Royal Children - Time for State school?

They are mega rich. Anyone with that level of wealth would be completely unhinged to choose state which let’s be honest is mainly not as good. I remember the grief Diane abbot got for sending her boy to private school- she quite openly said she was being a bit of a hypocrite but putting her son first.

Security is going to be a massive consideration for them and that is only right. Those children didn’t ask to be born and they deserve to be safe and grow up with some normalcy. They know already that Eton can keep boys safe. Not every public school will be able to offer the same. I have a few boarding schools near me and I doubt any of them would cut the muster re security due to the open nature of the sites, the access by the public to use the facilities etc. My old state school wouldn’t have worked at all. Other than being a shit hole, it was very open etc. my. Children’s primary school actually probably would be possible security wise but secondary really is another ball game.

They'd also get moaned at for taking a school place when they can easily afford private...they can't win

They pay the school fees themselves not us! But security would be an absolute nightmare in any case. You sound deranged.

Assuming there should be royal children at all, the best state school in the UK isn’t able to provide the same quality education as the best private school (which is the crux of your problem). That’s a fact which shouldn’t be, and the royal children aren’t the cause of that. They’re just 3 of the thousands of children benefitting from that situation.

Secondly, the royal children (unlike every (?) other) are required to have a completely different childhood from non-royal children. Certainly the heir to the throne. Specific education; days off; non-school day duties to fulfil; public exposure; requirement for privacy for themselves and everyone around them etc. It wouldn’t be at all fair to impose that on a state school with zero fat in its budget, the rules by which is operates and is governed, strict hiring/firing rules, limited facilities etc.

Those kids need special treatment, basically, and I wouldn’t want any taxpayer funds being allocated to that. If your riposte is “well they can fund the extra themselves”: isn’t that basically private school?

Don't Wills and Kate get their income from the Duchy of Cornwall? I don't think they feature on the civil list. As D and D of Cambridge they would have been c.l. So to begin with that's what would have funded the children's education. I don't understand why the King when Prince of Wales told Harry he couldn't afford to support him and Meghan as well as Wills and Kate, because W and K should have been c.l.

All state educated children attend school at the taxpayers' expense. Anyone sending their children to private school pays their own tax to educate other people's children and then pays privately for their own kids. The estimated cost of educating all those kids in the state sector is something like £7 Bn. Which ultimately we all pay. This is just the politics of envy and makes no financial sense whatsoever.

School fees are not paid for out of tax money. They are paid using Duchy of Cornwall profits.

Now, you coukd make great arguments about the infairness of huge herieditary estates keeping the very rich, very rich - but that's not specific to the royal family.

If we had a vote, I'd probably vote against the RF because I am sick of Britain's obsession with class, for which the RF epitomises the whole deal. But I couldn't care less they pay to educate their children - so long as they pay the VAT along with others (when it comes).

For those interested in discussing what the replacement options could be for replacing the monarch as head of state - or not. There’s a long running thread here: new voices and ideas welcome -

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4787223-what-do-you-want-as-head-of-state-for-the-uk?page=9&reply=136324393

Surely any parents have the right to choose their children's school according to personal preferences, beliefs and child's personality.
If we are going down the Royal route, neither the late Queen nor her sister went to any kind of school.
There could be an argument made for not having them educated at all...After all, many people seem to think they will not need to earn a living.

Too right but given the whole thing is a bloody circus, home school seems to be the best solution. How much are we paying for the kids security every day? It's so ridiculous. For a few kids to be treated as if they are godsent is bizarre and ridiculous.

I think there just as much drug ‘dealing’ going on in private schools - possibly more.

@MouseofCommons you are assuming state schools are full of drug dealers.
If the royals went to state schools of course the school would be very carefully chosen. They would not send them to join a class of career criminals.

What alternative do you propose? I can't think of a country( apart from dictatorships) where there's another way. You often have titular presidents in republics but where the main administration is run by a prime minister, but all those heads of state still pose a security risk.

Fine with this if all the politicians, including Labour, do the same. Safety is an issue.

Except Finland does have private schools.

They are not allowed to make a profit on the core education bit... but can on all the extra curriculars.

No idea where this myth of no private schools in Finland comes from.

polite I live somewhere shit and watch the fall out and know who to avoid. The local drug dealers family are not 'salt of the earth', they're anti-social idiots. Maybe you've been privileged enought to not have to put up with people like that.

Completely with you there.

May I suggest that you actually try attending a state school before you suggest inflicting it on anyone else?

I’d be more interested in the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Education Secretary being required to send their kids to state schools.

They are the ones controlling the policies which affect state schools.

It's about the size of the school not the behaviour of pupils. And many of them board which controls coming and going more than a day school.

Yeah of course that would be a good idea.

Give over.

If you are the kid of the Headteacher you get grief 24/7.

How on earth would a school manage royalty.

🙄

It's hardly something a government can decide. Overrule parents you're suggesting?

The main reason not to is security.

Oh I know. Some of the past Dukes have been very wily/dodgy about how they’ve managed to hang on to as much of their money as possible. But they’ve also made some good/lucky business decisions.

But my point was more a general one about people complaining about some people’s inherited wealth vs those whose ancestors have made money in more respected ways by the fruits of their own labour.

A lot of big inheritances come with a dodgy or less ethical past - including exploitation of employees by those who built an empire by the sweat of their own work.

All inheritances are ‘unearned’ from the smallest estate to the largest.

Because they tend to be smaller, often with walls around, and with fewer people coming in and out for various purposes. In a state school, you are dealing with constant visits from current parents, prospective parents, school inspectors, people applying for jobs and doing trial lessons, people from other schools coming to compare practice, governors, visiting experts and therapists, music teachers, people coming to annual review and other meetings, local councillors, visiting speakers, etc etc. Certainly some of that happens in private schools, but at much lower volumes and in a way which is much easier to monitor and control. The amount of coming and going is also limited even further for children in boarding schools.

Are you seriously asking that question?