Britain’s Decision to Remove Churchill from Its Banknotes Suggests That It’s All but Given Up

By Charles C. W. Cooke

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

 

GB News reports:

 

The Bank of England has confirmed Sir Winston Churchill will be scrapped from banknotes and replaced with images of wildlife.

 

The central bank will soon ask the public which animals they want to appear on the next set of £5, £10, £20, and £50 notes – but confirmed the wartime hero Prime Minister would not be staying.

 

The move to replace historical figures with animals was described as “significant” and “overdue” by celebrity bird-watcher Nadeem Perera, who sits on the bank’s panel of wildlife experts who will choose which English species will appear on the next set of banknotes.

 

“Significant”? Undoubtedly so. But “overdue”? What, pray, can that mean? Winston Churchill was instrumental in the saving of Great Britain — and, for that matter, of the wider world. Is there some statute of limitations on the celebration of such figures of which I was previously unaware? Great nations have great heroes. One could perhaps understand if the Bank of England had chosen to rotate those heroes on a schedule, but to remove all of them — and to replace them with animals! — is something else entirely. By the time that this process is complete, no Great Briton from any field of endeavor will be featured. Currently, British banknotes depict Winston Churchill, Jane Austen, JMW Turner, and Alan Turing. Previously, British banknotes have depicted James Watt, Charles Darwin, Elizabeth Fry, Edward Elgar, Isaac Newton, Charles Dickens, Adam Smith, Michael Faraday, George Stephenson, Christopher Wren, Florence Nightingale, and William Shakespeare. Henceforth, British banknotes will depict badgers, foxes, and robins. That is “overdue” is it? Why?

 

Politico Europe has a quote from some ghastly apparatchik at the Bank of England, who insists that:

 

“The key driver for introducing a new banknote series is always to increase counterfeit resilience, but it also provides an opportunity to celebrate different aspects of the U.K.”

 

“Nature is a great choice from a banknote authentication perspective, and means we can showcase the U.K.’s rich and varied wildlife on the next series of banknotes.”

 

What tosh. Certainly, creating new banknotes can help “to increase counterfeit resilience.” But there is nothing about the inclusion of animals, rather than of people, that makes those new banknotes more resilient. As for the “different aspects of the U.K.” line? Give me a bloody break. Having grown up there, I have nothing particular against Britain’s wildlife, but while it may indeed be “rich and varied,” it is not what the country is famous for. Ask a foreigner to tell you what is unique about Britain, and fewer than one in ten thousand will say, “Oh, yeah Britain. Isn’t that the place with the rich and varied wildlife?” No. They’ll mention Churchill and Shakespeare and the Beatles and Isaac Newton and Florence Nightingale. Every country has animals. Not every country has Churchill or Shakespeare or the Beatles or Isaac Newton or Florence Nightingale. By choosing to depict animals instead of those people, the Bank of England has decided to be less British, not more.

 

Which, of course, is the point. Animals aren’t “controversial.” People are. I have long thought that we will at some stage reach the point here in the United States at which sports teams will only be able to name themselves after creatures. After all, “Chiefs,” Patriots,” “Giants,” “49ers,” “Saints,” and so forth are all plausibly offensive to someone. “Chiefs” invokes Native Americans; “Patriots” is jingoistic; “Giants” is disparaging to smaller people; the “49ers” of the Gold Rush were racist; “Saints” is exclusively Christian. By contrast, animal-themed teams are incapable of upsetting anyone because they signify nothing concrete. Animals are abstractions; people are not. People — real, discrete, identifiable people, with names and achievements and sins — are invariably imperfect. People have attributes that are unpleasant or embarrassing or awkwardly rooted in their eras. People require defending from the cultural vandals who like to elevate their flaws over their virtues. That defense takes patience, grace, and courage.

 

Evidently, the Bank of England no longer has that courage. Perhaps England in general no longer has that courage. If so, this story is not really about what goes on the money, but about how Britain sees itself, and how Britain wants to be seen around the world. Increasingly, it seems that Britain does not want to be seen at all. Its political rulers do not like its flag, its spiritual leaders do not like its church, its historians do not like its history. All those centuries of achievement, innovation, and inquiry, and the only symbol that is now acceptable to the custodians is a hedgehog? Half a league, half a league, half a league onward — all in the valley of Nothing.