The birth chart for England (at least until 1800) is cast for the coronation of William the Conqueror on December 25, 1066, noon, London. This, which was in the wake of his conquering the final king of the old land, deserves to be examined as an event in its own right.
These are pretty amazing charts (at least up to the Day level). The Cansolar for timing is then better than it first looks, showing a royal moment amidst over overthrowing of old leaders.
Year: Capsolar (Dormant.) Moon-Pluto.
Year: Cansolar {+2}
Neptune on Dsc 0°10'
Pluto on IC 1°32'
-- Neptune-Pluto sq. 1°42' in mundo
Venus on WP 0°30'
Moon-Jupiter conj. 2°31' in mundo
Bridge {+2}
t Neptune op. Cansolar Asc 0°05'
Quarter; Libsolar {+3}
(This is remarkable for the Crowning of the Conqueror!)
Jupiter on MC 0°31'
Mars sq. MC 1°12' [sq. non-angular Saturn 0°33' in mundo]
Mercury, Neptune, & Pluto widely foreground
-- Jupiter-Uranus sq. 1°15' PVP
-- Neptune-Pluto sq. 1°39' in mundo
-- Mars-Jupiter sq. 1°59'
-- Mars-Pluto sq. 2°21'
Month: Caplunar (Dormant.) Moon-Sun Moon-Mercury.
Week: Liblunar (Dormant.)
Week: Canlunar {+2}
Pluto sq. Asc 0°40'
Neptune on Asc 2°25'
Mercury more widely foreground, sq. non-angular Saturn 0°45'
Day: Capsolar Quotidian & Transits {0}
p Asc sq. t Mercury 0°48'
------------------------------
t Mercury sq. s Asc 0°15'
Day: Cansolar Quotidian & Transits {+2}
p Asc conj. s Sun 1°31', p Sun 1°03'
------------------------------------------
t Neptune op. s Asc 0°05'
(t Saturn isn't angular, but it squares Cansolar Venus which is angular)
SUMMARY
Year (Capsolar). (Dormant.) Moon-Pluto.
Year (Cansolar): Venus Neptune Pluto. Moon-Jupiter Neptune-Pluto.
Bridge: Neptune (Can).
Quarter: Mars Jupiter (Mercury Neptune Pluto). Mars-Jupiter Mars-Pluto Jupiter-Uranus Neptune-Pluto (Mars-Saturn).
Month: (Dormant.) Moon-Sun Moon-Mercury.
Week (Liblunar): (Dormant.)
Week (Canlunar): Neptune Pluto (Mercury). (Mercury-Saturn).
Day (Capsolar): Mercury (CapQ). Mercury (transit).
Day (Cansolar): Sun (CanQ). Neptune (transit).
William the Conqueror founds England as we know it
-
Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 19062
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Re: William the Conqueror founds England as we know it
Funny synchronicity. I have just been reading about that story. I've been reading about my ancestors', the Vikings, influence on Scotland, but also on the whole of UK and their influence was HUGE. Much bigger than I had previously thought.
To be fair, England already existed - but was conquered by William and his army from Normandy and Brittany. But yes, I suppose we can say England as we know it today.
William was a descendant from a Viking that settled in France and ruled Normandy. Since the 1066 invasion to England from Normandy the DNA makeup seems to have changed dramatically according to DNA scientists/studies.
In Ireland and Scotland we see so much influence from the Vikings as well, they founded all the main cities in Ireland - the Celts were all farmers before the Viking brought commerce. They also brought their democratic system with them. They conquered big areas and kingdoms in Scotland as well and some parts of Scotland carry a high proportion of the Viking DNA especially in the western part and the islands, although the Celtic and Pict genes are in the mix in bigger proportions in the East and the South I think.
The popular image of marauding berserkers and of the Norse as "enemies of social progress" remains despite considerable evidence that in their latter phase the Norse-speaking populations were rather "enlightened practitioners of maritime commercial principles" and they were literate. Þings were open-air governmental assemblies that met in the presence of the jarl (earl) and the meetings were open to virtually all free men. At these sessions decisions were made, laws passed and complaints adjudicated (Wikipedia).
The researchers seem to have found that the image given of them raping the local women may actually be very exaggerated or the local men wanting them depicted badly since they settled and found themselves local women. Yes there was raiding and violence and killings and conquering, but the stories also speak of the women in the conquered areas actually liking and preferring the newly settled Viking men in some cases since they were cleaner, they apparently washed more often than the locals did. So in some cases the settlers were whole families from Scandinavia, but some were single men and they married the local women. Some went to Iceland and the Celtic DNA from Ireland and Scotland is found up to 62% in females in Iceland.
But what maybe surprised me most was that it wasn't at all so much about taking slaves although that happened as well. They mixed their royalty (which was elected in Scandinavia at that time) and earls families with the local royalty to conquer and rule new lands/areas.
BTW, Robert the Bruce, king of Scotland (Movies: Outlaw King and Braveheart) was also a descendant from this same Viking settlement in Normandy.
Just thought I'd share this with you since I've just been researching these things.
To be fair, England already existed - but was conquered by William and his army from Normandy and Brittany. But yes, I suppose we can say England as we know it today.
William was a descendant from a Viking that settled in France and ruled Normandy. Since the 1066 invasion to England from Normandy the DNA makeup seems to have changed dramatically according to DNA scientists/studies.
In Ireland and Scotland we see so much influence from the Vikings as well, they founded all the main cities in Ireland - the Celts were all farmers before the Viking brought commerce. They also brought their democratic system with them. They conquered big areas and kingdoms in Scotland as well and some parts of Scotland carry a high proportion of the Viking DNA especially in the western part and the islands, although the Celtic and Pict genes are in the mix in bigger proportions in the East and the South I think.
The popular image of marauding berserkers and of the Norse as "enemies of social progress" remains despite considerable evidence that in their latter phase the Norse-speaking populations were rather "enlightened practitioners of maritime commercial principles" and they were literate. Þings were open-air governmental assemblies that met in the presence of the jarl (earl) and the meetings were open to virtually all free men. At these sessions decisions were made, laws passed and complaints adjudicated (Wikipedia).
The researchers seem to have found that the image given of them raping the local women may actually be very exaggerated or the local men wanting them depicted badly since they settled and found themselves local women. Yes there was raiding and violence and killings and conquering, but the stories also speak of the women in the conquered areas actually liking and preferring the newly settled Viking men in some cases since they were cleaner, they apparently washed more often than the locals did. So in some cases the settlers were whole families from Scandinavia, but some were single men and they married the local women. Some went to Iceland and the Celtic DNA from Ireland and Scotland is found up to 62% in females in Iceland.
But what maybe surprised me most was that it wasn't at all so much about taking slaves although that happened as well. They mixed their royalty (which was elected in Scandinavia at that time) and earls families with the local royalty to conquer and rule new lands/areas.
BTW, Robert the Bruce, king of Scotland (Movies: Outlaw King and Braveheart) was also a descendant from this same Viking settlement in Normandy.
Just thought I'd share this with you since I've just been researching these things.