Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Sugarysam t1_j0xcc5b wrote

Sorta looks like George W. Bush.

185

NeuHundred t1_j0xlwuk wrote

Well, my cousin Bert Baldrick, Mr Gainsborough's butler's dogsbody, he says that he's heard all portraits look the same these days, 'cause they're painted to a romantic ideal, rather than as a true depiction of the idiosyncratic facial qualities of the person in question.

41

Sugarysam t1_j0xop23 wrote

By any chance, was your Cousin Baldrick’s father a nun by profession?

9

ODBrewer t1_j10c9q9 wrote

I’ve heard he has a cunning plan, Baldrick.

3

FondleMyPlumsPlease t1_j0xd2uh wrote

I wouldn’t of thought it but now that you mention it, I actually see it.

19

Sugarysam t1_j0xf4t6 wrote

I think they technically are related, but this is the first time I’ve seen a resemblance.

https://famouskin.com/famous-kin-chart.php?name=3103+george+w+bush&kin=7516+queen+elizabeth+ii

14

AdamantiumBalls t1_j0xlgbh wrote

These people were made from generations ago , must be nice

6

NATIK001 t1_j0ydr5e wrote

Sadly doesn't always last.

A few generations back my family was loaded, but at this point the money has all been thrown away on lavish lifestyles and failed business ventures. None left for my generation except stories and some distant relations to nobility, the titles themselves have been lost too due to marrying outside nobility (not that I disapprove of that in any way).

I think my grandfather was the last to be a proper millionaire, my parents generation even lost the last of the old family estates.

But that is life, would have been nice to be financially secure from birth but can't win everything. I do have friends from wealthy families though, which gives some view into that life and money causes some shitty power issues in family relations. The old patriarchs and matriarchs get to be colossal shitheads, because no one dares to challenge them and lose access to the money stacks, can get real dysfunctional. My grandfather definitely used his money to try and control his kids, by giving them cash, loans or real estate if they followed his wishes and withholding it if they didn't.

8

nim_opet t1_j0ymxwg wrote

You are extraordinary unlucky. Wealth is much more sticky than poverty - out of 400 wealthiest families in Florence, something like 350 were the wealthiest families in the city records in the 15th century.

7

NATIK001 t1_j0ynwwi wrote

Yeah I know it's not the usual outcome.

However one also has to consider that that stat refers to the main line of the family usually. Families tend to fracture over time. Either the heads of the family choose the main line or aristocratic laws did. Either way some descendants drift away over time from the main wealth pool.

But yeah, money tends to breed money. If it isn't managed by morons a sufficient amount will sustain itself, but failing enough business ventures can waste an unbelievable amount of funds.

For my family it's a mix of both, but primarily the last one.

In Europe it's not that uncommon to hear about old mansions, castles and estates in disrepair or for sale, because the old aristocratic families can't afford the upkeep anymore.

Often the lesser nobility ended up being nothing but farmers with oversized egos, and the spending habits of small kings. The industrial revolution left a lot of those behind in the dirt.

2

snkn179 t1_j11g7pm wrote

Tbh most English descent people would be related if you go 12 generations back.

1

SpinningHead t1_j114yhx wrote

If Charles on your money doesnt make one realize how disgusting monarchy is, I cant imagine what will.

2

yispco t1_j11zvw2 wrote

They are cousins. The blue bloods are in positions of power all over

2

Mountain_Offer1348 t1_j0x9cyt wrote

That is awfully flattering.

68

elizabeth-cooper OP t1_j0xa5gw wrote

Is it? I think the picture makes him look puffy.

17

pettycandy t1_j0xe0xe wrote

I agree. Puffy, but flattering in that there are not any age lines that I can see. Maybe from an earlier portrait?

2

slyscamp t1_j0xrjey wrote

Charles doesn't actually look like the portrait. He has a much slenderer, oblong face shape with a prominent nose and ears, slender jaw, on top of much more wrinkles and much less hair.

Even when he was young he didn't have that face shape.

They didn't want to make the portrait actually look like him because he is so unconventionally handsome, so they made a fictional Charles.

14

lstsmle331 t1_j0y7zrh wrote

Unconventionally Handsome. I’m gonna use that from now on.

3

Sreg32 t1_j0xv5lz wrote

I agree, Puffy McChuck…from a current colony!

1

LostTone8935 t1_j0ylql9 wrote

I think he looks way younger on the notes than in real life, he could be a spry young man of 60.

1

Thue t1_j0yw9pg wrote

They did flatter him, but you can clearly recognize him without any problems. I think they did a good compromise. Official portraits are supposed to be flattering.

3

CharistineE t1_j0xdk3z wrote

I like that this is only for new bills and they are not destroying the old ones for environmental reasons.

22

Spudtron98 t1_j0xhzxd wrote

Cash usually remains in circulation until it’s deemed unusable. The only reason you never see any monarchs prior to Elizabeth on coinage, which can remain in use for many decades, is because she straight up pre-dates decimalisation.

67

StephenHunterUK t1_j0yog53 wrote

You were still getting Victoria-era coins in circulation until then, indeed.

5

Ffishsticks t1_j0ypkcs wrote

No the old ones will be cycled out as they get worn or there is a big change in the design (roughly every 15-20 years for notes).

Before they made them smaller in the 1990s the 5p and 10p coins were the same size and value as the pre-decimalisation 1 & 2 shillings. As a kid I saw various Edwards and Georges on the coins still in circulation

4

Nerevarine91 t1_j0xw40h wrote

They only just finished the switch to plastic, so replacing all the money again would be an absolute nightmare

2

plz_send_your_nudes t1_j0xdxwu wrote

How would they go and collect all old ones? Its simply not doable

−14

fukwhutuheard t1_j0xf2e6 wrote

old bills are removed from circulation all the time. a bank collects them and takes them out of circulation and is provided new bills by the gov

11

plz_send_your_nudes t1_j0xfbnw wrote

Obviously, but no one would go around and replace them as in a transition to the Euro. The slow replacement is a standard process done all the time.

−4

Nerevarine91 t1_j0ynfe8 wrote

I mean, you understand that the slow replacement is done all the time, so… you absolutely do know that the change would be doable. Slowly.

5

ThatGuyMiles t1_j0xfnjm wrote

I mean these programs exist, they don’t go out and collect them, older currency just gets destroyed wants it finds its way to banks/financial institutions. So I assume that means they aren’t going out of their way to destroy the “queen’s” bills once they reach financial institutions, instead they will be allowed to recirculate.

I’m going based off of the other persons comments and just assuming they are correct, that they aren’t being destroyed.

4

theonlyrexkwondo t1_j0yk4qv wrote

It would be impossible! We would need some sort of organisation or system that collects and holds onto the money or something. Some kind of giant piggy bank the money runs through and they could exchange the notes. Nah.. impossible. Never been done.

3

CharistineE t1_j0xfhd9 wrote

Obviously they wouldn't get all of it. I have $2 US dollar bills which are legal tender, but not printed. They could easily say that all banks have to exchange for new. Many countries change currency. It is doable, though never perfect.

1

mlorusso4 t1_j0xru90 wrote

It’s super easy actually. You start out by just exchanging all the money already in the banks. Then, as businesses and people deposit their old money into the banks, you swap that out too. It might take a bit to swap out every last dollar, but after a short time you would get the overwhelming majority. The only old bills left would be the wad of cash under grandmas bed.

Now you could speed the process up by saying on x date the old money is no good, but that’s considered a bad idea because it lowers faith in your currency

1

foki999 t1_j0y5wk9 wrote

Now I know he's 74.. and I wish him good health, but.. if these enter circulation in 2024.. will he even make it D:

21

Z23kG3Cn7f t1_j0xacw6 wrote

It's okay, it will change in a decade or so anyway.

Edit: I hit a nerve. It's true though, William will be on the cash soon.

10

GlobalTravelR t1_j0xyiiq wrote

I only want the 2 Buck Chuck note.

5

Dvayd t1_j0xa02q wrote

I know it’s tradition, but this seems unnecessary somehow. They could keep the Queen or you know, stop putting people’s faces on the bills.

4

FondleMyPlumsPlease t1_j0xcz8b wrote

I’d consider certain landmarks to be more fitting, like with certain coins. In fairness I couldn’t care less who or what is on tender, I just think it might be a longer lasting solution than an individual.

9

Thue t1_j0yvo5d wrote

Either the current monarch's face, or no face. Keeping the Queen's face on the currency would seem backwards and silly to me.

4

Fifteen_inches t1_j0xahhi wrote

Ugly, absolutely horrible. Throw him away.

3

Gyarydos t1_j0xcscm wrote

If you don’t want your notes, I’d be happy to take them off your hands

13

Godsarefakezz t1_j0xf7yk wrote

Damn do they really have to do this? It’s so tacky .

2

Thue t1_j0yuwop wrote

How is it tacky? The money has always had the reigning monarch on it.

Tacky would be not to do it, to wallow in nostalgia about the previous monarch, in deliberate ignorance of the current status.

4

Godsarefakezz t1_j0yxf1x wrote

How is that tacky?

1

Thue t1_j0yxkz2 wrote

Worshiping old things instead of the current status quo just seems kinda bizarre to me.

2

Godsarefakezz t1_j0yxnru wrote

Worshiping old things instead of worshiping new things. What’s the difference?

1

Thue t1_j0yxvjw wrote

Going out of your way to keep Elizabeth II on, even after she should not normally be, is more worshipful than just putting the current King on as is normal.

1

nim_opet t1_j0ymzu0 wrote

They don’t have to. There’s no law requiring it

2

sockydraws t1_j0zenag wrote

Stop putting monarchs on money.

Stop having monarchs.

2

NerdENerd t1_j0xk00f wrote

Chucky's ears are way more wingnut than that.

1

Chrisf1bcn t1_j0y30av wrote

That’s a terrible picture of him looks like he’s just taken a shit and he needs to hide the smell incase he kills of the dogs

1

Thue t1_j0yvqmr wrote

I think it is quite a nice picture.

1

ghayyal t1_j0yasgu wrote

What will happen to the queen notes?

1

Thue t1_j0yvzi1 wrote

They will continue in circulation until individually removed due to wear and tear.

1

eyst0n t1_j0yiu4n wrote

Elizabeth II’s likeness is timeless.

1

Thue t1_j0yw4ui wrote

Most old things seem timeless to people who lived them. Then people get used to the new things, and then those new things become old and timeless.

1

Outrageous_Duty_8738 t1_j0z1r1k wrote

It’s going to take a bit of getting used off the queen was on Banknotes since 1960s

1

P5ych0pathV2 t1_j0z5pk2 wrote

Is it cool to have a chomo on your bills now?

1

clevercookie69 t1_j101vt7 wrote

British currency has had Charlie on it for decades

1

Gutpunch t1_j10bg97 wrote

Was that really the best they could do??

1

djxaval t1_j12084t wrote

Oh god it’s hideous

1

autotldr t1_j0xaium wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot)

> Designs for bank notes featuring an image of King Charles III have been revealed by the Bank of England, with plans to enter circulation by mid-2024.

> More than 4.7bn Bank of England notes featuring the Queen remain in circulation, worth about £82bn. It comes after the gradual phasing out of paper bank notes and the bringing in of those printed on polymer - a thin and flexible plastic material - since the introduction of the £5 note featuring Winston Churchill on the reverse in 2016.

> Although the note designs revealed by the Bank will feature a new portrait of the monarch, the reverse side will remain unchanged, with the author Jane Austen on the £10 notes, the artist JMW Turner on the £20 ones and the computer scientist Alan Turing on the £50 notes.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: note^#1 bank^#2 feature^#3 King^#4 new^#5

0

macfaddenstrews t1_j0xghwv wrote

'Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.'

−1

GuardianWolvenFriend t1_j0xo46h wrote

Imagine putting your face on every single denomination. So much for honoring the past

−2

Nerevarine91 t1_j0xwaaw wrote

The reigning monarch’s portrait being on currency goes back to before the Norman invasion, lol

9

Trips-Over-Tail t1_j0xvrao wrote

What do you mean?

3

Thue t1_j0yvtw3 wrote

Maybe he is criticizing Queen Elizabeth II for having her face on the currency for all these years?

2

Trips-Over-Tail t1_j0zc6i5 wrote

Any monarch who asks not to be on the money will swiftly learn how limited their power truly is.

3

Kaweka t1_j0y0n3s wrote

Long live King Charles.

−2