Grand Square... thoughts?

I have a cardinal grand square in my chart, and I'd like to hear more thoughts from other people about this aspect. Do you have one or know anyone else that has one? If so, what have been your experiences? Is it true that a mutable square is the easiest, while a fixed square is the hardest? Also, do you know any famous people that have grand squares in their charts?

I'm just curious, because it seems whenever I look at the charts of celebrities, they always have a lot of trines. Marilyn Monroe, Beethoven, Oprah, Gwen Stefani--really, no matter what genre you look at there seems to be a good number of trines. But no squares. Is it because the square is a less common aspect? Or does a square just make it that much harder for a person to become successful?

Honestly, I've just been reading a lot about squares, and it's all "doom and gloom." The only positive thing I read was that it toughens you up, making it easier for you to become successful. But if that's true, then why can't I find more examples of successful people with this aspect?

The only person I've heard of with a grand square is Steve Jobs. I know Mia Farrow had one, but she also had a grand trine going on so I think that would balance out the energies of the square. Your thoughts?

I think you mean a Grand Cross where there are two opposition axes crossing each other. These are fairly rare configurations, though T-squares are quite common.

The difficulty with these is that the individual has energies and needs that are going in two directions and two areas of life.

I think you mean to say that you have an angular Grand Cross, with planets in the 1st, 4th, 7th and 12th houses. This poses a conflict between the 1/7 axis of relationship, where the self is projected to others, and the 4/10 axis which generally represents the early home and the parents in both early life and adulthood. To make matters more complicated, the 7th house of marriage refers to the 4/10 axis for in-laws. The dynamic described by this Grand Cross, then, has to do with one's own identity and relationships with others, one's relationship with parents and the partner's relationship with their parents. How all of these things affect the marriage becomes a strong focus for interpretation.

The important thing in complicated configurations like this is not to make them too complicated. Focus on the oppositions to find the simplest synthesis, the bottom line.

I agree with you that it's difficult to find these Grand Cross configurations in the charts of famous people. They do, indeed, frequently include trines and only a few squares or oppositions. Energy flows easily with trines, providing ready and supportive functions between the planets and houses involved. Squares are always challenging and require adjustment. In charts with too many trines, individuals may have difficulty accomplishing much but may also be relatively happy with their lives if they feel they're not facing a lot of struggle.

Peregrine_Moon said:

I think you mean a Grand Cross where there are two opposition axes crossing each other. These are fairly rare configurations, though T-squares are quite common.

The difficulty with these is that the individual has energies and needs that are going in two directions and two areas of life.

I think you mean to say that you have an angular Grand Cross, with planets in the 1st, 4th, 7th and 12th houses. This poses a conflict between the 1/7 axis of relationship, where the self is projected to others, and the 4/10 axis which generally represents the early home and the parents in both early life and adulthood. To make matters more complicated, the 7th house of marriage refers to the 4/10 axis for in-laws. The dynamic described by this Grand Cross, then, has to do with one's own identity and relationships with others, one's relationship with parents and the partner's relationship with their parents. How all of these things affect the marriage becomes a strong focus for interpretation.

The important thing in complicated configurations like this is not to make them too complicated. Focus on the oppositions to find the simplest synthesis, the bottom line.

I agree with you that it's difficult to find these Grand Cross configurations in the charts of famous people. They do, indeed, frequently include trines and only a few squares or oppositions. Energy flows easily with trines, providing ready and supportive functions between the planets and houses involved. Squares are always challenging and require adjustment. In charts with too many trines, individuals may have difficulty accomplishing much but may also be relatively happy with their lives if they feel they're not facing a lot of struggle.

Click to expand...

Well, I've read them as being called either a grand square or a grand cross, like right here. But whatever. Semantics. And I have the square in my first, fifth, seventh, and eleventh houses. Not sure what that means, but I attached my chart so you can see what I'm talking about.

I just wish I could find more information about it other than "you're life will be filled with challenges, hardships and stress." Like, if there were some more examples of famous people that had them, that'd be kind of encouraging. Or if more people on here volunteered there experiences, maybe? I mean, I didn't realize they were *that* rare.

Squares are not aspects to fear. Yes, they're challenging, but without challenges, we don't grow or change. Square aspects provide choices that are not given with trines or sextiles. In a square, the individual has to find ways to blend the contrary energies of the planets and houses. With trines, however, there is nothing to resolve. Energy flows easily in a set pattern. While it seems that grand trines may be wonderful things, they're also closed circuits that tend to flow unto themselves.

Mia Farrow has both a Grand Cross and a Grand Air Trine. Look at how the two structures operate. Go through the chart carefully and notice where the planets are and where the houses which they rule are. Moon-Saturn and Venus-Neptune involve the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th and 12th houses. The Mercury-Pluto opposition is not part of the Grand Trine, but involves the 2nd and 7th houses and repeats the 4th and 10th house involvements. The 5th, 8th and 11th houses are not involved and her Sun is peregrine--it's a singleton, forming no Ptolemaic aspects to any other planets. It's pretty clear that there's an enormous amount of personal insecurity in Mia Farrow's horoscope, such that it's striking that the houses related to love, how she's valued by others and the love she receives are not involved in the dynamics of the Grand Cross. Those three, together with her peregrine Sun, provide her a place to operate independent of her personal insecurity complexes.

Steve Jobs also has a Grand Cross. Look at it and work out the network of planet residences and rulerships involved in the oppositions. Notice that his Sun is in his 6th house of work and that it has a lovely trine to Neptune in his 2nd house. That trine is the "way out" of the Neptune's opposition to Mars and the squares it forms to Venus and the Jupiter-Uranus conjunction because it gives imagination to the Sun. The trine from Jupiter in the 10th house to Saturn in the 3rd is also largely beneficial as is the trine from Venus to Pluto.

Charles Manson has a Grand Cross, too. The difference between his cross and the others I've cited is striking. The only relief from the Moon-Pluto and Uranus-[Jupiter conj. Mercury] oppositions is in the sextile between Neptune-Mars and Sun-Venus, and in the trine from Sun-Venus in the 7th house to Pluto in the 4th. Manson's chart is a signature for extremism. Madness is inevitable, but whether he would express it in benevolent or destructive ways was up to him.

I suggest you work through your own chart in a similar way. Start with the Grand Cross, noting the houses for each planet's placement and the houses they rule. Then look at what happens when a contact is made with a planet that isn't part of the Grand Cross. Note the network of placements and rulerships, there, too. You don't have a Grand Trine, but you do have a more interesting chain of sextiles, from Venus to Mercury to Pluto to Neptune. Venus trines Pluto. Your Sun trines Neptune. These trines and sextiles may form a counter-network to the Grand Cross and provide you with some very helpful information and relief about yourself and your options.

You might list all of these aspects and look them up. Remember to blend interpretations through the house rulerships and then consider how you express these things through Gemini--your Ascendant, which represents your self-identity.

I don't have a grand cross, but such people typically have a strong personality and a strong drive. It's like they radiate a strong aura. They can stand a lot of pressure, and may be very sensitive too. You notice them, their presence.

Francipants said:

I have a cardinal grand square in my chart, and I'd like to hear more thoughts from other people about this aspect. Do you have one or know anyone else that has one? If so, what have been your experiences? Is it true that a mutable square is the easiest, while a fixed square is the hardest? Also, do you know any famous people that have grand squares in their charts?

I'm just curious, because it seems whenever I look at the charts of celebrities, they always have a lot of trines. Marilyn Monroe, Beethoven, Oprah, Gwen Stefani--really, no matter what genre you look at there seems to be a good number of trines. But no squares. Is it because the square is a less common aspect? Or does a square just make it that much harder for a person to become successful?

Honestly, I've just been reading a lot about squares, and it's all "doom and gloom." The only positive thing I read was that it toughens you up, making it easier for you to become successful. But if that's true, then why can't I find more examples of successful people with this aspect?

The only person I've heard of with a grand square is Steve Jobs. I know Mia Farrow had one, but she also had a grand trine going on so I think that would balance out the energies of the square. Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Here is a link to a long list of famous people with Cardinal Grand Crosses in their charts:

http://astro-charts.com/persons/pattern/grand-cardinal-cross/page/2/

if you click on a specific one, their chart appears.

That site has really loose standards on who has a grand cross. All the ones I clicked on involve outer planets, really sketchy things like Chiron, or non-planets like the Ascendant, MC, and North and South Nodes (and sometimes all of them, like Chiron, Uranus, and the MC, and the North Node in a cross, which is really not a cross at all). I haven't seen a single person so far who actually has a grand cross, although there are lots of T-squares and general hard aspects.

I have found some celebrities with actual grand crosses though after googling "celebrities with grand crosses", although it looks like generally the orbs aren't ever super tight and generally many of the planets are departing. One has a 1 degree opposition with Mars and Saturn though.

Francipants said:

I'm just curious, because it seems whenever I look at the charts of celebrities, they always have a lot of trines. Marilyn Monroe, Beethoven, Oprah, Gwen Stefani--really, no matter what genre you look at there seems to be a good number of trines. But no squares. Is it because the square is a less common aspect? Or does a square just make it that much harder for a person to become successful?

Click to expand...

Did you notice that all those people are performers? I mean, that does seem like it would be a significant bias when defining "success." I know you mention Steve Jobs, but is being a performer the main indicator of success to you?