The royal family choosing state schools for their children?

[mids2019]

I was giving this some thought and basically why not?

I think security is a red herring because fundamentally security arrangements must be as easily arranged in a state school as a private school. Additionally privacy is a tenuous argument given that the children are being taught in classes regardless of schooling rype.

I think there is a real opportunity to modernise the royal family at least on this point as there is no specific constitutional arrangement that means the royal family have to be home educated or educated in the private sector; in fact this may be a tradition more honoured in the breach than by its observance. I think there would be an increase in popularity of the family of they are seen to be educated in a similar fashion to the cast majority of the population and therefore gaining a greater connection to the public. It is not as if schools like Eton have a divine right to educate royalty and in fact the royal family have went to a diverse range of elite private schools.

There are some anomalies with this education tradition as when a member of the total family ain't particularly academic then it becomes a challenger where the majority of their peers are (Prime Harry). Of course university in this country is non private but the system of educating the royal family possibly means there are only certain 'acceptable ' universities for the royals..

we don't want to leave the impression that it is only acceptable that the royal family mix with a certain social cohort at the formative schooling period and this doesn't have to be the.case. Did King Charles gain from a private education? From what I have read he was rather miserable at times so private schooling doesn't naturally lead to happiness as well as the fact l that educational qualifications do not influence the royals' future as much as for the common peiople.

Sorry for the typos

Well they represent us on a world stage so yes they should receive a high quality education. Good grades aren't the only benefit of good schooling and a private education is a means of securing that.

It’s a fair point, it probably would help their PR - but it would be a publicity stunt.

Sending the kids to the local comp will do anything significant to change the odd nature of their public lives or limit their privilege given they will be a billionaire (George) and multi-millionaires (Charlotte and Louis).

I think the reason they don’t do it is less security, than that their best chance of building a secure group of friends is to mix with similarly privileged aristo kids who are part of the same world, will understand their situation as well as anyone can, and give them protection and privacy throughout their lives.

Privacy apart, people mix with people in a similar situation to them - any childhood friendships with kids from ordinary backgrounds would just fall away in adolescence anyway.

I think security is a big part of it. A friend of mine had to go to school with bodyguards when she arrived in this country and she had to go to private schools as no state schools at the time had the ability or resources to accommodate someone coming in an armoured car/having a bodyguard/only allowing the child in certain parts of the building which were considered safe/all the other stuff. Private schools are much more used to it.

Didn't the kids in the Danish royal family go to a state primary school?

Well they represent us on a world stage so yes they should receive a high quality education. ..... EVERY child should receive a high quality education ..... the fact that the state system is unable to provide this is a disgrace.

I think security is a red herring because fundamentally security arrangements must be as easily arranged in a state school as a private school. Additionally privacy is a tenuous argument given that the children are being taught in classes regardless of schooling rype.

Could you one hundred per cent guarantee that there would never be anyone, or half a dozen someones, standing nearby with a mobile phone ready to film and upload it to TikTok any time the royal child made a mistake in class or swore in the playground or went for a pee?

Much easier to control mobile phone use in a smallish private school than a large state school.

And it would be utterly unfair to use a child to make a political point.

I agree! Although I feel the same about our government ministers…

European royals manage it.

They can afford not to burden the creaking state school system. For the same reason I hope they pay for private health instead of clogging up the NHS when they’re ill.

The children they’re educated with would be affected too. The Hurlingham used to get their booking system clogged up just after midnight to try to get to George’s tennis coach to be near him. It’s not just the media who are crazy, it’s parents too!

How noble ! Not wishing to burden the state system?

That argument might be valid if the 'royals' paid their bloody taxes !

@Olios

But surely a high quality education should be provided by the state sector

@Luredbyapomegranate

Fair points. I agree the children will be privileged regardless of schooling type but is that sufficient argument to say private schools are the only option? The monarchy will not fall if the children attend a state school and it may help build the character and widen the outlook of the Royals if they do attend state schools.

The idea that the Royal Family have to be in environments that also then to mix with people of the same social level surely reinforces a class system which Britain is slowly dispensing of? There are monarchists that firmly believe in a royal family yet do have questions about our residual class system and social mobility in general. Does acceptance of monarchy force is to accept a class system based on privilege as well?

I bring up the example of university where basically it seems given Prince Harry's A level results it may have been disingenuous to fit him into an 'elite' university so he went into the army. He may actually have benefited from a university education. Oxbridge now personally won't accept Royals with middling A levels (King Charles) so there is a bit of a gap with that philosophy forHE.

Because that would mean them hanging out with the plebs.

Much easier to control mobile phone use in a smallish private school than a large state school.

Eton has 1300 pupils, which is more than the average secondary (950).

And mobile phone problems happen everywhere. They're less common in schools that ban phones, but it is a problem which cannot be eradicated.

I think they will continue to use private education because the other pupils who attend will have a more similar lifestyle than the average teenager.

Very very few people with any kind of significant wealth send their children to state school. I think unless that changes the royals will continue to send them to independent schools.

There you have it! Sending your child to private school is the best education you can give them. Especially when you don't have billions to bequeath them on your passing. Don't let Mumnetters tell you otherwise. Same with having more than one property. Secure yourself and your children's future.

I saw a couple of points about security but if you look at the children of US presidents (Chelsea Clinton for example) they went to private day schools and obviously the security would be massive but essentially doable. I think from a security perspective any school will experience disruption at that level but I can't see the argument why this is easier with a private school than a state one?

Princess Anne's children both went to state schools for primary. So... it's been done, it can be done, and it's doable. Where anyone sends their children to school is their own personal choice, though.

But is it true that European royals send their kids to state schools ? Does anyone have any evidence of that ? Or is it along the same lines as "they all ride bicycles and have normal jobs" ?

I think you nailed it in the title- it's their choice. I don't know anyone back in the UK who would not send their child to private school given the opportunity and choice, just as the rest of the public sector schools are decreasing in quality rapidly. I don't really see how their children going to a state school would really influence anyone to change their opinion on them.

Does it have to be the case that if your famous and wealthy your d's facto choice of schooling has to be private? I don't think that is written in stone. I think there is an argument that the Royal Family is the embodiment of our state and therefore shouldn't they value and use state insitutions. The RF are happy for their cHildren to enter the armed services where presumably they integrate with aside section of society so what not do the same with schools? Prince Harry was involved in armed conflict not because we didn't have enough soldiers but as part of a fundamental link between the RF and our serivies; the public do expect the Royals to some degree to go down certain paths so I don't think it is entirely a republican fantasy for the RF children to attend state schools as appropriate?

Why would they? If we could all afford private education for our kids, I'm sure we would go for it.

Thinking of the royal children and their well-being, I think they would get bullied mercilessly in a state school. At least in private schools they are with other privileged children and smaller classes, so far less likely to be singled out.

Ultimately it's what's in their best interests and not in some silly ideas of equality. They are never going to be equal so it's not going to happen.

@PuffinsRocks

Really didn't realise this.....credit to PA.

We have problems with the concept of choice when it comes to the Royal Famiky. Charles did not choose to become King, he had that duty because of birth. A lot of RF life is prescribed due to a complex relationship with he state. It is impossible for King Harles to choose another religion or to be openly atheist (currently). I think therefore for the RF the public does at some level have an interest and possible influence on their schooling.

How depressing.

@polkadotdalmation

I believe both King Charles was bullied at school and did not have the most perfect of school experiences (similarly with Prince Harry). Is it a just assumption to say that if you are famous or wealthy you will be bullied mercilessly at school? Surely one motivation for comprehensive education is for pupils to learn and socialise together regardless of religion, ethnicity or class?

Depressing - but sadly true.