A bit old in the news cycle but just heard of this.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/uk-britain-banknotes-austen-idUKLNE95O00U20130625
QuoteAuthor Jane Austen is "waiting in the wings" to become the next famous Briton to be honoured on the country's banknotes, outgoing Bank of England governor Mervyn King said.
The writer of 19th century classics such as "Pride & Prejudice", "Sense & Sensibility" and "Emma" is already a "reserve" figure whose image could be a clear candidate to replace that of naturalist Charles Darwin on the 10-pound note when his time is up, King said on Tuesday.
The announcement potentially defuses criticisms of a future lack of female figures on the currency, which have been levelled at the central bank since it said in April that wartime leader Winston Churchill would feature on the five-pound note from 2016, replacing prison reformer Elizabeth Fry.
Churchill and Darwin will complement economist Adam Smith and steam engine inventors Matthew Boulton and James Watt to complete the all-male line-up - other than the image of the Queen on the overleaf.
The monarch is on one side of each of Britain's four denominations of bank notes, while celebrated Britons take their turn for 10 to 20-year stints on the other side.
Austen would be a well-known and likely popular choice. Her novels of romance among the Regency gentry, spiced with sharp social comment, still regularly feature on bestseller and literature course reading lists, and have spawned numerous period-drama TV shows and film adaptations.
Historical women figures should be chosen as individuals rather than for their gender, King said at his final appearance as governor before parliament's Treasury Committee.
"One thing which we are quite determined to avoid is any suggestion that the five pound note in some sense be reserved for women," he said.
The notes featuring Fry would continue to circulate for some time and although the final decision as to the identity of the next figure would be one for the incoming governor, Canadian Mark Carney, it was unlikely that there would be a time when there were no females, King said.
"I think it is extremely unlikely that we should ever find ourselves in the position where there are no women among the historical figures on our banknotes.
"Jane Austen is quietly waiting in the wings."
Ugh, of all the women they could have chosen...
Yeah why would they choose someone famous and popular? :angry:
Who would be a better choice that hasn't ruled the country?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 05:38:48 PM
Who would be a better choice that hasn't ruled the country?
Florence Nightingale.
That bitch better not wind up on prepaid debit cards.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2013, 05:37:33 PM
Yeah why would they choose someone famous and popular? :angry:
By all means, lets put the spice girls there then.
Quote from: fhdz on July 01, 2013, 05:46:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 05:38:48 PM
Who would be a better choice that hasn't ruled the country?
Florence Nightingale.
She was on them quite recently.
I think Austen's a great choice, certainly better than Churchill.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2013, 05:54:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2013, 05:37:33 PM
Yeah why would they choose someone famous and popular? :angry:
By all means, lets put the spice girls there then.
Perhaps one day they will be though at the moment, I'd suggest their cultural impact hasn't lasted long enough to judge.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2013, 05:58:23 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 01, 2013, 05:46:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 05:38:48 PM
Who would be a better choice that hasn't ruled the country?
Florence Nightingale.
She was on them quite recently.
I think Austen's a great choice, certainly better than Churchill.
You cannot be serious. Other than Atlee, there is no figure in 20th century Britain who holds a candle to Churchill.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2013, 05:58:23 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 01, 2013, 05:46:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 05:38:48 PM
Who would be a better choice that hasn't ruled the country?
Florence Nightingale.
She was on them quite recently.
I think Austen's a great choice, certainly better than Churchill.
Wow. How ungracious.
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2013, 06:10:27 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2013, 05:58:23 PM
I think Austen's a great choice, certainly better than Churchill.
Wow. How ungracious.
Well, in his defense, Shiv is gay.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2013, 06:07:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2013, 05:58:23 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 01, 2013, 05:46:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 05:38:48 PM
Who would be a better choice that hasn't ruled the country?
Florence Nightingale.
She was on them quite recently.
I think Austen's a great choice, certainly better than Churchill.
You cannot be serious. Other than Atlee, there is no figure in 20th century Britain who holds a candle to Churchill.
Here's a clue, 'we' choose who goes on our banknotes not you guys,
some American do seem to have an idolised image of Churchill, like he's Washington's heir or something.
Oh and do me a favour, when Boris becomes our next PM, please don't lecture me on the genius of the man. <_<
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2013, 06:07:55 PMYou cannot be serious. Other than Atlee, there is no figure in 20th century Britain who holds a candle to Churchill.
Unless you're the Queen you should be dead a hundred years before you're on currency.
I wouldn't mind making an exception for Churchill, but in the 2040s.
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2013, 06:10:27 PM
Wow. How ungracious.
I don't think the people on a banknote should be within living memory. Also it'll help us avoid the John Lennon £20.
Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2013, 06:38:59 PM
Oh and do me a favour, when Boris becomes our next PM, please don't lecture me on the genius of the man. <_<
:lol: Boris is awesome.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 06:42:18 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2013, 06:38:59 PM
Oh and do me a favour, when Boris becomes our next PM, please don't lecture me on the genius of the man. <_<
:lol: Boris is awesome.
I was within 20 feet of him this weekend, listening to him speak, not that impressive, charming, funny, but overall he's a chancer.
But given Cameron's performance, I'd not be surprised to see Boris as the next Tory leader/PM.
Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2013, 06:38:59 PM
Here's a clue, 'we' choose who goes on our banknotes not you guys, some American do seem to have an idolised image of Churchill, like he's Washington's heir or something.
Just wait until we start a letter-writing campaign in West Midlands as to why they should vote Tory.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 06:53:52 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2013, 06:38:59 PM
Here's a clue, 'we' choose who goes on our banknotes not you guys, some American do seem to have an idolised image of Churchill, like he's Washington's heir or something.
Just wait until we start a letter-writing campaign in West Midlands as to why they should vote Tory.
:D
But seriously, please do; it could be as effective as the Grandiane campaign. :)
I have no problem with Austen on the notes.
Churchill on the other hand... :bleeding:
It's just ridiculous, one of the criteria should be that the person is uncontroversial (suck it creationists) but what can be more controvercial than a racist, xenophobic, mass-murderer?
I'm surprised there isn't more of a campaign to stop it, you'd think the Asian community at the least would be aghast.
Quote from: Tyr on July 01, 2013, 07:05:30 PM
It's just ridiculous, one of the criteria should be that the person is uncontroversial (suck it creationists) but what can be more controvercial than a racist, xenophobic, imperialist, mass-murderer?
Stay golden, Ponyboy. Stay golden.
Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2013, 06:38:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2013, 06:07:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2013, 05:58:23 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 01, 2013, 05:46:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 05:38:48 PM
Who would be a better choice that hasn't ruled the country?
Florence Nightingale.
She was on them quite recently.
I think Austen's a great choice, certainly better than Churchill.
You cannot be serious. Other than Atlee, there is no figure in 20th century Britain who holds a candle to Churchill.
Here's a clue, 'we' choose who goes on our banknotes not you guys, some American do seem to have an idolised image of Churchill, like he's Washington's heir or something.
Oh and do me a favour, when Boris becomes our next PM, please don't lecture me on the genius of the man. <_<
I don't get the Churchill idolization in this country.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2013, 06:40:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2013, 06:10:27 PM
Wow. How ungracious.
I don't think the people on a banknote should be within living memory. Also it'll help us avoid the John Lennon £20.
Ah. Well you did not say why Churchill was a poor choice :P
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2013, 07:58:37 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2013, 06:38:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2013, 06:07:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2013, 05:58:23 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 01, 2013, 05:46:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 05:38:48 PM
Who would be a better choice that hasn't ruled the country?
Florence Nightingale.
She was on them quite recently.
I think Austen's a great choice, certainly better than Churchill.
You cannot be serious. Other than Atlee, there is no figure in 20th century Britain who holds a candle to Churchill.
Here's a clue, 'we' choose who goes on our banknotes not you guys, some American do seem to have an idolised image of Churchill, like he's Washington's heir or something.
Oh and do me a favour, when Boris becomes our next PM, please don't lecture me on the genius of the man. <_<
I don't get the Churchill idolization in this country.
Yeah, I'm not being anti-Churchill just for the sake of it, but such a major historical figure deserves a more nuanced legacy/profile rather than mythology.
Though I doubt many on this forum have an hagiographic view of him, but I think some kinds of transatlanticists of the John McCain ilk do.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2013, 07:58:37 PM
I don't get the Churchill idolization in this country.
He hated Hitler and Stalin, what's not to love?
Quote from: Tyr on July 01, 2013, 07:05:30 PM
It's just ridiculous, one of the criteria should be that the person is uncontroversial (suck it creationists) but what can be more controvercial than a racist, xenophobic, imperialist, mass-murderer?
That disqualifies just about all Prime Ministers from before 1960, it's an absurd standard.
Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2013, 08:04:14 PM
Yeah, I'm not being anti-Churchill just for the sake of it, but such a major historical figure deserves a more nuanced legacy/profile rather than mythology.
Though I doubt many on this forum have an hagiographic view of him, but I think some kinds of transatlanticists of the John McCain ilk do.
Sure, he drank like a fish, had a disassociated relationship with his parents in childhood, yadda, yadda, yadda. But fuck man, he helped win the war.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2013, 08:15:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on July 01, 2013, 07:05:30 PM
It's just ridiculous, one of the criteria should be that the person is uncontroversial (suck it creationists) but what can be more controvercial than a racist, xenophobic, imperialist, mass-murderer?
That disqualifies just about all Prime Ministers from before 1960, it's an absurd standard.
Not to mention Queen Elizabeth's shameful treatment of hispanic immigrants.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2013, 06:40:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2013, 06:10:27 PM
Wow. How ungracious.
I don't think the people on a banknote should be within living memory. Also it'll help us avoid the John Lennon £20.
:x
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 08:17:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2013, 08:04:14 PM
Yeah, I'm not being anti-Churchill just for the sake of it, but such a major historical figure deserves a more nuanced legacy/profile rather than mythology.
Though I doubt many on this forum have an hagiographic view of him, but I think some kinds of transatlanticists of the John McCain ilk do.
Sure, he drank like a fish, had a disassociated relationship with his parents in childhood, yadda, yadda, yadda. But fuck man, he helped win the war.
I don't mean personal trivia, but policy on India and the end of Empire, but perhaps that can mostly be excused since he was at heart a Victorian.
No quibbles about his leadership during the early war, indeed he insured it continued and went on to become a World War, rather than a disjointed series of great power wars.
The English hate the English more then anyone else. Except maybe the Irish... and Scottish.
Quote from: HVC on July 01, 2013, 08:56:42 PM
The English hate the English more then anyone else. Except maybe the Irish... and Scottish.
:hmm:
It's true, man. For a bunch of antisemites, you sure act Jewish.
Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2013, 09:06:42 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 01, 2013, 08:56:42 PM
The English hate the English more then anyone else. Except maybe the Irish... and Scottish.
:hmm:
you're right, I forgot the welsh :D. You guys just don't play well with neighbours.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 08:06:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2013, 07:58:37 PM
I don't get the Churchill idolization in this country.
He hated Hitler and Stalin, what's not to love?
He has some nice things to say about both of them at certain times.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 08:17:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2013, 08:04:14 PM
Yeah, I'm not being anti-Churchill just for the sake of it, but such a major historical figure deserves a more nuanced legacy/profile rather than mythology.
Though I doubt many on this forum have an hagiographic view of him, but I think some kinds of transatlanticists of the John McCain ilk do.
Sure, he drank like a fish, had a disassociated relationship with his parents in childhood, yadda, yadda, yadda. But fuck man, he helped win the war.
He meddled a lot often to the detriment of the war. The Malaysian thingy could have gone better. His biggest contribution was smoothing over US-UK relations and even Soviet-UK relations.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2013, 08:15:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on July 01, 2013, 07:05:30 PM
It's just ridiculous, one of the criteria should be that the person is uncontroversial (suck it creationists) but what can be more controvercial than a racist, xenophobic, imperialist, mass-murderer?
That disqualifies just about all Prime Ministers from before 1960, it's an absurd standard.
Saying Brits are a superior race and brown people aren't too bright, in the 19th century when everyone was doing it- no big deal.
Saying it in the mid 20th century- even at the time that wasn't acceptable let alone today.
Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2013, 06:38:59 PM
Here's a clue, 'we' choose who goes on our banknotes not you guys
You can't be serious. You've just cut yourself out of 95% of discussion topics on Languish.
New Swedish notes are on the way, and it has been retardedly decided that only artists (in a broad sense) of the 20th century will be on them. The only exception of sorts is Dag Hammarskjöld.
The most ridiculous is opera singer Birgit Nilsson on the 500 SEK note. Really? If there had been any justice or non-retardism Anders Chydenius (18th century economist, political writer, MP, pioneer in the field of economic and political freedom) would have been on it.
They are all in living memory, and I have seen two of the people in the flesh (Astrid Lindgren and Ingmar Bergman).
Quote from: Tyr on July 01, 2013, 11:13:46 PM
Saying it in the mid 20th century- even at the time that wasn't acceptable let alone today.
Sure it was. Black people ranked only just above the Irish in those days. Of course, the gap is much bigger in these more enlightened times.
Quote from: Gups on July 02, 2013, 02:08:06 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 01, 2013, 11:13:46 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2013, 08:15:41 PM
Saying it in the mid 20th century- even at the time that wasn't acceptable let alone today.
Sure it was. Black people ranked only just above the Irish in those days. Of course, the gap is much bigger in these more enlightened times.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2013, 05:58:23 PM
I think Austen's a great choice, certainly better than Churchill.
Chruchill is on the next £5 note.
John >>> Winston
Trickin' ain't easy.
Quote from: Gups on July 02, 2013, 02:08:06 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 01, 2013, 11:13:46 PM
Saying it in the mid 20th century- even at the time that wasn't acceptable let alone today.
Sure it was. Black people ranked only just above the Irish in those days. Of course, the gap is much bigger in these more enlightened times.
When was Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2013, 02:32:14 AM
When was Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech?
Between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Jacksons first LP
Quote from: Gups on July 02, 2013, 02:08:06 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 01, 2013, 11:13:46 PM
Saying it in the mid 20th century- even at the time that wasn't acceptable let alone today.
Sure it was. Black people ranked only just above the Irish in those days. Of course, the gap is much bigger in these more enlightened times.
Churchill took it too far however.
The entire reason he was in the political wilderness in the 30s wasn't because he was the only one who knew the Nazis were bad news, as the simplistic mainstream view likes to paint him, but because he wouldn't stop being so mindnumbingly ignorant about the prospects of Indian independence, insisting it could never happen, despite the political concensus long since having recognised it was just a matter of hows and whens.
This isn't all to say he didn't have redeeming qualities of course. But the traditional image of him as some sort of godly uncontroversial figure...ugh.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2013, 06:07:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2013, 05:58:23 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 01, 2013, 05:46:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 05:38:48 PM
Who would be a better choice that hasn't ruled the country?
Florence Nightingale.
She was on them quite recently.
I think Austen's a great choice, certainly better than Churchill.
You cannot be serious. Other than Atlee, there is no figure in 20th century Britain who holds a candle to Churchill.
I don't understand. What criteria are you making this assertion on?
He only knows the name of two British prime ministers.
Quote from: Viking on July 02, 2013, 03:56:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2013, 06:07:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2013, 05:58:23 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 01, 2013, 05:46:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 05:38:48 PM
Who would be a better choice that hasn't ruled the country?
Florence Nightingale.
She was on them quite recently.
I think Austen's a great choice, certainly better than Churchill.
You cannot be serious. Other than Atlee, there is no figure in 20th century Britain who holds a candle to Churchill.
I don't understand. What criteria are you making this assertion on?
He was the architect of the British postwar consensus. His service in the government during the war years, was also of great value.
Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2013, 06:44:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 06:42:18 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2013, 06:38:59 PM
Oh and do me a favour, when Boris becomes our next PM, please don't lecture me on the genius of the man. <_<
:lol: Boris is awesome.
I was within 20 feet of him this weekend, listening to him speak, not that impressive, charming, funny, but overall he's a chancer.
Streets ahead of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband then :D
In the United States we don't usually think of ourselves as a unified culture. I think that's why we put politicians on our coins rather than artists, discoverers or inventors. My first trip to Europe was to France before the Euro. It took me awhile to get used to bills like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi20.ebayimg.com%2F03%2Fi%2F000%2Fe8%2Fe9%2Fbd9e_1.JPG&hash=5d982fcc08c51cca1ea1ab4096b387bbc9b46ef5)
(With Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.) Today I think those are pretty cool; much more attractive than the Euro bills or the American bills.
Jane Austen would be a good choice for Britain. You could have a ball or a couple in a tête-à-têtes on the back. :bowler:
I remember that bill.
The biggest shock was when I went to Spain and they had a bill with Hernando Cortez on one side and Francisco Pizarro on the other. Now that was hilarious. I would not have been more amazed than if France had a bill with Robespierre on one side and Cardinal Richelieu on the other.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 02, 2013, 01:54:34 PM
In the United States we don't usually think of ourselves as a unified culture. I think that's why we put politicians on our coins rather than artists, discoverers or inventors.
Would you say that's why? /Not sure then how that explains Susan B or Sacagawea though of course they were relegated to an unimportant coin.
Also I am not sure what Sav was talking about. Euros tend to put those people on their banknotes not coins which usually have the Monarch or some national symbol on them.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 02, 2013, 01:54:34 PM
Jane Austen would be a good choice for Britain. You could have a ball or a couple in a tête-à-têtes on the back. :bowler:
I think they'll go like the Elgar £20, with the Royal Terrace in Bath instead of Worcester Cathedral:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F01592%2Felgar_20_1592279c.jpg&hash=601c8f1333f3835c8bfedb66d017ad586ce702d1)
The oddest is Bosnia were the two entities print separate lower denomination notes. So the 10 Mark can either have a Bosniak or a Bosnian-Serb poet, the 20 Mark is a Herzegovinan Croat poet, or a Bosnian Serb. Apparently the only note that's the same all over the country is the 200 Mark, which is a Bosnian Croat writer, who mostly worked in Sarajevo but died in Belgrade - safely covering all bases :lol:
I think the individuals and national symbols are always a nice touch with currency, it's why I quite like Euro coins but find the notes really sad.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 02, 2013, 02:40:53 PM
I think they'll go like the Elgar £20, with the Royal Terrace in Bath instead of Worcester Cathedral
The Royal Crescent is my cover photo on facebook. :blush:
Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2013, 06:38:59 PM
Here's a clue, 'we' choose who goes on our banknotes not you guys....
Here's a clue: you have no more control over who goes on the banknotes than a typical American. According to the article, it will be a Canadian who makes the decision, in fact.
"I think the individuals and national symbols are always a nice touch with currency, it's why I quite like Euro coins but find the notes really sad."
Yes, they are uninspiring.
What would be an improvement is if each nation had a turn for a particular note, subject to the ECB maintaining a unified look for the range of notes. So, for example, Greece gets the 5-euro note for a period and puts Socrates on it; meanwhile Slovenia gets the 10-euro and puts some poet we have never heard of on it........and so on and so forth. There could be relevant scenes or architecture as well :cool:
The trouble is that there are only 7 denominations but 17 members (IIRC), so some countries would have to wait a while :hmm:
Why can't they have a national side and an eu-wide side on the notes?
That would be best imo.