Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

I saw the movie "Elvis" yesterday and was a little disappointed in the movie, but the man and his 'revolutionary' life was most fascinating. His AA timed birth: 1/8/1935; 4:35 AM; Tupelo, Mississippi; 34N15; 088W42.

As far as his aspects, I get much more out of his mundo natal than standard natal. Elvis literally revolutionized the music of his era with Rock & Roll, and there is no doubt in my mind his # 1 angular Natal Signature is his direct midpoint of Uranus/Pluto = ASC (1,02). Robert Hand offers for Uranus/Pluto symbolism:

Revolutionary overthrow, complete and total transformation. Sudden changes that have long-standing causes at their root. Extreme conditions, sudden applications of power, explosive happenings.

We can clearly see how Elvis took this powerful Uranus/Pluto midpoint and powerfully—revolutionized his immediate environment (ASC) with his complete new style of music before the masses, which had “long-standing causes.” One of my standards is when I see no angular signatures in a standard Natal, I immediately go to possible direct midpoints involving the angles, since angularily is the # 1 teaching principle in Sidereal Astrology. Natal Neptune 2 degree conjunct his Natal Zenith, maybe for his drug addition to pills.
Other observations:
His magnetic Venus-Node conjunction ("love connections") for attracting & driving the women mad with their love for his new revolutionary style of music, which had much more appeal for the women (Venus) in his mass audiences than men. He could choose any woman lover he wanted.
Partile mundo Moon-Jupiter 90 for happy go lucky luck with his chosen profession.
Close mundo Moon-Saturn conjunction for the emotional depression he experience behind his stage life.
Partile mundo Jupiter-Pluto 90 for wealth and "extraordinary" good fortune with fame.
All this with my first quick scan. Please, offer any other of your observations.

Elvis' well-known chart is remarkable in several respects. First though, to Sidereal astrologers, he's a fantastic embodiment of his Sun-sign and Moon-sign. I don't need to repeat all the fine points here, but people can read the sign details here:

Sun in Sagittarius: https://www.solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35#p163
Moon in Aquarius: https://www.solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=34#p152

As a Sagittarius-Aquarius he was fundamentally a Jupiter-Uranus type - someone potentially extraordinary. Besides his Sag Sun describing him in fine detail - not to mention giving him the stature that won him the nickname The King - it is the consistent with the stature of other Sagittarians like Bowie and Page. For Sagittarius also consider the name Graceland, and his love of gospel that nobody wanted him to record (but he finally did). The truly remarkable thing, though, is the Aquarius Moon which includes nearly every culture-altering sex-infused male music figure that has hit the public attentuon in the last 80 years. Besides Elvis add Sinatra and Chuck Berry before hm and Michael Jackson and Prince after him. (Add Billy Ray to that list if you want.)

Even his Scorpio Ascendant sign is relevant: On the principle that the rising sign is your facade, how you're superficially seen, Scorpio certainly describes this about Elvis. He was (as my little formula goes) a Sagittarius with an Aquarian style, dressed up like a Scorpio.

His one angular planet is Neptune on the Zenith. This fit him in more ways than I could quickly summarize. I'm only this week starting to reassess my Neptune Foreground section, bug - aside from the generalization that it's great for popular performers and enhances the enchantment and magic of performance - the most characteristic traits might be that they live in their own bubble reality, often shielded as if in a womb, absorbed in the (often fictionalized) details of their own story. In music, this takes many forms - two Beatles, Alice Cooper, Stevie Nicks, and more - but these basic traits remain. The raw power to entertain, to wield the tower if image, shows in other Neptunians like Steven Spielberg, Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, and more, plus the long string of genius painters (Da Vinci, Cezanne, Raphael, Dali, etc.).

His closest and most dynamic aspects also declare obvious truths about him. His strongest aspect (0°18') is Uranus square Pluto. Mercury and Venus both join them, Venus opposite Pluto being far more commanding in mundo with an orb of less than 3° (and Venus-Uranus even closer). We can't miss his 12' Moon-Sun aspect or 0°50' mundane Moon-Jupiter square.

There is also, though, his close Moon-Saturn conjunction. Besides him being driven, eventually prone to depression, and just plain worn out by his life, this shows his strong mother attachment and the fact that he was heavily mother-attached and (in ways that jostled with the mix of his Sagittarius and Aquarius) was always "the good boy," his nature struggling against the discipline and stricture pattern in which he was raised.

Here is his technical profile from TMSA:

Notice that Elvis' Sun can be read as all about entertainment. It's middleground in Sagittarius and, in addition to the powerful, charismatic Moon-Sn octile (0°12'), it's only two close (Class 1) aspects are the 0°50' sextile to Jupiter and the 2°47' trine to Neptune. Sun is within a degree of the Jupiter/Neptune midpoint.

His Mercury, first, shows an atypical and outlier mind (opposite Pluto, square Uranus, close) and thereafter is overall quite positive (besides Pluto, it aspects three benefics and Sun).

His Venus, though, is probably his most interesting planet. Its closest aspects are to the three outermost planets. Venus may already be more important than it looks - consistent with his good looks and unmistakable charm - since it is only 0°25' from Antivertex in azimuth.

Steve, I don't see the Jupiter-Pluto square you mentioned (either mundanely or ecliptically):

Jupiter 24°14' Libra, 3°10' in 12H
Pluto 1°18' Cancer, 7°10' in 8H

His Jupiter (theoretically important since he was a Sag) was background, partile aspect both luninaries, then a little more widely aspecting two malefics (Saturn and Neptune). The Jupiter-Saturn square is one of his most interesting aspects: He grew up respecting custom and society's institutions - in many ways he was quite conservative - then eventually became an institution himself.

If houses exist, Elvis should be a prime example of 2H since Sun is 0°04' from the 2nd cusp. Aside from traditional expectations, e.g., he came from poverty and got rich, I think he ties to what I most consistently see from a strong 2H emphasis, that the house acts like a strong conjunction with Mars. I mention this just for curiosity.

Jim wrote:

His Venus, though, is probably his most interesting planet. Its closest aspects are to the three outermost planets. Venus may already be more important than it looks - consistent with his good looks and unmistakable charm - since it is only 0°25' from Antivertex in azimuth.

Excellent point Jim, and indeed “more important than it looks.” Most interesting! How much of this “more important than it looks” do you contribute to its closeness from Antivertex in azimuth?
Jim wrote:

Steve, I don't see the Jupiter-Pluto square you mentioned (either mundanely or ecliptically):

My mistake Jim, it’s a mundo partile Uranus-Pluto 90, not a mundo Jup-Pl 90. I find this also interesting because most outer planet aspects are not individualized unless wired to personal points.
Jim wrote:

Even his Scorpio Ascendant sign is relevant: On the principle that the rising sign is your facade, how you're superficially seen, Scorpio certainly describes this about Elvis. He was (as my little formula goes) a Sagittarius with an Aquarian style, dressed up like a Scorpio.

Indeed, and interesting. Do I read this as you stating our rising Sign degree is an important chart factor in reading charts?
Have you seen the movie? IMO, Warner Brother’s f- - ked the movie up! They deviated from Elvis main life theme: he was the most revolutionary (Uranus-Pluto) singer of his era, ushering in the beginning era of Rock & Roll, he was a powerful earthquake! The movie is bombing out at the box-office. But the movie still brings out many of his chart’s aspects. For a Sidereal Astrologer, the movie is defintely worth seeing to understand better some of the finer aspects of his chart portrayed in the movie. Thanks for the feedback—always learn from your keen sight.

SteveS wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:22 pm Jim wrote:

His Venus, though, is probably his most interesting planet. Its closest aspects are to the three outermost planets. Venus may already be more important than it looks - consistent with his good looks and unmistakable charm - since it is only 0°25' from Antivertex in azimuth.

Excellent point Jim, and indeed “more important than it looks.” Most interesting! How much of this “more important than it looks” do you contribute to its closeness from Antivertex in azimuth?

The only place I can find Vertex working is in natals and it's still not clear how much credit it should be given. It's quite clear that it's worthless (or worse) in return charts or ingresses, for example. In a natal, it's more obvious if there are few to no (or no close) angularities, in which case it may shine much as if it were on the horizon - out to 2° or 3° max. Since Elvis has only one a Class 3 angularity (Neptune on Zenith more than 2°), it probably should be given some credit. Something akin to Venus rising certainly seems fitting for Elvis.

Jim wrote:

Steve, I don't see the Jupiter-Pluto square you mentioned (either mundanely or ecliptically):

My mistake Jim, it’s a mundo partile Uranus-Pluto 90, not a mundo Jup-Pl 90. I find this also interesting because most outer planet aspects are not individualized unless wired to personal points.

Or simply personal planets: In Elvis' case, Uranus-Pluto both aspect his Mercury (both mundane) and his Venus (one ecliptical, one mundane) regardless. But that mundane Uranus-Pluto square, much closer than for most people born around him, is a stand-out at 0°18'. TMSA scores it at 100% aspect strength.

Jim wrote:

Even his Scorpio Ascendant sign is relevant: On the principle that the rising sign is your facade, how you're superficially seen, Scorpio certainly describes this about Elvis. He was (as my little formula goes) a Sagittarius with an Aquarian style, dressed up like a Scorpio.

Indeed, and interesting. Do I read this as you stating our rising Sign degree is an important chart factor in reading charts?

No, I don't think it's important at all because it's our most superficial layer, analogous to what clothes we put on for the day. I have to work hard to see it in people because, long ago, I started seeing past that layer - it's like having to focus your eyes differently. It does, however, sometimes show when how somebody is seen is unrelated to how the really are.

I've grown fond of the formula I coined a year or two ago: Somebody is "a [their Sun-sign] with a [their Moon-sign] style, dressed up as a [their Asc sign]." You, for example, are a Virgo with a Scorpio style, dressed up as a Libra

Have you seen the movie?

No. Waiting for it to come to streaming. We won't go into a movie theater yet, and probably won't for years to come. I had the impression it wasn't really a movie about Elvis so much as it was a movie about Parker and their relationship - did I have the wrong idea? (Perhaps from Hanks' celebrity outweighing everything?)

We got a good local feel of how those early pieces fell together when we were in Memphis, especially with the Sun Studios tour (worth the $12 cost many times over). The best thing I've seen so far that matches the local feel of his up-and-coming in Memphis was Walk the Line, which is a Johnny Cash and June Carter story but shows "the whole gang" a the time - Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins, Roy Orbison, Cash and Presley. Elvis' part in it is small but seems authentic to me, played as a local kid that other musicians liked personally and respected.

I didn't take time earlier to comment on important relocations. Obviously when he moved north to Memphis, it became an important place for him - the place in the world identified with him.

But in Memphis he has nothing angular. Not even his natal Neptune. Does he still keep the Venus on Antivertex? Yes, but not as close, except... ah, Venus has company!

In Memphis, Venus on Vx is -1°04' and Pluto is on Vertex +2°52'! They are both on the prime vertical, 1°48;' from opposition, their midpoint 0°54' from the axis. In Tupelo, in contrast, Venus is 0°25' past Av and Pluto isn't close enough to count - 4°13' from Vx. So in Tupelo (on this theory), he was the sweet local boy, while in Memphis he was just a little less sweet and a lot more "breakout." (His already-partile Moon-Jupiter square squeezes to within 0°09'. Antares moves within 1° of his Ascendant mundanely.)

In New York - Ed Sullivan if nothing else - his Mars was 1°15' from MC. Did he really have a national rep for being ALL ENERGY before Sullivan? I don't think he did.

LA and the movies is less obvious. I think the factors translate as "all business," cranking him out as an industry. Jupiter is 0°16' from Asc, Saturn 0°57' from IC, and they're 1°13' from exact mundane square.

And, finally, Las Vegas: For Elvis, Vegas seems like "LA lite," with Jupiter 2°00' from Asc, Saturn 2°16' from IC, and their mundane square 0°16'. But here's the great thing about Las Vegas for The King (presuming this is a valid consideration): Local MC is 0°34' from Regulus!

Jim wrote:

The only place I can find Vertex working is in natals and it's still not clear how much credit it should be given. It's quite clear that it's worthless (or worse) in return charts or ingresses, for example. In a natal, it's more obvious if there are few to no (or no close) angularities, in which case it may shine much as if it were on the horizon - out to 2° or 3° max. Since Elvis has only one a Class 3 angularity (Neptune on Zenith more than 2°), it probably should be given some credit. Something akin to Venus rising certainly seems fitting for Elvis.

I find this most interesting because much of Elvis success was due to the “female sex" within his environment” when he was performing on stage. In the movie, when Colonel Parker first saw the effect Elvis had on women in the audience, the Colonel exploited this into a huge success for Elvis and himself. This Venus Vertex akin to Venus rising certainly was a huge magnetic Venus influence for Elvis.
Jim wrote:

But that mundane Uranus-Pluto square, much closer than for most people born around him, is a stand-out at 0°18'. TMSA scores it at 100% aspect strength.

Indeed Jim! An excellent example showing the importance of partile mundo aspects in the Natal.
Jim wrote:

You, for example, are a Virgo with a Scorpio style, dressed up as a Libra

I hear you Jim.
Jim wrote:

Elvis' part in it is small but seems authentic to me, played as a local kid that other musicians liked personally and respected.

Yes, this is brought out in the movie. The local musicians in Memphis liked Elvis.
Jim wrote:

And, finally, Las Vegas: For Elvis, Vegas seems like "LA lite," with Jupiter 2°00' from Asc, Saturn 2°16' from IC, and their mundane square 0°16'. But here's the great thing about Las Vegas for The King (presuming this is a valid consideration): Local MC is 0°34' from Regulus!

Indeed! The movie portrays very much his Vegas “kingship” when he signed a long term contract to play to the Vegas audiences. His performances were booked in advance, the Casino owners loved his sex appeal packing mostly women into the Vegas audience. I can relate to this MC/Regulus effect as my community designating me as the ‘movie king’ for my small community in Albertville---bringing em movies to the local theaters. You will enjoy the movie Elvis---highlights much what we see in his Natal.

SteveS wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:38 am I can relate to this MC/Regulus effect as my community designating me as the ‘movie king’ for my small community in Albertville---bringing em movies to the local theaters.

BTW, another Vertex (that kind of stunned me when I finally learned how to calculate these mundanely) is my own chart. I don't have all that much angularity: Moon 3°15' from Descendant, with the next most angular planet being a middleground Sun.

But at birthplace, Pluto's azimuth is 87°14', or 2°46' from Antivertex. That makes a lot of sense, especially in the context of the other birthplace-localized conditions of my chart. I didn't really notice it consciously until I had moved away, e.g., Pluto squares MC 0°26' where I live now (but as part of my Venus-Pluto square, the Venus being much more obvious to me the last four or five decades). Looking at the natal vs. local charts, the feel one gets from the Pluto is quite different in the two (because of the context of other planet angularities, the aspect structures, changed mundane aspects for the two locations, etc.).

What I found most interesting about your observation for relocating Elvis to Vegas with the MC-Regulus contact-- is its dead on symbolic accuracy for him becoming the 'King' of all the staged performances in Vegas before he burned-out. Very rarely to you/we take into account Stars for relocation. Anyway, the movie highlights his Vegas 'kingship' performances for several years.

Thanks to the insistence and generosity of our traveling companions, we visited Graceland Thursday. I have some new impressions, both of Elvis and his marketers, handlers, and successors, that arose from that. Most of them deal simply with his Sun and Moon constellations.

First, his SUN in SAGITTARIUS is not only obvious - as it always has been - but is all over the impression of him that Graceland conveys. It has always been obvious that he was a rapidly up-shooting arrow, flying high and fast as if unleashed from a taut bow. Though born exceedingly poor, his image has always conveyed the southern gentleman, in both his manner and his manor. Graceland has all the marks of southern aristocracy (though, if you look closely and past the dazzle, was designed to be a livable, comfy home - a home into which he felt proud moving his parents and grandmother). He was always portrayed as (and in many ways truly was) "the good boy": My relatives who lived in Memphis in the '60s always saw him as a good boy who bought his mama a big house, always respected her, and always was decent. Even the name of the house he bought conveyed grace (and, since his death, has been turned into a pilgrimage site, a veritable temple to his adoration).

And, along with all these mannerisms and manorisms, there is the simple fact that everyone knew he was The King.

There are more Sagittarianisms quite obvious even on the surface: He loved horses, and had a stable and riding areas at Graceland. He also had his own jets including the large, roomy Convair 880. His collection of racing vehicles are a variation of these themes. He was genuinely patriotic and honestly defended the role of its military (the trait that reportedly put him at angry odds with John Lennon the one time they spent extended time together).

Then we come to the less emphasized Sagittarian traits. For example, he read voraciously and was deeply interested in spirituality - not just the Christianity in which he was raised (though he wanted for years to do a gospel album, and finally compelled the studio to let him). Something you can miss in the tour unless you look carefully is that a stack of books from his bedside table were all Eastern and Western spiritual classics of great depth.

He clearly desired achievement, elevation, and especially external affirmations and respect, wanted to be recognized as a person of note, distinction, and contribution. He was committed to heritage especially through family while also loyal to his friends.

He loved acting, though he was never allowed to really develop as an actor: Once the industry learned that he just had to show up - didn't have to be good - nobody pushed him. I think this is one of the things that dragged him down: He really wanted to be good at it, probably wanted to be a serious actor. He earned a lot of money and it kept him away from musical performance for years, but he never even reached modest ability in his 31 films.

Sagittarians in music tend to be gods in the way Beethoven was a god. Elvis, Bowie, and Jimmy Page all pulled that off in modern times. (He got that one down right!)

And, of course, there were many minor character traits easily recognizable as Sagittarian.

And then there is his Aquarius Moon.

Elvis CLEARLY had an Aquarius Moon. My main reason for my posting on this thread, though, is to make one observation: Having an Aquarius Moon myself, and being automatically, reflexively attuned to Aquarius themes (including - perhaps especially! - themes evident in an lunar Aquarian's home), I couldn't find one reflection, hint, inference, or even vibe of anything Aquarian in the whole of Graceland.

They aren't showing it. It's not part of the Elvis story they're selling.

There is no doubt in my mind that Elvis had an Aquarius Moon. He was brilliant (but while the Graceland tour emphasizes his effect on music, they don't settle how flat-out brilliant he was and barely acknowledge that he was a voracious reader: bizarrely, the word "genius" wasn't used once).

His legend does center around something we easily see in male music celebrities: He is one of a handful of male singers with game-changing talent that completely rewrote the musical (and, to a great extent, the cultural) landscape. Like Sinatra before him, Chuck Berry alongside him, and Michael Jackson and Prince after him - all Aquarius Moons - Elvis original, innovative, redirected the flow of the Nile, and had shocking, electrifying impact. These male singers were every bit the sort of artistic geniuses as Da Vinci and Michelangelo - who also had Moon in Aquarius. That's the giant Aquarian seal upon this man who lived in (and was widely identified with) this city by the great river, at the mouth of its delta, named after another great city on the Nile.

But, I think - in his time, and carried forward even now - those around Elvis and managing his image saw his actual Aquarian soul as antithetical to their product. I think they saw it as his demon side (and, therefore, demonized it further over time). He was the good boy, the smooth supporter of heritage and southern white culture. (Heck - I hadn't thought of this until now - the whole raison d'etre of Elvis' breakout was that he was white. They needed a white boy to sing the black and black-inspired music that flooded Memphis and the rest of the delta area.)

He wasn't allowed to be or seem eccentric, rebellious, free spirited, unconforming, pot-stirring. He was the anti-James Dean, the anti-Jerry Lee Lewis (even the young Johnny Cash came on like a rebel). Elvis arguably made rock'n'roll happen, but he was never permitted to be the spirit of discontent, outrage, misbehaving, and rebellion that came to infuse rock'n'roll. (He did this indirectly: His overt, overflowing sexuality and highly sexual performance style was his social misbehavior; but he got away with it because he was "the good boy," because he made it seem "well behaved.")

Digression: He was a great example of how the Ascendant sign works. With Scorpio rising, his whole style was sex-saturated and he got his nickname, The Pelvis. That's Ascendant speaking!

The image of Elvis let into the press and which caretakers of his legacy sell to the public understandably excludes his sexuality that some would have called aberrant. That side of him was protected, hidden, kept out of the press. He wasn't allowed to become notorious.

This left the dark side of Aquarius to show, the high-strung, anxious, with needs for solitude and disconnection in order to work and regenerate. Add this to the "ivory tower" paranoia typical of over-the-edge Sagittarians (think Elvis, Howard Hughes, Richard Nixon) and you see what which way he went at the end as Neptune transited his Ascendant.

My main theme today, then, is that Elvis' professional handlers and those who have been owned and profited from his legacy concentrates solely on his solar side and suppresses his lunar side. This, of course, is what humanity has done in the majority of cases for thousands of years.

The sold (and sell) his Sagittarius - the "good boy" - and even now, nearly half a century after he died, suppress his Aquarius - seeing it as an aberration since, y'know, it's long-term suppression substantially aberrated it.

Consideration of this for a few days led me to my main view of Elvis. He wasn't born to be a man. He was born to be a myth.

The myth is alive and thriving.

Of course, his chart has more than these two signs, though he's a great example of how most of the time one doesn't need much more than the Sun and Moon sign interpretations to dig deeply into someone.

He had Neptune on Zenith, his only angular planet. The meanings are obvious: The connection to music, to entertainment at its best expression, the living a life of constant image and allure at the cost of his deeper self, and his final spiral into drugs and disintegration.

He died, I'm sure, because he was kept divided against himself. The trap of the success of The King kept Elvis Aaron Presley away from his own life. There are so many ways that a Sagittarian Sun and Aquarian Moon can integrate but, for him, they were divided. It only cost him his soul.

He died with Neptune exactly on his Ascendant. It had been there a while. It was 2° shy of squaring natal Neptune and this square surely appeared on numerous return chart angles over the last couple of years of his life. The strain on his health was overwhelming: He had a progressed Sun-Saturn conjunction and Mars-Pluto square when he died, along with the Neptune transit and decisive final solar and lunar returns.

He was a genius, to be sure: Besides his Aquarius Moon, he had Mercury opposite Pluto and square Uranus (evident ecliptically but dead-obvious mundanely). - Also BTW his Moon-Saturn conjunction is much closer mundanely than ecliptically (and he has a partile mundane Moon-Jupiter square that you wouldn't even expect ecliptically).

Obviously, there is a lot more to the chart. One could go on for pages longer. But I've had the chance to make my point.