Why do British royal children not go to state schools like the Scandanavian royals?

Germanshepherdsmum wrote that private education seems to give some a 'sense of superiority and entitlement.'

I was state school educated and I have noticed that too. It's a kind of innocent (or not so innocent) arrogance. I first noticed it when we were invited to the 'posh school' to play sport and have tea afterwards. We were very definitely made to feel like the Bash Street Kids. 'Townies' being handed crumbs from the table. We were at a disadvantage from day one.

Urmstongran said that there will always be plumbers and hairdressers and academics and she is right. The shame is that our system is set up to ensure that, in the main, the sons and daughters of plumbers become plumbers and the children of academics become academics.

Private education is out of reach for most people however much they long to make the very best choices for their children.

Our MPs demonstrate the terrible cost to this country of funnelling those who can afford it into senior positions via a system based entirely on financial means rather than ability.

This country could afford a better state education for all but chooses not to. That's a shame isn't it? The vast majority of those in power were privately educated and will privately educate their own children. Why should they care about the 90% of children whose parents have no choice?

The single most important thing that any government could do to improve the future of the nation would be to spend every penny available on education in order to release the potential of all children, not just those whose parents can afford it. What those children could achieve with the advantages currently only available to 10% of our kids. I am and have always been willing to pay more tax to enable this. I am south of the border so please don't think we were all the same Volver.

Germanshepherdsmum

I didn’t have a private education. Nor did my son. I’m sure we would both have liked the advantages it undoubtedly gives. However it also seemed to give some people I worked with a rather unpleasant sense of superiority and entitlement.

I have nothing against choice but I greatly dislike the sense of superiority and entitlement. Of course by no means all fee-paying schools foster that, but some certainly do.

In the case of the Cambridge children I expect the need for tight security features heavily in the suitability of available schools. They are obvious targets and a state school wouldn’t be sufficiently safe.

I agree there are a couple of adults we know who have been privately educated, who display a lofty manner when discussing the whole state versus private school education issue and certainly stoke up divisions. I know one such person who in the past when our circle's children were embarking on school life " came out with this remark "if you send them to state school they'll be lucky to come out of it writing their own name" By contrast we also have good friends, both parents privately educated shunned that for their children sending them through the state sector from nursery to 18 and were adamant they would have never considered the alternative.

In a previous house we lived in, it was very near a prep school. When we first moved there a neighbour across the road came wandering over to introduce herself with the comment "I imagine you've moved here because of prep school up the road" where hers went. Our children were pre school age at the time. I responded with a "no have them down for x state infant/primary ". She practically shrank back as if I'd announced I had the Bubonic Plague. At the same time I was shocked by her assumption as I am by the judgements some make about what is a personal matter, as personal as religious beliefs imo, and who'd even ask about those in a challenging manner.

I have no idea how royal children are treated in school, but the totally state educated children of an MP, also state educated, passed scholarships to attend local Grammar schools, where they are given a hard time about their parents' politics by some of the younger teachers.

Security for the Cambridges won't be paid from the education budget.

You start by having the grounds secured and highly sophisticated cctv on the entrance points. Not just to keep out terrorists and nutters, but to stop the devious press hacking into the equipnent and getting as much as a photo. In the building, all the rooms would obviously have to have panic buttons. Teachers would be equipped with bleepers. Yes, it's a huge expense but probably a drop in the ocean in the size of the national security budget.

I think the tricky task is to make security as unobtrusive as possible for the daily running of the school. Security detail will be invisible, but very present if that makes sense. It is necessary for the safety of everyone in the setting.

If the Cambridge children went to a state school quite possibly
their behaviour etc would be written of in the press

Yet Bridgewater in Scotswood is one of the best schools I have experienced in my professional capacity

I can’t see how a state school could be made sufficiently secure for children in direct line of succession to the throne. Imagine the opportunities for a relative of another pupil, even dare I say a member of staff, who is intent on doing harm. We see terrorism emerging in some very unexpected places nowadays - people who nobody suspected of having been radicalised. The threat can’t be totally eradicated anywhere but protection is far more easily achieved in a smaller private school.

CoolCoco

I don't know why a state school couldn't be made as "safe" as a private one, presumably security could be employed, I'm guessing the taxpayer funds the royals bodyguards etc. Tony Blair's, and I believe Cameron and Gove's kid went to state schools in Westminster.

Went to school in Westminster!!! not the Scotswood Road area of N/C or any inner city school, or even your average primary school. It was still selective because of its catchment. Security is tight in normal schools but cannot be focused on three children unless there is extra funding.

Volver FYI there are 33 (STABIS) state boarding schools in the UK providing boarding accommodation for many ex pats.

We were recently having a discussion about the pros and cons of state versus private education with my son (state) and his girlfriend (public school) From their many retrospective observations my son pointed out that, his senior school, in spite of being a well regarded comprehensive, his recollection was always an inordinate amount of teaching time lost to low level disruption, something that didn't crop up during his partner's school life.

I don't know why a state school couldn't be made as "safe" as a private one, presumably security could be employed, I'm guessing the taxpayer funds the royals bodyguards etc. Tony Blair's, and I believe Cameron and Gove's kid went to state schools in Westminster.

GrannySomerset

Can you imagine how impossible security would be in most state schools? The physical safety of the children must have been a major factor in the decision.

I think you might have something there. I worked next to a school where the children of very wealthy parents went. A member of staff said it was like working in a prison. The family paid for security and extra fences etc. The children did not have a normal school life where security is pretty tight these days, and that went for all the other children in the school as well.
It would give them a chance of mixing with children from normal backgrounds but not knowing Windsor and its environs, wouldn't they be in a well-off catchment anyway?

I didn’t have a private education. Nor did my son. I’m sure we would both have liked the advantages it undoubtedly gives. However it also seemed to give some people I worked with a rather unpleasant sense of superiority and entitlement.

I have nothing against choice but I greatly dislike the sense of superiority and entitlement. Of course by no means all fee-paying schools foster that, but some certainly do.

In the case of the Cambridge children I expect the need for tight security features heavily in the suitability of available schools. They are obvious targets and a state school wouldn’t be sufficiently safe.

Yes that's not a good system either in my view.

Calendargirl

volver

Oops, forgot something.

I an astounded that any child going to state school might be accused of depriving another of a place. Where on earth does that come from?

If the state school is over subscribed, then some children can’t get ‘in’ there, and have to go elsewhere.

So the 3 Cambridge children are probably helping local children get in the state school of their choice perhaps?

?‍♀️

Thanks Calendargirl for expanding my post to explain it, didn't realise it would result in such a reaction.

I used to be an admissions officer at a heavily over-subscribed school. It really was a very emotive subject. As soon as a place came up mid-year and it was offered it was accepted so quickly by the next person on the waiting list.

I had one parent ring me up asking about the admissions process, after explaining it I asked how old their child was, to which they replied "they haven't been born yet"! This is how competitive getting a place can be. So one less pupil from a local family will provide a place for a very happy family.

Im splitting hairs again, but why keep saying how rich daddy is in your comments volver?
Sometimes the fees are paid for by mummy, or two mummies, or even grannie, or also by companies employing the parents. If you remove the daddy payers, there are plenty of others who will enter the sector and so on.
What I'm trying to say is that things won't change. There will always be a demand.

GrannyGravy13

volver

Our children had the education/school that suited them at the time as do our grandchildren, and I will do my very best to keep that choice.

And hell l mend the rest of you?

Sometimes I get a flash of clarity about why the Tories keep getting in south of the border.

I get the impression that you would like the Asian version of schools, prescribed hair cut, learning by rote and churning out little carbon copies.

The rich Asians send their children abroad to private schools, as they can see the advantages of choice.

You get the wrong impression then. Kids can have blue hair and wear what they like as far as I'm concerned.

As long as everybody who would benefit from it gets a good education. And it doesn't depend on how rich daddy is. Or even how "comfortable" daddy is.

volver

^Our children had the education/school that suited them at the time as do our grandchildren, and I will do my very best to keep that choice.^

And hell l mend the rest of you?

Sometimes I get a flash of clarity about why the Tories keep getting in south of the border.

I get the impression that you would like the Asian version of schools, prescribed hair cut, learning by rote and churning out little carbon copies.

The rich Asians send their children abroad to private schools, as they can see the advantages of choice.

I know of a couple of seriously wealthy people (self funding) whose children all went to the local (state) schools. I think it is definitely done by some not the Royals obviously as they need to have their family splashed all over the papers in order to keep their popularity up and their coffers

nanna8

If all those with private health went public here the system would totally collapse. Ditto the school system. Maybe it is different there. They dock your pay here if you are wealthy enough to afford private health and won’t pay. Good idea.

So like taxing the well off more then?

How radical.

I think it's possible to make a critique of private education whilst understanding that it isnt always an attack on the parents who use it. In my twenties I certainly gave thought to what the schools were like in the area I moved to, I dont think this means I am a bad person nor does it mean I cant critique the system which means schools in some areas are better than others.

Our children had the education/school that suited them at the time as do our grandchildren, and I will do my very best to keep that choice.

And hell l mend the rest of you?

Sometimes I get a flash of clarity about why the Tories keep getting in south of the border.

If all those with private health went public here the system would totally collapse. Ditto the school system. Maybe it is different there. They dock your pay here if you are wealthy enough to afford private health and won’t pay. Good idea.

In Australia, I believe?

Proved the point, imo. There are a large proportion of private schools there and the relatively small and marginalised State sector has got so bad that some schools don't even know the pupils' names.

I am pro choice in every walk of life.

If I cannot afford something but others can, I am not jealous, I do not want to prevent them for being able to choose to purchase that item, whether it be education, a car, or a mansion.

Myself and my siblings all had a different education experience from the local comp, grammar school, boarding school and private day school. There are no animosities, we had the schooling that suited us at the time,

Our children had the education/school that suited them at the time as do our grandchildren, and I will do my very best to keep that choice.