• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

The Queen's New Website


Greg

Active Member
#1
http://www.designweek.co.uk//Articles/141300/Article.html

The Queen is launching her new website today, created by Hampshire-based consultancy Bang in collaboration with the Buckingham Palace Web team. This will be the third version of the website, which was set up in 1997 and revamped in 2001.

The new site, at www.royal.gov.uk, will be launched at a reception at Buckingham Palace, attended by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web.

The updated site will feature a Google Maps link-up with the royal diary of engagements, integration with the Royal Channel on YouTube, and a new section on royal animals.

In 1976 the Queen became the first monarch to send an e-mail during a visit to an army base, and last year she uploaded a video onto YouTube during a visit to Google’s offices in London.
I'm not sure what time this new site goes live?
Or if that is the new site live now?! :confused:
 

Greg

Active Member
#5
Berry said:
Does that mean i can send Liz an email?
An e-mail?! I'm expecting Royal Tweet updates, Facebook, MySpace, the whole social networking set! :lol: I think LinkedIn might be a step too far?
 

berry

Active Member
#6
Actually just checked the contact details and if you want to speak to ANY member of the Royals, its the same bloody number.
 

berry

Active Member
#8
A Prince Andrew Blog site would be spiffing. Will he have wireless capabilities to update his blog on helicopter journeys between Covent Garden and Buck House
 

tim

Senior Member
#10
It'd be crap! I agree with br3n! A useless website for a useless person. What's so special about an old wrinkly woman with a OCD to wave?
 

Jazajay

Active Member
#13
Code wise it looks like the new site, uses a lot of CSS, if it hasn't been updated since 2001 I would expect it to be table based.

I'm not normally a fan of people who we give a few 10's of millions in tax payers money to each year to do nothing, but they do bring in around £1billion in from tourism to the economy, so it does counter it quite well IMO. That and most of the site visitors will be overseas based so it is basically a big tourism website, celebrating what a lot of people come from around the world to see, the Monarchy and our, and theirs, heritage.
 

Greg

Active Member
#15
Jazajay said:
Code wise it looks like the new site, uses a lot of CSS, if it hasn't been updated since 2001 I would expect it to be table based.
Good thinking... so that is the new site... I was expecting something different, no idea what but something with a bit more to it, but then again maybe that is the reserved nature of the subject.
 
#16
Americans have their Constitution to protect them - we (in theory) have our Royalty. They're the only one thing stopping our politicians really f*cking us over. One day, you will realise this.
 

Jazajay

Active Member
#17
Mmmm....ok weird line of thought.
But TBH just because the Monarch on paper has power, in the real world she or he has very little to none.

They couldn't stop the gov. cutting how much we as tax payers fund them.

That and I would totally disagree we do have a constitution it is just an unwritten constitution and is based on parliamentary sovereignty, and judicial review, that means that our constitution is based on laws passed by parliament and then judges have the right to overrule them, which they do, if they deem them to be unlawful.

That and as the UK is part of the EU means that we also have to follow EU law as well, means TBH that we are safe.
Birching on the Isle of Man comes to mind which the EU overturned, that and The British army's treatment of IRA terrorists, when they pushed them out of helicopters telling them they where a few hundred feet in the air when in fact they where about a metre from it, to get intel, and when they placed them in pain compliance positions, again for intel reasons, was again ruled unlawful by the EU and as a result we stopped both practices.

So as a result we are quite safe, and that is proved by precedence.
We couldn't get away with a Guantanamo bay as the US do, and their constitution is written down.

Jaz
 

Jazajay

Active Member
#19
In the process of I think, but that still couldn't happen here in the UK, the Judicial side of our constitution wouldn't allow it, nor the EU side of it either. I would say we are safer than any US citizen, legally wise, again due to precedence.
 
#20
I'm a bit confused as to why links have a class="link" as attributes...seems a bit counterproductive to me, and every link is wrapped in a div.

I don't know...after all the excitement surrounding the whitehouse.gov site this is a bit of a letdown for me, but maybe it's because I'm American?