If we can talk about planets being progressively 'consumed' by the Sun ? under the beams, then entering combustion proper, then engulfed and finally completely combust and consumed (with that nonsensical idea of cazimi thrown in), then why should we require simple and easy black/white, night/day, either/or, on/off, diurnal/nocturnal? Sit outside and you will experience twilight. That is human experience in the real world ? not an astrological simple convenience of A and B. Truly real astrology would incorporate that.

After the complexity of under the beams and combustion, this either/or approach makes zero sense. Simplicity for the astrologer seems to rule. The fact is ? transition times exist. Astrology should learn to deal with twilight, as should we all.

Hi Deb,

I dont need to speak to Steven Birchfield or Robert Hand. I only mentioned them as their contrasting view is in the first link I gave. Of course they may have changed their minds since then...

I dont think I had fully grasped that you were basing this on both the solar disc on the horizon and the planetary hour ruler. Is the relevant planetary hour ruler mentioned by Ptolemy? I wouldn't have thought he would have discussed this in the Almagest. You mention Saturn as the planetary hour confirming this was a nocturnal chart. What if a diurnal planet was planetary hour ruler. Would that change your view?

Sorry to 'go off on one' as we say but Cameron's assuming office chart has rather put this into the frame as an issue again. However, I better stop now as this is beginning to look like the traditional forum. Maybe you can just PM me on this if you have time?

Mark

Hi Mark, I'll make this my last comment on the issue because I don't want to disturb the thread anymore either. I?ll just answer the points raised. Ptolemy (who I don't have allegiance to BTW, but aim to understand since his opinion was so relevant to this issue) does not refer to planetary-hour-rulers in the Almagest because that is his purely astronomical work, which sets the framework for his astrological text. I don?t think Ptolemy makes reference to planetary hour-rulers anyway; that?s not really his type of astrology. However, the planetary/seasonal hours were in common use in his era so he does explain how these are calculated from sunrise to sunset. Hence his need to technically define the length of the day for any locality. This forms the basis of the planetary hour divisions, which knits with the Placidus house system (the reason why Placidus declared that he needed no guides but ?Ptolemy and reason? for the house system he used). One relevant passage can be found at II.9

In answer to Kirk ? yes, of course transition occurs: almost everything in astrology is built on cyclical transitions. These occur in nature and the sky and the seasons. We don't have a situation where everything is dead in the garden one minute, to begin growing erect the moment the Sun aligns with the equator, which determines the commencement of spring.
The shift from winter to spring occurs gradually, but there is still one precise astronomical and astrological moment which declares the equinox and formalises the seasonal shift. Similarly, there is one precise, astronomically-calculated moment that formally declares the Sun?s ingress into a new sign of the zodiac. And similarly, there is one precise, mathematically calculated moment that formally declares the shift between the Sun being diurnally 'in power' or not.

Deb

PS, Mark it doesn't mater if the ruling planet is a diurnal or nocturnal planet, it is the hour that is defined as nocturnal. That is the point I think is so relevant - this chart is astrologically described as being cast in the first hour of the night, which surely gives us the answer to the chart's sect, (which determines the choice of triplicity rulers, etc).

PS, Mark it doesn't mater if the ruling planet is a diurnal or nocturnal planet, it is the hour that is defined as nocturnal. That is the point I think is so relevant - this chart is astrologically described as being cast in the first hour of the night, which surely gives us the answer to the chart's sect, (which determines the choice of triplicity rulers, etc).

Thanks. That does seem a neat solution to the issue. It should have been obvious that the planet ruling the first planetary hour of night didn't matter. Not least as you were saying it was a nocturnal chart in the hour of Saturn!

Mark

It will be interesting to see what effects any major transits will have on the fixed T-sq Sun-Mars-Asc in Camerons accesion chart. At first sight its troubling but in the wider view it needs the inner strength and willpower of a t-sq or G.Cross to deal with what is obviously going to be a difficult tenure.

Not surprised to see Mercury ST and in Taurus yesterday. I've lost count of the number of times Lib/Con politicians have emphasised 'stable governement' and stability'.

The question is how stable will this Coalition be and how long will it last?

MarkC wrote:David Cameron has assumed of the office of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

He entered Buckingham Palace at 20:08 BST. He left Buckingham Palace at 20:35

The document recording David Cameron formally accepting the office of Prime Minister and invitation to form his Majesty's government is timed for 20:35 BST

Source BBC NEWS Channel

......Interesting that the MC ruler is stationary.





Mark

Mercury stationary in a Fixed sign- the Lady wasn't for turning and this leader just may not move at all
If saturn is democracy and a retrograde saturn an indicator of electoral reforms then a very tricky referendum is on cards.

The Aries ingress 1st house becomes the swearing -in 10th.If Cameron's birth time is a few minutes early then he is a Virgo Ascendant.

I wonder where Nick Clegg is in this chart - I guess he is the saturn- as his Natal Sun and Mercury are in Capricorn.Cameron doesn't have any planets in Capricorn or Aquarius.

PD

If saturn is democracy and a retrograde saturn an indicator of electoral reforms then a very tricky referendum is on cards.

I'm not so convinced that its a problem. I think retrogradation is often over played, saturn spends a lot of time in retrograde and life seems to get by perfectly well whilst it does. Saturn is strongly placed in 10th and I would also add that Jupiter applying to Sat/Ura opposition may help smooth the confilct a little. Jupiter trine Asc may also smooth out differences.

If saturn is democracy and a retrograde saturn an indicator of electoral reforms then a very tricky referendum is on cards.

When did Saturn become the natural significator of democracy? I would have thought the Moon ( representing rule by the people) or Jupiter ( representing law and justice) were more logical for this signification.

I'm not so convinced that its a problem. I think retrogradation is often over played, saturn spends a lot of time in retrograde and life seems to get by perfectly well whilst it does. Saturn is strongly placed in 10th and I would also add that Jupiter applying to Sat/Ura opposition may help smooth the confilct a little. Jupiter trine Asc may also smooth out differences.

Your right Saturn is powerful in the 10th house but that doesn't mean its a desirable thing. As with criminal profilers I look for motive and opportunity in a planet. The motive is the essential dignity. The opportuniy is accidental dignity. This Saturn is in Virgo so its peregrine. It has no essential dignity. Plus Saturn is naturally the greater malefic. In this chart its retrograde. This is traditionally a strong debility. By planetary phase this Saturn is occidental (setting after Sun) rather than oriental ( rising before Sun). This is a further minor debility for Saturn as the superior planets are preferable when rising before the sun and free of combustion. The one thing going for this Saturn is that it is in sect in a day chart above the horizon. ( see new revised time for Cameron assuming office at start of thread of 20:12 BST) Jupiter is Lord 2 and 4. And you think this applying opposition is a good thing? Oppositions are all about separation and conflict not easing problems. Plus if we look at outer planets Uranus is opposing Saturn Rx and Jupiter is applying to a conjunction of Uranus. Jupiter's trine is separating not applying so its describing the past not the future.

Venus rules the 11th house which traditionally represents the Parliament. It is posited in the 8th house and also is the dispositor of the 12th house. Venus is forming an applying square to Jupiter and Uranus. I see real problems ahead for this coalition.

So all in all I really dont agree this is an innocent wee Saturn. Take at look at the thread on the Euro to see what havoc its been causing.

As for the other parties I think the Liberal Democrats as political partners of David Cameron are signified by the 7th house and its ruler(s). That brings us firstly to the Sun which is peregrine in Taurus but angular. Its forming a sextile to Jupiter and an trine to Saturn. Venus is both the domicile and day triplicity ruler of Taurus. As noted above its located in the 8th house and ruling the 11th and 12th house too. I think the coalition will do ok in terms of the leaders and public figures like Clegg but the problem will be behind the scenes intrigues with disaffected Lib Dems being courted by the revitalised Labour party. Its looking like its going to have to take a buffeting caused by financial crisis and parliamentary rebellions ahead. With the Lib Dems and Conservatives facing the thankless task of imposing cuts and tax rises its a perfect environment for the opposition to quickly exploit.

I see the opposition as the 4th house ruled here by Jupiter in Pisces in the 4th house. The opposition are in a fairly good position considering their recent defeat. However, they are facing a major change symbolised by the Jupiter Saturn opposition and Jupiter's conjunction to Uranus. In part this reflects the leadership election which has already begun.

Venus rules the 11th house which traditionally represents the Parliament.

Do you have a quote? As far as I know this is modern astrology.

yuzuru wrote:

Venus rules the 11th house which traditionally represents the Parliament.

Do you have a quote? As far as I know this is modern astrology.

From Deb Houlding's "The houses Temples of the Sky" page 87:

(about the 11th house in Mundane) "Parliament, especially the House of Commons"

and from The Book of Rulerships by Lehman, page 118:

House of Commons, 11th according to Lilly

Do you have a quote? As far as I know this is modern astrology.

Hi Yuzuru,

This is the mundane forum 'modern astrology' is not outlawed.

However I did use the title 'traditional' so I guess I better explain myself. I mostly got this idea from Deborah Houlding.

For example her article here on skyscript where she writes on Ingress charts:

The Eleventh House
- Parliament, especially the House of Commons. Town and County Councils and similar bodies. Friends of the nation. Legislation.

Also in her book The Houses, Temples of the Sky Deborah Houlding writes:

In mundane astrology: parliament, especially the house of commons; town and county councils,and similar bodies. friends and allies of the nation. In election charts the 11th house will show the resources of the party in power; in civil war, the substance and ammunition of the ruling power.

The Houses, Temples of the Sky (revised edition 2006, p87)

The astrological logic is that the 11th house is 2nd from the 10th so represents the resources of the King. In a modern democracy this arguably represents parliament, the civil service and the armed sevices.

There is not much available in English on traditional mundane astrology
(excluding Brill publications that cost a kings ransom!). I have checked out Steven Birchfield's annotated version of William Ramesey's Astrologia Munda. I confess I cannot find a reference in Ramsey supporting this view of the 11th house representing Parliament.

If we are discussing the opposition (rather than parliament in general) it seems to be covered by the 4th house.

H.S. Green, Raphael & Pearce - all from around WW I - assign parliament to the 11th. Not very old sources, but at least not New Age.