If you look at the link to the astrologers who were wrong, you'll find one that used the George Washington chart.
There is such a thing?
Dang- I was almost interested in delving more deeply.
Astrology seems like such an exclusive club to be in.
I think the whole point of the Constitution is that the country can't be personified by one man (or woman). There is insitutionalised Separation of Powers, and the Legislature meeting is just as significant, for the birth of the Constitution as the President taking the oath. Which he would have to have done before 12:00 as he needed to be in office when his term began at noon.
Ah well, that's a different perspective from how I was looking at it. I was looking at it as the country acquiring it's final "piece" (a man) to birth it's political system into "new"/"ready"/"full" action.
If you want to restrict it to the Presidency alone, then your suggested time is fair enough. Indeed we might take later Amendments, which affect the Presidency and his/her Term of Office. From memory, I think the most recent is the twenty fifth, but the twelfth brought in the Electoral College and the modern system of election; The twentieth changed the date to January 20th both of which are relevant to the outcome of this election and Trump's inauguration (assuming he's not impeached beforehand).
Well, I wasn't restricting it to the presidency alone though, so I wouldn't look at it through that perspective. I guess, I would call it a point of reference for the birth of politics rather, and though I might use this president's inauguration as another point of reference between then and now, the men (or woman) would not be my focus, but how things are affecting that position.
Again I'm not saying that these are better dates, but simply that with countries the analogy with the Natal Astrology moment of birth tends to break down
Barleywine mentions an astrologer got it wrong with a "George Washington" chart -- I bet either of you two could do it better. My inclination without looking at any link is that particular astrologer messed up somewhere else. Does it not make sense that "everything" (at the time) would be in place for a birth in politics with the first president's inauguration?
Additionally, George Washington was an "Independent" and it was during his time that the political parties divided, which is pretty significant to this particular election with Republicans in such strong power across the board at the moment. It
should make for an easier astrological read (I would think) with these known 'controls'. I mean, it's known over time how the presidents have changed and when, so that seems like a given that would be easy to read against by other influences.
Ah well... I don't know what I'm talking about.