On another thread on the mundane forum: David Cameron as PM/ UK Coalition government I was challenged by Yuzuru why I considered the 11th house as traditionally representing the UK Parliament ( House of Commons). It generated an interesting discussion which I think deserves its own thread here.

I gave my initial source as Deborah Houlding?s book Houses: Temples of the Sky. In particular Deborah Houlding writes:

In mundane astrology: parliament, especially the house of commons; town and county councils,and similar bodies. friends and allies of the nation. In election charts the 11th house will show the resources of the party in power; in civil war, the substance and ammunition of the ruling power. The Houses, Temples of the Sky (revised edition 2006, p87)

The traditional source for this view seems to be William Lilly in Christian Astrology where he states:

The Eleventh House.

It doth naturally represent Friends and Friendship, Hope, Trust, Confidence, the Praise, or Dispraise of any one; the Fidelity or falsenesse of Friends; as to Kings it personates their Favourites, Councellours, Servants, their Associates or Allyes, their Money, Exchequer or Treasure; in Warre their Ammunition and Souldiery; it represents Courtiers, &c. in a Common?wealth governed by a few of the Nobles and Commons, it personates their assistance in Councell: as in London the tenth House represents the Lord Major; the eleventh the Common-councell; the Ascendant the generality of the Commoners of the said City. Christian Astrology , p56

Subsequent astrologers in the English speaking world seem to have basically accepted this view. For example, H.S. Green, Raphael, Simmonite, Pearce and Carter all seem to associate the 11th house with Parliament.

However, Yuzuru has challenged this assumption and states:

In the first point Lilly is very close to Bonatti (p.111, Ben Dykes transl.): the 11th is the substance of the King, his soldiers, his allies, his ministers, and his tributes.

In the second part Lilly says that it represent "their assistance in councell" and the example are the common-councell of London. I feel this example seems much more like ministers and advisers of the ruler than a Parliament, even in that time. If we understand this quote with this meaning, Lilly would be very close to early tradition, as advisors are clearly 11th house matter.

If we look in his horaries, for instance "CHAP. LXXXV. If his MAJESTY should procure Forces out of Ireland to harme the Parliament?" he seems to give the parliament to the first house ("our guys", "go team"), and the 11th exclusively for the King?s armies.

Even if Lilly did considered Parliament as a 11th house issue, today?s parliament is not an advisor of the King, neither it is one of his resources or allies, or ministers, it is an independent house that is not under the King?s rule, so I am not very keen to use it this way.

Yuzuru goes on to quote Stephern Birchfield who has argued the 9th house should represent Parliament:

For one thing, the primary function of the Congress is lawmaking, which in itself is a subject of the 9th house! There are those that make the law and those that judge by that law. Now in all the ancient texts, the 11th was seen as the Kings 'generals', i.e. those that follow out the commands of the 'Commander in chief'. I have been thinking that perhaps the 11th should be seen as the rulers' generals. Now that is not exclusively meant militarily either. For the president has a whole cabinet of 'generals' or 'Secretary's' . Donald Rumsfeld is not a 'general' in the sense he leads battles. But he is the 2nd highest 'executive' of the military in the US. The field generals obey him! He is the presidents 'second' in defence matters. In financial matters the Secretary of the Treasury is his appointed 'general' to handle financial matters of state. Condoleezza is Bush's appointed 'general' when it comes to foreign affairs etc. Now this makes much more sense to me. (Steven Birchfield, in the Interpres Stellarum forum, Sep 21th, 2006)

Yuzuru wrote:

I would add that, to me, the Supreme Court would be the 9th house and congress would probably be 3rd house: application of the religion (Constitution) into concrete and practical matters.

Following PM discussion with Deb it appears Lilly usually represents Parliament in his horary charts as opposing the King in the 4th house. That makes perfect sense considering Parliament were engaged in a civil war with the King and his supporters during Lilly's time.

However, it appears in one chart Lilly judged between king or parliament he seems to use the 1st house for parliament - perhaps because as he says on p.51 of Christian Astrology , the 1st is the commonwealth or general people, as opposed to the king in power.

_______________________________________________________

More, generally, though I still think a case can be made for associating the 11th house with Parliament and especially the House of Commons in Britain. Here is the reply I sent to Yuzuru:

Hi Yuzuru,

Interesting! I could attempt to research an answer on your point on Lilly's use of political horary but it seems silly when we have one the greatest Lilly experts hosting this website. I think Deb is tied up for a few days but hope she takes up the opportunity to discuss this. I can say that when Lilly describes the 'Commons' and 'Nobles' he seems to be describing the House of Commons and Lords respectively.

Yuzuru wrote:

In the second part Lilly says that it represent "their assistance in councell" and the example are the common-councell of London. I feel this example seems much more like ministers and advisers of the ruler than a Parliament, even in that time. If we understand this quote with this meaning, Lilly would be very close to early tradition, as advisors are clearly 11th house matter.

Lilly is being quite diplomatic. At the time Lilly was writing Christian Astrology he was perfectly aware the parliament was at war with the monarch over which had the ultimate authority. That is a bit more than just being an adviser dont you think?

The historical origin of the UK Parliament was from the royal council. These were originally just advisers to the King. Following Magna Carta parliament had the power to exercise restraint on the tax raising powers of the monarch. As time progressed the Parliament developed a more and more representative and independent voice. Living during the English Civil War William Lilly lived on the cusp of the great constitutional shift which finally recognised the supremacy of Parliament over the King. However, despite the experiment of an English republic or 'Commonwealth' under Oliver Cromwell Britain emerged as a 'constitutional monarchy'.

Yuzuru wrote:

Even if Lilly did considered Parliament as a 11th house issue, today?s parliament is not an advisor of the King, neither it is one of his resources or allies, or ministers, it is an independent house that is not under the King?s rule, so I am not very keen to use it this way.

In a strict sense the monarchy are still the head of state in the UK and a Prime Minister is still 'invited' to form a government by the Queen. The British government is still 'Her Majesty's government'. Moreover, the British Prime Minister meets with the Queen on a weekly basis to update her on developments. So in a British context the 11th house is especially appropriate for the House of Commons.

Regarding Steven's point I think there is a big difference between the political systems in the UK and USA. In the UK the survival of a Prime Minister depends on him/her being able to 'command the confidence of the House'. This essentially means the PM needs a majority of the Parliament to support his government programme. Moreover, in the UK the PM is selected from the House of Commons. The USA is fundamentally different as the executive and legislature are separately elected. In the USA its not uncommon for the House of Representatives or Senate to be held by the opposing party. This can certainly make the Presidential term more difficult but is part of the American constitutional idea of a division of powers between executive (President), legislature (Congress), and Judiciary (Supreme Court).

The 11th house association works quite well in a UK setting. Parliament represents the political resources ( 2nd from the 10th) of the PM to lead. A lack of support from parliament would mean s/he would be unable to govern. Indeed I suggest the 11th house association works well for any system with the executive is derived from the parliament. I would agree this is not so axiomatic for a political system like that of the US where the executive does not require the consent of the legislature to remain in power. While I accept Steven's point about the 9th house link to law I would also mention that that Jupiter finds its joy in the 11th and Jupiter has clear links to legal matters. Another point is that the executive can sometimes find their budgets blocked by Pariament. Parliaments are not just about law making (9th house). They are also have a vital role in approving or vetoing the financial plans of the executive. This fits the 11th house as 2nd from the 10th.

Of course the 11th house can be seen to have several associations not just the Parliament. It could therefore be seen to represent the armed services, civil service, 'special advisers' , allies, and government budgets. Prior to a democratic era the army were often the way the King retained their power or were overturned in a rebellion. There is an argument this role has been taken over by Parliament in a modern liberal democracy like Britain. Looking around the world there are many other countries that conform more to the UK parliamentary style of democracy rather than the US model. I would personally still support the 11th house for countries with a constitutional monarchy like Britain but would consider a different approach for republican states with elected Presidents like the USA , France or Brazil. So rather than adopting a blanket approach to house significations I suggest taking a careful look at the political culture of each country in question.

Yuzuru wrote:

I would add that, to me, the Supreme Court would be the 9th house and congress would probably be 3rd house: application of the religion (Constitution) into concrete and practical matters.

I suppose you could also make the point that the Moon has its joy in the 3rd house too.

Mark

Looking around the world there are many other countries that conform more to the UK parliamentary style of democracy rather than the US model.

True. In fact it would not surprise me if the countries other than the US that have Presidential system are modeled on the American system. It was new in 1789 and since that time Parliamentary systems are more common. I think the new government in Iraq is Parliamentary and it was set up with a great American influence.

I've seen the Congress in the US represented by the 4th houses (7th of the 10th) by some astrologers. Even when the President's party has control of both houses, there is, at times, an adversarial relationship. It isn't always this way or even often. What is always there however is a rivalry or competition for prominence. The Congress never wants to be seen as subservient to the President and vice-versa. So they both exert their independence at times. This is politics after all and everyone's ego needs to be massaged now and again.

Lilly gave the Parliament to the 11th and at times the 4th, but Lilly's Great Britain was not a modern liberal democracy. Charles I believed in the divine right to rule. Prior to Lilly's astrology, in the middle ages and Renaissance, the very idea of a Parliament with power equal to the ruler was unthinkable and therefore no one thought where would such an institution belong in a chart, or almost no one. I think I said this before and some smart aleck found a contradictory reference.

I've never been comfortable with the 11th for Parliament or Congress, but the nagging question that follows, if not the 11th what? It does not naturally lead to an answer. The 9th seems worse than the 11th. The 9th is the 12th of the King or President. At least with the 7th of the 10th the King knows where to find his enemies.

The 2nd trines the 10th as does the 6th. The 6th represents legitimate armies, but armies are subordinate to the king. The 2nd however shows us the real power in today's world. It is the 5th of the 10th, so harmonious, and it is the substance of the people (at least in theory) and/or the nation. But the representatives of the people as well as the army should work in harmony with the "king." I have no idea if this would ever work in a mundane chart.

Tom