Wednesday, January 07, 2015

A Hillary Clinton Experiment

A little two-way experimentation today with the natal chart of a woman who (if her husband's association with Jeffrey Epstein doesn't pull the rug from under) could be in the running to be the next president of the USA: Hillary Clinton. There's a question mark over her time of birth: 8 am-ish, 8 pm-ish - or perhaps neither?

Hillary Clinton was born on 26 October, 1947, Chicago, Illinois. Charts below, show her natal planetary positions according to both tropical and sidereal zodiacs, using 8:02 am birth time (as does I realise that there are many differences between sidereal and tropical astrology, as used by professional astrologers, but interpretation of the signs remains similar for both zodiacs, as far as I know.



Did I ever see Hillary Clinton as a (tropical) quadruple Scorpio? Not really. Sidereally Ms Clinton would have three planets and ascendant in Libra instead of Scorpio, and Jupiter in Scorpio rather than Sagittarius. Her Saturn, Pluto and Mars in tropical Leo would be in Cancer sidereally. Tropical Pisces Moon becomes Aquarius Moon sidereally.

I like that sidereal Aquarius Moon for her, better than tropical Pisces - but the softness of a Pisces Moon is transferred to the stellium in Cancer - Saturn, Pluto and Mars - three planets with hard reputations. Were this a male's natal chart I'd say the tropical Leo positions fit better. As it is the chart of a female, albeit a female in the spotlight of the public stage, I think the planets in Cancer, softened slightly, may be appropriate. Hillary Clinton can hold her own with the most determined male politician, but her experience as a mother and a daughter has to provide a very different base from that of her male colleagues. I understand that in her past career she has often championed children, and the underprivileged. She fought to improve the health care system in the USA some years ago, long before many politicians saw it as being an important issue. There has to be a deep-seated compassion there, well-hidden by a tough exterior.

Sidereal Libra Sun, ascendant, Mercury and Venus replace the passionate, sexy tropical Scorpio planets. Jupiter in sidereal Scorpio retains passion and determination, but Libra the diplomat takes center stage. Some say that Libra can be a flip-flop, indecisive sign. Hillary Clinton appears to be very decisive, and one who can think on her feet when under attack, but she always remains cool and diplomatic. Aquarius Moon trines Mercury/Venus in Libra, indicating an easy, sharp intelligence, and quick-thinking mind. Whilst not the epitome of charm, as in textbook Libra, she appears to be well-liked by many politicians (of both stripes) who know her personally.

As mere onlookers of her performance on the public stage, we cannot hope to know what kind of a woman she really is in private. I suspect, though, that predominant Libra may be a closer match for her than predominant Scorpio. Would quadruple Scorpio have stayed with a spouse after being famously and publicly humiliated? I'm not sure. Would quadruple Libra? Scorpio is a Fixed sign, and as such would embrace and value loyalty, one's own as well as that of others. Cardinal Libra's tact, taste and diplomacy might want to hold things together for the sake of appearances - and best not forget that Venus, planet of love, is ruler of Libra!

There's food for thought here, not necessarily about Ms Clinton in particular, but about the relative accuracy of the two zodiacs when interpreting a natal chart.

It's easier to make a comparison of the two zodiacs using a chart like Ms Clinton's with heavy emphasis on one sign. Using my own "splashy" chart it's not easy to differentiate, because though some planets move sign, general emphasis on signs remain much the same (through alternative planets).

Image, right, illustrates the difference of roughly 23 degrees, due to precession of the equinoxes, between the sidereal and tropical zodiacs. Click on the image for a sharper version.

(NOTE: In case I've given the impression of being a Clinton fan: if Hillary enters 2016's campaign for the US presidency, and becomes the Democratic nominee, I'll be disappointed, and reluctant to vote for her. Not that my vote, in this reddest of red states Oklahoma, makes one jot or tittle of difference!)


mike said...

Hillary is who she is, regardless of sidereal or tropical placements ("a rose by any other name..."). I buy-in to the tropical makes more sense to me from a seasonal perspective and aligning Aries with the equinox. There is allure to maintaining the zodiacal signs with corresponding constellations, but that may be mythical archetype, due to the sidereal-tropical being in unison 2,000 years ago.

I've investigated the heliocentric method and find that it, too, has some fascinating points to offer astrologers. Hillary is a Taurus Sun from the helio perspective. Raymond Merriman, the financial astrologer, finds heliocentric planetary positions do relate to some economic trends, but so does geocentric (sidereal or tropical). Heliocentric astrology may be best for observing global or worldly astrology, rather than the individual, as there is no Moon (it's the same position as Earth) and no retrograde motion of the planets (there was only one Uranus-Pluto square by helio and it was the fourth (or middle) in the series of seven geocentric squares).

Astrology of any type is requisite upon astrological sign, but I find that simply observing the planetary aspects is extremely enlightening. If the birth time isn't known, astrologers use the noon position of the planets, with the Moon being most prone to error. All other planets' motions are slow enough to determine aspects. In Hillary's example, many of the characteristics you ascribe to her can be extrapolated via her planetary aspects without consideration of zodiacal sign.

This same discussion can be applied astrological house systems, too. I've toyed with most all of the house determinations and I'm starting to lean more on the whole-sign house system. I have a 6* Gemini ascendant and I find that simply viewing my first house as Gemini, rather than the 6*, is best...2nd house is Cancer, 3rd is Leo, etc. A caveat to this is individuals with late-in-the-sign ascendants; I put them into the next sign. A person with a 27* Capricorn rising has a lot of Aquarius in the first house...a planet in Aquarius will operate as if in the first house.

I have a Scorpio Sun by geocentric, tropical astrology, Libra by sidereal. I also have Mercury and Venus conjunct Sun. I definitely perceive my Scorpio attributes by the common definitions-descriptions of Scorpio characteristics.

An interesting phenomenon regarding the sidereal zodiac is that it, too, is an abstraction of the REAL constellations. There are 13 constellations on the ecliptic and each has varying widths:

"The zodiacal signs are distinct from the constellations associated with them, not only because of their drifting apart due to the precession of equinoxes but also because the physical constellations take up varying widths of the ecliptic, so the sun is not in each constellation for the same amount of time. Thus, Virgo takes up five times as much ecliptic longitude as Scorpius. The zodiacal signs are an abstraction from the physical constellations, and each represent exactly one twelfth of the full circle, or the longitude traversed by the Sun in about 30.4 days."

mike (again) said...

Twilight, did you receive my comment? I posted a comment and it showed on my screen as posted, but it doesn't appear now.

Twilight said...

mike ~ Your 11.05 comment had gone into the spam file for some reason - I've retrieved it now.

You've pointed out some interesting issues - they're issues about which each astrologer (or a lay person trying to use astrology) must sort out for themselves and use those parts which make most sense to them, and offer most proof of personal validity.

The tropical zodiac seems to work most of the time, yet I still sometimes get the feeling that it's a wee bit "off", which sends me investigating sidereal again.

We can definitely see astrological cycles, but the markers we've defined (by "we" I mean humans through the centuries),
as divisions to work with, could be out of kilter - maybe both tropical and sidereal are wrong detail-wise.
I don't know about heliocentric astrology - at all - so can't comment on that.

The fact that aspects work quite well, without benefit of zodiac sign being used, still means we accept the interpretation of the planets involved - which originated in the constellations (I think).

Dunno!!! When I start thinking on these things I soon begin to flounder in a foggy swampy muddle.
Neptune is almost conjunct my natal Jupiter now - I'll blame that! ;-)

Sonny G said...

Here, just reading today.

in a serious mood due to some bad news so best to stay quiet and just read..

Happy Wednesday to Ya'll

Twilight said...

Sonny ~ Hi there! Yes, do take it nice and easy on yourself, reduce stress as much as poss - it's always the best plan at such times.