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

Anxious is not a negative. It is one of those personality traits that can be good in some circumstances and bad in other circumstances. I wish my DD had been a bit more anxious as a teenager instead of constantly thinking she was invincible.

I feel sorry for anyone who preferred as a child living with friends in an institution than family. I guess not all families are nice places to be.

And sensitive is seen as a criticism by those types of people who want macho boys who do not cry.

I would say cautious is not a negative. There's a certain kind of school that does not support being cautious as a character trait, though, and that could lead to a student being anxious - a negative, I would argue.

I agree that there are schools, and families, which see sensitivity as a negative. And that's very unfortunate.

@Hughs "I have never heard anxious used as a positive description of someone."

It's neither positive or negative. It's a character trait. And, when choosing a school, surely character traits are one of the things taken into consideration?

The point is you have absolutely no idea what George's personality is like! You are positing completely made-up suppositions about him and speculating as to why he should or shouldn't go to particular schools on that basis. It's weird and creepy. Do you look over the photos of acquaintances' children you've never met on Facebook and make judgements about what they are like?

@lepapillon As I said. Every single thread about the RF is speculation. Of course it is. So unless you want the discussion to be limited to "I like her blue coat more than her red one".....
And there isn't a person in the land who hasn't looked at a picture of a child and said "She looks a handful" or "What a cheeky grin."
And there is NOTHING WRONG with saying that a particular school may not be ideal for a particular child based on apparent personality.

It's neither positive or negative.

I agree as a word it's neither positive nor negative. When used to describe a child though, it's never positive.

"Oh isn't it lovely how anxious she is?"
"I hope he never loses his anxiety, it's great!"
"Isn't she so anxious for her age, well done her."

Not even "it's good that he's so anxious, he won't get into any scrapes."

@Hughs "I agree as a word it's neither positive nor negative. When used to describe a child though, it's never positive."

No. Neither is it negative. It's just a personality trait. And a relevant one when addressing school choices.

Not sure why you're trying to portray me as "George basher" but I suppose your attempts are at least quite entertaining!

I haven't said anything about you, but do agree with PPs that deciding a child you have presumably never met is anxious based on photographs is a bit weird and nasty.

“Anxious is not a negative. It is one of those personality traits that can be good in some circumstances and bad in other circumstances. I wish my DD had been a bit more anxious as a teenager instead of constantly thinking she was invincible.

I feel sorry for anyone who preferred as a child living with friends in an institution than family. I guess not all families are nice places to be.”

This is the classic anti boarding commentary isn’t it? Maybe your DD was bored at home with you and would have had far more fun at boarding school. Some parents just cannot accept that lots of teachers/activities/stimulation/friends around is really fun for teens and sometimes actually better for them.

Of course, boarding school does not suit the overbearing helicopter parent. So personally, I feel sorry for you with your views. I am so pleased my parents allowed me to choose to board, travel the world, live in different countries, find exactly what suited me rather than hold me back. As a result, I never felt the need to push boundaries and we always had a great relationship.

I also think describing a child as anxious is very loaded these days. “Anxiety” and “depression” are used as clinical terms for teens and adults. It is totally inappropriate for a lay person to label a child like that, let alone a child they don’t know.
You can use other terms like cautious/careful, polite, quieter, observant, kind etc that are far more appropriate.

That term “anxious” has far too many mental health connotations.

Ok, how about you post some pics of your kids to the thread so we can all speculate about their likely foibles? If there's nothing wrong with it, I'm you won't mind.

"Ok, how about you post some pics of your kids to the thread so we can all speculate about their likely foibles? If there's nothing wrong with it, I'm you won't mind."

I wouldn't mind at all. However, I don't post pictures of my children online without their express permission. I am as sure as I can be that most people would recognise my anxious, sensitive child as just that.

It's telling though that you refer to being anxious and sensitive as "foibles".

Actually, it is your posts that are telling: a parent who spends their spare time making judgments online about a child they don't know is perhaps likely to have other regrettable habits that may result in an 'anxious' child.

I agree that describing anyone as 'anxious' is not a compliment.

But then on this thread a poster has commented that George is average and emotional according to his previous head of year! Which is pretty dreadful for many reasons.

Being average is pretty dreadful?

I was more referring to a HOY gossiping about a pupil as being pretty dreadful. But come on this is mn - describing a future king as average isn't exactly a compliment is it?

But I had a dc who would have been lucky to be described as average in pre-prep as like George he was a summer born boy. He came on extremely well academically by sixth form.

Why would a king not be average in terms of attributes such as intelligence etc? It's got nothing to do with the fact that he's randomly been assigned a status, it's purely down to genes. And neither parent in this case seems in any way exceptional. So no surprises if they have average kids. That's generally how it works.

I'm astonished by the insane levels of deference to members of the rf.

To the posters who are fan girling/ fan boying Kate, William, George etc on this thread: assuming George has not passed the first stage of the admissions procedure for Eton this month (as the clumsy PR strongly suggests), do you believe George should get the nod to get a place anyhow or should the place in question go to another 10 year old who has actually passed on merit? If you do think he should be nodded through then why? Do you think the same licence should apply in Y13 in relation to an application to Oxford or Cambridge? Obviously hypothetical so no need for people to get into a twist but given that George has no real power under our constitution, why on earth does it matter what education he has? Very fortunate for George that he'll never have to compete for a job. He could literally go to the shittiest maintained school in the country and his outcome would be the same. Lucky boy and totally not worth the weird offence which is being taken vicariously on his behalf.

All George needs to be capable of is understanding how not to overstep his very limited constitutional role. That way he has a super easy life complete with all the tax breaks and massively inflated self importance. None of it based on merit.

But I had a dc who would have been lucky to be described as average in pre-prep as like George he was a summer born boy

One of my four sons is a late summer born baby and was never described as merely average.

Not that there's a real problem with average obviously. But you know, a summer born boy isn't doomed to averageness in the early years purely by virtue of his birthday. And for all we know George may continue to be average and that would be fine, and indeed not a huge surprise.

To the posters who are fan girling/ fan boying Kate, William, George etc on this thread

Goodbyestranger are people fangirling? I think maybe they are thinking they wouldn’t like their own children’s personalities and intelligence picked over by a lot of people who’ve never been near them let along met them.

We know about your children's achievements @goodbyestranger - you tell us often enough on threads...

myrtleWilson if you read the threads I’m on - Higher Education overwhelmingly - then you’ll find I mention specific achievements much more frugally than the average poster there. I’m aware that I have a higher than average number of children but I really don’t mention my DC that much at all, and that would be hard to contradict with hard (post) evidence. I might have an occasional frolic when I come up against any poster who is especially offensive but other than that no.