William Pitt's Success
How Far Would You Agree That Pitt's Success As A Reformer To 1793 Was Dependent On Royal Support?
William Pitt the Younger's political success revolved around an effective working relationship with King George III, without which Pitt never could have maintained the support needed for his economically revolutionary reform policies such as Income Tax. Lacking the selfish eloquence to thrive among Lords, Pitt's support depended upon those who were tryiing to please the king. The more feble minded were content with Pitt's success at the progess he made towards financial recovery kept the public from questioning the rise of the aloof lifestyles of the Lords and furthermore the king. Pitt's dependency on the king should not be cause to question …show more content…
The French Revolution had shown that this typica aristocratic behaviour could have catastrophic results, and so caused fear for the monarchy despite the heavy loyalism in Britain. The crisis showed the weakness of Pitt's position, as with the King no longer in the political equation, Pitt's grasp on his position rapidly declined. It was essential for Pitt that he held the kings support. Had the Kings sudden incapability been permanent then a regency, headed by the Prince of Wales would have gone ahead and either Fox himself, or a Foxite would have been instated in Pitt's position. It was Fox's intention to restrict the monarchys influence, as this was the easiest solution to overcome Pitt. Pitt was unable to tsand y himself as an 'independent whig,' without the general support given to Pitt for having the Kings backing, the few supporters Pitt could trust and rely on would have been unable to uphold Pitt's rational ideas. Fox's popularity with the Prince of Wales, and the Pince's dislike for Pitt wouldve meant that had the King not recovered, Pitt would not have held his position at all. Though the fact that Fox was desperate for the support of the Prince of Wales it shows that it was not possile at all to hold a position of power without …show more content…
The removal of departments generally only happened in cases where the Head of a Department died, and then cautious Pitt would refrain appointing a successor, hoping what was left would diminish without complications. Pitt's active refusal to controversy was most 'unlord'like to the disdain of other politicians. Hisreform era applied at the peak of the King's faith, who's power had considerably waned. To the King his only nws was of successful reform and revenue. Had the King been active in political affairs, he wouldve mos likely lost confidence in Pitt's weak cautiousness. Pitt's consistent caution to execute policies does not detract fro the financial common sense they showed, which impressed even the opposing North, who supported an alliance to drive the policies. Still, Pitt's inefficien time wasting system would not have held him in his position in government without the King's
William Pitt the Younger's political success revolved around an effective working relationship with King George III, without which Pitt never could have maintained the support needed for his economically revolutionary reform policies such as Income Tax. Lacking the selfish eloquence to thrive among Lords, Pitt's support depended upon those who were tryiing to please the king. The more feble minded were content with Pitt's success at the progess he made towards financial recovery kept the public from questioning the rise of the aloof lifestyles of the Lords and furthermore the king. Pitt's dependency on the king should not be cause to question …show more content…
The French Revolution had shown that this typica aristocratic behaviour could have catastrophic results, and so caused fear for the monarchy despite the heavy loyalism in Britain. The crisis showed the weakness of Pitt's position, as with the King no longer in the political equation, Pitt's grasp on his position rapidly declined. It was essential for Pitt that he held the kings support. Had the Kings sudden incapability been permanent then a regency, headed by the Prince of Wales would have gone ahead and either Fox himself, or a Foxite would have been instated in Pitt's position. It was Fox's intention to restrict the monarchys influence, as this was the easiest solution to overcome Pitt. Pitt was unable to tsand y himself as an 'independent whig,' without the general support given to Pitt for having the Kings backing, the few supporters Pitt could trust and rely on would have been unable to uphold Pitt's rational ideas. Fox's popularity with the Prince of Wales, and the Pince's dislike for Pitt wouldve meant that had the King not recovered, Pitt would not have held his position at all. Though the fact that Fox was desperate for the support of the Prince of Wales it shows that it was not possile at all to hold a position of power without …show more content…
The removal of departments generally only happened in cases where the Head of a Department died, and then cautious Pitt would refrain appointing a successor, hoping what was left would diminish without complications. Pitt's active refusal to controversy was most 'unlord'like to the disdain of other politicians. Hisreform era applied at the peak of the King's faith, who's power had considerably waned. To the King his only nws was of successful reform and revenue. Had the King been active in political affairs, he wouldve mos likely lost confidence in Pitt's weak cautiousness. Pitt's consistent caution to execute policies does not detract fro the financial common sense they showed, which impressed even the opposing North, who supported an alliance to drive the policies. Still, Pitt's inefficien time wasting system would not have held him in his position in government without the King's