posted February 27, 2009 06:20 AM           

You wrote there a lot about Synastry and I need few days to study all that.

Now the question:

When are you sure, that:

1. two people are going to marry?
2. two people are going to stay together for ever?

We all know, that love doesn't mean marriage and marriage doesn't mean love marriage (in many cases).

That question is very often, when two people are in love. It can happen, they are no more in love after few months or years and they think different then.

Thank you for answer.

Buena

posted February 27, 2009 06:45 AM           

Maybe you are right?
Maybe there are signs or aspects that show marriage?

Vedic Astrologers know that and I think Western Astrology as well.

posted February 27, 2009 07:13 AM           

I agree with PA, I think we never know for sure if certain astrological signals will lead to a marriage with 100% certainty.

But there are some theories, what aspects will "likely" lead to marriage / relationship).
But it`s always just a potential.

posted February 27, 2009 07:17 AM           

I am asking you, because many female members (in the Forums) ask: will we get married?

I know it is difficult, but maybe there is some formula for that?

posted February 28, 2009 05:09 PM           

Buena - I don't believe there is any formula if there were (wow).

However, look into your harmonics according to the book I am reading the author shows very clearly her realtionship to her first and second husband. using harmonics.
I recently found a site where a someone posted all of his research findings on the 9th harmonic.

One thing that both of these people stated very clearly is that transits and progressions to planets in the harmonic will explain a situation better than the natal it can even bring actual results.
The author of the book noticed this about her second marriage.

Book:
new insights into astrology
By:
Nona Gwynn Press

posted March 01, 2009 05:37 AM           

It would be good to say, that two people are going to marry and then they are no more in love (after few months or one year).

Buena

posted March 01, 2009 10:51 AM           

yes I´Q answered the question. He sais that it wouldn`t be weaker (Draco-Draco), just that it would maybe take more time to feel those connections.

Buena,

even though there is no formula and everything is just "potential", I have found two theories to be very consistent: The marriage rule and progressed synastry.
Personally I think we have to combine natal, synastry and transits / Progressions to be able to say if a marriage / committed relationship "likely" would occur.

1. natal
Are you each other`s type to begin with?
Look for Sun, Moon, Venus, Mars and the conditions of 5th house and 7th house (planets in those houses, sign on the cusp, ruler of the house in strong aspects or sign and house)

Example:
Ruler of my 5th house is Venús (Placidus-houses), which falls into Capricorn / 1st house and squares Pluto.
I ahve a definite attraction for that Saturnian / martian / Plutonian energy.

2. marriage rule:

Lois Sargents wrote about that in the late 70ìes (!).

It sais: "The ruler of one ASC or DSC must be conjunct the horizon in the other nativity; or two of the four rulers of both horizons must be conjunct, in any combination; or, either ruler from the other nativity, of one`s horizon must be conjunct one`s ASC or DSC"

To have a better overview, note following positions of BOTH charts:

ASC:
DSC
ruler of ASC:
ruler of DSC:
(I`d use both, new and old rulers, for example Jupiter may act as a ruler of Pisces-ASC, too).

Then look if there is a conjunction of any of these placements between both charts. the orb is 5°, and really NOT more.

It`s interesting that this rule seems to be consistent in most cases. I have had a short look just today:

1) Paul Newman - Joanne Woodward:
his ASC conjunct her ASC
her ASC ruler conjunct his ASC

2) Brad Pitt - Angelina Jolie:
Jupiter, hsi ASC ruler, conjuncts her Moon, her ASC ruler

3) Paul Mc Cartney - Linda Mc CArtney
her Neptune, ruler of his DSC, conjuncts his ASC

4) Spencer Tracey - Katherine Hepburn
her old ASC ruler Mars (she has Scorpio-ASC) conjuncts his ASC

her Saturn, ruler of his ASC, conjuncts his Mars, ruler of her ASC

her ASC ruler Pluto conjuncts his DSC ruler MOon

- well as we know they got never married, but lived for many years as if they were

5) Johnny Depp - Vanessa Paradis
her Saturn, his old DSC ruler, conjuncts his Sun, his ASC ruler

6) friends of mine:
his ASC conjuncts hier DSC
his DSC ruler conjuncts her DSC

7) Richard Burton - Liz Taylor
his DSC ruler conjuncts her ASC

posted March 01, 2009 11:05 AM           

All of what I mentioned in the previous post (the astrological "type", marriage rule and usual synastry) is all just existent as a dormant potential.

To wake up this potential you need a trigger.
And this trigger is found in progressed synastry and as I believe transits.

4. progressed synastry

Paul Westran did a pretty amazing study on the beginning and ending of romantic relationships (he investigated over 1000 relationship charts I think).

And he came to the following conclusion:
There is usually certain Venus-progressions present at the outset of a relationship. Even if people met before, they usually hook up during Venus-progressions.
Personally I would include the ASC-DSC-axis, too, and when I asked him, he agreed with me.

So these are the aspects to look out for (within an orb of 2°):

a) Venus conjunct / trine / opposition Sun

b) Venus conjunct / trine opposition Mars

c) Venus conjunct / trine / Opposition ASC

d) ASC / DSC conjunct / trine / opposition Sun

e) ASC / DSC conjunct / trine / opposition Mars

f) Venus conjunct / trine / opposition Venus

(one of the planets has to be in the progressed chart: example: his progressed Sun conjunct her natal Venus)

Westran found out in his study that most relationships that end up in marriage or a very committed relationship had Sun-Venus conjunction or trine (progressed-natal or progressed - progressed), and in passionate affairs there was often a progressed Venus-Mars-trine present.

He claims that this theory works about 80% of the time; personally I haven`t seen it fail even ONCE!
I`ve investigated at least over 50 relationships and at the beginning of the relationship there was ALWAYS one of these progressions present.

Actually I once met a man with whom I shared superb synastry, with Sun-Moon-conjunction, and the marriage rule was fulfilled, but we just had NO Venus-progressions (except for an exact Venus-Uranus-trine when we met).
And nothing came of it. We met, we had a very interesting pretty flirtative chat, but that was all.

5. Transits

posted March 01, 2009 11:19 AM           

Thank you for all the information. You are good teacher.

Here I have (since long time) two couples good to study:

Wallis and Edward Simpson:

Camilla and Charles Windsor:

posted March 01, 2009 12:14 PM           

but I was really floored how "flawless" this progressed synastry thing is. At least in couples who have actually gotten together.

However, I think it might be interesting to see, in how many couples this was present, which have NOT started a romantic relationship.

posted March 01, 2009 12:27 PM           

That is really love from his side (I didn't look exact all aspects, but will one day) as he was waiting so long time to be with her. I can't believe, that today happens something like that.

There are rules in Synastry but there are no rules in really love, as the Royal families (in last time) have, like:

Maxima and Alexander;
Mette-Maritt and Haakon;
Mary and Frederick;
and other.

I have birth data’s from Maxima and Alexander, but must find from other two couples.

I am always looking who loves more. It is also good to see that. What do you think?

Buena

posted March 01, 2009 12:31 PM           

There should be formula for married people (without much love), for married people (with love) and for long-term relationship.

Maybe DD is going to find out before writing the Synastry book?

Buena

posted March 01, 2009 12:50 PM           

I doubt I would be able to find such a formula.

But even the marriage that take a bad turn and lose their love, most of the time starts out both or at least one of the two thinking they are in love.

In the case of a couple who has been in love, get married and then lose the love, I could imagine something like this happened:

1. they had progressed Venus-synastry at the beginning

2. they have weak natal synastry, and after the progression have moved on there is nothing to "keep" the love in this relationship

3. if they have strong Saturn aspects at the same time, they might stay in that relationship even without love

I think that maybe those people whose "soft" or romance-planets are being touched, might be very much in love.

Those planets / asteroids could be (just a guess):

Venus
Psyche
Valentine
DSC and its ruler

If it`s more some kind of soul-love (but not necessarily romantic), I think there would be
Moon
Ceres
Amor
IC and its ruler

posted March 01, 2009 12:57 PM           

Those Charts I have from before, so there are no Asteroids for love.

What I see: Wallis had unaspected Mars. I don't believe it was some hot love from her side.

About you: I am sure you will do it, because you like to do that.

Buena

posted March 01, 2009 01:30 PM           

I somewhat disagree. I don`t think you can have a formula like unaspected Mars = no sexual attraction.

But if you have unaspected Mars, unaspected Venus AND unaspected ruler of 5th house,t hen I would conclude that the sexual attraction of that person would be somewhat "limited".

I actually have an example for this.
My friend had that with her exboyfriend (they had been together for 7 years).
There were no aspects to his Venus, Mars nor his DSC-ruler of DSC itself. I`ve rarely seen such bad synastry (from his side). And she often complained about his disinterest, detachment and coldness in that regard.
He also had Uranus conjunct his Sun, Venus and Mars, while she has Pluto conjunct her Venus and Mars and opposing her Moon, so you can see, it just did NOT fit.

However, why did they stay together for 7 years, most of the time pretty content, and him not even missing the sexual side of their relationship?
Well, t hey had ASTONISHING Moon-synastry, including her Neptune conjunct his Moon, which made her idolize him and not seeing him for what he really was (she was also very young when they got together), but it also made for a very caring, gentle and compassionate relationship, especially from her to him (Neptune forgives!).

His Moon was also sextile her Mercury, Venus, Mars and Pluto. On top of that his Moon conjunct her Neptune and made a grand trine with her Moon and Saturn.
He stabilised her.

There was also his Saturn exactly squaring her Moon - she felt very easily judged and criticised by him. But Saturn tends to make people stick together like glue, even if they are not happy.
And a Moon-Saturn-DW will make you stick together for longer than would be good for your own growth sometimes.

Unrequited attraction could be also reflected in the fact that one person fits the other type extremely well, while the other doesn`t.

Let`s say person A has Gemini DSC and the other person has Mercury in 1st house conjunct Sun. Person B would fit A`s partner pattern or attraction pattern of Mercury extremely well, and probably A would feel attracted to B.

posted March 01, 2009 02:06 PM         

i think the reason there can't be any hard formula or guarantees is that no two charts mesh perfectly. i am sure some or all of you have gone through the ephemeris at some time to find the "perfect" partner...and discovered that there is no such thing, every chart will have points or patterns that clash with yours no matter how good the general setup is.

posted March 01, 2009 03:36 PM           

yes, I agree with you.

But even in your case there has been that Sun-Venus-progression. Ìt`s really astonishing.

Paul Westran definitely has found something very amazing here.

posted March 02, 2009 02:58 AM           

Thank you for all you wrote here.
About Wallis is not so important her Mars, but I have seen (if I see good) that they two looked like a brother and sister or even like a twins, what I often see by couples.

It is also nice, that both couples have:
Camilla and Charles: the same AC and DC;
Wallis and Edward: the same IC and MC.
You don't see that very often.

I have found Magi Astrology and there is very interesting, why Madonna has fallen in love with her three men. With all three she has triangle: Chiron - Venus - Neptune.

The Magi Astrology is something special, but I have no idea, how they do those Charts.

Here the link:
http://www.magisociety.com/toomanyjuno.htm

Thank you very much,
Buena