Different meanings across systems - do you get confused ?

[Celine]

Hello,

 

I've started looking into playing cards (because of the Lenormand card insets, which led me to this part of the forum, and down the rabbit hole).

There are different systems and the meanings are not consistent (the 8 of Hearts doesn't keep the same meaning from one method to the other for example).

 

Do you end up learning different methods, and if so, do you get confused ? Or do you manage to tell yourself "I'm reading this way therefore this card means this" and when switching you can easily switch to the other meaning of the same card ? 

 

And on a slightly different aspect, Boroveshengra's meanings for the card insets don't exactly match those given by Caitlin Matthews. Would you try to reconcile the two, or pick one author and run with it ? 

 

Thanks a lot for your help,

 

C.

 

[RunningWild]

Personally, I would pick one method and set of interpretations and stick with it.  Over time your meanings will likely expand naturally.  There are several different methods of playing card cartomancy.  Again, choose one and stick with it.  You can always learn another method later.

[JoyousGirl]

7 hours ago, Celine said:

different systems and the meanings are not consistent

 

I agree with RunningWild - Choose one that gels and stick with it. We can read someone's explanation, but if we don't 'get it' it's not going to stick. 

 

Recently I've been going through and doing a book for myself on all the different meanings I apply to the cards. They're mine and they make sense to ME.

 

Having one keyword or phrase for each card is simple. Then readings will lead the way. For example, "on this day I got ____ card and ____ happened". Your mind then creates an association with the card from that experience.

[DanielJUK]

This old thread on the forum is fascinating with everyone's preferred playing card reading methods.....

Sometimes it's from different authors and / or different traditions and different historic traditions in a country.

The Dawn R. Jackson's Hedgewytchery method is a popular one (thread here)

 

So people have their method and meanings (like often also Lenormand learning methods and Tarot) and just stick to their one. So you do get different ideas of the playing card inserts.

[Celine]

Thank you so much for your kind replies. Believe you me, I had a hard time formulating my question. I realise it's because it was very silly, and probably just a lot of anxiety due to meddling with the cards and stressing about not getting it at all and making all the wrong choices. Very childish, I apologize. (But boy, this is work and I'm all over the place, highs and lows !)

 

I can only confirm what's been repeated to all newcomers again and again : Make a choice. Stick with it. Later you can learn another one, so for example learning with 36 now (not Lenormand insets here), and later another method with 52 cards.

 

I'm finally getting into the taking it slow and steady and ploughing - though my starting this silly thread hardly shows it. (Must be the high of having realized a box I had done on something and that I couldn't read, was clear as day now, which means I didn't "draw the wrong cards because of some inner ability". I had the "right" cards. I just couldn't read them.) 

 

Happy learning, and happy readings ! 

 

C

 

[Moon-Hermit]

Personally, I don't bother much with the insets anymore, unless I'm checking for multiples in a box or line, or more rarely, when checking the relationships between the suits if I need more nuance (which is rarely, if ever, needed). OR when I'm trying to understand something about specific people based on the court cards; e.g. Queen of Diamonds is a relative through marriage, King of Clubs is a man you hate dealing with (or just a man with salt and pepper hair), etc.

 

The thing to note here is that Caitlin gives English associations when it comes to the part on numerology in her book, and (if I'm not mistaken) French associations for the multiples. She adapts the suit meanings to the German tradition (where Lenormand cards originated from, and which essentially means that Clubs are viewed negatively instead of the usual Spades), but black=bad, red=good is an English thing, which Caitlin uses too in answering yes/no questions. (For yes/no questions, I pull three cards and look whether they are positive/negative/neutral, and after that read the cards themselves for more detail regarding my question). 

 

Andy Boroveshengra, on the other hand, explains the German tradition in his book briefly, and associates specific suits with specific seasons, and later suggests some additional timing techniques using them.

Lenormand is essentially a reduced deck of playing cards. So, reading the Ring as contract/bond/marriage/something that loops isn't much different than if you read the inset (Ace of Clubs) as: "a surprise that would be pleasant if with Hearts and Spades, but not so with another Club, a malefic suit." as Andy teaches. A surprise is a dichotomy, you'd either like it or you won't, and so it rhymes with the idea of something looping. A bond- such as a satisfying marriage- would be fulfilling, but it could also become a shackle that pulls one down. 

 

It's a brilliant idea to learn the insets- I think anyone learning Lenormand MUST- because they should add to the understanding you already have of the cards and solidify them in your brain; but your practice shouldn't reach a place where you find yourself reading Lenormand and the insets separately. That will often lead to contradictory readings (and hard ones too! Imagine trying to interpret the suits, colors, numerology and whatnot all at once- in other words, doing everything except reading the actual Lenormand). At least, that's what I've come to understand after almost five-six years of using the cards. 

 

So, yes. I use Andy's logic (and near-far meanings) AND his multiple associations next to Caitlin's multiple associations. In some places they are contradictory, but since I use them rarely I pay attention to my context when I'm indeed using them. And timing... well, that's a whole other topic entirely, but suffice it to say that Caitlin's timing table method is the most accurate one I've ever used. 

 

That's all I had to say. I hope it helps, if you're still interested in Lenormand cards 🙂

 

On 7/22/2025 at 9:45 PM, Celine said:

Later you can learn another one, so for example learning with 36 now (not Lenormand insets here), and later another method with 52 cards.

I agree. Even though cartomancy systems overlap in more than one place, the methods are best used separately. I do Lenormand readings like what I outlined above, but when I'm really compelled to use the playing cards solely, I use another method.