1568 Lyon Benoist Rigaud

Sus la minuict conducteur de l’armée

Se sauiuera,subit esuanouy,

Sept ans apres la fame non blasmee;

A son retour ne dira oncq ouy.

Line 1, OF ‘sus/suis’ makes little sense and most probably should be OF ‘sur’, upon, or ‘sous-’, sub-.

Line 4, OF ‘ouy’ is a cry like ‘huy’. Or it could be ‘oui’, yes, or else ‘oil’ the language of Northern France in the age of Nostredame. It may even have been derived from OF ‘ouïr’ to hear/listen/pay attention to/attend attentively/receive the testimony of a witness/take-in or gather and so metonymically it could be a watcher-listener to a word or song or cry or even one who contemplates beyond the reality of our composite sensory perceptions. Figuratively this could mean to understand, to interpret, to welcome favorably or to follow instructions regarding some matter.

OF ‘oncq’ or OF ‘anc’? OF ‘oncq’ meant ‘never’ in the construction ‘oncq … ne’. OF ‘anc’ is the same but could derive from ‘ancelle’ a virgin or Virgo although in Francoprovençal-Suisseromande ‘ancelle’ simply meant shingle or a sheet of metal. The proto-French rules of Occitan and elsewhere are not all clear to me for the prefix ‘ne’ which sometimes negates and at other times seems to emphasize the following word. The OF ‘il ne dira oncq ouy’ could so suggest ‘he is bound to say yes’.


Before the midpoint of the night the head of the army

To save himself must be avanished (flee from his foes)

Seven years later, his acclaim is unblemished

OR the blemishes on his renown are removed;

 On his return he will never say ‘yes’ OR he will never again speak the language of Northern France OR he is bound to say ‘yes’ OR it (the Parliament representing the nation) will certainly say ‘yes’.

 All the latter may have been true of his return for all that we know. Refusing to be fully a puppet of Parliament in return for recognition, Charles succesfully negotiated on behalf of a perpetual monarchy a set of true powers which gave him and future kings an apparent and tantalizing possibilty of independent action above the law, although in practice this power was to become unenforcable by the monarch without the majority of elected lawmakers acquiescing, promoting and controlling such actions – which agreement has not happened in modern times.

A single battle is rarely so decisive but the Battle of Worcester brought closure to the English Civil War and Prince Charles made immediate his escape to France. The Battle had commenced at three o’clock in the afternoon on September 3rd 1651 and this was said to be the Puritan leader Oliver Cromwell’s most fortunate of days. The hated Cromwell’s death knell sounded at three o’clock in the afternoon of September 3rd 1658, exactly seven years later to the minute.

This signalled a great change in the fortunes of the monarchy after the Prince’s seven years in exile (his father was executed in 1649 but England’s oppositionists had refused to proclaim him King) and the new King of England returned to renegotiate and take up his adjusted offices two years later.

Although Nostredame seems to have missed the exact seven years between Cromwell’s finest hour and his moment of death, Michel is quite correct that this event marked the return of the monarchy to England even though it took time to bring this about officially. The tales of Charles’s exile after the Battle of Worcester, a full set of seven years before Cromwell’s death, make a good read. As often happens in the Nostradamus Quatrains the erratic punctuation marks (possibly inserted ad hoc during typesetting) may confound the sense of the lines. Line 3 is what we would recognize as a ‘banner headline’ and Line 4 forms a subsequent yet separate statement.

A footnote: American Independence Day, July 4th, was the date of death for two Presidents of the United States as well as for a leading light among the American Revolutionaries. Revered Vietnamese Revolutionary President Ho Chi Minh died on VN Independence Day. All calendar dates are no more than nominally accurate, of course.