Written in the


Jonathan Sale on how newspapers improved their fortunes with astrology columns


A


n editor phoned his paper’s astrologer to tell her that she was fired. “But I had no idea this might happen!” she cried.


“That,” declared the editor, “is why I’m


firing you.” It’s a story I tell sometimes – but about two different editors, so my memory may have let me down. I’d be delighted to hear from the editor in question or, indeed, the astrologer. However, here is a real astrological fact: the


creation of the first of the newspaper horoscopes that we know today – by Mystic Meg, Russell Grant etc – was inspired 90 years ago this month by the birth of Princess Margaret. This factual nugget was omitted from The Crown series but, in astrological circles, the hope is that it could be worked into a not-yet-written episode as a flashback.


Of course, the Queen’s younger sister never cast horoscopes herself – though Mystic Marge would have been a great byline – but by being born on August 21 1930, she fortuitously filled a gap in the market. John Gordon, the editor of the Sunday Express, was faced with the problem of turning ‘not another royal baby’ into a joyful- sounding feature. He came up with the wheeze of asking an astrologer to describe what lay in store for the new royal progeny. The star of the stargazers, was Cheiro (pictured


on facing page) and he had already turned his gaze on to Mark Twain and Winston Churchill, but he was busy on another job (or planet). Fortunately, his assistant, RH Naylor, was up for the job and the result on Sunday August 24 was ‘What the stars foretell for the new princess’. Naylor’s stellar prediction for the baby born under the sign of Leo (July23-August 22) was that her life would be ‘eventful’ and, what with Margaret being a princess and everything, this


14 | theJournalist


could have been filed away into the back of a drawer marked ‘No shit, Sherlock’. However, Naylor went out on a limb a little in declaring that the Leonine lady would grow up to show a ‘scorn of restraint’; this was one way of putting it, as I learnt when I was a sub on Queen magazine (later Harper’s & Queen) where the editor was a chum of the right royal raver. Where Naylor really placed his head on the


block was in predicting that “events of tremendous importance will come about near her seventh year” and, indeed, they did: she was that age when her uncle Edward abdicated. Of course, no one knew in 1930 that an event


STARS


“IF YOU’RE fancy free, a last-minute weekend event is where you’ll meet The One,” promised Mystic Meg of The Sun, adding hastily, “although you may not realise it”. She was one of the


six horoscopes I read on the same day to see what was in store for us Librans (September 3 -October 22). Oscar Cainer in the


Daily Telegraph assured me I wasn’t responsible for an unspecified “source of friction” and


added kindly: “You’re not to blame. In fact, you’ve behaved impeccably… no one’s perfect.” The New York Post


star person clearly spotted the same conflict: “The more someone tries to talk


predicted for circa 1936 would in fact come true but the piece as a whole went down so very well with readers that Gordon asked Naylor for more top tips from the celestial movements. One of Naylor’s next predictions was for a date so soon after publication that it promised to make or break him. It was also a literally explosive topic, a horrorscope warning that “a British aircraft will be in danger between October 8th and 15th”. That month saw the crash in flames of the airship R-101 with the death of most of the passengers. OK, it was a bit early, on October 5. Also, a large balloon filled with inflammable gas was always an accident waiting to happen. But Naylor’s reputation soon soared into the stratosphere and Gordon gave him two weekly slots, one of which was for major events such as the above. The other strand was the breakthrough: while celebrity horoscopes themselves were not new, Your Stars gave predictions relevant to Sunday Express readers. At first, it was confined to people whose birthdays occurred in the week of publication; later, Naylor devised predictions that applied, as is now the practice, to everyone. The zodiac, the celestial circuit along which the sun, moon and planets appear to travel, had been divided into 12 ‘signs’ by the stargazers of Ancient Greece and Babylonia. However, there having been no Ancient Greek Gazette or Sunday Babylonian Babbler, it was left to Naylor to deliver the astrologer’s dozen. “This was how the modern horoscope came


into being,” wrote Craig Brown in Ninety-Nine Glimpses of Princess Margaret, his highly praised


Star check: what’s in store for Librans


you out of doing something you have been planning for quite some time, the more likely it is that they are hoping your efforts will fail.” But the stars are not standing for that: “You must not let that happen.” Russell Grant in the


Daily Express is equally supportive: “The more energy, emotion and passion you put into your creative goals, the more you will get out of them.” Very true. “Your efforts will pay off.”


The Daily Star (an


apposite title, in this context) is in total agreement: “The more energy, emotion and passion you put into…” Hang on, that sounds familiar. No wonder – it’s by


Grant too or, as they put it, not quite accurately in the circumstances, “our very own Russell Grant”. So to the Mirror: “The


more energy, emotion and…” Let me guess, that’s our very own Grant too. Same publishing


group, same celestial bodies. Nice to get some harmony in the heavens.


VICTOR WATTS / ALAMY STOCK PHOT


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24