Major hand: right, b. 1980

The most immediately most striking thing about the incumbent UK Home Secretary is her hand shape and size.

(Major hand of Suella Braverman, as photographed in October 2022)

She has a so-called water hand, though one with slightly shorter fingers than is the case, and this is a hand typically found in South Asia. Braverman is indeed of South Asian origin; however, she is also a politician and that too in Western Europe, and it is usually fire hands which dominate this field and this geography. Braverman’s water hand shows very good adaptability and responsiveness to the surrounding environment, but which, of course, also leaves her more easily influenced by the externalities. The hand is large, too, showing someone rather meticulous or detail oriented.

Now look at her fingers. The Saturn finger looks just a touch short. This is a bit ironic, for while Braverman wants to exert a lot of authority and demands a lot of compliance with rules from immigrants, for example, she herself seems to dislike conventions. Again, while she may come across as very right wing ideologically, her hand actually shows that she is just very adaptable: her value systems can change, she does not have any greatly fixed ones. Her hand shape, size and now this slightly short middle finger all reinforce her adaptability. Her quadrangle too is decent, showing her not to be ideologically intolerant. In case she may project any intolerant aspect of the political spectrum, that may simply be her current impression of things, which may change soon, or a political stance for benefit rather than ideology.

The Saturn finger has a significant bend, too, towards the Apollo finger. This indicates some kind of anxiety or depression, maybe caused by family issues, and probably a need to spend some time alone. On a water hand, this effect intensifies a bit, compared to what would have been the case on a fire hand, for example. Her Mercury finger is excellent, showing her to possess fine negotiation and communication skills. Looking at her mounts, the Luna is very well developed, which is a great thing otherwise but also accentuates the depression part. Jupiter and lower Mars also look well developed, with upper Mars also looking decent, which are all necessary markings for a good career in politics. The Venus is hard to judge from this picture, but the expanse looks good.

Coming to the lines and markings, the immediately notable thing is a very fine line of Mercury, which is rare to find. Most people have Mercury lines but they are fragmented or chained or they go the fate and life line side, which can create serious undermining of health. Braverman’s hand shows a fine one, and coupled with her fine Mercury finger and a mount of Mercury that also does not look bad in this blurred image, she should be in business! She has extraordinarily good intelligence for business, it seems, to go with her good negotiation skills and very good adaptability. Her Mercury and life lines show an overall good health with a wiry body. The heart line sweeps up the hand right onto the middle portion of Jupiter and Saturn, giving her a very good combination of idealism and utilitarianism, again a very good skill to have for business. The head line is good and straight, indicating a well-balanced, rational mind.

Now let us look at her life and fate lines. One sees a significant success or material gain at what seems to the age of around 35 from her life line. Age is hard to judge, though, from her life line as it is not directly in front of the camera, plus the photo is somewhat blurry. Her life line also shows some kind of subtle shift in her lifestyle from around 43, from which point onwards she will start living a “fuller” life in the emotional sense, a life with more warmth. Now she has two parallel fate lines. Her initial one is the primary one, a career that does not depend on anyone else’s favour and is entirely self-made, till around the age of 34, when it stops. The second one shows her in a public-facing career, depending on people’s affections: it starts at around the age of 22 and then at the age of around 34 becomes her main line, her main career. This career seems to go on till around 50 well enough, but is especially strong between the ages of 35 and around 43. She probably has again something important to do with her initial career line during the ages 48-51, and after that age the picture is too blurred to let me see anything. However, I do see a third fate line emerging at around the age of 49-50, and that seems to be more related to her spouse. Maybe she would enter business in partnership with her husband? But as I don’t have a clear picture, I won’t comment on it.

Referring to Wikipedia, I see that Braverman has studied and practised law, too, so then I can see that her first line indicated her career in law, which has stopped being her career now, as the more public-facing career of politics has begun. Regarding the other career, it seems she campaigned for her mother when she was around 23, so her political career indeed seemed to have started in earnest at that time. And she indeed seems to be doing well since the age of around 35, that point of success too indicated by her life line, when she was elected to parliament, and since then her career has taken off. However, the blurred photo I have shows her political career to be particularly strong between around 35 and 43, even if she continues to be prominent in politics till around 50 at least. This could indicate that while she may continue to be a voice in UK politics, she may not enjoy the same degree of success in her political career after 43 as she has been doing in the past few years. But maybe, given what I said about what her life line shows from around 43 onwards, this lack of political success would not be bad for her: probably this is what would allow her to retrain her focus back to her own self and family life and let her live a life more full.

Disclaimer: These are only my own interpretations from the corpus of photos of public figures available in public domain. These should neither be construed as any claim to truth nor any aspersions on any person’s character.