Royals should send their children to State schools

[Possiblynotever]

And politicians too. Just that really. I have nothing against private schools, but I think that if you head or represent a State you should proudly use the education it provides. Unless you think it is not good enough and then you should do something about it.

I'm a*

My DD went to school with the sons of two MP and I never noticed any added security.
I think that security is a false issue, all schools must be a safe space for all children. If the children of an MP or of a Royal are at risk then all children are at risk.
It is unrealistic just because in this country a class system based on titles and money has always been accepted.

We had kids of ambassadors etc. But that's not the same as royalty is it?

Why not?

Much easier to manage security in a private school.

Well there are MP,s and Mp,s a back,bencher,is very different to Rishi Sunak,or Keir Starmer,for examp!e ,the latter's children are likely to attract far more attention than a little or only locally known Mp.

No. It would be horrible having that much security around our kids. Photographers outside etc.

No. it would horrendous for the other children in the school.

Its much better that the security circus that is the royal family is restricted to the sort of private schools that want to deal
with that crap. And they can easily afford to pay the bloody fees.

The state sector has more than enough to try to stretch its limited budget over without that.

Maybe the royal family and the prime minister should just get the bus everywhere too. After all, it’s good enough for the rest of us. That’s how ridiculous these arguments are.

I am not in favour at all of the UK retaining the monarchy as part of its constitutional system. But these arguments are always utterly stupid and fail to consider the reality of what they’re proposing.

Politicians children. Absolutely yes

The royals do use the NHS. The king had his arm operated on in my hospital. And Sophie delivered Louise at an nhs hospital, and she was in NICU there.

Most politicians DO send their kids to state schools.

As for RF - mmm think about the security implications and the effect on all the kids in the school.

Too much of a security risk for the royals, but politicians I agree with.
Diane Abbott always campaigned for private education to be abolished but sent her own son to a private school. Ridiculous.

to get good quality state education, everyone just needs to vote for parties that will invest more in education. it is currently deemed that c£7,000 per year is enough for taxpayers to contribute per-head to a state education, whereas a well-run and not particularly ostentatious basic indie charges £15k per year, so if we assume about £3k of that could be trimmed by state schools that didn't need to provide the 'extras' that indies do, then £12k per year per pupil ought to be enough to level it out. if all the taxpayers who can't afford £15k per year voted for a party that promised to raise taxes and increase spending on schools to £12,000 per pupil then we would get the high quality education that all children deserve. if the general priorities of the population continue to be voting for those who want to keep taxes low and minimise state investment then those who can afford to buy better should be free to do so.

I don't agree that it should be different for politicians. it's not like they got their seats by deception - their constituents knew when voting that they had no intention of radically improving investment in education, just policies that assume teachers can magic up miracles with no resources. we fundamentally have a system where state education is underfunded because that's what people want, on average. there's a vocal minority who see the injustice and want changes but there's insufficient democratic pressure for change.

it's ludicrous to suggest the same for royals too. they have absolutely no power or influence to change the state education offered anyway.

I think politicians can choose to educate their children however they like. The people that vote for them can make their own judgements about how that affects their view of the candidate and their policies.

There are additional security concerns for the children of prime ministers and prominent cabinet ministers. Are people naive enough to imagine that there aren’t national security implications there?

But it sounds great to announce: they should just have to do X like the rest of us, doesn’t it?

Jeremy Corbin went to an independent school. His sons went to Queen Elizabeth Grammar School in Barnet and not the local comp in Islington

Corbyn not Corbin, sorry

I agree. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them. Especially politicians.

And the electorate judged her for that ludicrous hypocrisy.

That’s the answer for politicians. Don’t vote for people whose actions you don’t agree with. If enough people also care about that, then it will shift policy and MP behaviour in various ways.

Years ago we had a very rich well known family arrive in our state grammar, in a working town. Did not go well too much money, kids sucking up and teachers making allowances. Disruptive and no interest in learning, nasty attitude and bad influence. Of course money would never be a problem. Few years later in paper for marriage to another very wealthy offspring. God knows why thy did not go private but not a success story.
on the health front I have a long term painful and disabling condition. As part of my early retirement package I have private health cover. If I need a consultant for anything it is instant, on nhs for some conditions I would have to go to be screened to see if I am allowed to be referred, wait could then be years.I see nothing wrong in using a private service when the nhs cannot provide. Just wish nhs was good enough. Government has chosen otherwise

People paying for private education, healthcare etc reduce the strain on public services. They’re usually the ones paying high taxes to support those services for everyone to use.

Parents who have reasonable incomes (not private school levels) can prioritise where they live in order that their children go to decent schools. I feel for parents who do value education but have no choices as to where they live due to low incomes.

Also Shami Chakrabarti, British politician, Labour Party, barrister, and human rights activist.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shami-chakrabarti-defends-sending-son-to-ps18-000-private-school-a7352626.html

The Dutch royal kids went to local schools. Like any (most) Dutch kids they would cycle there. No fuss, it's the norm. There were a couple at most security guys discreetly hanging out.

Now however the crown princess Amalia is studying at Amsterdam uni and has had to move back home sadly enough because of threats of kidnap.....

🤣
Yeah, send your kids to school with royal kids who have protection officers with loaded guns...

Insisting that people, who could otherwise pay privately, use a state funded service only takes funding away from people who really need it. The only possible benefit from Royals attending a state school is that that particular school might get better funding, most likely at the expense of other schools. It would never solve the problem of underfunding in school, it would only shift focus from the real issue.

No thanks. I don't want my kids to go to school with them.