I've always felt fairly confident, from personal experience, observation and a little bit of Aquarian logic, that astrological traits flow through families, but it seems that when subjected to rigorous testing the theory doesn't hold up. Michel Gauquelin carried out exhaustive research in the 1960s and 70s without finding anything as conclusive as astrologers might have expected.
I have a copy of Gauquelin's book "Planetary Heredity". It's not easy reading! Here's what he had concluded by Chapter 9:
"For the convenience of the reader, let me summarize the main findings. My investigations of over 25,000 deliveries have found that children tend to be born when the same significant celestial body (the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter or Saturn) is in the same diurnal zone (rise culmination, or outside) as it was at the birth of their parents. There is no effect for the Sun or other planets, or for astrological signs, aspects and houses. The effect is not influenced by sex, duration of labor or birth order. It is increased if both parents share the same diurnal positions. It tends to disappear if the birth is artificially induced. The effect is not large, but is reproducible and statistically highly significant."
So "something is going on", but not exactly as previously surmised. I just wonder though, if going up close with a powerful microscope, as Monsieur Gauquelin did so efficiently, doesn't blind us to the bigger picture. If you examine an oil painting up close with a magnifying glass, you do not see what the painting portrays, you see only random, meaningless brush strokes.
Astrologer C.E.O. Carter points out in his Encyclopedia of Psychological Astrology :
"However, it cannot be doubted that any part of the nativity may represent an inherited trait, and the examination of the nativities of members of the same family confirms this. In a case known to the writer, the father and his three sons, and six out of ten grandchildren, had Saturn in either Aries or Cancer! It is also frequently found that the same sign is prominent in the great majority of the horoscopes of a family, containing, as a rule, one of the Lights, or the ascendant."
I can't help thinking that there's something else - something important that we just don't know yet, which needs to be included in the equation, before scientists like M. Gauquelin can get a clear view of the big picture.
I have a copy of Gauquelin's book "Planetary Heredity". It's not easy reading! Here's what he had concluded by Chapter 9:
"For the convenience of the reader, let me summarize the main findings. My investigations of over 25,000 deliveries have found that children tend to be born when the same significant celestial body (the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter or Saturn) is in the same diurnal zone (rise culmination, or outside) as it was at the birth of their parents. There is no effect for the Sun or other planets, or for astrological signs, aspects and houses. The effect is not influenced by sex, duration of labor or birth order. It is increased if both parents share the same diurnal positions. It tends to disappear if the birth is artificially induced. The effect is not large, but is reproducible and statistically highly significant."
So "something is going on", but not exactly as previously surmised. I just wonder though, if going up close with a powerful microscope, as Monsieur Gauquelin did so efficiently, doesn't blind us to the bigger picture. If you examine an oil painting up close with a magnifying glass, you do not see what the painting portrays, you see only random, meaningless brush strokes.
Astrologer C.E.O. Carter points out in his Encyclopedia of Psychological Astrology :
"However, it cannot be doubted that any part of the nativity may represent an inherited trait, and the examination of the nativities of members of the same family confirms this. In a case known to the writer, the father and his three sons, and six out of ten grandchildren, had Saturn in either Aries or Cancer! It is also frequently found that the same sign is prominent in the great majority of the horoscopes of a family, containing, as a rule, one of the Lights, or the ascendant."
I can't help thinking that there's something else - something important that we just don't know yet, which needs to be included in the equation, before scientists like M. Gauquelin can get a clear view of the big picture.
