Ruler of the ascendant

Ronia

Well, even if it's not about an angle (although it is important!), if we ignore the signs, it would mean that there will be no planet on a throne, for example, as they say. There will be no highly dignified Venus in Libra, for example. I have a problem with leaving behind these dignities because I do think they matter and Venus in Libra does behave in a much more recognizable way and with much more confidence, if not power, than Venus in Virgo, for example. I do see the dignity by house too and it does matter as well, I just think both should be taken into consideration.

ravenest

I have been looking at a friends chart and trying to figure out the chart ruler and the ruler of the ascendant - and if they are the same. [My personal view, in this case, is that her ascendant ruler is not the planet that rules the sign that is positioned at the first house as she has another planet less than 1/2 a degree off the ascendant ... or both? a Moon/Mercury ruler .... ? she sure seems like that. ]

But I am a little confused about some of the statements here.

If the ascendant ruler is so important and a sign that a planet is in not that important is not the ascendant ruler dependant on what sign that is in the first house? So is it being said (by some) that a planet in a particular sign is not that important but the sign's position is?

Minderwiz

ravenest said:
I have been looking at a friends chart and trying to figure out the chart ruler and the ruler of the ascendant - and if they are the same. [My personal view, in this case, is that her ascendant ruler is not the planet that rules the sign that is positioned at the first house as she has another planet less than 1/2 a degree off the ascendant ... or both? a Moon/Mercury ruler .... ? she sure seems like that. ]

The Ascendant ruler is not necessarily the most important planet in a chart - there's a whole history of attempting to assess the 'Almuten of the chart', 'Lord of the Geniture' or 'Chart Ruler'. Planets' in the first, especially one so close to the Ascendant have to be considered (as do other angular planets). So your friend may well have two (or more) dominant planets. I have three angular planets, (Saturn conjunct the Ascendant, Moon conjunct the Descendant, and Venus conjunct the IC) not to mention Mercury in the fourth. These three seem to be more influential than my third house Sun, which rules the Ascendant, on a day to day basis. However, the Sun does set the tone of my life

ravenest said:
But I am a little confused about some of the statements here.

If the ascendant ruler is so important and a sign that a planet is in not that important is not the ascendant ruler dependant on what sign that is in the first house? So is it being said (by some) that a planet in a particular sign is not that important but the sign's position is?

I can only speak for myself here. Firstly placement by house is more important than placement by sign, when it comes to reading a chart. That doesn't mean that signs are unimportant, or can be ignored entirely. I use the sign placement to judge how strong a planet is 'in itself' that is the ease or otherwise with which it will influence the area of life associated with its house placement. Leave the house positions and indeed the degree positions of my planets as the are, but revolve it half a revolution and I'd have two planets in rulership and another in exaltation - life would be much easier, and I'd have a better chance of realising my potential.

So yes the Ascendant ruler is defined by what sign the Ascendant falls in - by definition - and it is important, for good or ill. You can also, if you wish, look to see if one planet stands out in a chart (not necessarily the Ascendant ruler) and call that planet the 'chart ruler'. There's no agreed way of doing that, 2000 years of history has seen quite a few variations on the calculation but it can be useful. In fact I think we once had a thread on it sometime back.

ravenest

Minderwiz said:
T.

So yes the Ascendant ruler is defined by what sign the Ascendant falls in - by definition - and it is important, for good or ill. You can also, if you wish, look to see if one planet stands out in a chart (not necessarily the Ascendant ruler) and call that planet the 'chart ruler'. There's no agreed way of doing that, 2000 years of history has seen quite a few variations on the calculation but it can be useful. In fact I think we once had a thread on it sometime back.

Thanks M. I am currently seeing if what I think is the chart ruler (and taking into account what you say about aspects to it etc ) has a relationship to the general theme of the chart. If they all agree (and I can see that ruler's dynamic throughout the theme) then I will feel more strongly what the ruler is. No hard amd fast rules ... just using the hard and fast rules to look at their interplay within an individuals chart ... as I think a RESULT can not be hard fast or simple (although sometimes it does appear that way ... but this person is not a 'simple' person - rather 'pleasantly cvomplex'.

Minderwiz

ravenest said:
Thanks M. I am currently seeing if what I think is the chart ruler (and taking into account what you say about aspects to it etc ) has a relationship to the general theme of the chart. If they all agree (and I can see that ruler's dynamic throughout the theme) then I will feel more strongly what the ruler is. No hard amd fast rules ... just using the hard and fast rules to look at their interplay within an individuals chart ... as I think a RESULT can not be hard fast or simple (although sometimes it does appear that way ... but this person is not a 'simple' person - rather 'pleasantly complex'.

That looks a good approach, let me know if you want any more info or suggestions

MaineGirl117

Minderwiz said:
The Ascendant ruler is not necessarily the most important planet in a chart - there's a whole history of attempting to assess the 'Almuten of the chart', 'Lord of the Geniture' or 'Chart Ruler'. Planets' in the first, especially one so close to the Ascendant have to be considered (as do other angular planets). So your friend may well have two (or more) dominant planets. I have three angular planets, (Saturn conjunct the Ascendant, Moon conjunct the Descendant, and Venus conjunct the IC) not to mention Mercury in the fourth. These three seem to be more influential than my third house Sun, which rules the Ascendant, on a day to day basis. However, the Sun does set the tone of my life

I can only speak for myself here. Firstly placement by house is more important than placement by sign, when it comes to reading a chart. That doesn't mean that signs are unimportant, or can be ignored entirely. I use the sign placement to judge how strong a planet is 'in itself' that is the ease or otherwise with which it will influence the area of life associated with its house placement. Leave the house positions and indeed the degree positions of my planets as the are, but revolve it half a revolution and I'd have two planets in rulership and another in exaltation - life would be much easier, and I'd have a better chance of realising my potential.

So yes the Ascendant ruler is defined by what sign the Ascendant falls in - by definition - and it is important, for good or ill. You can also, if you wish, look to see if one planet stands out in a chart (not necessarily the Ascendant ruler) and call that planet the 'chart ruler'. There's no agreed way of doing that, 2000 years of history has seen quite a few variations on the calculation but it can be useful. In fact I think we once had a thread on it sometime back.

Hi M

Would you say though, that if the ruler of your Ascendant is in the 1st House, that it will rule the rest of the chart? Even more so than the Sun? I have Ascendant Aries, with Mercury, Mars, Sun, Venus & Chiron all in the 1st house in the sign of Taurus. Chiron is the outlier, but all other planets are conjunct the Sun. Mars and Venus are far enough apart they are not conjunct.

Minderwiz

MaineGirl117 said:
Hi M

Would you say though, that if the ruler of your Ascendant is in the 1st House, that it will rule the rest of the chart? Even more so than the Sun? I have Ascendant Aries, with Mercury, Mars, Sun, Venus & Chiron all in the 1st house in the sign of Taurus. Chiron is the outlier, but all other planets are conjunct the Sun. Mars and Venus are far enough apart they are not conjunct.

It is likely to do so but it's still necessary to do a check on other possible candidates. If your stellium had been in Aries rather than Taurus, Sun and Mars would both be contenders, as the Sun is exalted in Aries. However looking at your description Venus is a possibility and I'd want to do a little analysis before plumping for Mars as 'chart ruler' rather than just Ascendant ruler but Mars is there to be displaced, there has to be some strong evidence for Venus to take it over Mars. At the moment I can see the obvious that Venus rules Taurus and is in dignity, whereas Mars is in Detriment and Venus rules Mars. But I don't know which is closer to the Ascendant, (I'm guessing from your description that the Sun lies between them) or the situation with aspects. Also conjunctions with the Sun are not usually seen as 'good' in a traditional approach because the planet is obscured by the Sun, even at night - it doesn't rise, as far as the observer is concerned.

I must freely admit a couple of things here. Firstly I don't use chart rulers that much - there are some charts in which a planet does stand out and in those cases I will give it special importance but I usually give weight to the Ascendant ruler, Sun, Moon and Ascendant sign (plus any planets in the first and those aspecting Ascendant, Sun and Moon).

Secondly my views on 'angularity' are changing a little. Until recently I used two criteria, being in the same sign as the Ascendant (or other angle) and being within 15 degrees of it if it's in the house, or within 5 degrees of it if it's in the adjacent house and the same sign. Being in the succeeding sign (such as Taurus to Aries) would have reduced it's angularity as far as I was concerned (but not as far as Dave was concerned).

Recently I've been toying with Hellenistic Astrology and in the later stages of that period they seemed to use two house systems in parallel. Whole Sign houses to look at the 'topics' or areas of life (topical houses) and a quadrant system (Porphyry or Alcabitus) to look at the strength of a planet's placement. The latter does not necessarily place any emphasis on being in the same sign as the Ascendant. This latter approach is much more like Dave's in terms of assessing the planets but when it comes to house topics, they would treat both your Taurus stellium as being second house.

They also had a number of other criteria in deciding whether a planet was the 'chart ruler' and I've begun to explore those.

That's something of a long way of saying that from your description, I'm not sure, but if Mars is nearer the Ascendant than Venus it is more likely to come out on top.

MaineGirl117

Minderwiz said:
It is likely to do so but it's still necessary to do a check on other possible candidates. If your stellium had been in Aries rather than Taurus, Sun and Mars would both be contenders, as the Sun is exalted in Aries. However looking at your description Venus is a possibility and I'd want to do a little analysis before plumping for Mars as 'chart ruler' rather than just Ascendant ruler but Mars is there to be displaced, there has to be some strong evidence for Venus to take it over Mars. At the moment I can see the obvious that Venus rules Taurus and is in dignity, whereas Mars is in Detriment and Venus rules Mars. But I don't know which is closer to the Ascendant, (I'm guessing from your description that the Sun lies between them) or the situation with aspects. Also conjunctions with the Sun are not usually seen as 'good' in a traditional approach because the planet is obscured by the Sun, even at night - it doesn't rise, as far as the observer is concerned.

I must freely admit a couple of things here. Firstly I don't use chart rulers that much - there are some charts in which a planet does stand out and in those cases I will give it special importance but I usually give weight to the Ascendant ruler, Sun, Moon and Ascendant sign (plus any planets in the first and those aspecting Ascendant, Sun and Moon).

Secondly my views on 'angularity' are changing a little. Until recently I used two criteria, being in the same sign as the Ascendant (or other angle) and being within 15 degrees of it if it's in the house, or within 5 degrees of it if it's in the adjacent house and the same sign. Being in the succeeding sign (such as Taurus to Aries) would have reduced it's angularity as far as I was concerned (but not as far as Dave was concerned).

Recently I've been toying with Hellenistic Astrology and in the later stages of that period they seemed to use two house systems in parallel. Whole Sign houses to look at the 'topics' or areas of life (topical houses) and a quadrant system (Porphyry or Alcabitus) to look at the strength of a planet's placement. The latter does not necessarily place any emphasis on being in the same sign as the Ascendant. This latter approach is much more like Dave's in terms of assessing the planets but when it comes to house topics, they would treat both your Taurus stellium as being second house.

They also had a number of other criteria in deciding whether a planet was the 'chart ruler' and I've begun to explore those.

That's something of a long way of saying that from your description, I'm not sure, but if Mars is nearer the Ascendant than Venus it is more likely to come out on top.

Thanks for the info M! Here are the degrees of the planets:

Sun 9°05' Taurus
Mercury 11°14' Taurus
Venus 14°50' Taurus
Mars 3°09' Taurus

I had a reading recently that caused me to pause and reflect on Mars' activity in my life. I know that Mars takes two years to transit through the signs, and noticed a pattern in my life that repeats itself every two years. Seems I uproot myself and move or make huge strides and changes in my life bi-annually (interesting too, that it's always in the Spring). Would that be evidence to Mars being ruler, or is that Mars just doing it's *thing*?

What would I be looking for if Venus came out on top?

frac_ture

I hope it's not rude of me to piggyback in on MaineGirl117's question, but it provides the perfect opportunity for me to ask a question that I've been grappling with as I try to make the trek from "beginning astrologer" to "intermediate" level... Here it is:

As she's detailed for us, she has a stellium in Taurus. The Sun and Mercury lie in the middle of the cluster, and then Venus and Mars are located to either side of them. The latter two planets are each conjunct the inner two (the Sun and Mercury), but are nearly 12 degrees apart from each other, and therefore technically not conjunct each other. My question, though, is whether they would be attributed conjunct status by virtue of having those other two bodies between them to which they are both conjunct? Does this all count as a true stellium even though every planet involved isn't conjunct every other planet involved if we use a strict ten-degree orb (assuming that's the proper orb to be using...?)? And should her chart be interpreted such that Venus and Mars are deemed sort of "effectively conjunct?" I ask because I have something similar happening in my own chart and in the charts of a few other people I'm trying to interpret. Thank you for any feedback -- sorry for any hijacking here!

MaineGirl117

frac_ture:

Don't mind at all. Here is the list of conjunctions provided me by the chart:

Sun Conjunction Mercury Orb 2°08'
Mercury Conjunction Venus Orb 3°35'
Sun Conjunction Venus Orb 5°44'
Sun Conjunction Mars Orb 5°56'
Mercury Conjunction Mars Orb 8°04'

It does not say that Venus conjuncts Mars by virtue of the other planets. Perhaps M can tell us more??

Ermm.. perhaps a new thread should be made for stelliums??

Ruler of the ascendant

Ronia

ravenest

Minderwiz

ravenest

Minderwiz

MaineGirl117

Minderwiz

MaineGirl117

frac_ture

MaineGirl117