Yes, it's a dreadful name for a website, and it'll be a pain for anyone who can't type, but it gets better, right?

Before I go on, and for those who don't know, it's traditional for a reporter to use the Latin word 'sic' (meaning 'thus') in brackets, to indicate that a reprinted error in spelling or grammar belongs to the original material, and isn't something introduced by a typo during the subsequent reproduction. It's a useful thing to know, as well as distancing the reporter from the content of the report. You might find it useful.

There's a lot of interesting information on this site, such as

"If Prince William would of (sic) married before his 25th birthday he would of (sic) need (sic) his grandmother's (Queen Elizabeth) consent."

"The day has been declared a Royal bank holiday give (sic) the public a three day week due to Easter Monday."

From the Grasping At Straws Department and under the heading of "Everything you need to know about the venue" comes

"This is an ideal location for the royal couple as Westminster Abbey is rich in royal history."

Anyone reeling from that information blast can expect to read much more, since

"Prince William and Kate have had non-stop press coverage in the news since the happy couple announce (sic) their engagement in November"

And

"With the royal wedding date now set for 29th April 2011, media houses (?) would (sic) definately (sic) be in a frenzy to put up a good coverage of the event. Camera crews will definately (sic) be falling over each other to get a vantage positions (sic) at Westminster Abbey, Bukingham (wait, what?) Palace and the streets in between. The event is definately (sic) one to bid for (eh?) and I am sure we only have to wait a while to know who will be the official broadcasters."

"One BBC viewer comemted (sic) 'I'm hoping the ceremony will be televised as I have never seen a royal ceremony as I was only born in 1979.'"

Well, quite.

Also,

"Kate and Prince William discovered a romance that would lead onto (sic) a royal wedding and the biggest media frenzy in the UK and global (sic) alike."

So, on to the big day, and

"Kate is rumoured to be spending her last night as a single women (sic) at the Goring in Belgravia, central London"

And

"Royal Wedding ceremony is going to take place at Westminster Abby (sic) at 11.00am"

The dress?

"Latest new (sic) implies that Bruce Oldfield could be designing Kate's dress"

"Prince William also continues to follow in his parent's (sic) footsteps by taking interest in varies (sic) causes..."

"Prince William likes to contribute to charities that help disadvantaged young children and is currently a patronage (sic) to 19 charities..."

"The pair tried to keep their relationship a secret for as long as possible but their relations (sic) was (sic) confirmed when they were spotted kissing..."

"More recently Prince William has toured Auckland and Wellington on behalf of him (sic) mother..."

(this last is accompanied by a rare red-eyed flash photo of the Prince, which given the thousands of normal shots out there, must have been quite hard to find. As might have been the shot of Kate with her hand in front of her face, and the one of Kate and Harry with the latter apparently holding his crotch and grinning)

History:

"Although price (sic) William came from a privileged background, his mother Princess Diana wanted William and his younger brother Harry to lead a normal life..."

But alas,

"his parents got divorced and his mother was tragically died when he was 15 years old."

And afterward?

"St James's Palace is an option for Prince William and Kate Middleton as they are keen to live a normal life... "

Well, normal is relative, I guess.

And lastly,

"The wife of a British king is automatically a queen so one day Kate Middleton will become the Englands sixth Queen Catherine "

The England must be looking forward to that.

Seriously, this is dreadful stuff and I've left out the missing periods (full stops), punctuation errors and omissions, lack of capitalization and less serious mistakes.

This is presumably all about making money from the event, and there's a merchandise page which is "live on site and ready to buy." There's nothing actually for sale, but there will apparently be a range of items including "mouse matt's".

The whole thing is wrapped up in a basic Wordpress template with lots of purple and gold and very little else.

The site is designed and apparently owned by a company called Igniyte (www.igniyte.co.uk), which is in the business of making profitable lead-creating websites for clients and getting them into the Google listings with great SEO (search engine optimization). The company is previously noted for its work in building the official website for the World Curry Festival, at www.worldcurryfestival.com, a venue which, I feel you will agree, takes all the excitement, color and variety of the subject and ignores it entirely.

This time, though, things will be better, because

"Our team have been working hard on TheRoyalWeddingWilliamKate.com avid link building and on site SEO undertaking extensive research and with With just a couple of weeks work behind this professional website we have already reached page one on Google for certain relevant key words."

Well, I tried a couple of educated guesses at key words, such as "royal wedding" and "william and kate", and this site wasn't anywhere to be seen. So maybe I picked the wrong words, or it's slipped a bit. Or maybe, this is exactly what it seems to be from looking at the underlying code - a basic Wordpress blog, with a standard free SEO plug-in, not much content and a lot of hopes.

So I can hear you asking, why did I pick on this one to savage, in particular? Well, I guess first and foremost I'm English, and this is a dreadful way to promote the country and its Royal Family. Secondly, it was actually featured in the current edition of the UK magazine, 'Web User', which started off getting it right:

"This online celebration of the Royal Wedding looks a little naff at first"

But then blows it with

"there's plenty here to feed your excitement... as the big day draws near, there's sure to be more content added."

And even without any merchandise in the "live on site and ready to buy" store, no mouse matt's, even, the magazine still awards this thing three stars out of five. So much for standards.

To cap it all, the site claims to be "an unofficial sponsor" of the Royal Wedding. Now maybe I have this wrong, but since when did the Royal Family need sponsorships? Are we to see Prince William wearing a Marlboro logo on the day? Come on then, guys, explain how you're sponsoring this event, because you say,

"We are an unofficial sponsor and supporter of the royal wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton. We aim to provide a wide variety of relevant information and products related to the occassion (sic)"

Darn, they didn't even get that bit right.

If this is the normal standard set by English websites, and this is good enough for three stars with the promise of more in a leading national magazine, then don't be surprised that the USA continues to lead the way in the English-language web. It's especially inexcusable because it's the Royals we're talking about here, and just because they don't cut off people's heads any more doesn't mean just any commoner can go around mis-spelling them. It's not right, and it wouldn't have happened in Victoria's day, I can tell you.