Will she get a summer contract?

[Cheburecus]

A friend of mine has asked whether her part-time contract will be renewed for this summer. Her employer said, they might not have enough work for her during the summer months, but possibly they will have work in autumn.
The Asc is in the early degree, and it would seem like it's too early to ask the question, but I decided to try and interpret the chart nevertheless.
I have placed her in the first house, as she asked this question herself.
She is represented by Saturn in H3. I placed the job in her H10 with the ruler Venus in H7. Venus is in Cancer, Saturn's detriment and Saturn in Pisces exalts Venus. Venus will trine Saturn in 16 units. The next aspect the Moon will make is a square to Saturn. My judgment was that she wouldn't get the summer job, but they would call her in autumn.
And I was wrong! Yesterday (June 25th), she got back to me, saying, she was offered a summer position.
I am wondering if I should have placed her employer in L7, as it is a part-time contractual job. Then The Lord 7 is Moon applying with a square to Saturn. Seems like squares do mean "yes" sometimes, and the Moon is in the 12th house, which is Saturn's joy.
I would appreciate the insights and corrections!

 

[aqualovebot]

Did she ask you to cast this chart or did she ask the question after you suggested it and then you casted? That would change the subject of the horary. We don’t need an aspect to show her getting the job she already has it. The first we would look for is fixed signs - both Lord 11, its significantor and Lord Eight are fixed - nothing is changing. While the sun changing reception would have been a key sign to show some change - I don’t think it’s enough to tip the scales - which it seems it’s not. I don’t think the job is going to be much help to her sitting in her detriment. Don’t worry about getting this wrong - this chart was extremely close to call. I would have to weigh up the testimony just right to get this answer.

 

[Cheburecus]

Did she ask you to cast this chart or did she ask the question after you suggested it and then you casted? That would change the subject of the horary. We don’t need an aspect to show her getting the job she already has it. The first we would look for is fixed signs - both Lord 11, its significantor and Lord Eight are fixed - nothing is changing. While the sun changing reception would have been a key sign to show some change - I don’t think it’s enough to tip the scales - which it seems it’s not. I don’t think the job is going to be much help to her sitting in her detriment. Don’t worry about getting this wrong - this chart was extremely close to call. I would have to weigh up the testimony just right to get this answer.

Ohhhh, I suggested to cast a chart, and she then sent the question. How does it change the subject of the horary?

 

[aqualovebot]

Ohhhh, I suggested to cast a chart, and she then sent the question. How does it change the subject of the horary?

It does as the question did not organically from her. Since you had suggested it - the question had organically come from you. It changes the significators so she wouldn't be L1 but L11 or L7 depending on how close you are. She owns the "job" persay so you would use the turned 10th and do the same as I mentioned above. It explains the muddiness of the chart however. In situations like these where you might suggest to the querent- its better to cast Will my friend keep the job rather then attempting to give them L1.

 

[Cheburecus]

It does as the question did not organically from her. Since you had suggested it - the question had organically come from you. It changes the significators so she wouldn't be L1 but L11 or L7 depending on how close you are. She owns the "job" persay so you would use the turned 10th and do the same as I mentioned above. It explains the muddiness of the chart however. In situations like these where you might suggest to the querent- its better to cast Will my friend keep the job rather then attempting to give them L1.

I appreciate your help!

 

[seeker_learner]

I think you should have seen H2 as the significator here: she is probably doing the part-time job for some spare money, not as a career. I first considered H6, but no, this is part-time work for money, not routine work.
H2 ruler is Saturn, and you have to use Moon as L1 then. Moon is applying to Saturn, so she should have got the job, which she has.

 

[aqualovebot]

I think you should have seen H2 as the significator here: she is probably doing the part-time job for some spare money, not as a career. I first considered H6, but no, this is part-time work for money, not routine work.
H2 ruler is Saturn, and you have to use Moon as L1 then. Moon is applying to Saturn, so she should have got the job, which she has.

I see - have you came from a modern natal background?

 

[aqualovebot]

I think you should have seen H2 as the significator here: she is probably doing the part-time job for some spare money,

While it is her money and can be a minor testimony - a job connecting to H2 is not a yes.

not as a career. I first considered H6, but no, this is part-time work for money, not routine work.

H6 is not routine work neither is it work it is those below us - it came from the concept of slavery. All jobs part time or full time is a Job so radical or turned 10th. If it's contractual then it's 7th.

H2 ruler is Saturn, and you have to use Moon as L1 then. Moon is applying to Saturn, so she should have got the job, which she has.

Read that over again. She is connecting to her money. That doesn't make any sense.

 

[seeker_learner]

I agree with you that 7H probably ought to be seen, though to my mind, if the indirect question is if I will earn some spare money this summer, 2H can be considered. Maybe it is not conventional ...

Does in every chart people connect to their money, their earnings? I don't think so. So it makes sense for me at least.

 

[aqualovebot]

I agree with you that 7H probably ought to be seen, though to my mind, if the indirect question is if I will earn some spare money this summer, 2H can be considered. Maybe it is not conventional ...

But that's not the question on hand - look back at what the querent is saying she already has the job - we're looking to see if she would remain at the job. Even so had the question had been about spare money we would need to see her getting a job - her connecting back to her money is useless for us.

Does in every chart people connect to their money, their earnings? I don't think so. So it makes sense for me at least.

Horary is not abstraction think about this in real life - you go to the bank you withdrawal some money - it doesn't mean you have a job. You can not turn charts around attempting to look for a yes it has to make sense. This is a quote from John Frawley horary textbook that goes through this - I recommend reading that if you are confused about how to go about these questions - "An aspect between querent and wages is not testimony of getting the job." Same goes vice versa.