The Problem with Birth Time Rectification

Any astrologer who has tried to rectify a birth chart knows what an arduous task it is. I know astrologers who have spent years trying to rectify their own charts, and nearly every time a new major event occurs in their life they are forced to adjust their rectified birth time. A glance through AstroDataBank at charts of celebrities with unknown birth times will reveal that many astrologers have attempted a rectification and come up with different birth times, often hours apart. Even the historical literature has examples of charts that were “rectified” to times many hours removed from the recorded birth time. The case of King Henri II of France is a good example, which I have discussed elsewhere.

Recently I was talking with an astrological colleague from Argentina who swore by the exact predictions available via topocentric primary directions which would enable a very precise rectification of a birth chart. Skeptical of such a claim, I decided to read more about this method and I began reading works by Alexander Marr and Juan Estadella. My own experience with primary directions is that they identify a general period of several months, somewhat like time lords or dasa lords, but are only exact in timing events on occasion. The proponents of the topocentric system claim that if the birth time is correct, then the primary directions will identify the time of events within a week or two. I find this hard to believe.

Reading the first book on predictions by Alexander Marr, I attempted to work with his rectification of the chart of Elizabeth Taylor, who has a well-documented birth time. Marr came up with a time that was quite different, and I am inclined to believe the birth certificate more than the speculations of Marr. In addition, Marr appears to use Placidian directions under the pole rather than the proportional semi-arc method which Placidus felt was superior in accuracy. Marr also uses the key of Naibod and, as far as I can tell, does not take planetary latitude into account in calculating primary directions.

[image error]

I next turned to a book by Juan Estadella who describes the method of Alexander Marr. One of Estadella’s chief examples is the chart of Jackie Kennedy, which has a suspect birth time because it was given by Frances McEvoy who had a reputation for rectifying birth charts and then claiming that the source of the birth time was a mutual acquaintance of the famous person whose chart she had rectified. Mr. Estadella, using McAvoy’s data which was probably already rectified by McEvoy, notes that the primary direction of the MC to the 9th house Sun perfected on June 18, 1953, just 6 days before she announced her engagement to Jack Kennedy on June 24, 1953. He cites this as evidence of the immense accuracy of primary directions, an accuracy that is not obtainable with any other astrological predictive technique. Rectifying what is most likely an already rectified chart is hardly convincing.

Transits, Estadella claims, are only able to be accurate within a period of many weeks or even several months and do not have the pinpoint accuracy of topocentric primary directions. However, if we look at the transits to Jackie Kennedy’s chart for June of 1953 we find that Jupiter in the 7th house of marriage returns by transit to its natal position (Jupiter conjunct Jupiter) on June 19, 1953, just 5 days before her engagement (even more accurate than the primary direction). Then, on 24 June 1953, the date of the announcement, transiting Jupiter perfects a semi-square to her natal Moon which rules her 9th house of the dissemination of information.

My guess is that Frances McEvoy used the transits of Jupiter to rectify the chart initially and then passed the rectified time off as the recorded birth time of Jackie Kennedy. In fact, the hospital record does not contain the birth time, although there is mention in the nursing notes that at 5 pm that the baby was being monitored, so we know she was born some time before 5 pm.

So far the evidence in favor of the extreme accuracy of the topocentric system is not convincing. I’d like to see a rectification which is then verified by hard historical evidence that was not previously rectified and was otherwise unknown to the astrologer.