The Royal Family’s official website has come under scrutiny for inaccuracies in how it refers to current and former members of the monarchy.
Despite the passing of Queen Elizabeth II almost a year ago, the website still contains numerous errors in the titles and roles attributed to various Royals, leading to concerns about the accuracy of the information provided.
One striking issue highlighted by experts is the frequent mention of the late Queen as “Monarch” on the website, a term used at least 74 times.
This contrasts with the correct titles of other Royals, such as King Charles being referred to as the Prince of Wales on eight occasions, and his wife, Queen Camilla, as the Duchess of Cornwall four times.
Even Prince Harry, despite the Megxit Agreement of 2020, is still labeled as His Royal Highness, a title he was supposed to relinquish.
The discrepancies extend to Prince William and Kate, who are primarily known as the Prince and Princess of Wales following an update last September.
However, the website continues to refer to them as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in several instances, indicating a lack of thorough review and updating of content.
Royal commentator Athua Hagen expressed disappointment in the website’s inaccuracies, emphasizing the importance of providing correct and engaging information to the audience.
She called for urgent updates to ensure the website reflects the current state of the monarchy accurately.
While superficially appearing up-to-date, closer examination reveals significant oversights in the website’s content.
Pages dedicated to individual Royals contain outdated information, with Prince Harry still referred to as His Royal Highness and inaccurate details about his familial relationships.
Similarly, references to Queen Elizabeth II as the reigning monarch persist across various sections, despite the need for corrections after her passing.
The section on Royal Residences, Art, and History also suffers from errors, particularly in descriptions of Clarence House and Kensington Palace.
Outdated titles and references to past Royals further highlight the need for a comprehensive review and update of the website’s content to align with the current state of the monarchy.
The Royal Collection page and features on Commonwealth nations further emphasize the pervasive inaccuracies, with repeated mentions of Queen Elizabeth II as the reigning monarch in various contexts.
The Royal Family’s response acknowledged the ongoing process of revisiting and updating content post-Queen Elizabeth II’s demise but did not provide a timeline for resolving the discrepancies.
In light of these revelations, questions arise about the credibility and reliability of the Royal Family’s official website as a primary source of information on the monarchy.
The need for immediate action to rectify the inaccuracies and ensure the website reflects the current status of the Royals is paramount to maintain transparency and accuracy in public communication.
As discussions around the discrepancies continue, it is evident that a comprehensive review and update of the website’s content are imperative to uphold the integrity and accuracy expected from a prominent source of information on the Royal Family.
Stay tuned for further developments on this unfolding story as efforts are made to address the inaccuracies and present an updated and accurate portrayal of the monarchy online.
