Pitt had a formidable father (should I say pater?) in the Earl of Chatham so he was no stranger to mixing with the nobility but would have always kept on the right side of due respect with the monarch who had been instrumental in his position as PM in preference to the opposition on offer in Fox and others.
Hard competition, John Travolta in Pulp Fiction, Morgan Freeman in Shawshank Redemption, Paul Newman.... Tom Hanks winning certainly was a shocker to say the least.
One night during the stage run of the original play in London, Julian Wadham, either from a lapse in concentration or sheer devilment, answered "Yes, your Majesty" to the question about whether he was married yet. A moment's hesitation from Sir Nigel, then "Who to, Mr Pitt?", leaving poor Julian desperately trying to make up details about his fictitious wife.
I like how this scene shows how sharp George III still was at this stage of life. He remembered the names and relatives of people that he had only seen years before and what offices he had given them. Quite a tragedy to lose a strong mind.
You misinterpret. His focus on tiny details far below his station, and on being right in all cases, is in fact a a sign of his impending madness. He would soon carry both emphases to extremes. This scene is foreshadowing.
@@roberthaworth8991 The King wasn't mad in the congenital sense. It's been proven he suffered from a chemical imbalance in the blood called porphyria. Easily treatable today. George III was a hard working King with very good intentions. It was the disastrous ministry of Lord North that caused the split with the colonies. If the Earl of Chatham had been Prime Minister it would be a very different North America today. Still, you do have the English language, all thanks to the British.
@@reggiebosanquet1525 The evidence for porphyria is not clinical, only circumstantial. It has been suggested, but not proven. The demonstration of certain manic-obsessive symptoms by the Prince Regent and others down his bloodline suggest a genetic component. "Farmer George" was indeed a working royal with the economic good of England in his heart, but as his mental weakness slowly developed he abandoned the relative progressivism of his early reign and let the coterie of wealthy sycophants and self-interested grifters gathered around him ("The King's Friends") come to dominate policy toward the American Colonies (and much else), to the country's cost. In particular his harsh, dismissive response to the Olive Branch Petition sent to him by the First Continental Congress (1774) helped make revolution inevitable, and was not the act of a reasonable and flexible national leader -- monarch or no. HIs paternalistic arrogance and intransigence lost Britain the real jewel in its imperial crown -- since even 20 more years of British rule in the 13 Colonies could have put the Sugar Islands and India well into the shade as to both income generation for the state and the ability to materially assist Britain against designing foreign powers.
Hearing stories about this, I don't think he is actually insane. He seems to have Manic Depression and BPD. Of course the 18th century medicine didn't helped.
One of the best films ever produced! As well as the acting and dialogue, the soundtrack of GF Handel's finest compositions brought everything together as a preverbal feat for the intellect and the senses!
From the Roman empire to the British, you don't turn your back on someone who can put an axe through it just because it suits their mood. Its supposedly respect, but I just think it's a subtle reminder that blood bought the positions of these people, and blood is how they keep it.
This is actually ordinary protocol when walking away from the King or Queen: walk away backwards, don't turn your back on His (or Her) Majesty. I can remember being taught this in primary school - the teacher telling us: now remember boys, if you ever happen to meet the Queen, you must back away when leaving, don't just turn and walk out. Fifty or so years later, I still haven't had a one-on-one with the Queen ... but I'd know how to behave, if I did. Mr Pitt's retreat is somewhat accentuated because he is exiting out of a very long gallery with the exit at the far end.
@@MDE_never_dies Greatest?! 😂 Rome their daddy was that, in terms of acquiring useless desert/tundra land of Australia & Canada which are 90% uninhabitable even today that's not very impressive. They couldn't even take over Ireland or Scotland let alone any European power.
Word is George III fumed for YEARS after losing the colonies. The humiliation it brought him plus the stress are thought to be a big reason for his first round of madness. There's another very interesting scene where George calls the colonies "a paradise lost" (referring to John Milton's famous epic on the Garden of Eden).
@@thunderbird1921 I can highly recommend the HBO John Adams. Of course every tv show gets something wrong, but it demonstrates the difference between British and French monarchy quite well.
It looks as if that globe includes the Louisiana Territory as part of the US, which was not the case until the 1803 Louisiana Purchase.... this film is set in 1788...
"Mr. Speaker, members of the house, l shall be brief, as l have rather unfortunately become Prime Minister right in the middle of my exams...." 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Fantastic performances in this. A great cast, telling the story of one of our most loved monarchs, although we remember him for suffering his mental illness, and there was nothing nobody could do to help him
Well if he was bipolar, as current thinking would have it, his "mad doctor" did well just to shut him away during his manic periods, allowing him to appear more in control.
That's a bit harsh. It was the Age of Conquest, and that's the way things were done. Almost all countries were ruled by kings, who went around conquering other people's countries...
William Pitt the Younger (28 May 1759 - 23 January 1806) was a prominent British Tory statesman of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. He became the youngest British prime minister in 1783 at the age of 24. He left office in 1801, but was Prime Minister again from 1804 until his death in 1806. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer for most of his time as Prime Minister. He is known as "the Younger" to distinguish him from his father, William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, called William Pitt the Elder or simply "Chatham", who had previously served as Prime Minister. The younger Pitt's prime ministerial tenure, which came during the reign of George III, was dominated by major events in Europe, including the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Pitt, although often referred to as a Tory, or "new Tory", called himself an "independent Whig" and was generally opposed to the development of a strict partisan political system. He led Britain in the great wars against France and Napoleon. Pitt was an outstanding administrator who worked for efficiency and reform, bringing in a new generation of outstanding administrators. He increased taxes to pay for the great war against France and cracked down on radicalism. To engage the threat of Irish support for France, he engineered the Acts of Union 1800 and tried (but failed) to get Catholic emancipation as part of the Union. He created the "new Toryism", which revived the Tory Party and enabled it to stay in power for the next quarter-century. The historian Asa Briggs argues that his personality did not endear itself to the British mind, for Pitt was too solitary and too colourless, and too often exuded superiority. His greatness came in the war with France. Pitt reacted to become what Lord Minto called "the Atlas of our reeling globe". His integrity and industry and his role as defender of the threatened nation allowed him to inspire and access all the national reserves of strength. William Wilberforce said that, "For personal purity, disinterestedness and love of this country, I have never known his equal." Historian Charles Petrie concludes that he was one of the greatest prime ministers "if on no other ground than that he enabled the country to pass from the old order to the new without any violent upheaval ... He understood the new Britain." For this he is ranked highly amongst British Prime Ministers.
Man, THAT'S got to be stressful. Only 24, your father was a prominent politician, and you're going to be working with George III. That's a LOT of high expectations to meet at that age.
Imagine leading a vast government at only 24 years of age. That is exceptional… That is being Mozart of politics. The 24 year olds of today might have risen to shift supervisor at Chik-Fil-A while still living in Dad’s basement. The quality of the average human mind has certainly gone down the toilet since 1788.
The historian Asa Briggs argues that his personality did not endear itself to the British mind, for Pitt was too solitary and too colourless, and too often exuded an attitude of superiority. His greatness came in the war with France. Pitt reacted to become what Lord Minto called "the Atlas of our reeling globe". William Wilberforce said, "For personal purity, disinterestedness and love of this country, I have never known his equal." Historian Charles Petrie concludes that he was one of the greatest Prime Ministers "if on no other ground than that he enabled the country to pass from the old order to the new without any violent upheaval ... He understood the new Britain." For this he is ranked highly amongst all British Prime Ministers in multiple surveys.
Michael Stevens that is purely based on the standards of the 18th century of West European society. cultures are organic, and they are born, progress, and thus die.
Agreed. Since the movie took place in 1789 or 1790, during the Regency Crisis. Even considering William Pitt the younger died in 1806, the map should not have Florida. This map should be in the 1820.
The U.S. map is incorrect. In 1789, the entire territory of the U.S. lay to the east of the Mississippi. The Lousiana purchase was only completed in 1803, the border with New Spain and the acquisition of Florida only came with the Adams-Onís Treaty of 1821 and the border with British North America along the 49th parallel wasn't finalised until 1846. But by that time, Texas was admitted into the U.S. as well.
As I recall, the makers of the film also erred in using the present day (1837) version of the Royal Arms. Members of Congress in Washington D.C. when delivering messages to the other House still make formal bows at their entrance. Making a bow as a sign of respect in America is obsolecent but not incorrect.
Thank you for your concern and addressing this issue. I have already had that noted and made the correction. I hope that this will not come again, but, again thank you.
The monarch essentially has quite a lot of power, with the understanding that they'll never use it without permission. Not unless they want to wake up and find they've been abolished.
Thank you for the clarification. It struck me as odd. I hope to view this movie soon as I am under going an intense review of this period in preparation for teaching a class. Thank you.
I've noticed that when Brits refer to the USA they refer to it as "America." Not "the United States" or "the USA" but seemingly always "America " This always reminds me of this scene. Prime Minister Pitt says to George III "They're now called the United States, sir." His majesty replies "Are they, goodness me, the United States...."
@@hansgruber788nah, most just say England when referring to the the place or British when referring to the nationality, personally I say “the UK.” and British.
It's hard for me to sit through this movie because every time Nigel opens his mouth I keep expecting Paul Eddington to walk in the door and contradict him.............
@Kenta19191919 The Queen did not personally sack Gough Whitlam as PM of Australia during the 1975 constitutional crisis. He was sacked by Sir John Kerr, the Governor-General.
I hope I have this anecdote correct: when the play was made into a film, I believe Alan Bennett said to Hollywood that if director Nicholas Hytner and Nigel Hawthorne were not doing it, then he wouldn't give permission to film it.
Notice how everyone avoids looking directly at the King. When Pitt walks away from George, he steps back a few steps before turning his back on him. They avoid using any "familiar" forms of speech with him. All this bowing and deference---this "kissing of the Royal Ass"---does it still go on today?
To a much lesser degree. The Queen today doesn't request any of these old protocols. She is actually fairly modern for a monarch. Prince William is even more relaxed. Of course his staff will rarely address him by his first name, most of the times it is simply "sir" - however if you are a close adviser he would ask you to call him William. Prince Charles on the other hand loves formality, even though he is far from strict, he does like to have his royal heritage acknowledged.
that's nothing to how it was in most foreign cultures. You should see the ceremony for Oriental emperors! Europeans have always been scandalously familiar with their monarchs by comparison.
I think the protocol is: behave formally to the monarch or lesser royalty until they ask you to do otherwise. Even then some feel more comfortable with the old usages (think Bernard saying to Mr Hacker: "I'd rather call you Minister, Minister").
King George gave shelter to our great patriot Pasquale Paoli and, then, became constitutionnal king of Corsica in April 1794 until october 1796 in the "Anglo-Corsican Kingdom".
A question: how closely did the pronunciation of the English language of the 18th century compare to that which we use today? Would the speech of George III be indistinguishable from that of the Royals today? Or would it be different? I've read somewhere that the English of the 18th century would sound a lot like Scottish today.
zooeyhall if u r curious, go read 18th century letters of the English Aristocracy. They wrote beautifully and one would imagine spoke the same. The lower class none aristocrats spoke like the Scots today. They were wild and unpolished.
zooeyhall The speech of George III would probably be slightly accented, even for the day, due to the fact that, although he was English-born and spoke English as his first language, he was born to German parents and raised in a household where those closest to him would have had heavy German accents when speaking English. This is true of all the monarchs from George I (who barely spoke English at all) straight through to George V and his ethnically German consort, Mary of Teck (of course for George V/Mary of Teck, the German accent is much more subtle). I don't know that pronunciation of the English used by the royals and others at the time would have been terribly from those of today, however.
+Trent Campbell I highly doubt it. George the 3rd was an absolute English man, with all the accent and manners. His eldest son-- George the regent--was even more refined English man. Prince George actually-- took it to another level--his manners and language was a defining lightening. The only German in their household was the Queen--Charlotte.
ninxoon30 He was a patriot no doubt, but I still there's plenty of room to suspect he still would have had somewhat of an accent especially seeing how his mother and father would certainly would have. We'll never really know at this point.
I always wondered why when you left the King, you had to walk backwards and not have the King face your back? I believe that rule was waived like during the 20th Century, but it still fascinates me.
Fairly Certain the Globe is anachronistic, it more or less shows the borders of the 1830s though the modern Norther Borders were definitely not settles yet, and there should be the Northern tip of Minnesota yet either. Also Florida was part of Spainish holding at the time.
From an American point of view ,one of the things about the colonial period that was galling was the fact that no Monarch ,no member of the RF or even parliament ever bothered to visit the colonies to get a knowledge or understanding of the people and what life was like for them. In fact , Queen Elizabeth ll family in 1939 was the first Royal visit on American soil ,brought about in large part by FDR's persuasion The French Indian war didn't count. That was not our war yet George lll expected the colonists to pay for it. It is interesting though that he expressed admiration for George Washington for stepping down as president after two terms when he could've stayed on till his death
Uhh, Prince William(later King William IV), went to American during the revolutionary war. In New York, he relayed a lot of what was going on back to his father George III.
A small observation but it would appear that Pitt has with him a red dispatch box not too dissimilar from those of today. Is that historically correct.
The best thing is that it's all constitutional, so the King's signature is more for the ceremony than anything else as he had to do it. So Pitt is just being annoyed for no reason and is clearly hating life.
The opening 30 seconds of dialogue was an indirect way of the writer inferring William Pitt the Younger might have been gay. Historians and researchers have talked about this for decades, and rumours abound that the young Mr Pitt was gay. Others say he was asexual.
![บุษบา - เมนทอล [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IGnWPokSEis/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Rise and Fall of William Pitt the Younger [Part 1]](/img/n.gif)
"...Not like you, Mr. Pitt. You don't have ideas..." Pitt's wordless response is an absolute classic.
Yes, a Great Line, and the look Mr Pitt gives the King Priceless
What what
That part cracked me up, epecially Pitt's reaction.
Pitt had a formidable father (should I say pater?) in the Earl of Chatham so he was no stranger
to mixing with the nobility but would have always kept on the right side of due respect with the
monarch who had been instrumental in his position as PM in preference to the opposition on
offer in Fox and others.
A "classic" to anyone but Pitt.
Legend has it Mr. Pitt still hasn't reached the exit.
Bahhaha
Nigel Hawthorne was robbed blind of an Oscar for this role.
Par for the academy. Gump my ass. I'm on your side
What what
Hard competition, John Travolta in Pulp Fiction, Morgan Freeman in Shawshank Redemption, Paul Newman.... Tom Hanks winning certainly was a shocker to say the least.
Couldn’t agree more. Nigel Hawthorn gives a superlative performance throughout this movie
Absolutely stolen from him he DESERVED IT
Wow, Humphrey Appleby did pretty well after his career in the civil service.
Arvidiusdux
I take from his demeanor that he's lost his keys once too often...
And Pitt the Younger walks like he still has a hot crumpet burning his cheeks with shame. I guess he really was too busy to remove it.
Activated Complex I’ll bet it’ll go well with a spread of blackcurrant jelly. ;)
@@Activated_Complex Do you imagine that Pitt the Embryo now sits in that same spot, hot crumpets burning against his own cheeks?
A king is the ultimate civil servant.
I keep waiting for him to say “ Yes prime minister.”
One night during the stage run of the original play in London, Julian Wadham, either from a lapse in concentration or sheer devilment, answered "Yes, your Majesty" to the question about whether he was married yet. A moment's hesitation from Sir Nigel, then "Who to, Mr Pitt?", leaving poor Julian desperately trying to make up details about his fictitious wife.
lmao
Hahaha perfect
Has he said ‘the job, sir’ that would have been more than apt.
@@jonharrison9222 "England, your Majesty." "What-what-what? But *I'm* married to England! How dare you, sir!"
I like how this scene shows how sharp George III still was at this stage of life. He remembered the names and relatives of people that he had only seen years before and what offices he had given them. Quite a tragedy to lose a strong mind.
He was only 50 years old . This is set in 1788
You misinterpret. His focus on tiny details far below his station, and on being right in all cases, is in fact a a sign of his impending madness. He would soon carry both emphases to extremes. This scene is foreshadowing.
@@roberthaworth8991 The King wasn't mad in the congenital sense. It's been proven he suffered from a chemical imbalance in the blood called porphyria. Easily treatable today. George III was a hard working King with very good intentions. It was the disastrous ministry of Lord North that caused the split with the colonies. If the Earl of Chatham had been Prime Minister it would be a very different North America today. Still, you do have the English language, all thanks to the British.
@@reggiebosanquet1525 The evidence for porphyria is not clinical, only circumstantial. It has been suggested, but not proven. The demonstration of certain manic-obsessive symptoms by the Prince Regent and others down his bloodline suggest a genetic component. "Farmer George" was indeed a working royal with the economic good of England in his heart, but as his mental weakness slowly developed he abandoned the relative progressivism of his early reign and let the coterie of wealthy sycophants and self-interested grifters gathered around him ("The King's Friends") come to dominate policy toward the American Colonies (and much else), to the country's cost. In particular his harsh, dismissive response to the Olive Branch Petition sent to him by the First Continental Congress (1774) helped make revolution inevitable, and was not the act of a reasonable and flexible national leader -- monarch or no. HIs paternalistic arrogance and intransigence lost Britain the real jewel in its imperial crown -- since even 20 more years of British rule in the 13 Colonies could have put the Sugar Islands and India well into the shade as to both income generation for the state and the ability to materially assist Britain against designing foreign powers.
Hearing stories about this, I don't think he is actually insane.
He seems to have Manic Depression and BPD. Of course the 18th century medicine didn't helped.
Hawthorne was a such tremendous actor! He is sorely missed.
Sorely missed!
Indeed.
It occasionally confused William Pitt the Younger whenever the King would call him "Mr. Hacker".
What what
@@gayan2517 The best
…and end meetings with “yes prime minister”
One of the best films ever produced! As well as the acting and dialogue, the soundtrack of GF Handel's finest compositions brought everything together as a preverbal feat for the intellect and the senses!
I love the way Mr.Pitt backs up, he doesn't show his back to the King, "What What, Hey Hey"
From the Roman empire to the British, you don't turn your back on someone who can put an axe through it just because it suits their mood. Its supposedly respect, but I just think it's a subtle reminder that blood bought the positions of these people, and blood is how they keep it.
@@LoudaroundLincoln King George III didn't have the legal authority to do that. You have no idea how monarchy works.
@@hkleider how do you know that, you didn’t know him personally, did you? So you can’t determine his actions, especially considering he was unstable.
This is actually ordinary protocol when walking away from the King or Queen: walk away backwards, don't turn your back on His (or Her) Majesty. I can remember being taught this in primary school - the teacher telling us: now remember boys, if you ever happen to meet the Queen, you must back away when leaving, don't just turn and walk out. Fifty or so years later, I still haven't had a one-on-one with the Queen ... but I'd know how to behave, if I did. Mr Pitt's retreat is somewhat accentuated because he is exiting out of a very long gallery with the exit at the far end.
@@Maclabhruinn And today that one-on-one with her Majesty will never happen.
- They now are called the United States,Sir.
- Are They? Goodness Me ! ...The United States !
And what a disaster it turned out to be.
@@yousoufkirkwood6289 The most powerful country to ever exist?! Think it turned out just fine
@@yousoufkirkwood6289 the UK is a disaster. Europe is a disaster.
@@MDE_never_dies
Greatest?! 😂 Rome their daddy was that, in terms of acquiring useless desert/tundra land of Australia & Canada which are 90% uninhabitable even today that's not very impressive. They couldn't even take over Ireland or Scotland let alone any European power.
@@jbloun911 my friend, they were overlords of india the middle east and the chinese lets be fair here
2:45 "Dam it, how long is this hallway? It feels like I've been walking backwards forever."
But Mr.Pitt walks wonderfully backward, and with his hand in his Heart
I'd have hit half a dozen of those tables; how did he walk in a straight line, backwards, looking down at the floor?
The kings disgust and reverence for the United States is priceless.
Word is George III fumed for YEARS after losing the colonies. The humiliation it brought him plus the stress are thought to be a big reason for his first round of madness. There's another very interesting scene where George calls the colonies "a paradise lost" (referring to John Milton's famous epic on the Garden of Eden).
@@thunderbird1921 I can highly recommend the HBO John Adams. Of course every tv show gets something wrong, but it demonstrates the difference between British and French monarchy quite well.
His reverence was for the colonies, not for the United States.
I wish America joined the Commonwealth of Nations.
@@olympia5758 Make America Great Britian Again?
Hawthorne was a great actor. He did a great job as King George III
Now which Pitt is this? The Elder, the Younger, the Toddler, the Fetus, or the Glint in the Milkman's Eye?
I see you are a Blackadder fan
Blackcurrant jelly for you all!
The Younger one.
Elder Pitt was the PM till 1768, when America was still under British.
Exactly! Hazy on some of my British history, but l can't help but wonder if there's an association here!!😊
Honestly I'm more than impressed he knew every single marriage
It looks as if that globe includes the Louisiana Territory as part of the US, which was not the case until the 1803 Louisiana Purchase.... this film is set in 1788...
It also shows the British cession of 1818 and Oregon Treaty of 1846. Woops!
+Matthew Rothschild And the Adams-Onís Treaty and the Webster-Ashburton Treaty.
My god
Oh no; you mean they didn't have a globe produced in 1788, nor did they have a custom one made? Oh the horror...
Cory Goodman They did have globes in 1788.
"Mr. Speaker, members of the house, l shall be brief, as l have rather unfortunately become Prime Minister right in the middle of my exams...."
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I just realized that's the same dude from Demolition Man. Hilarious.
An evil Mr. Rogers!
Be well, be fucked.
Fantastic performances in this. A great cast, telling the story of one of our most loved monarchs, although we remember him for suffering his mental illness, and there was nothing nobody could do to help him
You mean "nothing anyone could do".
If you want to put it like that.
@@DJ-jn3on Most people would..............
Well if he was bipolar, as current thinking would have it, his "mad doctor" did well just to shut him away during his manic periods, allowing him to appear more in control.
Julian Wadham's Pitt the Younger was a sexy beast! His Pitt was my favourite character in the film.
Sarcastic - but sexy !
@@richardgrant7055 He would have made a brilliant Lord Nelson too! 😊
I had a huge crush on him as a teenager. Lol glad to know I wasn't crazy.
Rown Atkinson and Stephen Fry were simply brilltiant.
Am I dumb, none of them look or sound like,e Atkinson or Fry
@@derrickstorm6976 That's the beauty of R. Atkinson. His clever plan will be executed in the next scene of The BlackAdder!! Baldric is the dumb one.
@@derrickstorm6976Mr Pitt does resemble a more handsome Rowan although I don't know where he got fry from.
People seemed to be so polite and proper back in the 18th century! Something we've lost today?
+Doy Virginia The killed and oppressed and enslaved millions of people. In a very polite way, indeed. Still they remained subanimal criminals.
da fuck you talkin bout nigga?
That's a bit harsh. It was the Age of Conquest, and that's the way things were done. Almost all countries were ruled by kings, who went around conquering other people's countries...
....These are royals and nobles in the palace. Discussing state business. Are you stupid or just deluded?
Yes because we're all the cream of aristrocratic society, aren't we?
William Pitt the Younger (28 May 1759 - 23 January 1806) was a prominent British Tory statesman of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
He became the youngest British prime minister in 1783 at the age of 24.
He left office in 1801, but was Prime Minister again from 1804 until his death in 1806.
He was Chancellor of the Exchequer for most of his time as Prime Minister.
He is known as "the Younger" to distinguish him from his father, William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, called William Pitt the Elder or simply "Chatham", who had previously served as Prime Minister.
The younger Pitt's prime ministerial tenure, which came during the reign of George III, was dominated by major events in Europe, including the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.
Pitt, although often referred to as a Tory, or "new Tory", called himself an "independent Whig" and was generally opposed to the development of a strict partisan political system.
He led Britain in the great wars against France and Napoleon.
Pitt was an outstanding administrator who worked for efficiency and reform, bringing in a new generation of outstanding administrators.
He increased taxes to pay for the great war against France and cracked down on radicalism.
To engage the threat of Irish support for France, he engineered the Acts of Union 1800 and tried (but failed) to get Catholic emancipation as part of the Union.
He created the "new Toryism", which revived the Tory Party and enabled it to stay in power for the next quarter-century.
The historian Asa Briggs argues that his personality did not endear itself to the British mind, for Pitt was too solitary and too colourless, and too often exuded superiority.
His greatness came in the war with France.
Pitt reacted to become what Lord Minto called "the Atlas of our reeling globe".
His integrity and industry and his role as defender of the threatened nation allowed him to inspire and access all the national reserves of strength.
William Wilberforce said that, "For personal purity, disinterestedness and love of this country, I have never known his equal."
Historian Charles Petrie concludes that he was one of the greatest prime ministers "if on no other ground than that he enabled the country to pass from the old order to the new without any violent upheaval ... He understood the new Britain."
For this he is ranked highly amongst British Prime Ministers.
You wouldn't believe you but his father the Earl of Chatham and prime minister of Britain was my ancestor
What WHAT?
Man, THAT'S got to be stressful. Only 24, your father was a prominent politician, and you're going to be working with George III. That's a LOT of high expectations to meet at that age.
Imagine leading a vast government at only 24 years of age. That is exceptional… That is being Mozart of politics. The 24 year olds of today might have risen to shift supervisor at Chik-Fil-A while still living in Dad’s basement. The quality of the average human mind has certainly gone down the toilet since 1788.
Someone - I forget who - declared on hearing him speak in the House that he was " .... not a chip off the old block, but the block itself".
Legend has it that Mr Pitt is still walking backwards to this day
This is a fact sir.
Nigel Hawthorne at the top of his form as King George III.
Great movie and just superb acting 👌👌
Mr. Pitt looks like Beethoven lol
On the other hand, the British were well on their way to conquering India by this time, so that was a nice consolation prize, what what?
Henry VIII would have had his head for that tone!
He needed John Spartan to get those colonies back in line.
The one thing about the royal court during this period, you need to be like a Vulcan. You cannot show any emotions or feelings.
As now.
Imagine speaking so much in a monotone voice you can't tell whether if they actually meant it or it's sarcasm.
Example: 1:00
It's good to be the King.
What what
Unless you're the king of France...
What an excellent movie .....I am really astonished
"tHe uNiTeD STaTeS" I like this
If this is at all historically accurate, then damn, Pitt the Younger was such a charmer.
The historian Asa Briggs argues that his personality did not endear itself to the British mind, for Pitt was too solitary and too colourless, and too often exuded an attitude of superiority.
His greatness came in the war with France.
Pitt reacted to become what Lord Minto called "the Atlas of our reeling globe".
William Wilberforce said, "For personal purity, disinterestedness and love of this country, I have never known his equal."
Historian Charles Petrie concludes that he was one of the greatest Prime Ministers "if on no other ground than that he enabled the country to pass from the old order to the new without any violent upheaval ... He understood the new Britain."
For this he is ranked highly amongst all British Prime Ministers in multiple surveys.
Brilliant film to watch a fantastic cast and a great supporting cast as well very good script by Alan Bennett as well
"A man should marry." Huh. I wonder how Sir Hawthorne felt about that line given ... you know.
Michael Stevens that is purely based on the standards of the 18th century of West European society. cultures are organic, and they are born, progress, and thus die.
@@khorps4756 I believe he was referring to the fact that Hawthorne was gay.
@@augustusfukushima5979 oh
Perhaps he thought he was an actor.
@@JavertRA I believe he means 'Sir Nigel'.
I like the character portraying Mr. Pitt.
Actually Mr Pitt is the character. He is portrayed by an actor.
What what
Pitt sounds so sarcastic lol.
1:00
what did he say
@@loodyvaler "Your majesty's knowledge of even the lowliest of your appointments never ceases to astonish me. -_-"
@@AbrahamLincoln4 thank you
The globe is incorrect, the U.S.A wasn't this big at this time.
Congratulations: you're only about 10 years too late.
Agreed. Since the movie took place in 1789 or 1790, during the Regency Crisis.
Even considering William Pitt the younger died in 1806, the map should not have Florida.
This map should be in the 1820.
The U.S. map is incorrect. In 1789, the entire territory of the U.S. lay to the east of the Mississippi. The Lousiana purchase was only completed in 1803, the border with New Spain and the acquisition of Florida only came with the Adams-Onís Treaty of 1821 and the border with British North America along the 49th parallel wasn't finalised until 1846. But by that time, Texas was admitted into the U.S. as well.
Seeing Lewis and Clark didn't reach the Pacific coast until 1804, was there any agreed border either with what was then northern Mexico?
As I recall, the makers of the film also erred in using the present day (1837) version of the Royal Arms.
Members of Congress in Washington D.C. when delivering messages to the other House still make formal bows at their entrance. Making a bow as a sign of respect in America is obsolecent but not incorrect.
I don't know what goes on in the UK parliament, but in New Zealand MPs still bow to the Speaker when either entering or exiting the debating chamber.
So nice to see what America missed out on...
brilliant acting!
Thank you for your concern and addressing this issue. I have already had that noted and made the correction. I hope that this will not come again, but, again thank you.
The monarch essentially has quite a lot of power, with the understanding that they'll never use it without permission. Not unless they want to wake up and find they've been abolished.
In England the king reign but not govern.
Right. Didn't HLM QEII fire the entire parliament of a Commonwealth country (Australia!) because they couldn't decide on a budget ?
You're thinking of his father, Pitt the Elder (whom Pittsburgh is named after). Pitt the Younger was PM from 1783 to 1801 and again from 1804 to 1806.
Wadhams great. Note: He and Rupert Everett were at secondary school together and very competitive by all accounts.
Thank you for the clarification. It struck me as odd. I hope to view this movie soon as I am under going an intense review of this period in preparation for teaching a class. Thank you.
Now that was a great film.
Sharing and Thanks!
I've noticed that when Brits refer to the USA they refer to it as "America." Not "the United States" or "the USA" but seemingly always "America " This always reminds me of this scene. Prime Minister Pitt says to George III "They're now called the United States, sir." His majesty replies "Are they, goodness me, the United States...."
Its just like how the yanks quite charmingly refer to us as Great Britain when mostly people say the United Kingdom.
@@hansgruber788nah, most just say England when referring to the the place or British when referring to the nationality, personally I say “the UK.” and British.
Great movie. And that's a fact.
A truly great movie, what what.
I have this on DVD.
WOW ! Let's have a National Holiday !
"Children you see children, a great comfort... I mean not mine but in theory"
It's hard for me to sit through this movie because every time Nigel opens his mouth I keep expecting Paul Eddington to walk in the door and contradict him.............
If you don't value things that have sacred value, they & others may eventually be deprived until they mean something to you.
Great movie! Nigel Hawthorne and Helen Mirren. Nuff said.
The monarch is the formal executive.
I love this time.I wish to live on this glories time.music.books romances were on the air.very GENTLEMEN TIMES.
A man should marry…yes, in Georgian England he should've done, if he could.
yes....
I wonder if the Vicar of Lichfield’s niece indeed married the second son of the organist of Norrich Cathedral
Norwich..
@@mjspice100 Yes - and pronounced "norridge".
My country's first Premier's (Our title for Prime Minister) was named after William Pitt (Billy Pitt)
@Kenta19191919 The Queen did not personally sack Gough Whitlam as PM of Australia during the 1975 constitutional crisis. He was sacked by Sir John Kerr, the Governor-General.
I hope I have this anecdote correct: when the play was made into a film, I believe Alan Bennett said to Hollywood that if director Nicholas Hytner and Nigel Hawthorne were not doing it, then he wouldn't give permission to film it.
Which movie or serie us this please
Notice how everyone avoids looking directly at the King. When Pitt walks away from George, he steps back a few steps before turning his back on him. They avoid using any "familiar" forms of speech with him. All this bowing and deference---this "kissing of the Royal Ass"---does it still go on today?
To a much lesser degree. The Queen today doesn't request any of these old protocols. She is actually fairly modern for a monarch. Prince William is even more relaxed. Of course his staff will rarely address him by his first name, most of the times it is simply "sir" - however if you are a close adviser he would ask you to call him William. Prince Charles on the other hand loves formality, even though he is far from strict, he does like to have his royal heritage acknowledged.
that's nothing to how it was in most foreign cultures. You should see the ceremony for Oriental emperors! Europeans have always been scandalously familiar with their monarchs by comparison.
I think the protocol is: behave formally to the monarch or lesser royalty until they ask you to do otherwise. Even then some feel more comfortable with the old usages (think Bernard saying to Mr Hacker: "I'd rather call you Minister, Minister").
Politeness does still go on today - though doubtless it misses you completely.
By the gods... That globe... Someone fire that props director!
King George gave shelter to our great patriot Pasquale Paoli and, then, became constitutionnal king of Corsica in April 1794 until october 1796 in the "Anglo-Corsican Kingdom".
PLEASE turn on CC
I like the subtle hints and digs at the beginning that he knows Pitt is rumored to be gay.
Well I wouldn't be going against the decisions of Parliament, I would just be more open and up in your face in my executive role.
A question: how closely did the pronunciation of the English language of the 18th century compare to that which we use today? Would the speech of George III be indistinguishable from that of the Royals today? Or would it be different? I've read somewhere that the English of the 18th century would sound a lot like Scottish today.
zooeyhall if u r curious, go read 18th century letters of the English Aristocracy. They wrote beautifully and one would imagine spoke the same. The lower class none aristocrats spoke like the Scots today. They were wild and unpolished.
zooeyhall The speech of George III would probably be slightly accented, even for the day, due to the fact that, although he was English-born and spoke English as his first language, he was born to German parents and raised in a household where those closest to him would have had heavy German accents when speaking English. This is true of all the monarchs from George I (who barely spoke English at all) straight through to George V and his ethnically German consort, Mary of Teck (of course for George V/Mary of Teck, the German accent is much more subtle). I don't know that pronunciation of the English used by the royals and others at the time would have been terribly from those of today, however.
+Trent Campbell I highly doubt it. George the 3rd was an absolute English man, with all the accent and manners. His eldest son-- George the regent--was even more refined English man. Prince George actually-- took it to another level--his manners and language was a defining lightening. The only German in their household was the Queen--Charlotte.
ninxoon30 He was a patriot no doubt, but I still there's plenty of room to suspect he still would have had somewhat of an accent especially seeing how his mother and father would certainly would have. We'll never really know at this point.
Pittsburgh is named after said Mr Pitt
Vin's World
No, it was named after his father.
Do you imagine Americans naming a city for a Prime Minister after independence?
Seriously?? I did not know this. Thanks
The ending music of this clip ?
I'm usually averse to bio pics, but Sir Ian's Oscar was well earned.
Got your eye on anybody then, eh?
Wonder how many times he fell trying to walk backwards in that scene
Most youngish ADULTS can walk backwards relatively easily..........
What a great actor! Died too young
I always wondered why when you left the King, you had to walk backwards and not have the King face your back? I believe that rule was waived like during the 20th Century, but it still fascinates me.
And why were people banned from looking at the King in the eye anyway?
so we can
What, what
Reminded me of Basil Staghare from Redwall
That map shows Florida and Louisiana as US. At the time they were part of Spain.
Bowing, yes. Always walking backwards, no.
Again, when did I ever say I would go against the elected representatives of Parliament?
That's an awfully long room there....
A man should marry! Yes, yes!
Harrumph harrumph
Harrumphing ( with a touch of asthma) was the secret behind the rise of the British Empire.
Soooo, was the King implying that Mr Pitt 'did not like the ladies' and he did not approve? 😵
Fairly Certain the Globe is anachronistic, it more or less shows the borders of the 1830s though the modern Norther Borders were definitely not settles yet, and there should be the Northern tip of Minnesota yet either. Also Florida was part of Spainish holding at the time.
@delavalmilker The King is the symbol of the People and the church, he is bowing to them, not the King as a person.
I couldn't walk backwards like that
There are obviously lots of things you cannot do.....
From an American point of view ,one of the things about the colonial period that was galling was the fact that no Monarch ,no member of the RF or even parliament ever bothered to visit the colonies to get a knowledge or understanding of the people and what life was like for them.
In fact , Queen Elizabeth ll family in 1939 was the first Royal visit on American soil ,brought about in large part by FDR's persuasion
The French Indian war didn't count.
That was not our war yet George lll expected the colonists to pay for it.
It is interesting though that he expressed admiration for George Washington for stepping down as president after two terms when he could've stayed on till his death
When told that the first president was retiring after two terms, George exclaimed "Then Washington is the greatest man in the world!"
Uhh, Prince William(later King William IV), went to American during the revolutionary war. In New York, he relayed a lot of what was going on back to his father George III.
A small observation but it would appear that Pitt has with him a red dispatch box not too dissimilar from those of today. Is that historically correct.
The best thing is that it's all constitutional, so the King's signature is more for the ceremony than anything else as he had to do it. So Pitt is just being annoyed for no reason and is clearly hating life.
Listen to Sir Humphry Prime Minister!
The opening 30 seconds of dialogue was an indirect way of the writer inferring William Pitt the Younger might have been gay. Historians and researchers have talked about this for decades, and rumours abound that the young Mr Pitt was gay. Others say he was asexual.
Na..everybody has a deal..
@@windwhipped5 What do you mean?
He might well have shared that personality trait with a much later PM - Ted Heath.