Celebrities with unaspected suns

I like cheese

Interesting idea, templeton. An unaspected Sun (usually) confers an over-active, over-expressed Sun. I recently saw the doco "The US vs John Lennon", and until seeing that I hadn't realised how full-on, confrontative, and terrier-like he had been, especially when being interviewed. Very unaspected Sun. The only give-away that he was Libran Sun was his politics and sensibilities.

The people I know in `real life' with unaspected Suns are very, very bossy, but have no idea that others perceive them in this way.

One thing I feel I need to point out, having given this topic some thought, is that it is difficult to pick an unaspected Sun in a person who is not well known to you. This means that knowing certain `celebrities' (where `celebrity' (often) means that they celebrate too much!!) have unaspected Suns does not mean a lot unless you have personal interaction with them.

For instance, I have a quite close relative with an unaspected Sun, and she seems ordinary enough - quite busy, ambitious, always planning something or other - until anyone suggests that what she is doing is stepping over the boundaries set by others - of which she appears completely oblivious. But to enter her boundary space is to court a serious tongue-lashing, or at the very least a lengthy discourse on why she is right!!
Were she in the public eye, this behaviour would only ever occur out of the spotlight. She has a Virgo stellium, and the u. Sun is also in Virgo, so Charm is her 2nd name!

However, all the unaspected Sun people I have known have been very ambitious, which may or may not be a coincidence.

Depends in what sign the Sun is and where in the chart.
John Lennon I think had Aries rising. He had a foul temper and was apparently instrumental in the death of Stuart Sutcliffe as he had king hit him. This was all hushed up in some quarters at least and Stuart died of a cerebral haemorrhage.

really cool observation templeton!
supposedly vincent van gogh has an unaspected sun but i'm not sure of his birth time

templeton said:

Thanks HeyPlayGirl. I will add him to the list

Click to expand...

If we dont have birth times we really cant add an unaspected Sun to the list as there could be strong aspects to the ascendant etc.

EJ53 said:

R4VEN's description seemed to fit Naomi Campbell......so, I looked at her chart and found her Sun without major aspects to any personal planets......but opposite Neptune (1 degree), trine Uranus (4 degrees) and square Pluto (6 degrees).

Anyone have a view about whether or not "unaspected" should be defined as the absence of major aspects to personal planets (+ Jupiter and Saturn, perhaps)?


EJ

Click to expand...

What you have quoted are major aspects to the Sun and powerful. Take her off the unaspected Sun list. She has some heavy ones going on.

EJ53 said:

But......What if she is not yet responding consciously to the influence of outer planets, Claire?....Do we count the aspects simply because they exist, or only if the individual is consciously influenced by them?


-

Click to expand...

My experience with the outer planets connected to the personal ones such as Neptune opposite the Sun they are seen as being out of our control and experiences unwanted or unasked for. They tend to operate more on an unconscious level and are life changing and intense and until we incorporate them into our consciousness will always rule us. THeir effects will be felt whether we want them or not until we do. Major major lessons with the outer planet contacts and not to be dismissed.

templeton said:

I don't like that idea. Neptune, Chiron and Uranus have been the most profound influences in my life. I would never let anyone tell me otherwise unless they were somehow able to walk in my shoes. They are size 10 1/2.



I'm going by Astrotheme's birth times. I'm not counting aspects to ascendant, MC or IC. My criteria for unaspected sun is no major aspects (conjunct, opposite, square, sextile, trine) to any other planet. Well, that's not really my definition of unaspected sun, I stole it off Wilson. Blame Wilson

Personally, I might be inclined to use the quincunxes. I think they're powerful as well but if I'm not mistakened still considered by most to be a "minor" aspect. Naomi Campbell is not on my list.

Click to expand...

Minor aspects to the Sun for instance are still be recognised and the quincunx is often powerful in my experience, within 2 degrees only though. It is kind of a medium aspect in my view. We need to count aspects to the ascendant from the Sun and the other points, they are influential especially on the angles.

templeton said:

I I'm not counting aspects to ascendant, MC or IC. My criteria for unaspected sun is no major aspects (conjunct, opposite, square, sextile, trine) to any other planet. Well, that's not really my definition of unaspected sun, I stole it off Wilson. Blame Wilson

Click to expand...

I agree with t here, but I didn't get this from Tim. Karen Hamaker-Zondag is quite adamant in her belief that only the major aspects to other planets - and not the angles either - are to be taken in to account when assessing whether a planet is unaspected. There has been discussion about this on other threads, and I'm sticking to this for now, at least until I see that there is reason for changing this stance. (I consider my Mercury to be unaspected, and I only noticed this as a result of what KHZ said about how an unaspected Merc manifest in her book on Yods. My behaviour is textbook unaspected Merc, even though Merc is conj Desc, and there is a quintile to MC - too obscure to be influential in how Mercury manifests in personal interactions.)

EJ, I like what you have recounted about your Sun. Being conj Chiron is not significant in the scheme of things in early life, and your `behaviour' with an unaspected Sun is quite typical. Also, there would have been Chiron transits which would have brought the needs and reactions of others to your focus, as well as your Uranus opposition, and perhaps also transiting Pluto's conjunction to Sun-Chiron. That's gotta be a wake-up call.

And this is spot-on, highlighting a reason for being born with an unaspected Sun:
"we get a confrontational, ambitious, bossy personality whose communications are misunderstood due to a lack of "audience awareness"......[ie. a self-obssessed prattler whose karmic task is to become a self-aware communicator.]"

The other young woman (now aged 33) I know well who has an unaspected Sun (in Libra) became a mother just over a year ago. Her personality has softened hugely, and she is now far more aware of `the other'. Previously she'd make decisions for others on their behalf, considering that she was doing this for the benefit of others, where all along she was only ever meeting her own needs. Even her own mother found her intimidating!! Not selfish, but just an awareness deficiency.

Please don't tar-and-feather me for asking this, but in the above list of celebs with unaspected Sun, have you also checked for parallel/contra-parallel of declination, and for conjunction/parallel with stars?

dr. farr said:

Please don't tar-and-feather me for asking this, but in the above list of celebs with unaspected Sun, have you also checked for parallel/contra-parallel of declination, and for conjunction/parallel with stars?

Click to expand...

Not relevant.

I agree with templeton's assessment of the aspects which are used to indicate whether a sun (or any other planet) is unaspected:
"My criteria for unaspected sun is no major aspects (conjunct, opposite, square, sextile, trine) to any other planet."

I apologize but I must respectfully disagree with the exclusion of parallel from the list of major aspects, and also with the exclusion from consideration of 1st and 2nd magnitude stars via parallel or close longitudinal conjunction-however, I won't disturb this interesting and informative thread with disputation!

dr. farr said:

I apologize but I must respectfully disagree with the exclusion of parallel from the list of major aspects, and also with the exclusion from consideration of 1st and 2nd magnitude stars via parallel or close longitudinal conjunction-however, I won't disturb this interesting and informative thread with disputation!

Click to expand...

What are first and second magnitude stars???? I dont use the parallel but that is not to say you would not find validity in it. I am open to any proven theories regarding the fixed stars or whatever. I err on the side of simplicity in my analyses as I find that the wood can often obscure the trees.
I use major aspects only and a quite tight orb which gives me the information I have needed in general in 30 years of practise. Good to see a medical expert here and I am sure you will have much to contribute.
Welcome aboard.

Thanks Claire19 for the welcome. One of the attractive aspects of the AW forum is the open and friendly attitude of participants, which is quite a change from the attitudes found on certain other astrology forums.

I sincerely believe that macrocosmic analysis is an art, and that every artist will eventually need to develop their own style and approach. Some artists will use certain brushes and varieties of colors and paints, other artists will use different ones. So, too, with the various tools/techniques, ancient and modern, simple and complex, of our astrological art.

"Magnitude" refers to the brightness of stars (as seen from earth); the lower the number given, the brighter the star appears. The astrological consensus (historically considered) is that the brighter the star (magnitude of the star) the greater its potential influence (you might like to see my entry under "Fixed Stars in Natal Chart"; also-if you don't mind visiting it-you might like to read my thread on Skyscript {I once was a member of that forum} entitled "How Do You Regard Stars", in the "Traditional & Ancient Techniques" Section)

R4VEN said:

Interesting idea, templeton. An unaspected Sun (usually) confers an over-active, over-expressed Sun. I recently saw the doco "The US vs John Lennon", and until seeing that I hadn't realised how full-on, confrontative, and terrier-like he had been, especially when being interviewed. Very unaspected Sun. The only give-away that he was Libran Sun was his politics and sensibilities.

The people I know in `real life' with unaspected Suns are very, very bossy, but have no idea that others perceive them in this way.

Click to expand...

Yes John had Aries rising so was ruled by Mars. He was quite a bully and had a bad temper apparently. His wish for World Peace is very Libran along with the musical talents.

dr. farr said:

Thanks Claire19 for the welcome. One of the attractive aspects of the AW forum is the open and friendly attitude of participants, which is quite a change from the attitudes found on certain other astrology forums.

I sincerely believe that macrocosmic analysis is an art, and that every artist will eventually need to develop their own style and approach. Some artists will use certain brushes and varieties of colors and paints, other artists will use different ones. So, too, with the various tools/techniques, ancient and modern, simple and complex, of our astrological art.

"Magnitude" refers to the brightness of stars (as seen from earth); the lower the number given, the brighter the star appears. The astrological consensus (historically considered) is that the brighter the star (magnitude of the star) the greater its potential influence (you might like to see my entry under "Fixed Stars in Natal Chart"; also-if you don't mind visiting it-you might like to read my thread on Skyscript {I once was a member of that forum} entitled "How Do You Regard Stars", in the "Traditional & Ancient Techniques" Section)

Click to expand...

Hi there
We do have our problems here from time to time like other forums and it is regulated much more than most. This can be a good thing and sometimes not......

I was bumped off from HOroscopechat without warning because I was offering free astrology lessons and there was a paragraph from an astrological author that was copyrighted and I was not given a chance to redress that. Someone must have dobbed me in and I have never been able to get back into there ever since. Their loss.

I almost don't even need to look at the charts of these celebrities. The notion of "unaspected" planets is something that doesn't occur often in the reality of a whole chart. Most often this is judged without looking at declinations (many celebrities have Suns in aspect in the declinations (parallels or contra-parallels).
Not considering the angles is wise until you know you've got a validated, reliable chart, but once you do, you will often find significant aspects to AS/MC, cutting down on the number of so-called unaspected Suns.

Taylor Swift
Sun parallel Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and contra-parallel Jupiter.

Carrie Underwood
Sun contra-parallel Venus and Pluto.

Sarah Michelle Gellar
Sun parallel Venus, N.Node

Nicole Kidman
apparently unaspected sun

Queen Elizabeth
Sun parallel Chiron (if you count it)

Brad Pitt
Sun parallel Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, and contra-parallel N.Node

John Lennon
apparently unaspected sun, but could be contra-parallel Asc

Bjorn Borg
Sun parallel Pluto, and contra-parallel N.Node

Shirley Manson
-------------

Sandra Bullock
Sun parallel Pluto

Jennifer Garner
Sun apparently parallel Asc

J.K. Rowling
Sun parallel Pluto

Grigori Rasputin
Sun apparently unaspected

Chandra Levy
-----------

Beyonce Knowles
Sun parallel Pluto, and contra-parallel Venus

Vincent Van Gogh
Sun contra-parallel Pluto

Dennis Eckersley
Sun apparently parallel/conjunct Asc

Geraldo Rivera
Sun parallel Mercury and Pluto

F. Scott Fitzgerald
Sun apparently unaspected

Mel Gibson
Sun parallel Mercury, N.Node, and contra-parallel Pluto

Any questions?

The notion of "unaspected sun" requires the interpretation that because the Sun is not showing an energetic outlet through major aspects that it is somehow weaker, therefore, overcompensation happens on the part of the native and you get the bossiness, etc. Celebrities operate on talent and ambition, which cannot result from a Solar principle weak and inducing overcompensation from lack of natal aspects.

In the specific example of Mel Gibson:

Sun parallel Mercury shows the Solar principle on the same wavelength and operating in unison with the Communicative principle. When the Sun and Mercury get together in angular aspects, communication cannot play seconds to mere thought. The Sun infuses it with outward-moving energy. Since both are in the sign of Capricorn you get a controlling, calculating, planning mode of expression.

Since the Sun is also parallel the N.Node his entire sense of destiny rides on this expression. The Capricorn mode of expression controls tacitly, building up credibility and reputation for a long-term (N.Node) big effect (Sagittarius).

Sun(S) contraparallel Pluto(N) shows a Solar principle being projected from its Southern, internal private position, Northward to Pluto's more outward position. Pluto is apparently in the 3rd house of communication, further emphasizing the Mercurial principle. This aspect means he at times will come on strong. His ambition, desire for power is strong. He is not satisfied to go part of the way.

So you see that (1) Mel Gibson's natal sun is not unaspected. (2) The aspects actually describe the condition of the supposed overcompensation that is supposed to be there.

Just an example of how declinations, both parallel and contra-parallel, are major aspects and disqualify a planet from being considered "unaspected."