Oh! You mention the British Monarchy site, and it is known for having less than reliable information a certain amount of the time.
Marketing and promotion are understood. If the RC knows why it wants to promote itself why must it ask people?
And the point about no need for training makes me even less confident of the results!
--Previous Message-- : All I was pointing out, and didn't explain : very well is several things........... : : Huge numbers of people use and look at : facebook. It is one of the major ways of : communicating and broadcasting material in : today's electronic world. : : So for the Royal collection there are two : ways that they would 'capitalise' by using : it. : 1. They could authoritatively share and : broadcast their information to large numbers : of people. : (oh and putting information onto facebook is : cheaper to do that using a website as you : don't need specific training or access to do : it) : : 2. One of their other aims is to raise funds : to keep the collection, and the palaces, : going. Again using facebook is a great : (free) way of marketing themselves and so : encouraging people to visit, buy merchandise : etc. : : So whether we like it or not, its here to : stay as a mass communication method, and : organisations who don't use it are missing : an opportunity. : After all even the British Monarchy site : posts material regularly (often daily) on : facebook. : : --Previous Message-- : : Capitalise? In what way? For what purpose? : To what end? : : The area of searching and discovery we : pursue here requires researchers. : The RC can offer that via their excellent : and valued publications. : : : --Previous Message-- : I have just looked at the British Monarchy : facebook site and here are the numbers for a : couple of their posts. For one there were : 1,964 people who looked at it and 20,227 : looked at another. Yes that's over twenty : thousand!!!!! : So whether we like it or not facebook has : huge numbers of people who use it and look : at the posts on it. In response to that the : British Monarchy would be mad not to : capitalise on that and put material there. : (I bet they don't get that many people : looking at their website) : : : --Previous Message-- : I do not have a Facebook account, so I can : not : answer to the Royal Collection on their : Facebook official page, but if anyone is : kind enough to transmit my wishes, may he or : she be blessed! : : Of course, we must ask for jewels, jewels, : and more jewels! Though we should not : forget that the Royal Collection also : includes paintings, sculptures, drawings, : furniture and various artefacts which are : not less valuable than the jewels! : : As for jewels, a comprehensive (and : illustrated!!!) inventory of the Greville : bequest would be a treat for me! Especially : if we can have at last a clear picture of : the Greville emerald necklace! : : I would be glad too if the Royal Collection : could clarify the different levels of : ownership of jewels (and other artworks) and : help us to distinguish the following : concepts: "heirlooms of the Crown" : / Royal Collection (whose collections are : supposed to be "owned by The Queen in : her capacity of Sovereign and held in trust : for the nation") / privately-owned : items. : : I have to say I am sometimes a bit : disoriented between these concepts and do : not know for sure in which category each : jewel should be classified (and according : which criteria?), and which are the rules : for each of these categories. For instance, : Queen Anne and Caroline's pearl necklaces : are supposed to have been designated as : "heirlooms of the Crown" by Queen : Victoria, yet they were presented as a : wedding gift to Princess Elizabeth in 1947, : though she was at that time only the : heir-apparent, and could have theoretically : been replaced as successor by a younger : brother in case the King had fathered a son. : Some other jewels were presented to the : Queen as wedding gifts or bequeathed to her : by family members (including all the jewels : bequeathed by Queen Mary to her : grand-daughter in 1953!); therefore, I would : have classified these jewels as private : jewels; yet some of them are visibly part of : the Royal collection, with an inventory : number, etc. (e.g. Prince Philip's wedding : gift diamond bracelet, the Cullinans, the : Vladimir tiara...). It would be fine to know : better about that... : : : --Previous Message-- : The Royal Collection are asking for : suggestions of what should be included in a : special facebook page. Now is our chance to : request that Jewellery is included: : The British Monarchy official Fbk page has : the following appeal, and you can leave your : suggestions there (NOT here or they will be : missed) : : : : : : https://www.facebook.com/TheBritishMonarchy?fref=nf : : "Calling all British Monarchy fans! We : need your help to shape a brand new Facebook : page. Royal Collection Trust, the department : of the Royal Household responsible for the : care of the Royal Collection, and the public : opening of the official residences of The : Queen is launching its own Facebook page : next week. What would you like to see on : their page? So that they can provide fans : with fascinating stories and exclusive : content, we would love to hear your : suggestions" : : : : : : : : : :
on July 12, 2014, 3:10 am, in reply to "