The royal family's Twitter feed: One is confused

The royal family of Britain is becoming more enlightened with every day.

Over the years, details have emerged that many of its members suffer from the same pains and dilemmas as we who are sadly mortal do: relationship break-ups, a little excessive drinking, even the odd peculiar comment.

And in recent times, the royals have become rather tech-savvy.

So how can one not be delighted that the royal family has decided to embrace Twitter? Well, perhaps embrace in a somewhat formal, British way, but still.

The royal household has launched a Twitter feed, http://twitter.com/BritishMonarchy, full of the latest gaffes and indiscretions that you would expect from the modern royals.

Oh, alright, not quite.

Still, from this Twittering, you can enjoy the Duke of Edinburgh attending the Centenary of Naval Aviation garden party. Or the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall sampling "some goods at a branch of Marks and Spencer."

For those of you not familiar with the Marks and Spencer name, it is not a jeweler or a fruiterer. Rather, it is the place where, in the halcyon days of royalty, every single British subject was required to buy his or her underwear.

I am, however, a little confused by this royal venture into Twitterdom. As I look at the top of the page, I see that, currently, the British Monarchy has 6,306 followers. And, as befits those of regal stature, it is following no one.

(Credit: CC LamrockImages/Flickr)

However, when I look down, I see three images of people or entities that the monarchy is, allegedly, following: tennis player Andy Murray, someone called Paul Fright, and an organization called Copenhagen Communique, which appears to be a climate change lobbying group.

One hopes that the folks at Twitter can soon enlighten this murky inconsistency.

I live, however, in the ultimate hope that, very soon, members of the royal family will be able to twitter unfettered.

I will leap with joy on the day that the Duke of Edinburgh, for example, whips out his BlackBerry to offer us his latest bon mot in real time.

Who could ever forget the duke, in May of this year, asking a 55-year-old woman what she had done in the war?

Which paled into mere tittering when compared to his delightful jape in 1988, in conversation with a student who had ventured on a trek to Papua and New Guinea: "You managed not to get eaten then?"

Then there was 1984, a year in which he accepted a gift from a Kenyan citizen with the words: "You are a woman, aren't you?"

The duke is not without deeper philosophies, though, which I hope he will be allowed to share on Twitter.

In a foreword to the 1987 book by Fleur Cowles called "If I Were An Animal," he wrote: "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."

While it would be delightful to read a tweet from the queen that read: "One is not in the mood for dignitaries today. One wants to watch the horse racing," I firmly believe the duke might contribute something to Twitter, too.

[tismeinaz]

Well, maybe that is the same three that twitter states I am being followed by even though I am not posting anything and have denied all requests to be followed and no one is listed when I look to see who it is.

[Nos1959]

As a Briton living in the USA & a regular reader of CNET, I am not impressed that you have not capitalised the proper nouns & titles such as The Royal Family & the Duke. I certainly would not consider using non-captalised words relating to the President of the USA or any other dignitary.

These are basic rules of grammar, plus it is also protocol. So, kindly correct these mistakes.

[ronan001]

hahaha, you brits, who cares if you are not impressed, and the royal family are not words that require capitialisation in American english. It could refer to any royal family, the brits are not the only country with a monarchy.

[amaress]

@ronan001

English should be capitalized though. And They Royal Family should be capitalized, since it's referring to THE Royal Family, not a royal family. Like The President, not a president.

Get over it. Things get to be capitalized.

[richto]

Yes, the world knows that Americans have not quite grasped the finer points of English Grammer.

However even in your bastardised version of the English language, proper names and titles should be capitalised.

[ArisKatsaris]

The more one demands the capitalization of one's title, the more one inevitably leads to the decapitation of one's person.

[Nos1959]

@ronan001 Oh dear me, you've got to learn a lot about life haven't you. I suggest you go back to school and learn English in a correct manner & how to converse with others with a modicum of courtesy.

My American wife, who has been in publishing & editing for over twenty years, concurs that this usage is certainly not correct.

I will now bow out of this thread with no further comments from myself.

[baggyguy1218]

This is funny. The colum is about Tweets from the British Royal Family, yet the comments are about Capitalization and Grammer. The British are Pompus and Eragant, Americans are Fat and Stupid. You can swap those statements and it would still be true. But atleast we are not Eastern European, those people are screwed.

Also, the single word "duke" does not need to be capitalized. If the word "duke" is used in a title such as "the Duke of Edinburgh" it would be capitalized.

[DamonDMEC]

It's "grammar" folks, not "grammer".

[gjl229]

@baggyguy1218: At least you can spell "fat" properly. The longer words, though, seem to elude you.

A generic duke is not capitalized. A generic president is not capitalized. The president of a university is capitalized only if the individual's name or institution immediately follows; otherwise, it's lower case. The sole exceptions in limited American reporting style are the President (but only of the US) and the Pope. I've only learned of one of those but I don't get out much.

In older British usage, the Duke of Edinburgh often received the capitalization, once specifically identified, whether the rest of his title is present or not. He's also referred to, properly, as "His Grace" or "Your Grace", with capitals. The latest AP stylebook I have indicates that the lower case is used even when the title refers to a specific duke.

But please remember that we're not speaking of grammar here but instead of style.

Style admits to many variations. A style appropriate for a newspaper may not be appropriate for an invitation, a social announcement, or a letter. Grammar tends to have rules to support clarity of communication. Styles are simply conventions we seem to like for a particular purpose and at a particular moment. They're often followed simply for the sake of consistency among writers at a specific periodical or within some other group. They change with the wind.

The Duke of Edinburgh may not care if you refer to him as "Your Grace" when you come calling at his home. On the other hand, I suspect he does not answer his own doorbell.