The Bank of England is phasing out portraits of historical figures, including Winston Churchill, from its future currency. This shift toward nature-themed designs follows research suggesting that traditional British icons are perceived as divisive by some members of the public.

Savanta's October research on 'elitist' icons

Internal documents reveal that the Bank of England was advised by market consultancy Savanta in October of last year that featuring historical figures could be seen as "elitist and divisive." According to the report, figures such as wartime leader Winston Churchill, novelist Jane Austen, and codebreaker Alan Turing were viewed by some as failing to represent the cultural and natural diversity of the United Kingdom.

The research, which involved focus groups of 119 participants, suggested that maintaining these portraits promoted a "backward-looking vision of the UK." Specifically, younger participants questioned the relevance of these figures, arguing that the imagery felt outdated and disconnected from their personal experiences. As a result, Savanta recommended nature-themed designs as a less controversial alternative that would appeal more broadly to a modern population.

The 50-year legacy since Shakespeare's 1970 debut

The decision to remove these figures ends a tradition that began more than half a century ago. the Bank of England first introduced prominent Britons on sterling notes in 1970, when William Shakespeare was featured on the £20 note. For over five decades, these figures have appeared alongside the reigning monarch, serving as a curated gallery of British achievement and influence.

This shift is part of a broader global trend where national institutions are re-evaluating how they represent history on official symbols. By moing away from human figures entirely, the Bank of England is attempting to bypass the complex and often contentious debates surrounding colonialism and class that frequently accompany the celebration of historical "greats."

Colonel Richard Kemp's warning of 'shameful' erasure

The move has triggered a sharp poliitcal backlash from those who view the change as an ideological purge. Robert Jenrick, the Treasury spokesman for Reform UK, argued that the Bank of England should stop wasting resources on the transition.. Similarly, shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge described Alan Turing and Winston Churchill as "heroes to be celebrated."

The criticism reached a peak with comments from retired British Army officer Colonel Richard Kemp, who described the decision as "shameful." Colonel Kemp claimed that without the courage of figures like Churchill and Turing, the UK might have "swastikas on our banknotes today," accusing the Bank of England of succumbing to a "woke desire" to erase the nation's culture.

Andrew Bailey's focus on security versus 44,000 public responses

Publicly, Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey has framed the banknote updates around technical necessity. He stated that the organization's "foremost objective" is to maintain security and combat the increasingly sophisticated methods used by counterfeiters. However, the disclosed Savanta research suggests that social perception played a significant role alongside these security concerns.

To justify the transition, a spokesperson for the Bank of England pointed to a public consultation that received 44,000 responses. The Bank reported that nature had the highest proportion of nominations among those responses, which served as the primary driver for the decision to replace historical figures with images of wildlife and the natural world.

The paradox of the 'imperialistic' Alan Turing

One of the most striking revelations in the source material is the perception of Alan Turing by some members of the public. in one focus group, a participant described the mathematician and WWII codebreaker as "imperialistic," arguing that even a scientist's contribution is framed within the context of winning a war, which can feel like a "boomer" perspective of saving the world.

This raises a critical question: if even a figure as widely revered as Alan Turing is viewed as a symbol of imperialism, can any human figure truly be "inclusive" enough for a modern banknote? It remains unclear whether the Bank of England believes nature themes actually solve the problem of representation or if they simply provide a neutral vacuum where no one feels offended, but no one feels represented.