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.

State schooling would provide opportunities to meet a more diverse section of society in terms of religion, wealth, world views etc. Is this not a good thing?

Not necessarily. In areas where the local demography is predominantly white, boarding schools are often significantly more diverse in terms of religion and world views.

State schooling would provide opportunities to meet a more diverse section of society in terms of religion, wealth, world views etc. Is this not a good thing?

To be honest if the Wales's had sent their DC to the local-to-Thomas's state primary, the mix of children wouldn't have been very different from the ones they were at school with.

Kate and William both got 2:1s from one of the best universities in the UK.
Oh, sorry, that doesn't fit your sweeping generalisation to make your (snarky) point, does it?
🙄

State schools are generally larger and, of necessity, need to operate on a bit of a one size fits all approach. They don't have the resources to manage the needs of the children of celebrities/royalty who may need to miss lessons/ have extra security etc. The parent community are also usually just more aware/ understanding of the need for privacy too, and they know if they cause any problems their kids will get kicked out.

We had a number of children of celebs/ dignatories at the DSs school and everyone just treated them and their children like normal human beings (which, of course, they were!).

I don’t really care where Kate & William send their kids, but shocked by how many people on this thread seem to think everyone would send their kids private if they could afford to.

Only 5 percent of pupils attend private primary schools & 8 percent of pupils private secondary schools. So lots & lots of people who could afford to go private clearly choose not to.

I went to a state school & so do my kids. I absolutely don’t recognise the picture Mumsnet paints of state schools at all.

Thinking of the royal children and their well-being, I think they would get bullied mercilessly in a state school

Of course they would, and I think quite a few posters probably enjoy the prospect of that happening.

The Swedish Royal family did this.

I "think" queen Margrethes grand children are all at private schools (happy to be corrected not looked into this heavily though I know there was some issues with the school the oldest 2 attended) Frederick and Joachim both were educated at Krebs private school. (her sons)

I think that members of the Royal Family (and the government) have a duty due to their position to use state schooling… I don’t think they are entitled like ordinary subjects are to make individual choices, that’s a trade off of their position. It is mad that the PM who is ultimately in charge of the schools 93% of children attend can choose to opt his own kids out of it.

Also, we could (if we re arranged other aspects of our life - like downsized & didn't holiday!) send our kids private. We were both privately educated ourselves. But we don’t, and not because our state schools are wealthy middle class enclaves - they are actually quite crap on paper.

This is a genuine question but is there any evidence that bullying is more rife in state schools than private ones?

Yes, I think the Royal kids might have the Micky taken out of them more at state school but that isn’t at all the same as bullying which I think can - and does - happen in any school. Surely adolescents of all classes & backgrounds can be cruel?

I agree with you. Myself and a few friends could have chosen private for our children and didn’t. They were all at decent state schools and have all done well academically .Most importantly ,they have friends from different backgrounds and do not take their comfortable lifestyle for granted.

If they hadn't been in catchment and able to go to a 'decent' state school would you have genuinely not considered other options? State schools vary wildly, I grew up in poverty and the catchment for my secondary school was an area of high deprevation. It was shit. Really shit. So shit I worked relentlessly to get decent grades which came at a lot of self sacrifice to ensure my children wouldn't have to go through the same.

I do think sometimes there's a faux naievety about what a wide span of schools there are. Admittedly it's not like the Royals would have this issue, but for those well off and probably in an affluent area having access to 'decent' schools is still a privilege.

If a private school parent took pics of the royals at school and sold them to a foreign publication then the school could remove their child's place. State school parents wouldn't face that consequence. I suspect that the fear of that keep the parents in line.

I have no idea what the catchment state schools in Windsor might be like but I would be annoyed if my child lost out because of the royals. Rich people can pick state schools but you'd end up with the annual sad face article of someone who lost out.

Do you know how overcrowded state schools are? My son is at a comp built to Gove spec and not all classrooms for 30 desks and a teacher's desk. No idea how anyone could be a bodyguard. The image is a school in Scotland and very normal in state schools. Imagine if the royals picked your school and they installed metal detectors and other measures.

Private schools have more space and have often accommodated body guards on school property during the day. It will be easier for the child to have as close to normal an existence. If the royals got a place at small schools because of security being a special consideration then that's going to piss people off too. Every admission round we see people who failed to get a space at the local village school so having to travel miles away instead.

I'm not saying that the royals are doing state school kids a favour. Many parents like the idea of their kids mixing with families of similar people and undoubtedly the kids will make friends who move onto later schools with them and meet them at the similar events that they are invited to.

OPI think you need a much broader historical perspective. Only 2/3 generations of royals have attended school of any kind so far: the late Queen and all of her generation and predecessors had governesses.

In time they might possibly consider state schools but I do think the security factors would be a major problem and that that move would only be part of a humongous slimming down of the royal profile and royal expenditure.

It would definitely benefit the kids though, yes!

Security at private schools is very different to state schools. In almost every way it easier to protect a private school than it is a state school. The exceptions would be a private school in central London beside a road where terrorist attacks would be more realistic than gaining entry to drive a mile or two down a deserted road to get access to a main school building and then have no idea which part of the many acres of school land the child in question is. Being able to access by helicopter is another security benefit that most state schools just don’t offer. The schools themselves are often set up for additional security because oligarchs and foreign royalty or billionaires send their children there.

That’s before the enhanced education and opportunity to make friends with peers who have similar backgrounds, wealth and status.

@JanglyBeads

Absolutely there is a historical perspective and it is a relatively recent development senior royals being educated in achools.

I do question the security and privacy arguments made here. With regard to security there is an immense amount of resource that can be given to make a school suitable for a royal to attend if necessary. The environment may be artificial to some extent but isn't a private school just as much so? There is also the presumption that privacy is more easily guarded at private schools and why is the case? A school should have measured in place to prevent poor behaviour of any type.

With regard to history I think there is a questiin about whether it is good to Somerset for Royals to be resilient to bullying. Richard the third had to stand up to Hnery's bullying behaviour at Bosworth (failed though), Elizabeth the first stood up to a bullying Spanish King, Charles the first stood up to that awful menace Cromwell, Gentry the eighth was bullied by the papacy, Queen Victoria had robust arguments with her cousin........history is full of bullying!

Protect

Ex teacher and unfortunately I agree. State schools are nowhere near good enough.

My DC were at St Mary Abbots state primary (which is virtually next door to KP) with David Cameron’s children so clearly security there was thought to be sufficient. Fox primary is another excellent state primary very nearby. K and W could certainly have chosen state to 8 for their DC and then moved out of London if they wanted private for later on - a lot of other parents there did the same!

Childhood bullying is an almost entirely different thing from "state" bullying though, OP!

@TheSnowyOwl

I take your point but Chelsea Clinton went to a relatively urban school and I would have thought the security detail worked. I guess if you have a rural school it may be easier to protect from an observation point of view but surely it isn't beyond the means of one of the best security services in the world to adequately secure portions of a state school?

With reagards to peers of similar privilege isn't it the ministry's long term interest to at least mitigate elitism (but of contradiction but bear with me)? King Charles is accurately aware of disadvantage through his role in setting up the Prince's trust so is quite aware of the positive impact of leadership in deprived areas. Would it therefore not make sense for young Royals to attend state schools to meet the likes of Any and Dec prior to elevation to celeb royalty?

The Norwegian Royal family do.
my friend who lives in Oslo said the King used to ride on the tram and could be frequently seen in the Palace gardens (which are open to the public not like Buckingham Palace). I think the British Royals are more famous and obviously London also has more tourists than Oslo, and there is also the security aspect.

Amy Carter (daughter of Jimmy Carter) was sent to state (public) schools in DC instead of the usual Sidwell Friends etc. It was horrible for her. If your child is in the public eye because of your choices/career then I don't think it fair to make them walk the walk on your ideology when there is an alternative.

@JanglyBeads

I agree but that is another debate! Seriously though it is a presumption that state schools have more bullying that private and a lot of the RF do go into the armeorces where I guess a degree of resilience is expected?

Seems like the Norwegian Royal children were pulled out of state school 9 years ago.

“The royal couple announced Tuesday, through a palace spokeswoman, that they were pulling their 10-year-old daughter Princess Ingrid Alexandra and their eight-year-old son Prince Sverre Magnus out of the local public school they’ve been attending in suburban Asker, where the family lives on their royal estate Skaugum. Ingrid Alexandra, heir to the throne after her father and grandfather, will be enrolled in the expensive and private Oslo International School in Bærum after the summer holidays, while Sverre Magnus will transfer to the private Oslo Montessori School. Both children will need to be driven to their new schools every day, instead of being able to walk to the local public school.
‘No reason’
Norwegian royals have made a point of attending public schools in recent generations, and the decision to place the royal children in private school has sparked an outcry in egalitarian Norway, where even the royals are expected to be “folksey” and mingle with the masses. Veteran Labour Party politician and Member of Parliament Martin Kolberg claimed that the crown prince’s and crown princess’ decision was “a very clear move away from being part of the people, and a step towards the end of the monarchy.”
“Until now, I’ve always been very positive about the monarchy and the crown couple,” Kolberg told newspaper VG. “But there’s no reason to send your children to private school in Norway.”

I don't think many people would choose state over independent if they had the option. Same as healthcare, I mean who wouldn't rather be seen within 2 days at the bupa or 2 years on the NHS. If you can afford it then that's absolutely you prerogative.