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.

[Marina]

In terms of cartomancy (with playing cards), I believe in picking one method and sticking to it. I use the Playing Card Oracles and only that. I don't mix it with, say, Hedgewytchery or Personal Prophesy, which are the two other methods I studied a bit more before choosing my favourite.

 

Lenormand is a bit more tricky, but I always had the impression the actual image of the cards kind of trumps the insets? It's not that the inset playing cards have no importance, but they are 'lower hierarchy' compared to the main image/meaning of the cards. Or am I wrong here? 

 

I never really used Lenormand a lot, and the few times I did I used a deck without the playing cards, precisely to avoid the confusion in my mind.  So I defer to those who have more experience with it!

[Moon-Hermit]

1 hour ago, Marina said:

Lenormand is a bit more tricky, but I always had the impression the actual image of the cards kind of trumps the insets? It's not that the inset playing cards have no importance, but they are 'lower hierarchy' compared to the main image/meaning of the cards. Or am I wrong here? 

You’re right. The main images do trump the insets; you could consider them “lower hierarchy”, because you’re looking mainly at the images when doing a reading rather than the insets. But they aren’t separate parts. The Eight of Spades is there, for instance, because in the Lenormand deck it means what the Garden is: a literal garden (Spades are called Leaves in the german suit), a public place, outside, society, etc. Numerological-ly speaking, if you take number 8 as a group (which then extends to meanings like thoughts, ideas, balance, etc.) and put it next to Leaves, it’ll make sense: it’s a group you actually like being with; Andy explains this suit in his book as referring to people your age and of one’s social standing, plus love life (unlike English cartomancy where romance is attributed to Hearts; the Heart suit in Lenormand is more like domesticity and non-romantic feelings- you can see that with the King and Queen of Hearts on the cards of House and Storks, respectively, meaning domestic matters and changes relating to those matters). Normally in English cartomancy 8 Spades would be seen as toxicity, negativity, dark thoughts, a funeral, etc. In German cartomancy those meanings would relate to the 8 of Clubs more directly; Mountain (8 C) is something heavy on you, an obstacle/blockade, while Cross (6 C) is grief, etc. So, the insets look inferior at first glance but you’re actually interpreting them when reading a spread, if all of that makes sense 😀. Again, Lenormand is one variation of a playing-card based deck with illustrations, because the insets were interpreted as what those illustrations suggested or purely because the images derived from fables and moral stories that everyone could relate to back then. 

I’ve tried applying non-German meanings to the insets using a number of different systems, and there were examples where they worked. But it’s not standard practice. You have to know the tradition to fully grasp the cards, but then if you’re an open minded person you can experiment after that. (As long as you don’t change what Lenormand is altogether. I now use nothing but the German meanings). 
 

1 hour ago, Marina said:

I never really used Lenormand a lot, and the few times I did I used a deck without the playing cards, precisely to avoid the confusion in my mind. 

Personally, I prefer the ones that include the insets. You can actually do quite a lot of things with them; for example:

1- Determining Gender: I learned this from Rana George’s book. In my own practice, if I’m required to know a baby’s gender, I focus on the Child card and either a) shuffle and then search for the card through the deck to see which cards flank it on either side and if there are any court insets on them, or if a gender can be determined from the meanings of the cards (for example Tower is male because of the phallic shape, Moon is female because of popular association, etc.) This method I rarely use; b) I just pull the child card out of the deck, focus on it, and pull one card until I get one with a court inset. The first one that comes through would be the baby’s gender. Rana categorizes the Jacks as male, Queens as female, and Kings as male, but because I’d like to have an even chance of getting either gender, I only use the kings and queens. Jacks can be either male or female in my opinion. This can work also for finding out an anonymous person’s gender: for example, you’re thinking of searching for a roommate and wonder if they’ll be the same gender as yourself or not; or the gender of the next president, I don’t know lol. Silly examples, but you know what I mean. 

 

2- Extra significators!= Another benefit of having court insets is that they enable you to identify people in your spreads, other than the preset Man and Woman cards. For example, the Queen of Spades is a young, beautiful and pleasant woman (so unlike her English equivalent!), and the King of Spades is an older man, a patron, or in some cases a lover, the Child card can sometimes stand as a rival in love, etc. Another use for them that I picked up on my own is that when I’m doing a smaller reading, say, a 3*3 box spread and the seeker’s significator doesn’t show up among the cards, I choose a court significator based on their coloring (hair, skin, eye color) and find the cards flanking it on either side. Then I read their general position but with influence “outside of the spread”, meaning that they don’t have direct power in this situation. If I decide to do this, I only see the chosen card as the one representing the significator and ignore the meaning (for instance if somebody is represented by the King of Clubs, aka the Clouds, you don’t panic. It’s just the person being read). Of course you can do the same with the Gentleman and Lady cards, and assign the insets to people other than the querent and THEIR influence on the situation from an indirect stance. 
 

3- Multiples= more useful in larger spreads where you need to define a theme.

 

4- Determining the general mood of the spread (usually smaller ones) using the suits= More clubs are bad; Spades and Hearts are good, but you wouldn’t want to see the Diamonds with the Clubs as that would mean recklessness. Caitlin Matthews teaches this in detail in her book.

 

5- Timing= You can use the insets to determine seasons, the approximate week in which something may happen, etc. I learned this one from Andy.

 

6- Answering yes/no questions= Some people consider the pips when answering those.

 

7- The Master Method= Used instead of the usual meanings of the houses, for those readers that choose to use houses in their readings. Each house signifies a main theme; you focus on one according to your question and note the inset that falls there, not the actual card. Then you check in a book (like Foli’s or Jonathan Dee’s on playing cards) and read what that inset means in that house, and derive an answer from it. You can read multiple houses, and string whatever they mean together to arrive at a synthesis. That said, I rarely see people actually using this method with Lenormand. It tends to exhaust the reading.

 

8- To derive a geomancy figure= ❗️Not standard practice. Since I had studied the Playing Card Oracles by Ana Cortez too, I experimented with the technique and tried incorporating it into my 3*3 box spreads most of the time. This is done by stacking the four corner cards atop each other in the order you prefer (just make sure to stick to it) and derive a figure from those cards by doing the usual calculations. This will give you three figures to look at, one derived from number, the other from the color of the dominating card (the one on top of the stack), and the last from the combination of these two. You’ll read the three as advice, conclusion, clarification, or whatever you decide on beforehand. They match the theme of the reading and show you nuances. Nowadays I use it mostly for those questions that really require more complicated answers; otherwise geomancy is something I cast separately and read on its own.

 

And the list goes on. I’m sure people can get creative. My point is that it’s better to have the insets there rather than exclude them altogether, but of course you won’t be using them in everyday, practical readings. Hope that could help.

Edited 2 hours ago by Moon-Hermit