If the theory, here put forward, be correct, that it was Palmerston's hostility to Montpensier's projected marriage which caused Louis Philippe to break his promise to England, the question arises, whether, under the circumstances, he was not justified in regarding himself as released from his engagements. M. Thureau-Dangin[880] contends that the King, having undertaken at Eu to postpone his son's marriage with the Infanta until the Queen should have children, had a right to expect that, in the interval, England should do nothing to facilitate her marriage with any other prince. Aberdeen, unquestionably, did not regard the matter in that light. He simply looked upon Montpensier's marriage with the Infanta as delayed for several years, until, by the birth of heirs to Isabella, it should have lost its political significance. Even then, when it should be less objectionable, he did not consider that England was bound to consent to it, and, in the meantime, as he pointed out to Peel, "many things might happen."[881] Palmerston most certainly would have repudiated the notion that the compact of Eu debarred him from recommending the alliance of the Infanta with Leopold of Coburg. "We can admit of no parity of position," he told Jarnac, "between a son of the King of the French and the third son of a German nobleman as closely related to the French, as to the British, Royal Family."[882] M. Guizot, in the _Memorandum of February 27_, undoubtedly declared that the Bourbon principle applied equally to the Queen and the Infanta, but he clearly had not much faith in his ability to make good that contention. He was perfectly aware of Palmerston's sentiments with respect to Montpensier's marriage, but he never attempted to argue that, because of them, the King was released from his promise. Throughout the controversy he confined himself to asserting, what he knew to be untrue, that Palmerston's proceedings had rendered "probable and imminent" the alliance of a Coburg prince with Queen Isabella.