Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Harry and Meghan have removed Archie and Lilibet from school after two days

1000 replies

MinnieMounjaro · 14/09/2026 20:41

Breaking news in the Daily Mail. Duke and Duchess of Sussex's children 'removed from school after two days' mol.im/a/16130877 via https://dailym.ai/android

I do wonder if there is actually any school that will be able to meet their expectations in regard to security. I'm interested to see how it all plays out.

OP posts:
Pepperlee · Yesterday 07:38

Foolish1984 · Yesterday 05:24

Games? Have you heard yourself?! I’m getting mightily sick of this trend of ‘hating Harry & Meghan because they dared to leave the UK’ YAWN!

You've missed the point. Nobody I know cared less that they left the UK.

ANNotherWriter · Yesterday 07:38

My take on it is was planned. I wonder if they even went to school for 2 days.
It beggars belief that they didn't get advice on security before their children started that school. even the most ordinary families consider the school run and traffic!

It's a cynical ruse to try to get public funded security.

ElonMess · Yesterday 07:38

JudgeJ · 14/09/2026 21:54

I do hope they write a book when they're older of how they were pushed from pillar to post by their dotty parents in their pursuit of a royal life.

Why do you hope this?
Why do you hope for their children to grow up and write a book about this? If they were to do so, it would imply they were emotionally scarred from their childhood. So why would you hope for this?

ANNotherWriter · Yesterday 07:40

HolidayHideaway · 14/09/2026 20:54

As I said on other thread, if the Dragon, Oxford traffic & school always going to be a potential, logistical nightmare re: security etc. Why was any of this a sudden, left-field, shock?

Edited

@HolidayHideaway How do you know which school it was ? I thought there was a press embargo on the location?

metellaestinatrio · Yesterday 07:41

Morepositivemum · Yesterday 06:08

Easy not to read about them or follow what they do if ye all find them do tiresome- it’s all of you creating the appetite in the papers for more stories! If you all didn’t follow them so much and create threads and comment then their family would just go about their daily business, no furore

But they wouldn’t would they, because they have a pathological need for attention and are constantly briefing their favoured news outlets with their latest moans and clap backs.

ReconciliationsMayVary · Yesterday 07:42

FreshJalapenos · 14/09/2026 22:48

Can you give an example of this harrasment please?

Given UK paparazzi do not photograph royals, I’d love to know what harrasment they’re facing

Agree. Everything is online / digital any press interest is border less and remote.

If anything it’s PH harassing the press with his false hacking claims and his hypocritical demands (don’t reveal our home or school location - we will do that ourselves) compromising his own children privacy and security.

OneHundredYearsOfAttitude · Yesterday 07:44

IcedPurple · Yesterday 07:35

Very neglectful of their parents not to ensure adequate security arrangements for them then.

Why didn't they just stay in California? They seem to have been perfectly safe there.

I think they are running from something in the US. If rumours are to be believed, visa or tax problems. Possibly both.

Given both Meghan and Harry's comments about the UK these past few years, I don't think they would be here if there was another choice.

It's also why everything seems poorly planned and last minute- because it is.

capsandhelmets · Yesterday 07:44

AnotherAnnie · Yesterday 07:26

poor kids have targets on their backs because they are royals, Their safety comes first.

🤔
If they have a target on their backs it's purely because their parents publicise alls sorts of security and other details about them and alienate half the world with their erratic nonsense.

This thread is full of Sussex PR. It's as irritating as the H&M are.

No other royals have the tax payer funded security Harry is demanding but by distantly bringing this all up, they are increasing the risk to all royals and to all royal children in particular, as well as any children at the school they're attend. It's 100% selfish and destructive, It's a temper tantrum and they really mostly need protection from themselves.

noonames · Yesterday 07:44

LBFseBrom · Yesterday 06:07

Perhaps it would help if the press would stay out of it. Typical Mail.

The Sussexes themselves released this news. How did you think the Mail learned about the change of school, what the problem was, when they did the recce, what they thought of the original school, what the plan is now and when they had their settling in session at the new school?

It’s tempting to think that it would probably be best if the papers refused stories / releases from H+M, it might stop them using their children to try and manipulate the public, KC3 and RAVEC. But the press cannot protect A+L from their parents. H+M’s poor decisions and awful parenting are no one’s responsibility but their own. And they’d just stick it all on instagram anyway.

AnotherAnnie · Yesterday 07:45

BeardofHagrid · Yesterday 07:26

Well, this is great, now all the squaddies are saying, “See, we knew the UK was a dangerous country.” The damage they’ve done to people’s image of Britain is terrible !

Telling off the victim of threats of attacks for making the would be attackers look bad?

Surely if these children are attacked for being royal that will hurt us more than them being kept safe.

Perhaps commenters might consider the national reputation. when suggesting parents are doing the wrong thing by prioritising their children's safety.

It is widely believed the reason for vilification of this family is racialism purporting to be other things.

cyclamenqueen · Yesterday 07:46

ANNotherWriter · Yesterday 07:40

@HolidayHideaway How do you know which school it was ? I thought there was a press embargo on the location?

If you know the area it’s pretty obvious plus it’s a large school in an urban area , not surprisingly people saw them and have broken cover . To be fair I don’t think the press have published any location until the couple themselves issued their statement .

metellaestinatrio · Yesterday 07:46

IcedPurple · Yesterday 07:35

Very neglectful of their parents not to ensure adequate security arrangements for them then.

Why didn't they just stay in California? They seem to have been perfectly safe there.

Indeed, and their parents were happy to leave them there for weeks at a time while travelling several time zones away on pretend “tours”, so they were clearly very confident the children were safe.

butterpuffed · Yesterday 07:46

Even if the security convoy of cars [one in front and one behind the children's car] became separated in the traffic , surely that could happen whatever school they go to .

IcedPurple · Yesterday 07:47

AnotherAnnie · Yesterday 07:45

Telling off the victim of threats of attacks for making the would be attackers look bad?

Surely if these children are attacked for being royal that will hurt us more than them being kept safe.

Perhaps commenters might consider the national reputation. when suggesting parents are doing the wrong thing by prioritising their children's safety.

It is widely believed the reason for vilification of this family is racialism purporting to be other things.

Perhaps commenters might consider the national reputation. when suggesting parents are doing the wrong thing by prioritising their children's safety.

"Prioritising" it so much they moved across the world without making adequate planning? And posted videos hinting at their whereabouts? And told 'Hello' magazine about their school move?

If there is a genuine threat to these children, protection will be provided. But it will be done on the basis of expert risk assessment, not internet speculation and emotional blackmail.

Wishesandhorses · Yesterday 07:50

It is such an obvious set of issues with that particular school being in that location with those very obvious traffic issues that it seems almost to have been planned to go wrong. Reminiscent of the deliberate dithering about not staying at Buckingham Palace until it's too late and the 'no' arrives, and then wailing about the no.

ANNotherWriter · Yesterday 07:52

cyclamenqueen · Yesterday 07:46

If you know the area it’s pretty obvious plus it’s a large school in an urban area , not surprisingly people saw them and have broken cover . To be fair I don’t think the press have published any location until the couple themselves issued their statement .

I know the Cotswolds but their home was never revealed or the town or village. If you mean the Dragon School in Oxford, Oxford is not exactly the Cotswolds. It's close but it's not counted as the Cotswolds.

There was clearly an embargo on it . There is nothing, absolutely nothing online about the location.

Are you saying H&M have now named the school? I can't see that anywhere in the press.

Ireallycantthinkofagoodone · Yesterday 07:54

SulkingInTheCatio · 14/09/2026 20:43

Does make you wonder are H & M doing this to try and force the decision regarding security provision? Hope not.

I think it’s exactly this. Get ‘their team’ to leak that the children can’t be kept safe on the school run…….
I do feel sorry for A and L.

Williaminagingerwig · Yesterday 07:54

Plenty of children of the rich and famous go to these schools. Why do they act as if they're uniquely famous.

ANNotherWriter · Yesterday 07:55

Williaminagingerwig · Yesterday 07:54

Plenty of children of the rich and famous go to these schools. Why do they act as if they're uniquely famous.

well he is 'unique' in the sense he's a prince!
He's obsessed with security on the basis that 'lack of it' killed his mother.

Williaminagingerwig · Yesterday 07:55

IcedPurple · Yesterday 07:47

Perhaps commenters might consider the national reputation. when suggesting parents are doing the wrong thing by prioritising their children's safety.

"Prioritising" it so much they moved across the world without making adequate planning? And posted videos hinting at their whereabouts? And told 'Hello' magazine about their school move?

If there is a genuine threat to these children, protection will be provided. But it will be done on the basis of expert risk assessment, not internet speculation and emotional blackmail.

This, absolutely. That's the issue.
They want the UK taxpayers to pay for it all.

noonames · Yesterday 07:57

Maybe the plan is

a) be such insufferable twats that there’s a lot of what a PP called ‘hate’ online (ie general amusement / irritation / piss taking)

b) get people on social media to point out the ‘hate’, imaginary ‘daily death threats’ etc

c) make their location known so they get hassled and papped (didn’t work)

d) demonstrate how incompetent their private security team is

e) make it all about the children for maximum effect

People hate us… daily death threats… impossible to keep our children safe with private security.. ta daaa! Tax payer funded protection please!

Bunnycat101 · Yesterday 07:57

The bizarre thing is that it feels like the Cambridge kids are having a more ‘normal’ life despite being higher profile and in direct line. By all accounts they were basically left alone when they were in Norfolk.

When Boris was PM or soon after, he was out at mini football with his kids (family member saw him there). Lots of high profile people
do just get on with it.

ANNotherWriter · Yesterday 07:58

Makes you wonder whatever next.
A 'fake' attempted kidnap?
Some drama they concoct to prove their point?

ANNotherWriter · Yesterday 08:00

The thing is they are both so dim that they can't see how transparent this is to the British public.

1 Whine about lack of security - paid for by us.
2 Choose a location and keep it private
3 Choose a school with a long school run
4 Make an Inst video when you want privacy
5 complain after 2 days that the school run is too risky, you need more security, take your kids out of school after 2 days.

Idiots.

SqueakyDinosaur · Yesterday 08:01

ANNotherWriter · Yesterday 07:55

well he is 'unique' in the sense he's a prince!
He's obsessed with security on the basis that 'lack of it' killed his mother.

Edited

Lack of security didn't kill his mother. Lack of a seat belt did.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.