Parallel of latitude question

I am wondering why astrologers who use Declinations don't use parallels of latitude.

For instance, say Uranus is parallel/conjunct TWO angles and makes many close aspects to personal planets. It's conjunct the descendant and parallel the MC. Let's say it is also parallel in latitude to Mercury and Jupiter which are not angular.

Am I correct in thinking that Uranus P in latitude Mercury and Jupiter would be effective since Uranus is exceptionally strong, being conjunct/parallel two angles?

I have other examples that are making me look carefully at parallels of latitude where there aren't P of declination. It would be nice to get extra support or direction from those who consider the latitude parallels.

Is there any criteria for parallels in latitude to be effective (for those who use them)?

[deleted request for specific forum member - Moderator Note: please keep Forum postings general and open for all to respond]

I use the lunar latitude regularly. it measures how much the person demands of the world. I high lunar latitude often produces what I call the Sorcerer's Apprentice Syndrome. Things tend to take off for them and get out of control. They also tend to demand that things go their way.

A low latitude is the opposite and often the person has difficulty getting anything they want, or even figuring out what they might want.

I sometimes use the Parallel of (celestial) latitude: when I do, I consider that Parallels in the same degree and the same North/South division, to be equivalent to conjunctions.
In Parallels of Declination I use 1 degree 30 minutes, up to 2 full degrees, as an orb: however for Parallel of latitude I consider that the points involved must be in the same degree (thus the orb I use here is minutes rather than degrees)
I always look first for any Parallels of Declination: and I consider these to take precedence over Parallel of latitude (since I go so much importance to the Equator); if I find no Parallels of Declination, I then check for any Parallels of latitude.

Hi Zarathu,

Thanks for your comment. I am not sure what you mean by a lunar latitude. Do you mean you use only the latitude of the moon and not the other planets?

Dr. Farr, thanks also. In my example, Uranus is parallel in declination both angles. But there is no declination parallel or conjunction with Mercury, but there is a parallel in latitude of 30 minutes. I see that you're saying this would then be a valid parallel, especially because of the 30 minute closeness.

Thanks for helping me with this. I have found in certain charts parallels of latitude under one degree to explain a major characteristic not explainable by other aspects. I'm convinced of these latitude parallels effectiveness...but I always like some support from a knowledgeable astrologer

I have come to regard Parallels as equivalent in significance to close conjunctions in longitude-and, often, even more significant! In looking at a natal or event chart, the very first thing I look at is the Parallels of declination, then conjunctions in longitude, then Parallels of latitude: then I go on from there.

A quality of parallels of declination that renders them particularly significant is that they are measured from the equator, not the ecliptiic as is the case with planetary positions and parallels of latitude. This difference in perspective offers the astrologer a different perspective in interpretation.

We might consider the equator as representing "what is normal for the whole earth." The equator is equidistant from the poles and spins at a constant, steady rate. The ecliptic does not "spin at an even rate" (due to obliquity) and is not equidistant from the poles. Thus the ecliptic can be seen as "individualizing", while the equator can be seen as "the norm." A planet in high declination is apt to act "out of the norm" (being very wide of the equator), to signify a very unique point of view. It is this special measurement that makes the parallel of declination of special interest to the astrologer.