Royal Children - Time for State school?

If they did go to a state school it would be in an area/postcode so expensive and upper class dominated that there wouldn’t be a working class or even middle class child around for miles.

Many people have strange ideas around private and state education. There are state schools with a more exclusive intake than many private schools. Selection by postcode i.e wealth. Not all state schools are the same, not all private schools either. However, it’s far easier to target only private schools for perceived unfairness.

Again, though, this conversation is mad. The kids don't belong to the state. It could be done, sure. But it's not our decision and it's definitely not Kier Starmer's decision.

They do need security. But Paul McCartneys children went to a state school and there were strange people who targeted the Beatles, look at what happened to John.
Some state schools have very good security. The local village school my nephew went to had poor security, but the one my children went to in a city was like Fort Knox. You could not even get to reception without passing through a locked gate and outer door that had a buzzer release. School security varies a lot.

That was what I meant, on the whole, especially within the Conservative Party. Hopefully there will be changes with this new government, but then I’ve said that many times and there usually never is!

I don't know why people are saying they don't need security. There are all sorts of threats made against them and nutty people fixated on them. You only have to look at some of the threads on MN to see this...

Would anyone seriously want these kids sat next to your own kids in class without a substantial security detail protecting them and the school? Because I wouldn't.

They don’t all need a lot of security - and not the same amount at all times.

That’s why Beatrice and Eugenie had their security needs down graded and also why Harry would probably have been in a similar position to the Yorks as time went on even if he hadn’t left the country.

The security threat is both to the individual, to innocent bystanders who might get caught up in any attack. and to the country in terms of how an attack on certain individuals can create feelings of fear in the public and heightened feelings of being under attack - that has knock on effects on the economy, on how secure businesses feel, how international tourists feel etc.

Sometimes it’s not terrorism, sometimes it’s violent protesters, or protesters trying to do something non violent but significant to gain attention etc. Sometimes it’s just butter attracted to the celebrity of someone they see.

So Anne only gets the police security when she’s on official visits. That’s because there’s a need to manage any crowds, manage anyone who might want to use the media attention for their own cause, or someone who might do something to cause a splash in front of the press that would put members of the public in danger as well as Anne.

And you only have to look on Twitter to see the sick people who have made all kinds of awful threats about the Wales children. Security protects George etc but also all the kids he goes to school with, who would be collateral damage if someone tried to do something to him in school.

I'm not sure why the royals need so much security tbh. I know they think they need a lot of security but in reality they are mostly inconsequential in British politics, so why would they be a target for anyone? When was the last time any "bad guys" cared about them? They're just expensive decorations. I would think the prime minister or even a regular MP are at higher risk of terrorism or violence.

Let's face it, their private schooling is mostly about them not wanting to mix with the plebs.

Thanks. That's really interesting. Now you mention it, I haven't heard the civil list mentioned for decades. I remember hearing a list of royals and what they received from the civil list, and then remember it being said that Charles and Diana didn't feature. As regards Harry, none of us can know what had or hadn't been said between him and his dad. I've read Harry's book, and distinctly remember he said his dad had made that remark about not being able to support him. Whether Harry misunderstood him or drew the correct inference from Charles' words, the sure thing is that we can only speculate. However the issue that was puzzling me is now resolved: since there is no civil list, Harry would indeed have been dependent on the then P of W to support him and his wife. There was nothing about Meghan's acting, at least not in the book, or at any rate not in relation to his dad's alleged refusal to support him.

Nah. Workshy and Waity want more than six weeks off in the summer!

I'm all for abolishing private schools in their entirety.

But I don't think it's reasonable for op to talk like the country owns those dc or should dictate choices that sit with their parents, just like every other dc.

That was what I was wondering actually if they do in Scandi countries. They don't have the huge gap between rich and poor.

The British public don't own those children - their parents get to decide where they go to school and they'd rather shit in their hands and clap than send them state!

I think Scandi countries, as per one what one of the PPs mentioned

We have an illusion of 'choice'. In reality if you can't afford private, you have the right to apply to a number of schools. However, if it's anything like round here where all schools are over subscribed the only one your child has a possibility of getting is the closest school unless you can get them into Grammar or a Church school (where again money talks!)

Have I understood you correctly - you want the prime minister to enshrine into law where one particular family is allowed to send their children to school?

And you don't see any problems with impingement on individual freedom and choice? Why not? The prime minister should not have the power to tell a family where their kids go to school. That's absurd.

Laws that aren't ad hoc and don't impinge on liberty would be: abolish royal family; abolish public schools; lower royal family income.

But you can't tell a wealthy family that their kids can't go to the school they've chosen.

Yes - but it all has to be accounted for and he doesn’t get to keep the excess - it’s not like the civil list where working royals were basically being given an ‘income’. At that point they were being paid a set sum no matter how much ‘work’ they did. That’s a big difference to how it’s managed now.

And there’s government oversight - unused money stays in the fund with the option of reducing it if there’s too much left on a regular basis.

Does this happen in any other countries that royal children go to state schools?

Stupid question!

I mean they could afford for their DC to go private with their own private money so they're hardly going to be heading off to the local comp!

So if we made state schools smaller they'd be sufficient? Ok.

@wordler how the fund is used is decided in reality by the King.

WTF - we still have choices in this country!

I'll stop simplifying things and hand back my passing grade when everyone else does!

The civil list was abolished ages ago and replaced by the Sovereign Grant - the Grant is used to pay for very specific things for the royal family - upkeep of the historic buildings, expenses for working royals when they are on duty. It doesn’t pay for personal or living expenses for any of the members of the royal family. It also sits in a fund overseen by a government department - they don’t just hand the royals a bunch of cash - the fund pays out for documented expenses. If it’s not used it sits there and is used for the following year.

When Charles was heir he controlled the Duchy of Cornwall - the income from that is to support the heir and his family. That paid for living expenses for himself and his sons and their families.

Charles never said he couldn’t afford to support Harry and Meghan - Harry has some garbled story about being asked if Meghan would like to keep acting alongside discussions about reducing the core working royals which he seems to have conflated.