As the sun quickly sets, not on the British Empire – that’s already gone – but on Britain itself
It’s not enough to tear down statues. The British pound will be getting a new look.
A generic one.
So instead of past (or present) heroes to be pictured on future British currency, the pound will henceforth feature wildlife. I wasn’t aware that Britain was famous for its wildlife. No one goes big game hunting there anymore.
Here’s the story. The public seems to have voted for this, and the notes will continue to have the monarch’s face on them:
It marks a shift after more than 50 years of showcasing people from Britain’s history on the banknotes, including Winston Churchill, Alan Turing and Jane Austen.
The Bank of England said the change to wildlife imagery creates an opportunity to celebrate another important aspect of the nation.
It also makes it more difficult for the notes to be counterfeited while making security features more distinguishable, according to the central bank.
I don’t think the change in image theme itself makes the notes more difficult to counterfeit, I think it’s improved techniques connected with the issuance of new notes.
The vote went like this:
The move follows a consultation in which the UK wildlife theme received the highest proportion of nominations, at 60%.
Architecture and landmarks was a close second at 56%, followed by notable historical figures (38%) arts, culture and sport (30%) innovation (23%) and noteworthy milestones (19%).
Obviously, people were allowed to choose more than one theme. The total number of responses was 44,000, which isn’t all that many.
The definition of “wildlife” is broad, however:
A second consultation will be run this summer to gather views on the specific wildlife they would like to feature, which can include plants, landscapes and animals.
So they could choose the White Cliffs of Dover, for example. That would be kind of nice. Or the dandelion – not so nice. As for fauna, I immediately think of the hedgehog. Looking it up, we see the following:
The island of Great Britain, along with the rest of the archipelago known as the British Isles … contains a relatively small fraction of the world’s wildlife. The biota was severely diminished in the last ice age, and shortly (in geological terms) thereafter was separated from the continent by the English Channel’s formation. Since then, humans have hunted the most dangerous forms (the wolf, the brown bear and the wild boar) to extinction, though domesticated forms such as the dog and the pig remain. The wild boar has subsequently been reintroduced as a meat animal.
How about the English Springer Spaniel? A noble beast:
My English Springer Spaniel and I vote with you, Neo!
The way the trend is going, I’m thinking Gorse has gotta be a candidate.
For England? A goose seems appropriate.
Springer spaniels are fine dogs for upland bird hunting (pheasants, grouse, woodcock). There are two categories of dogs in this group, flushing dogs like Springers, that get the bird to take wing, and pointing dogs, which point the bird for the hunter, who then walks up to flush the bird. I favor pointing dogs myself, German shorthaired pointers.
It is a cardinal sin to shoot a bird on the ground; it is called wing-shooting, invented by the Brits in the 1700s, which is why the finest shotguns were first made in Britain. A matched pair of Holland & Holland or Westley Richards shotguns cost $100,000 or more today. With beautiful Turkish walnut wood stocks and fine, fine engraving. These guns literally have to fit the shooter. like a pair of fine boots.
That photo looks just like Spencer, my family’s English Springer Spaniel – named so as it was Winston Churchill’s middle name. He was a very good dog. Thanks for the memories.
But dogs are not halal.
That is especially so in Great Britain.
King Charlie is probably appalled by Welsh Corgis and English bulldogs to say nothing of foxhounds, Jack Russel terriers, or Springer spaniels.
@Disguested:named so as it was Winston Churchill’s middle name
Leonard was his middle name. Spencer-Churchill was his family name. Don’t know that he used “Leonard” much. He published as Winston Spencer Churchill so he’d not be confused for the bestselling American author Winston Churchill, who appears to be nearly forgotten today. And this almost sounds like a Monty Python joke (“Charles Dikkens with two K’s, the well-known Dutch author.”)
What’s wrong with dandelions? Nice looking/smelling yellow flowers, dandelion kisses when you were young and in love, dandelion wine, fun seeds, edible, easy to grow … what’s not to like?
My father read a Winston Churchill novel, “Richard Carvell,” to me and my siblings when we were still in school. When I was headed off to college, my grandfather gave me another, “A Far Country.” I never met another reader of those books.
For the new pound note, I vote for the Border Terrier, pretty much my favorite breed, and appropriately scruffy for the current UK.
Eliminating all cultural touchpoints and references is the point and the goal.
Meanwhile, the more ‘enthusiastic’ of the UK’s Muslims are busy confirming Churchill’s assessment of Mohammedanism.
““How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” Winston Churchill, The River War
How very prophetic.
The British Isles either had a LOT of rats, or… after all the terriers bred, had very few. Consider all the Terrier breeds developed there…
Just the obvious ones:
Airedale Terrier
Bedlington Terrier
Border Terrier
Cairn Terrier
English Toy Terrier (Black & Tan)
Glen of Imaal Terrier
Irish Terrier
Kerry Blue Terrier
Lakeland Terrier
Manchester Terrier
Norfolk Terrier
Norwich Terrier
Patterdale Terrier
Scottish Terrier
Sealyham Terrier
Skye Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
Welsh Terrier
West Highland White Terrier
Yorkshire Terrier
They should use moles, rats, toads, and badgers.
I will be surprised if they don’t feature the noble Fox, which has been elevated from vermin to martyr.
@Geoffrey Britain:Churchill’s assessment of Mohammedanism.
Which one? He praised it from time to time too, and supported building the London Central Mosque in 1940, and preferred Indian Muslims to Indian Hindus.
The German Hitlerites in Britain have finally won. Nationalism of any independent sort ist verboten!
Much nicer to have the anodyne and inoffensive on the Pound notes — unless….DOGs! That too ist verboten.
I’d like to see a hobbit on the pound note, but I’m afraid someone might take it seriously.
Lee Also-
Thanks for a great terrier-loving list. I’ve had Airdales and Foxes, great damn dogs.
Perhaps the dodo bird is a more fitting animal to display on their money, hinting at the eventual state of their society.
What R2L said.
If this keeps up, Britain is gone. Doesn’t matter what they put on their currency.
(Might be said it’s gone already.)
My question is whether the Royal family can do something about this obvious sabotage and subversion.
This assassination.
This decapitation…
…of a country.
To be sure, Chuckie III is no doubt perfectly fine with it.
But where does William stand?
Does he have the power**—or the will—to pull a Henry V?
(Because it seems pretty evident to me that the Royals have a target on their backs, though they might be able—permitted?—to “survive” by learning how to beg and roll over.
…And jump through hoops….)
** Of course he doesn’t, officially; but can he somehow urge—and/or lead—the nation to RESIST the internal enemy?
If not him, then maybe Kate’ll do it…
Geoffrey Britain, thank you for sharing WSC’s Words on moslems. When was that written?
Yes I can look it up. I’m curious if that was his final take.
While Niketas tells us: “He praised it from time to time too, and supported building the London Central Mosque in 1940, and preferred Indian Muslims to Indian Hindus.”
That’s interesting, and upsetting.
To me, the mosques are dangerous, ominous places that have real power, and in my biased view have been a mistake to so freely allow. Even admire and encourage, as several leaders have.
It’s shocking how niave some are / were.
George Bush. Churchill, at some point.
Hindsight is a wondrous thing.
I wonder if they thought appeasement would keep Islam in check?
…
(Obama’s take was never surprising at all.)
I wouldn’t count them out just yet:
https://youtu.be/xaVD3iBz7CU?si=9uBIMprJy66z724a
What I can’t understand is how–in the face of so many blatant government actions obviously designed to destroy native, Christian, traditional England and it’s Heritage, and to replace that population with hostile foreigners and Christianity with Islam–the native population does make every effort it can to fight back, to vote politicians out of office, to revolt.
Or is it that most of the native population is just too dim to realize the peril they and their country and heritage are in, or are just too lazy or cowardly to fight back, or perhaps can’t figure out how to do so?
The peril seems so obvious, I’m just puzzled at what appears to be no real, effective reaction to or against it.
P.S. Moreover, as far as I can see, neither the King or Parliament will take decisive steps to block or kick out of office and power those who are intent on destruction–lots of debate but, no action.
I guess this is one of those inexplicable cases in history where, in hindsight, it’s very obvious how people are sleepwalking to their doom (I think of, for instance, the Weimar Republic before the rise of Hitler) but, at the time it’s happening can’t–for some reason–see and realize it.
@Marlene:I’m curious if that was his final take.
It was from a book he published in 1899 when he was 25 so no.
Churchill has a very long life in which the world around him changed extraordinarily, and to be as successful as he was he changed with it. After he was assigned the blame for a debacle in WWI, do you know what he did? He went to the trenches. I’m try to imagine an American politician today doing the same.
While he was a statesman, he was also a politician. He said a lot of things out of various motives, some of which he meant and some he didn’t. He negotiated with terrorists and handed over parts of Europe to Communism. He frequently had a role in the governing of some Muslim territories, in others he had a role in going to war with them, many of their current borders are due to him. He was a great man, but a man, and man of his time, which was very different from our time.
Whatever Churchill was about Islam, he knew far more about it, including first hand experience, than any of us here commenting, and “naive” is not the word to apply. He understood that life is a series of compromises and that there are no solutions, only trade offs. He served an Empire that contained at that time the majority of the world’s Muslims.
People like to use Churchill as a sort of rubber stamp for whatever it is they’re on about these days, but he’s too big a figure to really be used like that.
@ Niketas > “He understood that life is a series of compromises and that there are no solutions, only trade offs.”
A good point to remember about all politicians.
Except the Democrats and Leftists who only compromise in one direction, and refuse to take trade-offs unless they get the better part of the deal – 100%.
In re Churchill: “He served an Empire that contained at that time the majority of the world’s Muslims.”
And all of the Hindus, IIRC.
Plus Jews, Christians, and assorted other beliefs.
Talk about compromises and trade-offs!
Or they could feature a sparrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184
Niketas, I appreciate your insights on Churchill, 3/12, 8:49 pm.
… Part:
“and “naive” is not the word to apply. He understood that life is a series of compromises and that there are no solutions, only trade offs. He served an Empire that contained at that time the majority of the world’s Muslims.”
1. Good points.
Even the spelling of “naive”, for which I blame half my brain stuck on “niece”, lol!
2. “Majority of Muslims” —
I wonder where that will be, in 10-15 years.
And I shudder.