Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Why is Prince George not going to secondary school until after he turns 13?

571 replies

MinnieMounjaro · 26/05/2026 10:16

Prince William reveals Prince George, 12, is already boarding at £10,669-a-term Lambrook School mol.im/a/15846933 via https://dailym.ai/android

I saw this article in the DM saying Prince George is currently boarding at Lambrook "ahead of moving to his secondary school in September". He turns 13 in July so the thought occurred to me - why is he still in primary school? Should he not have started secondary in 2024 when he was 11?

OP posts:
myrtleWilson · 20/06/2026 10:02

Harry wanted handouts even after he left and has done nothing to “dismantle the hierarchy” he leans in to it as much as anyone cf his ‘I work, I’m a member of this family who are royal, ergo I’m a working royal and have been in service since I was 1 day old’ schtick

Arjan · 20/06/2026 10:09

Personally, I don’t blame them at all for leaving and at the time I was of the opinion, ‘good on them and best of luck in making a new life for themselves’. I was impressed and I had a lot of admiration for them, I could totally understand they didn’t want to continue with the charity visits for ‘show and tell’ and hand shaking strangers, along with all the restriction and criticism that come with being a member of the Royal family, I can’t think of anything more boring and uninspiring myself. I could understand why a privileged Royal life was not for them, like a lot of people at that time I thought they really were going for independence and a life outside the restrictions and commitments of Royal life, not being owned by the taxpayer who covers homes, security, expenses etc.

But instead of making a new wholesome fulfilling life, within a few short months they presented an image of a bitter and malicious pair, nothing progressive in how they were moving forward, nothing independent about them exploiting Britain and the British RF, and here they are, a few years later, clinging to Royal titles, back doing exactly the RF thing they complained about, but on a much more diminished scale, to the most unpopular royals (bar Andrew, which is no benchmark), the most publicity seeking pair reeking of desperation in their effort to regain the credibility of the RF and the re-acceptance of the British public as Royals, the very institution they detested and which a lot of us lauded them for leaving, so much for living an independent life. Multiple court cases at the expenses of the taxpayer for public money for their personal expenses.

I hope Republic will be out there with their banners and booing for the desperado Royals.

Arjan · 20/06/2026 10:12

Oh and wait for the private British boarding school education, one of the most elite education systems in the world, they won’t want their little Prince & Princess missing out on that.

CurlewKate · 20/06/2026 10:23

Oh joy. We’re on to H&M.

LipglossAndLies · 20/06/2026 11:21

Mylovelygreendress · 20/06/2026 09:13

Harry could have stayed and accepted his very privileged position . He and Meghan would never have had to worry about money , housing , security etc BUT , being a couple of jealous brats they flounced off because they were never going to be the same as William and Catherine .
They didn’t “ flee for their lives” or any of the other nonsense statements that supporters claim . They simply didn’t want to be less important that W and C.

He could have had all the money and security if he'd stayed isn't quite the killer argument you seem to think it is.

Plenty of people choose independence over a comfortable life where their position depends on keeping others happy. The fact that Harry walked away from enormous privilege suggests there may have been factors at play beyond simply wanting more money, attention or status that we don't know of.

Reducing it all to 'they flounced off because they were jealous' is less an argument than a statement of your own personal dislike of them. It doesn't actually address the point I was making about the heir/spare dynamic at all.

Araminta1003 · 20/06/2026 11:30

I didn’t follow the Harry thing much but I thought they both (Harry & Meghan) suffered with mental health issues. Just because you have money/privilege does not mean you have good mental health and if it is bad, then clearly you may have to walk away and don’t get much of a choice in the short term at least.
The “harassment” by the press may well have led to actual paranoia, in a more clinical form. I know people who have been to countries where you are followed and listened in to and they have suffered PTSD as a result.

Any kid in the real world who loses their mum really young and whose parents are divorced early too, gets sympathy from most people.

Southwestten · 20/06/2026 12:04

Any kid in the real world who loses their mum really young and whose parents are divorced early too, gets sympathy from most people.

I agree, but on mumsnet if they are posh or especially royal, then somehow trauma from loss or any PTSD is dismissed as because being rich insulates people from these mental health problems, or even because they are rich/posh they deserve it.

LipglossAndLies · 20/06/2026 12:47

It will be interesting to see how their toxic heir/spare dynamic plays out with the Wales children.

BemusedAmerican · 20/06/2026 12:54

Both George V and George VI were raised as spares. They didn't seem to have toxic relationships with their older siblings ( until Edward VIII abdicated and turned into a toxic spare).

BemusedAmerican · 20/06/2026 12:57

Charles, prior to the Andrew blowup, seems to have gotten along with his younger siblings. The problem seems to be Harry.

I've never met Harry but he does not appear to have a rich inner life with strong interests. I think he is one of those people whose life must be heavily structured.

Mylovelygreendress · 20/06/2026 14:08

But they didn’t choose independence @LipglossAndLies
They wanted to pick and choose what they did and were told no . I agree that some of the stuff the royals do must be boring but it’s the price they pay for unimaginable luxury.
Harry expected to still be funded hence him complaining about being “ cut off financially “. He thought he would retain his security as per his statement saying he was an IPP.
He and M are desperately clinging on to their Royal titles and have even insisted on them for their DC . Why be connected to an institution which - allegedly- caused them almost unsurvivable trauma ?
Why are they so keen to reconnect ?
And can we remember that William also lost his mother ?

LipglossAndLies · 20/06/2026 17:57

Mylovelygreendress · 20/06/2026 14:08

But they didn’t choose independence @LipglossAndLies
They wanted to pick and choose what they did and were told no . I agree that some of the stuff the royals do must be boring but it’s the price they pay for unimaginable luxury.
Harry expected to still be funded hence him complaining about being “ cut off financially “. He thought he would retain his security as per his statement saying he was an IPP.
He and M are desperately clinging on to their Royal titles and have even insisted on them for their DC . Why be connected to an institution which - allegedly- caused them almost unsurvivable trauma ?
Why are they so keen to reconnect ?
And can we remember that William also lost his mother ?

This is exactly what I mean. I raise the heir/spare dynamic and you come back with a grab bag of Harry grievances that don't actually address it.

None of those points rebut what I said.
And the William point is especially odd because nobody suggested William didn't lose his mother. Nobody is comparing grief or claiming Harry had a monopoly on suffering. William isn't even the subject of the discussion. The point is that they occupied different positions within the family and institution afterwards.

You also seem to think they wanted to pick and choose is some devastating criticism. Why shouldn't they? Harry wasn't the heir. There was no established model for someone in his position stepping back. The Palace wanted one arrangement, Harry wanted another, they couldn't agree, so he left. That's called a disagreement, not proof of jealousy.

As for wanting a relationship with his father while criticising the institution, that's not the contradiction you think it is. Most people can distinguish between a parent and the organisation they happen to belong to.

The more I read your replies, the more it feels like you're arguing with a version of Harry you've constructed in your head rather than engaging with the point actually being made. Every road somehow leads back to "Harry bad" regardless of what the discussion was about in the first place.

I wont be responding anymore since this isnt a thread about Harry.

Serenster · 20/06/2026 18:30

As for wanting a relationship with his father while criticising the institution, that's not the contradiction you think it is. Most people can distinguish between a parent and the organisation they happen to belong to.

Who are these “most people” you are referring to here? I would have assumed this is a fairly small demographic.

Indigovelvet · 20/06/2026 18:35

You can love a parent but not like the enmeshed family dynamics and the role the parent plays.

Indigovelvet · 20/06/2026 18:39

ETON School fees - 64k a year! That a lot of money or maybe not when you live in a magical kingdom.

Serenster · 20/06/2026 18:48

Indigovelvet · 20/06/2026 18:35

You can love a parent but not like the enmeshed family dynamics and the role the parent plays.

That’s not the same though, is it? Family dynamics don’t come with a strict code of conduct and public life principles you need to abide by.

BemusedAmerican · 20/06/2026 19:40

If he went to Dalton on NYC, an extremely prestigious private day school, it would be $67k. At least Eton includes room and board.

Southwestten · 20/06/2026 20:13

@BemusedAmerican
Is private education in America a contentious subject like it is in UK?

wordler · 20/06/2026 23:19

Southwestten · 20/06/2026 20:13

@BemusedAmerican
Is private education in America a contentious subject like it is in UK?

Not in the same way nationally because the country is too big - it’s something that is reflected on at a state level and then even on a county level within states.

Some wealthy counties have a big budget for state schools where the level of education is very high and facilities excellent. And there are states and counties within states where things are very poor for state school pupils.

There’s also a much bigger culture of bursaries and financial aid - at my daughters school there are wealthy alumni who donate millions a year to the school’s endowment fund, which means over 2/3s of pupils get some sort of financial aid and some get 70-80% paid for.

Fees are over $75,000 a year for boarding, $55,000 for day pupils.

Before this year DD had done ten years in the state school system which was really excellent where we are, if we hadn’t had a family medical emergency I would have been happy to stay with the state system.

Class sizes though are very different - last year at state school she had 25-30 in a class - this year it’s been 6-12 a class.

BemusedAmerican · 20/06/2026 23:52

NYC has charter schools, which are a variant of public schools, the pricey private schools, and public schools. There has been a big conflict between the charters and public schools but many people send kids to the charter because they are better. Catholic schools are closing because parents send the kids to charter schools.

I grew up on Long Island, where each town funds its own schools, restricted to residents, and the schools were very good. I knew people who were sent to Catholic schools because of stricter discipline.

I met only a few people who went to private schools or boarding school or military academy. It never seemed important. My impression is that most people want a good free public school for their kids.

Southwestten · 21/06/2026 08:27

@BemusedAmerican thank you for answering my question.

FleurDeFleur · 21/06/2026 09:51

BemusedAmerican · 20/06/2026 12:54

Both George V and George VI were raised as spares. They didn't seem to have toxic relationships with their older siblings ( until Edward VIII abdicated and turned into a toxic spare).

Yes, and Harry seems to have turned into Edward; greedy and selfish.

LipglossAndLies · 21/06/2026 11:20

BemusedAmerican · 20/06/2026 12:54

Both George V and George VI were raised as spares. They didn't seem to have toxic relationships with their older siblings ( until Edward VIII abdicated and turned into a toxic spare).

The heir and spare dynamic made far more sense in an era when people married younger, had larger families, infant mortality was higher, and there was a strong expectation that everyone would follow a fairly prescribed path.

Its a different world now and modern life is completely different. For example people marry later, have fewer children, or choose not to have children at all. The eldest child isn't automatically expected to follow one path while younger siblings accept another.

That's why trying to apply centuries-old heir-and-spare thinking to modern family relationships feels a bit anachronistic.

Society has changed, and so have people's expectations of their role within a family.

gatorlizzie · 21/06/2026 11:40

LipglossAndLies · 21/06/2026 11:20

The heir and spare dynamic made far more sense in an era when people married younger, had larger families, infant mortality was higher, and there was a strong expectation that everyone would follow a fairly prescribed path.

Its a different world now and modern life is completely different. For example people marry later, have fewer children, or choose not to have children at all. The eldest child isn't automatically expected to follow one path while younger siblings accept another.

That's why trying to apply centuries-old heir-and-spare thinking to modern family relationships feels a bit anachronistic.

Society has changed, and so have people's expectations of their role within a family.

I thought you weren't responding any more? 🤷‍♀️

Oh but the name Harry isn't in it ...just spare..

HeirSpare · 21/06/2026 11:51

Saw a comment above from someone claiming to feel sorry for Prince George because he "has his life mapped out for him". I don't feel sorry for George or Charlotte because they both have clearly defined roles. George is the future king, while Charlotte appears well-positioned to be the future Princess Royal - a role which has been admirably performed by Anne for many years.

I do however have some sympathy for Prince Louis. He appears destined to be the next Spare, without an obvious role, and thus following in the footsteps of his uncle Harry. And it will be interesting to see if the neurodiversity rumours around Louis are ever substantiated, and how that impacts his role in public life as he matures.