Talk:William Pitt the Younger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Italic text
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
Mintguy, why, do you feel, should "tasked" not be used? Andy Mabbett 12:06, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree, Pitt described himself as a 'Independant Whig ie he was a Whig in the sense he upheld the settlement of 1688 but distanced from the leading Whig magnates such as Rockingham etc..
Contents |
[edit] Political Party
Random musings on a problem that I can't see a clear solution for:
I'm not sure that there isn't a better page to discuss this on, but do we want to accept the traditional party allocations for Pitt, and indeed most other Prime Ministers for the latter part of the 18th century, or address the matter better?
The main problem stems from a relative discontinuity between the eras of Queen Anne, George I and even George II when there's a clear Whig/Tory divide, and the early 19th century when a similar divide can be seen. But in the middle it's murkier and most groupings in the Commons are really based around either personalities or ex governments.
It's relatively clear that Pitt's followers became the Tory Party of the 19th century, and Fox's become the 19th century Whigs. But what is the thread that links any of Harley & Bolingbroke, Bute, North and Pitt?
Pitt himself was the son of a prominent Whig leader, initially aligned himself in Parliament to the followers of Shelburne (considered a Whig), opposed the government of Lord North consistently (considered Tory) and on many issues such as parliamentary reform and religious tolerance he would be considered to be ideologically a Whig. The 1784 election was a national campaign, a rare thing for the time, but was really the Pitt Ministry vs the Fox-North Coalition, not a "Tory vs Whig" contest (and what would that make North?). The first prominent politician to actually call himself a Tory was George Canning later on. Whilst calling Pitt himself a Whig is very confusing, is stating "Political Party: Tory" no less confusing? Timrollpickering 14:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps he could have an explanation of this, and add in a passage on the pittites.
--71.143.152.181
[edit] Arms
Someone has copied and added the arms of Pitt's father not his. He was a younger son so would (if he ever used arms at all) have born those arms with a mark for difference. Alci12 12:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment inserted in Line 58
An unregistered user inserted the following suggestion at Line 58: "There should be at this point a paragraph explaining how Pitt became Prime minister! Pete Stephens, 19/10/07"—HopsonRoad 21:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spanish?
It is said that Pitt studied Spanish. The 1911 edition of Britannica calims he didn't speak any living language but English, except a little French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.45.107 (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Never! Never! Never!
I am under the impression that the comment on the American revolution was made by Pitt the Elder, not Pitt the Younger. The date doesn't really fit the younger, wikiquote has it under the elder, etc. Also there are several copies of the "last words" quote here. 68.49.189.130 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Old vandalism
I removed the errors added in this revision.
Dove t. (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orginization of the Titles
could we move the titles (under the portrit) so that they are cronological, that would really help, thanks Klimintine (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Still prime minister?
Is this true? "He became the youngest Prime Minister in British History in 1783 at 24, and still is to date" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.189.217.40 (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- LOL! Well it's true he still holds the record and probably always will. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Titles
Is there a reason that William Pitt did not recieve any honorary awards, such as knighthood or peerage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manicwhale (talk • contribs) 23:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It is often customary, but not a golden rule, that politicians do not receive honours until they fully retire - and Pitt died while he was still prime minister. If he had lived longer he would probably have been made Duke of Bromley eventuallyLord Cornwallis (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Financer of the French Revolution
I am removing the bit in the intro claiming Pitt was the financer of the French revolution in revenge for the French King's support for the American rebels in the American War of Independence - as this doesn't sound likely - a) Pitt was sympathetic to the American cause, and like his father opposed British intervention to regain the colonies so would be unlikely to seek revenge b) Pitt took Britain to war with revolutionary France after they executed the King, an unlikely move if he had supported the revolution. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
