Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Jane Austin to replace Charles Darwin on the £10 note.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23424289

Thoughts?

Call me sceptical, but it seems to me that this is only being done because of the moaning of some people about her being pipped to the post by Churchill to appear on the £5.

And before you load your neg gun, I honestly think she would have been better on the £5 than Churchill anyway, as I think that we should celebrate the people who made great contributions to various fields (in her case literature, in Darwin's case, science) over the achievements of a politician, considerable, at least in wartime, though they were.

That's just my thoughts anyway... what do you think?

(edited 10 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Cannotbelieveit

Poor decision, Charles Darwin is a scientific and British legend.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2

arkhamz

Charles should stay imo, really? A novelist over THE charles darwin?

Reply 3

NiceToMeetYou

The change of note was inevitable. They're updated regularly to help prevent forgery and maintain security, so really it was always gonna change, the only question was who would be on it.

In other words, Darwin would have to go, no matter what, weather he is more/less deserving than the new face, the change has to happen.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4

PC2852

Alan Turing needs to be on a note.

Reply 5

marcusfox

Ed Miliband was moaning about these all men on banknotes...

http://www.netkafa.com/2013-06-27/male-only-banknotes-wrong-miliband/324457

Oddly enough every English banknote I have ever spent has a woman on the front side, but we all know who Miliband wants to see on the back of our banknotes - Margaret Thatcher.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 6

Gwilym101

I am intrested in the criteria they use to pick the people that go on notes, but Charles Darwin is more remarkable than Jane Austin.

Reply 7

Chief Wiggum

Original post by TheHistoryStudent

I agree with that.

However, I don't see anything wrong with Jane Austen being on a banknote. I don't think she's anywhere near as deserving as Darwin, but I suppose variety does have to be introduced.

Reply 8

516359

I know Jane Austen is a legend within her own right but would like her to be on the note because she still influences society today through her work - not because she was born a female.

Sexism is flawed. Even when its done both ways.

That being said congratulations to Miss Austen - may your novels continue to speak for your talent.

Reply 9

fallen_acorns

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 10

moonriver96

Why change things?? Leave them as they are

Reply 11

Ladyliesel

If it were a simple case of debate of whether to put Darwin or Austin on the note, then I'd go with Darwin, but I have no problem with Austin replacing him. Austin is more well-known to the general public than some people who have been on notes before, e.g. Elgar. We have a great history of literature and Austin is a part of that.

Reply 12

Pinkhead

What a horrible decision.
I was quite happy to have such an great man on the £10 note - it was good to show pride for someone who was actually deserving of it, especially due to the rampant ignorance about the theory he developed.

I think it made us stand out a bit.

Reply 13

Cannotbelieveit

Original post by JordanR

yeah and Jane Austen was only one of the most influential romantic novelists of all time, what'd she ever do?

Well in my opinion her achievements do not surpass those of Darwin's by any stretch of the imagination.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 14

Snips

Obviously equality is always a good thing, however I can't help but feel that including a woman just to prove that point is so cheesy.

People saying 'absolutely it should be a woman' are focusing on the wrong thing and only highlighting inequality, rather than acknowledging her for her work

Reply 15

Artymess

I heard there was some gender reason behind this? not sure

Either way, people should be on the notes depending on what they've done for the country. Darwin's done a lot more than Jane Austin :colonhash:

Stupid romantic fiction writers. Who knows, maybe in another 200 years we'll have E L James on the £10

Reply 16

commanderb

It's unfair there are virtually no women on banknotes. Oh wait............... the Queen (who is a woman) is on every banknote. That is incredibly sexist towards males.

Reply 17

marcusfox

I don't think Jane Austen should be put on the note just because she is a woman any more than someone should be put on a note because they are a man.

It seems that the only reason many people are making the argument that X should go on a banknote is because they have a vagina - the argument for quotas - (and because all the others have penises), not because of all the good works they did.

Of course we should have both men and women on banknotes, but it should be based on merit, not on their gender.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 18

516359

Original post by Artymess

Stupid romantic fiction writers. Who knows, maybe in another 200 years we'll have E L James on the £10

I agree imagine being told you got something because of things out of your control (race,gender) you would be offended that your life's work came second to genetics.

By the way EL James is nowhere near the same class of writer as Austin.

Reply 19

Pinkhead

Original post by JordanR

incomparable.

The theory of evolution (like all science) would have been discovered by someone else if given enough time. There were muslim scholars hundreds of years ago talking about ideas similar. Even if given a million years, no one would have been able to write the same novels that Jane Austen did.

You could say that about anything that isn't literature or art. That isn't the point. The discovery was a great one given the non-existent understanding of genetics, and, as knowledge, much more valuable to our species, therefore it is hailed as such.