Having retrogrades in one's chart is more common than not having any. That is to say, if you take cross sampling of people from anywhere in the world, you will find that MOST people have one or more retrograde bodies. The outer planets are retrograde quite a bit. On average, Pluto and Neptune are retrograde about 160 days each. That's almost half a year. Uranus is almost as long, about 150 days, while Saturn averages 140 days, and Jupiter 120 days. Chiron is a bit more irregular in orbit, but it has a retrograde period that ranges from around 140-150 days. So just from this, it's easy to see why so many people have at least one outer planet retrograde at birth.
Mercury goes into retrograde three or four times a year, ranging from 20-28 days each time. So about one out of every 5-6 people, on average, have Mercury Retrograde at birth, and a good portion of them have at least one outer planet retrograde.
The oddballs are Mars and Venus. Venus can be 18 months between retrogrades, and when it finally gets around to it, it only stays that way for about 40-45 days. And Mars is even longer between retrogrades, as much as two full years, only staying that way for around 80 days when it does. So if you have Venus or Mars retrograde, that stands out. You are definitely in the minority when looking at other people's Venus or Mars positions.
We won't even count the True Moon's Nodes. They are retrograde most of the time.....so the majority of the earth's population have an R next to the nodes in their chart.
As I said in the beginning of this post, more people have something retrograde than nothing. Take a look at the chart for someone born today. This baby would have Mercury, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, and Chiron retrograde (and yes, the Moon's Nodes.) Let's look at one month intervals to see how the dynamics change. August 8, and except for Mercury, that child would have the exact same planets retrograde. September 8, Uranus, Neptune, Chiron (and the Nodes) will be retrograde. Same thing for October 8. When we get to November 8, the only outer planet still retrograde is Uranus, but again, Mercury is going through a retrograde period. Finally, when we get to December 8, no more outer planets are retrograde. But guess what? Now Saturn is retrograde, and will be for several months. (And before Saturn can go direct, once again the outer planets will begin to go retrograde, as well as Jupiter.)
As you can see, there can be periods of months, sometimes even years, when at least something will be retrograde. The dynamics shift, as the planets shift in relation to each other, so there can be some periods of time when nothing is retrograde for several months, and other periods of time when as one planet enters retrograde, another goes direct, one right after the other.
But overall, it is the person who has no retrograde bodies that is in the minority, and having several bodies retrograde is not infrequent at all.
Saying all this, I want to bring up the work of John McCormick, who studied the motion of retrograde planets over a 100 year period, and then applied his findings to World War II Generals, Statesmen, Writers, Athletes, and others with respect to retrograde planets in the natal charts. Here, he found some quite interesting and unexpected things. (John did not include Chiron in his studies, so it would be interesting to what, if any, differences would have shown up in his results if he had.)
Take Neptune. One would expect that about forty-four percent of any group of people would have Neptune retrograde. But John found that ninety-two percent of those Generals had Neptune retrograde! (One of the few exceptions, and the most notable, was General Douglas MacArthur who had it direct.) Think about that for a minute....let it sink in.
He looked at US Presidents. Unlike the generals, only nineteen percent of United States Presidents had Neptune retrograde. Much lower than the expected forty-four percent, of course, but even more striking is the difference between the charts of the generals, and the charts of the presidents. What is it that makes a Neptune retrograde rise to the rank of general, but makes a Neptune direct more likely to become president?
But he didn't stop there. In the 100 year period he studied, there were no retrograde planets ONLY ABOUT EIGHT PERCENT OF THE TIME! And yet, even though there was only an 8 percent chance of having zero retrograde planets, THIRTY SIX of the US Presidents was born without a retrograde planet in their chart.
Let me say that again in different words, for emphasis. While only approximately eight out of every one hundred people, born during that century, had no retrograde planets in their chart, almost every single US President was born with no retrogrades! (I rounded off, it's more like 7.7 out of 100 people.)
Unfortunately, John passed away before he could do a great deal more, but he did set down some interesting findings, which have been supported by several astrologers who have since studied his results. First, let me break down the percentage of time various quantities of planets were retrograde during that 100 year period. (And note: I think that everyone reading this was born during the 100 year period charted.)
Born with 0 retrograde planets: 7.7 percent
Born with 1 retrograde planet: 18.7 percent
Born with 2 retrograde planets: 29.2 percent
Born with 3 retrograde planets: 26.7 percent
Born with 4 retrograde planets: 12.7 percent
Born with 5 retrograde planets: 4.15 percent
Born with 6 retrograde planets: 0.66 percent
Born with 7 retrograde planets: 0.005 percent
Think about it.....almost sixty percent of the population has either two or three bodies retrograde.
Then, John went on to theorize about the meanings of how many planets you had retrograde.
No retrograde planets was found in people with a dogged perserverance, unrelenting in their drive to achieve their goals. He found
this very high, not just in US Presidents, but in the charts of successful athletes and dancers.
One planet retrograde, he found, tended to not really need the company of others to be happy, and was somewhat of an independent type, something like the Aries type who can work and achieve alone.
When people meet someone with two retrograde planets, they tend to feel comfortable with that person....because there is a feeling of familiarity about them. In general, people are drawn to these people, and tend to like them.
People with three retrograde planets, John found, tend to operate more behind the scenes, and have a strong determination to excel at something.
Four retrograde planets was something John often found in the charts of writers, and others who seek private ways to express themselves, and are often drawn to the more solitary professions.
Five retrogrades planets tends even more towards solitary occupations, and is not likely to strive for a position where they need to please other people. In general, the public would tend to prefer to shake your hand than to greet you with a hug.
Six retrograde planets was so rare (only 51 days out of the whole 100 years), that John did not have enough people to come to any conclusions. In fact, he only found two famous people with six retrogrades, Angela Davis and Muhammad Ali. Definitely not a large enough group to speculate on. And of course, the group with 7 retrograde planets was even smaller, so there is no speculation there as well.
A lot more work could be done to expand on these categories, flush them out. And there is also a matter of degree. Take the person with 1 planet retrograde. If that person has a lot of Aries/Mars type energy, it might be difficult to see the effects of the one retrograde planet. On the other hand, a person with one retrograde planet, with nothing in Aries, and a quiet, non assertive Mars, might not seem quite so Arien, EXCEPT in comparison to other quiet types who have a different number of retrograde bodies.
One more thing before I move on from John's work. He also hinted that one can sort of shift from one category to another, as planets in our chart progress retrograde to direct, or direct to retrograde.
Using John's choice of planets, I was only born with one body retrograde, Neptune. (No, I don't want to be a general.) This progressed direct when I was 10-1/2 years of age, and from then until I was 47, I had no retrograde planets by progression. Shortly after my 47th birthday, my Jupiter went retrograde, and will stay that way the rest of my life.
In my early childhood, I was very much a loner. I can blame it on a lot of environmental factors, but in truth I was happiest when left to do my own thing. I was a little experimenter, curious about everything in nature.
Then, around age 10-1/2, I discovered botany. I became rather obsessed, and for many, many years it was all I could think of. I remember when I graduated elementary school, one teacher wrote in my autograph book, "I'll always remember the Luther Burbank we had in our classroom." I was still mostly a loner, but had developed an intense focus. Years later, in college, I shifted my focus from plants to planets.....and anyone who knows me can vouch for my dogged pursuit of information on Chiron.
When my Jupiter progressed retrograde, I was once more back to one retrograde planet. This happened when my mother had turned very ill (Jupiter, among other things, rules my Sagittarian Moon), and she passed away the following year. I started being at odds with myself. Part of me wanted to 'do my own thing', part of me wanted to be connected with someone else. I got involved in a relationship that was very intense, but I never did stop wanting to do things my own way.
I've been playing around a bit with a theory I first read on therealastrology.com. Kevin writes:
"I feel that planets in direct motion are concerned with issues of growth, while planets in retrograde motion are concerned with issues of evolution. What’s the difference between the two? Well, growth cycles can be accomplished within the span of an individual lifetime. Evolution cycles, on the other hand, take many lifetimes to complete.
"When I look at a natal retrograde planet (and here, I focus mainly on Mercury, Venus and Mars, since the other planets are retrograde so much of the time), I generally take it to mean that the individual is working with that planet on a different level than most of us; they are trying to learn evolutionary lessons, and these don’t always sit well with the daily cycles of growth. Since evolutionary energy is about breaking out of the current growth cycle, it can be difficult to integrate at times. Individuals with natal retrograde planets have a different, and very personal experience of that planet, and it’s not always easy for them to communicate this."
I like that. True, it smacks of reincarnation, something I'm on the fence about. But it 'feels' right to me.
Kevin goes on to say:
"I began to explore this theory when I started to work extensively with the Moon’s Nodes. The Moon’s Nodes most certainly have to do with evolutionary issues: in a sense, they help to connect our past life experiences and lessons with our path in this lifetime. And the Moon’s Nodes spend most of the time in retrograde motion.
Again, this 'feels' right to me. And it also lends itself to theorizing about people who were born with the Nodes direct. Perhaps they are here to deal with new issues, starting in a new direction, having finished with other lessons in the previous life?
One of the next things on my 'to do' list is to read Erin Sullivan's book, "Retrograde Planets: Traversing the Inner Landscape." I hear this is quite a mind blowing book on the subject.
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
posted June 17, 2007 09:25 AM
posted June 17, 2007 10:31 AM
posted June 17, 2007 07:56 PM
posted June 17, 2007 08:54 PM
posted June 17, 2007 09:12 PM