Does my birth chart have a singleton?

Yes, your Sun is a singleton; it's the only "planet" in an air sign. It's a strong part of your chart so if you concentrate on what your Sun shows in your chart it will tell you a great deal about your chart and yourself.

Edit: Your Sun is in Gemini, a communication sign, restless and possibly highly strung, and in your 12th house which is about your subconscious mind, hidden enemies, usually referring to how you can be your own worst enemy sometimes, The 12th is about something much deeper than the personal sense of self so maybe you're very attuned to being a servant to something/someone that lies hidden deep inside your subconscious mind - this could be a very real awareness of God, or some sort of spiritual focusing in on some thing that we don't really understand. It can also be the case that you tend to be there for others instead of being "you" because it's easier to be this way than searching for your sense of self.

The Sun rules Leo which is on the cusp of your 2nd house of money, possessions and values etc. You "may" have some tremendous earning potential if you can tap into what your true potential is, to do with the subconscious mind, or things to do with places of restriction like hospitals, prisons etc.

I hate these supposedly nifty things in some charts that have more than one definition and are usually the figment of some modern astrologer's imagination. First off I checked Wilson's Dictionary of Astrology (1820) no mention of the term. Then I went to Devore's Encyclopedia of Astrology (1948) He does not mention the term. But I knew I read it somewhere. The Aquarian Press' "The Astrologer's Companion" (1986) does not mention it. I found it, finally, in Noel Tyl's "Synthesis and Counseling in Astrology" (1994) in two places with apparently two definitions. Then I went online and found a reference to another book that I don't own, by Michael Meyer, and was probably written in the 1980s or 90s that agreed with one of Tyl's definitions, neither of which agreed with GibBas' definition above. I would not be surprised if Marc Edmund Jones mentioned this in one of his works. He was big on chart patterns.

So the definition used by Tyl and Michael Meyer is a planet that is alone in one hemisphere of the chart. So, if, like say Ross Perot (Tyl's example) all the planets, but one, are in the eastern half of the chart and one planet is in the west, the western planet is the singleton. Jones called this a "bucket" pattern and the singleton would be the handle and all the other planetary "energies" would flow through it. Using this definition the questioner's chart DOES NOT have a singleton in it.

How 2000 years of astrological practice missed this apparently "important" chart signature is beyond me. But they all must have because no other recognized traditional authority mentions it. To my knowledge, Jones was the first to work with chart patterns (20th century), and this seems like an offshoot of Jones' work, if he didn't mention it first.

Tyl is a special case because not only does he use the term differently in two places but in one of them he is incorrectly defining a valid astrological term. Tyl teaches that a peregrine planet is one that has no major aspects to any of the major planets in the chart. This is a rejection (or hijacking as one astrologer put it) of a valid traditional term that means "having no essential dignity." Tyl refers to a planet without an aspect as a "singleton." It is unclear to me if he simply used this word as a common adjective in this section of the book, or if he mistakenly used it as an astrological term that did not have the same meaning as the previous time he used it. I'll call it a mistake and let it go. Let's say Tyl agrees with Meyer.

OK so what? Unless the singleton is the Moon, millions of people born that day will have it in their chart, albeit in different hemispheres depending on the time of day and location of birth. The speed of the Moon and the precise location could well cut down on the number of births in a day. It can't mean the same thing for all of them. So what good is it?

Not much, with a caveat I'll get to in a moment. These help the astrologer help the client to feel good. He has a singleton (or a yod or a T-square, or a mystic rectangle etc) and that makes him special. No it doesn't. The chart is unique. By definition you can't get more special than that. It makes the astrologer look good in the eyes of an unknowing client and, sadly, sometimes in the eyes of other astrologers.

CAVEAT: There is an aphorism of sorts that goes this way: "If something in the chart jumps out at you, it does so for a reason. Pay attention to i!" I think this is true. So in Ross Perot's chart, Saturn hanging out all by himself in the western hemisphere of the chart attracts the eye, and should be investigated with the mind - not to the exclusion of all else, but perhaps it colors the other stuff. Work with it. I've seen this work out very well and I've seen it come up short. But it usually directs me to something I might have missed or downplayed. In that sense it has value. But Ross Perot's singleton does not play out the same as everyone else's even if it is in the same house and sign. Astrology is not formulaic.

Work with your ascendant and it's ruler. It is far more revealing than any of these gimmicks.

No not singleton but time to time change your life and in changing period you feel like singleton ultimately your life and future is good no next born future is very good

IVE NEVER HEARD OF THAT...MANY TIMES CHARTS COME WITH PERSONALITY PROFILES..