Natal rulers vs. Natural Rulers

serena

Member
Hi everybody,

I've been studying astrology for a couple of years but I'm still very unsure.

I read a lot of books and I attended a course... to make a long story short, I was taught in the course to look almost only at natural rulers but I know most astrologers look at natal rulers.

For ex. if second house is in Capricorn, Ii consider it to be in Capricorn and then I look to Venus and Jupiter, natural rulers of the second house and not Saturn (natal ruler of 2nd since it is in Capricorn).

I'm wondering if you also look at natural rulers and in case you look at both (natal and natural) how you manage data.

Sorry for my English :crying:
 

Anachiel

Well-known member
That is a modern association of the signs with the houses. It is based on the assumption that since Aries is the first sign, then Taurus the second, etc. Since Taurus is ruled by Venus then it must also "natually" rule the 2nd house.

This same train of thought associates Jupiter with the 2nd because Jupiter is thought to be "expansive"

Of couse, the signs and houses are completely different. If they weren't then we wouldn't need one or the other since they would be the same. Also, there is flaw in the association of houses and signs since Aries has not always been the "first" sign so, this is just a historical preference picking Aries over another "first" sign.

However, a pie can be divided in many ways but, the above is the basis for how those associations of the planet with houses came to be.

Blessings,

Anachiel
 

wilsontc

Staff member
Jupiter ruling the second house? to serena

serena,

You said:
For ex. if second house is in Capricorn, Ii consider it to be in Capricorn and then I look to Venus and Jupiter, natural rulers of the second house

I've never heard the "Jupiter" is the natural ruler of the second house. "Venus" yes, but not Jupiter.

Confused,

Tim
 

serena

Member
Hi Tim,

according to my teacher, Venus has its domicile in Taurus, but Jupiter is exalted in Taurus, that's why :)

My teacher lernt astrology from Lisa Morpurgo, who is still considered the greatest Italian astrologer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Morpurgo

If you choose the same wikipedia page in Italian, there's a chart with all domiciles and exaltations.
 
Hi everybody,

I've been studying astrology for a couple of years but I'm still very unsure.

I read a lot of books and I attended a course... to make a long story short, I was taught in the course to look almost only at natural rulers but I know most astrologers look at natal rulers.

For ex. if second house is in Capricorn, Ii consider it to be in Capricorn and then I look to Venus and Jupiter, natural rulers of the second house and not Saturn (natal ruler of 2nd since it is in Capricorn).

I'm wondering if you also look at natural rulers and in case you look at both (natal and natural) how you manage data.

Sorry for my English :crying:
there are many ways to interpret house rulers, but I think firstly the most important must the the planet that rules the cusp. As in your example, Capricorn, I would look to Saturn and it's aspects. But any planet posited in 2nd would take on a taurean flavour...

Houses/signs are like the backdrop of a stage/theatre, planets in houses behave like actors on a stage, the *aspects* show how these planets/actor behave in a house
 

Anachiel

Well-known member
Thank you Anachiel,

but.... do you think it is less valid than the traditional approach?

No, but, it doesn't have as long a history of use. It is a modern perspective.

Perhaps you should ask for practical examples to demonstrate the point. I mean, it either can be demonstrated to work or it doesn't, right?
 

Anachiel

Well-known member
Hi Tim,

according to my teacher, Venus has its domicile in Taurus, but Jupiter is exalted in Taurus, that's why :)

But, the Moon is exalted in Taurus, not Jupiter. Where did she get this information from? According to the oldest and most diverse sources, Jupiter really hasn't any strong dignity in Taurus at all. But, I'm open to other information as well.
 

miquar

Well-known member
Hi Serena.

The idea of Jupiter being exalted in Taurus is a new one to me too, though I wouldn't say no to a 2nd house Jupiter.

There is a kind of technique, that you might have come across, that makes use of something called the astrological alphabet. The first letter is Aries, the first house and Mars. The second letter is Venus, the 2nd house and Taurus, etc. If someone has, say Mars in the 5th house, and Sun in Aries, with an aspect between Sun and Mars too, then this is 3 occurrences of the bringing together of the 1st and 5th letters, making this a strong theme in the chart. So you can see that this technique makes use of natural rulership because it associates Sun and the 5th house, etc.

Also, there is flaw in the association of houses and signs since Aries has not always been the "first" sign so, this is just a historical preference picking Aries over another "first" sign.

Hi Anachiel. Another way of looking at this could be that the horizon axis in a chart is the intersection of the ecliptic plane (the zodiac plane) with the plane of the rational (rather than visible) horizon of the birth place. Likewise, the 0 degrees Aries/0 degrees Libra axis is the intersection of the ecliptic plane with the plane of the Earth's rotation on its axis. Therefore there is a symbolic link between the first point of Aries and the the Ascendant.
 
Last edited:

serena

Member
But, the Moon is exalted in Taurus, not Jupiter. Where did she get this information from? According to the oldest and most diverse sources, Jupiter really hasn't any strong dignity in Taurus at all. But, I'm open to other information as well.

The idea comes from the studies Morpurgo made

Here's the chart with exaltation and domicile according to her (Morpurgo). In her books she explains also why she believes it is that way.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Hi Tim, according to my teacher, Venus has its domicile in Taurus, but Jupiter is exalted in Taurus, that's why :)
My teacher lernt astrology from Lisa Morpurgo, who is still considered the greatest Italian astrologer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Morpurgo
If you choose the same wikipedia page in Italian, there's a chart with all domiciles and exaltations.

Margherita Fiorello is also an Italian astrologer http://heavenastrolabe.net/ - I think you can have the page in Italian as well :smile:
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
For me (my opinion and practice ONLY) in natal and astro-medical delineations, I pay no delineative attention to the various systems of natural rulerships; I simply use the signs that are on the houses, and the (traditional) planetary dispositors of those signs (here I was much influenced by the teachings of Charles Carter and Vivian Roberts, whose instructional books in horoscopic analysis are still available @ astroamerica.com)

But certainly other whole system models can be applied to this matter, probably with excellent results in the hands of experts in those other models.
 

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
I heard that Neptune is fall in Aquarius, not exaltation. Which one is true? Also, natural rulerships make sense from my experience of having a domiciled 6th house Moon and a bizarre need for all things Mercurian (natural 6th house ruler), but that's just me.
 

waybread

Well-known member
I don't pay much attention to so-called natural house rules, with the exception that sometimes you find someone with a heavy emphasis on, say, the 2nd house, Taurus, and Venus; or the 11th house, Aquarius, and Uranus. They seem to operate via a "chord" or "key"-- the 2nd and 11th, respectively, in these examples.

I think it is a mistake to conflate signs and houses. They are not the same thing, yet many modern astrologers will write about "the sun in Scorpio or the 8th house" as though it didn't matter which was which. It does matter. Signs and houses to do not give the same information; expect in a few cases. For example, the first house is your outward personality and body. Unless you happen to have Aries rising, your first house might be occupied to very different signs, such as Libra or Pisces. Your body and personality should show your actual rising/1st house sign/s, not Aries.

I use "lords" or "accidential house cusp rulers." Look at the planet/s ruling the sign on the house cusp, by its own house and aspects. These rulers will tell you a lot about the house in question.
 

Claire19

Well-known member
Hi everybody,

I've been studying astrology for a couple of years but I'm still very unsure.

I read a lot of books and I attended a course... to make a long story short, I was taught in the course to look almost only at natural rulers but I know most astrologers look at natal rulers.

For ex. if second house is in Capricorn, Ii consider it to be in Capricorn and then I look to Venus and Jupiter, natural rulers of the second house and not Saturn (natal ruler of 2nd since it is in Capricorn).

I'm wondering if you also look at natural rulers and in case you look at both (natal and natural) how you manage data.

Sorry for my English :crying:
i am surprised that you have been studying for a couple of years and are unsure as to the basic astrology principles. No, you must always look at the sign ruler on your own house cusp as that is the unique birth chart which is calculated from your day time and place of birth. Jupiter is not the natural ruler of the 2nd house by the way..... Yin Venus is natural ruler, of sign Taurus....If your 2nd house cusp is Capricorn you must look at Saturn and what it is doing also any planets in your 2nd house in your birth chart always override your house cusp ruler.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:

Claire19

Well-known member
I don't pay much attention to so-called natural house rules, with the exception that sometimes you find someone with a heavy emphasis on, say, the 2nd house, Taurus, and Venus; or the 11th house, Aquarius, and Uranus. They seem to operate via a "chord" or "key"-- the 2nd and 11th, respectively, in these examples.

I think it is a mistake to conflate signs and houses. They are not the same thing, yet many modern astrologers will write about "the sun in Scorpio or the 8th house" as though it didn't matter which was which. It does matter. Signs and houses to do not give the same information; expect in a few cases. For example, the first house is your outward personality and body. Unless you happen to have Aries rising, your first house might be occupied to very different signs, such as Libra or Pisces. Your body and personality should show your actual rising/1st house sign/s, not Aries.

I use "lords" or "accidential house cusp rulers." Look at the planet/s ruling the sign on the house cusp, by its own house and aspects. These rulers will tell you a lot about the house in question.


I agree!!!!!The signs and the houses are not the same sort of thing and do not give the same information. The house is THE area of life experience and the sign is the WAY it is experienced.
 

Claire19

Well-known member
For me (my opinion and practice ONLY) in natal and astro-medical delineations, I pay no delineative attention to the various systems of natural rulerships; I simply use the signs that are on the houses, and the (traditional) planetary dispositors of those signs (here I was much influenced by the teachings of Charles Carter and Vivian Roberts, whose instructional books in horoscopic analysis are still available @ astroamerica.com)

But certainly other whole system models can be applied to this matter, probably with excellent results in the hands of experts in those other models.

Yes I agree..:happy:
 

MSO

Well-known member
First you have to understand that the system of rulership is based on the planets behaving particularly strong in certain signs, and weak in others. Venus rules Libra because it expresses itself well there, not because of any connection between the planet and the sign. That is especially true for the houses, which are similar to the signs, but in a different way.

Personally I'd take the first house to be Leo, not Aries, due in part to it being a matter of appearance, but also because Leo is self-expression and that is essentially what the ascendant does!

Of course it's irrelevant to astrology and also to this discussion which house is like which sign because the interpretations of the houses do not change. With that said, I have to agree with dr. farr. The only time I bother to pay attention to a House ruler is when the planet that co-signifies or joys in that house is in it. And even then, with both modern and traditional house rulers, it's still confusing as to what exactly these dignities even do sometimes.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
First you have to understand that the system of rulership is based on the planets behaving particularly strong in certain signs, and weak in others. Venus rules Libra because it expresses itself well there, not because of any connection between the planet and the sign. That is especially true for the houses, which are similar to the signs, but in a different way.

Personally I'd take the first house to be Leo, not Aries, due in part to it being a matter of appearance, but also because Leo is self-expression and that is essentially what the ascendant does!

Of course it's irrelevant to astrology and also to this discussion which house is like which sign because the interpretations of the houses do not change. With that said, I have to agree with dr. farr. The only time I bother to pay attention to a House ruler is when the planet that co-signifies or joys in that house is in it. And even then, with both modern and traditional house rulers, it's still confusing as to what exactly these dignities even do sometimes.

It is not possible to use both modern and traditional house rulers simultaneously. For example, using Traditional techniques Uranus, Neptune and Pluto cannot rule Aquarius, Pisces or Scorpio because Traditional Astrologers did not use the outer planets so these signs are ruled by Saturn, Jupiter and Mars. There has been a discussion regarding the outer planets and why Traditional Astrologers did not use Uranus, Neptune or Pluto in the past and do not use them today here's a link http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39021


Using Traditional Astrology, Dignities are not confusing because Mars rules Aries and Scorpio, Venus rules Taurus and Libra, Mercury rules Gemini and Virgo, Moon rules Cancer, Sun rules Leo, Jupiter rules Sagittarius and Pisces and Saturn rules Capricorn and Aquarius. Traditional Astrology is completely independent from Modern Astrology.


BUT Modern Astrology is built on Traditional Astrology and is entirely dependent on Traditional/Ancient astrological techniques that are thousands of years old.


Confusion occurs when Modern Astrology borrows/adopts a technique from Traditional/Ancient Astrology and re-works it or adds on to it by using the outer planets as rulers of signs. Thousands of years ago astrology began. We have evidence that in Ancient Egypt and Babylon observations were made of the visible stars. The Ancients noticed that amongst the six thousand or so visible stars (which are actually distant suns) there were five which travelled much faster than these smaller more distant, back ground stars: the five planets are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. In ancient times Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn had different names. The sun and moon are not planets but they are referred to as such, that's why astrologers refer to the seven visible planets as being the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

Some Astrologers continue using the Ancient techniques but also have added their own opinions as to the meanings of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto to their delineations and these astrologers are amongst those referred to as Modern Astrologers.:smile:
 
Last edited:
Top