OK - reading on, it's sad news. It's not the we develop powers of invisibility that we can control, but apparently waiters (and just about everyone that matters) stop paying attention to us crumbling old wrecks, and so we just *feel* invisible. Bummer

Its something to do with grey hair. If you let your hair go grey you turn invisible. Panic!

Aahh bummer indeed - thank goodness for haircolour!

Gunhilde

I'm a woman, too, and would have no problem with my husband having this sort of flirtation, if that's all it was. If he came back home with lipstick smeared all over his shirt and dubious stains on his trousers, I might be inclined to ask a few hard questions; otherwise, if he's having fun, I don't see the harm.

Come on, now....are you saying you would not have a problem if your husband was saying things like "Wish I was there" when the other woman is IM'ing him that she just got undressed for bed (and vice verca; i.e. "Wish you were here" from the woman's side right after she got undressed - a different day). And other flirtatious comments such as "I miss you darling" "I miss you too"; and "can't wait to talk to you again tomorrow"; "me neither", "I miss you, especially your lips" and other stuff like that? I had the pleasure of reading this wonderful IM session that my friend copy, pasted and duly printed - in addition to the above fliratious comments, she was going on about how difficult it must be for the man to "keep her hidden", and he responded back that it's OK - they can talk all they want on weekdays while the wife is working her 12 hour day and the husband has all the time in the world to kill, flirting with her, but it would be difficult on weekends!!

If you don't have a problem with such flirtation from your husband, then you are truly a different species of woman - I don't mean this in a bad way, but you're just different.

Pete:

I'm aware that Saturn is the almuten ruler of the ascendant and Mars the almuten ruler of the descendant but traditional horary practice always gives signification to the primary rulers, in this case Venus for the querent and Mars for the husband. Lilly tells us this quite clearly in C.A p 123:

Ah, Sir Peter, how nice of you to drop in! Hope life is treating you well...


Ema,
In case you're wondering, Sir Peter is the BEST astrologer in the WHOLE world!! He is quite meciless in his judgements; i.e. spare no tears, he will come right out and tell you that the horary gives a resounding NO when you personally are just dieing for a YES....

However, Sir Peter, in this particular case, I beg to differ with your analysis. I agree with you that almutens should not be used to represent the querent, and the primary rulers should be used. However, it is my understanding that past aspects show what has happened in the past, and upcoming aspects show what will happen. Your rulerships show no past aspects, and therefore I don't believe can be assigned as the primary significators. We know for a fact that there was close contact between the husband and this other woman - 7 months of continuous and apparently regular flirtatious IMs. And so I am tending to agree with Ema's signification, as per below:

Ema"

As I said, I assign Sun to him and Mercury to her, and their separarting conjunction shows that the affair (in writing) had been going on but is dissolving now. This conjunction, at least, shows their having much in common (being on-line), while no contact between Mars and the Sun would more likely suggest that they even don't know each other.

Furthermore, the signfication of the Sun as the husband makes more sense for the following reasons:
1) Sun is knowns to signify husbands
2) Sun is also used as a secondary significator for the man in relationship questions
3) The SUn is in it's dignity and very powerful. However, if the Sun represents the other woman, I really don't think the other woman is in a powerful position in the least! She apparently was really fond of the husband, and he's broken off with her - how strong can she be?
4) On the other hand if she is reprsented by Mercury, the ruler of the woman's 12th, I think it makes more sense, because this woman is the cause of the wife's "undoing", so to speak, and she was hidden from the wife, along with the prior conjunction with the sun (the husband), showing they were pretty tight - albeit moving away, showing a dissolving relationship.

The moon is coming to conjunct the Sun. Now there is no question that the Moon represents the wife. The fact that she is coming in to conjunct the SUn after a change of sign shows a change of state for the wife (she sees the husband in a different light) - whether or not she is now coming together with the husband or getting burned up by him - I'm not sure. What do you think?

Deb,
Since you joined the thread, and there is so much dissension as to who represents who - I would be curious to know what signification you would assign to the husband, the wife and the other woman.

Many thanks to all for making this such an interesting thread!

Deb,
Since you joined the thread, and there is so much dissension as to who represents who - I would be curious to know what signification you would assign to the husband, the wife and the other woman.

I always use sign-rulers, but in a way this is like asking 'what's best: the tropical zodiac or the sidereal zodiac?'. There's no completely correct answer and I think that Ema has made a fair case for explaining the signification she chose, so I wouldn't try to 'pick and chose' bits from her judgment because it's the way she has put it together as a whole that counts.

As far as Lilly is concerned (he was mentioned earlier), Pete is right that Lilly tended to go by sign rulers, and in the Master B's houses chart, when he used the almuten instead, he made a point of explaining why - it described the seller better, and it was in the appropriate house, so it was going to act as a co-significator in any case. That strikes me as very similar to what Ema has written here to explain her choice, so though it's not something I do myself, I certainly have no problem with it.

If you don't have a problem with such flirtation from your husband, then you are truly a different species of woman -

I suppose I am a different species. I don't have jealousy issues or the same sort of possessive, insecure nature that many (not all!) women seem to go on about. I'm a pragmatist. As long as Mr. Gunhilde keeps his flirtations out of the house (that's what hotels are for) and away from the children, he can do what he wants...but then again, so can I! I don't spy on his emails or IMs; I don't check his mobile phone for texts, I don't ask where he's been if he's out late. I don't really care, to be honest. We've been married a long time, and as far as I'm concerned marriage does not equal ownership of the other's desires or soul. Oddly, our marriage is far happier and stronger than many other couples we know who take the more 'traditional' view of things. Marriage, IMO, is rather unnatural anyway: a financial rather than emotional construct.

Sorry, back to the discussion at hand!:D

GH

But GH, earlier you sort of suggested that Ema should keep her opinions separate from the chart; but aren?t you doing exactly that? It seems obvious that the woman *was* distressed, because if she felt like you did, she wouldn?t have been asking an astrologer?s advice on how far her husband?s betrayal actually went. (I think it is fair to approach this as a matter of betrayal, given the querent?s circumstances and concern. Your perspective is fine, but I don?t see why it is relevant to this question to point out that some married women take that approach).

But GH, earlier you sort of suggested that Ema should keep her opinions separate from the chart; but aren?t you doing exactly that?

I keep my personal views about marriage separate from readings, because I realise that most people don't adhere to my view. If the querent was distressed I would try to deal with the matters distressing her, but I would neither suggest to her that all men have a tendency to cheat OR that, IMO, it shouldn't be viewed as 'cheating' if he comes home at night and contributes financially!

I don?t see why it is relevant to this question to point out that some married women take that approach)

I was simply addressing Ema's assertions that all women view these sorts of flirtations as 'cheating'... My own views of marriage are as irrelevant to the actual reading as are Ema's about the purported differences between men and women. It's the querent's view that counts, as you rightly point out.

GH

I'd like to explain, for those following this tread, that I'd never think of assigning the ruler of the 5th (or 11th as turned 5th in this case) to the (possible) lover. I don't know whose invention is this but I know it's been very persistent even in traditional astrology (and with tr. astrologers), although I don't know of any authority on the subject (there may be some but I just can't recall anyone) who'd promote this idea in her or his books. The lover (or someone close to the description of a lover) is in most cases shown by a planet with which one of the significators is in a close contact - usually by aspect. Frawley mentions receptions but a bodily contact (aspect) is (IMO) much more common. (Actually, I can't put my finger on any chart where a reception would show such a contact, if you know of any please tell me, beccause I'm really curious!) For example, in one of my very recent consultations, the consultation chart (or "cognition" as it's been called lately, ie. since the latest Mashallah translation) had Venus, asc. ruler, in a close applying conjucntion with Saturn. She told me that she wanted to talk about her marriage. Since desc. was in Aries, with neither Mars nor the Sun in any aspect with Venus or the Moon, and Venus so obvioulsy involved with someone else, I was curious to know if it wasn't some other man that she really wanted to talk about?! She confessed, she actually came to me to talk about her lover In our case, the Sun in aspect with a planet actually led me to the idea that it is more appropriate to assign him to the husband, instead of Mars. (Although, in fact, I'm not disinclined to use even more rulers for one person, like the Sun and Mars here - provided each gives one part of the answer.) But I've decided to go from there. Although, at the end of the ends, the Moon always has the final word. I'm very interested to know what'll really happen here, therefore I hope Taurus7 will keep us posted. While Pete's assumption that the Sun will receive the Moon in his dignity when she enters Leo, and that this shows their reuniting, is technically correct and practically possible, I'm still inclined to view the combust Moon (especially in its applying phase of course) as extremely malefic.

The lover (or someone close to the description of a lover) is in most cases shown by a planet with which one of the significators is in a close contact - usually by aspect. Frawley mentions receptions but a bodily contact (aspect) is (IMO) much more common. (Actually, I can't put my finger on any chart where a reception would show such a contact, if you know of any please tell me, beccause I'm really curious!)

I?m glad you made this point. I would only turn the ?usually? into ?always? because my understanding of traditional theory and my own experience shows that there always has to an aspectual contact. Something like mutual reception by sign (generosity) could contribute to or support a relatively minor contact (like say, a significator and house cusp), or it could be helpful where a third party connection like translation is involved, but otherwise the use of reception without an aspect is meaningless.

Students are always asking the question ? ?if the 7th house is the partner, that means the 1st house has to signify the querent and the ?other lover?. So how do we know which is which?? Lilly and the traditional authorities make it clear ? if you want to know who someone is interested in, or ?with?, then look at the applications and separations that the significators makes. It?s simple really. If one planet is engaged with another, there is something going on between them; be it an argument, business deal or a love affair. The closer the aspect, the more intense the relationship.

We can see an example in Lilly?s horary about the young woman and the old man, (see http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aged.html ).
It was obvious to Lilly that the young woman (Mercury) only had eyes for the soldier (Mars) because their significators were so close in aspect. But she was barking up the wrong tree because it was a square without reception, and Mars was unfortunately placed. The use of reception came in afterwards, as a descriptive detail on the aspect, not the other way around !

Secondly, I see another feminine planet, the Moon, already joined to and applying to the Sun. This I see as the other woman,

Hi Steven, any particular reason why you abstain form the hard-and-fast traditional horary rule of assigning the Moon the role of the querent's co-ruler?

Hi, Steven

sometime ago I remember you said that you were combining the method of mashalah with some elements of the renaissance astrologers. How is that working for you ?

I tried the mashalah method described on "on reception" but I didn?t find the results too good with my archived horaries... I would like to hear your apreciation.