What house system should I be using?

dr. farr said:

Actually I did something like this on a similar AW thread regarding whole sign vs Placidus, looking at events in the life of Queen Elizabeth; Placidus was accurate, and I think I showed that whole sign was a bit MORE accurate...unfortunately I forgot the title of that thread, perhaps JA might find it again and put in the link so viewers can take a look at it and see what they think...

Click to expand...

dr. farr said:

In comparing results of whole sign vs Placidus (and, by the way all other quadrant house formats) applied to Queen Elizabeth's profected chart, notice this:

-the Pauline profection to the monthly time period of the event (her father's death) and her elevation to Queen, falls in Libra (by any house system, and by no house system, like in Cosmobiologie)
-however, we are considering domification here in this thread
-now, in quadrant systems (like Placidus), the profection to the month of the event, falls in the 9th house; there is truth in the indications drawn from this 9th house, because in fact the event, the death of her father, did in fact make her, defacto, head of the Church of England, certainly a valid 9th house affinity
-but, in whole sign (exclusively) the profection of the ascendant to the month of the critical event, falls in the 10th house: rulership of the nation is affinitive to the 10th, head of government also, as well as the "highest advancement", which becoming Queen (of a constitutional monarchy) certainly is!
-now, here is the point: which house is MORE specific to the level/qaulity of what actually happened? Which house is more "pertinent" to what happened? The 9th, becoming head of the Church of England, or the 10th, becoming Queen of England, head of the government, rising up in the greatest advancement possible (in a monarchy)?

And that is my point; not that the houses of quadrant formats are wrong-not at all; but rather, that, often, the whole sign houses are MORE specific, more descriptive of what actually IS, than the quadrant methods yield in their house indications; and NOT always, maybe not even most of the time, but, I say, OFTEN, and I have in fact frequently found this to be the case.

Couple more examples, along this line of thinking, to follow.

Click to expand...

dr. farr said:

Looking at the posted SR chart, the Lot of Sudden Advancement (ascendant+sun-saturn) falls @ 0 Aquarius: now, in placidus this Lot falls in the 7th house; in whole sign it falls IN THE 8th HOUSE, connecting her sudden advancement with death (the death of her father); again, I submit this whole sign placement of her Lot of Sudden Advancement, in the 8th house, is MORE SPECIFIC to the nature of what actually happened, than its placement in the 7th house (by quadrant house formats)
Also note that the 8th house is the HOUSE OF INHERITANCE, and the Lot of Sudden Advancement falling here (in the whole sign 8th house) certainly is specific to her having inherited the Crown of England from her deceased father.

(Interesting that the SR based Lot of Sudden Advancement, falls in Aquarius, where, by simple symbolic progression of her natal, her ascending degree has also progressed to at the time of her father's death and her subsequent sudden advancement to Queen; note also that the progressed ascendant of the natal and the SR placement of the Lot of Sudden Advancement both fall in Aquarius, the EXACT SUN SIGN-time of the year-when the event ACTUALLY occured, ie, February 6th, Sun in AQUARIUS!)

Click to expand...

JUPITERASC said:

Although I have studied this subject a little I'm no expert either tsmall however IMO you are doing very well indeed for only a year in and IMO dr. farr (who is the expert on this subject) would agree that obviously the 'floating' MC/IC axis is itself a 'sensitive point' aka 'cusp' within each house (as understood in ancient terminology) along with the ASC/DESC... and if dr. farr disagrees he shall soon say so!

Click to expand...

Anachiel said:

Ummmm...there is only one problem with this Queen Elizabeth timeline. First, when Henry died, Elizabeth did not become Queen. In fact, there were several "Queens" before Elizabeth ascendend to the throne.

[hang on! brief off topic for a sec]

When Henry died in 1547, Lady Jane became Queen, then Queen Mary...now were up to 1558. Elizabeth becomes Queen in 1559 and also, head of the Church.

Now, it is presumptive to assume which house the 9th or 10th is more relevant or descriptive here because, after what Queen Mary did to England being a Catholic, religion was a crucial part of the decision to make Elizabeth the Queen. In fact, Mary only "allowed" her to become Queen rather then be branded a heretic becasue she promised to protect the Catholics (for one reason). Queen Elizabeth was was also very cautious in her dealings being a representative of the (Catholic) Church for the first part of her reign. In fact, her authority (10th house) as Queen was doubted and tested for most of the first part of her reign because of religious reasons (9th house), not bloodline or any of the normally respected authority (10th house) that other rulers could take for granted.

It wasn't until well after about 1570 (her worst year) that anyone began to take her seriously as Queen (10th), rather than as simply a protector of the (Catholic) Church (9th), which she had been up until that point to a great degree. She was, essentially, a Hierophant (9th) moreso than Queen (10th) for the first part of her reign.

Anyway, Whole signs work well with the system they hail from. Other house systems, obviously invented later, as math and understanding progressed, work well in their own context as well.

And, in the diamond of astrology, every facet shines, and shows a (necessary) different face .

Click to expand...

JUPITERASC said:

dr. farr, I followed the link kindly provided moments ago by tsmall and now post as quotes, two of the delineations you mention that reference Queen Elizabeth II of England

Click to expand...

Anachiel said:

Hey, I told you it was off topic

Click to expand...