David Cameron has assumed of the office of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

He entered Buckingham Palace at 20:08 BST. He left Buckingham Palace at 20:35

The document recording David Cameron formally accepting the office of Prime Minister and invitation to form his Majesty's government is timed for 20:35 BST

Source BBC NEWS Channel

UPDATE: I got this from another Astrologer:

"David Cameron became prime minister at 8:12 pm 11 may 2010 London
The time is very accurate a picture was taken with the Queen
congratulating DC and and over HRH shoulder there was a clock
visible- and I cannot imagine that that clock would not be accurate''
Source : Sky news

Actually, this sounds more plausible to me. I was always uncomfortable with 20:35. Its hard to imagine Cameron and the Queen would have chatted for 25 minutes without getting the formalities over first. So we have a difference here between the official paperwork and the de facto time Cameron assumed the role. I will be putting up this chart shortly and suggest we all work with it in preference to the 20:35 chart given earlier.

According to Steven Birchfield this chart can give us an indication of David Cameron's likely tenure in office. Incidentally, although the Sun is below the descendant it was still full daylight at this time in London so the chart is diurnal. (Update: This statement is challenged by Deb below. However, the discussion has become academic for this chart as the time has been revised to 20:12 making the chart diurnal anyway!)Interesting that the MC ruler is stationary.
David Cameron stood outside 10 Downing Street and made his first speech as British Prime minster at 20:43. He announced he would be forming a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats. This will be Britain's first experience of formal coalition government since 1945. Cameron is Britain's youngest Prime Minister for 200 years.

Mark

I just came acros this quote whilst looking for another thread, and since it seems so relevant here, I'll paste it under the Mark's post which has the charts for Brown's resignation and Cameron's ascension to power:

"Look at the hour of the withdrawing of the king whose entrance you came to know, or at the time in which the kingdom will receive [his] last will and testament, or at his question. And from these you will know the quantity of his period in the role, and whatever would be in it for him. And from the hour of his confirmation and election is known his honour and victory."

(Sahl. On Times, ?12: The chapter of the tenth sign on the king, from the sayings of Masha?allah?; Dykes, p.236)

Thanks Deb,

I have taken the liberty of copying Stephen Birchfield very interesting post on the chart of Gordon Brown assuming office. This is from the UK General Election thread. I think it may be very useful for those seeking to delineate the chart of David Cameron assuming the office of Prime Minister.

Mark


_____________________________________________________________
Steven Birchfield wrote:

The first thing I looked at in my considerations was not the Ingress chart. It seemed expedient to me to look first at whether or not there was the chance that Gordon Brown would continue in his authority.

Now the ancients had specific considerations for this question; i.e. the length of a rulers rule. It was in part based on the chart of the time of the rulers? ascension to authority and part on the Ingress chart of the year they acceded to power.

The most important was the actual chart of the rulers? ascension. In Britain I notice there is no formal ?swearing in? ceremony such as they have in the States. Instead, the Queen formally asks the incoming party leader to ?form a government?, which is the first act of a prime minister. The BBC gives the time table for when Gordon Brown formally was asked to form a new government. It says Gordon Brown arrived to the Queen at 13:51 (1:51 pm) on June 27, 2007 and he left the Queen for 10 Downing Street at 14:48 (2:48 pm). Now we don?t know the time the Queen formally asked him to form a government but looking at the charts of the time period there is very little difference in house positions. I have simply chosen the chart of the middle of his time there. I doubt if they sat for an hour chit chatting before the Queen popped the question. The chart is representative for the entire period and is as follows:

Gordon Brown accedes
27 Jun 2007
14:20:00
BST -01:00:00
London, England
0w10'00 ? 51n30'00
Alchabitius Declination

Ascendant = 17? Libra 41' 07"
Midheaven = 23? Cancer 15' 58"
Moon = 00? Sagittarius 28' 45"

There are certain things that Abu Ma?sh?r focuses on. One thing was the nature of the rulers? rule. For this they used a lot called the ?lot of rulership?. Now they often derived this from the chart of the shift of the triplicity indicating a new dynasty. I have derived it from the chart of the rulers? ascension since this is an established political custom that every Prime Minister must go through.

Lot of Rulership for Gordon Brown: based on the chart of his ascension (diurnal)

Asc + Moon ? Mars = 46.2396 (16? Taurus 14? 23?)

I?m not going to go into a complete delineation of the all the things in this chart because I am most interested in the matter concerned with how long he will rule. Some of the things this chart indicates with regards to the nature of his rule are however relevant to the length of his rule.

- Venus is ruler of the lot; beholding the sign of the lot but peregrine.
- the Lot is in the terms of Jupiter and if it was in the term of a benefic, this indicated his use of justice during his rule.

The next two considerations are perhaps more important to the question of his reign:

- Venus is separated from Mars (lord of the 2nd). If the lord of the lot of rulership was separated from the lord of the place of wealth, it indicated his waste of that wealth; in other words, fiscal incompetency having a derogatory effect on the peoples wealth from their livelihoods.
- Venus is joined to Saturn in its detriment (without reception) and indicates his subject?s lack of support for him and the weakness of his rule.

Besides this lot we are also told to particularly look at Jupiter in this chart. And we are told by Abu Ma?sh?r that when Jupiter fell cadent to the chart luminary (and or the ascendant or Midheaven I might add) that his rule will not be successful, and his period is short. In his ascension chart the lord of the Midheaven, the Moon, and the exalted ruler of the Midheaven, Jupiter, are together in Sagittarius (a cadent whole sign) and fall in aversion to both the Midheaven and the chart luminary the Sun. Neither are they joined to a helper or planet in any of the angles rendering their light to the Midheaven and Sun.

Next we?re told particularly to look at Mars in the chart of the ascension and its lord; i.e. Mars and Venus. We are to start counting from Mars, if it is oriental of the Sun, to the Sun and then from the Sun to Venus. From Mars to the Sun is 63? (I?m rounding off here) and from the Sun to Venus is 44? for a total of 107?. Then there is given one year to every 30 degrees. This would give Gordon Brown a rule of 3 years.

I would judge by these considerations that Gordon Brown will not serve a new term but only finish the term of his predecessor

And Nick Clegg Depity PM, just thought I should cash in at least a half right in my prediction

And Nick Clegg Depity PM, just thought I should cash in at least a half right in my prediction

Indeed and when David Cameron is on holiday or abroad he will be acting PM.

Mark

MarkC wrote:David Cameron has assumed of the office of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

He entered Buckingham Palace at 20:08 BST. He left Buckingham Palace at 20:35

The document recording David Cameron formally accepting the office of Prime Minister and invitation to form his Majesty's government is timed for 20:35 BST

Source BBC NEWS Channel

I would like to question the accuracy of this time, listening to the news channel myself I am pretty sure I heard 20:10 but he spoke rather quickly so I may heard wrongly. In any case 20:35 must be wrong as it actually was 20:34 still when he came out and his Jaguar started to move 20:35 and also BBC news roller has 20:35 reporting he had left.

Now this could of course easily be solved as I understand it's a public document and 2 minutes sounds a bit short of time as he deffinately arrived 20:08, unless they went strait to business and then chit chatted for almost half an hour, or is it more likely it was the other way around? In any case a few minutes, at least 2-3 must have passed from signing to leaving the building I think.

I think "business first" is more likely though and maybe the time was rounded to a even number instead of lets say 20:12

Notably as well is that 20:25 transiting Ascendant (if it's correct to say so) was exactly on the Sun of the Conservative Party chart and I would expect it to fall in the 1st hous of this chart.

Firstly, I'd like to thank Steven for his well reasoned assesment of the situation. I think it is important that he revealed the approprate reasoning behind his judgement, which seems to me more significant than someone predicting this or that, without really getting to the heart of what has been going on in the drama of this event.

But with regard to the chart above, Mark Says:

although the Sun is below the descendant it was still full daylight at this time in London so the chart is diurnal. Interesting that the MC ruler is stationary.

I hear this kind of reasoning a lot but I don't agree with this method of determining whether a chart is diurnal or nocturnal, and would say that this chart (if the time is correct) is definitely nocturnal. According to Ptolemy (can't find the ref tonight, but it is in his Almagest - I think I've given it in the forum a couple of times before) the 'day' begins at the moment that the centre of the Sun's body aligns with the ascendant, and ends with the same alignment with the descendant. It is not about how much light is in the air; it still becomes a nocturnal chart when the Sun hits astronomical 'sunset' even if there is a lot of light.

To confirm, simply calculate the planetary hour for London at this time. This chart is cast two minutes into in the hour of Saturn: the first 'nocturnal' hour of Tuesday night.

I would like to question the accuracy of this time, listening to the news channel myself I am pretty sure I heard 20:10 but he spoke rather quickly so I may heard wrongly. In any case 20:35 must be wrong as it actually was 20:34 still when he came out and his Jaguar started to move 20:35 and also BBC news roller has 20:35 reporting he had left.

The information was related by the BBC Royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell on the BBC 24 hour news channel. He read out the document after David Cameron left Parliament. I am pretty definite I heard him say 20.35!

However, I tend to agree it must have been a bit earlier as he walked out of the Palace to his limoulsine at 20:35 BST. It looks as with birth certificates Buckingham Palce round off times too. I had always assumed the formal 'bit' came fairly soon after the new PM arrived. However, it looks from the point of documentation the royal protocol is to record them as PM before they leave. At least that is what seems to have happened on this occasion. Feel welcome to challenge this or take it up with the BBC or Buckingham Palace if you like.

Mark

I hear this kind of reasoning a lot but I don't agree with this method of determining whether a chart is diurnal or nocturnal, and would say that this chart (if the time is correct) is definitely nocturnal.

Hi Deb,

I am aware there are a few threads on the traditional part of the forum where is subject has been debated at length. I recall opening one myself in fact.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3688

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4404

All I would state is that it wasn't sunset in London until 20:39 BST on May 11th. That doesn't refute your point about Ptolemy and his view on this but it may influence how some people view this who do not regard Ptolemy as the final word on this. To be honest I didn't give this 'hot potato' topic much thought when I posted and had forget how controversial this whole area was.

Mark

The issue doesn't need a forum discussion because it is so simple to see that the beginning of the first nocturnal hour is the moment when the chart turns from diurnal to nocturnal. So no, I'm not aiming to create a debate, just correcting your earlier comment which made a declaration about the chart being diurnal.

The issue doesn't need a forum discussion because it is so simple to see that the beginning of the first nocturnal hour is the moment when the chart turns from diurnal to nocturnal. So no, I'm not aiming to create a debate, just correcting your earlier comment which made a declaration about the chart being diurnal.

If its 'so simple' why do astrologers like Robert Hand and Steven Birchfield take a different position on when a chart is diurnal or nocturnal from yourself? I am not looking to start this debate all over again. I just feel it fair to state that my description of the chart as diurnal ( ie before sunset) would be accepted by many traditional astrologers. However, I accept your allegience is to Ptolemy's view was that this was determined by when the centre of the solar disc was above/below the horizon. Taking that approach it is of course valid to point out the chart is nocturnal.

Mark

I don't know because I can't speak for Robert hand or Steven Birchfield - you have to ask them to speak for their opinion. I am pointing out the obvious, that if the planetary hour is nocturnal then we are dealing with a nocturnal chart. (As opposed to your introductory statement that the chart is diurnal, even though the Sun is beneath the horizon, because "it was still full of daylight").
Anyway, I see that you have added a note to say that the statement there has been challenged, so that seems OK to me. People can read other threads if they want to.