As an astrologer naturally I was interested to read what another astrologer had to say about President Ronald Reagan and wife Nancy. Famous people are always instructive for astrologers because not only their birth dates but facts of their lives are widely available.
This book is very interesting from an historical perspective--giving inside details of the major events of RR's time in the White House. I have several things against what Ms. Quigley wrote. I will give them in order from least important to most important.
Firstly, I wish that there had been more astrological detail for me to evaluate. I realize that Ms. Quigley was writing for the general public and didn't want to get too technical.
More importantly, I found her lack of humility disturbing and off-putting. It was preposterous and to me in the same profession, embarrassing, that she bragged so insistently and repeatedly that she had "protected the president" from assassination and that she was the creator of the "Teflon" presidency. No astrologer or any other human being can prove that they were the protection or creation of something that did not happen. There is no way of proving that the electrical grid in the whole world didn't stop because of the preventive efforts for Y2K. Prevention cannot be proved--period. Is she God? Couldn't other factors have affected RR's presidency? Such as his charm and likeableness, his speech writers, his public relations people, his quick acting and self sacrificing body guards? It is a little presumptuous to think she was the sole protector and creator of it all! No astrologer (or anyone) unless they are angels can claim to categorically know that they have prevented a tragedy in someone's life. The fact is that with everything in this very imperfect world, astrology is not 100% accurate and anyone that says so is deluding themselves and others.
Still, I can understand this foible. She wants to promote the efficacy of astrology and to silence the critics. I do, too. This much is true: to be forewarned in order to prepare oneself is to be forearmed. If you knew that you were going to get cancer, wouldn't you change your diet, stop smoking, etc., in order to increase your chances of prevention?
No, it is not Ms. Quigley's arrogance that bothers me; but the truly treacherous thing she did in this book--the cruel things she wrote about Nancy Reagan. An astrologer or anyone in the helping profession should be held to the highest ethical standards. Confidentiality, kindness and loyalty should be our basic standards of behavior. People come to us who are vulnerable, and anxious. Nancy Reagan had good reason to be worried. After only 69 days in office, her husband narrowly missed being assassinated. He was the first president elected in a year ending in zero that wasn't killed since Harrison in 1840. Ms. Quigley wrote a lot of nice things about Nancy Reagan in her book. Nevertheless, one or two mean words can destroy thousands of good ones. It's bad enough to tell privately one's friends and family members; but to murder someone's reputation publicly is vile and inexcusable. I would never go to an astrologer who wrote those things about another client. Betrayal of trust is the worst crime.
Sincerely,
Laurie Friese, 4-year degreed Indian Astrologer (Jyotish)
LaurieFriese.com