A much debated point in horary astrology is ‘when to use derived houses’. Maybe it’s just me but I keep seeing differences in how it’s being used in interpretation. It’s often an issue when the question you ask becomes really complex. No horary book I’ve read so far was able to give me a ready-made answer, so I guess we’re just left on our own to figure it out each time. As a real Cappy Asc/ Virgo Sun, I decided to at least find a structure for myself in this ‘blur’ of when to use derived houses in a horary.

I was reading a topic today about a conspiracy theory where the government would be consciously polluting the land so the population would decrease. The question was really eye catching and so was the analysis! I just had to try and make sense of the chart myself. I found that I prefer to use less significators and find strict rules on how to apply the logic much more comforting (damned neat freaks, those virgo’s).

The exact question was “Is there a plan to deliberately reduce world population?” The topic “government” has been cut and so was “food”, “land” and “poison” which seemed to be the starting point for this question.

Focus of the horary chart
If you ask a question, the horary is taken from your perspective. If the question is asked by yourself, the significator for “yourself” is found in the first house. Every house in that chart wheel can’t be applied in a ‘mundane’ way, because these houses are the reflection of your world. This means that if you have a question on whatever subject is impacting whatever subject, you should use a derived house. The last is found more or less in literature, but leaves too much open.

Primary subject
The next thing that comes to mind is where to start! To answer this question I looked at what the primary topic would be. There are at least 6 topics in this question which have a supposed relationship to each other, now which is the correct starting point? I thought it would be the government because you are trying to examine cause -> effect. If the theory is that the government is the acting party and the people are the victim, we have a causal connection that votes for making the government a starting point. I tried to look for reasons on other topics, but this just seemed the most convincing. Your government lies in the 10th house. Luckily for this chart “governers” (ruler: Jupiter) and “government” (ruled by: House 10) are the same thing. Imagine the confusion if the sign on the cusp of house 10 was different!

Secundary subject
If I follow my train of thought when it comes to cause and effect, the secundary subject are “the people”. Normally I’d place this term in the 11th house, but since it is not the government’s effect on/ relationship to the people I’d use a derived house. 11th of the 10th. In my rulership book I also found that the Moon is a natural ruler for “the common people”. That would give Saturn as the ruler of Aquarius (disregarding transsaturnal) for the 11th of the 10th and Moon to watch in further analysis.

Eliminating significators
The next thing to do was to figure out what to do with the rest of the topics. “food” (5), “land” (4), “poison” (8), “reduction”. So here’s my attempt to simplify that logic:

You have already established the one ‘negative’ connection there needs to be: a square or an opposition between government and the way it tries to influence “the people”. Additionally:

“Land is something a government governs; how land is governed”: 4th of 10th. (should be included as auxiliary information). = Moon.

• What would your judgement be if there indeed is a direct negative connection between the government and the people? Mine: if there is no direct negative connection (square, opposition) I would answer the question with “No”.
• What would your judgement be if there is no direct negative connection between the government and the people, but there is a connection between how the government governs the land and the people? Mine: if there’s no negative connection between the two I would also rule out incidental relationships of current government policy and the birth rate.

Who-is-who
The Moon’s natural rulership is the “common people”. However, the 4th of the 10th is how the government rules the land. They are the same in this chart. How the government governs the land is the same as the intention towards it’s people (sounds logical in this case, but could theoretically be different). A third role of the moon in this chart is being your significator. Where you stand on this issue. I haven’t managed to crack this one yet. A significator appearing in double is somewhat of a challenge.

What’s a yes and what is a no?
Since you had to simplify the question to “the government attitude towards the people”, I’m thinking a trine is “good” and a square is “bad”. Or “possibilities” and “limitation”.

The rule of applying aspects only
To know a question has any kind of development, there should be applying aspects. The chart shows an ingoing trine between Jupiter (the government) and Saturn (the people). The nature of the aspect would in my opinion not be a yes to the original question. Perhaps quite the opposite? Now when we look at the Moon, it has only one ingoing aspect, but to a planet not identified as being related to the question at all: the Sun. It may have meaning to the chart since the Moon’s aspects until the end of sign signify the development of the question, but I am out of reasons for this one.

My conclusion:
A real difficult task trying to allocate such a complex question in a horary chart. Personally I would prefer to look at a specific country’s radix and take in account transitions and progressions. Doesn’t seem like the type of question that would lend itself for horary astrology unless you simplify it to “Does the government want to reduce the populace?”. Once that is established, you can look for additional information. If it isn’t, the only thing you can do is find an incidental relationship between subjects that seem logical. It’s certainly stretching the limits of astrology and your brain. Back to basics it is for me!

There are some professional astrologers that believe you can’t ask “yes” or “no” questions. Karen Hamaker being one of them I believe (will need to confirm). When you ask really complex yes or no questions I can see why she doesn’t endorse this.