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.

Absolutely agree

I think paretns should send their kids where they think best, kids are not a commodity

But if William and Kate's kids went to the local comp what effect would that have on their children's classmates? I presume the school George etc. Go to is set up for it?

do we want to live in a country where people are able to choose to make use of state provision or pay for an alternative? Or would people rather have a mandatory state option (and let’s remove any choice there too - you’ll all just take what you’re given and be grateful)?

On balance, I’d prefer the former. And that choice has to extend to everyone. Once you start creating categories of people who don’t get the choice, you will have to expand them. After all, why should anyone working for DfE be allowed to opt out of state education? They must have a stake in it. So let’s not employ the childless there either. And teachers… they can’t be allowed to choose differently for their children. If the state system is good enough for the kids they teach, it’s good enough for their kids. And so on.

It starts to become ridiculous.

It’s a democracy. People can use their vote to reflect their values. If they object to MPs sending their children to private school, they can vote for someone who uses the local comp instead.

The royal family… there’s a bunch of extremely rich people who should be purely ornamental in public life. Rather than insisting they send their kids to state school, maybe people could campaign for constitutional change. Then they’d just be wildly rich private citizens.

because they wouldn't be shit or failing if everyone had to send their children there.

i believe it's traditional at this point to mention the Finnish school system? No private schools for this reason (yes yes smaller population, probably higher per capita tax)

Some if the Scandinavian royals attended state schools. It can be done

Totally agree. They should also sit in an A&E waiting room.

They should be able to choose whichever school they want - just like everyone else. Seems we are back to "the politics of envy" ...... yet again!

also when Charles had his elbow operated on, didn't they close a whole wing of the hospital? so much for "regular NHS user"

Why are so many people saying it would be harder to provide the necessary security at a state school?

I can’t imagine it’s the school that pays for the security staff or extra infrastructure required - surely that funding comes from the Royal Family’s security budget?

Schools are, ultimately, safe for all children..
You're missing the point.

They wouldn't be safe for THESE children. These children are already at risk of kidnap, far higher than a standard kid is, put them into a school that isn't set up to deal with that risk....and that risk increases exponentially.

They're also more likely to be bullied because of who they are. Why should the children be the ones who suffer?

Also, why shouldn't they have private education? Plenty of children do. My brother did, despite being council estate born and raised to a single none working mom, I was offered and declined. My friend sends her children.

Yes it IS out of possibility for many people, doesn't mean the choice should be taken away for everyone.

The more people that opt out of state education, the more the funds can be spread for those that didn't.

Well actually you might get candidates who aren't from money, who would never have been able to afford to send their kids to private school in the first place and for whom an MP's salary would be a huge increase on what they're used to,, maybe even people who've had (whisper it) public sector jobs before they went into politics and know a thing or two about the services they'd end up running as cabinet ministers?

I mean is it really to the benefit of the nation that so many of our politicians have no experience of or attachment to the services they're running for the rest of us?

Regarding politicians. At what point do you expect them to disrupt the schooling of their child and move them from either private or a selective grammar for instance to said local comp to suit some silly agenda? Would you be happy to do that to your own child in the middle of their GCSE’s or just before their SATS etc upon having a promotion at work in lieu of winning a local election? Or have you just not thought it through that these are someone’s children you’re wanting to control… not said politician themselves, but an actual child! Perhaps what you’re saying is that it should be part of the vetting process that if your child have ever had an independent education, then you can’t represent any political party, or is it going to be a first come first serve 7% representation deal given than only 7% of school leavers have had a private education in this country.

Would this idea of yours also apply to a child who was attending an independent school due to attaining a bursary/scholarship, or attending due to SEN? What about children of a divorced politician from whom they’re estranged or no longer living with/have parental responsibility for? Or would those circumstances be an acceptable exemption for you and it’s just some of their children you want to screw around?

I've never understood why people get on Abbott's case about this so much. It's a bit like saying "Diane Abbott campaigned for taxes to be made higher for the wealthy, but didn't give loads of her spare money to charity! Hypocrite!"

She campaigned to end private schooling because she acknowledges it creates a two tier system that gives an unfair advantage to those in the top tier (thus disadvantaging those in the bottom tier). As a black boy, her son would already be massively disadvantaged in terms of the barriers to success in his way. Why would she, knowing how disavantageous the private school system is to state school kids, and with the money to avoid it, allow her child to be sacrificed on the altar of her principles unilaterally? Her sending her kid to state school isn't going to do anything to prevent private schools, is it? Whereas campaigning in parliament to abolish them would.

It's fine to say 'this system is unfair, and should be abolished' whilst also saying 'in this unfair system that should be abolished I'll do the very best to protect my child's interests'. It's not hypocrisy.

Of course they should go to state schools. Royalty send their kids to state schools in other countries with no fuss. They should also be using the NHS.

Nah, still think Diane Abbott was massively hypocritical and I find it hard to believe that the only son of an MP and an architect would be any more disadvantaged than a working class boy of any colour. Agree Blair and many others used the system to get great education for their children but still avoid the ‘taint’ of private education.

They would all pay for private tutors in that case (if they don't already). So even if the quality of the school was crap, they would buy their way out of the problem.

Indeed, it is normal in other countries and, yes, we already pay for their security and that could apply to a State school like in other countries.
I do not buy the bullying case: they would be bullied in State schools while this would not happen in private. Why so? I think that they might or might not be subject to bullying wherever they go. Just like MP children.
I am sure that if Starmer or Corbyn kids are in private schools ( I do not know where they are or if they have kids) they get bullied and nobody cares really.

Totally agree. They should also sit in an A&E waiting room.

Years ago, I remember Charles falling from his horse and breaking his arm. He was taken to the local A&E and it was reported that he had waited in line there.

Go away with you

we live in a free country where you can spend your money how you wish

with your train of thought what about adding anyone famous? Or anyone at all really,

I can sort of see your point, in that state education should be good enough for everybody.
However, from a security POV, it's much easier for a private school to manage "famous" parents and children.

we live in a free country where you can spend your money how you wish

which completely ignores the structural inequality inherent in our cap-doffing system of allowing "royals" to be "better than everyone else".

The point pp made about Diane Abbot's son upthread was spot on.

If you’re a politician campaigning for abolition of private schools - then absolutely they should

but conservatives have no issue with private schooling whatsoever so absolutely unfair to stop them

But Diane Abbot was a joke in pretty much every respect

Lots of things happen differently in other countries.

That would be because things are generally different in other countries. The Swedish royal family are bit the same as the British royal family - and that difference in how they are perceived as well as general societal attitudes will affect things in profound way.

It would be shit for the kids that had to go to school with the royal kids. Imagine trying to deal with that in a standard English comprehensive.

Can't - bullying