Websites of the British Royal Family

[Squirrel]

So I sometimes check out the websites of the British Royal Family, very sporadically only, so might not notice changes made to them that fast, but recently there have been some changes I don't quite get. :huh:

The Queen's website, or rather main royal website (The Royal Family), has recently had a complete redo and now has an absolutely horrible layout, that's tricky and confusing to navigate and it baffles me why they changed it that way.

The only other British royals I'd noticed to have their own website were Prince Charles (Homepage) and Prince Andrew (The official website of HRH The Duke of York, KG). Prince Charles' website used to have extensive sub-websites about his children as well. So there was basically a whole other website integrated for Wills & Kate and another one for Harry, overall I thought this website had a much better design and navigation than the main royal one and contained a lot more information about all of them and their recent events etc. Going on it now I noticed the websites about Wills, Kate & Harry disappeared and instead there's only a basic overview of them and then it links to the main royal website for further details. But besides the fact that anything on that main website is annoying to find. the info listed about all the royal family members on there is also a lot more basic and slightly outdated. :orchid:

Other interesting element I noticed is that the main royal website does link back to Charles' website but doesn't even mention Andrew's website anywhere. :teehee:

I'm guessing it's a move to try and have one core website for the British Royal Family rather than have them split up into their own camps doing their own thing. I still think a proper sub-section about the individual royals the way Charles' website used to do it, alongside the core website about the Queen and Royal Family in general, would be more interesting.

Do others here check out their websites at all?

[Jenee]

Very rarely. I usually only go there if I'm looking for specific information.

The mobile version of the Queen's website reads like a news feed. Perhaps they are attempting to control the news published about them. News papers don't always do a good job of publishing the content that matters- focusing more on what the royals wore, or comparing one to another (Kate to Diana, for instance), rather than highlight the work of the charity they are visiting, etc.

[Orchid]

^ I agree, Jen. The whole point of Palace aides is to eagerly manage "the royals" PR. The monarchy's websites are the perfect vehicle for controlling the weight and tone of coverage given to those "duties"* or events that are deemed most significant to the function [and purported benefit] of monarchy.

*Apologies to those who support the monarchy, but I can't help but use scare quotes when citing anything linked to "the royals", especially "duties".

I'm guessing it's a move to try and have one core website for the British Royal Family rather than have them split up into their own camps doing their own thing. I still think a proper sub-section about the individual royals the way Charles' website used to do it, alongside the core website about the Queen and Royal Family in general, would be more interesting.

Do others here check out their websites at all?

I don't tend to visit the royal sites because I find them far too biased and strategic. I only visit when looking to demonstrate this in some way!

But that's a really interesting point, Squirrel. So you think the truncated design of the website is working to reflect Charles's vision for a more streamlined "monarchy"?  Design is often used as metaphor, so it's a likely assessment.  As you've observed, it doesn't link back to Prince Andrew's website anymore (which may reflect the planned "cut") and giving William, Kate and Harry their own sites, distinct from Charles', may be a proactive attempt to reflect the way the monarchy is now being dispersed/and the way it "should be" seen.

The Queen's website, or rather main royal website (The Royal Family), has recently had a complete redo and now has an absolutely horrible layout, that's tricky and confusing to navigate and it baffles me why they changed it that way.

Well, if the republican in me follows through on the Design-as-Metaphor theory, I'd say the difficult-to-navigate-and-baffling web design reflects the difficult-to-navigate-and-baffling costs, functions, benefits and character of monarchy as a whole. It's quite poetic really.

*runs from angry monarchists whilst cheering*   :monkey:

[Squirrel]

^ :hehe: @Orchid Well personally I'm loving your republican review of the website/s!

And yes they're definitely a way for them to control certain news etc. but sometimes the tabloids get a bit too crazy, so the official websites can sometimes be a good alternative source of information. Though overall I'm sure most people pay way more attention to what newspapers and tabloids write about the royals rather than to what it says on their own websites...

[Jenee]

Interestingly enough, now that I'm on a PC, I have re-clicked your links, and I'm surprised to say that the mobile version and the desktop version are identical! It's a weird, scrolly-windows-8-style layout. Perhaps designed for touch-screen devices??

I do like the layout of Prince Charles' site better than the main site. It's more familiar, and the links along the top make it easier to navigate, then attempting to first find the "menu" button. But like I said, the main site looks really meant for mobile users, who are used to seeing blocks of content with a hidden menu button in one of the upper corners.  I can't say I'm a fan.

I'm guessing it's a move to try and have one core website for the British Royal Family rather than have them split up into their own camps doing their own thing. I still think a proper sub-section about the individual royals the way Charles' website used to do it, alongside the core website about the Queen and Royal Family in general, would be more interesting.

But that's a really interesting point, Squirrel. So you think the truncated design of the website is working to reflect Charles's vision for a more streamlined "monarchy"?  Design is often used as metaphor, so it's a likely assessment.  As you've observed, it doesn't link back to Prince Andrew's website anymore (which may reflect the planned "cut") and giving William, Kate and Harry their own sites, distinct from Charles', may be a proactive attempt to reflect the way the monarchy is now being dispersed/and the way it "should be" seen.

Yes, I think this makes sense as well. However a more effective way of influencing how the public perceives the make-up of the Royal family would be to have William, Kate, and Harry start taking on (or over) the duties assigned to Andrew, Edward, and Anne. JMHO, of course!

[Squirrel]

^ Yes true, it seems a strange choice to optimise it for mobile rather than desktop version. I think on average 40% of view nowadays are through mobile devices and 60% through desktop ones, so it's rather essential to also have a website that works on desktop version... :hmm:

[BonnyHoneyBunny]

I find all their websites confusing and difficult to navigate. Prince Charles' is the best in the design, but it's all about Prince Charles which makes it awful to look at in its own way.