Ian Daniels Vampyre deck

I know we've had at least one or two threads about this deck because it's beautiful and popular, but I have a question and in skimming through the book, haven't found the answer yet so I thought I'd ask here.

Why is there a Prince of the suits but only Daughters instead of Princesses? Does anyone know if there's a reason why? I know there isn't a King, either, just a Lord and then a Queen, but then we just come to plain old "Daughter" instead of a nice title like the rest of the family has. I'm just wondering. It probably doesn't really matter aside from my curiosity as to whether there's a specific reason.

I'll be interested to know this too.
Personally though I like Daughters, much more than Princesses which I think wouldn't suit the deck at all.
Daughters also has that feel of 'child' of the Lord and potential for growth and becoming mother herself. It feels more down to earth, organic and fertile, fitting with the flow of energy described in the cards.
Princess - more for fairytale type decks maybe?
Page - not as good as Daughter either.
That's just my thoughts.


Sent from my R5 using Tapatalk

Thank you for your response, Calayvie. That's a good point about the Daughter being a child of the Lord.

I think there being a Lord, people might expect a Lady instead of a Queen and then with a Prince, there's usually a Princess. The changes are unexpected in this deck, but the whole deck and the book just inspire a lot of thought. It's one of my favorite decks.

Grizabella, maybe you can help me with a question, its about the court cards but maybe I should have started my own thread?

Anyway, what I've learnt so far on this forum mainly about the energy of the courts is that it starts from the Pages/Daughters and moves up through to the Kings/Lords. But the book for this deck describes the energy starting with the Lords and moving up to the Daughters, the opposite way.
Am I misunderstanding the book somehow?
I thought I was just getting a handle on the courts in a way, and now this book has just confused me completely.

Can you or anyone else offer insight into this?


Sent from my R5 using Tapatalk

Sometimes I hate my laptop. I just wrote a very long post answering your question and suddenly the darned laptop decided to trash it and it's gone.

Well, anyway, I haven't read the book thoroughly enough to know why it's structured that way. I don't pay any attention, though. I just read with the deck using the normal progression. Other decks substitute Swords/Fire and Wands/Air and I ignore that, too.

My suggestion is just to read with the deck in the way you're used to. Your readings will still be good, I'm sure. I'll see if I can find my book tomorrow and maybe I can find something helpful.

Thanks [emoji3]

I hate it when that happens! You spend a heap of time writing something only to lose it, and you can't rewrite it the way it was originally, it just won't be the same, and to try just frustrates you endlessly!
Ugh... The days of pen and paper definitely had some advantages! But then this forum would go pretty damn slowly [emoji1]

Well I'm just starting to venture into deeper learning of the tarot. I'm going to draw up the tree of life from the book, and I wanted to learn the basics of the numbers of the minors and associations and stuff. I don't have any tarot books, only companion books and I'd like to learn a lot from Phantasmagoria as a basis for getting deeper into it.
It may seem unconventional (ie not standard RWS start) but my first deck was DVs Angel Tarot which was a gentle introduction to tarot and then I learnt off Wildwood which I love. [emoji3]
I pick up info in this forum which adds to my knowledge and I want to establish my own base of knowledge to work from.

I'm surprised more people don't speak up about this deck I think the book is brilliant, although I must admit I'm not keen on the cards, I've not used them much, although I should give them a chance to associate the symbolism with the meanings.

So, I know I can read the courts the way I thought I'd had it figured, and it makes sense that way, but I'd like to understand Ian Daniels method/theory of the energy movement. It may make more sense to me in the bigger picture eventually[emoji3]


Sent from my R5 using Tapatalk

I absolutely love this deck which was a real surprise as when I saw images of it online I thought it was super cheesy, I don't see it that way at all now, I think the artwork is stunning and has a very unique energy! I mainly bought it for the book but absolutely adore both the deck and the book!!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

pickled pixie said:

I absolutely love this deck which was a real surprise as when I saw images of it online I thought it was super cheesy, I don't see it that way at all now, I think the artwork is stunning and has a very unique energy! I mainly bought it for the book but absolutely adore both the deck and the book!!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That's cool! Hopefully I come to love the deck like that too. [emoji3]

Sent from my R5 using Tapatalk

Probably might be something to do with Vampire lore.. might be an idea to do some research on vampires hierarchy or culture and myth or something.

I like how your mind works, just the sort of thing I might think up...

Just there browsing Animal Totem Tarot and came across the Chicken card.. me... Why is cow meat beef and pig, pork.. but a chicken is chicken? Why didn't they name it a hen full stop... Even though a hen is the female and cock is the male.. you don't get people referring to cows as a 'oh look what a cute beef'.... the mind boggles..

One of the things I was going to say that got lost in cyberspace is that maybe the lineage goes backwards because vampires choose who they want to make into vampires. Maybe first they choose a wife, then since the undead can't make babies, they choose who they want to be their son or daughter. It could be that it goes from mother, then to son, then to daughter. It seems like a plausible thing to me. They bite the young man they want for a son and then bite a young woman to be their daughter. That's the only reason I can think of.