posted March 03, 2012 12:53 AM            

Personally, i accept that theory because I do not believe that Saturn alone rules Aquarius. Aquarius IS fixed. Fixed on freedom, change, their philosophy, etc.

But how many of you have actually SEEN Uranus represent Aquarius?

For me, on my wedding day, transiting Venus was opposing my natal Uranus exactly. Aquarius is my DSC.

My Saturn is 2 degrees away from from Uranus and when Pluto was transiting over Saturn, I made my mind up to get a divorce.

I mentioned this to a friend of mine who uses traditional rulers and is quite good. She just said that the fact that my progressed moon was just about conjunct my progressed DSC (2*) and my natal mars (1*), was evidence enough to represent the day i got married.

I also rely more on progressions rather that transits for events, but how could i ignore an exact Venus transit. I mean, I am somewhat confused about the Pluto transit myself. But at the same time that really lead me to explore the co-rulership theory. What do you all think

posted March 03, 2012 02:50 AM            

quote:

---

My understanding was that Neptune, Uranus and Pluto "took over", in a sense, ruler ship of Aquarius, Pisces and Scorpio.

---

posted March 03, 2012 05:57 AM            

My friend really did explain the major events in my life without using the outer planets, but then I see Venus opposing Uranus and not Saturn on my wedding day. Saturn is 2* away, but that is not the same thing to me.

posted March 03, 2012 06:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lava Flower:
[BThey are obviously impacting us. [/B]

---

In modern horary astrologer, which is a VERY traditional kind of astrology (medieval), the outer planets are not given rulerships over the houses and signs, but are often considered as having impact, influencing the planets.

For me personally I use Uranus, Neptune and Pluto as ruler of houses / signs so far, but also have a glance on the traditional rulers as well. I am not really decided on the right approach for me yet.

posted March 03, 2012 07:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
Saturn is a planet connected to discipline, restriction, restraint. Does ANY of that sound like Aquarius?

---

Actually yes. I`ve met quite a few Aquarians, who were very disciplined, stable and having a structured approach to things, even seemed very traditional and conventional (though if you scratch the surface, their thoughtpatterns and ideas may just not be as conventional).
Even when they had several planets in Aquarius and none in Cappy (not even in progressions) and no strong aspects to Saturn.

But let`s not forget that Aquarius is a fixed sign as well; they can be quite, well, stubborn and do not always have such a great love for change as astrology-books sometimes make us believe.

Of course everything interconnects in a chart.

posted March 03, 2012 09:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
I disagree. I'm feeling really tired and lazy right now, but honestly, I don't believe that Mars still rules Scorpio or that Saturn still rules Aquarius.

Uranus is the sign of the unusual, unstable, unpredictable, revolution. HOW does that NOT scream "Aquarius"?

Pluto, even though it may not be technically a planet, is
named for the Greek god of the underworld, death, afterlife, etc. How does that NOT scream "Scorpio"?

Mars is a warrior planet. Even though I can see the sex
connection to Scorpio, Aries is MUCH more fitting to that warrior energy. Open fighting and aggression is NOT Scorpio's style. Scorpios are most definitely strong, and skilled fighters, but not that open, direct, upfront kind of attack.

Saturn is a planet connected to discipline, restriction,
restraint. Does ANY of that sound like Aquarius? Saturn rules Capricorn, and is much more fitting to that sign.

To go further, I don't believe that Mercury is the true ruler of Virgo or that Venus belongs to Taurus. I believe, as Linda did, that other as-yet-to-be found planets or major bodies (e.g., the size of Pluto or Chiron) are their true rulers. But, again, tired and lazy right now.

---

posted March 03, 2012 06:11 PM              

having venus opp uranus should have been 'alarm bells' at the time. I shall start a thread tomorrow for marriage signfies etc... I already have one for divorces..

synastry and divorce http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13745&highlight=synastry+divorce
Synastry & divorce--- really great article, well worth reading----- http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0OJgX88KKMsC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=astrolog y+2nd+marriage&source=bl&ots=DoV__K_IQS&sig=dI1UAX 5oprrQLtfzYUrJ4_XzuKU&hl=en&ei=zBV0SsfnHYqhjAf5rN2 nBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepa ge&q=&f=false

Now I am 1' Aquarius rising, Uranus is in 7th opp asc and conj Sun/moon midpoint, therefore square to luminaries. So yes, pretty aquarian and I don't accept Saturn as co-ruler. I don't accept mars is co-ruler of scorpio.

Most horarists are Traditional astrololgers inanyevent. We all know trads don't use outers ie: uranus,neptune or pluto..

your saturn conj uranus is not great, but generational nonetheless. Whatever house you have it in, suggests being 'stuck' on some level. Uranus does want freedom but saturn wants status quo and usually gets the upper hand.

posted March 03, 2012 11:28 PM            

having venus opp uranus should have been 'alarm bells' at the time.

[QUOTE]

I look forward to reading the thread

You say that that should have been alarm bells to begin with, and of course that makes sense with uranus, BUT its my DSC ruler. Wouldn't it make sense that there are aspects, especially from venus on that day?