Harry and Meghan: Royal Wedding Miscellanea

[Lisbet]

Originally Posted by oneshotryan

I live in Windsor and the excitement is seriously building for the wedding this Saturday. One of my local pubs has even changed it's name to The Prince Harry!

All of the attention on my home town has made me feel quite proud, so I put together a little video about the beauty of the area. Including the best things to see if you visit (the beer from our local brewery is particularly good): https://youtu.be/ZLlrChAxyRg

I hope you enjoy. Who's coming to Windsor this weekend?

Woow it looks lush! Great video. I wish I could visit - I've never been. One day :)

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Lisbet

I read the recipe this morning! It sounds DELICIOUS. Love the elderflower touch - from the Queen's garden!

When using softer cakes most bakers use support rods to help hold the cake up and in place.



LaRae

[Sun Lion]

After Prince George the bilby, Taronga zoo now has Harry and Meghan the new koala babies.

And as Prince George had a much photographed met and greet with Prince George when he came to Sydney - maybe the same for the newlyweds with their namesakes later in the year.

Two newborn baby koalas are named after Prince Harry and his bride-to-be Meghan Markle | Daily Mail Online

[cdm]

I really like the illustrations Adrian Valencia makes of the royal events.
https://instagram.com/p/BjAKbNqhx14/

[jacqui24]

Lainey was one of the press pack this time for the wedding. She wrote about the interaction with the press team. Pretty impressed given what they had to deal with a few days before.

The lack of press stress at the Royal Wedding was palatable and Intro for May 21, 2018

[Empress Merel]

I don't know if the content of the goodiebag was posted: https://twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/997840051655663618

But this is one big 'ole waste of money.

[Rudolph]

Ratings for the royal wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex were lower than those for the marriage of Harry's uncle, Prince Edward - whose wedding in June 1999 to Sophie, Countess of Wessex enjoyed a combined BBC One/ITV audience of 14.8 million.

Harry also failed to pull in as many viewers as his brother William. A combined audience of 11.5 million people watched Harry and Meghan tie the knot on May 19 this year - 8.9 million on BBC One and 2.6 million on ITV.

But 17.6 million tuned in for the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in April 2011 - 13.6 million on BBC One plus 4 million on ITV - meaning the combined audience for Harry's wedding was 35 per cent down on the equivalent figure for his brother.

The new figures - published by the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board - include those who recorded the wedding and watched it up to seven days later.

Read more: Royal ratings shock as more people watched Prince Edward get married than Harry and Meghan

[Chloep]

Let's not forget that media consumption changed considerably over the last 7 years and it is outright incomparable to 20 years ago. In comparison, streaming views were recorded to be massive across all platforms - as is the case with any other TV program scheduled today.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2018/05/22/bbc-breaks-online-records-with-royal-wedding/

[Curbside]

Originally Posted by Chloep

Let's not forget that media consumption changed considerably over the last 7 years and it is outright incomparable to 20 years ago. In comparison, streaming views were recorded to be massive across all platforms - as is the case with any other TV program scheduled today.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2018/05/22/bbc-breaks-online-records-with-royal-wedding/

Good point. It's hard to compare this royal weddings with previous ones, since the ways in which people view such things has changed. For example, Charles and Diana's wedding had very high ratings, but VCRs were not popular back then, so if you wanted to watch the ceremony, you'd have to tune in to see it. Streaming services are bigger now than in 2011, so more people might view online than would even record and watch later.

Comparisons are really apples and oranges.

[Osipi]

In the times of Diana and Charles' wedding, you either watched it or you missed it. If I'm remembering right, in 1981, I still only had the basic channels on my TV that were free. Cable TV was just starting to take off with CNN debuting in 1980 but that access, like having a VCR was not a staple found in everyone's homes. Families still gathered together to watch a program on the home's one television set.

We are no longer glued to tuning in via our TV to watch a royal wedding. Its continuously streaming now in many, many places and people watched the wedding live on buses, in parks or wherever they happened to be at the time. They have the option of watching parts of the wedding over and over again at the whim of their fancy or even flash back to Charles and Diana's wedding of 1981 in full scope via YouTube.

[duchessrachel]

Originally Posted by Chloep

Let's not forget that media consumption changed considerably over the last 7 years and it is outright incomparable to 20 years ago. In comparison, streaming views were recorded to be massive across all platforms - as is the case with any other TV program scheduled today.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2018/05/22/bbc-breaks-online-records-with-royal-wedding/

Also, I am sure many people recorded it, like I did. That way, I could fast forward through the commercials and some of the commentary.

[CyrilVladisla]

Were there any reporters from Majesty Magazine to cover the Royal Wedding?

[Curryong]

https://tbivision.com/2018/05/24/you...-11-2-million/

Yes. Millions turned to forms of technology that weren't around in 1999, including streaming. I've read millions watched on the KP page.

[jacqui24]

Yea, technology has definitely changed a lot in 7 years. I can't remember how good was streaming 7 years ago, or how widely available it was 7 years, but I do know technology wasn't quite ready or as advance as it is today. Bandwidth was always a problem. In today's world, a lot of people (me included) don't even have cable anymore. Just Smart TV. Why deal with the hassle of commercials and fight over the remote control?

However, I know that even with the reliability of today's technology, Sky New Live went down both at the beginning of the wedding coverage and when they came out for the photocall when the engagement was announced.

[Chloep]

Originally Posted by Curryong

https://tbivision.com/2018/05/24/you...-11-2-million/

Yes. Millions turned to forms of technology that weren't around in 1999, including streaming. I've read millions watched on the KP page.

It was at The Royal Family's YT and the count was at over 27 million live viewers. The stream link is obviously not alive anymore, but I am expecting it to be made public again once they shorten the footage to just the wedding.

[Curryong]

Thank you Chloep. Sorry for the mistake, I was thinking of KP at the time! I'm having a debate with someone at the moment. Is there a link to the figures for the YT viewing at all, anywhere?

[Gem7]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Were there any reporters from Majesty Magazine to cover the Royal Wedding?

Yes, Ingrid Seward covered the wedding on CBS News with Gayle King, Kevin Frazier, Tina Brown and a few other people.

[Zaira]

I was trying to figure out why the BARB numbers were so different from the numbers of viewers last week, but it turns out that the BARB numbers are ONLY from ITV and BBC, not inclusive of the 24 hour news channels like Sky, for example. So MORE people did watch Harry and Meghan in the UK, but less on the traditional channels of BBC/ITV than Edward and Sophie.

Moreover, in general the share of TV versus streaming has changed dramatically since 2011. Deadline reported that they expect when all is said and done that it is likely that more folks probably watched Harry and Meghan worldwide than Will/Kate, less to do with more or less popularity and more to do with the availability of streaming and online viewing platforms (youtube, twitter, FB) than 7 years ago. Now, whether that means the UK numbers are the same or not is different.

I think not having a bank holiday, William being the heir and his being the first BIG BRF wedding since Andrew and Sarah (I don't know which wedding was bigger in terms of attendees or whatever, but I am assuming William's) meant that of course his wedding would have more viewers in the UK. But I do think internationally there was more interest in many quarters in the Sussex wedding.

Further, I mean to get 100k plus people to Windsor isn't easy and the police stated that they would cap people coming into Windsor after 100k anyway. Windsor could barely handle that crowd as it was. I am not sure why people are comparing the reported 800k-1million in London for the Cambridge wedding to the Sussex wedding. I think a wedding in London for Harry would have generated the same number of people as William's simply because any excuse to party and have fun, but no way could you get anywhere near that in Windsor.

[Curbside]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...st-uk-tv-event

More on the royal wedding ratings.

[jacqui24]

Anderson Cooper was on Live with Kelly and Ryan talking about covering the royal wedding and how apparently he and Harry shared a moment as the carriage went past the CNN tent. I've never seen Anderson Cooper loose his cool like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvm4_6ZwPx8