It has recently been decided that money in the UK will be receiving a bit of a makeover and, in the habitual British manner of never welcoming change ever, it has predictably sparked a considerable amount of controversy.

A particularly noteworthy change to the currency will be Jane Austen’s replacement of our dear old Charles Darwin on the ten pound note. As the scientists among us raise their arms in anger, the literary snobs and feminists alike cannot wait to spend their ‘victory’.

This conflict, I feel, is perfect in mirroring my own personal conflict- being both a lover of science as well as literature in a world where these career paths couldn’t be more divided.

However, my concern with regards to this matter is not with what they’ve chosen but why.

On hearing the news that the five pound note was ditching the ‘only woman’ featured on British currency, feminists became outraged (because lets face it, at this point in time they really have nothing else to bitch about) and so Jane Austen secured her own place on our dosh.

But they seem to be forgetting a certain lady who has featured on every single penny and pound since 1953.

Her sparkling whites are not only on our money but on our stamps, mugs and even cushions!

(although the latter two are not exactly compulsory.)

So does this mean, as a nation, we have decided that the Queen does not represent a successful woman? That she, alone, is not good enough to represent the females of our country and satisfy feminists?

That she is worth little more than the money she is printed on?

7s7l5ksd19

Advertisements