George going to Marlborough? Article linked.

[Greatballzoffire]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12872215/William-kate-snub-eton-george-marlborough-college-second-visit.html

Why are you so invested in the possibility that George hasn't/won't make the grade for Eton - you're verging on gleeful wrapped up in protestations that its not a snub

I think it came from the idea that he would get in even if he didn’t make the grade other boys would need to gain a place because he’s the future King. Lots of arguments about if the Head would let him in anyway, but if he hasn’t, it’s not always a good thing to get into the “best” school if that means you’re going to struggle when you get there.

Not making an exception is a kindness long term, and the Wales seem to be sensible enough to not make that choice.

but he might have passed but the family don’t think it’s a good fit anyway. (Let’s face it, his GCSE/A level grades/the contacts he makes really aren’t going to make the slightest difference to his career/adult life so they have a completely different set of criteria than other parents picking fee paying schools.)

I'm not the Head of Eton no. Although I know directly that MN has - certainly in the recent past - had Heads of top schools on certain threads.

I do sometimes wonder if Kensington Palace sticks an intern on some of the more controversial rf threads, such as the threads mentioning Rose Hanbury. Because as jeff says, some posts are very weird. Much more exercised than one would expect. I don't think it's too fanciful - as Hope from MN said, there does seem to be an element of policing going on.

As opposed to your speculation you mean?

I think it’s a shame that Harry didn’t go to Gordonstoun. It would have suited him well. Charles hated it, but his second ds was more “action oriented” and not of good academic ability. I think he’d have been in with a better crowd, too, rather than posho coke heads.

I am very uncomfortable about the ongoing speculation concerning George’s intelligence . He is a 10 year old boy . Leave him alone ! As for his parents , well they both achieved a 2:1 at St Andrews which is no mean feat .

The discussion isn't about George himself, certainly not as far as I'm concerned. I am however interested in the way things may be shifting with attitudes to the rf and I would - happy to admit - be delighted for the parents to be told no special favours. And that is certainly what the vibe seems to be atm. There was no need for them to make such a hoo ha about these Y6 exams, but they chose to, to represent the normality of their experience. If it doesn't pay off then they only have themselves to blame. This Daily Mail article was fed to the press. It seems a pretty gauche move. Some of what Harry says is well founded, confirmed very recently by the High Court. Maybe people should take note rather than slagging him off all the time on these threads while blindly defending the other side of the family.

What hoo ha ?? It was announced that Catherine would stay at home to support George rather than travel to Earthshot with William . Presumably if they hadn’t announced it , there would have been speculation about why Catherine didn’t go ! Not everyone is aware of the English education system . I had no idea about these exams .
Still not understanding why you think that was a hoo ha .

I will go with all titles given will be irrelevant to gender or biological sex by then. I’m assuming Charlotte or Louis’s potential children are more in line for it then Edward’s. In fact I think we will see more and more of the monarch wanting to protect titles eg William giving them to his children on an honorary basis and then reverting back for George to give to his children and so on ..,, if they survive that long as a firm.

Massive hooha from William too about very important first public exams (!!!!). Obviously pitching the relatable bollocks (again !!!!).

It was not a below average mark in 2000. It was probably average for the time. For the school he went yes definitely below.

I didn't say it was below average.

I said it was below average for intelligent kids, even at some very dodgy comps without tiny class sizes and £50k+ per year educations. If that's all he could achieve with all of that help then he is not particularly bright.

One rather noticeable thing - which I'm sure MN is aware of - is the way some very pro rf posters seem to want to cause such disruption and so many deletions on threads that MN deletes the whole thing.

So the best thing to do is not to respond at all to personal attacks.

The Queen could have issued LPs (in fact could have done it when she issued the LPs that expanded the HRH titles to all children of Prince William) that would have had the effect of limiting the title of HRH Prince/Princess to children in the direct line of succession, similar to what has been done in Denmark (but before any of the children affected were born). I think it's clear that this was a matter of discussion in the RF for some time and that Charles was wanted to restrict HRH for a slimmed down RF. This was mentioned in media when the announcement was made that Edward and Sophie's children would not use HRH Prince/Princess, and there was further speculation that Andrew was concerned that his daughters might lose their titles. The decision made about Edward and Sophie's children was the first step in the move to restrict titles, but nothing formal has been done to make it official.

I agree that titles should be given equally to males and females. But there's another consideration. Why use dukedoms at all? Maybe there could be a change there. Why isn't HRH Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom sufficient? I understand that it is tradition, but perhaps this could be a change along with some of the others that are being contemplated.

It's been pointed out that one reason for these dukedoms to be granted on marriage is so that the woman marrying in does not have to be Princess Hisname. There is an easy way to fix that as well. Let them be Princess Hername, as the Scandinavian monarchies do. It was reported at the time of William's marriage that that was his preference: no dukedom and Kate would be Princess Catherine.

I get the feeling more and more that the late Queen just didn't want a slimming down of the Monarchy at all, and stuck her finger in her ears as far as Charles ideas went. Which is a shame, as Charles seems to be far more reforming and forward thinking than his mother was, and I suspect, William. Although he may be forced into it by time and attitudes to the RF

Charles is in mid 70s and I think he’s lost the energy really for much reform. William might seek to change things - but if he has to wait another 20 years he might feel the same.

The Coronation of Charles and Camilla seems only to have been ‘downsized’ by a need for fire safety requirements in the Abbey. Fewer people in church, but the cost of the whole hoopla was still huge, and the coronation and the post coronation inspection of troops etc went on for hours. I thought Charles would have gone much smaller given all his talk of downsizing and given the past year had seen a silver jubilee and the Queens funeral (huge), but he did not.

What I do find strange is this ‘Charles is a transitional King’ business. I wonder if Charles sees it that way? And I’m not sure Charles and William are as in lockstep as the media portrays. We have that story, but we also have the Williams ‘5 point plan’ which indicates that things aren’t that sweet between King and heir. Although I’m unsure if the 5 Point Plan was actually legit.

As Edward was a transitional monarch. Actually in 9 years he saved the monarchy. It’s not the years but the life in those years. There hasn’t been a monarch of late who has not stamped their imprint in some way.

Very little of what he wanted to reform left. Monarchy is smaller. Really that’s it really. William already doing how he will run things. Much as Charles always ran things as Prince of Wales the way he wanted.

I gave no idea, and no desire to speculate about George's intellectual capabilities. But I I am prepared to speculate that he looks an anxious, sensitive child, and based on that alone, he might well not be suited to Eton.

🙄

Seriously, listen to yourself?

@lepapillon Not sure what you mean. Eton would not be my first choice for a sensitive child, regardless of intellectual ability. In what way is that controversial?

Do you regularly glance at photos of children you've never met and come up with such confident conclusions about their personalities?

@lepapillon Not a confident opinion at all. Just an opinion. I said he looks to me like a sensitive child. He could be an absolute barrel of self confidence, but that is not how he appears. Maybe the problem here is I don't think of sensitivity as a negative thing. Others, I know , do.

You're judging a 10 year old child, not just as sensitive, but "anxious". I don't know what evidence you have for that, @CurlewKate .

@Maireas "You're judging a 10 year old child, not just as sensitive, but "anxious". I don't know what evidence you have for that, @CurlewKate ."

I have as much evidence for my view as anyone else on this thread. I don't think of being anxious and sensitive as a negative though. Perhaps you do? Your use of the word "judging" certainly suggests so.