Hi everyone!

I am not very good with Lenormand, and only ever had one deck (I'm not even sure counts as a real Lenormand - it's the Titania's Fortune Cards).

Recently, I came across a Lenormand deck I found interesting, but I have a question about the Lady and the Gentleman cards in it:

Shouldn't these cards be facing each other? So that, in a spread, they could look at each other, or have their backs turned to each other?

Like I said, I know very little about Lenormand so I may be wrong here, but I have always had the impression that the direction the cards are placed in relation to the others is very important.

Would the cards, facing the same direction, be detrimental in a layout? Or is it just an aesthetic difference? Thanks!

I love the IDEA of Lenormand, and own several Lenormand decks. I can certainly get a lucid story from any layout I've done. However, I have NOT EVER been able to get a story that has proved remotely accurate about my actual life, or things that have happened to me.

And what you mentioned, @Marina is one aspect of Lenormand that I find ...unusable. The way a figure FACES on the card? So if the sideways-on dog is pointing towards your significator card, that is your friend. But if the dog is pointing away from your significator card, it's not your friend? And etc. Which side the clouds are on, versus the sun? And where the mountains are placed in the illustration?

These sorts of things—which are supposed to be significant in a reading—come down to the particular illustrations in the deck you've chosen. They make any reading incredibly complicated. I think ...well, I don't think this works, actually. It certainly doesn't work for me.

Lenormand is usually spoken about as if it's a simpler, more exact method of divination than Tarot. But for me, the myriad permutations that the layouts encourage (including which way certain images face) makes the whole thing unmanageable. I know there are many Lenormand users out there who would disagree with me, but I'm not sure how they manage to get accurate readings if they take all these permutations on board. I have no doubt they do, but I have no notion HOW.

Not every reader cares whether they face each other or not (I myself am one example).

I have the Dondorf deck, and the Gentleman and Lady cards look exactly like the picture you posted.

To my understanding, those who care about it mainly use the convention in relationship readings to see if the parties agree with each other or not; if they have their backs turned to one another, it's seen as a problematic dynamic.

Personally, to gauge the relationship between the Gentleman and the Lady, I note the cards they intersect at, the chain formed between them, and the card each one of them looks at (as that can show what they're interested in).

Directionality can create its own problems; for instance, those who use the ppf tableau often (past, present, future), have noted that if the Lady faces left and the Gentleman right, they could only face each other if the Lady ends up in the Man's future and the Man in the Lady's past. If you were to rigidly note whether these two are facing each other in every single reading you did, a Man is always going to have some problem with the Lady in her past, lol.

Some readers also read the cards based on which direction the significators are facing. For example, if the Lady faces left, you'd read her cards from right to left rather than the usual left to right.

So, to sum up, in my opinion, the direction that the emblems are facing is secondary compared to card combinations, distance, etc.

I think Andy explains it better than I could, so I refer you to this amazing article published by him on his blog. It should answer your questions:

https://thecartomante.com/2026/08/08/the-lord-and-the-lady/

Edited October 6Oct 6 by Moon-Hermit

4 hours ago, Chariot said:

I love the IDEA of Lenormand, and own several Lenormand decks. I can certainly get a lucid story from any layout I've done. However, I have NOT EVER been able to get a story that has proved remotely accurate about my actual life, or things that have happened to me.

I confess I have always had the same problem, even though the Lenormand is an incredibly popular deck in my country (when I was a kid, it was far more popular and accessible than the Tarot, which was hard to come by).

I CAN definitely work with the idea of the “layout as picture” - I do it a lot with the Playing Care Oracles, for instance. However, it's an added intuitive layer that comes spontaneously for certain layouts. Certainly not for every reading, and a card facing a different direction doesn't change its core influence.

5 hours ago, Chariot said:

But for me, the myriad permutations that the layouts encourage (including which way certain images face) makes the whole thing unmanageable.

I am not sure if the permutations ARE in fact that important… it is something I assumed from watching others read Lenormand. I do know that the proximity with certain cards can be positive or negative, but in this case I'm not sure the cards' picture themselves have any influence?

Then again, as I said, my knowledge of Lenormand is quite basic. 😅

4 hours ago, Moon-Hermit said:

So, to sum up, in my opinion, the direction that the emblems are facing is secondary compared to card combinations, distance, etc.

Thank you so much, @Moon-Hermit , for your incredibly in-depth explanation! Yeah, it makes a lot sense that the Lady and the Gentleman don't actually have to face each others, and to rely more on combinations.

I remember being told that we should always choose decks on which the Rider is facing right (as if he was "riding forwards" in a reading), because he is a herald of new things and so should point to the future. BUT you see many beautiful and traditional decks with the Rider riding to the left as well.

So I believe your view makes a lot of sense, or else the readings might become inconsistent across different Lenormand decks!

Edited October 6Oct 6 by Marina

1 hour ago, Marina said:

I remember being told that we should always choose decks on which the Rider is facing right (as if he was "riding forwards" in a reading), because he is a herald of new things and so should point to the future. BUT you see many beautiful and traditional decks with the Rider riding to the left as well.

That's interesting. I'd read the same thing but it was about the Ship. It annoyed me for a while that the Lady in my deck didn't face left and that both the Gentleman and the Cavalier didn't face her (the Cavalier can greet her if they face each other, as that card can also be a male love interest!), along with a bunch of other things. But I've made peace with my deck, happily. The way an emblem faces can be quite important and useful with some cards (for example the Fox, the Scythe, the Snake, etc.) but with others you'd just be overdoing it (the card behind the Cavalier can still show what he is bringing forward and the card ahead of him can still show what his news will result in regardless of the direction he faces. And I don't even use this convention with this particular card; I just read the cards around him.)

These details, then, are quite understandably things that I try to note only when it's necessary. It's really like knighting and mirroring in a grand tableau; you should only use them when you really have to, even if it's tempting to note them all the time.

2 hours ago, Marina said:

Then again, as I said, my knowledge of Lenormand is quite basic. 😅

As is mine.

6 hours ago, Marina said:

I am not sure if the permutations ARE in fact that important…

They sure are!

Given that they make sense to you.

For that to happen, the idea of using them should appeal to you.

If it does not, disregard 'em for ease of use.

If you stick with these cards, some will take on a directional meaning, but that should simply be allowed to happen naturally.

Especially in the beginning, it is honestly more worthwhile to just interact with the cards your way, that gives you a personal base from where to approach the field.

I mean, the traditionalism-craze is over, they won't hunt you if you do not do as they say anymore. At least here.

You are allowed to grow, you need not be produced.

6 hours ago, Marina said:

Yeah, it makes a lot sense that the Lady and the Gentleman don't actually have to face each others, and to rely more on combinations.

Yes, both make sense.

Generalisation is what doesn't make sense. It keeps away from observing tendencies, which is vital.

For example, some see it as a beneficial thing if a couple is facing the same direction.

They are united in their view, stand by each others side and face their challenges together.

So for the Lord and the Lady, both patterns are pretty usable.

They'd be usable somehow even if they'd face the sky.

4 hours ago, Moon-Hermit said:

It's really like knighting and mirroring in a grand tableau, you should only use them when you really have to, even if it's tempting to note them all the time.

That's Andy's way for sure - loooking at it closely, how you first approach a system matters quite a lot.

For example, here in germany, there is a crowd of people approaching the Lenormands via the houses/master-methody path, freestyling happily along as it goes and we all somehow do - it's their legit point of entry.

For them, attendance is a sub-concern, if a concern at all. Forget about directionality.

It does work for them.

Let that sink in - I know I had to.

I believe they may someday employ attendance and distance like you do knighting, as a secondary technique, if they don't already.

In summary, a primary method which appeals to you is best. It has the highest chance of becoming your own thing along the way.

Iris Treppner's style of Lenormand is coloured by her prefered way of reading, favouring stable pairs and relying on the images of the Blue Owl as gate to the cards core.

Colette Silvestres style smacks of an introduction to reading cards via tarot, french-style, and Andy's seems to be via scenic parlour style.

What makes them stand apart is that they stuck with the cards they liked long enough to develop a personal connection with them - they first became confident in talking with their cards and then they wrote their books.

Then they became confident some more and wrote and write some more, it seems.

After all, what matters more than any masters or methods are our personal experiences in this field - it's about life, and life tends to favour uniqueness.

What regularly messes up things is when adherence to someone else's uniqueness blotches out our own, by noise or caving.

What also regularly messes things up is education gone bonkers - In adhering to our uniqueness, self-reliance helps a lot is why.

Divergence is a necessity, as is coexistence and unity.

If all is allowed to happen, things become alive instead of simply getting lively.

Which is not easy.

I know nothing, but I always have an opinion...

1 hour ago, Mister said:

Yes, both make sense.

Generalisation is what doesn't make sense. It keeps away from observing tendencies, which is vital.

For example, some see it as a beneficial thing if a couple is facing the same direction. This is what I was thinking. They're both looking toward the same thing and united in their view - they have the same 'outlook'.

21 hours ago, Marina said:

Shouldn't these cards be facing each other? So that, in a spread, they could look at each other, or have their backs turned to each other?

... I have always had the impression that the direction the cards are placed in relation to the others is very important.

... Would the cards, facing the same direction, be detrimental in a layout? Or is it just an aesthetic difference? Thanks!

Just some ideas, and as I said, I know nothing.

If they're looking at each other, they could be focused on each other and a bit myopic or obsessed, or they could also be looking past each other - one looking or feeling into the future and seeing what's there, or one fixated on the past. For example, maybe something that happened in the past (between them as a couple, or before their entry into each others' life) could be interfering with their relationship if they're asking about that.

So if they are facing each other, are they looking at each other? Is it a confrontation - which is literally about being face to face?

You could look at the other cards on the same row - which might indicate what the man/woman are looking at if they're not looking at each other. Or, rather, if they're looking at each other but not actually seeing what is there, instead they are thinking about something else indicated by those other cards on the same row. Or perhaps they are even looking "past" the faults or flaws etc they see.

So there's a lot of perspectives to consider. The people are there in the image, but it's a little more complex as to what they're actually doing and thinking - how they got there and where they're going.

This has probably not helped you at all! But it came out of my head and I know you will explore those contents and I will be safe with you 🤣

2 hours ago, Mister said:

In summary, a primary method which appeals to you is best. It has the highest chance of becoming your own thing along the way.

That's always important, because trying to learn things by rote can put people off and give up at the complexity of it all. Our own way will hopefully leave a bit of space for flexibility, and also make it easier - because if we're trying to hard to fit things into a box someone else has created for them, we'll distort aspects of ourselves and push our intuition and creativity out of the way, which is giving a bit of our power away, and never a good thing. The ideas of others should either feel right and develop our own ideas, or feel wrong, but we know why they feel wrong and so that is what helps us formulate our own method.

15 hours ago, Chariot said:

I love the IDEA of Lenormand Me too, but I got Gilded Lenormand, my first Lenormand deck, and I was getting so many negative readings full of crosses, coffins and clouds and scythes and mountains during a terrible job I had that I gave up and put them away. I already felt bad enough.
Lenormand is usually spoken about as if it's a simpler, more exact method of divination than Tarot. Which is probably so, but at least with Tarot you can (in my mind) get some deeper insights into other aspects and some guidance as to what to do. Which I desperately needed at that time.

10 hours ago, Mister said:

here in germany, there is a crowd of people approaching the Lenormands via the houses/master-methody path, freestyling happily along as it goes and we all somehow do - it's their legit point of entry.

For them, attendance is a sub-concern, if a concern at all. Forget about directionality.

It does work for them.

Let that sink in - I know I had to.

I believe they may someday employ attendance and distance like you do knighting, as a secondary technique, if they don't already.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, personally. The Master Method is imported from playing cards, as are some other things in Lenormand, like playing card spreads. The former, however, seems quite redundant to me when Lenormand has numbers and its own house method built into it. Where does Lenormand folklore go? One could just perform a reading a la master method with ordinary playing cards. Whatever the house method, if combining cards is the second thing they look at when it's the base of the whole system, to me, it drifts away from what I understand reading Lenormand to be.

If they are happy when doing it though, who am I to meddle with people's happiness....

Freesytling at the beginning-- when it comes to anything we learn, really-- seldom produces great results; or so I've seen (in reference to the group you mentioned). Taking in the different voices out there is a necessity for growth; inventing our own things is something I'd give more time to before attempting to do. I am certain that our best teachers today followed their own first before reaching that stage of building a personal connection with their cards and venturing to pass on their own knowledge to the others. Being unique is brilliant, being yourself and having your own opinions is even better. However, I'm not striving to be unique; I love what has been working for a long time and produces results for me, and I share that when someone asks since I agree with every bit of it (not everyone has to, of course). And if that means echoing someone else's voice until I get my bearings, I'm content with it. It's only been a little bit more than half a decade ever since I picked up these cards and chose to stick with them, after all. I am sure being creative is easier for you and other far more experienced readers than I; which is of course always invaluable to observe and also to learn from, dear @Mister

Edited October 7Oct 7 by Moon-Hermit

10 hours ago, Moon-Hermit said:

If they are happy when doing it though, who am I to meddle with people's happiness..

It's sinking in.

Takes time.

Asides, I'm far from agreeing here - a lesson in applied diversity is what it is to me so far.

On the rest - which I appreciate, by the way - the actual point was quite hard to formulate for me yesterday, let me try again, it'll be brief, more or less:

We can afford a period of time when taking to the cards to see how they feel if we have nothing but those cards.

We can have a go at them with our childlike sense of wonder.

I mean not to stream about that period, or to make it gospel, or toot some horn - I mean to feel it, free from expectation.

It is a period.

It does pass.

It never comes again.

But it'll leave us curious, so curious about what's out there, how others fare, how it was and is done, and where the limits are - and which ones can be extended at what price. Might be personal, that one.

We are far from perfect in that beginning, we go wrong one step every two steps taken (if we're lucky), we stumble around, stuff leaves us confused while other stuff clears up and hits home - but it's far from taking the wind outta our sails!

No!

On we go, for we are curious, we crave insight and: We learn to take a hint through our cards, which is what to highlight here.

We truly want to learn.

They become our cards in the process, and whatever we read afterwards, we'll have life, our experienced reality, to relate to - and that changes things.

Talking Lenormands, the quality and density of information in Andy's writings is top-grade to date, don't get me wrong there.

What I mean to say is: the above mentioned period is so much beneficial that it deserves mention - preparing the inner soil is what it does, along with becoming precious memory.

Timeline for a quick start:

Get cards in spring, go crazy in summer, take to Andy's writings in autumn, to your study during winter, sleep some.

And then, see what grows come spring.

Edited October 7Oct 7 by Mister

On 10/7/2026 at 11:09 PM, Mister said:

Asides, I'm far from agreeing here - a lesson in applied diversity is what it is to me so far.

I agree. We all need those lessons to grow-- or at the very least to have something to observe. Of course, we don't have to agree with every perspective, but we respect them regardless or at the very least ignore them altogether. That perspective will continue if it wants to, however sad or frustrated some things may make us. It's how life is.

On 10/7/2026 at 11:09 PM, Mister said:

We can afford a period of time when taking to the cards to see how they feel if we have nothing but those cards.

I know what you're saying. It can be the best of times, and the craziest of times, all at once. Sometimes you really enjoy what you're doing, sometimes you have to remind yourself to not take it too seriously lest you're craving to witness some horror of your own creation, lol. I still cringe when I think about some conclusions I'd thought I'd reached on my own (was there really a need?), but I guess that was part of the learning process as well. Eventually you fall in love with one voice, and while you experiment, you try to relate everything you see to that before you think of doing it on your own. This sums up my journey thus far; I'm happy when I play with my cards, and that play-time is allowed so I could make sense of how I think. That, however, is not something I'd venture to pass on to the others, at least not yet. It's personal.

Other times, I use the voice I love to apply logic and structure to what I do. Of course, there are plenty of other wonderful stuff that I borrow from the others along the way (your own insight being one much appreciated example when I asked questions here), but something about that one voice will forever remain so special that you can't help but try to find an echo of it in all you see. It's certainly different for each one of us.

On 10/7/2026 at 11:09 PM, Mister said:

Timeline for a quick start:

Get cards in spring, go crazy in summer, take to Andy's writings in autumn, to your study during winter, sleep some.

And then, see what grows come spring.

Beautifully said, as always!

Surely, there is no one and only true path; what a single reader does is not the way. Our best teachers attest to that. Questioning things is a necessity when we thoroughly know what we are doing; we expand on our foundations. I see myself capable of doing that in some places, in others I don't. Some things are also better left unchanged, or there will be nothing left of what we do. That's why it's so important to stick to something reliable in the beginning; it will be the spine of what you do, the roots of your tree of knowledge. One way or the other, that is largely what we pass on to others. It's the cord keeping everything else in place, and it's not the same for everybody.

Edited October 9Oct 9 by Moon-Hermit

9 hours ago, Moon-Hermit said:

That, however, is not something I'd venture to pass on to the others, at least not yet. It's personal.

It'll develop, and you do not strike me as the type to ignore it when it does.

You'll detect a principle or a set of them at work behind the stuff you "play", and you'll see it with your own eyes, and that will enrich your practice - that's how it was for each of us.

About your dear voice: It's a good one, from my perspective, and I want that to be known.

Why I'm a tad bit on the fence here is for in reading cards, strict adherence simply doesn't do the job in the long run, it falls short inadvertedly, and when it does, it does so nasty, and that goes no matter how good the material adhered to.

Some end up abandoning the cards altogether, locking the journey away like some trauma, which need not be if playfulness is there from the start -

which doesn't mean being cheeky or disrespectful. You can easily go overboard from freedom, too, but whatever it is, it withers without.

And for a reader to truly be nourished by their craft, it needs to have them in there, present and true as they are, and that's a job one can only do oneself.

Additionally, it is a job that needs to be done - and for whatever trouble it may invite in the beginning, given that your heart is true in its desire to learn, it is still worth it considered how hard it'll be to do later on, for it'll regularly introduce itself nasty. Like, nasty.

I'd rather not come around preachy here but if that is so, it is so - I've been thinking "If only..." on this matter far too often in hindsight to leave it unadressed.

Also, there's an additional issue concerning Andy's books:

There is this strange phenomenon happening that after one got published, Andy's pop up left 'n right.

If he ain't some species of mushroom, being that Andy can only be done by @timtoldrum.

I am not too sure if that is the kind of surge he wants his books to create - If it is, it's well hidden, to date they certainly did not read like that.