Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

George's exams

918 replies

everetting · 02/10/2023 14:52

Kate is not going with william to Singapore as George has important exams. What exams would a 10 year old be sitting in November?
I know nothing about private school systems so hoping someone here does.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
Iwasafool · 09/10/2023 11:15

Roussette · 08/10/2023 08:16

Zara would still need to be as good as the other Olympic team members to get a place

Not saying she wouldn't. She was brought up round horses so obviously had natural talent that had been nurtured.
I'm talking about opportunity.

I wonder if she would have excelled at something else if she'd been born working class. Women's football maybe or shooting. Top class swimmer? I wonder if she has any other sporting interests but I suppose if you get to Olympic level you haven't time for other things.

Similar for Andy Murray and what he might have done if his mother wasn't some top tennis coach.

Original poster
everetting · 09/10/2023 11:25

Diana saw how Sarah was treated in her divorce and made sure she did better.
Sarah got a pitiful payout on her divorce based on Andrews military salary alone, plus private school fees for the children.

OP posts:
MissElinorDashwood · 09/10/2023 11:34

Iwantcakeeveryday · 09/10/2023 09:50

Security is no more a perk for the royal family than it is for Tony Blair. It is a necessity for some because of the positions they are in and the threats to their life, most certainly not a perk anyone would want. The royals are born into positions they cannot easily leave, as shown by the reactions to Harry and the security risks come from the public. This is not a perk. Its strange some think of it that way, and rather telling as to their attitudes towards the safety of people in public roles.

I keep coming back to this well made point.
This is one of the many issues that has troubled me about the Monarchy since Harry left.
Seems everyone was happy to commodify him for their own PR, entertainment, and monetary gain since he was a child…..and this was his reward.

I will remain indifferent to George, Charlotte and Louis until I know they will be protected. At the moment, all I see is them being used increasing more by the institution and the press.

It makes for uncomfortable viewing.

Original poster
everetting · 09/10/2023 11:36

It is a good point that lifetime security should come with the position..

OP posts:
Mylovelygreendress · 09/10/2023 11:39

MissElinorDashwood · 09/10/2023 10:18

We do if we look at what transpired in 2020. Why should we expect any different in 30 years time? I’ve been given no reason to think it will be any different for George, Charlotte and Louise.

Show quote history

The point I was trying to make was that none of us know if Charles is still sending money to Harry . And none of us should know if it is private money .
Given that Harry has - thankfully- ceased criticising his family , we don’t know .

Mylovelygreendress · 09/10/2023 11:40

everetting · 09/10/2023 11:36

It is a good point that lifetime security should come with the position..

Harry no longer has a “ position” ! He will gradually go down the LOS and be as relevant as the Kents or Gloucesters.

Serenster · 09/10/2023 11:42

Once Harry was an adult, he has only ever been provided with security because of the assessed need for it, not automatically (when he was a child he was always protected as one of the children of the Prince of Wales, even when with his Mother who declined police protection for herself).

He has never had security provided as a right since that point however. If the security service assess there is a need, when he is in the UK, he would be protected, even now.

MissElinorDashwood · 09/10/2023 11:47

The point I was trying to make was that none of us know if Charles is still sending money to Harry . And none of us should know if it is private money .

Come on, now. I think we can all agree that this is rather far fetched.

Original poster
everetting · 09/10/2023 11:54

Serensester Diana said she did not decline security. It was removed.
The Queen reportedly wanted her to keep it and Charles didn't.
The story changed after she died. Suddenly it was revealed that Diana had refused security.

OP posts:
Serenster · 09/10/2023 11:58

everetting · 09/10/2023 11:54

Serensester Diana said she did not decline security. It was removed.
The Queen reportedly wanted her to keep it and Charles didn't.
The story changed after she died. Suddenly it was revealed that Diana had refused security.

No. Plenty of contemporaneous written evidence was presented at the inquest into Diana’s death which confirmed that she very much declined security early in the 1990s, very much against the wishes of the Met police.

Iwantcakeeveryday · 09/10/2023 12:02

MissElinorDashwood · 09/10/2023 11:34

I keep coming back to this well made point.
This is one of the many issues that has troubled me about the Monarchy since Harry left.
Seems everyone was happy to commodify him for their own PR, entertainment, and monetary gain since he was a child…..and this was his reward.

I will remain indifferent to George, Charlotte and Louis until I know they will be protected. At the moment, all I see is them being used increasing more by the institution and the press.

It makes for uncomfortable viewing.

Edited
Show quote history

Former Prime Ministers still receive security paid for by us, even if they opt for roles that increase this cost, we pay it. We have I believe 7 living ex Pm's. They chose the role that means they require security, whereas royal children don't get that choice.

Iwantcakeeveryday · 09/10/2023 12:03

Mylovelygreendress · 09/10/2023 11:39

The point I was trying to make was that none of us know if Charles is still sending money to Harry . And none of us should know if it is private money .
Given that Harry has - thankfully- ceased criticising his family , we don’t know .

Show quote history

so your point is is only 'maybe he sends him money'? Considering he took away Frogmore which would be a place to stay that has security, I don't think he would at all. So, do you think he should?

Mylovelygreendress · 09/10/2023 12:04

MissElinorDashwood · 09/10/2023 11:47

The point I was trying to make was that none of us know if Charles is still sending money to Harry . And none of us should know if it is private money .

Come on, now. I think we can all agree that this is rather far fetched.

Edited

I don’t agree . But as I keep saying - none of us know .

Iwantcakeeveryday · 09/10/2023 12:05

So Diana needed security, but Harry and Meghan don't? I find that impossible to believe. Offering it to Diana and not Harry ( when in the UK ) makes zero sense.

Iwantcakeeveryday · 09/10/2023 12:06

Anyway... wasn't this a thread about George? All roads lead to Harry and Meghan it seems.

MissElinorDashwood · 09/10/2023 12:09

Iwantcakeeveryday · 09/10/2023 12:06

Anyway... wasn't this a thread about George? All roads lead to Harry and Meghan it seems.

Yup….

It should be all roads lead to how the institution treats the royal children.

Mylovelygreendress · 09/10/2023 12:09

Iwantcakeeveryday · 09/10/2023 12:03

so your point is is only 'maybe he sends him money'? Considering he took away Frogmore which would be a place to stay that has security, I don't think he would at all. So, do you think he should?

Show quote history

Crikey, this is hard going !!
For the final time …..none of us on MN know whether or not Charles sends Harry money.
Harry has made it clear his life is in the US . I doubt very much that Meghan will ever set foot on Royal property again .
They don’t need Frogmore .
Harry was invited to Balmoral but declined .
He has been told he has to let the RF know if he wants to stay in one of their properties. Fair enough .

Iwantcakeeveryday · 09/10/2023 12:13

For the final time …..none of us on MN know whether or not Charles sends Harry money.

I am asking what the point is of saying something like that, implying its possible? Is it? I don't think Charles behaviour indicates it is even a possibility so why make the point? We don't know anything about Charles money or what he does with it so why is it relevant here? It's not.

They don’t need Frogmore

Andrew doesn't need a huge mansion, William and Kate don't need 3 homes... 'need' doesn't have much relevance when it comes to other royals. The point is Frogmore gives them safety and was a gift, which they paid essential maintenance costs for.

Serenster · 09/10/2023 12:16

Iwantcakeeveryday · 09/10/2023 12:05

So Diana needed security, but Harry and Meghan don't? I find that impossible to believe. Offering it to Diana and not Harry ( when in the UK ) makes zero sense.

I imagine the security services are slightly more clued up about the nature of the threats facing current high profile people than you, Iwantcakeeveryday - but maybe if you feel strongly you could apply for a job there? 😀

MissElinorDashwood · 09/10/2023 12:22

Iwantcakeeveryday · 09/10/2023 12:02

Former Prime Ministers still receive security paid for by us, even if they opt for roles that increase this cost, we pay it. We have I believe 7 living ex Pm's. They chose the role that means they require security, whereas royal children don't get that choice.

Show quote history

Exactly my point!

Something needs to change. Either change it for the better (lifelong security) or stop using the children for PR, giving the press access to them (no matter how controlled the environment) - they are creating the exact same recipe for disaster as they did for William and Harry.

The institution and the press shouldn’t get to benefit from the children if the children don’t get something back in return, even if they eventually want to leave.

Daisyislazy · 09/10/2023 12:23

I'm not sure the public would have supported Harry still getting his security paid for by us but I'm sure Charles could afford it

Howsimplywonderful · 09/10/2023 12:25

@MissElinorDashwood

Ex Presidents adult children don’t get protection.

Mylovelygreendress · 09/10/2023 12:26

Iwantcakeeveryday · 09/10/2023 12:13

For the final time …..none of us on MN know whether or not Charles sends Harry money.

I am asking what the point is of saying something like that, implying its possible? Is it? I don't think Charles behaviour indicates it is even a possibility so why make the point? We don't know anything about Charles money or what he does with it so why is it relevant here? It's not.

They don’t need Frogmore

Andrew doesn't need a huge mansion, William and Kate don't need 3 homes... 'need' doesn't have much relevance when it comes to other royals. The point is Frogmore gives them safety and was a gift, which they paid essential maintenance costs for.

I made the original point in reply to @MissElinorDashwood at 12.02 ( seems much longer ago!!)
“You know, the father who has no issue in forking out £3m for his disgraced brother when his security was taken away.

Charles chose to father his children and bring them into this kind of existence. He wasn’t naive. You know as well as I do he can afford to to pay for their security like he did for his brother. They burden wouldn’t be on the taxpayer.”

Maybe Charles sends money . Maybe he doesn’t. We don’t know .

Right , I have to go and get ready for my volunteering job .
Have a nice day !

Howsimplywonderful · 09/10/2023 12:26

I doubt ex prime ministers children get protection unless the security services deem it necessary - much like Harry

MissElinorDashwood · 09/10/2023 12:26

Daisyislazy · 09/10/2023 12:23

I'm not sure the public would have supported Harry still getting his security paid for by us but I'm sure Charles could afford it

Agree.

Charles can clearly afford it, he’s paying for Andrew’s security. He has more of a responsibility to the child he chose to bring into ‘his’ world than his disgraced brother.