History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am reading this book and have come across a slightly puzzling passage on p. 154:

[Palmerston] kept on good terms with Louis Philippe of France until he felt, in 1846, that Louis was taking an unreasonable line about French claims to the Spanish throne. He made his resentment plain, and within two years Louis was an exile in England.

What could have the author had in mind? He seems to ascribe to Palmerston a positive agency of some sort in removing Louis Philippe but I've never seen such a claim in other sources. Perhaps he means that Palmerston failed to support Louis Philippe in his hour of need when revolution against the latter broke out, but then, again, I cannot imagine how Palmerston could have materially helped the French King to hold on to his throne.

So am I missing something or had D. Thomson committed a Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

share|improve this question
Other sources seems to contradict almost every single word of this. Palmerston seem to have had a quite negative attitude to France well before 1846. There seems to be no direct British influence in the events of 1848, nor could they have done much. – Lennart Regebro Oct 6 '13 at 11:35
@LennartRegebro Can you make an answer out ot the comment? – Felix Goldberg Oct 6 '13 at 19:23
Maybe, but that will take a bit of research and digging to fins good sources, so maybe not. Somebody else can do it if they want. :) – Lennart Regebro Oct 6 '13 at 19:30

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.