[Seafra]

I was never a fan of three card spreads and I think your explanation put the reason why in clear view. I've been using CC for years but the excitement in this thread has me heading for the cards right now. Thanks, LB! - Sea

[Enchanted]

Originally Posted by Little Baron

Thanks.

Position 3.

If, say, we had the 'Queen of Swords' in Position 3, she would be someone else. Always.

What is hard to explain is that 'we' are always on the left. That could mean either in Position 1 or not shown at all. 'We' are NEVER in Position 2 or 3. That would always be someone else.

So, in your example, with just one court in Position 3, the cards in 1 & 2 are what is shared between us and the queen. We are still on the left, but invisible. Therefore, if the '3 of Cups' and 'Death' were in positions 1 & 2, you might say that there has been a change in the emotional relationship between us and the queen. Or maybe, that a change is required.

Does that make sense? If not, please say.

LB

Thanks for the explanation, it is making more sense to me now.

I think I might try this with some old readings, which I now have the benefit of hindsight for (wonderful thing, hindsight!) and see if it changes or adds to the original interpretation and in what ways.

Thanks for sharing this method!

[Bronwyn1]

Yes, Little Baron, I LOVED your post!! Gives me a whole new way of reading, but simplifies it hopefully!!
Thank-you so much

[frelkins]

ok i think i'm beginning to follow this LB, but i'm still confused about a court in position 2.

say:

wheel of fortune | queen cups | ace swords

i am "offstage" on the left. the Q and I share the Wheel. So we've been united by a stroke of good luck. And the A means that this stroke of luck will bring *her* future success? Not me, because the 3rd card refers to her?

[Little Baron]

Yep, Freklins. I like that term [off of stage].

You and the queen share the wheel.

She holds the 'ace'. So the case might be what she brings to the table. It might be her agenda; her idea or something that she says. She may provoke what you share with the card she holds. The wheel is affected by the ace. Not the other way around. Is that clearer?

LB

[sascha]

This is just awesome....Thank you so much LB for posting this!! This method provides some solid "hooks" on which to create a clearer message relating the cards to one another, yet without confining the meaning of any one card. I love it!!

One question... Is there a difference in how you read position 1 vs the off-stage card in terms of applying it to yourself/the querent? Not sure how to ask this... If position 1 is not a court card, then you would apply it as a kind of "noun, verb, or adjective" to the off-stage card? But... if position 1 IS a court card then you already have a descriptive card and the off-stage card is unneeded?

Thanks again... this will definitely become an integral part of my readings.
sascha

[sascha]

Oh... one more..

Would it be correct to envision the cards' influence as working like this?
[offstage] Position 1 Position 2 Position 3
--> --> <-- <--

[Little Baron]

Originally Posted by sascha

One question... Is there a difference in how you read position 1 vs the off-stage card in terms of applying it to yourself/the querent? Not sure how to ask this... If position 1 is not a court card, then you would apply it as a kind of "noun, verb, or adjective" to the off-stage card? But... if position 1 IS a court card then you already have a descriptive card and the off-stage card is unneeded?

That's completely correct.

LB

[Little Baron]

Originally Posted by sascha

Oh... one more..

Would it be correct to envision the cards' influence as working like this?
[offstage] Position 1 Position 2 Position 3
--> --> <-- <--

Yes, but only if there is not a court describing you in pos.1. There is no need for the off-stage presence if you are a court in position 1.

Make sense?

LB

[Little Baron]

Maybe we could do some different examples. Ask away, if it helps.

LB