12th house being your 1st house

Please, could you tell me if there is any ground to my question :

There are the houses as set by the Ascendant and then there are the 'natural' houses, eg : aries is taurus' natural 12th house, libra is gemini's natural 5th house and so on...

Should this influence our interpretation of a chart when we look at it?

Thank you,

Maggie

edited to shorten post

I don't think so.

You can do a "moon chart" or a "venus chart," etc., by turning the chart to put the moon or venus (or whatever) in the first house. It doesn't really help me, though.

ok.

I thought there might have been something to it b/c I figured (guess+assume) that probably those astrologers who write books about the Yearly Horoscopes and what not, probably use the 'Natural chart' as a reference point.

Thank so much for your input. Very much appreciated.

Maggie

Astrological Sun sign columns do assume that the Sun is on the Ascendant at the time of birth, so yes, they do use the signs as 'natura' houses in forecasts. Hence references to such things as love, and career, are to natural houses. And if you're say a Libra and the column says that Venus is in your seventh house it means that Venus is in Aries.

However, such columns are crude in the extreme. The assumption that everyone has the Sun on the Ascendant is clearly wrong. So these should be treated with a great deal of scepticism.

A better approach in reading such columns is to read three signs, your Sun, Moon and Ascendant signs and do a mental combination.

I know quite well established Astrologers write such columns, but to be honest I think they do it for the money rather than the exercise of real techniques.

I understand now.

Thank you Minderwiz!

Maggie

Edited to remove additional question - too much questions already!