We’re still talking about Prince William and Duchess Kate’s choice to send Prince George to a less conservative primary school. Many thought they would send George to Wetherby, which is where William and Harry were educated in London. Instead, George will be heading to Thomas’s School in Battersea, at a cost of about $8000 per semester, which apparently is $24,000 a year (for three semesters a year). For primary school! That’s crazy to me, although as compared to other private schools for the rich and famous, it’s probably a relative bargain. Vanity Fair’s Katie Nicholl says that Kate was “apparently keen” for George to attend a coed school, so that Charlotte would be able to join him in a few years. Nicholl says that Kate intends to join the other “yummy mummies” at the drop-offs and pick-ups as often as she can too. But why Thomas’s School specifically? The Daily Mail’s Girl About Town knows:
The Duchess of Cambridge has opted to send Prince George to a school four miles from Kensington Palace to keep him away from the spoiled offspring of oligarchs and rock stars, I’m told. George is due to attend Thomas’s in Battersea, even though the school has a branch just half a mile from the Palace. But many say that life for a pupil at Battersea is much more ‘hippy-dippy’, which is why Kate has decided to send her son there.
One ex-pupil remembers being given a merit for reciting a line from Monty Python – in Latin – aged ten. And another recounts a much-loved teacher napping in his car at lunch.
Staff dish out kooky golden unicorn stickers instead of the usual gold stars, to reward pupils for tying their shoelaces. The mythical creatures will already be familiar to George – they adorn the gates of KP.
I wonder if this was a fight between Kate and William? Because that seems like a statement against the way William was raised, in which he was surrounded by the children of the incredibly rich, the aristocrats, and the leaders of the nation. It’s like Kate is saying to William: I don’t want George to turn out as stuffy and posh as you. Then again, I wonder if William even cares or thought about it too hard. Anyway, as I said, I don’t really have an issue with George attending a school full of kids who come from less privileged backgrounds… although let’s be real, the kids at this school are still really privileged. But they’re privileged in the same way the Middletons are privileged – upper middle class privileged. The children of millionaires, not billionaires.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
The only thing I have to say is that her hairstyle in the first photo sucks.
Why not send him to the branch of the school nearest the palace? Seems odd.
Does it really make a difference? He will grow up with other posh rich kids one way or another. They’ll always live in their “royal bubble”, not knowing how it is to live in the real world.
I was thinking the same thing. As soon as this little kid realizes he’s going to be “King” one day, she can forget about it lol. He will know he is “special” and will get treated that way his whole life. No way he will be humble about it. He already has a bit of an attitude and he’s just a kid yet lol. He’s a real cutie though.
Bit of an attitude? He is three for goodness sake, and we’ve hardly seen anything of him.
Wetherby became a school for famous people’s kids. I think the Beckhams sent their boys their. They probably wanted to keep away from the celeb connections.
They themselves love celebrity connections. Posh and Becks at their wedding, setting up the useless BAFTA event in California to try to lure Jolie (she declined). The Jolie meeting last year. KM looking bored out of her mind at the China state dinner until Jackie Chan showed up and she gushed all over him. W&K love celebrities.
I was thinking that maybe this is William’s decision, and Kate went along, cause I can’t see Carole/Kate rejecting the friendship of the wealthy and famous. Also, I don’t see Kate as a hippie in any way, shape or form. I actually see William while in Africa more of a hippie and definitely see Harry as a hippier type. Cressida, definitely. But Kate?? Never.
Kate is not comfortable with the real upper class – British nobility, as it were. Look at her friends: /I mean we don’t see any and she has probably been snubbed by them all her life. So this is her acting out of instinct and doing what is more comfortable for her – putting George in a school where the merely rich will fall all over each other curtsying to her, instead of snickering behind her back at her forced accent and mop of hair.
I may well be wrong with my armchair psychology. But George will e fine and king anyway, whether his classmates are millionaires or billionaires, and accepted amongst the blue-blooded despite his mother. This is all about her. Will doesn’t care.
Aren’t there always rumors that other RF members and aristocrats don’t take her seriously etc?
I think that is definitely part of the equation, but William has such issues with his father he is determined to ensure his children have an entirely different upbringing. I highly doubt George will be going to Eton.
Megan, I see this as much more Will’s move also. His rejection. I think Kate loves the rich and famous, and Carole sure does!
@vauvert
I don’t think you are wrong at all. Kate will always do what is most comfortable for herself even if it doesn’t bode well for others. It is a good and very reliable assumption that Kate did chose that school because she believes that she won’t get snubbed or ridiculed there.
I just believe that Kate’s calculation is wrong: the British Aristos are known for ridiculing her and her family behind her back:
“the Wisteria sisters”, Pippa and Kate: terribly fragrant and terribly good social climbers and that was mentioned in Ta_tler’s which is British Aristocracy’s society, fashion and party magazine.
“the limpet” allegedly invented by Prince Harry to describe Kate.
Also most self-made rich people and even the inherited old money types won’t like Kate because she didn’t achieve anything in that field which is very important to all rich types: a professional career or at least an attempt at that. I believe that the rich will ridicule Kate behind her back, too, and try to use her to their own benefit.
Do old money people ever achieve anything on their own? Especially aristocrats? They have their money because their ancestors were probably horrible people, not because they did something.
Honestly, this school sounds to me like a much healthier environment for kids than the aristo boarding school William and his like had to attend. What makes you think that this decision “doesn’t bode well for others”? I can’t understand your cynical perspective in this case – they chose the school which by all accounts is actually better for both of their kids than the other option. William presumably had a say in this decision, and he likely had a reason why he didn’t want to send his kids to the type of school he himself attended.
Oh, there are some. Julian Fellowes has done rather well. Dan Snow and Edwina Grosvenor are a posh successful couple. The Earl of Carnarvon and his younger brother have done very well for themselves. And of course, Winston Churchill was the ultimate success.
Though it is an interesting question how well aristos and old money would do if they hadn’t had the possibilities in education and networking that they have always had.
Where would Fellowes be without his families’ money and connections and without his habitus? Same for the rest.
There are more than you wouldn’t know (or would not realize that there is old money behind the person you do know). My sister-in-law is a well-respected physician – she heads a department at a major academic medical center. Her mother’s maiden name is almost certainly on multiple products in almost every American home. There was a substantial trust fund that paid my sister-in-law’s medical school tuition (and that is paying for my nieces and nephews to go to school, too), but she worked for that degree and deserved every job and every promotion she has ever had.
Most people she meets have no idea about the family money – they see the doctor, the wife and the mother – and that’s what she wants people to see, because that’s who she really is – not just another great-x-grandchild of someone else.
I agree with Liz. Look at Julia Louis-Dreyfus – she comes from a very established family with absolute pots of money. But she has worked her arse off at every job she’s ever had, and is one of the best actors around. Nothing to do with her family wealth and/or connections.
Who believes that George (and Duchess Dolittle), knowing he will be king, won’t lord it over everyone? It’s like putting a big fish in a little pond.
That was exactly what I was going to say, but referring to Kate. She would rather be the big fish in a smaller pond than just one of many.
Nothing they do makes sense, but I could totally see them (her especially) doing something like this (big fish/little pond) that bolsters feelings of self – regardless of what is best for the child. Meanwhile #poorjason has to find a good angle.
That has to be a joke, surely?
At a price tag of Pounds 24.000 a year Little George will meet children of the filthy rich and british aristos and probably a lot of oligarchs.
Does anybody seriously believe that the British filthy rich and the British Aristos don’t produce terribly spoilt useless bratzki offspring??? Seriously???
It often seemed to me that the drug problems among children who attended boarding schools and among the British Aristocracy was much greater than among children from “normal” backgrounds who attend day schools or even state schools.
This sounds quite xenophobic to me – he will be surrounded with the British posh, not with oligarch kids which are presumably Russian? Or foreign for the most part?
I don’t consider it xenophobic. The russian orligarchs have billions. They allowance they give their kids are insane. None of them are nice people. I wouldn’t want my kids socialising with them.
@ Tryingtothink – I think your last sentence is way short of the mark.
I’ll admit I live in something of a privilege bubble myself, but if you live in a HCOL area (like London), $24k/yr is expensive but not insane. I live in SF and we send our son to a preschool that costs $22k/yr. My husband and I do make very good money but we are not millionaires and don’t come from an ultra-wealthy background (my parents were the first people in their families to go to university, my FIL is a retired traffic cop, MIL was a secretary). There are definitely some parents are our school who are much wealthier than we are, but most are around our income level–the ultra wealthy are going to much more expensive/exclusive places! We are not rubbing shoulders with the Zuckerbergs or other Bay Area “royalty”. So while $24k/yr definitely means George isn’t going to be going to school with poor/working class/middle class kids, I’d say there’s a good chance he’ll be interacting with a lot of kids whose families aren’t anywhere near the aristocracy or the ultra-rich.
I agree with the sentiment that Kate may have picked this school because she feels more comfortable with it/the families there are more at her level of privilege. And wanting a co-ed school is totally legit–if I had a boy and a girl I would want them to be at the same school as much as possible. But I also agree that she’s probably in for a lot of private scorn from other families. I mean, I can send my kid to such a pricey school because my husband and I both WORK at full-time jobs. I’m friendly with many of the other mothers at our school and one of the things we all bond over is how hard it is to balance working and mothering. Some of the mothers have gone down to working PT since having kids but they still have that experience of having worked FT and they have some idea of what working FT with a young kid entails. If someone like Kate, who has never held a FT job and always had her mother AND a FT nanny AND household staff on hand to assist her, were to show up…well, we just wouldn’t have a lot in common.
I agree with the comment that $24k/year is expensive, but not insane. I live Providence, RI which is a small US city. Within five miles of my house, there are 4 schools with tuitions that are MORE than this for pre-school/elementary school. I was actually surprised that the heir to the British throne would attend a school with this pricetag.
It’s not a tremendous amount of money for them or for any parents who are truly wealthy, to be sure.
But George and Charlotte aren’t going to be rubbing shoulders with the kids of policeman and bank branch managers, either. It will be the kids of stockbrokers and investment bankers, and the odd successful surgeon or something.
Plus, aristocrats don’t always go to the most expensive schools. There will be a smattering of them around, I am sure.
Why do people think Chutney would interact with stuffy other parents anyway? Like she has so many friends, “NOT”!!!
I agree. We’ve had to pay this much for daycare in the Boston suburbs, so I recognize 24K is expensive, but it isn’t millionaire expensive.
I have to agree. London school tuitions are in line with places like San Francisco and New York.
I live in NYC. Private preschool here is at least $25,000 a year, for full-day, 5 days a week (less for the youngest kids who only go 3 days a week for 3 hours a day). I’m paying almost $50,000 for middle school. My husband and I are lawyers – we make very comfortable salaries, by most every standard, we are relatively wealthy. My parents were teachers, his were government employees. That said, we are not among the super-wealthy – one (small) apartment, one (old) car, one vacation every other year (plus periodic visits to family in such exotic locations as Atlanta, GA and Central New Hampshire).
I don’t expect her to interact with the other mothers, unless for a photo op. Once the initial photo op is over, they’ll likely file multiple lawsuits to prevent the press from legally photographing her and the kids in a public place (ie. outside school gates). She ignored the military wives in Wales, the people who would have had her back and not sold her out. She doesn’t like other women, period.
Reading this I’m so glad that where I live in Europe, state schools are good and are the go-to-choice for average families – there aren’t many private schools around anyway. Like this, we can go on holiday at least once a year and still live comfortably within our means (and pay lots of taxes…).
The cost of the school will be much the same whether George goes to school in Kensington or Battersea. It’s not about that. It’s about the cost of the real estate in the surrounding area, and who can afford it. Oligarchs and wealthy Middle Easterners will only live in certain areas: Mayfair, Belgravia, Kensington. Some aristocrats still live in those areas, but not as many as you think. They would never give up the country pile, but the London townhouse is expendable. Especially when one can sell up, buy a nice flat as a pied à terre and pour the rest of the money into the ever-thirsty estate at home.
The top of the professional classes (and by that I mean people like investment bankers, top surgeons who do a lot of private work, barristers and partners in law firms, who will earn £1m+ per year) will live in places like Islington, Battersea, Westminster, Fulham, etc. (These are by no means all British people, by the way, lots of Europeans, North Americans, Antipodeans, etc.) The rest of the professional classes (and young aristos) live further out. At this stage we’re talking about places like East Dulwich, Putney, and even Tooting.
But anyway, the point is that in London the difference between the ultra-rich and the merely rich is mostly a matter of post code. There will be a big difference between George’s classmates in Battersea and those he would have had in Kensington. Not in terms of nationality, they will be an international bunch in both places. But in terms of relative wealth of their parents. I realise it may not seem like a big difference, they’re all very wealthy. But I do actually applaud Kate for this choice.
Funny, people who insist everything is William’s fault, that she’s under his thumb, some even implying he’s abusive? So many of them are now insisting that she’s responsible for this school choice. No knowing who made this choice. It certainly wasn’t their security team or all the people in London rush hour who will have to put up with a royal motorcade twice a day at rush hour for years.
You could as easily say that the new school will be filled with nouveau riche social climbers, so she’ll fit right in.
Oh yeah, I have no idea who made the choice. I just assume it was Kate because I assume that William has little interest in the day to day raising of his children. That may be unfair, but there it is.
If it involves sticking it to the royal family, RPOs, and all the other London rush hour traffic sufferers? You can bet William had a hand in it. Yes, they have a right to choose their children’s school (for which the taxpayers will pay via the Duchy). That choice has to be made with many factors involved, and consideration of anyone else isn’t their strong suit. Never makes it on their radar.
When i think about the Kensington/Battersea traffic, rush hour or not, i’m glad i don’t have to do it. Battersea bridge is a bottleneck. Adding a royal motorcade to it is going to be a nightmare. There is no room for cars to make way for a motorcade rushing past them, and i don’t see the royal motorcade sitting in traffic.
…….but there is a commercial helipad/heliport in battersea, perhaps the kids will be flown to the helipad/heliport and driven to school from there.
But Ivanka was hoping for a play date with Arabella and Joseph! Yet another of Poor Little Princess Nagini’s hopes dashed.
Princess Nagini – lmao!
Princess Nagini the Corrupt of the Most Sacred Horcruxed Vagina. Daughter of Voldemort, wife of Tom Riddle.
Arabella is the tackiest rich person name ever.
Arabella isn’t tacky, even if Ivanka gave her kid that name.
Arabella, tacky? In what universe?
Her children’s names are probably the only thing that I can stand about Ivanka.
It sounds like a fake Disney princess name, or a name you think is sophisticated when you’re 13.
It’s a personal opinion; and in my opinion, it’s tacky as all get out. It’s near top of my list for names favoured by ruthless arrivistes.
I was just thinking that too. Embarrassing
Kata: You may think that, but Arabella is a scottish name. It’s a variant on Annabel and has been around since medieval times.
Nothing to do with disney, rich people or whatever reason you want to be rude about it simply because Ivanka named her child Arabella.
Further, perhaps naming her child Arabella is the only self aware thing Ivanka has ever done since her grandmother was Scottish and the family maintains ties to Scotland.
None of us can verify why Ivanka chose that name – I choose to ascribe it to an infantile obsession with Disney princesses from which she’s never matured.
And if you ever look at her Instagram feed, you’ll see a whole lot more corroborating evidence of Disney princess than any homage to her heritage.
It’s akin to the upwardly-Mobiles naming their kids Mercedes or Lexus, with no sense of irony, and definitely with no knowledge of its Spanish origin, in the case of Mercedes.
A person who calls one child Lexus is going to go the whole hog and give tacky name (or classic names spelt in a tacky way) to their entire brood.
Whatever reason Ivanka chose to call her child Arabella, she didn’t choose a tacky name, or a disney princess name.
There are plenty of people called Arabella so that it’s not so unusual as to be used by only disney crazed people, rich people nor was it a recent invention.
Going back to Ivanka, i can believe she was self aware enough in this instance since all her kids are named after important people in their lives and by all accounts they loved their Scottish grandma which is how they maintain their connection to Scotland. Not just building golf courses there.
Why are we insulting little kids’ names? Just because it’s Ivanka’s kid? I’m sure if someone said Malia was a strange name you would be screeching “racism!!”
I think Arabella is a lovely legit name. Granted, it has that currently over popularized sound of ‘bella’, ella’ etc and Disney does co-opt some perfectly good traditional names, for ex, Elsa… but it’s because they do have a universally pretty sound. May seem tacky if one assumes a disney influence, but generations of very un-disneyfied women have had these names. Also, plenty of tacky women manage to successfully choose lovely names for their kids, lol.
I know Arabella as the name of a character in a Czech TV series from the ’80s, and then as Ivanka’s offspring. Ivana Trump is Czech, right? I remember I made the connection when I read the nagina something name her child Arabella.
I understand that many Jewish families traditionally name children for beloved family members who have passed so if that was her grandmother’s name, it makes sense. And it would be just about the only sensible thing about Princess Nagini.
I seriously thought people were joking when they said she named her kid “Arabella”! Like they were being completely sarcastic about her bizarre spoilt life. Regardless of its origins (maybe it sounds less absurd with a Scottish accent), it is ridiculous that this clueless woman gave her daughter this fussy, faux-princess name.
Gracey: Considering the social class they belong to, new money notwithstanding, Arabella is pretty common and not at all princessy. It could have been worse. They might have called her something really twee like Bunny.
Jackie and Jack Kennedy named their first daughter, who was stillborn, Arabella.
@lightpurple, in the Jewish tradition, we usually use the *first letter* of the name of the a living person we wish to honor (it’s considered bad luck to give the child the same name of a living person). If you choose to give your child a name of a relative who is deceased, then it’s perfectly alright to use the actual name. This, of course, is just *tradition*, not all Jews follow the same customs, of course!
“Arabel(l)a” was an extremely popular children’s 1970/1980s programme in the then Czechoslovakia. Perhaps Ivana made her daughter watch it (to learn or perfect the language), and the little girl may have adored it, just like millions of other children did.
I watched live TV coverage of Ivanka deplaning Air Force One at Palm Beach, Fl with her children. They have their own official wing of WH now don’t they? The nepotism is sickening.
THere’s that word again… keeeeeeen.
If your truly aristocracy you mix with everyone and you are not a snob. Kate is actually middle class so having big houses big cars butlers, ladies in waiting and nannies could make her terribly haughty because she has not been brought up with it. Although the aristo are normally a tight circle who recognise and stick with one another through schools and marriage because they have their own code of conduct. It sounds like the school is full of thespians and artist kids which makes me think they want to influence George away from the stiffness of upper class life and search out his artistic talents. Great painter, writer,speaks five languages etc etc etc I wouldn’t be surprised if Capricorn Kate is an artistic snob and is hoping for an all dancing and singing royal new generation.
HM, Charles, Philip all speak multiple languages. So do P&P Michael of Kent and their kids. Charles, Philip, and Lady Sarah Chatto are accomplished painters. As was Queen Victoria. Charles designs gardens and buildings too. Linley is a talented woodworker. Their upbringing encouraged their talents, it didn’t stifle them.
Given what we’ve seen of Kate’s artistic ability (snail painting, fuzzy photos) and her lack of knowledge about basics covered in Art History (Faberge)? I cannot see her as being fluent in art or having the ability to perceive great artistic talent in a 3 year old.
How can she lack knowledge in art history?! It was her major ffs!!!
Also, why choose AH as a major? It seem like a peculiar choice given that she has never appeared to have an interest/understanding in/of art.
@Llamas Think of the B.F.A in AH as more of an MRS in HRH…
I’ve never understood this snark about Kate not being up-to-date on Fabergé egg production. I have an art history degree. Guess what? A four-year art history degree doesn’t cover every single aspect of every single era and region of art. Every art history degree is different. You pick what interests you / what fits in your schedule from the courses that are offered at your institution during your time there. I don’t think Fabergé eggs were mentioned in a single one of my courses, even the big ‘history of Western art’-type survey courses. Which is understandable, because they’re a pretty specific thing, and if you didn’t take courses on Russian art or decorative arts, there’s no reason why you’d learn about them. My level of interest/knowledge would be the same as Kate’s: “Oh, are they still making those things? Huh. Wonder who buys ’em. Well, that’s nice, I guess.”
If she’d asked what a Fabergé bird looks like, I’d be a little concerned, but insisting that Fabergé eggs are somehow central to any art history curriculum or dear to the heart of any art history major is just not accurate.
Ravine: You don’t need an Art history degree to know about Faberge eggs. They were the central plot of a Bond film in the 80s – OCTOPUSSY – which tells you how ingrained in popular culture.
Faberge eggs are probably the only thing most people know about Russian art of any era without having any specific interest in art or Russian art at all.
Kate’s mistake was that she joined a family that has one of the biggest art collections of any type of art in the western world. It is rumoured they have the biggest collection of Faberge eggs held by a single collector / owner. And apparently she paid no attention to any of this. All the royals (and in-laws) that have claimed an interest in art have taken a tour of the royal art collections, but apparently not Kate. And to parade her ignorance over a piece of art that most non art / art history people know.
It’s on a par with hanging a ‘negro page’ painting on her reception room and only realising a few moments when Obama arrived to be received that it might cause offense. As someone who has an interest in history of art, irrespective of her specialty, should know better.
Thank you, LAK. This was also during a “surprise” event, where HM was said not to know that Jamie L-P and Katie Keen had called in the photographers. On “personal time” they were looking at the new exhibit – royal wedding dresses and Faberge. How’s about spending 15 minutes learning about the exhibit before you surprise HM with a photo op, eh?
I guess I wasn’t very clear up there. I know that Fabergé eggs are a thing that most people are *aware* of, precisely because they’re a famous and distinctive type of art. Most people obviously know they exist and will input the right answer if “Tsar’s encrusted ovoid” comes up in a crossword puzzle. What I’m saying is that I’m not shocked if her knowledge of them is limited to that superficial level, since it’s still a pretty specific slice of art history to focus on, and probably isn’t covered much if at all outside of specialized electives in the West.
I didn’t know that the Royal Family owned any. That changes things somewhat. Yes, you’d think someone marrying into a family with such an impressive collection of art would make a point of familiarizing herself with it if she had any interest in the subject.
I thought the issue was just that she asked if Fabergé eggs are still being made, unaware of the current state of the fancy fake egg market, and commenters were acting like this was a RIDICULOUS question for an erstwhile art history student to ask. It really isn’t! And it also doesn’t prove that she knows NOTHING about the eggs, just that she doesn’t happen to know that particular thing about them.
P.S. After writing two whole comments about Kate Middleton and Fabergé eggs, I’m now reevaluating my life choices.
Ravine: your last paragraph….i feel like that all the time.
Chutney and Willie will just be following the heard. Its probably what their (I mean his) Richie poo friends are doing. Chutney always folllowd the heard. No original thinking.
@ Starlight
I believe that Aristos and upper class people often just pretend to socialise on friendly terms with people from classes below their own. They are kind of bon-vivant and jovial with you as long as they need something from you or as long as you are entertaining them. As soon as you turn your back to them the trashtalk you very precisely. They believe themselves to be superior and like themselves for lowering themselves down to your level to talk to you. Kind of like: Aristo: “I am not an a**whole because I talk to worthless people from the bottom.”
I remember an interview on youtube with the late Duchess of Devonshire. The interviewer asked her a question about the relation between aristocrats and non-aristocrats and if having an aristocracy was morally justifiable. (Well, that was about the question.)
The aristo Duchess simply chosed to not answer the question but mentioned that she spoke to the gardener that morning. This kind of haughty subtle arrogance can be found in a lot of them as soon as the topic of the conversation changes to questions like: if aristocracies undermine equality and democracy. It is easy to overlook it but worth trying to spot it.
Tryingtothink: Balderdash.
That may be your prejudice, but it is not universal nor is it a given.
And if you are discussing Debo, the most recently deceased DoD, it’s clear that your prejudice is the only thing you are displaying here because Debo was one of the kindest, funniest, humble people anyone could hope to meet.
To judge her on a clearly baiting question ………..
Does she mean she doesn’t want him to grow up and act like his father? That might be a good goal since he seems to be a big freaking pampered baby.
I dunno. I think had they not been where they are the Middletons would have crawled over broken glass for an opportunity to get a kid into Wetherby. The richer and posher the better. I also don’t see Kate being allowed an opinion (if she had it would likely have been Wetherby imo). I think this is William doing a two fingered salute to his family again. They prob told him Wetherby was security cleared and good to go and “by the way you ARE moving to London” and he’s thrown all his toys out the pram and created a security and logistics nightmare. Just cos he can. George will be fine, the sooner he is boarding and away from the mess of his parents the better. Thank goodness for Nanny Maria.
I agree 100% ABC! Why pick a school that already has security in place and is close to KP, when one can pick a school that will be a security and logistics nightmare? This is so William!
Could be a Middleton revenge act, too.
All those rich people and aristo people who look down on Kate Middleton and her family were probably desparate to get their child into the same school as the future king. They all guessed Wetherby because tradition and security. But then Kate decided on getting revenge for all those doors-to-manual jokes.
William throwing a tantrum is surely a brilliant guess. It seems that Kate’s and William’s ideas merge for all the wrong reasons.
I don’t see the big deal except they try to make it sound like this place is basically Burning Man. The DM write-up sounds ridiculous. Unicorns! Monty Python!
This is perfectly in line with their idea of “normal”. Oh look, we’re sending him to a more kid-friendly normal hippy school. Please. 24,000 a year? GTFO.
Hahaha. Burning Man! That made me laugh big time.
Hippy dippy: a teacher took a nap in his car during the break. They’d probably call the school I attended a theme park.
LOL, the Burning Man comment got me too! Great points, the teacher sleeping his car?
Burning man. I”M howling!!!
It’s not nice to keep George away from his father 😉
Lol
Ha! Perfect.
Hellooo to another Elaine!
Now that The Midds are in society’s upper echelons, they can afford to dismiss any and all traditions. Because whatever *they* do will BE the tradition.
Agree that New money will fawn, while old money (and old blood) will scorn. Solution: dial up every arriviste so they might kiss your (newly minted) signet ring. Snobbery solved!
The really good private prep schools in the DC area cost about the same.
I think that Diana would approve.
I think Diana would be horrified at what William has become. And by his lazy wife.
Diana partied hard with Billionaires. For all her good traits, she had more in common with the Middletons than most of us would like to admit. They could take several chapters out of her pr book though, especially the one titled ‘How to make friends and influence people’.
I meant regarding work ethic. While she was a royal, her work ethic was strong. All of the royals live lives of ridiculous privilege and have some dicey friends, as did Diana, but they work in exchange. She’s be horrified that W&K think they can take all the perks, but that royal work doesn’t need to be done.
I agree. Horrified and quite possibly mortified
If she were still here, William would definitely be better off.
what’s inside. if Diana were alive let’s face it that marriage wouldn’t have happened, she would have nipped Carole in the bud,and that relationship would have been over in 6 months tops!!
This actually seems wildly normal. $24k a year is very middle class. My kids daycare was $18k a year not including class pictures, uniform, etc… And that was daycare, not elementary. And I an NOT RICH. So good on them. I think these kids parents won’t even be millionaires but likely doctors, CEOS, etc. If you dint have kids it may seem like a lot of money but it’s actually on par with upper middle class tuition.
Yes, yes, yes. This is not that extravagant. My grandson’s k-3 is $35,000 a year here in the States.
The catholic school in my RURAL mid western city is $45k/yr, and it was waiting lists.
@ Bitsy – most CEOs in London will be STINKING rich
It happens, but it is not it is NOT wildly normal, nor is it “very” middle class. Let’s not pretend that the Normal Cambridges are doing something super normal here.
It might be “middle-class” for well paid parents in London, NYC, or Los Angeles. Maybe a few other US cities. Maybe for a few well off people in large cities around the globe.
However, for the vast majority of the world, the 99%, it is not normal to spend $24,000 a year to educate a 4 year old.
I just checked the website for the most prestigious high school in my area and the yearly tuition is $32,000, and that is for boarders. I live in a large metro area in the U.S. midwest. The pre-K is $11,000 a year (obviously not boarders). This school does not attract any middle class people. Not unless they have secret trust funds.
And I have never heard of a daycare requiring uniforms! Daycare is also more expensive than most elementary school tuition around here. Parents usually breathe a sigh of relief when they can stop paying for it.
I am surprised when I hear what some people pay for schooling. Here in Germany going to a public school is the norm and it does not cost any money. Hell, even my university fee is 600 Euros a year- including my semester ticket which allows me to use public transportation in my Bundesland (state) free of charge. I mean, my parents are well of but they would never think about paying 18000 a year for nursery school- that is free of charge too (or costs very littel). Germans would not take it that you needed that kind of money to educate your children. Just a different perspective from another part of the world 😉
Exactly, Marlena. I am not dissing parents who spend money on their kids education, far from it. It is not, however, wildly middle class to pay $24,000 for what is essentially pre-school. That is still rarified air. It’s done by the upper classes – or those with scholarships, or those whose priorities are to devote much of their household resources to education – but not by the vast majority of middle class people.
It is also not worldwide. It is only done in some countries where education can be bought and paid for, but it is by no means the norm anywhere.
It is not wildly normal, but it is wildly normal for a standard private school tuition. If that makes sense.
@SUZE I agree – I think the median income in the U.K. is around £30k a year, before tax, pension, NI contribution etc. £24k on tuition is not average, or normal, or middle class (although ‘middle’ class here means something different to middle class in the US – it is not strictly a financial category). £24k in tuition is not for ‘normal’ people – this is rich people money, especially if there is more than one child!
My husband and I are academics (at a pretty prestigious university). We make fairly decent salaries, and would 100% be considered middle class, by virtue of our education/jobs/accents/schools we went to/parents professions. There is no chance in hell we would be able to afford 24k on school fees + the cost of actually raising a kid.
What everyone has to remember is that prices are standard for the area they live in, as wages/costs are relative to where you live. For example, $350,000.00-$400,000.00 will get you a McMansion in the midwest and southern part of the US; here, on the west coast, esp. in the west side of L.A/Santa Monica, you can’t even buy a 2 bedroom condo for that! Here, *tear-downs* go for $1M and up.
@Suze I live in Houston Tx and the City Primrose is $22k a year and the students wear uniforms. Again, these are middle class people here. For royalty to pay that much seems almost frugal. I think they are trying to make a statement for sure because they can afford more. My upper class friends send their kids to high schools that cost $40k a year. They are upper middle class but no where near being millionaires.
There are expensive schools everywhere. The point is not the money – to the Cambridges all this talk of money would be vulgar. The point is what they are doing is not “wildly normal”. It is a statement but it doesn’t have anything to do with money.
24K a year is middle class??? Wow!!! What middle class do you know?? I am a teacher for over 23 years and I make just over twice as much as that. 24K, folks, is NOT middle class. That is a rich person’s school.
Middle class kids might go to Catholic schools for 6 to 8K a year, and that is a stretch, too.
Hippy school? UGHH. Can the same be applied to their prep school? Because it sounds like one of those schools in which you don’t learn any mathematics or sciences.
George will still turn out to be spoilt by the time he’s sent off to Eton. We know Kate will not send him anywhere else.
A lot of the old-school British institutions for learning are more sought after by new money foreigners looking to give their kids a leg up. The old-guard aristocracy aren’t going to want to mix with them…hello, Brexit! They’re moving the goal-posts. Do you know how many parents probably enrolled their kids at Wetherby and then were despondent when George signed up elsewhere? I’m guessing many.
These are the same people who insist on being addressed by their titles in private. This is the same woman who told a group of school kids that George would be king. So spare me the class concerns.
+1
School might be the making of these children. The Danish kids, Christian in particular, has benefited tremendously from school.
It didn’t help Charles who was sent to regular schools that were less elitist than the ones William attended.
I’m going to follow LAK around today nodding my head in agreement.
Funny, LAK, I don’t know much about Charles’ schooling. Can you elaborate?
Charles had a series of governesses for his early education. After that, at age 9, he started out at Hill House school in London. It was to be a very brief 7-8months at this school.
http://www.hillhouseschool.co.uk
After that a decision was made to send him to the same schools as Philip had attended. Better known for physical education rather than social connections or academic excellence and definitely not arty, hippy, dippy curriculum.
Charles was therefore sent to Cheam school in surrey (9yrs-13yrs) followed by Gordonstoun(13yrs-18yrs) in Scotland.
http://www.cheamschool.com
http://www.gordonstoun.org.uk
They were poor fits for Charles who was a sensitive, arty boy unlike Philip who had survived the brutal, physical school regimes. He especially hated *Gordonstoun were he was badly bullied. And by bullying i mean breaking his nose, punched whilst trying to sleep, pinched with pliers etc. Bullying Charles seems to have been a badge of honour and pride for the student body at Gordonstoun.
*until the 90s, Gordonstoun was infamous for it’s spartan approach to education. We are talking cold showers, early morning jogs and very harsh punishments to misbehaving students. Emphasise on physical and outdoors than on arty, intellectual pursuits. Philip thrived. It’s only saving grace is it’s emphasis on community service rather than self.
The biographies about Charles’s time at Gordonstoun make for horrifying reading. The Queenmother tried unsuccessfully to persuade Philip and the Queen to send /move him to Eton, but was ignored or refused.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272134/Prince-Charles-Gordonstoun-Punched-slept-friends-tortured-pliers-wonder-called-Colditz-kilts.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/12079994/Prince-Charles-nose-deliberately-broken-by-bully-during-rugby-match.html
He did get some respite because during his O levels (exams we take at 16yrs) he spent a term at a school in Australia and no horror stories coming out of that experience.
Charles doesn’t appear to have any lifelong friends from that period which is understandable. His lifelong friends seem to have been made at Cambridge where he went for uni. He started out in Archeology and switched to history.
As far as his grades, he was a middling student, but he showed an early interest in all the things that are considered his passion. Cambridge was the result of royal privilege because his A level results ( B in History, C in French, distinction in a special history project) were not upto Cambridge entry standards.
School is usually the making of any kid. A well-run school and safe environment is fundamental for every child.
I just love how on all hate Kate thread so many people know what “their friends” say about her behind her back and all about how Carol control the media.
Spending time on a gossip website complaining about gossip…
Or posters with vivid imaginations?
Some of the most history-minded (but not sycophantic) royal watchers I’ve found are on here. They don’t swallow the PR without questioning it, and are very good at analyzing what comes from which PR hack (Charles, W&K, Middletons).
Again, you’re complaining but you’re still here. If you don’t like what is written, why spend your time here? Why take the time and effort to bash people, because you dislike what they write? The Royal Forums or pro-Kate Middleton tumblr sites might suit you better.
As we are usually commenting on Kate’s clothing – take a look at some of these!:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4385858/Aintree-gets-fashionable-start.html
Dear God! MY EYES! MY EYES!!!!!!
Don’t any of those people own mirrors!??
It certainly explains why Kate Middleton was hailed as a demure, well-dressed style icon.
I would love to see what “What Not To Wear” could do with these people. An idea for a new British reality TV show?
@ imqrious2 – Every time there is a big race meeting like Aintree or Ascot I confess to going straight to the Daily Fail to check on the “fashions”. And no, I am convinced that there is a mass mirror misfunction around Liverpool every April and Berkshire in June 🙂
@ dave – Me too, horrendous aren’t they?
And there’s more today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4389832/Aintree-racegoers-dress-nines-Ladies-Day.html
And there’s more today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4389832/Aintree-racegoers-dress-nines-Ladies-Day.html
So, what do those kids learn in those tens of thousands of pounds per year schools?
They meet other children from the same economic background as themselves. That is the big driver.
Definitely a lot of it is just mixing with the “right” kind of people. I went to public schools and when I went to university, the difference between myself and kids who went to private schools was definitely just that they knew more influential people/had access to things that I did not. In terms of actual book learning, I was ahead of many of them. Private schools also often offer a better teacher:student ratio. I mentioned upthread that we send our kid to a $22k/yr preschool and the biggest reason we chose to do so is because the school has twice as many adults per student as the state requires (state requires a ratio of 1 adult per 12 students for ages 3-5, our son is in a room of 12 students with 2 FT teachers. We looked at some less expensive preschools with ratios along the lines of 9:1 and I felt there was a noticeable difference in how chaotic the atmosphere was. Since we both work and our kid is at preschool for 9 hours/day, we felt it was worthwhile paying extra for a calmer environment. For an older kid who is of average intelligence, I’d say a smaller class size could really make a difference in how much they learn (whereas a really smart kid is going to pick up the material easily, so a few extra minutes with the teacher here and there isn’t needed so much).
The difference, in the UK at least, is really not just having the opportunity to meet the “right” people. Independent schools, especially in London, are hard core. These children start at 4, and they work very hard for the next 14 years. They are frighteningly articulate and clever. They are obedient and well behaved, at least on the surface. They are expected to be (and are) several years ahead of their counterparts at state schools.
But there is a dark side to it all. Some of them go off the rails at school. Some in university. Some have eating disorders. Some develop severe drug problems. Some students make it out relatively unscathed. But it’s not an environment I would want to put a child of mine into, unless he or she was remarkably resilient.
These kids in this school will be almost as privileged as George and Charlotte, but in a different way. They are the children of upper class strivers, after all. Truly middle class people do not spend $24,000 a year educating elementary school children. It takes a tremendous amount of money to be middle class in the manner of Normal Bill and Katie Bucket.
What I do find admirable is the Cambridge’s desire to see their kids attend the same school, despite being different sexes. I think that can be a good thing – and a coed education is probably a good way to bring up royal kids. At least in the early years.
i think William does not want his children to be brought up as over indulged spoilt brats having the best of everything and turning into a lazy cry baby. It’s probably that simple
William himself in an over indulged, spoiled brat. Kate is twice as worthless. Frankly, they have no business looking down on anyone. Kate’s uncle was exposed as trafficking in girls and drugs, while the less said about the Windsors the better (Prince Andrew’s pedophile connections).
Starlight, your describing Chopper!!
What’s the point of spending this much on their schoolong. The whole lot are dumb as a box of rocks, shallow and arrogant and expect to coast through a life of leisure on this hereditary monarchy nonsense.
Coward