waybread
Well-known member
The whole signs house system is really popular in traditional western genethliacal astrology; although I note that any house system (like Placidus) developed prior to about 1850 is traditional.
My feeling about house systems is that I will usually go with whatever someone posts when I read charts on this forum, but that if I want to spend a lot of time with a natal chart, I will often run it through multiple house systems to see which one seems to be the best fit with the person's life. (See: https://www.scribd.com/doc/6495552/An-Astrological-House-Formulary )
Further, I view different house systems as analogous to photographs of a person's head. You will get a different view if you take a frontal portrait, a left profile, a right oblique view, &c; yet each is still a picture of the same person's head. Each picture is still legitimate as a photograph of the person.
Also, all house systems have difficulties with high latitudes. Quadrant houses skew the houses in those nativities; but even an equal house system falls apart for a birth above the Arctic Circle-- or close to it--at the solstices. This thread isn't intended as a debate about that.
One of the biggest differences I've noted between whole signs and Placidus is with a late degree rising. It makes a huge difference, notably for traditional astrology, whether the native has an emphasis in the first or twelfth houses, or in the 5th or the 6th. This issue is brought to my attention by my late degree of Virgo rising, but notably for the chart of Hillary Clinton.
Her birth time is unknown, but I've worked with the Astrodienst AstroDataBank's Rodden DD 8:00 am, and I think it's pretty accurate. Even if not, it's a good illustration of the difference in interpretation a late degree rising can make in house placements.
This thread isn't intended as a debate about Hillary Clinton's personal strengths or character flaws, but rather as an illustration of a well-known celebrity with dramatic horoscope differences between Placidus and whole signs.
I'd love to read about your experiences with this problem.
My feeling about house systems is that I will usually go with whatever someone posts when I read charts on this forum, but that if I want to spend a lot of time with a natal chart, I will often run it through multiple house systems to see which one seems to be the best fit with the person's life. (See: https://www.scribd.com/doc/6495552/An-Astrological-House-Formulary )
Further, I view different house systems as analogous to photographs of a person's head. You will get a different view if you take a frontal portrait, a left profile, a right oblique view, &c; yet each is still a picture of the same person's head. Each picture is still legitimate as a photograph of the person.
Also, all house systems have difficulties with high latitudes. Quadrant houses skew the houses in those nativities; but even an equal house system falls apart for a birth above the Arctic Circle-- or close to it--at the solstices. This thread isn't intended as a debate about that.
One of the biggest differences I've noted between whole signs and Placidus is with a late degree rising. It makes a huge difference, notably for traditional astrology, whether the native has an emphasis in the first or twelfth houses, or in the 5th or the 6th. This issue is brought to my attention by my late degree of Virgo rising, but notably for the chart of Hillary Clinton.
Her birth time is unknown, but I've worked with the Astrodienst AstroDataBank's Rodden DD 8:00 am, and I think it's pretty accurate. Even if not, it's a good illustration of the difference in interpretation a late degree rising can make in house placements.
This thread isn't intended as a debate about Hillary Clinton's personal strengths or character flaws, but rather as an illustration of a well-known celebrity with dramatic horoscope differences between Placidus and whole signs.
I'd love to read about your experiences with this problem.