Patrick Vernon

Professor Patrick Vernon OBE On the Bank of England’s Decision to Replace Historical Figures with Wildlife Imagery

The Bank of England’s announcement on 11 March 2026 that the next series of banknotes will no longer feature historical figures but instead showcase UK wildlife is deeply disappointing to the thousands of people who have campaigned for greater representation on our currency. The Bank has confirmed that images of animals, plants and landscapes will replace the historical individuals who have appeared on notes for more than 50 years, following a public consultation in which the nature theme topped the poll with 60% of 44,000 responses 1. This marks the end of an era in which figures such as Churchill, Austen, Turner and Turing were selected to reflect national heritage, and the Bank has stated explicitly that no new historical individuals will be added in the forthcoming series 2.

For many of us, this decision is not a neutral design choice. It comes after years of campaigning to ensure that Britain’s diversity is reflected in its national symbols. Over 100,000 members of the public signed the petition to honour Mary Seacole, one of the most significant figures in British and Caribbean history, and the Banknotes of Colour campaign mobilised more than 100 prominent public supporters and over 300 parliamentarians in calling for meaningful representation on our currency.

Instead of broadening representation, the Bank has now removed people altogether. This shift from historical figures to wildlife imagery sends a troubling message: that the institution would rather feature a fox or a flower than confront Britain’s diverse human story. Media analysis has already highlighted that the Bank has never featured a Black or ethnic minority historical figure on its banknotes, a gap that remains unaddressed and now appears indefinitely postponable 3.

This decision also sits uneasily with the Bank’s own historical legacy. The Bank of England played a significant role in financing aspects of the transatlantic slave trade, and several of its governors and directors were themselves plantation owners or compensated beneficiaries after abolition. In this context, the move to a nature-based theme feels like a step away from accountability — a retreat from the opportunity to reflect on the nation’s full history, including its injustices.

The Bank’s consultation process did not adequately communicate these moral and historical considerations to the public. Had the British public been fully informed of the institution’s historical responsibilities and the longstanding exclusion of people of colour from national recognition, the result may have reflected a different set of priorities. As it stands, the process has avoided, rather than confronted, the urgent issues of inclusion and representation.

While the Bank asserts that wildlife designs offer advantages for security and anti-counterfeiting measures 4, this technical justification does not diminish the symbolic consequence of erasing human representation altogether. National currency is more than a functional tool — it communicates who we value, what we commemorate, and whose stories matter.

This announcement represents a missed opportunity for the Bank of England to demonstrate leadership, moral courage and an honest engagement with Britain’s complex history. The fight for fair and inclusive representation continues, and we will keep pressing for a future where Britain’s currency reflects all of Britain’s people.