Solar Chart Houses

[FraterAC]

"Solar Chart Houses" put the Sun, or its decante, on the Ascendant and use equal house division for the rest. Some of the newspaper or astrology magazine horoscope writers of the print era based their advice or predictions on them. I still see this in use by some online astrology sites.
The obvious advantage is a writer only needs a birthday to start writing columns or articles and giving advice.
Has anyone here used solar chart houses themselves, or otherwise taken this practice seriously?
Would anyone be willing to quote any astrological authority for this?

 

[waybread]

I looked into how these solar charts were interpreted. They use whole signs houses. By putting the sun in its sign as the first house and then looking at the houses as signs, supposedly you can identify someone's money house (2nd,) travel house (9th) and so on; and base predictions upon what the planets in those signs are doing.

I think they're wildly inaccurate.

Unless someone actually has the sun in the first house, the houses are inaccurate. Also, the predictions overgeneralize to an absurd degree.

If you don't have an accurate birth time, I think it's best just to learn to read a chart without houses. You still need a date and approximate location, because location can affect time zones. You still have planets in aspect and planets in signs to work with. The free charts at Astrodienst will use a default noon birth time, so you just have to recognize that the moon's actual position could be 6 degrees either way from the noon chart.

 

[FraterAC]

I looked into how these solar charts were interpreted. They use whole signs houses. By putting the sun in its sign as the first house and then looking at the houses as signs, supposedly you can identify someone's money house (2nd,) travel house (9th) and so on; and base predictions upon what the planets in those signs are doing.

I think they're wildly inaccurate.

Unless someone actually has the sun in the first house, the houses are inaccurate. Also, the predictions overgeneralize to an absurd degree.

If you don't have an accurate birth time, I think it's best just to learn to read a chart without houses. You still need a date and approximate location, because location can affect time zones. You still have planets in aspect and planets in signs to work with. The free charts at Astrodienst will use a default noon birth time, so you just have to recognize that the moon's actual position could be 6 degrees either way from the noon chart.

I agree WB. I was surprised to see an alleged astrology site still doing that stuff, and wondered if anyone took it seriously.
Also, I later discovered a posting on this topic from several years ago here -- sorry to bring it up again, but hey.
If I don't have a birthtime, I do what you suggest, take a noon (at the birthplace, which is usually known) position of the planets and use what used to be called by some people a "flat chart," ie. just put Aries in the 1st house, Taurus in the 2nd, etc. Since there is at least some affinity of Signs to Houses, it works better than a noon chart, which _looks_ like it has real houses. Or the solar house chart, which also looks like it is more than it is.
I find any kind of fake houses very distracting, but a flat chart less so.