Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Real-life Aquarius

I wish Many Happy Returns to all born with Sun in Aquarius!

I'm bumping up a lightly edited version of a 2008 post of mine: my own take on Aquarius, as found in real life.......

As a 27 January variety of Aquarius myself, I've often thought that textbooks have a take on Sun in Aquarius that is not exactly right. Maybe not all textbooks, nor for everyone, but certainly wrong for some age groups. The position of a Sun sign's ruler is likely to modify the way the Sun sign manifests.

I suspect that such modification is most easily identifiable in the case of Aquarius and its modern ruler, Uranus. Uranus, moves very slowly, taking a long human lifetime(around 84 years) to make full circle of the zodiac, remaining in each sign for around 8 years. Even Aquarius' traditional ruler, Saturn, is the slowest mover of the inner planets, but I'll ignore that for now, to avoid confusion.

While Uranus travels slowly through each zodiac sign, every January/February of those 8 years a wide swath of Aquarius-born folk will result. Rulers of most other Sun signs cover the full zodiac fairly quickly. There are millions of Sun Geminis with Gemini's ruler, Mercury in Capricorn, for instance, but they are not all of the same age group, they're more widely scattered. The same applies to other rulers of Sun signs. Pisces and Scorpio-born individuals are exceptions, they also have modern rulers, (Neptune and Pluto) both slow moving.

I can confidently say that any Sun Aquarius-types who were in school when I was were born with Uranus, their Sun's ruler in Taurus; it transited that sign between 1935 and 1941. This would not be a certain "rule of thumb" for most other Sun signs whose ruling planets are quicker moving.

Saturn, traditional ruler of Aquarius, still figures quite heavily in the makeup of Aquarius natives and, I suspect, more especially when Uranus, modern ruler of Aquarius, is in an Earth sign.

So... some real-life examples which I see as support for the above proposition. A few Sun Aquarius-types I have known and loved. All were born in that part of Aquarius between 23 January and 8 February.

First, my father. I have enough of his birth data to know that from him I inherited Sun Aquarius, Mercury in Capricorn and Saturn in Aries. He was a master baker first and foremost. He and my mother spent their lives running their own small businesses, first a bakery and shop, later a small hotel, a cafe, a fruit shop, and latterly sub-Post Offices. They were an Airy pair (Aquarius/Libra) with itchy feet, loved to move house and location, and had a variety of talents. Was my Dad in any way typical of Aquarius ? Not the textbook kind. He had Sun and Venus in Aquarius, but in many ways he seemed more like Capricorn. He worked very hard and long hours to keep the businesses going, especially the bakery. He was very good at what he did, a perfectionist when it came to bread-making. People came from miles around to buy his bread and baked goods. He was in no way rebellious, or revolutionary, he was quite predictable. Very easy going, kindly, liked and respected by everyone, and absolutely devoted to my mother, and to me. (URANUS IN CAPRICORN).

Second non-textbook Aquarius, a close schoolfriend from around age 9 to 16 (on the right). She was born one week after me. She had a talent for drawing and painting and went on to Art School, while I attended Grammar School. She abandoned hopes of a career in art early on though, left home to work in the south of England as a children's nanny, after taking training. She soon married, settled down, had two children, and never did return to the north of England. After many years out of touch we located each other again a few years ago. Sadly her husband died in 2005. She still paints, knows nothing of computers, and still lives where she moved after marriage.

Is she typical of Aquarius? Again, not really. Both she and I had a great need for freedom and a devout wish to leave the small market town where we grew up. We both did leave by age 18. No clear sign of textbook Aquarius, other than that need for freedom.(URANUS IN TAURUS).

Third non-textbook Aquarian was my very first boyfriend, around age 15 or 16. He was born two days before me, but either in the previous year or two years before. A farmer's son, very quiet and shy, and an only child (like me). We "courted" for two years. He decided to ask if we should get engaged..... at which point it was I who did the Aquarius thing and fled. I could never see myself as a farmer's wife.

Was he typically Aquarian? Definitely not. Least typical of any so far. He was a sweet, good natured lad, very easy going (like my Dad). But I can't think of a single textbook Aquarius trait he had. Perhaps he developed some in later life. He married the girl he befriended after me, and, as far as I know, still lives in the same place as when he was a boy. (URANUS IN TAURUS).

Fourth, my cousin (my father's sister's son), born four days before me, same year. He's had a very varied career, including teaching, draftsman, and member of the police force. He, like my friend and I, left the small market town early on, to find a future. He is very intelligent, not at all outgoing, a little old fashioned in many ways. He won't have anything to do with computers, though he used them at work, but he loves playing bridge. Interestingly, our lives have followed similar time-lines regarding marriage, divorce, deaths, and caring for ailing loved ones. I see a little of both Aquarius and Capricorn in my cousin - heavily weighted towards Capricorn.

Lastly, Uncle Ted, my father's brother. His birthday was 4 days after mine, he was a couple of years younger than my Dad, always my favourite uncle. He served in the Royal Air Force during the war, and worked for the RAF in civilian capacity afterwards. He was great fun, clever, witty and lively.

Another Sun Aquarius-type I've met more recently: my husband's younger daughter. She is the most like a textbook Aquarian I've encountered so far. She, in common with most of those above, left her home base at an early age to find her future. Her birthday is the day before mine, but obviously of a different generation from me, or any of my friends and relatives listed above.

As for yours truly, it's impossible to say how others see me, but I believe I'm a little like my cousin, but with the Capricorn/Aquarius mix reversed - a bit more Aquarius than Capricorn for me - or so I like to think.

Conclusion: The only common traits I can detect, in most of the Sun Aquarius-types above (and myself), is a fair amount of versatility and a need for freedom and variety - all very appropriate for an Air sign. None of the textbook rebellious, inventive, eccentricity. No cold unemotional attitudes unless a certain shyness or reserve can be counted as such.

It seems to me that Sun Aquarians born when Uranus lay in Taurus or Capricorn are unlikely to match textbook descriptions, and may better match descriptions of Capricorn traits in many respects. Sun Aquarians with Uranus in Virgo, the third Earth sign, are an unknown quantity to me. It would be interesting to compare them with the other age groups who have Uranus in an Earth sign.

The very important part played by ascendant, angles, Moon position etc. in astrological birth charts has been put aside for the purposes of the above post, it's the Sun sign and ruler issue only I'm highlighting.


♥ Sonny ♥ said...

I think I missed wishing you a very Happy Birthday- if so, I am wishing it now as well as a wonderful year.

I read your post 3 times:-) so I would'nt miss anything. I believe you have explained to me finally way my daughter lives out so many capricorn traits.

as always, thank you for a very interesting and informative post.


DC said...

nice post.....your lucky to be surrounded by such a fine group of water bearers in your family!
I've always identified with Aquarians and they with me. My moon and Mars are conjunct a couple degrees apart in Aquarius, right in the middle. So I can relate.

mike said...

I enjoyed reading about your associations and their Aquarius Sun, Uranus placements, Twilight.

You listed two individuals that I can more clearly determine dispositor associations: your fav uncle and your husband's daughter. Your uncle's Uranus is the modern ruler of Aquarius...for his era, anything airplane was considered very avant garde, plus the concept of freedom of flying through the air (ether), which does describe Aquarius. Your step-daughter has a mutual reception of Sun to Uranus. Does she likewise behave Leonian?

You gave a number of Uranus in Taurus examples, yourself included. What are the Venus placements (ruler of Taurus)?

Your father's Uranus in Capricorn (ruled by Saturn) would have covered the years 1904 to 1912. Depending on the year, he could have Saturn in Aquarius through Taurus. It would be interesting if he had Saturn in Aquarius for the mutual reception, which would enhance your description of him. I'm more inclined to think he may have Saturn in Aries, 1908-1909. That would also beg where he had his natal Mars.

I didn't give much thought to dispositors until the last several years, but I have found them to be invaluable as additional layers of understanding. I determine the dispositors for all planets, as that will determine the over-all planet(s) ruler of the chart. Single ultimate dispositors typically give the individual tremendous focus and accomplishment (for good or ill!). Likewise for mutual reception ultimate dispositors. Charts that do not have clear focus by aspects or planetary placements can often be better understood by their ultimate dispositor.

Individuals with multiple dispositors tend to be less focused on specifics...doesn't mean they're slackers, just that they will have many interests and will probably not master any particular one...they can often be invaluable where multiple skills are necessary, such as management. They are typically not "famous" for the pursuits in life, except I find that writers typically have multiple dispositors...perhaps varied life experiences are helpful for the prose, or maybe that writers tend to have day-jobs and family...they write in their spare time in their formative writing career!

A final consideration, then I'll let this go! Some astrologers say that some individuals can behave more like their solar chart, rather than their natal chart...these astrologers tend to look at both solar and natal. Your comments regarding Uranus in Taurus puts Uranus in the fourth house...home, family, security, food, nurturing, etc.

mike (again) said...

Ooops...another consideration: Venus will never be more than 48 degrees from the Sun; Mercury never more than 28 degrees. Venus and Mercury are personal planets and can greatly flavor the Sun's sign. An Aquarian with a Sagittarius Venus will have very different desires from the Venus in Pisces individual. Aquarius with both Venus and Mercury in Aquarius will be truer to the Aquarian nature. Fin!

Twilight said...

Sonny ~~ Thank you kindly!
And, I'm happy to know these memories and thoughts of mine proved to be of interest.

Twilight said...

DC ~~ thanks - yes, I was lucky - though most are either gone before or long since out of touch (apart from the odd Christmas or birthday card).

I've never knowingly met a Moon Aquarius person - not as easy to know that placement without some deep questioning which isn't thought to be very sophisticated among non-astro buffs. ;-)
I have wondered whether Moon in Aquarius could turn out to be more text-book correct than I've found Sun in Aquarius to be.

Twilight said...

mike ~~ Good! Nice point about Uncle Ted and his air-related career!

Husband's younger daughter (lives in Austin by the way) is definitely more quirky than any other Aquarius Sun I've known, in nature quite a bit like an aunt of mine who was Sun Sagittarius (so the Leo/Fire thing might be a link).

Re Venus placements for my Uranus in Taurus crowd: my friend (2 or 3 Feb) and cousin (23 Jan) both Venus in Sag. same as myself. Old boyfriend, can't say as can't recall exact year of birth.

My Dad was born 8 Feb 1910 - Saturn in Aries (I have the same); his Mars was in Taurus (mine's in Scorpio).

I admire your grasp of dispositors, Mike - they tend to tangle up my mind, although I do understand the concept, and am grateful for you ability to point them out in charts here.

Solar charts - hmmmm - that description of Taurus 4th house for Sun Aquarians with Uranus in Taurus might ring true, though I've always put down any of those traits I have to my natal Cancer rising. I'm not big on security, domesticity or nurturing - or food - not really. I see the Earth aspect of Taurus as a help in keeping a common sense attitude and warding off the worst of any innate quirky/eccentric traits. ;-)

Yes, the Sun sign is only part of the picture - of course. What I was trying to get at here, but it probably got lost in the mix, was that Aquarius (and the other 2 signs with slow-moving modern rulers) are more likely to show generational differences than other Sun signs. Do you agree, Mike?

mike (again) said...

I agree that the outer planets are considered generational in their influence...sometimes multi-generational. Pluto's transit of Cancer lasted about 35 years, but only 12 years through Scorpio. This is due to Pluto's eccentric orbit. Pluto takes about 100 more years to complete one orbit than Neptune, but due to Pluto's orbit, both planets have moved at about the same speed from 1950 until about 2030, about two signs apart...sextile. This is a mega-generational aspect.

Pluto takes 248 years to complete one orbit or to transit all twelve signs of the zodiac, but it has taken only 93 years to travel half of the zodiac from Cancer to will take 155 years to complete the last half. Anyone born 1914 to 1939 has Pluto in Cancer and, with Pluto gaining speed since leaving Cancer, it has now traveled half way around the zodiac to Capricorn...individuals with natal Pluto in Cancer have had transiting Pluto opposed natal Pluto since 2008. I have natal Pluto in Leo and I'll be 87 when the opposition occurs, should I live that long. An individual born today with Pluto in Capricorn will have to wait 150 years for their opposition in Cancer!

So, Pluto's placement by sign can be generational (fast moving Pluto) or multi-generational (slow moving Pluto). There is the unique opposition that can only occur if Pluto is placed in one-third of the zodiac at birth (assuming the individual will live to mid-80s or longer).

Another Pluto-Neptune generational oddity is that due to Pluto's extremely inclined orbit, at times Pluto is closer to Earth than Neptune! The last time was Feb 7, 1979 through Feb 11, 1999. This 20 year period only occurs once every 248 years! This is a once every mega-generational occurrence!

There are a number of other unique multi-generational and mega-generational transits. Your posting: 600 Year Arc, Pt 2 ( for example.

Twilight said...

mike ~~ Thanks - yes individuals with Pluto and Neptune as their Sun sign's ruler will not have a short enough generational span to manifest as clearly as that of Uranus methinks.

In fact, pondering on your comment, I thought something I've often thought before - that it might not have been a good thing astrologers did when they designated Uranus, Neptune and Pluto the "new" rulers of Aquarius, Pisces and Scorpio. If they'd left well alone - as it had been before those outer planets' discovery things would be a deal more clear.

Saturn in Airy mode would rule Aquarius, while in an Earthy capacity it would rule Capricorn.

Jupiter in Watery mode ruler of Pisces and in Fiery capacity Sagittarius'ruler.

Mars in its Watery mode ruler of Scorpio, and in Fiery mode ruler of Aries.

What'd have been wrong with that?
I like it much better.

Also it would have meant that, for instance, in the case of Uranus and its eccentricity, it would be seen more clearly to relate to any placement in anyone's chart where it connected by close aspect, and not specifically to Aquarius.

Similarly for Neptune and Pluto.

Tsk - flippin' astrologers! ;-)

mike (again) said...

The ancient astrologers are said to have developed this plan (I'm not sure how this will look once I hit "publish your comment!):

Start with Sun and Moon, then build to the left and right with:

Moon-Cancer Sun-Leo
Mercury-Gemini Mercury-Virgo
Venus-Taurus Venus-Libra
Mars-Aries Mars-Scorpio
Jupiter-Pisces Jupiter-Sagittarius
Saturn-Aquarius Saturn-Capricorn

which is:

Water-Cancer Fire-Leo
Air-Gemini Earth-Virgo
Earth-Taurus Air-Libra
Fire-Aries Water-Scorpio
Water-Pisces Fire-Sagittarius
Air-Aquarius Earth-Capricorn

The current quantity of never-ending asteroids, some larger than Pluto, has caused a bit of controversy amongst astrologers. I recently read one astrologer's desire to have all signs essentially co-ruled by an asteroid...he is calling this post-modern astrology. Hmmm.

Perhaps your proposal to return to pre-modern astrology is wise! I've thought about this several times, specially after I read how the original rulerships were designated (as I put at the beginning of this the left and right of Moon-Sun).

I do "see" the effect of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto in my and others' charts, but you're right, these three planets do not require sign rulership. It's all a mental concept as long as I perceive Mars' domain of Aries as very different from Mars' domain of Scorpio. Some good fodder for thought you've provided, Twilight!

mike (again) said...

Also, starting with the Moon-Cancer, Leo-Sun as in previous comment, it makes more sense in masculine-feminine, too:

Fem-Cancer Masc-Leo
Masc-Gemini Fem-Virgo
Fem-Taurus Masc-Libra
Masc-Aries Fem-Scorpio
Fem-Pisces Masc-Sagittarius
Masc-Aquarius Fem-Capricorn

mike (again) said...

Using the previous comments, your proposal would be:

Aquarius is the masculine, air Saturn
Capricorn is the feminine, earth Saturn

Pisces is the feminine, water Jupiter
Sagittarius is the masculine, fire Jupiter

Aries is the masculine, fire Mars
Scorpio is the feminine, water Mars

mike (again) said...

Well, pondering this for a few more minutes, I'd have to say your proposal makes operational sense, too!

The Moon-Cancer relationship to Sun-Leo makes more sense, as the Moon reflects the Sun. The opposition would have to be of the same element: Saturn.

A feminine, water, Cancer Moon is opposed by a feminine, earth, Capricorn Saturn; a masculine, fire, Leo Sun is opposed by a masculine, air Aquarius Saturn.

It's more noticeable to me when I consider Aries and Taurus:
Masc, fire Aries Mars op Masc, air, Libra Venus
Fem, earth Taurus Venus op fem, water, Scorpio Mars

Assigning Jupiter to Pisces, re-establishes this duality, also:
Fem, water Pisces Jupiter op fem, earth Virgo Mercury
Masc, air Gemini Mercury op masc, fire, Sagittarius Jupiter

Interesting, Twilight! By jove, I think you've provided the missing link that was there all along!

Twilight said...

mike ~~ So pleased that the idea makes sense to you too! I'm pretty sure though that others, long before me, have voiced similar thoughts.

I reached for my copy of de Vore's Encyclopedia of Astrology and looked at the "Ruler" section.

Along with the expected info there's this regarding the outer planets:

Many modern authorities have broken down this scheme by ascribing Uranus to Aquarius, Neptune to Pisces and Pluto variously to Aries or Scorpio. Others deem these distant planets to represent a second octave, indicating higher concepts, and conferring greater possibilities upon those sufficiently developed to be able to handle a high-tension current, but threatening catastrophe to elemental and undisciplined types.
On this theory, Uranus would be the super-ruler of Gemini and Virgo; Neptune of Taurus and Libra; and Pluto of Aries and Scorpio - leaving the second octave planets of Jupiter and Saturn yet to be discovered.

I've not come across that theory before....interesting!
But, but - it was probably dreamed up by someone wishing to establish yet another "elite" band of individuals, and we already have more than enough of those! Still, it does bear thinking on. :-)

Twilight said...

mike ~~~ Forgot to say -thanks for your very careful and detailed thoughts in the comments above - explaining very clearly how the original astrological rulerships came about and how appropriate they would still remain without the tamperings of astrologers (no doubt they were well-meaning tamperings.)

mike (again) said...

Here is Dane Rudhyar's presentation of rulership, which is essentially your same argument. He provides some incredible insight. A couple of pages, but well worth the read. I had to read the final paragraphs several times to make sure I comprehended correctly!

Twilight said...

mike ~~ Thank you for the link - I've read through the article just once so far. Dane Rudhyar usually manages to confuse me after an initial surge of great enthusiasm about what he's saying. So, though I respect and admire his expert analyses, I tend to avoid his writing when I really want to grasp a point. The gradual confusion happened here....but by the last paragraph I got back clarity - at least a little bit.

I'll read it again later.

Robert Hand is my astrologer of choice when going outside of the commonly and easily absorbed points of astrology. He writes in a style more to my liking.

Somewhere, I can't recall where, I recall he wrote that the term "ruler" itself is misleading if taken in the sense of a kingly ruler. Instead it's better to think of ruler more as a schoolboy's ruler used to measure inches and a foot in length.
I think it was Robert Hand who said that but.... (could have been Grant Lewi or Carl Payne Tobey if not!)

I did a quick search on Robert Hand and rulerships and found an interview where he talks about the topic a little - after scrolling doen a way....

Wisewebwoman said...

My lone little voice in the midst of the knowledgeable comments so far out of my grasp:

Belated happy birthday, T. Your blog is always such a pleasure.


Twilight said...

Wisewebwoman ~~ Thank you WWW!
And the compliment on the blog is returned - the feeling is wholeheartedly mutual!

Rossa said...

And a belated Happy Birthday from another Aquarian this side of the pond.

Thanks to Mike I've learned even more about astrology today. I know 3 other Aquarians (you know James too T). I'm capricorn rising, he's gemini rising as is my stepmother and a friend has cancer rising. I wouldn't say any of us are 'typical' Aquarians whatever that may be. We're all a good blend. All 3 of them are of the Pluto in Leo generation while I'm Pluto in Virgo and 54 years young today ;-)


Twilight said...

Rossa~~~ Thanks - and Many Happy Returns to you!

Yes, everyone, whatever their Sun sign is a blend, a unique blend - which is something that gets overtaken, often, by the Sun sign mentality - which is okay in a way, but it leads to much stereotyping.

R J Adams said...

Ah, I think it was one of my old schoolmasters who - not very inventively - once remarked that I'd be late for my own funeral. So sorry these best wishes are so belated. I'm just catching up on my favorite bloggers. Hope you had a wonderful birthday.

Twilight said...

RH Adams ~~ Thank you kindly RJ!
I've had better birthdays, we're lagging behind as regards celebrating this year, but we'll catch up soon. :-)