I have to comment on the recent hoopla in the media about the 13th sign and the precession of the equinoxes. We astrologers have long (and I mean LONG) known about that. I wrote an article about "the new sign" over ten years ago. It's as predictable as the sunrise that every dozen years or so, some scientist or skeptic will publish something like this thinking they are "enlightening" us and pointing out our ignorance. There are even some astrologers who prefer the Sidereal Zodiac upon which this is based. But within their circles, they are not even in agreement about exactly where the first degree of Aries falls in that constellation.
Two thousand years ago the Sun was aligned with the constellations that were used to "name" the signs. It did not mean that the constellations CAUSED anything. It was simply a reference point at the time for nomenclature. Over the years, we have refined the discipline. It is really based on our seasons and is pretty much contained in our solar system. There are some fixed stars that we use, but not ALL the constellations that fall on the Ecliptic! There are several others besides the one being touted right now.
Zero Aries each year is aligned with the Vernal Equinox (first day of spring) and then the signs along the ecliptic are calculated from there--30 degrees each. Having worked with these for forty years, and knowing the signs extremely well, I assure you, the system we use (called The Tropical Zodiac) is highly accurate. Relax. This is not important and will soon pass as it always has.