The outgoing governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King, revealed a jolly hinterland on Desert Island Discs, but his choice of Sir Winston Churchill to replace the prison reformer Elizabeth Fry on the bank's £5 suggests that despite a late marriage to an old flame and the arrival of stepdaughters in his life, he views the world from an unremittingly male perspective.
Happily, he has now revealed that Jane Austen is "quietly waiting in the wings" as the leading candidate to replace Charles Darwin on the £10 note. On the 200th anniversary of Austen's best-known work, Pride and Prejudice, this would be a timely recognition of a writer whose literary achievement is of a higher order than popularly credited. Yet, "quietly waiting in the wings" is such an infelicitous description to apply to the creator of the feisty Elizabeth Bennet and Emma Woodhouse that it provides a neat illustration of the bigger problem: the disappearance of women from the historical record.
For centuries men ran the show for obvious reasons. Only wealthy women could do more than produce babies and provide food for their families and their contribution, though valuable, was mainly philanthropic (often funded by their husband's wealth). That makes the achievements of women all the more remarkable and imperative that they are remembered.
Even in the mid-20th century, the achievements of women, however significant, are underplayed. The best-known example is the long-unsung contribution of Rosalind Franklin to the discovery of DNA. Unlike Austen, she was among the women suggested for the new English note by the organisers of an online petition, along with Mary Wollstonecraft and Mary Seacole. Wollstonecraft's powerful polemics, A Vindication of the Rights of Men and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, were highly controversial at the end of the 18th century. Unless her courage and conviction are understood and celebrated as a step on the long, tortuous road towards equality, succeeding generations of women (and men) cannot properly appreciate their equal opportunities.
Mary Seacole remains a controversial figure. Born in Jamaica to a Scots father and Creole mother, she set up quarters for wounded servicemen in the Crimean War after being rejected as an official nurse and is now celebrated for combating racial prejudice. However, her candidacy for a Bank of England note is weakened by Florence Nightingale being the first woman to be accorded that honour.
Belatedly, the achievements of women are being brought to light: 830 feature in The Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women, published by Edinburgh University Press. In Glasgow a campaign to recognise Mary Barbour's part in social welfare reform is gathering pace.
Bank notes, however, are unique in making historical figures the literal currency of daily life. The effectiveness of this saturation coverage became evident in 1997 when the Clydesdale Bank issued a £10 note depicting Mary Slessor. The Dundee jute worker who became a missionary in Calabar – now Nigeria – displayed extraordinary courage and heroic devotion in saving abandoned children, healing the sick and establishing rights for women and girls but was not widely known until her appearance on the banknote prompted questions. The Clydesdale also deserves congratulation for its £50 note celebrating the pioneering work of Elsie Inglis in creating the Scottish Women's Hospitals for Home and Foreign Service, setting up hospitals in France, Greece and Serbia to nurse wounded soldiers.
The current Bank of Scotland issue of notes has the theme of bridges. The naming of the new bridge across the Forth as the Queensferry Crossing would enable the bank to commemorate a notable woman before the series ends. The original ferry was established to provide a free crossing for pilgrims on their way to St Andrews, by the 11th century Queen Margaret.
Eventually, her namesake, the UK's first female Prime Minister, will be a banknote candidate but not while her most controversial policies are within living memory. Honouring the practical generosity of a woman known for her help to the poor, however, is an opportunity that should not be missed.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article