is a valid criticism. Older authorities fought amnogst themselves about the correct way to calculate primaries, and the handful of people who understand them today aren't much closer to agreement on anything. They do agree what they are and how to delineate, and the different methods of calculation in most cases simply change the hit date. However the change can be a difference by years! Not too many astrologers use these or even know what they are, but Rumen Kolev has made some important strides, and what we need is some historical research to identify who did what and how. Until then Kirk's observation is true.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 469

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

Thank you Tom, Kirk and Yuzuru (the faithful triad that respond to my posts!!!)

To Kirk,

I have read Greenbaumís book on temperament and I say itís a gem! Do read it and give your comments later. I like books that discusses previous similar techniques when discussing new technique and you canít get a better look into the historical development of temperament than her book. She discusses all of the methods found from Ptolemy (& even before him) right down to Lilly (and after) and then suggested a scheme of hers (which sings very well for me). John Frawley also outlined his method of determining temperament in one of his book (Applied Real Astrology) which is a modified version of LillyísÖIn detail reading of character/personality delineation I would look into temperament in addition to the triad (Asc-Moon-Sun).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
amelia



Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 400
Location: Wales

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Depends what I am doing.......

I started with modern, then discovered horary and then the broader traditional field. As a result I wouldn't discard some of modern techniques, nevertheless I would never have classed myself as a modern psychological, rosy specs, type astrologer- so am more at home in the more black and white traditional foundation. On the other hand I am probably more flexible about integrating the two than many others.

I don't tend to do much birthchart work at all - but when I do my focus is traditional rulerships of the two main axes, less on intermediate houses, and on all planetary aspects including those to the outer planets. Since learning traditional techniques I also look at relative planetary strengths etc. I also have Greenbaums book on my list to buy as I want to incorporate a more solid temperament foundation in future, but have not done so until now.

I glance at major midpoints - but there is usually enough data without them. I avoid harmonics as I am sceptical about the orbs from a mathematical point of view. I don't use traditional fixed stars or modern asteroids/hypotheticals, again because it is too easy to get overburdened with data and I haven't had ( and probably never will have) the time to explore the effects in natal charts. With two exceptions - I do use chiron and black moon - unfortunately they have both made very personal efforts to convince me of their worth. I use aspects according to the look of the chart. If it has lots of Ptolemaic aspects I stick to these- I move to smaller ones if there are few ptolemaic ones. I flex my orbs in much the same way.

I do a lot of mundane, especially financial, work. I use more or less the same as above. I have no feel for chiron in this context- but black moon has proved its worth. So my mundane work is probably closer to the modern approach than most.

Forecasting
I started off as the world's biggest sceptic about progressions and got totally converted. In fact I am probably one of the few people who uses a lot of transits to secondary progressions as well as progressions to natal positions and progressions to progressions. And obviously I use transits, including those of outer planets. I even take note of outer planets progressions to progressions when exact. I also use lunations, including but not limited to eclipses, as triggers. I donít have a view on the efficacy of any particular method for progressing angles Ė UK birthtimes arenít reliable enough.

I never use directions. No experience, no interest, no comment. And I rarely use solar returns. I don't discount the latter but see them as a short cut and prefer to focus on the transits and progressions for the year.

I use the same for mundane work as for personal, and I really like the outer planetary cycles for mundane work. There is no way I would give these up. I also have found that I miss events if I don't use the 45 degree aspects in mundane charts.

For mundane I also look at ingress charts - but have more or less the same view of these as I do of solar returns - that they are a shortcut and again I prefer to trawl through the transits and progressions for the period. If I didn't have solar fire I would stick with ingresses though - and I am of the opinion that the main reason that they were so popular with the ancients was lack of computer power.

Horary/electional: I use the traditional house rulerships, sign rulerships , dignities etc. But I keep outer planets in for flavour - I tried ignoring them but they constantly popped up on angles in my charts so I finally accepted that they were trying to tell me to pay attention to them. I never use them as significators though. I will look at the fixed stars, but don't feel confident in using them as they seem to have so many conflicting meanings- I don't have a grasp of their inner essence in the way I do the planets. I ignore arabic parts- I don't have sufficient feel for the underlying theory of why these mathematical points would work - although I can see the relation between the planets used and the part meanings.

Once I have an answer in horary I do, sometimes, also look at the midpoints of the significators for further information. i have found midpoints more useful in this context than in any other. But I never ever look at them until i have got an answer by the traditional rules.

And finally house systems. I had somehow ended up with koch for personal, placidus for mundane and regiomontanus for horary/elections. The only reasons were the sources of my learning and I have recently decided to move to one and only one: Koch. No logic; I just like it. But I have read all the varied opinions on house systems and have not been convinced of the theoretical superiority of any one particular one ( although there are some I would not use)- so why keep switching?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1393

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
For mundane I also look at ingress charts - but have more or less the same view of these as I do of solar returns - that they are a shortcut and again I prefer to trawl through the transits and progressions for the period. If I didn't have solar fire I would stick with ingresses though - and I am of the opinion that the main reason that they were so popular with the ancients was lack of computer power.


I donīt want to be harsh or rude, but I would like to say that I feel extremely unconfortable that you make such great affirmations about a technique that you yourself admit you don`t have expertise of. It`s always better to stick to what we know, mainly when the subject is about why the ancients did what they did, because what I always discovered is that what we think we know of astrology is about 10% of what was know in the time of Abu Mashar.

Solar returns are clearly not shortcuts, and my experience says that they can beat anytime any secondary progressions, letīs not even say about the poor transits. Only that is a complex method and when we are deanly with the ancients we sure donīt have rule for "intuition".

I would even add that is the other way around: The ancients invented a very good technique, but the moderns, for pure lazyness of using a hard methodology prefer using progressions and transit which give space for "intuitive interpretation"

Yuzuru
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
amelia



Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 400
Location: Wales

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yuzuru
stop! help! I didn't intend any critisism of anyone else's approach. Astrojin asks what us what we do and why and I answered. I am equally interested in what other people do, why and how well they find it works, and, who knows, in 5 years may well have shifted my choice of techniques.

My comment about the ancients would have been followed by a joking emoticon if only I could get them to work on my posts. So sorry if you took it as some modern denigration- although I am tempted to add that
had they had computers, and great backup systems of course, we would probably know 90% of what they knew not 10% and not need to have these discussions as historical astrological studies would be much more fully documented.

Also maybe my term "short cut" was misleading - what I meant was that returns and ingresses give us transits for one moment in one chosen day ( per year/quarter/ or whatever cycle is appropriate to the planet in question), and that if I can I try to look at transits for all days. But I don't understand why you think that the planetary meanings/rulerships/etc become more intuitive just because one uses monthly or daily references rather than annual or quarterly? Surely saturn is saturn at any time?

I am ignoring progressions here - I readily agree that my use of them is
unusual and is despite my own initial misgivings. I have been very interested in what Tom has been saying on the other thread about their origin as I have wanted to know more about their adoption and rationale ever since I first encountered them. I still cannot really understand why they should work and would be more than happy if you could demonstrate to me that they don't so I could discard them.... I dislike anything that is not logical.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1393

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok, then
about secondary progressions I donīt know if they are logical or not... but as most of the systems that aren`t that old, it isnīt that they donīt work, is that they seen to work only when they want to.
Of course there are people who think they are the most reliable form of prediction but I think they are far from it.
And so is other things like quincunces, asteroids, midpoints, etc... they seen to work sometimes, they can be even striking, but they will not work EVERY time, which is the problem of a astrologer who really wants to take things seriously.
Other criticism I have about transits and progressions is that the modern view of "oh, your pr sun is squaring mars, so you have health problems", it may even be true, but I worry about this kind of predictions without a previous delineation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5023
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I regard myself as an intermediate student so this topic is very much a work in progress for me. All my views are provisional but I guess I have gone quite a long way down the traditional path.

I think Frawley states something in the Real Astrology Applied about traditionalists giving up modern toys: minor aspects, Chiron, asteroids, harmonics, Sabian symbols, midpoints etc but gaining a whole new set of traditional toys to play with: traditional rulerships, houses and dignities. Also techniques such as Mutual reception, Antiscia and the Fixed Stars. I only use the Ptolemaic aspects at present. It certainly feels a very worthwhile exchange which I am very content with. I guess I was always a traditionalist at heart.

The Lots/Parts is one area I a bit more sceptical about beyond just Fortuna. It rather reminds me of a classsical/medieval version of harmonics which can be endlessly expanded in mathematical variations. Still, I have just got Robert Zoller's book on the subject so maybe he will convert me.

On natal I am still grappling with Greenbaum and Frawley's approaches to temperament but still rely on the Big three of moderrn Astrology ( Sun, Moon & ASC).

I do look at aspect patterns but I am not so interested if they involve outer planets or wide orbs.

I tend to still use the outers though although I accept their overuse is almost a disease in modern astrology. I like Kirk's idea that Uranus is in a special case from Pluto & Neptune due to its visibility ( 6th magnitude?).

However, I tend to make the separation more between the big gas giants Uranus/Neptune and Pluto as the gatekeeper to the Kuiper belt ice balls.

On predictive-Transits work! I have seen too many examples of their effects to have any doubt. Of course as triggers they can be tricky as they often have several hits to key points.

I have never been that enthusiastic about Secondary Progressions. However, I am not experienced enough to have reached a definitive view yet. From what I have seen the progressed Moon does seem a very powerful tool. Similarly SP's aspecting the natal Sun/Moon/Angles. The fixed stars is a special interest of mine and I am currently studying the effects of secondary progressed planets/Angles ( esp the Moon) contacting fixed stars with some interesting results.

On Primary Directions- I think Kirk & Tom have said it all! It is frustrating that all the greats like De Tito, Lilly and Morin held this to be the no1 method yet we can't agree on what approach to adopt. Still I want to examine this further in my studies.

I have used Solar Arcs. I was taught these by the guru of Solar Arcs himself Noel Tyl. They do seem to generate some valid results but as their effects seem rather general over a year or so I doubt they are much use for detailed predictive work. I think they have been rather overhyped. Neverhelesss, due to the influence of Tyl, Uranian Astrology and Cosmo-biology I think this is becoming a popular technique amongst moderns.

Solar Returns-An excellent tool. And of course we have Lunar and planetary returns to choose from too. The more you study SR's the more it seems to reveal. Currently my favourite predictive method along with transits and the SP Moon.

Tertiary and Minor Progressions. I haven't really used these yet but I am planning to explore them. OK they are not traditional. But then Solar Returns were an innovation of the Arab Astrologers and Secondary Progressions quite a late development of Placido De Tito. I think innovation is ok as long as basic traditional principles are not ditched.

I doubt there is any full proof predictive tool. So I would expect all methods to have some 'misses'. As the saying goes 'some days the magic doesn't work'. That doesn't mean some methods aren't more accurate though. However, any technique can only be as good as the astrologer using it.

I think the key as Tom has indicated is therefore to seek to find verification for a prediction from several reliable methods. Combining predictive methods into a synthesis seems to have been the approach adopted by all the great astrologers of the past.


Last edited by Mark on Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:01 am; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1393

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
they are not traditional. But then Solar Returns were an innovation of the Arab Astrologers and Secondary Progressions quite a late development of Placido De Tito.


I am not sure but I am under the impression that Valens was already using solar returns.
Yuzuru
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5023
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I am under the impression that Valens was already using solar returns.


Thats very interesting Yuzuru. I hadn't heard that before. I have read several histories of astrology that attribute returns to the Arabs ( or Persians). However, I don't possess a copy of Valens and maybe these historians didn't either!

Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5023
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
UK birthtimes arenít reliable enough.


I take it you mean England & Wales here Amelia? In Scotland birth times are always on the birth certificate.

Sorry I couldn't help myself!

Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 469

Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

To MarkC,

Quote:
they are not traditional. But then Solar Returns were an innovation of the Arab Astrologers and Secondary Progressions quite a late development of Placido De Tito.


In Vettius Valens, you would see the term renewed nativity - and this is usually referred to as Solar Return/Revolution. Caution: The ancients did not calculate solar return/revolution the way we do it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated