The Bank of England has revealed that it cannot readily identify correspondence objecting to the removal of Winston Churchill and other historical figures from Britain’s banknotes, raising fresh questions about how public opposition to the controversial decision was recorded and considered.
The disclosure comes in a five-page response to a Freedom of Information request submitted by the Great British PAC, which is challenging the Bank’s decision to replace Churchill, Jane Austen, JMW Turner and Alan Turing with images of British wildlife on the next generation of £5, £10, £20 and £50 notes.
In its letter dated 5 November 2026, the Bank refused to provide the information requested, arguing that the work involved would exceed the statutory cost limit of £450, equivalent to 18 hours of staff time.
However, buried within its explanation is an admission that raises an important question about the consultation process itself.
The Bank states: “The Bank does not categorise correspondence in a way that would allow records matching these descriptions to be readily identified.”
It explains that individual items of correspondence held across multiple channels would need to be identified and manually reviewed to establish whether they contained objections to removing historical figures or complaints about the consultation.
In other words, when asked how many people had objected to removing Churchill and the other historical figures, the Bank was unable to provide a readily accessible figure.
That does not establish that objections were ignored or discarded. It does, however, raise questions about how the Bank monitored opposition, whether objections were formally analysed and what information was ultimately presented to those responsible for approving the change.
For an institution that has repeatedly pointed to public consultation as part of the justification for its decision, these are questions that deserve clear answers.
How did choosing wildlife become a mandate to remove Churchill?
The controversy began when the Bank announced plans to replace the historical figures currently featured on the reverse of Britain’s banknotes.
Sir Winston Churchill, who led Britain through the Second World War, appears on the £5 note. Jane Austen, one of the country’s greatest novelists, features on the £10. JMW Turner, whose paintings helped establish Britain’s artistic reputation around the world, appears on the £20, while Alan Turing, whose codebreaking work helped the Allies defeat Nazi Germany, is commemorated on the £50.
Their portraits are more than decorative features. They recognise extraordinary achievements in leadership, literature, art, science and national service.
Yet the Bank has decided that the next generation of notes should instead celebrate British wildlife, with bumblebees, puffins, barn owls and hedgehogs selected as the new subjects.
There is nothing inherently objectionable about celebrating Britain’s natural heritage. Our countryside, wildlife and landscapes are a source of immense national pride.
The question is why doing so should require the removal of some of the most remarkable individuals this country has produced.
And, crucially, whether the public was ever asked that question directly.
What the consultations actually asked
The Bank of England conducted an initial public consultation in 2025 asking which themes people would like to see on future banknotes.
Respondents could express support for several possible themes, including nature and notable historical figures.
Nature was selected by 60 per cent of respondents as one of their preferred themes, while historical figures attracted support from 38 per cent.
But those figures do not demonstrate that 60 per cent of respondents wanted Churchill and the others removed.
People were able to express a preference for more than one theme. Someone who supported nature could also have wanted historical figures retained.
Indeed, celebrating Britain’s wildlife and celebrating Britain’s historical achievements are not mutually exclusive.
The Bank subsequently selected nature as the theme for the next series of banknotes.
A second consultation, conducted in June and July 2026, invited the public to choose their preferred animals from a predetermined shortlist of 18 species.
More than 478,000 responses were received.
But by that stage, the fundamental decision to move away from historical figures had already been made.
The public was being asked which animals should appear on the notes, not whether Churchill, Austen, Turner and Turing should disappear from them.
This distinction lies at the heart of the Great British PAC’s concerns.
The Bank did consult on historical figures as a possible theme in 2025. What remains in question is whether its consultations established genuine public support for removing the existing portraits, rather than simply demonstrating that nature was a popular subject.
Choosing a favourite animal is not necessarily a vote to erase a national hero from our currency.
Historical figures labelled ‘elitist and divisive’
Further concerns arose following reporting by The Telegraph about focus-group research commissioned by the Bank.
The research recorded views describing historical figures as “elitist and divisive”, alongside concerns that celebrating prominent individuals could be contentious or present a backward-looking image of Britain.
These were views recorded in commissioned research, rather than necessarily the personal opinions of Bank officials.
Nevertheless, they raise legitimate questions about how historical achievement was assessed and what weight was given to such concerns in the final decision.
Churchill’s leadership during Britain’s darkest hour, Turing’s extraordinary contribution to wartime codebreaking, Austen’s literary genius and Turner’s artistic achievements are all part of the country’s history.
Their legacies can be examined and debated, as history always should be. But their contributions remain worthy of recognition.
The Great British PAC believes that Britain’s currency should continue to celebrate such achievements, and that the public deserves a transparent explanation before an established tradition is brought to an end.
The Freedom of Information request
On 8 October, Great British PAC chief executive Claire Bullivant submitted a formal Freedom of Information request seeking detailed records of the Bank’s decision-making process.
The request asked for documents showing when the decision to discontinue historical figures was approved, who was responsible and whether alternatives incorporating both wildlife and historical portraits had been considered.
It also sought the complete consultation questionnaires, breakdowns of public responses, relevant focus-group research and information about the costs involved.
Importantly, the request asked how many complaints or objections the Bank had received from people opposed to removing historical figures, including those who felt unable to register their opposition through the consultation.
The Bank’s response, issued on 5 November under reference CAS-030206, declined to provide the requested information on cost grounds.
It explained that relevant records were held across multiple departments, repositories and correspondence channels, and that locating and reviewing all potentially relevant material would take considerably longer than the statutory 18-hour limit.
The Bank also pointed to published minutes of its Banknote Imagery Advisory Group, its Banknote Imagery Expert Panel and research undertaken by Savanta.
It recommended submitting a narrower request focused on specific documents, meetings or categories of information.
The Great British PAC will now pursue more targeted questions concerning the treatment of objections, the consultation’s design and the evidence presented to senior decision-makers.
The question the Bank still needs to answer
The most significant issue arising from the response is not simply that the Bank has declined a broad information request.
It is that the Bank’s correspondence systems do not allow it to readily identify objections of the kind the Great British PAC asked about.
That raises an obvious question.
If members of the public wrote to the Bank opposing the removal of historical figures, how were those objections brought together and assessed?
Were they included in reports to the Banknote Imagery Advisory Group?
Were they presented to Governor Andrew Bailey?
Was there any recorded assessment distinguishing people who liked the idea of wildlife imagery from those who specifically supported removing Churchill and the other historical figures?
The Bank’s latest letter does not answer those questions.
It would be wrong to conclude from the response alone that the Bank failed to consider objections. But it would be equally wrong to suggest that the response resolves concerns about how those objections were handled.
The Great British PAC believes these are matters of legitimate public interest, particularly when the decision concerns the images and historical figures represented on Britain’s national currency.
Great British PAC calls for reconsideration
The Great British PAC has already written directly to Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey, urging him to reconsider the decision before the new designs are finalised.
Its Save Our Heroes campaign calls for the retention of Britain’s historical figures, greater transparency over the consultation process and consideration of designs that could celebrate both wildlife and historical achievement.
Claire Bullivant, chief executive of the Great British PAC, said:
“We have nothing against British wildlife. Our countryside and native species are magnificent and deserve to be celebrated. But why on earth should celebrating a puffin mean removing Winston Churchill from the five-pound note?
“The Bank of England has repeatedly referred to public consultation, yet its latest response raises important questions about how objections were recorded and considered.
“We now know that the Bank cannot readily identify correspondence of the kind we asked about without manually searching through records held across different channels.
“That is not proof that objections were ignored, but it makes transparency all the more important.
“Did Andrew Bailey receive a summary of the objections? How many people specifically opposed removing Churchill? And was there ever a direct assessment of whether the public wanted historical figures replaced?
“Those are reasonable questions, and we intend to pursue the answers.
“Churchill helped lead this country through its darkest hour. Alan Turing played a vital role in defeating Nazi Germany. Austen and Turner made extraordinary contributions to Britain’s cultural heritage.
“These are people whose achievements should inspire future generations.
“Our history is not something to be embarrassed about. It is something to understand, celebrate and pass on.
“The Bank has an opportunity to reconsider its decision before the designs are finalised. We sincerely hope it will listen.”
Did you try to object? We want to hear from you
The Great British PAC is now appealing to members of the public who attempted to object to the proposed changes.
Did you visit the Bank of England’s consultation website hoping to oppose the removal of historical figures, only to find yourself being asked to select your favourite animal?
Did you email or write to the Bank expressing concerns?
Did you receive a response, or were you told how your objection would be recorded and considered?
The organisation is particularly interested in correspondence, screenshots and first-hand accounts that could help establish how objections were handled.
Anyone with relevant information is encouraged to contact Info@GreatBritishPAC.com, including the approximate date of their correspondence and any response received.
The Great British PAC will continue examining the Bank’s published research and decision-making records while submitting more focused Freedom of Information requests.
The Bank has said that the development of the new notes will take several years, meaning there is still time for public concerns to be considered before the designs enter circulation.
This is not an argument against British wildlife.
It is a question about public consultation, transparency, national heritage and whether the achievements of extraordinary British figures should continue to be recognised on our currency.
Our history is worth more than money.
SAVE OUR HEROES.
Great British PAC | www.GreatBritishPAC.com | Info@GreatBritishPAC.com
