Choosing a significator according to the nature of the question

[easyboy82]

Hello, usually the traditional methods for choosing a significator card (when used) involve astrological sun signs or physical appearance. In a book ( "Gypsy wisdom", by Christina Aguilar) I've read this alternative method: you choose the significator only according to the nature of the question. So a man under the 40 asking about work will be the knight of wands, if he asks about love the knights of cups, if he asks about money the knights of coins and if he asks about conflicts the knight of swords. Ok, there are no rules and everyone can do according to his own preferences. But I'd like to know what do you think about this particular way of choosing the significator card according to the matter of the reading in alternative to the more usual ways considering sun signs or physical attributes. I find it simple and interesting. And you?

[Thirteen]

Makes a lot of sense. If I ever use a signifier, I'll keep this method in mind.

[willowfox]

It looks very interesting but why do you need a significator in the first place?

[easyboy82]

I never felt the need for a significator for spreads such as the Celtic Cross. But I think it could be useful to choose one when you use spread with a certain number of cards in rows, without fixed meanings for each position. In this case, reading the cards as a whole, it could be useful to notice if the card representing the consultant came up and where and besides which cards. This is a central point for example when reading with regular playing cards and asking about a couple: the first thing you have to look in this case is where the two cards representing the two partners are, near or far from each other, and which cards are near them (to see if there is some "unwanted" presence. I thin this apply to the tarot too. What do you think?

[willowfox]

I cannot read playing cards but I suppose a significator could work well there, I believe some oracle decks use this method as well, but for tarot I find it unnecessary.

[Alta]

I like the idea, and will use it. The significator has value as a focal point for intent and focus.

Marion

[le fey]

I like this idea too. I do use significators sometimes, but I don't separate them out - just note which card specifically describes the querent and they pay special attention if that card turns up in the spread, and where.

[Mageborn777]

My first mentor had me use significator cards. I'd take the appropriate court cards out of the deck, i.e. queens for women, and lay them face down in front of the querant and let them choose. I'd have them pass their non-dominate hand just over the cards to see which one felt warm, or different. That always told me what they really needed to know (instead of what they thought they wanted to know about).
Another thing she taught me was to add the Hierophant to the kings (always shuffled together face down) if I was reading for someone in the clergy etc. Or another Major to the mix depending on the person I was reading for.
I don't do that anymore. I do put the first shuffled/cut/stacked card down as a 'prime' card to sort of act as both significator and get a general feel for the person. Which makes a basic Celtic Cross 11 cards.

[moderndayruth]

I like using significators for focus, but get confused with all the "physical apperance" attributions
This method sounds great, easyboy82, thanks for sharing it!
The woman under 40 would be the knight too, right?

[easyboy82]

Originally Posted by moderndayruth

I like using significators for focus, but get confused with all the "physical apperance" attributions
This method sounds great, easyboy82, thanks for sharing it!
The woman under 40 would be the knight too, right?

Personally I always use Queens for women, no matter their age. While the knights are young men under 40 years and kings older men over 40. I don't use pages and in the case they would be men too. The method in "Gypsy wisdom" is the same.