An Interesting Horary Question

Barleywine

I recently did a detailed analysis of a horary chart for a business question. The chart data is: April 15, 2014, 2:34 PM EDT, Long. 72W33, Lat. 42N56, Regiomontanus Houses.

Background: Mr B is a self-employed factory sales representative for an apparel company, what used to be called a “traveling salesman.” Ms. P is his customer, a retailer of said apparel. Mr. B services Ms. P's account through order processing, tracking and remediation of manufacturer’s errors. This type of relationship has historically been built on highly personal, on-site attention to the customer's needs. Recently, Mr. B has become vulnerable to a creeping trend in the industry for buyers to order directly from the manufacturer's “inside” sales people, cutting out the middle-man and saving the manufacturer the 10% commission. Mr. B is concerned that Ms. P is considering making such a move in the near future.

The Question:

Will my customer, Ms. P, betray me and go behind my back to buy directly from the manufacture, both near-term and far-term?

I gave Mr. B (the querent and "at-risk" business owner) the 1st House and Ms. P (as his "business partner") the 7th House. First I looked at the radical chart for his situation, then I turned the chart to place her in the Ascendant. I used the outer planets since they seemed to have a lot to say about the matter (except for Pluto, which wasn't very active) but I stayed with the traditional rulerships. I also cast the chart in Whole Sign Houses, but it didn't hang together nearly as well so I stuck with Regiomontanus.

It didn't take a "rocket-scientist" (or, for that matter, even a "rocket-astrologer" :D) to see that nearly all of the planets harmonize beautifully for Ms. P, while Mr. B is left to contend with a seriously debilitated Mars in his house of money and earning power, and with Saturn sitting on the cusp of the “end of the matter.” His fear of "betrayal" also showed up strongly in more than one way. I told him "It ain't pretty . . ." I should know soon how it turns out for him, but I'm fairly confident she's going to cut him loose.

ETA: Even though this chart contains a "stricture against judgment" (28 degrees of Leo rising), I followed Barbara Watters' lead and chose to read it with the understanding that no positive outcome could result, which was borne out by the full analysis.
 

Ronia

It is an interesting question indeed. And without using the outers, did the situation in the chart remain the same and equally clear? (I can't cast the chart now)

A late Ascendant can also mean the matter is already decided. If Ms. P. has already made her decision, even if she hasn't executed it yet, the late Asc could simply point at that. But I'll disagree with that theory that a late Asc can never bring anything positive because I have jad it myself and it did signify the matter was already concluded although I didn't know it yet and the conclusion was beneficial for me. There was one more evidence of this in the chart.
 

Barleywine

It is an interesting question indeed. And without using the outers, did the situation in the chart remain the same and equally clear? (I can't cast the chart now)

A late Ascendant can also mean the matter is already decided. If Ms. P. has already made her decision, even if she hasn't executed it yet, the late Asc could simply point at that. But I'll disagree with that theory that a late Asc can never bring anything positive because I have jad it myself and it did signify the matter was already concluded although I didn't know it yet and the conclusion was beneficial for me. There was one more evidence of this in the chart.

The picture in the turned chart was pretty much the same, with the key factors being the Venus-Jupiter trine with both exalted, the location of Saturn, the presence of Venus and Fortuna in the partner's Ascendant, Moon trine Fortuna, and Mercury and Sun in Aries in the first quadrant; in the radical chart the debilitated Mars in the 2nd House was pretty much in the same state without the opposition to Uranus, as was Saturn sitting right on the IC. Uranus and Neptune added depth to the turned chart, a bit less so to the radical, while Pluto seemed rather muted. Except to note the dual role of Jupiter, I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the evolving Cardinal Grand Cross here since Mars hasn't yet fully moved into position.

Thanks for reminding me of the other interpretation of the late Ascendant; I think it's the case here that the decision has already been made, it's just not out in the open yet because the partner wants to side-step confrontation. I have some reservations about "strictures against judgment" anyway; perhaps I don't know enough about them yet, but they didn't seem to stop the modern authors I've read from interpreting a chart.
 

Ronia

Thanks for reminding me of the other interpretation of the late Ascendant; I think it's the case here that the decision has already been made, it's just not out in the open yet because the partner wants to side-step confrontation. I have some reservations about "strictures against judgment" anyway; perhaps I don't know enough about them yet, but they didn't seem to stop the modern authors I've read from interpreting a chart.

But they are only *considerations* before judgement not a full stop. I finally managed to learn this from Minderwiz after he had to tell me so about one hundred times. LOL If the chart otherwise seems to tell the story correctly, it still can be read and the consideration becomes part of the picture with its own meaning. It may be the case here.

Thanks fro explaining further about the planets in the chart. Let's see what will come out of it.
 

Minderwiz

As Ronia says, the late Ascendant could well mean the decision is already made and it's too late to change things, or simply that any judgement by the Astrologer will not be safe (that of course means the Astrologer is likely to get it wrong, not that the matter will not work out to the client's advantage).

The Sun stands for Mr. B.It's in Aries and in the 9th. Its also the Fire Triplicity ruler So Mr B and his business look sound. The Sun is also in the Terms of Saturn so is clearly concerned for Ms P. Aries is the Fall of Saturn, so he's got mixed feelings about her...the negative outweighing the positive.

Ms P is Saturn. Angular on the IC and Retrograde and Peregrine. Ms P seems the weaker of the two despite the better house position.

I don't like the phraseology of the question, it's two emotionally loaded and that might be the signification of the late degree...The terms of the question means that any answer is couched in terms of betrayal....I certainly would not have accepted it. If she changes to a direct supplier, is this really betrayal? Has she sworn an oath of undying customer loyalty...or is this not just a simple business relationship.

With a more reasonably phrased question, I'd judge it on change. That is, does the chart show a change coming in their relationship. Neither Sun or Saturn are going to change houses or signs (though Sun is in the last 5 degrees). They are not separating from an aspect and Saturn is in a fixed sign.

So I would not think she's going to 'betray' him...the trouble is that doesn't mean she won't change supplier. As the question stands, it isn't safe to reach judgement of the outcome.
 

Attachments

  • Barleywine Mr. B.jpg
    Barleywine Mr. B.jpg
    75.6 KB · Views: 193

Barleywine

As Ronia says, the late Ascendant could well mean the decision is already made and it's too late to change things, or simply that any judgement by the Astrologer will not be safe (that of course means the Astrologer is likely to get it wrong, not that the matter will not work out to the client's advantage).

The Sun stands for Mr. B.It's in Aries and in the 9th. Its also the Fire Triplicity ruler So Mr B and his business look sound. The Sun is also in the Terms of Saturn so is clearly concerned for Ms P. Aries is the Fall of Saturn, so he's got mixed feelings about her...the negative outweighing the positive.

Ms P is Saturn. Angular on the IC and Retrograde and Peregrine. Ms P seems the weaker of the two despite the better house position.

I don't like the phraseology of the question, it's two emotionally loaded and that might be the signification of the late degree...The terms of the question means that any answer is couched in terms of betrayal....I certainly would not have accepted it. If she changes to a direct supplier, is this really betrayal? Has she sworn an oath of undying customer loyalty...or is this not just a simple business relationship.

With a more reasonably phrased question, I'd judge it on change. That is, does the chart show a change coming in their relationship. Neither Sun or Saturn are going to change houses or signs (though Sun is in the last 5 degrees). They are not separating from an aspect and Saturn is in a fixed sign.

So I would not think she's going to 'betray' him...the trouble is that doesn't mean she won't change supplier. As the question stands, it isn't safe to reach judgement of the outcome.

I had doubts about the question as stated, too, but the querent is my brother and also an astrologer (although only skilled in modern natal techniques), so I felt obliged to at least take a look. He tends to try to turn his professional relations with his customers into friendships; it's the old "salesman's schmooze" factor at work. This is only one customer of many, so yes, his business is presently sound; but there has been a disquieting trend in the industry away from personal sales calls and toward a centralized, in-house, "telephone/e-mail" sales operation. I think, with the Sun exalted in the radical 9th House, he believes that he has the "moral high ground," but its conjunction with the MSN brings him cause for worry. (As I've said elsewhere, before his "classical" epiphany Rob Hand used to associate the MSN with "disconnection.")

There are two things here that I find threatening to his prospects: Mars is retrograde and in its detriment in his 2nd House of money and earning power; it is in Mercury's term. The 2nd House ruler, Mercury, is in Mars-ruled Aries in the partner's money house, in its own term and closely opposed to Mars. In the "battle of the money houses," it looks like she comes out on top by a small measure. Saturn is sitting on the IC (the "end of the matter" for the querent) in Scorpio, ruled by the weak Mars, but it is retrograde and hasn't moved into the 4th House yet; in fact it is moving deeper into cadent territory. 21 Scorpio is a "pitted" degree; according to Avelar and Ribeiro, a planet in such a degree is "like a person at the bottom of a pit, that is, blocked and immobilized." This echoes the retrogradation, the cadency and the "bottom of the chart" emphasis, making it look like his customer is hesitant about "pulling the plug" on him, but I still don't think anything good will come of it in the long run.

When I turn the chart and look at the partner from an Aquarius-rising perspective, I see much that strengthens her position by essential dignity, "turned" house position and aspect. He met with her yesterday for a routine sales visit, and I'm still waiting to hear how that went. It's possible she won't make a move until Saturn goes direct, one day before stationary Uranus goes retrograde at 16 Aries, exactly opposite the radical Mars.
 

Minderwiz

I had doubts about the question as stated, too, but the querent is my brother and also an astrologer (although only skilled in modern natal techniques), so I felt obliged to at least take a look. He tends to try to turn his professional relations with his customers into friendships; it's the old "salesman's schmooze" factor at work. This is only one customer of many, so yes, his business is presently sound; but there has been a disquieting trend in the industry away from personal sales calls and toward a centralized, in-house, "telephone/e-mail" sales operation. I think, with the Sun exalted in the radical 9th House, he believes that he has the "moral high ground," but its conjunction with the MSN brings him cause for worry. (As I've said elsewhere, before his "classical" epiphany Rob Hand used to associate the MSN with "disconnection.")

Yes the South Node was seen as unfortunate by Lilly's time and indeed both Nodes were seen as unfortunate in pre-Medieval times. They are associated with eclipses and eclipses dim or remove the light. But the Sun is nearly three degrees away, so it's not the -4 Lilly would give for a partile conjunction. It might indicate coming troubles but I would not use it as a major factor here, You should certainly not read it as impending disaster.

Barleywine said:
There are two things here that I find threatening to his prospects: Mars is retrograde and in its detriment in his 2nd House of money and earning power; it is in Mercury's term. The 2nd House ruler, Mercury, is in Mars-ruled Aries in the partner's money house, in its own term and closely opposed to Mars. In the "battle of the money houses," it looks like she comes out on top by a small measure. Saturn is sitting on the IC (the "end of the matter" for the querent) in Scorpio, ruled by the weak Mars, but it is retrograde and hasn't moved into the 4th House yet; in fact it is moving deeper into cadent territory. 21 Scorpio is a "pitted" degree; according to Avelar and Ribeiro, a planet in such a degree is "like a person at the bottom of a pit, that is, blocked and immobilized." This echoes the retrogradation, the cadency and the "bottom of the chart" emphasis, making it look like his customer is hesitant about "pulling the plug" on him, but I still don't think anything good will come of it in the long run.

Too much information!! He asked if she would 'betray' him...not about his financial situation, or her's for that matter. So these factors are at most incidental to the question. It also shows the importance of getting the question right in the first place. If he's concerned about the financial logic here, then he should have asked about it, rather than the emotive issue of 'betrayal' Indeed the financial issue is irrelevant to betrayal, unless he has asked whether she's being 'paid' to 'betray' him.

If he had asked about his financial affairs, Mars retrograde and in Detriment would be highly relevant in the question as asked, he did not. It's therefore incidental.

For example: A question I get regularly is 'Will I get the job?'. The job may be well paid or it may not but the pay level doesn't determine whether the querent will be offered the job. It might have a role in influencing whether the querent will accept the job, once it's offered - so I might say this job is not well paid, or this job has a great salary but both of those are incidental to whether the querent is offered the job in the first place.

Incidentally, if he had asked about money, I'd take Mercury in the eighth as a signification that he had cash flow issues. That is, I'd read the radical house, not the turned house. That Mercury is fast, direct and under the beams, I'd treat as an indication that things will improve because Mercury will soon be applying to it's conjunction with the Sun, his money is coming to him. If I use whole sign houses, the cash flow issue disappears, as Mercury is in the ninth.

Saturn on the IC, probably indicates that she is at 'work', her turned tenth. However, if we look at it as the 'end of the matter', Saturn is Retrograde....she's coming back to him (unless she was previously a 'direct' customer, in which case she will go back to direct purchases). Again that shows the need to have a good contextual grasp of the situation. I can't be sure which it signifies because I don't know her history. If she's always bought from a 'middle man' then there's no evidence of her ceasing to do so with Saturn retrograde. Her orders might be delayed or might fluctuate but there's no major change here.

Barleywine said:
When I turn the chart and look at the partner from an Aquarius-rising perspective, I see much that strengthens her position by essential dignity, "turned" house position and aspect. He met with her yesterday for a routine sales visit, and I'm still waiting to hear how that went. It's possible she won't make a move until Saturn goes direct, one day before stationary Uranus goes retrograde at 16 Aries, exactly opposite the radical Mars.

The question has no time limit, which is another feature that I would have wanted clear. If you come up with a 'Yes' answer, does that mean she will 'betray' tomorrow', next week, next month, next year or some time in the distant future.

Her essential dignity does not change at all, she is still signified by Saturn in Scorpio, and Saturn would be peregrine wherever you put it in the chart. Similarly, turning the chart doesn't change squares into trines or the closeness of aspects to perfection. I don't think you can 'mess' with her accidental dignity, either. that is determined by the radical chart. Saturn is her, and she is assigned the radical seventh. Turning the chart might help understand her situation but it cannot improve it. Otherwise we might turn a chart to make an eighth house planet appear on the Ascendant and suddenly change it from being weak to being very strong.

In terms of aspect, one that seems important is Saturn's square to the Ascendant. Saturn is separating from that square which might be taken as minor evidence that any tension between them is dissipating.

Uranus is irrelevant, it has no signification in horary, as with Neptune and Pluto. Watters may mistakenly use it but you should steer clear of it. Until we have some means of fitting the outer planets into a traditional framework, they are likely to mislead rather than add information in horary questions.

My worry with this question is still the terms in which it is put. I don't think she will betray him, if that's any help. However, as I don't see changing your supplier as an act of treason, I can't possibly be sure that a non-betrayal is the same thing as keeping to her existing supplier. I hope it is but the question itself means that judgement may be mistaken in terms of what he really should have asked.

As the meeting is coming so soon after the question, I'm again assuming that the meeting was on his mind when he asked the question. If he had been consulting me, I would have probed to see why he was asking the question now and on learning of a forthcoming meeting I'd have limited the time frame to that meeting. A question along the lines of:

Will Ms P end our business relationship at out forthcoming meeting on (date)? might have been much easier to deal with.

The question could have been modified to allow for the financial dynamic of changing a supplier or his future financial prospects if she decided to change supplier.

I'd be interested in what the outcome actually was, or at least the outcome of their meeting. That itself is no real guarantee, because there's no time limit but at least it would given an indication of the way things are moving.
 

Barleywine

After private discussions with other astrologers, I've come to the conclusion that the questions was probably not formulated correctly to bear out the acknowledged (or at least strongly surmised) facts in this matter. Mr. B's fear of manipulation appears to be clouding his judgment (and THE judgment); his use of the words "betray" and "behind my back" are aimed at Ms. P but they imply a hidden or secret enemy, and that enemy would not seem to be Ms. P, who is at worst a well-situated opportunist. The apparel manufacturer is the "invisible hand" moving the pieces on the chessboard here, and Ms. P looks like a pawn in their maneuvering (although most likely a willing one.) This would explain the perception that she was enticed by the manufacturer's rep at the trade show to, in Mr. B's eyes, "come over to the Dark Side" and cut him out of the picture. Mr. B's premonitions are not unfounded, however; previous "restructuring" of the "seller-salesman-buyer" interface by this manufacture has already cost him $40,000 in annual profits. He refers to them as "morally bankrupt."

The radical 12th House of "hidden enemies" is occupied by Leo, and its Lord is also the querent's significator, implying that Mr. B - although he is too obsessed with Ms. P to see it - could be "his own worst enemy" in this regard. However, the Sun is elevated, exalted in Aries and in its triplicity, afflicted only by the conjunction with the MSN, so its condition in the chart is anything but secretive or otherwise problematic. The manufacturer is certainly the economic "Sun in the sky" of both Mr. B's and Ms. P's businesses, and its managers probably see themselves as doing the inevitable "belt-tightening" that businesses do in tough economic times (these days, it's often a euphemism for ruthless cost-cutting in order to show investors continued growth in profitability). The "human element" is usually one of the first casualties.

Given that the question was aimed at the wrong target, it probably wouldn't be productive to turn the chart to see if the manufacturer's role will emerge any more clearly. I don't think any ambiguity exists about Mr. B's and Ms. P's positions in the matter, but the third-party element doesn't jump out at me as clearly. I will continue watching developments but, unless someone else sees something I don't here, I'm done with the analysis.

ETA: One question remains for me, though. Given that the querent's "career" and "money" houses (10/2) are seriously dignified by the placement of, and aspects to, their Lord, Venus, is it safe to say that - since it is in the house of friends and open enemies - his business partner still has substantial power over those areas of his life? She can certainly reject the blandishments of the manufacturer, and I can see what is being said about retrograde planets "bringing something back" to the querent; I'm just wondering whether she retains the initiative in the relationship. How the querent left things at their recent meeting should hopefully shed some light on that.
 

Barleywine

Yes the South Node was seen as unfortunate by Lilly's time and indeed both Nodes were seen as unfortunate in pre-Medieval times. They are associated with eclipses and eclipses dim or remove the light. But the Sun is nearly three degrees away, so it's not the -4 Lilly would give for a partile conjunction. It might indicate coming troubles but I would not use it as a major factor here, You should certainly not read it as impending disaster.

As I certainly don't. I hardly ever used it at all in the past since I had no faith in the spiritual and karmic dimensions given it by modern writers. Traditional meanings seem to make more sense. I mentioned it because astrologers on another forum thought the conjunction might be fueling Mr. B's fears.

Too much information!! He asked if she would 'betray' him...not about his financial situation, or her's for that matter. So these factors are at most incidental to the question. It also shows the importance of getting the question right in the first place. If he's concerned about the financial logic here, then he should have asked about it, rather than the emotive issue of 'betrayal' Indeed the financial issue is irrelevant to betrayal, unless he has asked whether she's being 'paid' to 'betray' him.

If he had asked about his financial affairs, Mars retrograde and in Detriment would be highly relevant in the question as asked, he did not. It's therefore incidental.

Did I forget to put my "disclaimer" in my previous post? I suspected I was going beyond standard practice but the unspoken part of the question was about nothing but the impact on his bottom line. I guess I knew too much of the history in advance.

Incidentally, if he had asked about money, I'd take Mercury in the eighth as a signification that he had cash flow issues. That is, I'd read the radical house, not the turned house. That Mercury is fast, direct and under the beams, I'd treat as an indication that things will improve because Mercury will soon be applying to it's conjunction with the Sun, his money is coming to him. If I use whole sign houses, the cash flow issue disappears, as Mercury is in the ninth.

He had a downward "cash flow adjustment" of $40,000 last year due to similar actions by this same manufacturer, and is nervous about another one, so I think you're right about Mercury's involvement in the 8th House. He doesn't know for sure that he won't get his full commission from the direct sales, but supposes it will be half or possibly none. Perhaps there is cause for optimism.

The question has no time limit, which is another feature that I would have wanted clear. If you come up with a 'Yes' answer, does that mean she will 'betray' tomorrow', next week, next month, next year or some time in the distant future.

He asked the question on the eve of going out on the road. I didn't find out until a day or so after casting the chart that he had a meeting scheduled with Ms. P for the next morning. My assumption at that time was that he expected something to come out into the open at the meeting. I still don't know the outcome though.

Her essential dignity does not change at all, she is still signified by Saturn in Scorpio, and Saturn would be peregrine wherever you put it in the chart. Similarly, turning the chart doesn't change squares into trines or the closeness of aspects to perfection. I don't think you can 'mess' with her accidental dignity, either. that is determined by the radical chart. Saturn is her, and she is assigned the radical seventh. Turning the chart might help understand her situation but it cannot improve it. Otherwise we might turn a chart to make an eighth house planet appear on the Ascendant and suddenly change it from being weak to being very strong.

Some of the writers I've been reading seem to make much of turning a chart. I find it interesting that you can clarify the condition of the "quesited" in this way. Still learning how much weight to put on it.

In terms of aspect, one that seems important is Saturn's square to the Ascendant. Saturn is separating from that square which might be taken as minor evidence that any tension between them is dissipating.

The meeting will have "told the tale" here, since Mr. B said he was "empowered" to talk to her. Perhaps the air was cleared and they are moving on as before.

Uranus is irrelevant, it has no signification in horary, as with Neptune and Pluto. Watters may mistakenly use it but you should steer clear of it. Until we have some means of fitting the outer planets into a traditional framework, they are likely to mislead rather than add information in horary questions.

Modern writers are a bit more ambivalent about the outer planets, seeming to be willing to find some kind of place for them. I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude. I definitely will only consider them if they're closely allied with a traditional planet, as is the case with Uranus and Neptune here since they seem to add nuance. Pluto was doing nothing for me so I ignored it.

My worry with this question is still the terms in which it is put. I don't think she will betray him, if that's any help. However, as I don't see changing your supplier as an act of treason, I can't possibly be sure that a non-betrayal is the same thing as keeping to her existing supplier. I hope it is but the question itself means that judgement may be mistaken in terms of what he really should have asked.

See my follow-up post. I don't think judgment will get to the heart of the matter since the question was aimed at the wrong target.

As the meeting is coming so soon after the question, I'm again assuming that the meeting was on his mind when he asked the question. If he had been consulting me, I would have probed to see why he was asking the question now and on learning of a forthcoming meeting I'd have limited the time frame to that meeting. A question along the lines of:

Will Ms P end our business relationship at out forthcoming meeting on (date)? might have been much easier to deal with.

The question could have been modified to allow for the financial dynamic of changing a supplier or his future financial prospects if she decided to change supplier.

I agree with these observations. I think I automatically read them into the context of the question since I knew the history of Mr. B's relationship with the manufacturer.

I'd be interested in what the outcome actually was, or at least the outcome of their meeting. That itself is no real guarantee, because there's no time limit but at least it would given an indication of the way things are moving.

I will report on that as soon as I know.
 

Minderwiz

As I certainly don't. I hardly ever used it at all in the past since I had no faith in the spiritual and karmic dimensions given it by modern writers. Traditional meanings seem to make more sense. I mentioned it because astrologers on another forum thought the conjunction might be fueling Mr. B's fears.

It may or it may not, all that I can be sure of is that it weakens his situation a little. That being said, there's much going for An exalted Sun in it's own Triplicity and in the ninth, which is the Joy of the Sun.


Barleywine said:
I suspected I was going beyond standard practice but the unspoken part of the question was about nothing but the impact on his bottom line. I guess I knew too much of the history in advance.

You know far more about the context and his financial situation than I do, so I can understand that part being 'taken for granted' but if you're doing it formally, even for your brother :) it's worth making everything explicit. It helps a lot to get his mind focussed and your own knowledge of what he is really asking as sharp as possible. It's very possible that the original question will be modified and improved by the preliminary discussion. He asks the question that really matters and you fully understand what it is that he has asked.

Barleywine said:
He asked the question on the eve of going out on the road. I didn't find out until a day or so after casting the chart that he had a meeting scheduled with Ms. P for the next morning. My assumption at that time was that he expected something to come out into the open at the meeting. I still don't know the outcome though.

It's from situations like that, that I've learned to ask questions of the querent and make sure I fully understand the situation and the question. If he had told you beforehand the chances are that you would have focussed on the meeting and what might come out of it.

Barleywine said:
Some of the writers I've been reading seem to make much of turning a chart. I find it interesting that you can clarify the condition of the "quesited" in this way. Still learning how much weight to put on it.

Don't get me wrong, turning the chart is a very useful technique but it's not the horary equivalent of a relocation exercise. You can't make one bit stronger by turning it. You can begin to explore the situation from a different perspective. It's only really worth it when there are two parties involved, such as in this question, when one might want to look at her priorities - Career (Scorpio on the turned tenth) and her income/cash flow (Saturn in the Terms of Jupiter, ruler of the turned second) are clearly two of them. So yes money is important to her. But Terms is a fairly low dignity for Lilly and the Medieval Astrologers and you'd be surprised if a business woman did not have cash flow as a priority of some sort. The more awkward one is Saturn in the Triplicity of Venus (ruler of the Water Triplicity by Day - incidentally I use Dorothean Triplicity Lords). Venus rules the turned IC, so it could be home and family and Venus also rules Libra, with the cusp of the turned ninth. That could be travelling further afield - in a business context it might be expanding into new markets.

Barleywine said:
Modern writers are a bit more ambivalent about the outer planets, seeming to be willing to find some kind of place for them. I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude. I definitely will only consider them if they're closely allied with a traditional planet, as is the case with Uranus and Neptune here since they seem to add nuance. Pluto was doing nothing for me so I ignored it.

Virtually all the Horary books this century have used the Traditional planets only. Generally though you don't have to use all the planets, not even all the visible planets. You should only use those house rulers relevant to the querent and the quesited and any planet that is either in the relevant house or aspects the relevant significator for better or worse. Other than that, you only check to see if another planet will frustrate the perfection of the matter (usually by aspecting one of the significators before the other significator does).

The problem with going beyond the significators from the question is that you can lose sight of what matters because you start to examine non vital factors in detail.

Clearly if someone asks you 'Will I get the job I applied for and will the salary be good?' then there are potentially three planets involved in answering the question. The significators for 'Will I get the job' and if you decide that they will, then the significator for their income or cash flow (Lord 2).

Other planets would only be considered for signification if the question was more complex. This of course does not nullify aspects from benefics or malefics, either by nature or by accident.

So if the significator of job and querent are applying to a trine but Lord 6 aspects the querent's significator first, that might signify that he or she will be too ill to go to the interview, or fail the medical (if there is one) for the job.