16
Tom wrote:

Caveat for Obama fans. Lilly does not count Fomalhaut as a Royal star for these purposes. Morin does. There are four Royal stars of Persia, Regulus, Antares, Aldebaran, and Fomalhaut.
Tom



Hi Tom:
Obama doesn't have Fomalhaut. Is that a typo? He does have Rigel Kentaurus on his midheaven. Is that one of the Royal stars?

Janus' fixed star editor states of that placement:
Janus fixed stars editor wrote: Midheaven conjunct Rigel Kentaurus 0?07'
Rigel Kentaurus, in Centaurus, is the "foot of the centaur," sometimes called Toliman, "grapevine shoot." It has also been referred to as Bungula. It can give rise to spoiled relationships with the female sex. Well placed, it can help to gain a position of honour and power.
I haven't finished yet with a comparison of McCain's two birth times, but I too am suspicious of the 6:25 PM time even with the evidence the other poster had published. As I said, my father's birth certificate even had the wrong day! So that is not always reliable.

With the two huge events for 1967, there is nothing I've found so far in McCain's chart for that time that points to those tragedies. The minor tragedies I've experienced in my own life were clearly marked and predictable. They were but a bump on a gnat's behind compared to McCain's!


RC

17
Hi RC,
He does have Rigel Kentaurus on his midheaven. Is that one of the Royal stars?
No its not one of the four royal stars. However, any bright fixed star on the MC could be highly significant. Rigel Kentaurus is, as I stated previously, the third brightest star in the sky and of the nature of Venus and Jupiter according to Ptolemy. Its integrally tied into the myth of Chiron.

Take some time to read this article by Deb Houlding on the constellation of Centaurus to get a better understanding of the star:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/centaur.html

Regarding the bright fixed stars William Lilly states:
The Fixed stars give great gifts, and elevate even from poverty to extreme height of fortune, the seven planets do not do so??
William Lilly, Christian Astrology, 1647; p.621

18
.
Rigel Kentaurus on BO's MC may have been one of the contributors to his great success so far. After all, he went from a state senator who most people didn't know to winner of the nomination as first black to do so and is bigger than any rock star right now, world wide. I don't know anything about royal stars.

BUT....

I still do not see how, Uranus in detriment entering the MC degree, 28' this year in a strong Square from the 7th is going to cinch the election for him. Its a nasty malefic, in detriment and a square aspect. Squares aren't always bad, I know. They bring about things through greater effort, etc. But when it is a malefic involved coming from a bad placement ...

The only thing that may make this different is the fact that Uranus is his co-Ruler.

RC

19
I observed, from the way you speak and deliberate your sides of opinion and prediction about this election, you guys are already affected by politics and seems not healthy as a discussion with the correct absoluteness of the charts representation. Its quite apparent that you have you're own personal sides or party and thus linked to what your prediction and interprewtation of the chart.

20
Hi guys,

Sorry I haven't been able to read all this much less respond. I hope I'll be able to do so later tonight.

But, the "rules" I used are not mine, they are outlined in CA beginning on page 615. The stars he uses are listed. I believe there are 5. While any astrologer is free to use anything he or she wishes, I stuck to the ones Lilly cited and I also mentioned that Morin, in addition to using Lilly's also uses Fomalhaut. Your choice.

I don't have the charts in front of and could easily have been mistaken about Obama and Fomalhaut (or anything else). I wrote that in a hurry.

Tom

21
Tom :

Do you have the link showing McCain's rectification ?

RC
It was done by Dr. H and I believe it can be found on his website in the members section:

http://www.regulus-astrology.com/



Hi Tom:
Obama doesn't have Fomalhaut.
Fomalhaut is in early Pisces, and I think I had the wrong chart in mind when I wrote that. It's probably just a brain misfire on my part. I'm on the road and don't have the necessary data. The other possibility is that it shows up in a return, and I just transplanted it. Sorry for the error.

Actually that is a long held astrological myth.
It may well be, but it doesn't change anything. The method either works or it doesn't. The status or lack of is irrelevant.
For anyone interested in looking at this using traditional methods here is an article from Maria Mateus which compares the prospects of the Presidential candidates using the techniques of hellenistic astrology (Ptolemy), Arabic ( Abu Ali Al Khayyat), and 17th century ( Wlliam Lilly).
She doesn't specfically predict an Obama win but McCain doesn't seem to have much of a chance using any of the methods discussed by Mateus.
And this highlights the problem as I first presented it when I wrote:
That being said this is astrology so we can be pretty sure that there is more than one way to determine such elevation. I know of two: one is the so-called "releasing of spirit" used by Hellenists (that I will leave to others), and then there is the method outlined by Lilly and Morin using prominent fixed stars.
So let's regroup and instead of looking at technique look at the theory that is behind the technique or more correctly, behind all the techniques. The nativity must show (somehow) that the native is destined for bigger things. What is going on here is the emphasis of the "somehow" at the expense of the theory. Now theory is useless without practice, but in order to understand the astrology we need to understand the theory.

If it is not "promised" in the chart, it isn't going to happen. If this were not true, then all we would need to do is to master electional astrology and make our life any way we feel like having it, just by showing up at the right place at the right time. But even having it "promised (I prefer the word "potential")" in the chart isn't a guarantee it will happen. Other developmental factors have to be in place at the right time. If there is nothing in the primary directions or returns that indicate an elevation, then it doesn't matter where the stars or or the spirit is released. There will be no elevation.

So the method I mentioned is one whereby the promise or potential is shown by the placement of certain fixed stars. If we stick to the method, then we don't use any other stars no matter what kind of glory we think they indicate. If we do permit other stars we are out of one method and into another. This is fine, we just need to be clear about it.

The differences in results between the 9:00 am birth time and the 9:06:40 birth time for McCain are minimal when it comes to the stars, but the 6 minutes and 40 seconds change the hit dates of the directions significantly. We need only imagine the difference between that and the 6:25 PM birth time.

The 6 minutes does little to change anything with solar and lunar returns, but the 6:25 PM time changes those radically.

The situation is similar with Obama. The 7:24 and 7:54 times do nothing in terms of the positions of the stars, but they would have an effect on returns and directions.

So using the rules as set out by Lilly and Morin, I concluded that Obama does not have the requisite "Royal Chart" and if either 9:00 AM or 9:06 AM are correct, McCain does albeit barely. If the 6:25 PM chart is correct, McCain still has a Royal star on the MC. So he has the edge in charts.

If the times are wrong or the method really stinks, then none of the above matters. But regardless of whether or not the method is wrong, I think the theory is correct. The elevation to high office should be in the natal chart somewhere, and it needs to be triggered somehow. It will take quite a bit of work to determine a usually reliable method. A good starting point might be to take Dr. H's data and look to see how many of the American Presidents have "Royal" charts or had their spirits released zodiacally when elected. I'm sure it isn't 100%.

Tom

Winner of the Nov 4th Election

22
Note: All subsequent charts for Biden, McCain and Palin have been progressed to the equivalent of Nov 5, 8:30 am, CST. All measurements are made in right ascension (the true body position of the planets and of course the way in which horoscope chart angles are always measured).

OBAMA

Nov 5, 8:30 am, CST for Obama.

Using the 7:24 pm birth chart:

Obama's natal ascendant in Honolulu has a right ascension of 320?30'. His progressed Moon at 4:30 am, Nov 5, 2008 AHST, (8:30 AM, CST) will be at 318?29'. Transit Jup/Ura midpoint will be at 319?37'.

Obama's precession corrected anlunar located to Chicago (where he will probably be election day and the day after) begins Oct 26 at 0:49:18, CST. The right ascension of the MC being 049?42'.

At 8:30 am, Nov 5, transit Jupiter will be at 289?04', trine the MC. The W.Pt (90 degrees from the MC in right ascension) of the anlunar is 319?42'. Transit Jupiter/Uranus midpoint will be 319?37'. The Zenith of the anlunar is 060?40'. Transit Sun/Venus midpoint will be on the Nadir at 060?57'.

From the progression of this anlunar it appears that he may not receive a concession call from his opponent until the morning of Nov 5th.

Progressing the anlunar to Nov 5 at:

8:30 am CST, yields RAMC of 179?00'.
His progressed Sun will be 178?23'.
His progressed Jupiter will be at 299?32', trine prog Sun and the progressed anlunar MC.

E.Pt 269?00'. Anlunar Pluto 269?02'

10:00 am CST, RAMC of 179?45'.
Anlunar Venus rises at 179?46'.

11:30 am CST, RAMC of 180?30'.
Prog anlunar Venus rises at 180?19'. Anlunar Moon on MC at 180?31'.

Relocating the The 8:30 am, CST progressed anlunar to Honolulu yields a RAMC of 108?47' on the MC. Transit Jupiter is on the IC at 109?04'. Natal Merc/Ven on the MC at 108?24'.

All in all, not connections to the angles I would expect to see in the chart of a loser.

**********************************************************************************

BIDEN

Progressing Joe Biden's 2008 demi-solar anlunar to 9:30 am, EST on Nov 5th yields a RAMC of 17?56' making the E. Pt. 107?56'. Anlunar Jupiter is opposite at 107?58', PAL Jupiter at 108?01', transit Jupiter at 109?04' and secondary progressed Jupiter conjunct at 109?54'.

**********************************************************************************

MCCAIN

On Nov 5th at 7:30 am, MST, (equivalent to 8:30 am, CST) McCain's progressed anlunar will have 73?03' as RAMC. His secondary progressed Saturn will be on the Descendant at 72?30'. His natal Neptune rises when the RAMC IS 73?09'. Following that the progressing angles of the anlunar (all of them - MC, Asc, E.PT or their opposites) will sweep various combinations of natal, progressed, and transiting Saturn and/or Neptune throughout the rest of the day.

All in all, not connections to the angles I would expect to see in the chart of a winner.

***********************************************************************************

PALIN

Mrs Palin has the transit of Saturn to progressed and natal Pluto coming up prior to and on election day. Saturn will conjunct her progressed Pluto (in right ascension remember) on Oct 25 and will join with natal Pluto on NOV 3!

On Nov 5 at 5:30 am YST, (equivalent to 8:30 am, CST) her secondary progressed Nadir will be 333?32', her secondary progressed Saturn will be at 332?53'.

Looking at her 2008 demi-solar anlunar for election day, it will have a W. Pt. of 227?04'. Her secondary progressed Neptune and midpoint of transiting Sun/Mars, both at 225?31' would have been swept by the progressed anlunar W. Pt. a little more than 3 hours earlier.

If she votes in Wasilla early on Nov 4 then flys to Sedona, AZ the anlunar commences at 8:45:12 pm, MST, and has an IC of 169?17. Her secondary progressed Pluto will be at 169?28'. Return Saturn will be at 170?37' and natal Pluto at 170?31. At 11:15 pm, MST (0:15 am CST on Nov 5) the IC will be 170?33'.

***********************************************************************************

ADDENDUM

The conjunction with her progressed Pluto on Oct 25 may have fallout which affects McCain as Saturn will conjoin his progressed Neptune on Oct 27 and 28, just a week before the election.

Perhaps his progressed Venus plays a part in this as it will be at 260?34' on Oct 25. 260?34' - 90? = 170?34'. Transit Saturn will finish the day at 169?43', less than 1? in an applying square. On Nov 5 at 7:30 am, MST that orb will be 0?29'.

Bob

23
Birth data used in my previous post:

Barak Obama
Aug 4, 1961
7:24 pm, AHST (Birth Certificate)
Honolulu, HI

Joe Biden
Nov 20, 1942
8:30 am, EWT Rodden rating: A. (Marion March quotes Celeste Longacre who says he
told her.)
Source: ADb
Scranton, PA

John McCain
Aug 29, 1936
6:25 pm, EST (Birth Certificate)
Colon, Panama

Sarah Palin
Feb 11, 1964
9:18 am, PST (My rectification)
Sandpoint, ID

Bob

24
I am pretty much convinced that the 9AM time for McCain is the correct chart, NOT the 6:25PM that someone put out.

Looking at his chart with the Soltice Points and the progressed year of 1967, all confirm this for me. Just for one point, his Mars soltice point for his progressed year, counting forward in the ephemeris, puts it exact on his 7th of war, opposing his Asc. There are many other aspects there too, all at 17'.

There is nothing that stands out in the 6:25PM time.

Also, his ruler in the 9 AM chart is Venus, which is in mutual reception with his 12th ruler, allowing him to get out of what troubles he got into - that year as a POW which he was finally able to get out of 5 years later when many would have died from the injuries and experiences.

There is nothing unique about the 6:25 PM chart which gives him Pisces rising.

Also, the 9 AM natal, puts the moon in this 4th house. Growing up, they constantly moved and he was never longer than a couple of years in any location. Arizona is the first permanent home he has had and even there, he commutes back and forth to DC and has several other homes.

RC

25
Hello Tom
So using the rules as set out by Lilly and Morin, I concluded that Obama does not have the requisite "Royal Chart" and if either 9:00 AM or 9:06 AM are correct, McCain does albeit barely. If the 6:25 PM chart is correct, McCain still has a Royal star on the MC. So he has the edge in charts.
Taking a strictly pedantic line on this you are of course correct. However, as I already pointed out this star was invisible in Europe by the middle ages due to the effects of precession. Lilly and Morin may not have even been aware of its existence. Ptolemy however certainly was. I find it strange you wish to exclude the 3rd brightest star in the sky simply because it doesn't make Lilly or Morin's shortlist. I'm sure if Lilly or Morin had been working with charts from Hawaii (what a thought!) they would have worked with any bright stars that could be observed in their location. I therefore, agree more with the approach suggested by Maria Mateus in her article which applies the spirit rather than the letter of Lilly's approach to fixed stars.

Having said that there there are serious objections to assuming Rigel Kentaurus is on Obama's Midheaven. This brings out a major difficulty with the approach of both Lilly and Morin.

Firstly, this star is way outside the ecliptic ( 42.35 degrees south) so its actual position in the sky in Hawaii would not relate to where it can be projected on to the zodiac. Using the zodiacal projection method the star is at 28 Scorpio for all of planet earth that day. However, in reality, the same star rises at different zodiacal degrees depending on ones location on earth. This effect is more pronounced the further a star is outside the ecliptic. Thus the further a star is outside the ecliptic the less reliable projecting its position on to the zodiac is. Rigel Kentaurus is a classic case in point. Other examples are Sirius, Canopus, Algol, Altair, Arcturus, Deneb, and Vega. Medieval and 17th century astrologers like Lilly and Morin seem to have totally ignored this problem. In this respect at least some of the hellenistic astrologers were more sophisticated in their use of fixed stars.

A further specific objection is that the declination of this star ( -61 south of the celestial equator) ) means it can only be seen up to a maximum latitude of 29 North. At a latitude of 21.18 North, Honolulu is close to the visual limit of this star. The culmination of this star in Honolulu would never have reached the midheaven point in that location. In fact from that location the visual arc of the star would barely have risen above the horizon before sinking down again. The idea that the star Rigel Kentaurus was on Obama's Midheaven at his time of birth is therefore purely symbolic and has absolutely no basis in reality.

Unfortunately, I cannot check for the in mundo position of stars in either Obama or McCain's chart right now as my laptop is down. It is these kind of star connections that the ancients would have looked for to demonstrate eminence. I suspect Obama has something powerful going on in terms of fixed stars in mundo at his time/place of birth.

Actually that is a long held astrological myth.
It may well be, but it doesn't change anything. The method either works or it doesn't. The status or lack of is irrelevant.
Fair enough if you want to take a pragmatic approach. Although if pragmatism is our only guide I would question the special status given to Regulus, Aldebaran, Antares and especially Fomalhaut. I was simply pointing out your reference to these four stars as 'the royal stars of Persia' is incorrect. Many astrologers seek to give these stars an ancient astrological status by emphasiing the antiquity of the Persian link. In reality though there is considerable academic ambiguity on this. Nevertheless, it seems clear Sirius was in reality one of the actual stars given special status by the ancient Persians.

Still, the Roman writer Firmicus ( 4th century CE) certainly does introduce the idea of these four stars (Aldebaran, Regulus, Antares and Fomalhaut) as 'royal'. One possible explanation is that at least three of these stars (Regulus, Aldebaran, and Antares) are amongst the brightest fixed stars close to the ecliptic. Fomalhaut is an oddity as it is so far south of the ecliptic. However, it seems the 'royal stars' proposed by Firmicus were also linked in the fixed signs ie Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius.

Nevertheless in terms of brightness and proximity to the ecliptic Spica is a clear candidate for any shortlist of important fixed stars. Its brighter than either Regulus or Fomalhaut and right on the ecliptic. I have noticed it has a marked effect in any chart it occurs in prominently. So I do not accept the idea that a star needs the title of 'royal' to raise a person up to a position of fame and prominence. Spica manages to be an extremely powerful star without the title of 'royal star'.

The problem with stars way outside the ecliptic like Fomalhaut and Rigel Kentaurus is that projecting their position on to the zodiac is too simplistic. We really need to study their in mundo position relative to the location of a chart.

I accept there is less astrological lore connected to Rigel Kentaurus than some other bright stars but that is because the ancient Greeks could hardly see it from their latitude in Europe. This 1st magnitude, white and yellow star is after all the closest star system to the Earth, beaten in brilliance only by Sirius and Canopus. Its radiance drew particular attention from the ancient Egyptians, who aligned many temples with it around the 3rd millennium BC.
" - known to the Egyptians as Serk-t, its heliacal rising at the autumnal equinox was a basis for the orientation of at least nine temples in northern Egypt dating from 3800 to 2575 B.C., and of several in southern Egypt from 3700 B.C. onward."
R.H. Allen, Star Names: their Lore and Meaning, Dover Publications 1899, p.153.

26
Hi Mark,

We're obviously approaching this from entirely different viewpoints and that's fine. Astrologers have been doing this for eons and will continue to do this and we hope it results in the improvement of our art.

You point that the star is bright and obvious is well taken, but I'm not sure that is sufficient to overturn practice. In fact as Lee Lehman noted, astrology had pretty much gone indoors by Ptolemy's day. I admit I have a problem with the approach that what we can see trumps what we can't. This permits astrologers to move in and outdoors as they see fit and the moment suits. I see this with things like combustion, and whether or not aspects work across sign lines etc. If we believe that visual astrology is the way to go, then by all means go that way. But if we look at astrology more philosophically than astronomically, it is not necessarily a shortcoming.

Lilly was not an innovator or a philosopher. He was a pragmatist and although I'm sure the presence of a new bright star in the sky would have interested him and perhaps motivated him to watch it, I don't know that he would have incorporated it like moderns incorporate every piece of space dust they find mentioned in the NY Times. This is of course only my opinion and in matters like this, our opinions are all we have.

Morin is a different case, but again he was not the Dane Rudyhar or Marc Edmund Jones of the 17th century. He took Ptolemy and others and approached them differently or explained them in such a way that astrology would fit in the mid 17th century mindset, i.e. the mind set that was turning to what would become the Enlightenment. Again, like Lilly I can't imagine Morin throwing out the baby with the bathwater because he spotted a new star.

The method mentioned by both Lilly and Morin is not original with them. I cited Lilly because lots of people on this list own CA and can check it out for themselves. I doubt many own the requisite Morin text, so I didn't look that up. The method was, in the minds Lilly and Morin tested and true. Whether it was so or is so is another matter. Following Lilly and Morin then is to follow a particular tradition. It is not pedantic. This particular forum is not limited to traditional astrology and the traditional forum is not limited to a single tradition, but traditional outlook has some merit or else it would have been abandoned by now and we would all be gasping over Eris since the Chiron swoon has passed.

The three "Royal" stars being close to the ecliptic and used in such judgments has, as you pointed out, a long history. I never claimed their use is infallible. I happen to believe that nothing in astrology "works" all the time, and what does work, sometimes works in ways we don't expect.

I am travelling and don't have references with me, but I did a quick check on available charts (not many) of Presidents and royal stars. First off we don't have too much in the way of drop dead certain data for Presidents, so that makes things difficult, so I veered off and I will mention, without claiming omniscience, a few things.

JFK had the Sun on Aldebaran. Robert Kennedy and Ted Kennedy do not have prominent Royal Stars. JFK jr did have such a chart, but tragically died young and never seemed too interested in politics to begin with.

Both Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, born at near opposite ends of the social spectrum, have such Royal charts. From here we would have to see what if anything activated those charts in such a way to elevate or prevent elevation as in JFK jr's case.

Person's born without such charts probably gain high office, but I wonder and only wonder I haven't checked, if they accomplish much once they get there or if they stay there long. It would be interesting to have accurate birth data for President William Henry Harrison (died about 30 days after taking office) or Pope John Paul I (ditto).

And it is also true that there are lots of Royal charts out there that do not obtain high office as is the case with your not-so-often humble writer.

Tom

27
A fascinating discussion.

I had forecast the re-election of GWB four years ago and wrote at the time that I doubted a Democrat would be elected President until at least 2012. I hope to be proved wrong because I worship the dust of Obama's lotus feet. Astrologers are divided on the matter (so what else is new?) and although I would love to see Obama elected and take great hope from the techniques outlined by Maria Mateus, I'm not entirely convinced that it's a done deal yet.