--- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: (snip) > > But John, you know, "born to rule" is an awfully silly thing > > to say about this baby, given that the British monarchy has > > virtually no power and is exceedingly unlikely ever to > > reacquire any. (Equally silly is the notion that his father's > > chart is that of "a king of the age of enlightenment," unless > > such a king is defined as being a mere figurehead.) > > > > Why don't you see if you can find something about the baby's > > chart that reflects the reality of his situation rather than > > a fairy-tale view of it? > > > Judy, > > I'm just reading what the chart says. Please, read my original > post.
That's the post I'm talking about, John, the one in which you said he was "born to rule." Actually the most the chart can say, if it's accurate, is that he was "born to rule but will never get the chance to do so." In jyotish, the Sun is the king of the solar system. The Sun being placed in the 10th house of the chart gives the power of kingship. In this particular case, the boy was a product of a royal family. And he is lucky enough that the power of royalty is passed on to him. > > However, kingship is not necessarily and automatically passed on to babies in > a royal family. Some of these babies become paupers or commoners, which is > the case of one British royal member (the brother of the present Queen) in > the 20th century who gave up his right to the throne to marry an American and > divorced woman. > > For people of common birth, the Sun in the 10th house can give them success > in their professional careers, often becoming the presidents and CEOs of the > companies they work for. So, in a sense, the Sun has given them the power to > rise above the rest to become leaders of men and women. >
