Royal Children - Time for State school?

Do you both mean a republic? we already are a democracy we vote for a government. Look at how that is working for the US.

Yeah we know the poors behave terribly unlike the wealthy.
FFS this is fucking obnoxious.

Wealthy families don't tend to spill their arguments over to public facebook pages 👀. Plus you get all the stupid parents posting the nativity on their Facebook pages despite being clearly told not to.

God no. Why would you want state school kids to have to put up with all the unwanted attention it would bring.

You weren't paying attention in history lessons, were you?

We are a democracy (specific type: parliamentary). We have a hereditary head of state. Much cheaper than electing one, and he/she eschews politics as well. We tried a republic and didn't like it.

Other similar status children will be at these schools, so not so much of a novelty that George is heir to the throne, when your the son of a prime minister, top banker, gentry etc

I think they could easily choose a school where that wouldn't happen.

Literallyonfire how on earth could they guarantee it would happen?

Private schools probably have other high net worth pupils with bodyguards.

Public school - school open to anyone who can pass the exams and pay the fees or earn a scholarship (originally a school which did not only take local boys) e.g. Eton, Uppingham, Harrow, Oundle, Winchester etc.
Private school - school open to anyone who can pay the fees and pass Common Entrance but tending to take its pupils from the local area, not from anywhere in the country.
Maintained school - school run by the state which anyone in the catchment area can attend (some require an entrance exam e.g. the 164 grammar schools still in existence). Includes 'Academies' and 'Free schools', e.g. Michaela Community School, in London.
Currently, George and Charlotte attend a private school in Windsor.

Why would security be an issue, I'm sure that can be accommodated. Don't think it's strong enough a reason.

Yea, I heard the Dutch Royal family's 3 daughters went to the local primary and high school - on their bikes!

Of course there was security at the highest level.

No point them even going to school tbh

why would you get better security at private school? Surely it’s just dependent on the measures put in place.

or are you suggesting non-private school families are more ‘dodgy’

ditto pupils. Suggesting rich people are better behaved/ nicer/ have more decorum?

I think they could easily choose a school where that wouldn't happen.

Stella was furious about being sent to state school
https://www.sussexlive.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/stella-mccartneys-attempted-ordinary-life-6765628

Did I C&P the wrong passage @wordler ?

If so I'm overdoing the multitasking.

The Duke of Westminster's Merseyside portfolio is a tale in itself.

Also they’d be completely ripped apart. It’s cruel to them.

This would definitely happen. On mumsnet there are regularly comments about how awful private school students are, how entitled, thick, arrogant, posh etc.
Presumably parents with these views pass them on to their children who would gleefully repeat them to the royal children.
Sneering at anyone because of their background - whether punching up or down - is despicable but it happens a lot.

Are you talking about the royal duchies or the Duke of Westminster’s business holdings.

The state doesn’t pay for their education. The royal family use their own personal wealth so they are as entitled as anyone to use private education. Having said that, I don’t think we should have a royal family and it should be abolished.

That's what you get from that? 🤣

Well it seemed a confused choice.

Almost any name but Tarquin would have been more suitable.

I’m anti private school, so yes, I think especially all heads of state and public servants should use state services.

There are small state schools. Paul McCartneys children went to a state school when he was incredibly famous.

The ancestor who was given the original land and riches and title from William the Conqueror worked very hard for that money - he risked his life and all his family’s security fighting to secure part of the country - he could have been killed or defeated. He could have helped cause the defeat of William - in those circumstances someone else’s family line would be holding all those assets now.

Those Duchies would have long been broken up, were it not for legal exemptions and all manner of special arrangements for the BRF.

Their school places are paid for by their parents.

The RF is funded thus: at the Accession Council Charles III handed the Crown Estate (that is the sovereign's personal wealth) to the state (as has every sovereign since George III in 1760). The Crown Estate gives back to the sovereign 15% (currently 25% because Buckingham Palace needs refurbishing and that property belongs to the state not to the king) of its revenue to fund the monarchy and working royals. The taxpayer pays for security for the head of state (the sovereign) and his/her heir (Prince of Wales, currently) and for those members of the RF who do royal duties (only when they are doing those duties). The cost per head of security is approx £1.50 per taxpayer per year.

In addition the King holds the Duchy of Lancaster (the sovereign's property since the reign of Henry IV) and also the Duchy of Cornwall which has been settled on the Prince of Wales as a source of revenue since the time of Edward I (12th century). Both these entities pay tax, as do both the King and his son on all other income.
Aside from these items the king as a private person has property (e.g. Sandringham, Balmoral) and private investment which he uses for his day to day expenditure (note his patched jackets and mended shoes - he's thrifty as was his late mother). Both the Prince of Wales and his brother, Henry of Wales, have private fortunes from their mother and grandmother, which they use to live on. Other members of the family work (Princess Anne, her DD Mrs Tindale etc) or have revenue from money settled on them from the RF's private wealth. All of this income pays tax.
If the royal children went to the local comprehensive the security involved would be massively expensive - and come out of the public purse, not their family's wealth. In what way would that be more cost-effective than having the children's parents paying school fees out of their own pocket?

Because state schools are generally much larger than private, with much more coming and going, so "identical" security would be inadequate.