Question about house rulers in the natal chart

I've been reading about the fact that when interpreting the natal chart, it's important to look at house rulers and their placements as well as planets and signs -- however, I don't entirely understand what determines house rulership.

Let's say that you come across a natal chart where one or more houses are occupied by more than one sign -- say, someone whose IC is at the last degrees of Taurus, which means that most of the fourth house is in Gemini rather than in Taurus (and even perhaps a bit in Cancer if the fifth house starts in the first degrees of that sign). Would the house ruler of this person's fourth house be considered Venus (the planet ruling Taurus, the sign in which the IC is located) or Mercury (the planet ruling Gemini, the sign which occupies most of the fourth house) -- or would it perhaps be both?

The ruling planet of a house is always the planet that rules the sign its cusp is in, even if another sign occupies most of that house. However, if the house contains planets that are in a different sign from the one on the cusp, that sign and those planets may be even more significant in shaping the message of that house.

If the house cusp is in Scorpio, Aquarius, or Pisces, it has two rulers, because those signs each have two rulers.

GeminiGrrl said:

I've been reading about the fact that when interpreting the natal chart, it's important to look at house rulers and their placements as well as planets and signs -- however, I don't entirely understand what determines house rulership.

Let's say that you come across a natal chart where one or more houses are occupied by more than one sign -- say, someone whose IC is at the last degrees of Taurus, which means that most of the fourth house is in Gemini rather than in Taurus (and even perhaps a bit in Cancer if the fifth house starts in the first degrees of that sign). Would the house ruler of this person's fourth house be considered Venus (the planet ruling Taurus, the sign in which the IC is located) or Mercury (the planet ruling Gemini, the sign which occupies most of the fourth house) -- or would it perhaps be both?

Click to expand...

the sign that is on the cusp of a particular house determines the planetary ruler. There can not be more than one. However, depending on the house system you use, the rulerships may vary. I have Taurus on IC and Gemini in the 4th house, Venus still rules that fourth house and has to be taken into account. However any planet residing in the 4th house takes precedence. You may have both Taurean and Gemini people in your family.

There will always be more than one ruler of a house, whichever system you us. In whole sign there will be as many as 3: domicile, exaltation and triplicity. In quadrant based systems there can be as many a 5: domicile, exalt, trip, term and face. You want to look at the condition of all of those planets and whether they actually aspect the house in question in judging how effective (or dysfunctional)the house is in the persons life

I think the strongest energy will be the planet which rules the sign on the cusp.

Sometimes there is a 'intercepted' sign WiTHIN the house...(in which case there will be the exact opposite sign intercepted in the opposite house.)
In this case the intercepted sign RULER could be said to "co-rule" that house.

the sign on the house represent what the native "expects" from that house...whether it is indeed what they will get.
For instance, Taurus on the 7th means that the person will expect traditional marriage and a certain amount of longevity and security from this house.
Planets in Gemini in the 7th might and probably will "modify" what is received or experienced in that house.

Hope that isn't too confusing.
LIN

The Ram said:

There will always be more than one ruler of a house, whichever system you us. In whole sign there will be as many as 3: domicile, exaltation and triplicity. In quadrant based systems there can be as many a 5: domicile, exalt, trip, term and face. You want to look at the condition of all of those planets and whether they actually aspect the house in question in judging how effective (or dysfunctional)the house is in the persons life

Click to expand...

No only one ruler per house sorry. As many as three? or five ? I don't know what astrology system you have learned, but not correct.

It's generally called 'traditional astrology', Claire.

It works like this. Say Pisces is on the cusp of your fourth house in a night chart.

Jupiter rules Pisces by domicile. Venus rules Pisces by exaltation.

Let's put Jupiter in, say, Aries. By traditional aspect it doesn't 'see' the house, it's dysjunct. Let's also say that Venus is in Pisces itself, which obviously does see the house. In some circumstances, it's possible for Venus to regulate the affairs of 4 because it's in better shape to do so than Jupiter is.

I have seen exaltation rulers work pretty well in my own practice.

You can go further down to triplicity rulers if you are looking at a certain matter signified by the fourth house (say, fathers, or land, or the end of life). In that same chart, those would be the Moon, Venus, and Mars, with each of those planets having a say over some matter of concern within the fourth house because they are the night triplicity rulers of water. And this is something else that has proved out in practice.

Term and face rulers I wouldn't use as house rulers, though term is useful in other ways, and face - maybe. It seems to have been 'grated onto' the system in some ways.

In some forms of astrology you look for the almuten ruler of a point - the planet with the highest dignity at that point of the chart. It's going to be either the domicile ruler or the exaltation ruler.

And this stuff is correct. I think perhaps traditional astrology is looking for different things than modern astrology is, but it does work.

No...I don't think there can be that many "rulers." INFLUENCES, YES....but rulers? No.

But this is why you can't learn astrology from forums. There is NO WAY to learn this science piecemeal.
LIN

Lin said:

No...I don't think there can be that many "rulers." INFLUENCES, YES....but rulers? No.

But this is why you can't learn astrology from forums. There is NO WAY to learn this science piecemeal.
LIN

Click to expand...

If you look at ancient and medieval astrology texts, signs do indeed have 'that many rulers'. This may be a language issue. I know modern astrological technique uses exaltation rulers, but it may call them something different. It also uses domicile rulers, but it doesn't use the others.

I think either a modern or a traditional astrologer would tell you to look at the sign on the cusp of the house to determine the domicile ruler - and even if the cusp is at 29 degrees of Aries, Mars rules the house. A planet within the house will certainly colour the affairs of the house, especially when you're younger, and if it's lacking dignity, it may even try to rule the house, but it is not competent to do so.

If you're just starting out, the most important thing to remember is that the sign on the cusp of the house determines the domicile ruler.

Well I think we live in the 21st century. It's complicated enough for an astrologer to understand and then relate to a client the reality of their chart without bringing other ancient processes or speculations.

Reading a chart is synthesis. It's something you learn with lots of experience. the moment you use a RULE ...in the next moment you will find an exception.
LIN

Lin said:

Well I think we live in the 21st century. It's complicated enough for an astrologer to understand and then relate to a client the reality of their chart without bringing other ancient processes or speculations.

Reading a chart is synthesis. It's something you learn with lots of experience. the moment you use a RULE ...in the next moment you will find an exception.
LIN

Click to expand...

Yup. And that's based more on intuition than rules from ancient books. A good astrologer is always a good psychic, too.

Well, I don't know about psychic...but should definitely examine one's own intuition.
LIN

Lin said:

Well I think we live in the 21st century.
It's complicated enough for an astrologer to understand and then relate to a client the reality of their chart
without bringing other ancient processes or speculations.

Click to expand...

In ancient times seven visible planets orbited the sun ~ same in the 21st century
for more than two thousand years 'ancient processes of astrological delineation' have been tried and tested
and found to work well
so
no need to replace those tried and tested thousand year old methods
with speculations
since
seven classical planets,Lots, Fixed Stars, Eclipses, et al provide sufficient delineation

i.e.

'The established planets are the seven visible ones
- it is one aspect of practice that both camps use

- if you want to add more bodies to the rulership system and in general practice
the onus of proof is actually on the person proposing the modification...'

Lin said:

Reading a chart is synthesis.
It's something you learn with lots of experience.
the moment you use a RULE
...in the next moment you will find an exception.
LIN

Click to expand...

Neverthless RULES are necessary
otherwise
'explanations' are simply unproven speculations

YIKES! No one is replacing the Sun.....anyway, I've been studying, researching and reading charts for about 35 years so I'm not speculating....just relating my experience.

and I believe in rules. Very much. You have to begin somewhere. Only one's own research can modify rules...and it has to be a LOT of research.

But my point is that "arguing astrologers' is part of this science/art landscape. No matter what one astrologer says, another will say, Yes, but...--

BTW, also believe in food as medicine. My MD always smiles very patronizingly when I say that. (and then takes credit for my good bloodwork).
LIN