I’m admittedly reticent regarding reading the charts of famous people who are still alive, but my concerns are twofold. This article is written specifically for other astrologers if only to raise what I believe to be a legitimate concern.
The wise astrologer is also a sceptic when it comes to received information. There is no virtue in rushing to interpret something that may not be legitimate in the first place. There are few mega sites, that offer staggeringly extensive databases holding the alleged natal information of tens of thousands of famous people, such as celebrities, politicians, scientist, royalty and other figures of historic interest. This is a wonderful resource to be able to offer and the amount of work compiling all that data and then constructing charts to be viewed is a work of almost mythic proportions.
The problem is that the delivery can lead one to suppose accuracy even when it isn’t there. However, I find it very disturbing that these charts are accepted as definitive when there are many reasons they may not be, An inaccurate chart assumed to be associated with a person we only think we know is of no use at all, but moving to interpret and disseminate the results may be quite damaging indeed.
There is always some sort of rating system used in these databases, but even the highest rating given to the evidence of a birth certificate deserves a moment of reflection. Clerical mistakes do happen. Even diligent hospital staff have historically rounded off the birth time. There can be a great difference even in a chart calculated for a few minutes away from the actual birth time. It is, however, when you get to the next category, usually labelled “AA,” that the possibility of hearsay comes into play and therefore any pretence of certainty is lost. It is common for example, for relatives, perhaps decades after the birth cannot quite recall if the nativity occurred just before or just after lunch, but the human find fills in what it isn’t at first clear about.
Even worse, some celebrities have been known to deliberately publish false natal information, sometimes with the assistance of an astrologer. This is more likely to be the case if the celebrity believes in astrology and therefore grasp the consequences of revealing so much personal information, that can then be *interpreted* by anyone with an astrology program or indeed access to the many online astrological chart services.
This has always presented me with an obvious ethical dilemma. as well as practical ones. Just because someone is famous for pretending to be other people in film, doesn’t mean we actually know them and I question the moral right to expose what ought to be private. I should alert you to the fact that I am in the great minority on this position, but Traditional astrologers of the calibre of John Frawley have made their own concerns well known
As with any profession, at least some consent is required, boundaries should be observed and rules of simple etiquette respected. The usual argument for dispensing with common decency is that studying charts of people you know can be a great learning tool. I have two comments in this regards. First of all, you can study charts without making them public. Secondly, we only think we know people whose livelihood depends on deception should not be the cosmic paparazzi.
With the ethical and practical considerations in place, let’s take a look at an example of an almost certainly incorrect chart – that of Prince Harry. Below is the chart as calculated using a well-known on-line astrological database of famous people. I will refrain from making personal, prying observations and limit myself to discussing how and why we determine if a given chart is deemed to be authentic or not. I’ve been leaning towards posting an article on this chart, with the larger purpose or astrologers to consider being more circumspect and discriminating when accepting natal information as given, with a particular focus on the astrology of celebrities, including the British RF.
In most cases, it is not necessary to draw up multiple charts, such as the various forms of progression, in the attempt to line up life events. This may be helpful, but is also notoriously off the mark and reference to the natal chart would be required in any case.
We don’t need to go into any great detail to see that this chart doesn’t belong to Prince Harry. Yes it is accepted by countless people who viewed it online and never thought to question it
This chart has a Capricorn Ascendant. Almost universally this is said to denote someone dark and of diminutive stature. Saturn Ascendant is known to be on the short side. Harry is 6′ 1″. His Mars in Sagittarius in the 12th House isn’t what we would expect of someone so devoted to military life. The Sun, Mercury and Part of Fortune in the 9th House would be stretch. Harry is known to popular and social, with many friends. So Saturn in the 11th house raises questions.
Now, let’s look at the chart with an Ascendant in Sagittarius
Sagittarius is ruled by Jupiter and gives us the chart with someone taller than in the previous chart. This also has Mars in the 1st house. Ancient authors, those from the Hellenistic, Medieval period and the Renaissance make militaristic associations regarding this placement. Harry is also known to be far more impulsive than his elder brother. When playing polo, it has been noticed that William is more thoughtful about the game, whereas Harry is far more fiery and visceral. traditional authors also mention red hair as indicative of a fiery, not a Saturnine Ascendant.
Instead of having and cold and limiting Saturn in the 11th house, we see Venus in her own domicile, which I believe speaks for itself. He has the North Node in its Exaltation in the 7th house and a Taurus Moon, the other domicile of Venus in the 6th house.
Without going into more personal details, these combine to suggest a boisterous person, who is likely to be the weaker partner. Clearly, the Sun and Mercury are far more credible here than the position in the Capricorn Ascending chart. The Sun in the 10th house is another strong indication that the Sagittarius Ascending chart has far more merit.
I promised to be brief in analysis, but even with these few observations we would have every right to question the veracity of the AA natal This not yet a chart rectification. The one-hour difference is arbitrary and employed to show what changes occur. I do, of course, consider it plausible, but the investigation relies on the change of sign on the Ascendant and makes no attempt to establish a precise degree of the Ascendant.
From this point, we can begin to consider many more elements in detail, that will render a chart closer to the exact degree. If this is a private chart reading, questions of verification may are usually presented Then we have countless methodologies at our disposal, some more exotic than others. There is no need to go into the various methods here, nor to consider relative accuracies. The simple fact that we are alerted to serious discrepancies, indicating the chart is almost certainly derived from spurious natal information. This is a very good beginning.