Prince Charles became King Charles III at the moment of the Queen’s death. He inherits vast wealth, for sure, but more than that he presides over a very troubled realm, as well as now being the head of a family with a very checkered past and ancestry. We will look at all of that here and what he faces.
The first task for setting up a chart for a regency in the UK, at least in this case, is finding the exact moment the Queen passed on. We know the Queen died before William, Andrew, Edward and Sophie Wessex arrived at Balmoral. They landed in Aberdeen at 3:50 pm local time. Nothing has at this point been given out about the moment of her passing, save for one Tweet that was quickly taken down, probably because it was not following official protocol. Protocol must be followed at all costs in these matters, you see? At 3:07 pm London time, BBC anchor Yalda Hakim tweeted:
“BREAKING: Queen Elizabeth has died aged 96, Buckingham Palace has announced.”
The official announcement to Liz Truss came a little over an hour later, at 4:30. That 3:07 time gives a rather revealing chart, though, and we will use it as a proving until we find out otherwise regarding the time. The chart is below (bigger):
At this point the exact minute is not necessary. The BBC just posted the death certificate which gave a time of 3:10 pm BST. The exact minute will be revealed as Charle’s regency proceeds. So, there is an interesting conundrum between the death certificate and the tweet by Hakim. Was there an insider who notified her. Who can say? I have heard a time of 3:30 also, which doesn’t change factors in the chart that much. With that in mind, the immediate thing that stands out about this chart is that it is confrontational and marks a distinct departure from past regencies. This is shown in two areas primarily – Mars on the Descendant in the 7th house (litigation, contracts and open enemies), in turn square to a small stellium at the MC with the Sun, Venus and Orcus. The Mars/Orcus square is telling, regardless of the time of day.
Charles is already being heckled by protestors as the Queen is about to be laid to rest and he accedes to the throne. The protestors are being arrested, too, which is not going down well with the public. This is very typical of the planetary combinations just described. Such protests will continue on into Charles’ regency. There are peaceful protests against his accession, the latter proceeding without any public debate. However, the rules of accession are clear enough, stating the next in line (in this case Charles) becomes King upon the Queen’s death. The bigger picture here is that an increasing number of the British public are questioning the need and role of the monarchy.
Mars and Orcus in hard aspect are very similar to Mars and Pluto in hard aspect – the latter combination indicating attainment of success through excessive effort, and the tendency to proceed in a brutal manner, along with the misfortune of having to suffer violent assaults, injuries. There is a difference with Orcus, though. What was just described with Pluto, with Orcus in becomes the results of such efforts reaping immediate results, or one having to undergo ‘the pains of instant karma’. Orcus is ‘the planet of instant karma’ when it is activated in a chart. To add to the effect here, Mars is sesquisquare to Pluto, adding to tensions and volatility during his reign.
The combination of all factors just described reveals a regency that will be under the microscope as to missteps and under great pressure to turn things around for a British public that is suffering under increasing economic and social pressures. The public, at least the loyalists, will look to their King and will be demanding action. But right now Charles’ optics are not that flash.
Keep in mind, the man is under emotional duress and facing a big job amidst an uncertain future for the realm. He is a human being, after all. But social media memes like ‘Inkwell King’ don’t help him, nor firing 100 staff as he moves to his new residence, nor making his disgraced and defrocked brother (Prince Andrew) one of his Counsellors of State, nor even shutting down the entire nation for the day of the Queen’s funeral. Even that chain of Scottish-American restaurants will be closed for the day. However, there is something to be said for a day of silent contemplation. But these things only throw petrol on the fire for people opposed to the monarchy. It also makes for gossip in the tabloid press and clickbait on social media. Until probably the end of next week it might be wiser to cut the man a little slack and instead watch what Parliament and other officials might be doing as the nation adjusts to its new Monarch.
Just what are the official duties of The Monarch of the UK, then? From the official website we have the following:
“As Head of State, The Monarch has to remain strictly neutral with respect to political matters. By convention, The Monarch does not vote or stand for election, however they do have important ceremonial and formal roles in relation to the government of the UK.
The formal phrase ‘Crown in Parliament’ is used to describe the British legislature, which consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The Monarch’s duties include opening each new session of Parliament, granting Royal Assent to legislation, and approving Orders and Proclamations through the Privy Council. The Queen also had a special relationship with the Prime Minister, retaining the right to appoint and also meeting with him or her on a regular basis. In addition to playing a specific role in the UK Parliament based in London, The Monarch has formal roles with relation to the devolved assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”
The bolded bits are the most important. Not included in the preceding quote is that the Sovereign is also head of the British armed forces. As to the last bolded bit, we’ll see if Charles continues that tradition. But it goes to another point, which is that The Monarch still holds control over politics to a great degree (he will have to approve legislation once passed) and foreign governments still in the Commonwealth, with the ability to direct the Governor-General to dismiss or intervene in foreign governments. Charles may not be able to vote, yet he does, because he will be saying yea or nay to any acts passed by the British Parliament.
Governors-General are representatives of The Monarch in the individual Commonwealth states, all of which at one time were British colonies. In general, these GGs perform duties The Monarch would normally undertake, which are ceremonial on the whole. But on rare occasions they do directly intervene in foreign governments, as has been the case in Australia, Canada and Pakistan. These points will be important as we go forward here.
What we see with the cited duties of The Monarch of the UK is that they play the role of a mediator or diplomat along with their ceremonial duties rather than being directly involved in government. As an example, and one which Charles may follow (we will see):
“Queen Elizabeth kept the crown above party politics, but she was always fully engaged with the political world. A firm believer in the Commonwealth, even when her own prime ministers had long lost faith in it, as its head she mediated in disputes between member states and provided support and guidance even to Commonwealth leaders who were strongly opposed to her own UK government.
Her prime ministers often paid tribute to her political wisdom and knowledge. These were the result both of her years of experience and of her diligence in reading state papers. Harold Wilson remarked that to attend the weekly audience unprepared was like being caught at school not having done your homework. It was widely believed that she found relations with Margaret Thatcher difficult.”
There is a nuance in the quote, though, italicized. The last point is important going forward, too, because of the differences in policy professed by Charles and the policies of the Tories. Although the Queen kept out of party politics, she was also directly involved in government overall, stated in the quote as her being fully engaged with the political world. So, we have a monarchy (and have had since 1689) that, although not overtly being part of government, still has a hand in it and wields influence behind the scenes. The British establishment is fully on board with this and will likely want to see it stay that way. The monarchy is part of the British 1% economically and politically after all, and they have a great interest in maintaining that status. We do not see the Royals as a whole seeking to divest of their fortune or influence, for example.
Charles’ tenure as King coincides with the Truss government, with whom Charles has stated he will become more involved. It could be a good opportunity to buy a supply of popcorn:
“One final thought; I do not expect this will amount to much, but it is fun to speculate. King Charles III has let it be known he intends to attempt to wield more influence on government than his mother. He comes to power at the same moment as a new government under Liz Truss, which is utterly anathema to Charles’ political beliefs.
Charles is a woolly liberal environmentalist with a genuine if superficial attachment to multi-culturalism. He has let it be known he deplores deportations to Rwanda. He is now going to be fitting into his role while government in his name is carried out by crazed right-wing ideologues, who want a massive push to produce more fossil fuels…”
And to produce more of those Royal Molecules, the Tories have already legislated such, with their latest reversal of the fracking ban in the UK. We’ll see how Charles responds to that one, which will reveal the truth or not of his intentions. If he is a true environmentalist he will not approve of fracking in the UK and will pressure the government to reinstate the ban. One should not be under any illusions, though. It is pretty well assured the British establishment will be well protected, both by the King and Truss. And just so you know, the EU is set to impose a windfall profits tax on energy firms to curb the soaring energy costs. Truss opposes such a tax.
There is a darker side to the monarchy which is not mentioned at all in the British press, but which bears a mention here, since the British have a new King. Why bring this up, though, when the Queen has not even been yet laid to rest and Charles is still mourning his mum? The reason is simple: There is an opportunity for positive change here with his accession, as there always is with a change of the guard. But will it happen? The interesting thing is what is happening under cover of Britain’s mourning – the Tories are already busy taking an axe to policies which Charles favors, but which establishment politicians have long opposed. Fracking is just one case among many to come.
The possibility for change is shown in the regency chart by the Sun/Uranus midpoint. Even if the time is not exactly accurate, that midpoint to the other midpoints to Sun/Uranus hold weight. The Sun/Uranus midpoint is one of our ‘revolution’ midpoints. To the MC, it has the following meaning, MC=Sun/Ura; “An excitable and restless person with far-reaching plans. Reformers, inventors, technicians. – Experiencing the impact of sudden events or of emotional upheavals.”
It is hoped that Charles will present a different monarchy, with questions of taxation of the Royals on the cards, a ‘slimmed down monarchy’, and most especially if he will forgo the old policy of ‘Queen’s consent’, wherein The Monarch vets any bill before it goes to Parliament. Whether any changes are seen, or if seen, that they are palpable or only superficial, remains to be seen. Thus far his regency seems to be going along the old lines, but these are very early days.
There is a particular point of note here, though, regarding Queen’s Consent. If true the Queen vetted and gave the nod to every piece of legislation that passed through Parliament and was then passed into law, it means the Queen, which the nation is now mourning, presided over and gave approval to all the policies that have placed British society into its present state, meaning the salami-slice gutting of any hint of socialism over the term of her reign, the establishment of tax havens offshore, Brexit and so on. Of course, she would have done this in consultation with ministers and other members of the British establishment, meaning the Eton-and-Oxford-educated class. It is something to think about, and if widely known, would add to calls for the dismissal of the monarchy.
The monarchy, even under the Queen, was increasingly seen as anachronistic to modern society and the vestige of a bygone era. It is seen to represent inherited wealth and privilege, a rigid class system, structural racism, imperialism, and unaccountable power, which is all true enough. There is another anachronism in British society that is intimately connected with the monarchy, yet separate from it, known as ‘The Corporation’ in the old City of London, but that is another story (must-read), dealing with offshore banking and how the wealth of the British people and Commonwealth is stolen from them. There is a point here:
What we see with the death of the Queen and the handover of power also coincides with the close of a 500-year cycle, discussed in the Leo letter this year (“A Western European cycle”). Actually, her death marks the close of 1000-year cycle (two 500-year cycles) for the British and marks the end of monarchy in the Western world. For the British this is especially important because the present British Royal Family started almost 500 years ago with the House of Stuart (Henry) and Mary, Queen of Scots. Before that, around 500 years before, began the current form of British government by and large, with the adoption of the Great Charter of 1225 under Henry III and the Plantagenet dynasty. And as far as European kings in general, they go all the way back to Clovis I at the turn of the 6th century. These cycles roughly coincide with Saturn/Pluto conjunctions in Capricorn. Here is the most important point, though:
The Queen’s reign marked probably the last time a British royal will be seen with the same respect or influence, fitting with the just-described cycle. The end of her reign also coincides with the end of Western world dominance, the emergence of the multipolar world order, the looming collapse of the West’s current financial system, the most severe economic crisis, the growth of separatist sentiments in Scotland, the difficulties caused by Brexit, as well as disagreements within the ruling party, and at a time when the ruling Parliamentary party couldn’t care less if they dismantle the UK.
The monarchy, even under the Queen, was increasingly seen as anachronistic to modern society and the vestige of a bygone era. And as mentioned in the previous post, King Charles III is not especially well liked, in distinction to his mother. At the moment, royalists are rallying around the monarchy in their moment of grief, but we might question how long that will last, especially if Charles goes on to approve a lot of the legislation the Truss government is seeking to push through. The other side to the monarchy in the 20th century, mentioned previously, is one that Charles will represent more than did his mother.
And then, in the middle of what was supposed to be his moment of greatest grief, Charles was busy being shuttled around the country to the legislatures of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, in what is seen to be a move aimed at strengthening support for the monarchy, whereas if he had waited until after the funeral there likely would have been substantial protests. It was a political move that was unprecedented. “But you can’t make this man popular, and his queen consort will be a constant reminder of how he treated his unfortunate first wife.”
“Elizabeth II was believable: because she believed. The last European monarch to believe her role was a divine calling. Today the old religion is not felt, even by the King, so uncomfortable — a scholar of Islam, a guest at al-Hazar, a patron of Jewish charities — at being Defender of the Faith. Charles could only bring himself to say, in his first address to the nation, that his faith was “rooted in the Church of England,” like he had long outgrown it. The King is not a stupid man. “Big Ears” of the tabloid press has spent his life knowing there is nothing sacred about him. That nobody reveres him.”
For example, Charles has raised concerns among many people with his connections to the World Economic Forum and their Great Reset Green agenda, echoing Thatcher’s TINA — ‘There Is No Alternative’. The WEF also promotes free ports, also known as charter cities and special economic zones (SEZs) – i.e. private ownership of whole cities and regions within an otherwise sovereign nation. To institute such policy in the UK would indeed be revolutionary change, but not of the sort the average British citizen would condone. Those zones would be bastions of neoliberalism and financial capitalism in the extreme, and much of that wealth would disappear into those offshore havens.
The film The Hunger Games comes to mind regarding competition between such economic zones. What is not mentioned in the article linked regarding SEZs is that the Chinese zone is tightly controlled as to its activities by the central government (CPC) and is of the order of an experiment, rather than CPC policy. The article itself is WEF propaganda. The SEZ in China is ongoing, but when tried in capitalist countries like Honduras, they typically fail. A sovereign nation will never allow them to operate freely. But the Tories advocate these SEZs. As Craig Murray opined in the previous quote, popcorn may be in order between Charles and the Truss admin.
What is really at issue with current conditions in the UK is austerity and wealth disparity – a class struggle. The WEF can probably be ignored, because it represents the economic and political 1%. The British public is beginning to rise to counter austerity measures and wealth disparity, which is bringing the public focus back to institutions like the monarchy. It is this with which the Royals and the Tories will have to deal in the immediate future.
The Sex Pistols were probably closer to the truth in their views on that darker side of the monarchy than people at the moment would care to examine:
Johnny Rotten’s gone but not forgotten. Rotten was the alter-ego of one John Lydon, who actually gave a nice tribute to the Queen upon her demise. In 2017 he had this to say about the notorious song:
“The song, he said, was “about a political situation and the demand for obedience to a monarchy I don’t believe in. But she’s a human being and I will sorely miss her as a human being on Planet Earth. It’s not her fault she was born into a gilded cage. Long may she live.”
In context, the song was from 1977, from a time in the UK when the working class was under great stress, which we see echoes of today. The ‘70s were remembered as the ‘dark ages’ in the UK, the gloomiest period in that nation since WWII:
“…it seemed not only to be time of industrial conflict, economic decline and political extremism, but a period of violence. In many areas, Britain, a peaceful, stable country which had not known serious internal conflict since the civil wars of the seventeenth century, seemed to be emerging in a harsh, even brutal, light.”
Fascist tendencies – the fascist regime mentioned in the Sex Pistols’ song – in the UK have been increasing under the Tories, starting especially with Thatcher. Labour has not done much if anything to reverse them, either. Just what exactly those echoes of the ‘70s and fascism are can be described as follows:
- Criminalising peaceful protests, along with the Roma and Gypsy Traveler way of life
- The end of fair elections via the Elections Bill. This has the US written all over it.
- Easier to strip citizens of their citizenship, and modern slavery law relaxed
- The Government less accountable to the law
- The Human Rights Act to be removed
- Blaming minorities and immigrants – and most especially Putin – for all of Britain’s ills
- Union busting, removing the right of workers to organize and/or strike
- Stagnant wages with increasing costs
- Privatization of nearly everything in British society
The ‘70s paved the way for Thatcher in the UK and Reagan in the US, both of which led to the financial capitalism we see today, where the market is king. The ‘70s were the decade of the OPEC energy crunch. I was in the UK on a tour in the ‘70s and remember the cold houses from a lack of heating oil. There was also stagflation, The Troubles, the end of the post-WWII economic boom, massive trade union strikes, blackouts, highly partisan politics and so on, leading to the Winter of Discontent in 1978 and the election of Thatcher on 1979. Things seem to have come around to a similar situation in the UK today, exacerbated by Brexit and hard-right government policy. Revolutionary change would appear to be in the making, along with another winter of discontent.
Fascist tendencies in the UK have been on display since the Queen’s death with the arrest of protestors doing little more than holding up placards saying “Not my King”. Calling such heavy-handed responses ‘fascist’ may seem to be a stretch, but the tendencies have been there, increasing over the past years. There is much we could say on the matter here, but we will leave it for now. Suffice it to say, the Royals and the British establishment have a history with fascism, especially relating to their old colonies, with people in the ex-colonies calling it out since the Queen’s passing.
The British press and establishment have instead flooded the public with tributes to the Queen, suppressing any other coverage, which is also not sitting well with the public. Such coverage and establishment actions have, in fact, been extreme. People are feeling particularly uncomfortable with the monarchy as a result. Much of the coverage of events seems quite absurd. So, given all this, where is the regency of King Charles III headed?
Charles’ regency will be a relatively short one. This is not doom-saying, but rather common sense. The man takes the throne at 73 years of age. He begins his reign as the oldest Monarch in British history to take the crown. If hereditary health is any indication he may have at most a 25 year reign, or thereabouts. But there are questions about the state of his health, along with questions about the health of the state.
Much has been made of Charles’ health on social media, focusing for instance on what Charles has called his ‘sausage fingers’, which more likely than not is simple oedema. He has suffered from it for years. Gout is unlikely because he adheres to a strict diet. Charles has Venus and Neptune on his IC, which points to fluid retention, as well as sensitivity to diet. It also points to his idealism (whether or not people agree with it), the ups and downs of his love life and his idea of his ‘one true love’ (Camilla), calling her his ‘soul mate’. The combination is also in Libra, implicating the kidneys and weakened kidney function, which can also lead to oedema. His health is not the main issue with his reign, though. The concern for his reign is a coming direction of Saturn to his Sun.
We looked at Charles’ chart briefly in the previous post, so one can refer to that from here (open link in a separate page). We note the turning point in his life, with directed Ceres squaring his Horizon axis. But what is not shown there is the direction of Saturn to his Sun, which begins to come into effect in November next year, exact in November of 2024. That is activated by a transit of Uranus in April of 2024.
The combination just described speaks of a deeper self-examination as to one’s life, which can imply a great many things. It also indicates a real personal crisis. The Sun rules his Ascendant, and natal Uranus, ruling his 7th and 8th houses, is also activated by Neptune then. Astrologers will know the implications. We won’t speculate further, except to say the setup is one of major changes in one’s life. That period in the UK will also indicate a crisis in leadership, which we will cover when the time comes. Unless a strong leader steps forward to form government in the UK (definitely not Liz Truss or a rerun of BoJo) the UK will still be facing some perhaps very troubled waters. Or…the UK could be on its way to the mend, having thrown out its neoliberalism. Charles can play a key role in either scenario. Yes, yes, to dream. To dream.
Here in Italy there was speculation that Charles may abdicate. A particular network here dedicated a whole show to it. King Wills? Who can say? But one thing we can probably say with certainty is that the reign of King Charles III marks a turning point for the UK – one toward either greater prosperity or a road to ruin. Once the Queen is laid to rest and Charles gets on with business we will have a much clearer picture.
The UK at the moment is one of the most significant proving and battlegrounds in the West concerning the West’s economic security and values. The Saturn/Neptune conjunction at 0° Aries in February of 2026 will mark a return to more socialism. It will occur across from the UK’s natal Uranus – marking a historic turn of events. In the West that conjunction means democratic socialism, like we see in Scandinavia and did see in the UK pre-Thatcherism. It is coming. The battle lines have been drawn, and Russia, China and the emerging multipolar world order has been the catalyst for it. And the strikes and protests in the UK are part of it, too.
Yes, Charles does indeed have his royal pains set out in front of him. The monarchy is under increasing scrutiny now. It is clear he cannot hope to continue the old traditions. Times have changed. Britannia once ruled the waves, then the US. No longer. Make sure you have your popcorn and a big mug of Guinness handy (or whatever your favorite tipple is). Interesting times are upon us. we end with a bit of Lewis Carroll, peering through the looking glass into the UK’s future:
“The time has come”, the Walrus said, “To talk of many things: Of shoes – and ships – and sealing wax – Of cabbages – and kings- And why the sea is boiling hot – And whether pigs have wings.”
God save the King, and heaven help us.
Featured pic from Insider