Don't you think that this bears out what a lot of people in this thread have been suggesting? That this chart reveals more about you and your relationship with your ex than hers?

Deb:

Don't you think that this bears out what a lot of people in this thread have been suggesting? That this chart reveals more about you and your relationship with your ex than hers?

You mean I am Mercury and he is Jupiter? If that is the case, then Jupiter should be with another planet, right? While Jupiter does square Saturn, and that could be his union with her, but that is just in 2 minutes. The square is not coming from angular houses, and with no reception. I don't think 2 minutes can translate into 3 months under these conditions, so I really don't think she is Saturn.

Meanwhile, the Moon does conjunct Venus, and if we agree that Venus is the natural significator of marriage, my secondary ruler indicates that I conjoin marriage anyway even though my primary ruler says no 3 times.
But the question was about her marriage, not mine, and I understand that a horary answers the question you asked, plus background information.

No, I don't think I am Mercury in this chart. THe physical description of Mercury also collaborates with her description, not mine; I recall reading the description of Mercury at the time, Lilly mentioning something about dimples - she has dimples, I don't.

And finally, I do believe I am the Moon, not Mercury. THe past aspects of the Moon are quite dire, which collaborate with the past relationship that I had with my ex. But now the Moon is strongly placed in the 9th, and that collaborates with my general circumstances at the current time.

I sincerely wanted to take myself out of this horary and ask the question about her without me in it. I think the horary has placed me in the chart anyway, but she has to be in this chart somewhere. I think she is Mercury. The placement of Mercury in his 5th also makes sense; source of sex and pleasure for him.

Do you agree?
(Still confused... .....)

Could it be that the horary is indicating the "ultimate" result of their relationship? Just a thought...
But then again, my question was not about what will happen in their relationship, it was "will she marry?"

First, I would have used the 11th house for the person asked about, since the 11th rules "friends and acquaintances." Doing this would give you Cancer on the turned ascendent (at least from what I can tell without actually looking at the chart.)

And if that's the case, if it's in Algol, that doesn't bode well anyway. That would also mean Saturn rules the fiance, and if there's no relationship between the Moon and Saturn, then no marriage.

Other than that, regarding ethical questions, I've always been taught that the question should be something of great concern to the querent, not just an idle speculation or something frivolous. (I'm not suggesting this question, is, by the way.) Generally, this would mean the querent has some personal involvment or stake in the outcome.

An unethical question according to the late horary astrologer would be "when is a good time to rob a bank?" Obviously, there isn't one, and that's why such questions are unethical.

I sometimes cast a chart to see what's going on in an x's life. I want to know how life is treating him, but we parted on very bad terms, so I can't ask. Therefore I ask the "universe". I don't see anything unethical in that.

There are always (at least for triple Cancers) feelings of affection for people with whom we have had an intense relationship. I still want to know that he's OK, and I frankly don't see the harm in it. If I want to know something specifically related to my interests, I'm forthright about it. I see that as two very different inquiries.

Hi Taurus,

I do have a problem with your question. Sorry. For a lot of reasons with this chart that makes it a complicated one to discuss; the logic behind your assignation of significators; because you say in an earlier post ?I know it's really none of my business anymore..?, and also because I don?t think it?s a healthy thing to be doing, using horary to examine the details of what your ex is up to. But that you know?

With regards to the technical points. I can?t understand why you think the 9th house is the house of marriage. Also, when you talk about the Moon prohibiting, remember that to ?prohibit? means to prevent the fulfilment of the promise in another aspect by acting as an afflicting planet. As Lilly says, it?s when a planet ?interposes either his body or aspect, so that thereby the matter propounded is hindered and retarded.? Otherwise it?s just interposing, which can be a good thing.

The Moon, being such an inferior planet that absorbs influences from other planets, is usually bringing an aspect into focus rather than prohibiting it, and that's what I would say it's doing here.

Taurus 7, could you actually post the "will she marry chart" or give the city where it was asked? (Also, am I to understand this chart was asked in 2003?)

Hi all,

I appreciate taurus7 for starting this highly interesting thread. My comments are about the description of the attempt to phrase the question. Regardless of well meaning intentions, I believe the effort resulted in a chart that will not answer the question.

taurus7 wrote,

I could have asked the question as you said, but questions like that always confuse me - he would have gotten the 7th, and she the 1st, but then I would have had trouble separating myself out of the equation. Because I had a direct relationship with him, I would have gotten the first as well! So which house is me and which one is her? I thought a better way would be to ask a question about her instead of him. While its true that we ended up with the same houses, I still managed (at least I think I did) to take myself out. Do you agree?

It goes against the natural order. If, in my hubris, I presume control of the chart in advance by varying my question to suit the houses according to my preferences, I would be usurping the heavens by taking over its role, no matter how small an appropriation. I would expect the stars to respond fully in kind - ?OK, take it away Human, it?s your show.?

IOW, if my real concern were about ?A? but I form my question askance about ?B? because I like the house assignments better then why would I expect the stars to answer? There is nothing to answer. I?ve already ?answered? myself by assuming command of the heavens. The chart could appear radical or not radical. Whichever, it is irrelevant because, by partially answering and arranging my own chart, I have cued the heavens that I am not fully ready to ask for Divine guidance on this question. Therefore it will not be given. Nothing left for the stars to do in regard to my question except, perhaps, politely and without malice, stay out of it while I bumble through. Bumbling through is a valid growth process. It is what most of us do - some of us swear by it.

If I find myself thinking about the chart before I form the question it is a signal to me that I am corrupting the natural order. It must follow: first the question - an honest pressing concern - then the chart.

It reminds me of something my father says, ?Do not take a man?s tool out of his hands. Wait for him to hand it to you.? One reason is that someone could get hurt (think buzz saw). I would correct this to be pc, but the masculine essence is essential here regardless of gender. It is active rather than receptive. By analogy, the chart is my tool, a very powerful tool (greater than all buzz saws ). I use it to shape, construct, build upon, examine and expand my understanding of my world. If I am actively constructing with the chart tool, the Cosmos will not wrest it out of my hands. It will wait patiently until I hand it over and ask, ?show me? (after I?m finished bumbling around). Anything else is dangerous, someone could get hurt ? and it sure as heck won?t be the Cosmos! The natural order protects us. If I reconstruct my question to first suit my house preference then I am not handing over the chart tool to the Cosmos, I am holding on to part of it. The reconstructed question becomes dishonest, maybe not deliberately, but dishonest nonetheless. For our protection, the heavens will not answer. I cannot imagine how deep the cut to our unsuspecting psyches if the heavens did answer. It makes no sense. We?d never learn.

The chart for a misdirected question may or may not yield other information (stars? choice) but that other info will not be an answer to the question. I, too, like zohra?s insight:

It seems that horary astrology provide querents the tool to look deep inside the mirror

AlexMc

Deb,
By the 9th I meant the house of "ceremonies", and used it in that context, ie. Venus, the natural significator for marriage in the house of ceremonies. Thank you for your explanation of prohibition.

Voyagergirl,
The chart was cast for June 22 2006 11:35 am, Parsippany, NJ, USA.

AlexMc,

My comments are about the description of the attempt to phrase the question. Regardless of well meaning intentions, I believe the effort resulted in a chart that will not answer the question.

What a succinct and interesting response!! I agree with what you are saying..

Regardless, now I see this chart as rather shrouded in mystery possibly for the reasons discussed in this thread. However, I feel the chart will reappear again at a later date, somehow, and at that time, based on how circumstances would have transpired, will be crystal clear in its symbolism.

-T7-

The symbolism in this chart is about you. It is not about the fiancee. Read that way, it makes perfect sense although I have no idea why you have put her on the cusp of the 7th house. She belongs on the 11th house cusp as voyagergirl pointed out earlier in this thread. You say that you want to take yourself out of the chart. Whether you like it or not, the act of asking the question immediately puts you in the chart and gives you the 1st house. Everything else is then taken in relationship to you. For example, unless you are hoping for a relationship with the fiancee yourself, she does not belong on the cusp of the 7th house in this chart.

As Deb pointed out earlier, the marriage ceremony is not 9th house. It has never been 9th house in any way. The 9th house does not represent any sort of ceremony as far as I know. Traditionally, the 10th house was used for marriage ceremonies. Now we use the7th for all partnerships of this nature. While most ancient authorities give Venus as the natural significator of marriage, Al Biruni apparently gives the significator of marriage to Mars. I do not know why.

As Deb pointed out earlier, the marriage ceremony is not 9th house. It has never been 9th house in any way. The 9th house does not represent any sort of ceremony as far as I know.

Deb's articles on the houses associates "affairs" of the church" with the 9th house. Presumably such affairs are wide-ranging, from the crowning of a monarch or election of a pope, to other forms of ritual or ceremony of a far less "magnificent" sort, such as a wedding ceremony,or the christening of a child. These are all "affairs of the church", or whatever other religious body we care to examine, and as such have their rightful place in the 9th house.
Marriage itself,as in the merging of two people in formal partnership, belongs to the 7th house, but in so far as the marriage involves a ritual and a ceremony - the taking of one's vows before God - that aspect of it is distinctly 9th house in nature.
This horary reflects that very well, in that the Moon is placed there and it's final aspect will be a conjunction to Venus, ruling that house.
I agree Sue, that this horary is about the querent, and looking back at events that have transpired since the question was posed we can see how the Moon's aspects have manifested: first the sextile to Mercury (ruling the first house and therefore the querent), showing the e-mail message she recieved informing her of the name-change - implying a forthcoming marriage. Finally the upcoming conjunction to a dignified Venus which seems to imply the wedding itself in 5 units of time from June, i.e. November. The marriage is slated for October so perhaps this is close enough.

Traditionally, the 10th house was used for marriage ceremonies.

I've never heard of this one. Where did you see it?

cheers...
Pete

Deb's articles on the houses associates "affairs" of the church" with the 9th house. Presumably such affairs are wide-ranging, from the crowning of a monarch or election of a pope, to other forms of ritual or ceremony of a far less "magnificent" sort, such as a wedding ceremony,or the christening of a child. These are all "affairs of the church", or whatever other religious body we care to examine, and as such have their rightful place in the 9th house.

I do not recall, although I could have missed it, any disscussion about a wedding in a church. What T7 wants to know is whether the marriage will take place. Using the 9th house for a wedding because it takes place in a church is not a valid argument. A wedding is not necessarily 'an affair of the church'. They could get married on a beach, in a registry office or parachuting out of the sky (apparently people do that sort of thing). Many of the weddings I have been to have not involved a church. They have been in parks or beaches or home gardens, an old school, etc. Where is the 9th house in any of that?

in so far as the marriage involves a ritual and a ceremony - the taking of one's vows before God - that aspect of it is distinctly 9th house in nature.

Only if you get married in a church. And, even then, it makes no sense to put the act of marrying in the 9th house. By tying in these 9th house issues to marriage it is a bit of an insult to those who choose marry elsewhere. Where would you place a wedding that takes place in a park?

Are we going to start differentiating between weddings in churches and weddings that do not take place in a church? Marriage is a legal institution. It is created and regulated by the authorities. You are not married until you sign the marriage certificate. This is a legal document, not a church document. All the churches have is temporary authority ('by the authority vested in me by the state of.......' or something along those lines). That is, the state gives the authority for marriage, not the church. Whether it happens to be in a church building or not is not relevant. Getting married is a legal act, not a religious act. Try getting a divorce through the church.

I think I have just talked myself into placing marriage back into it traditional 10th house.

As for marriage and the 10th house, my copy of Manilius is in my office so I can't give you an exact reference but you will find that he uses the midheaven for marriage. You will also find references to the 10th house and marriage in Deb's book 'The Houses.' Al Biruni says that 'giving in marriage', i.e. the actual marriage taking place, is 7th house.