British Royals Websites, Links, Videos & Podcasts

[Iluvbertie]

Not sure I like the new look, well not yet anyway! Although I wonder if the Court Circular section will get updated more regularly now.

I don't know how 'more regular' it can be other than pretty much daily.

Sure some days are missed for one reason or another (2 days missing on which I know engagements took place this year).

Last year they missed 10 days for the entire year and that was the worst I have experienced in over a decade of reading the site and five years of keeping records.

I suspect if I wasn't keeping the record publicly each week most people wouldn't even realise that the CC is missing a day or so here and there.

As for the new look - not impressed as it looks like a complete mishmash of things with nothing clear. The old was easy to navigate so why change?

With the changes this week I don't expect the CC to be undated until next week at all. They didn't put up the 31st March (2 engagements by the Duke of Gloucester) or the 1st, 2nd or 3rd April (slack weekend is possible as they are still on their Easter break), 4th and 5th April are up but not the 6th (William and Kate's reception is thus missing at the moment but that could be due to the release of this new update which may or may not even have the CC)

 

[Dman]

I agree. I think they should follow the same pattern they did for official tours, for example. The released phots in connection with something important have always been nice.

I happen to think no one has suggested this to the royals. I see nothing wrong with them taking official pictures for their website and even before their official tours. The Cambridge's did do it before their Canadian tour, but have done it since then.

Right now, the website is a mess, but pictures for their profiles would add something special than just using photos from their engagements.

I think the Danish, Spanish, Swedish and others do this well with pictures on their websites.

 

[Marty91charmed]

I happen to think no one has suggested this to the royals. I see nothing wrong with them taking official pictures for their website and even before their official tours. The Cambridge's did do it before their Canadian tour, but have done it since then.

Right now, the website is a mess, but pictures for their profiles would add something special than just using photos from their engagements.

I think the Danish, Spanish, Swedish and others do this well with pictures on their websites.

I agree. Here I am making a usuful suggestion

 

[Dman]

If I worked in the British royals press office or were one of their advisors, I would be making some suggestions and some changes would be made

 

[tommy100]

I think thats part of the problem, if they had formal portraits as the links to each royals profile it would help give each section some definition. I also found the fact some of the RF have smaller blocks to click on confussing, Charlottes is massive whilst George's is almost unnoticable next to it.
I suspect the website design has a lot of potential...

 

[Queen Claude]

The new version is OK if I'm just idly browsing, but I don't like it if I am trying to find something specific. This seems to be embracing Windows 8 sensibilities and I'm more of a Windows XP/7 person.

 

[polyesco]

it looks a bit messy for me. I like things more structured. I found myself scowling down alot.

I do like the many photos. it does give a more modern vibe

 

[carlota]

does anyone know where the documentary Our Queen At 90 can be found? looks like it was removed from the original location in youtube

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have scrolled down all the way and it seems no more Court Circular on the new site - which means no more updates from me. It says 'on this website' but nothing there at all that I can see.

The site is way too clunky and unusable as far as I am concerned so I won't be going back to the site at all - too much scrolling and nothing much there.

It kept returning to the top all the time as well. It needs a lot of work and needs to be useful and this isn't - a huge fail for me.

 

[tommy100]

https://www.royal.uk/court-circular here is a direct link to the Court Circular part of the website, it seems to be part of its own mini media sub website. In fairness it looks as if the new design may make it easier to search for events on a certain day

I agree about the scrolling, as there is no set layout it does make it impossible to find anything you might want rather than just browsing.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Well the search feature is much better. But can yield interesting results.
Search on Zara, then search for Tindall. It would be laughable if it were not so weak.
Search on Coat of Arms and you get a different kind of search logic than what worked for Zara/Tindall. You get hits on both "coat of arms" and "arms" associated with military service.
Search for Personal Aide de Camp - you would never know there is such a group. The honorific ADC(P) however will tell you with which epaulet it is associated.
Styles and titles?
A lot of it is the text from royal.gov in a new home (Edward III and how to address the Queen/other royals among them).
The Christmas search was great for old photos and past Christmas messages/quotes from the Queen. But Sandringham was MIA from the story. I understand their privacy issues. But Christmas at Sandringham is no secret (unless they are anticipating future Christmases not at Sandringham - but that would make me seem a conspiracy theorist).
Overall, it still looks like the whole modern family is doing their own thing on their own webpages and the old fogies hang with the "family home" at royal.uk. Disjointed in ways royal followers wished they could be united. The Court Circular and Future Events would probably top our list here.
I doubt I am the only one who looked at what pictures were where on group photo pages and thought "I wonder why this picture and why not...?" I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I could talk myself into there being agendas in some of these choices.
I did think the Royal Family Member About pages being organized:

• About
• Biography
• Supporting the Queen
• Charities and Patronages

was unifying and smart. When there is a transition to the next monarch it can send a message with continuity that the family serves King and Country.

I love the idea of a Royal Encyclopedia. I just wish it were browse-able. The Queen Victoria entry has one cross link on the entire page. Your only choice is to start a new search.

And I don't know about you, but I get hung up/timed out just clicking on a link about 1/10 times. That issue goes away and pages load faster (or seem to) when I right click on the link and select "Open page in a new tab."
My biggest chuckle was at a photo on the Working for Us MENU item. The Rewards and Benefits cropped photo makes it look like tea with the opposite sex on break-room tables is such great fun! I'm sure it was well intended. Oh, and they admit they purposefully pay median wages.

 

[Jacknch]

I've just taken a quick look at the new website and feel quite sea-sick with all the movement when you scroll the page up and down. Other than that, it seems a little better that the previous website but lacks formality or regal structure that one has with the Danish or Norwegian website.

I'm not sure I have seen so many extra-smiley faces all in one place before!

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I really like the new website, and it works very well for ipads/iphones, and I think it is much better than the Danish/Norwegian sites which in my opinion is very old-fashioned. But it's very modern and my 88 year old British grandfather had great difficulty using/understand the new site.

 

[VictoriaB]

I really like the new website, and it works very well for ipads/iphones, and I think it is much better than the Danish/Norwegian sites which in my opinion is very old-fashioned. But it's very modern and my 88 year old British grandfather had great difficulty using/understand the new site.

I agree that the new website looks better on iPads. I originally looked at it on my Mac and hated it. There was too much happening but on the smaller screen it looks less busy.

I still find it hard to find information. I think the old site was better organised and far more logical. The new site is fine if you just want to browse and don't know what you want to find.

 

[cepe]

It is still a beta site so hopefully they will iron out the many problems.

Changes in terminology, ie Royal diary rather than forward engagements and the merging of events on the CC instead of separating them is a nightmare.

I've been in double stress mode cos The Times has just changed its format as well - it feels like a plot!

And, on a personal note, my iPad hates it!

 

[tommy100]

I think it looks great, but once you actually want to find anything it really shows its weakness. Its great if you just want to see the most recent news or pictures and I suspect that's been a bit of a deliberate move, to make it more like twitter etc, showing the most recent bites of news quickly.

 

[Queen Camilla]

The old site had its flaws.

People complained and now they are given a new site.

The operators of the site heard the complaints and have now produced a site that frustrates people even more than the old.

 

[AdmirerUS]

It is still a beta site so hopefully they will iron out the many problems.

Changes in terminology, ie Royal diary rather than forward engagements and the merging of events on the CC instead of separating them is a nightmare.

I've been in double stress mode cos The Times has just changed its format as well - it feels like a plot!

And, on a personal note, my iPad hates it!

Nothing personal at all if I Pods hate it! Sites have sunk for that very reason. I'll bring it up on the tablet and suggest others do as well!

 

[Dman]

I wish the royals would contribute to the site by taking some official pictures for it.

 

[Bonnie Blue Butler]

The new website is quite messy right now for me. I think it'll take some time until I'll get used to it.

Anyway, I read the section Succession (https://www.royal.uk/succession) and I might have a strange question: Why they included only 16 people in the list? I know that placing all of them is almost physically impossible, but I thought they would include all Queen's great grandchildren (Mia is missing) and her cousins and other relatives that belongs officialy to the Royal Family.

I mean, when I saw it I thought that they finally reduce their line of succession and I missed it

 

[VictoriaB]

The new website is quite messy right now for me. I think it'll take some time until I'll get used to it.

Anyway, I read the section Succession (https://www.royal.uk/succession) and I might have a strange question: Why they included only 16 people in the list? I know that placing all of them is almost physically impossible, but I thought they would include all Queen's great grandchildren (Mia is missing) and her cousins and other relatives that belongs officialy to the Royal Family.

I mean, when I saw it I thought that they finally reduce their line of succession and I missed it

They haven't reduced the succession. I think for the purposes of the website they just decided on an arbitrary cut off of people they were going to list and that cut off was the last of the Queen's grandchildren. It doesn't really matter because the chances of anyone lower than Charlotte succeeding are pretty remote.

 

[AdmirerUS]

The new website is quite messy right now for me. I think it'll take some time until I'll get used to it.

Anyway, I read the section Succession (https://www.royal.uk/succession) and I might have a strange question: Why they included only 16 people in the list? I know that placing all of them is almost physically impossible, but I thought they would include all Queen's great grandchildren (Mia is missing) and her cousins and other relatives that belongs officialy to the Royal Family.

I mean, when I saw it I thought that they finally reduce their line of succession and I missed it

The Olde website also only went back 16 levels - so no change... http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx
Lat I checked, Wikipedia had a nice deep list of succession.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This is an interesting situation:

The CC on the new version has some days that are missing from the old site and vice versa e.g. 11th April in on the new but isn't on the old but the 12th is up on the old but not the new.

 

[Dman]

It seems like the Cambridge's and Prince Harry's info is now switching from the Prince of Wales website to the new royal family website. I guess Charles's website will just be for him and Camilla now.

 

[JSH]

I was reading the old British Monarchy website page by page. I want to do that for the new one, now that the old one has been taken down. Any suggestions? There are no menus to go through item by item and I don't see a site map. This is supposed to be more user friendly? Sorry but to me it seems anything but! I don't see any logical arrangement of things at all.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Other than the CC I have no intention of going anywhere near the new site as it is a total mish-mash of impossible to find garbage.

I showed it to the IT guys at school and their comments included:

the sort of site a business uses when it really doesn't want people to find out what they are really doing

the sort of site created by a student who is going to fail any site design course in 2016

the sort of site that was being taught in computer courses about 5 years ago

I also asked them about the development of out new school site and should we follow something similar and they laughed. If we wanted people to find nothing we would consider a site like this but not if we are in the business of connecting with the real world and want to communicate with people. They believe that the old site needed a refresh but not this mish-mash of stuff that it is impossible to navigate.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Other than the CC I have no intention of going anywhere near the new site as it is a total mish-mash of impossible to find garbage.

I showed it to the IT guys at school and their comments included:

the sort of site a business uses when it really doesn't want people to find out what they are really doing

the sort of site created by a student who is going to fail any site design course in 2016

the sort of site that was being taught in computer courses about 5 years ago

I also asked them about the development of out new school site and should we follow something similar and they laughed. If we wanted people to find nothing we would consider a site like this but not if we are in the business of connecting with the real world and want to communicate with people. They believe that the old site needed a refresh but not this mish-mash of stuff that it is impossible to navigate.

I don't understand what you and your IT guys at school mean with that, and I'm pretty sure that the IT people who created this site know what they are doing.

1: You go into the site and then you see a wonderful picture of our smiling Queen.

2: Then you go down and the newest news pops up.

3: Then you can go to the menu (top right) where you get 6 main choices:
News and events
The Royal Family
The Commonwealth
Art and residences
History and traditions
Working for us

You have the links to the Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube accounts at the bottom left.

Then you have 6 choices at the bottom right:
Contact Us - Privacy Policy - Media Centre - About this site - Cymraeg - Gàidhlig.

4: You can go to the Media Centre where you get 6 choices:
Media information and enquiries
Speeches and articles
Court Circular
Media Packs
Press Releases
The Royal Diary

Very simple and user-friendly.

 

[ElisaR]

I'm shocked at the new site!!!

What's that mess supposed to be? What were they thinking?! I cannot look at it for more that 10 seconds. And scrolling those endeless pages? Insane.

Goodbye, official British Monarchy website, and R.I.P.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Today - the Olde site is gone. It links you to the new royal.uk.

I also cannot get into either the CC or the Diary (Future Engagements) - it's timing out.

 

[royal rob]

Other than the CC I have no intention of going anywhere near the new site as it is a total mish-mash of impossible to find garbage.

I showed it to the IT guys at school and their comments included:

the sort of site a business uses when it really doesn't want people to find out what they are really doing

the sort of site created by a student who is going to fail any site design course in 2016

the sort of site that was being taught in computer courses about 5 years ago

I also asked them about the development of out new school site and should we follow something similar and they laughed. If we wanted people to find nothing we would consider a site like this but not if we are in the business of connecting with the real world and want to communicate with people. They believe that the old site needed a refresh but not this mish-mash of stuff that it is impossible to navigate.

I'm not finding anything wrong with it. I think your IT guys whoever they are, are way off the mark and can't believe they would think that. Maybe you just need to give a go and you will get the hang of it.