Robin and Maurice Gibb

Charts of twins (or of time twins) have always been a problem for astrology. Especially in our day and age that, due to the fact that caesarian sections have become very common, twins are very often born perhaps less than 4 minutes apart, the time required for a change of one zodiacal degree. It is one of the arguments people very often use to discredit astrology.

So what do we do wih these charts? Even fixed stars seem unable to solve the issue in many cases, if we allow a small orb. We don't get much help either from twins themselves, who insist (somtimes too much) that they are completely different. There have been some approaches suggested by various astrologers (for example, in a chart with a Moon/Saturn opposition one twin tends to play the part of the Moon and the other the part of Saturn), but the validity of these theories remains to be seen.

In the case of the Gibb brothers we have no such problems as they were born 35 minutes apart. (22 December 1949, Douglas, Isle of Man, 03:15 -Robin and 03:50 -Maurice). Maurice died on January 1st, 2003 and Robin died yesterday. Both brothers died of problems with the intestines. Virgo and the 6th house rule intestines in astrology and in their charts, the 6th house is in Aries and its ruler, Mars, is in Virgo. Mars in Virgo, in general, is also associated with the belly (and legs). The fact that this Mars is at the end of Virgo makes it even more dangerous (see Richard Saunders).

What's even more impressive, is that both brothers - although nine years apart - died at the exact astrological time, when secondary progressed Ascendant was at 12o Sagittarius and progressed MC was conjunct Neptune! We can make an argument out of the Neptune/MC conjunction (Neptune is against material reality), but still it's not very convincing as a stand-alone factor. Even in modern astrology, we would have preferred Pluto, for example, who, by the way is conjunct the natal MC of the two charts.

What about the progressed Ascendant degree? What's so special about it? It's still quite far from squaring Saturn and it sextiles natal Venus, Robin's 8th house ruler, but not Maurice's, whose 8th hosue ruler is Mercury. Even if that were the case, a simple sextile isn't much of a testimony.

The interesting thing about that degree is that it's the degree of the Nodes. The natal Nodes are on the Aries/Libra axis and there's a theory that says that the degree of the Nodes is generally critical/important in all of the signs.  I haven't tested this theory and I cannot vouch for its validity. The twins' progressed Ascendant trines/sextiles the natal nodal axis.Wouldn't a conjunction be preferable? Probably.

Still, it's pretty impressive isn't it? The "coincidence" of it!

Venus in Gemini, Libra, Aquarius - the air signs

Venus is not averse to air. The element of air contains moisture - hence a desire and an ability to connect - and the goddess of love is all about connection, bringing people or things together. Venus is not in detriment or fall in any of the air signs, but, in fact, rules one of them, the sign of Libra. So, is this not a bad Venus to have? It depends on what your views are about love.

Venus in Libra: This is what relationships are, at least that's what astrology tells us they are. I know many of you don't like it, but this it. Suck it up. A relationship has nothing to do with passionate love either of the firey excitement kind or the watery emotional kind. A relationship is about two people who are attracted to each other and decide to sit down and talk about their separate needs and wants, trying to meet halfway. Excitement quickly passes and so does grand passion, which leaves you no option but to walk out on the other person when all this is spent. No, Venus in Libra doesn't want that. "Can I make a relationship last?" That's what she asks herself. "Why should I go from person to person having the same result every time?" Excitement doesn't work, neither does passion. What does work? Rules. Libra is the sign where Saturn is exalted and loves the laying-down of rules, which, if respected, can make sure a relationship lasts. And the two most fundamental rules of all are communication and compromise, because this means that you love the other person enough to want to know how they feel and to be willing to make some sacrifices for their sake. Passionate love is very self-centred and equals ignorance, because you are not really in love with the other person, but instead you are in love with how they make you feel. According to Venus in Libra, that's not love.

Venus is Aquarius: Here communication and compromise take precedence while attraction is not that important. In Aquarius, Venus becomes much more impersonal. Both Libra and Aquarius have a problem with the Sun. The Sun is in fall in Libra and in detriment in Aquarius. So there are no "special people" for these two signs. However, Libra is ruled by Venus and at least Venus there says "You may not be someone special, but I"m attracted to you specifically", Venus in Aquarius can't say even that. The problem with this Venus is that for quite a lot of people love requires a consious choice of another human being and this is very rarely the case with Venus in Aquarius. It may be objective in a sense (What's so special about any of us, after all?), but when you get involved with this Venus, after a while you start resenting the fact that you are just "any other person" and that you don't seem to be high on your loved one's list of preferences. If he/she has one, that is. The problem quite often is that other people feel duped. Venus in Aquarius wants to connect (Aquarius is a moist sign) and it's a fixed sign, which means that she's not against lasting relationships. So, there is indeed a willigness to form relationships. Still, this very annoying air of detachment that this Venus carries, make other people wonder: "What the hell do you want a relationship for?"  

Venus in Gemini: Of the three airy Venuses, this is perhaps the most problematic. Venus can become friends with Saturn, but not so with Mercury, Gemini's ruler. It's a "better" Venus than the one in Virgo, where Mercury is particularly strong, but still, she doesn't feel at ease in Gemini. Gemini is about communication, but without the rules. Mercury is famous for his lack of morality, which is a valuable asset when it comes to knowledge (there is no right or wrong in knowledge and everything should be accessible to everyone), but in relationships this can be a problem, because there is no sense of commitment. Venus in Gemini is curious about love. Not in the same way as Venus in Sagittarius wants to experience love (as part of a greater scheme of things), but knowledge for knowledge's sake. Gemini is famous for wanting to learn as many things as possible, but doesn't want to do anything with them afterwards. Unlike Virgo, Gemini doesn't want quality, but quantity. So, Venus in Gemini often finds it difficult to stay faithful, because there are so many other people out there! Which also means that she 's not interested in learning everything there is to know about the other person. Knowing something in depth requires so much time and effort that Geminis prefer to spend it somewhere new.

Whitney Houston dies at 48

What an amazing talent. What a powerful voice. Many singers tried to emulate her, but to no avail. The original was infinitely better. The Moon/Jupiter conjunction in Aries close to the 2nd house cusp and trine the Sun in Leo were responsible for those immensely powerful vocals that gave you chills. Saturn, however, was waiting round the corner.

Whitney had a very powerful opposition between the Sun in Leo and Saturn in Aquarius, a battle between two giants, as Robert Hand describes it. The opposition was mutually applying as Saturn was retrograde. At the moment of death, the opposition had become partile and very close to exact, meaning that there was heavy pressure on her Sun and had she escaped death, the pressure would still have been there for some time to come. The Sun's conjunction with Venus, the 8th house ruler, was also something to worry about.

Saturn was of course transiting her 8th house in Libra, but this doesn't say much by itself. Her Solar Return chart however, had Libra on the Ascendant, her 8th house sign, and Saturn naturally, was conjunct the Libra Ascendant. The Sun was also closely conjunct Venus, repeating the natal pattern and with Taurus on the 8th house cusp, Venus was both ruler of the Ascendant and the 8th house, linking the body with death. Not to mention the natal Ascendant ruler, Jupiter, conjunct the SR 8th house cusp.

The Lunar Return of this month repeated the Solar Return pattern. Libra on the Ascendant and Saturn, of course, conjunct the Ascendant. This was too much Saturn and combined with the progressed Sun/Saturn opposition, it proved too much for her to handle.

Saturn may have succeeded in eclipsing Whitney's light, but he was unable to prevent it from shining while she was alive. As long as videos like the one below are available, Whitney will always emerge as the winner.

Out of sign aspects

Do they count? Some say they do, others say they don't. Those who say they don't (myself included) view the beginning and end of the sign as boundaries, which means that you cannot have a conjunction between planets located in adjacent signs, no matter how close they are. Or a trine between planets that are in signs which belong in a different triplicity. That is because, if we accept the opposite, then it totally cancels out the essential meaning of a conjunction, a trine etc. How can there be a conjunction between the Moon in Sagittarius and Jupiter in Capricorn for example, when these two planets want two completely different things?

The ones who say they do count, claim that if the aspect is within orb, then it is an aspect, only less effective. The problem, however, of the two planets wanting two different things, remains. If you want to stick to this theory, then you must also be of the opinion that signs don't act as boundaries and that the end and the beginning of each sign is a fuzzy area that comprises characteristics of two signs. The Moon, therefore, is NOT in Sagittarius and Jupiter is NOT in Capricorn, but instead they are located in this fuzzy area that is both Sagittarius AND Capricorn to a certain extent. Only then would a conjunction be possible. You can't keep the boundaries theory and at the same time speak of a conjunction. That is impossible.

2012 and beyond

A lot is being said about the 21^st of December 2012 and astrologers around the world are busy delineating the chart of that particular date. Others are saying that nothing extremely out of the ordinary is going on, while others are paying special attention to the yod aspect formed by Saturn in Scorpio, Pluto in Capricorn and Jupiter in Gemini. The truth is that no one can say that indeed something extremely rare is about to happen, because difficult planetary configurations happen all the time and the world is still here.

First of all, is the yod really an aspect? For those of you who are not familiar with the non – ptolemaic aspects, the yod is formed by two planets who are in a sextile aspect (Pluto in Capricorn, Saturn in Scorpio) and both of them are in a quincunx aspect (150o degrees) to a third planet, in this case Jupiter in Gemini. A lot has been said about the yod, but as is often the case with modern astrology, nothing has been said that can’t be interpreted the way each astrologer sees fit. To my mind, the important thing about yods, quincunxes and semi-sextiles is precisely the fact that there is no aspect. The norm is for the planets to be in aspect by sign to one another. For the Sun of course, it is quite common to be in inconjunct signs with Mercury and Venus, but we could say that the common thing is for planets to exert an influence, however slight, to every other planet in the chart.

The quincunx aspect is not rare, but yods are less common. The planet that forms the quincunx aspects has no relation with TWO other planets in the chart, regardless of the orb and taking antiscia into account. Is that a good or a bad thing? On the whole, I would say that it is preferable for planets to be in aspect - at least by sign – with each other, because confrontation brings awareness, despite the difficulties. It is debatable however, whether a planet would benefit from a confrontation with another planet in a very poor state. In the 2012 chart, Jupiter is in the sign of its detriment and retrograde. That is a nasty Jupiter and probably not a lot of fun to be around with. So, it won’t probably be able to soften the Saturn/Pluto sextile and perhaps it’s for the better.

What is also interesting in this chart is that there’s a mutual reception, not between Pluto and Saturn as modern astrologers tell us, but between Mars and Saturn, since Mars is also in Capricorn. We have, therefore, the two traditional malefics liking each other enormously and Pluto is there, joining in the fun. What’s even more interesting, is that this is a very “martial”chart. Mars himself is exalted in Capricorn, Saturn is in a Mars-ruled sign, Pluto and the Sun (winter solstice) are in the sign of Mars’ exaltation and finally the Moon and Uranus are also in a Mars-ruled sign, Aries. This is too much Mars and we all know the things Mars is associated with.

Now, is Mars a benefic or a malefic? There is a slight difference of opinion in traditional astrologers about this, mainly because there is ambivalence in the ancient texts. There are those who say that any planet can be either benefic or malefic, depending on the sign it is in. If the planet is in the sign it rules or where it is exalted, it is a benefic. In the sign of its detriment or fall, a malefic. Others, although they basically agree with the previous statement, make a distinction between Mars and Saturn, the natural malefics and the other planets, saying that a well-dignified Mars or Saturn may indeed behave well, but the things Mars and Saturn rule, even though necessary, are naturally unpleasant. So, no matter what their condition is, Mars and Saturn can never be called Fortunes.

In the 2012 chart, we have an extremely  strong Mars energy and we have a well-behaved Mars, in the sign of its exaltation. We could interpret this as things that need to be done and are necessary (Mars in exaltation), but they may not be pleasant (Mars and Saturn, the natural malefics, in mutual reception). This is not valid only for that particular day, but for the whole season, since it is the day of the winter solstice.

The most interesting thing, however, that has been said about the time period around 2012 is, I think, not what this chart for that particular date tells us, but the fact that we are living at a time that Regulus, one of the four royal fixed stars that are associated with the solstices, has or is about to move into Virgo. This is the last of the four “solstice stars” to ingress into a mutable sign, with the other three stars (Fomalhaut, Aldebaran and Antares) already being in the other three mutable signs. This means that after a very long time, all four stars are going to be in signs of the same quality. This, indeed, does imply change. Is it going to be a change for better or for worse? Frawley, in particular, is quite pessimistic about this change, saying that gradually spirituality is going to hit an all-time-low, judging from what happened when Fomalhaut, for example, moved into Pisces, which was at the time of the Enlightenment. We are now living in the Age of Reason, which, for Frawley is not enlightenment at all, but exactly the opposite thing. So, with Regulus moving into Virgo, we are going to move even further away from spirituality, marking an “End of Days” kind of situation according to the Christian tradition. Even if somebody is not quite as pessimistic as Frawley about this, one cannot escape the fact, that the mutable signs are about closing circles and returning to the Source, so, when the four solstice stars move again into cardinal signs, in 2160 years or thereabouts, there is going to be a “get rid of the old and start afresh” kind of thing. We won’t be around to witness that, but for the time being we could stay alert for signs of spiritual degradation. 

Venus in fire signs (Aries, Leo, Sagittarius)

Does Venus like fire? The answer is simple. No. Venus rules an earth sign (Taurus), an air sign (Libra) and is exalted in a water sign (Pisces). Earth is about the senses, while air and water, both being moist elements, are about connecting people, each one in its own manner. We could say that Venus, through the senses (Taurus), brings two opposites together in a relationship (Libra) which can result to the experience of love in the emotional sense (Pisces). Fire, I'm afraid, has nothing to do with all that.

Venus in Aries. This is the sign of Venus' arch-enemy, Mars. Mars represents the male view of life, to which Venus violently opposes. Mars competes, races and hates standing still. Mars sees life as a challenge and its moto is "it can be done". The Taurus self of Venus fails to see the point in all this, because there's always going to be another race, another challenge, another prize to win and this attitude prevents people from enjoying the pleasures life has to offer. For Venus, this is a waste of valuable time. Aries, however, finds the way of life Venus proposes as completely meaningless. Winning prizes is not simply fun, it is accomplishment. When you reach the end of your life, what will there be for you to show for? If the answer is nothing special, then your life was a failure. It's as simple as that.

Mars is very sexual and very passionate but doesn't understand relationships. As long as the passion lasts, everything is fine. When all of it is spent, there's no need for the relationship to continue. What on earth for? Venus is, therefore, very uncomfortable in Aries as this sign goes against everything it believes in. Women with this placement -particularly if the rest of the chart supports this testimony - very often display manly characteristics or their approach to relationships is what we would call masculine. They may show a dislike for other women when the latter ones become "too feminine" and constantly criticize them for not being honest and direct or for "playing tricks". They also accuse men of not being able to appreciate a "true woman" and cannot understand why they seem to show a preference for "silly and frivolous" women or "bimbos". They are often tomboys and dislike spending too much time in front of the mirror. The problem is - if other elements in the chart point to the opposite direction - that sometimes behind this agressiveness and apparent self-assuredness hides a feeling of inadequacy. The feeling of "I'm not woman enough", especially if other people marginalize them exactly because of this.

Venus in Leo. Leo receives a lot of bad press for being individualistic and egocentric. True, very true. When you are on the path of self-knowledge, however, there's no other way. Leo, ruled by the Sun, is the sign of self-knowledge and self-knowledge requires having yourself as your top priority. The problem with people with a heavy emphasis on the sign of Leo is that, unless they have some sort of talent to justify this self-centredness or simply be fun to hang around with, they can be extremely irritating. Relationships and other people in general are not appreciated by Leo, despite evidence to the contrary. There's often an insecurity in Leo whether or not they are on the right path. That's why they need other people, not because they actually appreciate their presence in their lives, but because if other people love them and admire them, then, yes, they are on the right path, they are doing something right.

Venus, however, is not about the self. When the self is all you care about, even when it is for all the right reasons, there's little room for anyone else. So, this is also a malfunctioning Venus. Remember, the Sun is in fall in Libra, Venus' sign. Venus in Leo can be very flirting, very likeable or even loveable, because it craves admiration from other people and does everything in its power to make the other person say: "I love you, you are the best". But that's all that it really wants.  It knows that if it gets involved in a relationship, it will have to make compromises that it is not prepared to make. The other person, however, feels betrayed because, quite naturally, mistook all this flirting for real love. This can be a very seductive Venus, but for all the wrong reasons.

Venus in Sagittarius. Out of the three fire signs, this is perhaps the best fiery Venus. Sagittarius is a sign ruled by Jupiter, which, together with Venus, are the two benefics.  They also share a common love for the sign of Pisces. Sagittarius, however, is a hot and dry sign, like all the fire signs and Venus cannot help but feel uncomfortable in it. Venus in Sagittarius views love as a learning experience. This may be true for most people as love affairs provide us with valuable lessons, but that is not the main reason we get involved with other people. Venus in Sagittarius doesn't really believe in "I want to love and be loved", but rather "Can you help me experience love?" It's like that famous Foreigner song "I wanna know what love is, I want you to show me". It's not the same as needing love. Venus in Sagittarius doesn't need love, it finds it interesting, there's a vast difference. Other people, however, object to this, because they feel they've been used.
Yes, it's passionate and exciting, after all it's a fiery Venus, and that can attract other people, but there's a restlessness in this Venus. Because love is an experience, these people want to experience everything that life as a couple can provide. It is not enough sitting on a couch and holding hands while watching TV. This is boring. The presence of a loved one is never enough. This Venus is always trying to find something new to do, but doesn't understand that this can push people away, not because they are against what this Venus proposes, but because pretty soon they begin to realize that Venus in Sagittarius rarely wants anything else.

Problems in horary - Different approaches

It is not only modern astrologers that have many differences of opinion, but traditional astrologers also have their own share. In horary astrology in particular, I have noted the following differences among the various authors:

1. Turning the chart. It seems it all depends how one views the chart. Frawley seems to treat it as the chart of the Querent and therefore turns the chart rather a lot, except in very few cases. Barbara Dunn regards the chart as belonging to the Question and avoids turning the chart as much as possible. According to her, the radical 5^th house for example, always has to do with pregnancy even if it is a third party question and also the 7^th house always has to do with relationships and should be checked, no matter which turned houses are involved.
2. Rulers of houses. Here we have three choices: The ruler of the sign on the cusp, the almuten of the degree on the cusp or a planet inside the house. Frawley is adamant and always uses the sign ruler. Lehman always checks the almuten and makes a choice between the two and Dunn favours strongly the planet inside the house, especially when the sign ruler doesn’t aspect the house in question. She also uses an intercepted sign ruler as co-significator of the house.
3. Sun and Venus in relationship questions. Frawley uses them as co-significators of the parties involved, but he seems to be the only one. Lehman doesn’t do it and Dunn, in case one of the significators is in strong Sun or Venus dignities, regards this as testimony that one of them is interested or involved with another person.
4. 10^th house and 6^th house for work. Dunn and Frawley always use the 10^th house, while Lehman is uncomfortable using the 10^th house for all professional matters, because the 10^th house is associated with Honours, Preferrment etc. and in some cases she uses the 6^th house. I think Lehman has a point. Yes, the 6^th house is the house of slavery, but what is the equivalent of slavery nowadays? A job that you hate, never wanted to do nor studied for, but have to do it for money, isn’t it quite close to slavery?
5. The “any other person” notion. Frawley uses the 7^th house for people you have no connection with, but Houlding in her houses book mentions that if the person asked about has no relation with the Querent nor is the Querent affected by them, this person should be given the 1^st house, except in cases when the Querent has a sort of emotional involvement in the Question. For example, in the Question “will the escaped murderer be caught?” the Querent feels threatened by another person (general enemy) and they should be given the 7^th house. If not, the 1^st house.
6. Outer planets. Frawley and Dunn hardly ever use them (Frawley uses them rarely and under certain circumstances), but Lehman, although of course she doesn’t use them for significators, checks the aspects they make with the primary significators.
7. The role of the Moon. Frawley and Dunn use it as co-significator of the Querent, but Dunn thinks the Moon is always important, even in third party questions. Lehman sees the Moon more as symbolizing the sequence of events.
8. Considerations before judgement. Frawley doesn’t even mention them, while Lehman and especially Dunn do and find that certain ones can be of value.