Self-appointed patriots are up in arms about a plan to replace historical figures with cute wildlife. The Bank of England shouldn’t duck this debate
O
ne day soon we may finally have an answer to a question that has stumped philosophers through the ages: which is worth more, a beaver or a robin? We might be able to place actual monetary values on barn owls or stags, too. Any one of them could even be considered worth more than Winston Churchill.
That’s because the Bank of England has announced that the next update of British banknotes will end the half-century tradition of designs featuring historic notables. (Charles III, whose historic notability we won’t be clear on for some time, will remain.) In their place will come representations of patriotic British wildlife, shortlisted by a panel of experts, then chosen by public vote. In a transparent attempt to avoid national humiliation of a “Goaty McGoatface” variety, the Bank’s governor will get the final say.
All this is happening, though you wouldn’t know it from the coverage, with the support and encouragement of the British public. A consultation last July found that 60% of the 44,000 responses backed the idea of taking nature as the theme, just in front of “architecture and landmarks” on 56%, and way ahead of “historic figures” at a measly 38%. Whether the public would have been quite so keen if they’d known upfront that “household pets” would be explicitly excluded from possible designs, I’m not so sure.
