Mar 5: Princess Mary & Dean Stockwell

[Jim Eshelman]

Mary, Princess of Great Britain. March 5, 1723, 8:30 PM LAT, Westminster, London, England (A).
Stockwell, Dean. March 5, 1946, 9:42 PM PST, Los Angeles, CA (AA).

NOTE on PRINCESS MARY: The Madrid Gazette March 30, 1723 gave 9:00 PM. However, The London Journal March 2 (OS) said "between Eight and Nine in the Evening" (the birth was Feb 22 OS). It is unusual for a royal birth to be recorded so casually. I interpret this as LAT. - She was born at Leicester House, residence of the Hanover princes of Wales. This is in Westminster, so the coordinates are identical as for London in general.

[Jim Eshelman]

Mary, Princess of Great Britain. March 5, 1723, 8:30 PM LAT, Westminster, London, England (A).

Princess Mary's biography is fairly one-dimensional. The main factor of great interest about her is that she had a really lousy marriage and moved out! See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_ ... at_Britain

King George II's No. 2 daughter, credited with a "meek and mild disposition," married the heir of a German nobleman. They had three sons who survived to adulthood. As Wikipedia summarizes, "The marriage was unhappy... Frederick was said to be brutal and a boor... reportedly subjected Mary to spousal abuse." She fled from his abuse. They separated for life but never divorced. (Her father-in-law continued to support her.) In her 30s she moved to Denmark to care for her deceased older sister's children, raising them in the Danish royal court.

What in the chart accounts for this miserable marriage? - It would be great to know if she had any other liaisons (sexual or otherwise) for the rest of her life: They are not part of her told story.

I think the most important thing of her horoscope is the extreme importance of Uranus, which was not discovered until half a century after her birth. Sun and Moon are both in Aquarius with Moon 0°09' from exact trine to Uranus and Sun in partile octile. This surely was connected to her willingness to flee to freedom, and perhaps shows her as somehow an aberration - certainly someone willing to be - not following the rules of royalty and convention.

I have written elsewhere that intimate relationships are especially the purview of Moon, and that sexual intimacy connects to Moon, Venus, and Mars. Does this hold for her? I'll say first that the general Aquarian-Uranian temperament might be the stronger descriptor or her independence and general irregularity, but we should also look at finer points as well.

The best tool for this is the Cosmic State report in TMSA.

Her Moon does not seem prone to emotional intimacy. It's background in Aquarius which, to begin with, is known for unusual marital conditions (of so wide a range that I wouldn't try to list them all). Her Moon is 0°09' trine Uranus and 0°09' sextile Saturn, a combination not too prone to emotional intimacy. In fact, Ebertin's noters on Mo = Sa/Ur fit her quite well.

Her Sun is peculiar, not too badly aspected, but placed to give her a non-solar temperament: It is background in Aquarius, its detriment, partile octile Uranus and moderately opposite Pluto and square Saturn. "Background, under the Earth, and in detriment" alone are sufficient to indicate some deficit. I don't think, though, that this Sun qualifies for the old theory of "trouble with husbands," except to the extent it shows her independence.

Venus and Mars are in 2° conjunction, middleground, in Capricorn. Both are in close mundane square to Uranus. From this we expect great passion - more than her background Moon would have suggested - and fairly animal appetites, especially with Aquarius luminaries. This isn't part of the story told of her and does cause one to wonder about the scenarios of her husband's brutality. With this feature and all the Uranus-Aquarius, I'm more inclined think her husband didn't satisfy her needs. With Venus-Mars square Uranus, this may have been because men were not her first choice of partner (she was certainly prone to be experimental), or just insatiable by him. I've not read hints that she was lesbian, though this would make sense with he real trace of other partners the rest of her life: It would have been far easier to obscure a female companion from history (and, for that matter, from the neighbors).

In simple terms, her Venus is poorly placed and her Mars well-placed. At times, Venus-Mars can be taken as an afflicted Venus. Here Venus is middleground in Capricorn in close aspect with Mars and Uranus. Mars, also, in Capricorn, is thus exalted and aspected by two benefics (Venus and Uranus).

Midpoints add interesting notes, but I won't go into them deeply. Besides Mo = Sa/Ur 0°00' (aspecting them both with 09') she also had Mo = Ve/Pl, consistent with basically a life lived in a separated marriage. Various things can be drawn from Asc = Ma/Sa = Ve/Sa. Her well-placed Mars is made a little stranger being at Ne/As 10'. MC = Ur/As merely adds to her general strangeness.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

Midpoints add interesting notes,…

Indeed! IMO, her direct midpoint of Sun/Saturn = Mars (1,12) tells the main story with physical abuse from her husband, combined with her Rx conjunction of Venus-Mars. Ebertin footnotes Sun/Saturn:

...a complete change in the home circumstances through a move to a foreign country or different surroundings, and even danger to their life.

For Sun/Saturn = Mars:

Inhibitions in mental or physical development, seclusion, feeling of loneliness. Soul crises caused by one's own inhibitions or by other persons.

[Lyse]

NOTE on PRINCESS MARY: The Madrid Gazette March 30, 1723 gave 9:00 PM. However, The London Journal March 2 (OS) said "between Eight and Nine in the Evening" (the birth was Feb 22 OS). It is unusual for a royal birth to be recorded so casually. I interpret this as LAT. - She was born at Leicester House, residence of the Hanover princes of Wales. This is in Westminster, so the coordinates are identical as for London in general.

Jim,

The London Gazette, February 23,1722/23 records “at near half an hour past eight”. Great rectification!

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/6140/page/1

[Jim Eshelman]

That's a great confirmation, and better than Astro.com's two sources. Thanks, Lyse.

For a strong clue on how accurate the mid-hour birthtime is, transiting Pluto at her death was 27°44' Sagittarius with natal IC 28°03' Sagittarius. Other transits (less decisive on the time) include Neptune opposite her Sun 0°32' while transiting Saturn opposed her Moon 0°33' - a harsh, health debilitating double-whammy. Transiting Jupiter's simultaneous conjunction with her Mars (0°01'! - and squared by Moon the hour she died) evidently did not give enough strength and physical endurance to resist this.

For this birthtime, her final SLR had a partile Sun-Pluto conjunction exactly setting and Neptune's opposition to her Sun along the meridian:

25°38' 9H - r Sun - 23°53' Aqu
27°18' 3H - t Neptune 24°30' Leo
0°43' 7H - t Sun - 26°28' Sag
1°06' 7H - t Pluto - 27°33' Sag

[SteveS]

Much of Mary’s life story is told with Direct Midpoints. A cosmobiologist would have started their delineation of Mary’s Natal with her Venus-Mars conjunction (natal conjunctions were considered very important), by first analyzing the planetary structures (midpoints) with her Natal Mars. Her Natal Mars is terribly afflicted with these two direct midpoints:
Nep/Asc = Mars (0,10)
Sun/Saturn = Mars (1,12)
In my earlier post I gave Ebertin’s COSI for Sun/Saturn = Mars. Now I will give Ebertin’s COSI for Neptune/Asc = Mars:

Inclination to fight against disharmonious influences of the environment, experiencing angry upsets or quarrels within one’s environment (now we see the physical abuse from her husband more clearly). Primitive and instinctive urges wrongly expressed, unpleasant in teamwork and cooperation, suffering of harm or damage.

And the first planet a cosmobiologist would go to for analysis for possible love relationships is Venus, her Natal Venus being conjunct Mars. There are other important malefic direct midpoints in her Natal, but the two above clearly define the physical abuse she received from her husband.