Happy Birthday, Spare!

[EncantoSpice]

It’s the one year anniversary of the release of Spare, how are you all celebrating?!

In all seriousness, a year on what impact do you think the book has had on the Royal Family and the Sussexes?

In my opinion it clearly did very well commercially but in popular culture it became a bit of a joke. In terms of the RF I’m not sure it made much difference - to people who already didn’t like them it confirmed what they already believed, to people who did like them it was more evidence that Harry was no loss. I also think even a year later it has made reconciliation between William and Harry impossible.

I wouldn't know, I don't read the tabloids

Sorry @wildernesssw . Was having my dinner....

2020 Claimant alleged Tindall et al passing off. Alleged being the operative word.

Defendant (Tindall et al) defending on the basis that there was no passing off, and rather the Claimant was annoyed about buying a less valuable asset than they had thought they were buying. The defendant also claimed they were owed £75k in unpaid fees.

Trial was scheduled for February 2022.

13 January 2022, hearing of the Defendants application about the claimants 2 supporting (and only) witness statements - that they were non compliant with the court rules. Judge agrees with the defendants that these statements were an "egregious case of serious non- compliance”. Orders the claimant to file a new statement by 19 January 2022. Which is not very much time at all. The claimant was told they would have to bear the burden of that non compliance, not the defendant or the court (ie costs, and next to fuck all time to get their evidence sorted out before a trial date that's not going to be put back).

Daily Mail article posted above dated April 2023 says the case was settled "just over a year ago". Since trial was scheduled for February 2022, we can conclude the case was probably settled very soon after the January 13 hearing.

Terms of settlement: no idea. My own opinion is that it is highly unlikely that the passing off claims would have been conceded by the defendant, considering the state of the parties' respective case preparation after 13 January 2022. With a matter of days left before trial, the defendants were in a strong position.

It is therefore my opinion that an assertion that, "They had to settle with the House of Rugby podcast in the High Court as they copied it" as stated above is potentially libellous. Because it implies a wrongdoing - namely that the defendants had in fact been passing off ("as they copied it") - an allegation by that was not corroborated by judgment and which was denied by the defendant in the information about their case that is reported. And further implies an obligation on the part of the defendant that they "had to" settle, pejorative phrasing that intimates they had done something wrong. When it may well have been the case that it was the claimant who "had to" settle because of the state of their case preparation as at 13/1/22. Or that both parties just settled because that's what sensible parties in litigation do to avoid trial.

Oh got it. Yes, Scobie was able to see copies of the letters and then write about them.

Our best hope is that she allowed this long ago and would not have done so if she could do it over again. But she has form for this type of leak.

No problem! Thanks for explaining.

If I understand it, the most likely explanation is not that Mike Tindell 'had to settle' as 'they copied it', despite @Roussette 's claims. As the claimant (the person making the accusation) had their statement dismissed as being opinion and speculation, not evidence (as defined by courts).

And they did not resubmit a statement that met the definition of 'evidence', and the parties then settled.

It would be surprising if Mike Tindall had then admitted any wrongdoing at that point - because no evidence was submited to the court - although no-one can say that for certain, of course. It's a matter of probability.

Well, either OS made up the content of the letters, or someone leaked them to him.

If someone leaked them, it was either Charles or Meghan, or someone very close to them.

Soooo, we all need to decide what is most likely

I think maybe it finally did what Harry wanted all along and convinced the media to stop obsessing about him and leave him alone. It writing this book is what it took to do it, then I think it was probably worth it.

😂

The tabloids have never been "obsessed" by him. Such hyperbole. His mother, yes. Harry ? Not so much. He featured about as much as Freddie Starr and Katie Price, and usually when he did something idiotic.

I'm A Celeb was a bit of both - he's not the first national captain to take part so could well have made the cut anyhow

Podcast is very much rugby - it's been going since 2020 and is among the top rugby podcasts globally. He does mention his family (as do other presenters/guests) but not often. And is it so strange that the Presidents of the English, Welsh and Scottish RFUs go on a highly successful rugby podcast during a World Cup where all nations had qualified?

That’s what I figured. Related to his own occupation rather than his royal ties. Like Invictus being an excellent way for Harry to do something related to his civilian experience. I’d never criticize anything they do that isn’t about monetizing titles and connections.

You think he did it so the media would leave him alone? All his interviews too, inc the promo ones? 😳 no media was obsessed with him, it’s prince bloody Harry, it’s the behaviour that everyone talks about.

and it’s both of them always trying to get into the media, with all their leaks, the interviews, spare and endgame, the media aren’t begging them to do mad shit.

Just seen they are getting absolutely slaughtered by all the news outlets, from the times to the fail, about the queen being angry about the use of the name lillibet and lying about getting permission and her refusing to,support them in their legal threats against the bbc. It’s coming from a biography that is being published. It’s even in the us media.

I don’t know if it’s true or not, clearly the sources are reliable as it’s being confidently reported, and harry and Megan are hugely, hugely litigious, even when they know they are in the wrong, they will still attempt legal action. So whomever is behind this is confident no legal action can succeed.

part of me thinks harry wrote his book and exerts about rhe royals were widely published, now he’s getting back what he doled out, rhe media will relish this, and the other part says, sadly i can believe it’s true, i feel it was very crass to name their daughter lillibet, and did so at the time, even Elizabeth would have been better, with her blessing. And it feels like it was done to curry favour and show a connection, to help their brand. After so much distress had been caused.

either way, I feel sorry for the little girl, whose parents were clearly not thinking of her when they named her, but of themselves, and find this is just another difficult situation for Harry and Megan, likely of their own making.

I’d never criticize anything they do that isn’t about monetizing titles and connections.

They might not have titles but Tindall, his ghastly wife and her equally ghastly brother are the embodiment of milking royal connection until their hands fall off.

I am though enjoying the transparent upselling of venal and grasping third tier 'royals' who have barely figured in the past to fill the glaring gaps in the firm 😂

Serious question why are Zara and her brother ghastly? im not in the UK so we don’t hear a great deal about them (though I believe they’re here visiting Australia now)?

They’re not they’re pretty sound

Good question Dan and I am in the UK.

I rather fancy MT 😂 so will be disappointed if he’s not as good an egg as he seems to be (from afar!).

I think he’s really nice!

By all accounts Zara and Mike are decent people, although I don't know them personally!

I’m not sure why they are ghastly either, from what I can see they seem ok to me too.

Good grief... Mike Tindall is really nice, and fanciable? That's a low bar!

Here's the man fined £25,000 and thrown off the Rugby World Tour for unacceptable behaviour. And he is not averse to snogging other women. Apart from that....

Serious question why are Zara and her brother ghastly? im not in the UK so we don’t hear a great deal about them (though I believe they’re here visiting Australia now)?

Well we have Zara happy to take on a £100k pa five gig a year directorship from a secretive Chinese businessman then lie about it and coming bang up to date happy to take grubby bucks to promote a gambling firm, her multi millionaire gropy lech of a husband claiming furlough for his business and then we have Peter trousering more in fees for an uncontested tender for a jubilee charity lunch than the event raised for charity.

There's probably more but that's off the top of my head.

Good lord. You actually sound bitter and resentful. And it seems over money,

I read it as someone who does not like the (gruby?) behaviour of the people mentioned.

Their behaviour for money!