I am going to London in March for a week and a friend, who was awarded a Certificate from the Faculty of Astrological Studies in London last year, sent me the link to the Faculty’s Annual Open Day in case I might like to purchase a ticket and attend.
While scrolling down the program page, I noticed at the very bottom that yet another Faculty Diploma holder has been stripped of her D.F.Astrol.S. This would make Debbie Frank the second astrologer to late Princess Diana to be stripped of her Faculty Diploma–the first being Penny Thornton in 1995–for violating several clauses in the Faculty’s code of ethics(pdf), the most serious, of course, being the violation of client confidentiality by speaking and writing publicly about their work as astrologers to the princess.
The second issue may be the “kind” of work done. Recent testimony given at an inquest into Diana’s death in London revealed that the princess had been given many predictions, not only of her own death, but that of other members of the Royal Family–and indeed, if you read accounts given by both women, much time was spent looking for the possibility for “bad” things to happen to her and/or other members of the Royal Family.
At a recent NORWAC conference, the well-known astrologer, Steven Forrest, spoke about the issue of confidentiality very eloquently (youtube link–go to the 35th minute). Of course, if a client wishes to step forward and speak about her work with an astrologer, that is her prerogative, but when an astrologer does so, she not only betrays the trust given to her by her client, she also potentially damages the work being done by many, many ethical astrologers.
It is not often that astrology organizations are willing to take on a prominant member who has violated this code (in fact, I have not heard of a single case in which an American astrology org has taken this step), so kudos are in order for the Faculty of Astrological Studies for stepping up to the plate in this instance and doing the right thing.
Though one does wonder why it took them so long, as I have been aware of an astrologer called Debbie Frank who claimed to have been the astrologer to the late princess for a few years, but until I read the announcement on the Faculty’s web site, I had no idea that Ms. Frank held a Faculty diploma.
No one has ever mentioned that perhaps these women should have had their credentials withdrawn BECAUSE the Princess died. Surely, as “foremost” practitioners of their art they should have been able to discern a measure of risk attached to her vacation with Mr al Fayed? And, surely they would have established their credibility with the client in the past by getting it right on occasion, to the extent that she would have heeded their warnings?
I am sorry, but these two astrologers failed their client and the profession in many more instances than simply a lack of confidentiality.
[...] British astrologer who revealed the details of her consultations with Princess Diana was ultimately stripped of her education [...]
This morning (June 2, 2008), Jack at AFA told me Henry Weingarten went bust late last year. So I went to the net to see if I could confirm that.
Instead, I found your conflation of Weingarten with the Magi Society, of two years ago. I worked for W. for four years in the late ’80′s & had business dealings with him into the late ’90′s.
I’ve also taken the time to run down the Magi folks. They are a group of Shaolin monks who took refuge in Hong Kong after Mao’s victory. They then relocated to Singapore when China reclaimed the British colony in 1999. Their primary goal, over at their offices on 2nd Avenue (now closed), was to recruit Chinese-Americans in order to keep themselves viable. While I could be wrong, I agree with the earlier commentator, that it is unlikely there was ever a connection between them & Henry. Or them & American Christians, or anyone else, for that matter. They know nothing whatever about the Biblical magi.
Now you know how I got here.
So far as the Faculty of Astrological Studies are concerned, they have the known Ph.D. fraud, Liz Greene, hand out their diplomas every year. Imagine, if you will, a known fraud handing out diplomas to graduating students.
As Debbi Kempton-Smith pointed out, no other educational institution strips its graduates of their degrees based on subsequent misbehavior. A degree is given for work completed. Once given, it can only be revoked if qualifying work is found to be bogus. That’s the educational contract that every other institution honors.
But the FAS plays by different rules. Just how good is this school? Frankly I do not know. Someone emailed me their first year reading list, which I put on-line (pdf file). You can see it here: http://www.astroamerica.com/fac%20reading%20list.pdf
You will note it is larded with CPA Press titles. CPA Press is Liz Greene’s own publishing outfit.
All in all, there are better schools out there.
David R. Roell
http://www.AstroAmerica.com
Gosh, everyone at astro america has a problem with a) Liz Greene b) Faculty of Astrological Studies. And they’re aren’t much better schoopld out there David Roell. Have you ever read any of Liz Greene’s work, have you ever attended her school or the FAS? Ah, no I didnt think so….but good on you to go slate and make snide remarks! Are there better schools than astro-america? You can bet your backside there are. Whata loser you are!
Du1fHC comment6 ,
Don’t know anything about David Roell, Astro-America, and little about Liz Greene or what great work she may be doing now. I know nothing about astrology. But from what I have read about Ms. Green’s claims to have achieved her real PhD from “Los Angeles University”, I do know a lot that apparently isn’t known by those who should. LAU was simply a 1970′s school in name only and only “on paper”. No campus, no classes, no accreditations from any organization or governmental agency, had no curriculum, no degree requirements, no nothing. It issued some purported degrees and documents, not approved or authorized by the State of California (the authorizing agency). Certainly in the 1970′s when it “existed on paper” is was not authorized to issue such degrees. This happened a lot in that time. I do suspect that Ms. Greene actually had one of LAU’s Xeroxed on Gold certificates from LAU, there are probably thousands of them floating around. How to I know all this about LAU? I hate to admit that I was associated with it, too stupid in my 20′s to realize what a scam and diservice to society it was conducting against all those who actually went to college and worked hard to obtain their real sheep skins. If MS. Greene obtained her job because she had the “right credentials in the form of a PhD document from LAU, what a sad situation that School in Bath, UK must find itself in.
Liz Greene isn’t that great. I’ve read her books and they are generally overwrought, maudlin, simplistic, grossly stereotypical, and in desperate need of a good editor. Not to mention she leans heavily on the “fated” crap too many astrologers use. That she bought an American diploma mill degree comes as no surprise. She is very good at marketing herself (and her institutions) though. I’ll give her that.
I agree with the post that points out the inconvenient fact that stripping astrologers of an institution’s credentials is a highly political~not an ethical/moral act`of outrage. The fact it was done should be reason enough to steer clear of the school. As the other poster pointed out, only academic fraud should be grounds for doing a repo on a degree.
As an American, I also never saw a problem with what Penny Thornton did re: Diana. Client privlege, to my mind, shouldn’t extend beyond the life of the client, and certainly not in the case of as large a world figure as Diana. In most instances, the death of a client simply results in the closing of the record w/astrologers. Even in cases of celebrities. Will some astrologers write about the celebrities they had as clients after death? You bet. But so do a lot of other “hanger on” types that surround celebrities.
But should they have credentials revoked? Well, if you are the physician to Michael Jackson, you bet you should have your license to practice revoked. But your medical degree? Naw.
But Michael Jackson’s astrologer? Hmmm. Let me think for a minute. No.
Say you have an MA in psychology and have studied astrology at an astrology school that gave you a certificate, and you were Michael Jackson’s astrologer. Why would either institution revoke your credentials/degree if you shared what you knew after the death of the client?
Institutional credentials aren’t licensures. They merely demonstrate you successfully completed the requirements of the degree/program, jumped through all the hoops, and paid your bill.
Legally, revocations of degrees are only possible to justify if it can be proven the student committed academic fraud. What they do morally and ethically after they graduate/receive a certificate should never enter into it.
I believe the whole tempest in a teapot over the Diana thing was because there were British astrologers at the school who feared losing their lucrative client base found in the royal family. Politics, in other words, as usual w/that lot of astrologers.
I think Penny Thornton rightly decided sharing what she knew was her greater duty (to history, to the field of astrology, etc). To have kept it all a Big Secret just lends too much political skullduggery and intrigue, and drags the field of astrology back to the Dark Ages of serving only the interests of the throne.
Steve Forrest is an astrologer I admire greatly. But I think he is wrong on this count, and as an American, doesn’t really “get” the historic relationship between European royalty and their astrologers.
I don’t think that this school is really wrong, however all of these matters should have been handled more tactfully, as withdrawing diplomas magnifies this issue.
I was taught by this school a long time ago, and studied under a very famous astrologer, whom I still respect.
I seem to remember to be very careful about mentioning death at all, if ever.
A study of the 2 charts of Diana and her boyfriend could have been done, both together, and as single charts. I think something volatile would have been shown, and some cautionary advice given.
Astrologers are not magicians.
Nor are they gods.
They can very wise, thoughtful, and helpful.
I also have a problem with Liz Greene’s phoney credentials [and I have nothing to do with Astroamerica and yes Ive read much of her work]
- it doesn’t help Astrology’s credibility, one bit. The Faculty of Astrological Studies should clean house, honestly and with courage.
This is hilarious, what many have known for years. Don’t dish the dirt on your clients if you ever want to work again is obvious. But the so-called Faculty of Astrological Studies continue conning people into parting with their hard-earned cash, when they are just a bunch of ageing dinosaurs vainly clinging to the power they used to wield, before the Internet left them standing decades back…