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.

You have to laugh. Some one up thread made up a story about Anne's children going to state school and I wonder if that will get repeated? Just shows how easy it is to make stuff up about the royals on sm if you have an agenda. Not saying that this poster had an agenda but if you have, just spread some malicious lies and watch it run...

I think the Tindall kids go to the local primary. It's a great school but I would assume that they go private at some stage for security reasons

@Barbadossunset

Sorry for all the typos!!! (using a kindle and the auto correct is terrible).

I guess the point about bullying is that bullying unfortunately exists in both the state and private sector and so to argue you are preventing a child of the RF being bullied by selecting private is a little disingenuous in my opinion. There is an implicit suggestion that bullying by a 'better sort" is somehow of a different character or more acceptable than bullying in a state school.

I think given the degree of support for the RF there actually may not be bullying in a state school as their would be an amount of respect paid by other pupils and the family of other pupils. Even in some of the poorer state schools there is a great deal of respect for the state and monarchy and so it could be that the RF pupils are held up on pedestals?

the RF to maintain support need to engage in activities that at least appear egalitarian e.g. front line roles in the armed services or being helicopter paramedics so can't this idea be stretched to schooling? The King is meant to be King for all the people in the UK so would this role be better satisfied if he influenced his family to use the state sector more putting faith in the educational state systems for which in a theoretical sense is head of through his constitutional role in government.

tI am not suggesting that the heir to the throne goes to the worst school in the UK as some sort of republican goal such as forcing the RF to use social housing but choosing a well regarded state school with adequate security to educate maybe a about royal for part of their educational life. As someone said upthread attendance actually may not be that constant depending on the demands on the family publically and would be complemented by home education. The point being that there are opportunities for a more forward looking monarchy that uses the great traditions of this country but with an awareness that society is more egalitarian.

Security is significantly easier in PSs that SSs as the families of fellow attendees have a vested interest in ensuring that the royal children have a 'good' experience and privacy, because their DC will benefit from social connections and maintaining the status quo. In an SS a family who needs money could solve everything by selling stories or passing info. to kidnappers or terror groups.

Also, why should they take a place at a 'well regarded' SS that a child whose parents have no other option needs?

There is a world of difference between an affluent village primary and one in an area of deprivation. There will be some state schools that are more affluent than some lower grade privates. They could probably make some sort of political point by sending their kids to one of the v affluent village primaries but what would be the point. They are probably much better in school suited to their individual needs (which will be extensive due to their security requirements, public roles etc) that offers flexibility etc.

I would imagine that a major reason why boarding schools are popular with the royals is so that parents can travel overseas while the kids have the consistency of school rather than nannies and cooks looking after them when the parents are away on business.

I would love to know what the security is at the Wales' children's school. Armed guards sitting outside the three classrooms (assuming Louis is there as well now)? Do they follow them into the toilets - bit weird for the other kids if so? Intervene if another child pushed them?
And for minor royals such as the Tindall kids - wonder if they would they have any security at their school?

I think security is a red herring because fundamentally security arrangements must be as easily arranged in a state school as a private school

I think you are dead wrong about that

My friend’s child went to the London school where Charlotte and George went before they moved the Windsor. Security is not in or immediately outside classrooms and definitely not in bathrooms.

another friend is a teacher at a private school in London (secondary) and some wealthy middle eastern children have boydguards with them in class but it’s rare and not the norm.

I highly doubt the Tindalls have security, they are not working royals.

They go to the same school Peters girls go to and that Zara went to. Before she boarded at 8. Needless to say they won't be boarding so young. Mike has mentioned school fees and both of them were privately educated.

I'm a teacher. State school teachers may be very good (some) but where we teach is not. No money. No resources. Focus on Enlish and maths above all else. Low staff numbers. Increasing number of SEN children in classes who are and can be disruptive.

Your local state school teachers may be better because they are essentially performing miracles in a war zone.

Some private teachers may not be as good but if you had the choice who would choose the war zone.

I don't think people realise how valuable education is as an industry. Our private education is so valuable to our country - international students contribute £25bn to the British economy (inc universities). The British Royal family are good PR for the British private education market sector, which is considered amongst the best in the world.

Good school places are hard enough to come by as it is without people who could pay clogging them up!

All state schools should provide that I agree. There are some excellent state schools but not all are.

Do people on this thread genuinely believe that over 90% of kids in this country go to school in a war zone?!

Of course there’s a discrepancy between the standard of state schools - there are some absolutely excellent schools & some very, very bad ones but the vast, vast majority are fine/ good.

And the idea that bullying or drug problems only exist in state schools is deluded. As far as I’m aware there is not a shred of evidence that bullying is worse in state than private schools. Just one high profile example - https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/feb/11/dillibe-onyeama-memoir-racist-abuse-eton-shook-establishment

a) not bound by the Admissions Code (so possible to screen/exclude those who might pose a risk)
b) better perimeter
c) more resources if procedures (or even buildings) require changes

I think there is an underestimation of the ability of state school children to behave appropriately in the presence of royalty or other public fame. It seems to me the default assumption is that state school children will make the lives of the RF uncomfortable which I really do not think the case.

Prince William attends Aston Villa matches (in a box) but this shows that security can be arranged for numerous venues adequately. Post school younger members are of ten seen in nightclubs and it is quite obvious the security detail are doing an excellent job; I don't see managing a state school a problem?

would there be something wrong with the RF getting to know and socialise with people of lower socio - economic. backgrounds? Would this really be a threat to the esteem many good the RF in?

Of course it's not for the children. They get the best standard of education available within the schools capabilities.

For the people working there it is often war like conditions. Basically making do while having nothing.

Already private for one of them. I know this for a 100% fact.

@mpsw

Surely resources would be directly allocated to a school for purely security purposes?

It is a bit of an assumption that says pupils would somehow be by default a security risk. Surely risk assessments by security services would be done in private or state schools alike? What is inherently different between state and private schools that would make state pupils?

As for perimeter the layout of schools is very varied. Would sending the RF to a Scotish Island school help as it would be extremely easy to 'defend' the school periphefy? The security forces surely we're expert in protection for a wide variety of circumstances and geographies so why is a school a particular problem? I know a number of state schools with very robust fencing, security cameras etc. so what really is different that private schools offer?

Football stadiums are well set up for high profile guests. The nightclubs are also usually exclusive high end night clubs or private member's clubs.

I see where you’re coming from - I come from
a family of teachers, & my brother is a headteacher so I absolutely understand that teachers often work in extremely challenging circumstances & have nothing but respect for teachers.

I might’ve been wrong to use the war zone wording, my post wasn’t aimed at you specifically, more at the numerous posts on this thread that seem to suggest the majority of state schools are rife with bullying/ drugs/ knife crime/ low education standards & that no parent who could afford to go private would choose one. Over 90% of kids are state educated & many, many kids thrive in state schools - especially those with engaged &supportive parents (which I feel like the assumption is William & Kate would be).

Most children are state educated. That’s most of all the people who do the important jobs. They got educated. I think it’s in a bad way at the moment but that’s not to do with anyone’s ability to educate children but to do with lack of money and the government.