[img]http://imgkk.com/i/tx38.jpg[/img]
[I]Early concept design[/I]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23424289[/url]
[quote]Author Jane Austen is to feature on the next £10 note, the Bank of England says, avoiding a long-term absence of women represented on banknotes.
The Pride and Prejudice author will be the next face of the note, replacing Charles Darwin, probably in 2017.
In April, the Bank said that the image of Sir Winston Churchill would be put on the £5 note from 2016.[/quote]
"avoiding a long-term absence of women represented on banknotes"
isn't the Queen a woman?
[editline]24th July 2013[/editline]
also getting rid of Charles Darwin for an author is pretty shitty
[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;41577092]
also getting rid of Charles Darwin for an author is pretty shitty[/QUOTE]
charles darwin wrote books that changed naturalism
jane austen wrote books that changed literature
i literally do not see the problem here
the fuck?
pretty sure darwin was more important than her
[QUOTE=a-cookie;41577124]the fuck?
pretty sure darwin was more important than her[/QUOTE]
they're both national treasures?
It should have been Katie Price!
Equal rights shite again I see. Churchill and Darwin are one of the two finest men to be put on our notes, who's idea was it to put a woman who achieved nothing of importance?
I'm sure if a woman did something significant they'd have just as much chance of being put on a note...
[Quote=BBC News]New governor Mark Carney started discussions about female representation on banknotes on his first day in office.
Caroline Criado-Perez led a campaign for more female representation on banknotes[/Quote]
Who honestly has nothing better to do that worry about how many females are on bank notes?
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Sexist rubbish" - Megafan))[/highlight]
I would prefer Darwin on my £10 note rather than a author who has less significance.
[QUOTE]In April, the Bank said that the image of Sir Winston Churchill would be put on the £5 note from 2016.[/QUOTE]
Not really a consolation considering how infrequently £5 notes are issued these days.
Don't we already have Elizabeth Fry on our notes?
I don't think people seem to understand that Pride and Prejudice could be a "game-changer" or seen as a modern epic seeing it changed some of the ways society operated. Yes, Darwin pretty much discovered the origin of species and that is a huge milestone. Austen pretty much changed the way western society and the class system worked and it still does today.
I really couldn't care who is on a note but at the end of the day its really about who is more iconic to Britain than what they've actually done.
Go back to /r/Atheism, guys.
[QUOTE=Generic Monk;41577142]they're both national treasures?[/QUOTE]
she wrote a few books, he proposed one of the greatest scientific theories in history, I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks that he is far more important than her
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;41577160]Equal rights shite again I see. Churchill and Darwin are one of the two finest men to be put on our notes, who's idea was it to put a woman who achieved nothing of importance?
I'm sure if a woman did something significant they'd have just as much chance of being put on a note...[/QUOTE]
this is genuinely one of the worst posts i think i have ever seen on this forum
[img]http://thepocket.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/jane_austen_4.jpg[/img]
[editline]24th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=MasterFen006;41577174]Don't we already have Elizabeth Fry on our notes?[/QUOTE]
She's getting removed in favour of Churchill in the next round of notes
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;41577160]Equal rights shite again I see. Churchill and Darwin are one of the two finest men to be put on our notes, who's idea was it to put a woman who achieved nothing of importance?
I'm sure if a woman did something significant they'd have just as much chance of being put on a note...[/QUOTE]
Oh fuck its [I]you[/I].
This just in, literature has no importance because books are for fags.
[QUOTE=AMD Bulldozer;41577209]Oh fuck its [I]you[/I].[/QUOTE]
garry should stop having birthdays if people like get back in
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;41577160]Equal rights shite again I see. Churchill and Darwin are one of the two finest men to be put on our notes, who's idea was it to put a woman who achieved nothing of importance?
I'm sure if a woman did something significant they'd have just as much chance of being put on a note...
Who honestly has nothing better to do that worry about how many females are on bank notes?[/QUOTE]
if you think jane austen achieved 'nothing of importance' you have already proven that you're far too uneducated to form an opinion on this in the first place
[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;41577188]she wrote a few books, he proposed one of the greatest scientific theories in history, I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks that he is far more important than her[/QUOTE]
it's not about some abstract measure of 'importance', it's hard enough to measure something like that when you're just talking about one field, you're an idiot for thinking 'this person who's just as prevalent in the national consciousness as this other person was nevertheless way more important because this thing he did was way better than this other completely unrelated thing she did'
Come to think of it, ho boy, how long until some MRA uses this?
It should have been J K Rowling.
[IMG]http://cdn-static.zdnet.com/i/story/61/18/026375/harry-potter.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;41577250]Come to think of it, ho boy, how long until some MRA uses this?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;41577160]Equal rights shite again I see. Churchill and Darwin are one of the two finest men to be put on our notes, who's idea was it to put a woman who achieved nothing of importance?
I'm sure if a woman did something significant they'd have just as much chance of being put on a note...
Who honestly has nothing better to do that worry about how many females are on bank notes?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;41577092]
also getting rid of Charles Darwin for an author is pretty shitty[/QUOTE]
It's shitty to class authors as inferior because a banknote design is changed.
[QUOTE=Judas;41577234]if you think jane austen achieved 'nothing of importance' you have already proven that you're far too uneducated to form an opinion on this in the first place[/QUOTE]
Try telling him why he's wrong.
I don't care about who's on my money, but as far as I know, literally all Austen did was write painfully giggly romantic arse-water.
Tell me why I'm wrong, that I might cease to be quite so uninformed.
Edit for the inevitable swarm of people entering the thread later:
I know this is a bad post. It is deliberately a bad post. Please correct my assumptions rather than responding with similarly bad posts.
[QUOTE=Judas;41577234]if you think jane austen achieved 'nothing of importance' you have already proven that you're far too uneducated to form an opinion on this in the first place[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying Darwin and Churchill are leagues more honourable than a fiction author. Churchill pretty much saved the world from Nazi Germany.
[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;41577092]isn't the Queen a woman?[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure the queen is a man.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41577272]Try telling him why he's wrong.
I don't care about who's on my money, but as far as I know, literally all Austen did was write painfully giggly romantic arse-water.
Tell me why I'm wrong, that I might cease to be quite so uninformed.[/QUOTE]
did you seriously refer to pride and prejudice as a "painfully giggly romantic arse-water."
okay darwin wrote "painfully far-reaching evolutionary tit-sprinkles."
you sound like an idiot
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41577272]Try telling him why he's wrong.
I don't care about who's on my money, but as far as I know, literally all Austen did was write painfully giggly romantic arse-water.
Tell me why I'm wrong, that I might cease to be quite so uninformed.[/QUOTE]
Try telling me why I'm wrong.
I don't care about who's on my money, but as far as I know, literally all Darwin did was doodle up some crazy bullshit that people took seriously.
Tell me why I'm wrong, that I might cease to be quite so uninformed.
See, I can make retarded uneducated statements too.
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;41577276]I'm just saying Darwin and Churchill are leagues more honourable than a fiction author. Churchill pretty much saved the world from Nazi Germany.[/QUOTE]
churchill is replacing elizabeth fry, a woman, and austen is replacing darwin, they change the banknotes up a lot, where the fuck is the issue in this?
and when did "honor" even enter the equation, it's a bank note
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41577272]Try telling him why he's wrong.
I don't care about who's on my money, but as far as I know, literally all Austen did was write painfully giggly romantic arse-water.
Tell me why I'm wrong, that I might cease to be quite so uninformed.[/QUOTE]
i really can't stand most shakespeare but I can see how much he influenced culture and people in general; same difference
just because you don't like something on its own merit doesn't mean that you can ignore everything derived thereof
[QUOTE=.Isak.;41577283]did you seriously refer to pride and prejudice as a "painfully giggly romantic arse-water."
okay darwin wrote "painfully far-reaching evolutionary tit-sprinkles."
you sound like an idiot[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;41577287]Try telling me why I'm wrong.
I don't care about who's on my money, but as far as I know, literally all Darwin did was doodle up some crazy bullshit that people took seriously.
Tell me why I'm wrong, that I might cease to be quite so uninformed.
See, I can make retarded uneducated statements too.[/QUOTE]
The whole point of that post was to show how little I know about Austen, and to invite you to educate me.
I specifically said "but as far as I know".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
