Royal Children - Time for State school?

[microplastic]

Should the Royal Family children be educated in state schools? Why do they get to attend private schools on taxpayers money? Is this something the Labour government could push for?

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

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Indeed. There are state schools and 'state' schools, as Tony Blair, Nick Clegg and David Cameron all found when educating their children in the state sector was politically expedient for them.

You're incredibly naïve to think they don't need security. They are influential people and are a huge target.

There's videos if William and family alone having a bike ride in (possibly) Sandringham and some random man was following them taking photos and wouldn't leave them alone, William called his security guy.
That's on a normal private day when nobody knew they'd be there, imagine the loonies who could easily find them as public arrangements are known well in advance etc.

Yes, they're living in a safe country on the whole, but they are a genuine target and there are credible threats to their lives.

I don't think state schools have the financial capacity to have security string enough to protect high status children. They'd need to find extra staff, extra security measure, extra training. Staff would need to change the way they work, students would have to behave differently etc.

Because our king is Head of State. I’m sure there are plenty of bad guys who would love to take advantage of him or his close family not have security. Surely you can work this out yourself and you just don’t like royalty as a personal preference

Plus many teachers are quite left wing so I likely to treat any royalty fairly. They’d probably spend most of their time trying to bring the kids down.

My DC play fixtures against Lambrook. The royals are lower down for security. There are many pupils who are the children of ogliarchs and such the like. Who are more likely a target for kidnapping.

You can walk in and out of the school, have match teas and move around freely to watch the match fixtures. Kate has often been on the side lines cheering on like the other parents.

You can spot the body guards, and the cars are also very noticeable.

I did overhear something the teacher said that made me laugh "children who are going home with parents here, children who are staying in school tonight for boarding here and if you're waiting for your driver stand here!"

The best school we play against is Elton Johns kids school, security there is pretty tight as it's already in the castle grounds, now thats a good celeb spot!

I've missed the point of the thread but the personal security wouldn't be a problem in a state school as long as the bullet proof cars can park and the bodyguards can freely move around.

You know they also have their own money? I have no problem with them paying for private school - how disruptive for a state school, they would end up taking money and resources from other children.

MPs on the other hand....

Apparently the Marquess of Milford Haven is the last surviving Anglo-Saxon peer.
Land was constantly broken up and re-assembled. The lands that Henry IV held as Duke of Lancaster are not the same as now held by Charles III.

With a president like Trump?

Apparently the Marquess of Milford Haven is the last surviving Anglo-Saxon peer.

I thought that title was held by the Mountbattens (Battenberg) which was a cadet/morganatic line of a German royal family. Hessian possibly? The Battenberg were all descendants of Julia, the morganatic wife. German, anyway.

The thing is OP, even if you abolished all Public Schools wealthy people, including our RF, would simply hire tutors and educate at home!

You'd have to then make it a criminal offence for children to receive any education outside a State school..........congratulations, you're now a Tyrant!

Can't you see what a dumb idea you're positing?
Very Soviet.