§ 600.Parliamentary principle in France

19th century:
§600. Parliamentary principle in France (1830): VIII-61.

VIII-61:
Never in the open of daylight
Shall he arrive at the sceptred sign,
So that all his postures will not be resident.
A gift of the amicable parliament shall bring him to the throne of the French.


(Jamais par le decouvrement du jour
Ne parviendra au signe sceptrifere
Que tous ses sieges ne soient en sejour,
Portant au coq don du TAG amifere.)

Keys to the reading:
Decouvrement: = N. m. découvert, the open;

Par le decouvrement du jour: In the open of daylight;

Sceptrifere: Sceptre-portant, sceptre-carrying, sceptred;

The sceptred sign: The throne;

Resident: proper to himself;

Le coq: = France or the French, or the crown (crest) of France, coq in Latin gallus suggesting Gallic (French). Cf. §610,VIII-5;

TAG: PARLIAMENT in German, and also DAY (= the light of convention), as contrasted with the open of daylight (= legitimacy);

Amifere: Ami-portant, friend-carrying, friendly, amicable;

Portant au coq don du TAG amifere: The construction is as follows: Un don du TAG amifere [le] portant au coq.

Summary:
Never in the open of daylight shall he arrive at the sceptred sign: « The blond hair (the duke of Bordeaux) shall be deserted by Ferdinand of Orleans, the eldest son and presumptive successor as Ferdinand Ier of Louis-Philip entrusting him with a regiment. He shall leave with his force the fleur-de-lis to follow Philip of France, marvelously resembling that Philip of Macedonia, who, tutor of his nephew, deprived him of his throne. Philip shall abandon the way he should follow when the blond hair is wanting most the aid of the Orleans. He shall make march the revolt toward Rambouillet against the little king God-Gift and child of miracle.» (Torné-Chavigny, 1860, p.14) (cf. §601,IX-35).

So that all his postures will not be resident: « Placed as Louis Philippe was between the past and the future, between the ancient monarchy crumbled without hope of return and the republic brought forward, then adjourned, his position was complex and his spirit contradictory. He was at the same time a prince at heart and a bourgeois in form; revolutionary by his memories, and reactionary, or at least stationary, from the fear which these very memories inspired in him, as well as by his royal memories. " King-citizen," promenading Paris in round hat and with an umbrella, not only by calculation, but by taste as well, he was at the same time a descendant of Louis XIV - the issue of the brother of Louis XIV, on the male side; he descended on the female side from the Grand Monarch himself and Mme. de Montespan. He had kept from Voltairianism sentiments of humanity and religious scepticism, but nothing more from that great breath of the eighteenth century which had for a moment animated his youth and inspired the entire life of La Fayette.» (HH, XIII, p.54)

A gift of the amicable parliament [ = a detestable one dissolved by the king] shall bring him to the throne of the French: « Fort Emperor once taken, Algiers could no longer hold out; Hussein signed a capitulation. The victory, however, was little heeded at home and war was declared between France and monarchy. The struggle had been desperate on both sides. The opposition brought out a new paper, the National, edited by Thiers and Mignet, the two historians of the Revolution, and Arman Carrel, who had begun his public career as leader of an armed conspiracy. This paper propagated the views of the opposition with extreme ardour. On the other side the king vainly threw his name and his influence into the scale. The result was a crushing defeat. The opposition had fought for the 221 deputies who had condemned the Polignac ministry, as in 1877 they were to fight for the 363. They were all returned again and fifty more elections were also gained. The defeated ministry prepared a coup d'état. Taking as a pretext the wording of Article 14 of the charter, they resolved to suppress the liberty of the country. Three ordinances signed by all the ministers formed the reply of Charles X to the French nation. One of these dissolved the chamber before it had ever met; so that the country had been consulted and had given its answer, but that answer was treated with contempt. Another abolished liberty of the press. Henceforth every paper would be forced to obtain the royal sanction; otherwise, it would not only be forbidden to appear, but its plant would be destroyed. The third created a new electoral system. It would no longer be a sufficient qualification for a vote to pay 300 francs in taxes; patents were no longer to be taken into account; all electors who were engaged in commerce or manufactures were deprived of their votes. The last two ordinances were manifestly unconstitutional: they violated the laws and usurped their functions. The king's pleasure was substituted for the votes of the chambers. This was a return to absolute monarchy. This attempt at violence was made in incredible ignorance of the actual situation. Up to the time of the elections the ministers had thought themselves certain of a majority, and, even after the results were known, seemed to have an inexplicable confidence in the measures they were preparing. They had only 19,000 men at their command to subdue Paris. Secrecy was most carefully observed. Nobody, except those who had drawn them up and signed them, knew the contents of the ordinances, when, on the evening of Sunday, 25th July, they were handed over to the chief editor of the Moniteur for publication the following morning. The editor glanced over them, and turning pale said to the minister: " I am fifty-seven years of age; I have passed through all the revolutions, but I now withdraw overwhelmed with fear." On the morning of the 26th of July, 1830, the ordinances published in the Moniteur burst on the nation like a thunderbolt. At first people seemed stupefied. The press had the honour of setting an example of action. It has already been said that one of the edicts suppressed all the opposition papers. That very day all their editors signed a protest of which the following words contain the gist: To-day the government has lost that constitutional character which alone commands obedience. And they added that they would use every possible means to publish their papers in defiance of the authority of the government. Among the young writers who perhaps risked their lives by affixing their signatures to this bold protest, were some who were destined to play an important part in public affairs. The protest was signed by Thiers, Mignet, Armand Carrel, Rémusat, and Pierre Leroux. This intrepid action of the press was the first reply to the coup d'état. Their actions were as bold as their words; and when on the following day the police attempted to carry out the provisions of the ordinance, the commissary of police found the proprietor of the paper, with the law in his hand, threatening the agent of the government with the punishment due to theft aggravated by housebreaking. A crowd collected and protested loudly. The locksmith who had been summoned to break up the plant refused to do so, and was heartily applauded. Another was sent for, who also refused. Not a workman could be found who was willing to raise his hand against the instrument of public liberty. It was found necessary at last to have recourse to the wretch whose duty it was to affix the fetters worn by convicts. Such was the lawful resistance which most politicians of that time, whether journalists or deputies, considered the only possible course.» (HH, XIII, p.44-45)

« The duke of Orleans made lieutenant-general of the kingdom. Those who had taken no part in the fighting wished to take advantage of the victory. Most of them had already begun to think of the duke of Orleans. As often happens in reigning families the Orleans branch, the younger branch, was always in a state of rivalry with the elder branch of Bourbons. Since 1789 the duke of Orleans had supported the revolutionary party; whilst his cousins were amongst the émigrés, he, a member of the convention, having given up using his title and assumed the name of Philippe Égalité, voted in favour of the death of Louis XVI. His son, duke of Orleans in 1792, had fought under the tricolour with Dumouriez at Jemmapes. Though he had emigrated afterwards, yet on the restoration he had again declared himself a liberal. The family has always maintained this variable attitude, sometimes supporting, sometimes deserting the revolutionary party. After 1815 the duke of Orleans was sometimes a prince of the blood, sometimes the hope of the revolutionists. He alternately claimed the largest share of the indemnity paid to the émigrés, or openly took the part of Béranger and General Foy; he at one time obtained from Charles X the title of Royal Highness, and at another would pose as a citizen-prince. The example of England was in everybody's mind. It was by dethroning the lawful king and putting in his place a prince of a lateral branch that the English had gained their liberties in 1688. For a long time many people had been hoping that a similar change might bring about a similar result in France. On the 30th Thiers and Mignet hurried to Neuilly where the prince lived, but he was not there. In the morning the deputies met at the house of Laffitte, and decided to hold a session at noon at the Bourbon palace. There it was decided to offer the " lieutenancy of the kingdom " to the duke of Orleans. He hesitated, tried to gain time, and was finally, it is said, persuaded by the advice of Talleyrand. On the 31st he accepted.» (HH, XIII, p.49)

« Hillebrand's parallel between the revolution of 1688 and 1830. The French 1688 was accomplished: the kingdom of God's grace [the open of daylight] had made way for a kingdom of conventions [TAG]. Whilst the " Glorious Revolution " had sealed the representative system in England, the " Great Week '' forever put an end to it in France. Instead of the balance of power between the crown, the house of peers, and the house of commons, the real or seemingly unlimited authority of the latter stepped in. The victory of the 221, that is to say the majority of the house, was like that of Pyrrhus, as is every victory which is only due to the assistance of uncertain confederates. Their leaders would infallibly have come into power, even if the throne had not been overturned, and they would have taken over the government under circumstances far more favourable to themselves and the land, if the irresponsibility of the throne had been regarded, and the dangerous support of the street riots disdained. Be that as it may, Charles X was the last monarch of France who attempted to oppose his will to the majority of the House. From henceforth not only did the minister require a similar majority so as to retain his office, but also the leaders of the state - king, emperor, or president - were dependent on Parliament, the fiction of an irresponsible leader of the state was forever ended, and the upper house was practically a thing of the past. According to this it was only natural and right that from henceforth all leaders of the state should, if only artificially, seek to assure the majority in the Commons and to accustom themselves to consider every opponent of their minister as their own opponent, views which the nation shared and still shares. At times the capital which helped the parliamentary majority to win in 1830 may have fought and conquered this majority, as in the years 1848 and 1870, but only to withdraw her taxes after a short interregnum. In England, the House of Commons only became all-powerful a century after the Revolution, and the irresponsibility of the crown is still undisputed to-day. The convention of 1688 was the voluntary agreement of two equally powerful contractors; the convention of 1830 was a one-sided and conditional offer to which the one party submitted and which the other simply signed.» (HH, XIII, p.50)
________________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2011. All rights reserved.
スポンサーサイト

§ 601.Usurpation by the Orleans

IX-35 (§601):

The blond line shall be secluded, and Ferdinand
Shall leave the flower to follow the Macedonian.
In case of great need he shall lose his way,
And march against the Myrmidon.
(№ 10)

(Et Ferdinand blonde sera descorte,
Quitter la fleur suyvre le Macedon.
Au grand besoing defaillira sa routte,
Et marchera contre le Myrmidon.)

Keys to the reading:
Ferdinand blonde: Le nom d'un masculin n'acceptant pas de qualificatif féminin, les deux mots sont à part (The two words are irrelevant, the name of a masculine (Ferdinand) disagreeing with a feminine qualifier (blonde)), d’ailleurs dans l’exemple: « Le blonde » (§574, II-67) « Blonde est une forme masculine attestée (TL).» (Brind’Amour, 1996, p.290).

descorte: The feminine of « descort, adj., en désaccord (in discord); détaché (detached).» (Godefroy);

blonde sera descorte: This constructs one phrase in accordance in French, blonde and descorte being feminine.

Myrmidon: In Greek mythology, one of those who were transformed from ants (Gk. myrm
ēks) into humans by Zeus granting the prayer of Aeacus, a pious king of the island of Aegina whose population had been devastated by a fierce epidemic (cf. Torné-Chavigny, 1860, p.17).

Summary:
« The blond hair (the duke of Bordeaux) shall be deserted by Ferdinand of Orleans, the eldest son and presumptive successor as Ferdinand Ier of Louis-Philip entrusting him with a regiment. He shall leave with his force the fleur-de-lis to follow Philip of France, marvelously resembling that Philip of Macedonia, who, tutor of his nephew, deprived him of his throne. Philip shall abandon the way he should follow when the blond hair is wanting most the aid of the Orleans. He shall make march the revolt toward Rambouillet against the little king God-Gift and child of miracle.» (Torné-Chavigny, id., p.14) « The spouse of the duke of Berry, victim of Louvet in front of the Opera in February 1820, already mother of three children, whose the two born dead and the rest female, was going to give a baby ready inside her next September. It is not without reason that the contemporaries have named the duke of Bordeaux God-Gift, child of miracle, and that the Prophet has named him Myrmidon.» (Torné-Chavigny, id., p.17)
_________________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2011. All rights reserved.

§ 602.The legitimate Bourbons expelled

19th century:

§602. The legitimate Bourbons expelled (1830): IV-85.

 

IV-85: 
The white carbon of the black shall be chased,
A person held prisoner shall be carried on a tumbril.
The Moor and camels upon their legs interlaced, 
When the next-born shall stitch the eyelids of his falcon together.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

(Le charbon blanc du noir sera chassé,
Prisonnier faict mené au tombereau:
More Chameau sur piedz entrelassez,
Lors le puisnay sillera l'aubereau.)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Keys to the reading:

The white carbon of the black: the legitimate king (= the duke of Angoulême) of the king (= Charles X), Black (Noir) and Carbon (= Black) meaning King (Noir = an anagram of Roi leaving N) and White (= the white flag of the French royal family) the legitimacy (Torné-Chavigny, 1861, p.257);

 

A person held prisoner on a tumbril: the prince of Polignac, the firmly anti-republican prime minister (1829-1830) of Charles X, the phrase on a tumbril indicating a state criminal involved (cf. id., p.258);

 

The Moor and camels on their legs interlaced: The Africans indicated and defeated, Algeria conquered by Charles X in 1830 (id.);

 

The next-born: the duke of Bordeaux, presumptive successor in principle to the duke of Angoulême, his uncle, successor to Charles X (id.);

 

Siller = to stitch the eyelids of one's falcon together with a needle. A technique of keeping it in repose in order to carry it (Littré);

 

Aubereau = hobereau, a small falcon (Ibuki).

 

Summary:

In August 1830, the duke of Angoulême was compelled, with his father Charles X, his nephew the duke of Bordeaux, now on the throne as Henry V after the double abdication of his grandfather and uncle, the mother of the ten-year-old king, duchess of Berry, and his wife Mary-Theresa, daughter of Louis XVI, to go into exile in England out of the rebel France.

 

France has been, as it were, evoked into the July Revolution by « the president of the new cabinet, Jules de Polignac, a sort of incarnation of the old régime. He had been one of the most enthusiastic amongst the émigrés and later had become a leading member of the Congregation.» (HH, XIII, p.41) « After the triumph of the revolution, he tried to escape in disguise; but recognized at Granville, he ran the risk of his life. Transferred to Paris, and drawn before the Court of the peers, he was condemned to perpetual imprisonment. After several years' detention in the castle of Ham, he was amnestied (1836), passed in England, then obtained his return to France, where he died in 1847.» (Feller, cité Torné-Chavigny, id., p.258)

 

« On the 2nd of March, 1830, Charles X declared in the presence of the assembled deputies and peers his intention to preserve intact the prerogatives of the crown and French institutions. The address of the deputies in response to the speech from the throne showed the king that the composition of his new cabinet was dangerous and menacing to public liberty. Two hundred and twenty-one members as against 186 voted for this memorable address. The king was indignant. However, the council had tried to acquire some popularity by means of a military success, and an insult offered to the French consul by the dey of Algiers furnished the ministers a favourable opportunity to clear the sea of barbarous pirates. The Algerian dey, Hussein, had come into power in 1818. No bey had been so well obeyed... Ibrahim, Hussein's son-in-law, took with him the Turkish militia, some Kolougis and Moors of Algiers, the contingent of the beys, and some thousand Kabyles... The dey and the inhabitants of Algiers had no doubt of success; there was consternation at the arrival of the fugitives. The Algerians hastened to defend Fort Emperor, which protected the town on the southwest... On July fourth, at four o'clock in the morning, the entrenchement was opened against Fort Emperor; the French batteries then uncovered and destroyed it with their fire. The garrison made a brave defence, but the contest of the two artilleries was too unequal; at the end of a few hours the Turks had their embrasures demolished, their guns dismounted, their gunners disabled. Fort Emperor once taken, Algiers could no longer hold out; Hussein signed a capitulation.» (HH, XIII, p.42-44)

 

This time, the duke of Bordeuax is withdrawing his right of pretending to the throne (Sillera l'aubereau), until he shall be in good fortune.

 

Discussion:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              V. Ionescu (1976, p.718-719) attributes this quatrain to the theme of “ the United States of America developing along with the expansion of railroads.” But his unreasonable theme of this kind engenders a number of discrepancies between the verbal expressions and the conceptions intended through them as follows: (1) “ the white carbon ”, [= white coal] usually meaning “ water as a motive power ”, does not match the almost immaterial image of his pretended “ steam ”; (2) “ a prisoner held on a tumbril ” does not fit in with “ the highly pressed steam in circulation for the locomotive”; (3) the slow locomotion of “ camels upon their legs interlaced ” also disagrees with the rapid and rhythmical movement of “ connecting rods (bielles d’accouplement) ”, and if camels’ legs are “ connecting rods ”, there are no wheels in correspondence; (4) if the camels are simply such figures, there is no need for the Prophet to add into this quatrain the historical proper name “ the Moor ”, which must be here essentially for the geographically real indication: namely to refer to the Moor in reality and in history; (5) and “ the together-stitched eyelids of a falcon ” meaning its immobile and inactive passivity off work do betray their expected mission of figuring the United States of America developing with infinite promise; (6) and finally the expression “ the next-born ” is not applied to a state as an institutional being, but only to some particular personality in the Prophecies of Nostradamus: e.g., the duke of Bordeaux (IV-85, VI-95, IX-8), Richard Nixon (IV-95), Henri IV (VII-12), Francis Joseph I (VIII-3), François de Guise (VIII-45), Louis XVII (IX-23), François de Guise et Charles de Guise (IX-40), Henri de Guise (X-35). Here, it’s certainly the duke of Bordeaux. [Update: June 22,2014]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            


© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2011. All rights reserved.

§ 603.Duke of Bordeaux, his destiny off the throne

19th century:
§603. Duke of Bordeaux, his destiny off the throne (1830-1873): III-91.

III-91:
The tree that had dried to be dead for a long time,
In one night shall come to green again:
A king with a chronic illness, a prince with his leg splinted,
Afraid of enemies shall make the sail bound.


(L'arbre qu'avoit par long temps mort seché,
Dans une nuit viendra à reverdir:
Cron. roy malade, prince pied estaché
Craint d'ennemies fera voile bondir.)

Keys to the reading:
L'arbre qu'avoit par long temps mort seché: = L'arbre qui avoit seché mort par long temps, le pronom relatif « qui » se remplaçant parfois par « que » chez Nostradamus selon les usages exceptionnels du 16e siècle: « As regards the relative pronoun, the most noteworthy feature is the use of que for qui in the nominative, first as a singular, and later as a plural pronoun as well.» (Rickard, p.70); cf. celuy qu'à nul ne donne lieu (§28, IX-29); ung monarque qu'en paix & vie ne sera longuement (§490, I-4); Celui qu'aura la charge de destruire temples & sectes (§261, I-96); Le chef qu'aura conduit peuple infini (§428, I-98), et aussi II-10, III-94, V-38, VI-15, VI-19, VIII-28 et VIII-88;

Cron.: = chronique (chronic) (cf. Brind'Amour, № 8, p.453);

estaché: Estache, attache, lien, pieu poteau, pièce de bois (Godefroy);

pied estaché: a leg splinted;

prince pied estaché: the duke of Bordeaux with his leg splinted (cf. Le Pelletier, I, p.262, note 4).

Summary:
A prince with his leg splinted, Afraid of enemies shall make the sail bound to cross the Channel: «In August 1830, the duke of Angoulême was compelled, with his father Charles X, his nephew the duke of Bordeaux, now on the throne as Henry V after the double abdication of his grandfather and uncle, the mother of the ten-year-old king, duchess of Berry, and his wife Mary-Theresa, daughter of Louis XVI, to go into exile in England out of the rebel France. This time, the duke of Bordeuax is withdrawing his right of pretending to the throne, until he shall be in good fortune» (§602, IV-85). It was indeed after a very long time that he decided to do so, when the royalist movement of fusion of the Bourbons occurred in France after the instant collapse of the second empire in 1870 (= The tree that had dried to be dead for a long time, In one night shall come to green again). But, the fusion was not attained at last, and the duke of Bordeaux, then the count of Chambord, did not stripped off his destiny of remaining a king without kingdom (= a king with a chronic illness).

As to the count of Chambord, cf. §708,§709,§712,§713.
________________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2011. All rights reserved.

§ 604.Mastiff, deer, wolf and bear in July Revolution

19th century:
§604. The mastiff, the deer, the wolf and the bear in July Revolution (1830): V-4.
V-4:
The big mastiff expelled of the city,
Shall be angry with the strange alliance.
After having chased the deer into fields,
The wolf and the bear shall defy one another.


(Le gros mastin de cité deschassé,
Sera fasché de l'estrange alliance.
Apres aux champs avoir le cerf chassé,
Le loup & l'Ours se donront deffiance.)

Keys to the reading:
The big mastiff expelled of the city: = A great of Auserre chased (§596, IV-84) = the king [chased] (§602, IV-85) = Charles X after his abdication;

the strange alliance: the anti-legitimate alliance of Louis-Philip with the Republicans in 1830;

the deer: = the Myrmidon (§601, IX-35) = the next-born (§602, IV-85) = the duke of Bordeaux (Henry V);

the wolf: Louis-Philip, the term loup in French having in itself lou of Louis and p of Philip, this use for Louis-Philip found twice (here and §632, IX-8) in the Centuries, and the other 4 uses of loup being for the constable of France Anne de Montmorency (§20, II-82; §22, III-33) and for the colonialist powers (X-98; X-99);

the bear: Republicans named mountaineers (montagnards), as the bears in highlands (Le Pelletier, I, p.258-259).

N.B. Le Pelletier's identification of «the big mastiff» with the duke of Bordeaux and «the deer» with Charles X (Le Pelletier, id.) is contrary to the imagination of Nostradamus, who has set forth the latter as «a great of Auserre» and the former as «Myrmidon», the dethroned king Charles X, of strong build and angry with the polotical maneuver of Louis-Philip, wishing to be the protector (mastiff) of his grandson, the young, innocent and promised king of legitimacy (deer).

Summary:
«Charles X had finally abdicated in favour of a child, the duke de Bordeaux. The old king was convinced that the duke of Orleans had only accepted the "lieutenancy of the kingdom" for the purpose of re-establishing legitimate authority in the person of Henry V. The duke found himself in a difficult position between the revolutionists who had offered him a throne, and Charles X, to whom he owed so much ! Very opportunely a little band of Parisians marched on Rambouillet. He had given the Parisians to understand that Charles X mignt prove dangerous, and he warned Charles X that sixty thousand Parisians were marching against him, and that he had better provide for his safety. Thus he got rid of the old king » (§591, IV-45) [The big mastiff expelled of the city, Shall be angry with the strange alliance].

«Thus, for some, the fall of Charles X was but an incident in the history of the restored monarchy, for others it was the end of a system, the renewed tradition of the French Revolution. The divergent interpretations directed the Fench people toward the two fundamentally opposed politics... These two sorts of peoples [those of «resistance» and those of «movement»] shall remain separated; between them begins a hostility which will last eighteen years » (Charléty, 1921b, p.7-11). All of the ministries Louis-Philip demanded, except that of Laffitte (1830.11.2-1831.3.12), were of the «resistance» (cf. Shibata, 1996, p.466). [After having chased the deer into fields, The wolf and the bear shall defy one another].
________________________________________________________
© Koji Nihei Daijyo, 2011. All rights reserved.
Profile

Koji Nihei Daijyo

Author:Koji Nihei Daijyo
We have covered 143 quatrains (§588-§730) concerning the World Events in the 19th century after Napoleonic ages [1821-1900] in the Prophecies of Nostradamus, and 219 in the 20th [1901-2000] (§731-§949).

Latest journals
Category
Link