National charts are common in modern astrology.

If you attend any group which

ventures into deeper waters than natal astrology then it won’t be long before you come
across a chart for a country which happens to be in the news. They will probably have
been taken from The Book of World Horoscopes by Nicholas Campion but the person
presenting the chart will almost certainly not have read the notes outlining the events or
paid any attention to the phase of historical development of the particular country.
Neither will they have given any deep thought to what constitutes the chart they are
looking at. If you’re going to use national charts then you should spend at least a
moment considering what this chart is. Mundane astrology is difficult enough without
getting hold of the wrong end of the stick at the beginning. With natal charts you have a
definite, discrete event – birth – but a country chart isn’t so straightforward.

I have been trying to write this article for
sometime. The material and ideas I’ve
collected could probably hold their own as a
Politics MA thesis. I have tried to balance
political theory with astrological considerations.
There are concepts which the astrologer needs
to consider and ponder upon before they can
make any astrological judgement. It’s a matter
of appreciating what you’re doing.
The first thing to be aware of is that the use of
national charts is a modern idea made
popular by Charles Carter following the
Second World War. Prior to this, areas,
countries and towns were considered to be
ruled by different signs. Focus (via eclipses or
planetary conjunctions) on particular signs
would affect the corresponding towns. These
rulerships are laid down in many books from
Ptolemy onwards and are not given very
much credence by modern astrologers. The
astrologer would have considered the astrology
of the town or area in the following way:
The sign ruling the town is ascertained by
noting the hour and minute of the occurrence
of important events, laying foundation stones,
opening buildings, beginning public ceremonies,
and other affairs that influence the community
as a whole or a considerable portion of it. A
map of the heavens is calculated for this time
in the usual way, and in a series of such
maps one zodiacal sign will be found to rise
oftener than the others. This is the ruling
sign and when it does not rise, it may be
found culminating or setting or it will
contain the Moon.
(H.S. Green, 1911)1
This makes a bit more sense of ‘Gemini rules
London’, doesn’t it? It also refers to one of my
pet ideas: repeating degrees – but more of that
later. Coming back to national charts we have a
couple of extremely important points to note.
First, what is the event that you have used to set
this chart? What happened to merit that

Claire Chandler: Mundane Matters ▪ Skyscript ▪ December, 2008

1
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/chandler.html
moment as one capable of being judged as the
beginning of a country? And moving on from
that, what political entity (for want of a better
term) are we looking at? The answer most
commonly given to this last question is ‘The
State’.
The concept of the state belongs to the
modern world, and by modern I mean the last
three hundred years. The entry for ‘State’ in
the Penguin Dictionary of Politics begins with the
following:
The State may be the most commonly-used
and the most opaque term in the whole of
political vocabulary. Even the derivation of
the term is obscure, and in many cultures
(including early medieval European society,
to take one example) it would be hard to
specify what word should be translated as
‘State’. It is easier to define it negatively;
the State is, for example, opposed to the
mere ‘government’. Governments come
and go, at least in democracies, without
changing the State.2
A more useful concept may be that of the
‘Nation State’:
Nation-state describes a context in which
the whole of a geographical area that is the
homeland for people who identify themselves
as a community because of shared culture,
history, and probably language and ethnic
character, is governed by one political
system. Such contexts are the common
experience today, but are not necessarily
any more natural than other forms that
have been common in history. There were,
after all, no nation states in Classical
Greece, though there was clearly a Greek
nation, which sensed that all Greeks had
more in common than a Greek could have
with a barbarian, and shared language,
religion, culture and historical identity.
Instead there were a number of, often
warring, city-states, and no sense of what
we mean by ‘civil war’ attached, say, to the
Sparta-Athens conflicts.3
Claire Chandler: Mundane Matters ▪ Skyscript ▪ December, 2008
The entry goes on to relate the rise of the
nation state with the decline of the Holy
Roman Empire and the rise of nationalism in
the 19th century. Some states arose early in the
timeline due to geographical factors (e.g., UK &
France) but some didn’t coalesce until very
recently (Germany & Italy). More recent states
have been formed almost entirely by the
colonial legacy (India and Pakistan, much of
the Middle East and Africa). These modern
legal/constitutional entities are certainly not the
same ‘thing’ as the spirit of the land or the
essence of a people or nation. They may catch
a flavour of these things but that is all.
In Mundane Astrology Nicholas Campion makes
the following point about the state:
Generally speaking the modern nation state
is a legal entity created by the nation for the
purpose of regulating itself through the
means of a constitution. The nation itself
may be considered to be a group of people
who share a common heritage, language and
culture, and who physically occupy a
particular geographical location. Obviously
there are many instances of nations who
have no state, such as the Palestinians, the
Basques or the Kurds, and of states which
contain more than one nation, such as the
Soviet Union and the United States, but the
general pattern holds.4
Then there is the question of data. The simplest
charts to establish are those based on
constitutional changes: a change in the law
brings about a new constitutional entity.

The 1801 UK chart is for the union of
Ireland with the existing union of England,
Wales and Scotland. Because it was a legal
change it took effect at midnight according
to British law.

The various French republics were declared
legally. We are currently on the 5th Republic.

Most post-colonial states achieved independence
through a legal change of status. Independence
was recognised on a certain day at a certain
time.
2
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/chandler.html
The more complex problems come from
changes due to events which are not clearly
identifiable or documented, such as coups and
revolutions. We often have problems clarifying
the time with this type of events, which includes:

Iraq becoming a republic in 1958,
overthrowing the royal family

The People’s Republic of China

Various incarnations of Russia and the
Soviet Union
The examples given so far are quite straight
forward, but there is also the situation where
power has effectively been transferred
although the legal process is yet to catch up
with events; or that where the declaration of
intent is made ahead of a political power base
being built up and constitutional power being
transferred. For example:

Colonial states did not ‘get
independence’ overnight. There would
have been a slow transfer of the day-to-
day affairs before official independence.

The Republic of Ireland first declared
independence in 1916 but did not
achieve legal independence until 1921,
and then only as a free state. The
republic was not established until 1949.

Israel declared independence the
afternoon before legal independence
was due to be granted.
What we are talking about here are de jure
(backed by law), and de facto power (actual
power but not enshrined in law). For instance,
the United States declared independence in
1776, defeated the British in 1781 with the
surrender of the Yorktown (de facto) but did
not achieve legal sovereignty (de jure) until
1783. You may have one or the other but not
necessarily both. For a full explanation of this
I refer you to the excellent introduction to
Nicholas Campion’s Book of World Horoscopes,
which I have drawn heavily upon for this
article. An extension of this idea is the signing
of a treaty. Is the treaty ratified before the
Claire Chandler: Mundane Matters ▪ Skyscript ▪ December, 2008
parties sign it? Usually it is ratified after the
signatories bring it into existence. And once it is
ratified when does it become law? If you have
more than a handful of signatories the time
between first signing and last signing could be
significant. Take, for instance the creation of
the United Nations – the following is from Book
of World Horoscopes:
The signing ceremony began at 6.00 am.
and was not expected to be complete until
mid-afternoon. Following this, each country
had to ratify the treaty separately, and the
organisation was scheduled to come into
force when a majority of states had done
this. Shortly after 3.00 pm. on 24 October
1945 the requisite number of states ratified
the treaty when the USSR, Byelorussia and
the Ukraine deposited their ratification
documents in the US State Department in
Washington. At 4.45 pm the United Nations
came into existence when the U.S. Secretary
of State signed a protocol of deposit of
ratification.5
There is also another chart which is set for the
proposal of the idea of such a body. Interestingly
the proposal for the UN has a Venus-Neptune
opposition while the ratification chart has a Venus
Neptune conjunction.
Staying with declarations of independence for a
moment, there are other points to consider.
Will the declaration be recognised and will it be
successful? Some declarations of independence
are short-lived, some grow into glorious states
in their own right. Whatever actually happens,
the chart for independence will be part of the
story of the parent state – rather like the fact
that your child’s wedding is a big event for you
as well as them. You can expect lots of synastry
as they are intimately connected.
Kosovo has recently declared its independence
from Serbia, who most certainly does not
accept it. Some countries have recognised it,
some have not. You can see the impetus to
independence within that chart and the
relationship to Serbia and the continuing story
through the synastry.
3
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/chandler.html
Consider the Kosovo declaration. Nothing says
‘independence’ like the Sun conjunct the North
Node trine to Mars, does it? Put together with
an exact Moon-Jupiter opposition you get a
flavour of self-determination, moving away
from vested interests, power structures and
traditional hierarchies.
Looking at Serbia you see Mars conjunct the
South Node, perhaps showing the military
overtones of the situation the country
Claire Chandler: Mundane Matters ▪ Skyscript ▪ December, 2008
emerged from. The chart is taken from the
signing of the treaty of Berlin which established
Yugoslavia and many other Balkan states, and
concluded the war between the Ottoman
Empire and Russia. What is interesting is that
this conjunction in Leo is tightly conjunct the
ascendant of Kosovo. No wonder this is a
highly emotive time.
Serbia has the Moon at 10°à which is close to
the Moon-Jupiter opposition of Kosovo –
another note of fighting against tradition and
notions of homeland and control, (all
Cancer/Capricorn issues, especially when
you’ve got Uranus in trine or sextile).
The recent eclipses are also active and
implicated. The solar eclipse at 17°â is near
the ascendant-Mars combination. The lunar
eclipse at 1°Ñ puts the Moon right on the MC
of Serbia, and the Sun right on the IC –
symbolic of land, territory and sovereignty. A
more appropriate piece of symbolism is hard to
think of. Many charts have harsh charts, but
they describe the birth of the country aptly
enough.
This brings us to the subject of ‘which is the
correct chart?’, and that will take us swiftly on
to ‘when does one chart make way for
another?’ Now this has never struck me as a
problem but I know it has driven friends of
mine to distraction. If you are steeped in natal
astrology you expect one chart and can get
quite upset when asked to deal with more than
one. It is not that you can’t cope with more
than a certain amount of planets, that’s not
what I’m saying at all. It’s the underlying
principle which doesn’t sit comfortably.
Now let us have a closer look at this. It comes
as a bit of a shock to students when they realise
that charts continue to receive transits after the
person has died. Consider Jane Austen. In 1995
when the classic BBC adaptation of Pride and
Prejudice was first aired Jupiter was in Sagittarius
which conjoined Austen’s natal Mercury (6°),
then her Sun (24°), IC (22°) and finally squared
her Virgo ascendant (24°). Saturn was in Pisces
and squared these points. In addition, there was
4
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/chandler.html
also a critically acclaimed film of Sense and
Sensibility by Ang Lee made at the same time.
Recent transits of Pluto to mid-mutable
degrees match with Keira Knightly’s Pride and
Prejudice and last year’s Jupiter in Sagittarius
brought us more BBC adaptations. Not a
terribly serious example but you can see that
charts continue to receive transits. If the natal
of a person chart can do this, why not a chart
for a country?
The point is that countries are not born. They
were in existence before whatever event took
place. With the possible exception of Surtsey,*
countries don’t just spring into existence. The
land was there and the people existed before
they decided to organise themselves in that
particular way. Perhaps ‘birth chart’ is not the
correct term for these charts? We are very
used to using interchangeable terms to
describe the figures we look at: horoscope,
birth chart, natal chart, natus, … but we don’t
think about the underlying implications of
these terms. I don’t want to come over like the
grammar police; I just want to point out an
unrecognised assumption. Language is extremely
important; it creates the channels through
which our thoughts flow. We need to be
aware that the language we use may be taking
us off track without our knowledge.† If
something is “born” it implies that one chart
is correct and will lead us down the path
searching for the one true chart for ‘xxxx’,
and in that way lies madness.
I am prepared to face the possibility that the
mundane charts we have access to are only
part of the story. When I think about this I
have an image of iron filings being sprinkled
on paper which is held over a magnet. You
cannot see the magnetic field directly but you
can see the patterns that the filings make. I
* Surtsey is a volcanic island off the southern coast of
Iceland; it is also the southernmost point of Iceland. It
was formed in a volcanic eruption which began 130
meters below sea level, and reached the surface on 14
November 1963.
† To quote a current beer advert: “Get the head right
and everything else will follow”.
Claire Chandler: Mundane Matters ▪ Skyscript ▪ December, 2008
have a feeling that important event charts for a
particular country may act in very much the
same way. Patterns will emerge; degrees and
planetary patterns will be repeated. Event
charts will be transits to a chart even if that
data is lost to us. Following Charles Carter’s
reasoning there must be a chart for humanity
which runs behind everything else, if only we
could establish the correct data.
Following from this, you don’t have to have one
single, undisputed chart for a country. The UK
is a good example here. Not only have we been
going for some time, but we have had several
different legal identities. Within these different
charts degrees repeat (10°à for example in the
UK story, 8° fixed in the Middle East story),
and themes are repeated, such as Venus-
Neptune with the UN as mentioned above. It is
not unheard of that one chart works very well
for business and economics, whilst another
works better for wars and conflict. We can look
at this as if we’re slicing the orange in a different
way. Above and beyond these considerations is
the matter of the role of the astrologer in
judicial astrology. I’m saving that one up for
the summer column. Campion has this to say
on the topic:
The question we pose of various national
horoscopes should therefore be not is this the
correct horoscope? But rather what is the significance of
this horoscope? What does it signify? The notion of
the true and false horoscope is as rigid a
straightjacket as the idea that countries have
birth charts. If divinatory astrology is a
language, dealing with signs, it follows that
significance should be the primary means of
judging whether a particular horoscope is
relevant or not. Firstly, the historical event for
which the horoscope is cast should be
significant. Secondly the planetary picture
within the horoscope should itself be significant.
And both historical and astrological significance
can only be judged by the mundane astrologer.
That is, there is no horoscopic mundane
astrology independent of the astrologer’s ability
to select, discriminate and judge.6
5
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/chandler.html

What I’m trying to say is don’t just run out a

chart without thinking about it first, though
this should be a standing order to all
astrologers not just those doing mundane
work. The quality of data, despite much work
by mundane practitioners, is still very poor. If
you cite an event then make a proper note of
the source. With the internet this shouldn’t be
a problem, it is no trouble to copy a hyperlink
and news sources don’t tend to disappear.
Campion had this to say in 1995:
Yet in mundane astrology the situation is a
bleak as ever. Horoscopes are poorly
researched, and are often set for wholly
inappropriate events and dates. Rectified
charts are interspersed with those based on
accurate times. Sources are misread and
even invented. Frequently no adequate
sources are given.7 We start with the coronation of William the
Conqueror, a particularly popular chart which
Let me make it clear that I’m not bad still resonates and is especially useful when
mouthing rectification. Indeed, I haven’t considering England rather than the UK. A
come across many who are willing to put the time of noon is always stated, but upon
hours in to use this technique effectively. The checking I discovered that there is no evidence
point I’d like to emphasise is that data is our for this. Another instance of why you should re-
weakest link, both in quality and in the way read the notes regularly. Points to note are the
we manipulate it. I should also make it clear Sun at 9°à, Pluto at 3°ä, Neptune at 22°Ä,
that Book of World Horoscopes is an amazing Mars at 8°â, and the Moon-square-Uranus at
book, a mammoth task which allows us to 29/28° ä/á.
investigate infinitely more national charts than
before. Indeed it is required reading for The 1265 chart is for Simon De Montfort’s
anyone who is interested in mundane summoning of representative citizens to
astrology. What I am saying is that while parliament [see over]. There is no time for this
national horoscopes are incredibly powerful, but the block of Aquarian planets is deeply
we should understand and appreciate the significant of representative government. It was
limitations and the nature of the beast we are far from what we would recognise as
trying to examine. democracy today, but it was a significant event
in our story. Note the Mars-Saturn conjunction
Let’s conclude by looking briefly at some of at 21/23°Ä and Sun at 8°â. Interestingly the
the UK family of charts to pick out the transits in September 1997, when the devolution
repeating themes and degrees. This collection referendums were taking place, put transiting
is not exhaustive but these are the more Uranus on the Sun and Mercury, and Jupiter on
popular charts. I haven’t included any from Venus, not to mention Mars opposite itself.
the Civil War period, principally because that
period is very difficult to summarise. If you James I taking the throne upon Elizabeth I’s death
have Book of World Horoscopes there are sees the Moon at 9°à, square the Sun at 12°~,
extensive notes there. Uranus at 11°Ä, Saturn at 3° á, and Venus at
4°ä, Jupiter at 21°Ü and the Moon trine Uranus.

Claire Chandler: Mundane Matters ▪ Skyscript ▪ December, 2008

6
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/chandler.html
We are starting to see a pattern emerging.
James, as we learnt in school was King of
England and also King of Scotland. It was not
until 1707 that the countries were unified to
make Great Britain.
Continuing our story with the chart for ‘Great
Britain’, we have Mercury at 11°Ä, Jupiter at
21°É, Moon at 28°Ñ, Saturn at 4°Å, and
the Sun and IC at 20°/21°Ä. These degrees
are certainly marking out some kind of
underlying significance.
Claire Chandler: Mundane Matters ▪ Skyscript ▪ December, 2008
1801 brings us to the formation of the United
Kingdom when Ireland is formally brought into
the fold. This is probably the most popular and
reliable chart for forecasting concerning the UK.
The story continues with the Sun at 10°à,
Mars at 11°Ä, Saturn at 23°É, Pluto at 2°ä
and the Moon-Uranus contact has now become
a quintile.
The last chart in the story – so far – is for the
reorganisation after partition, when Northern
Ireland was created.
7
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/chandler.html
REFERENCES:
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Some believe that this should be the primary
chart for the UK, but this brings us back to
the idea of ‘one, true chart’. We should note
the repeats: Pluto at 10°Ç, Moon at 23°Ç,
near the 1801 Moon, Venus at 25°Ü, Jupiter
at 8°Ü. Interestingly for a political
reorganisation, Mars is conjunct the Moon of
the 1265 chart.
The repeats I have pointed out are not
exhaustive. I’m sure there are plenty more
and one of the reasons I have reproduced the
charts is so you can work on this yourselves.
Whatever the significance of 11° fixed, 23°
fixed, 10°-12° cardinal, and 2°-4° mutable, we
can see that they continually receive emphasis
over time.
Some points are part of a wider story of
human civilisation as they repeat through
many stories, some are our very own. Now we
need to put our minds to figuring out the
reasons why.
Claire Chandler: Mundane Matters ▪ Skyscript ▪ December, 2008
1. Mundane or National Astrology, Green, HS, p78.
2. Penguin Dictionary of Politics, Robertson, p307.
3. Ibid., p224.
4. Mundane Astrology, Baigent, Campion & Harvey, p97.
5. Book of World Horoscopes, Campion, N. p395.
6. Ibid., p48.
7. Ibid., p35.
Mundane Astrology, Baigent, Campion and
Harvey, 2nd Edition, 1992, Aquarian Press.
Book of World Horoscopes, Campion, Nicholas,
2nd Edition, 1995. Current edition is 4th.
Penguin Dictionary of Politics, Robertson, David,
1985. Not the latest edition.
Mundane or National Astrology, Green, HS, 1911,
modern reprint.
An Introduction to Political Astrology, Carter,
CEO, 1951.
Anima Mundi, Harvey, Charles, CPA press.
Raphael’s Mundane Astrology, Raphael, ebook.
A Consulting Astrologer based in London,
England, Claire Chandler is a past
president of the Astrological Lodge of
London and a previous editor of
Astrology Quarterly. She has also been
the secretary of the APAE (the Advisory
Panel for Astrological Education) since
2001. Visit Claire’s personal website at
www.clairechandler.com
The end
8