Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Happy Birthday, Spare!

886 replies

EncantoSpice · 10/01/2024 11:17

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
CathyorClaire · 18/01/2024 20:28

I think you vastly overestimate the importance of one woman in America.

Always amazes me that posts professing not to care about this or that piece of highlighted royal skulduggery appear so regularly but there we go.

Seems It's A Royal Knockout.

CathyorClaire · 18/01/2024 21:01

Numbers were deemed competitive

I do wonder how the now conveniently defunct Patron's Fund Charity reached that conclusion when no other tenders were invited or made.

wildernesssw · 18/01/2024 21:45

Well, I have no idea in this case, it could be dodgy, but not necessarily.

The procurement process usually has a period of pre-market engagement, where you sound out companies informally. A tender process is a lot of work, so you don't want to go through the full process with a completely unrealistic project/budget. There is no point spending many hours coming up with a detailed specification if there are no companies interested in offering what you are asking for, for the price you can pay.

So you research potential suppliers, have initial, off the record conversations to gauge their interest and get a sense of how much it would cost.

You finalise the tender requirements and budget based on what seems to be realistic, given those conversations.

So, it may be that this was bunged his way, or it may be that no other providers were interested in bidding.

AliceOlive · 18/01/2024 22:54

CathyorClaire · 18/01/2024 21:01

Numbers were deemed competitive

I do wonder how the now conveniently defunct Patron's Fund Charity reached that conclusion when no other tenders were invited or made.

It would be easy to do, actually.

However, I don’t think it would make sense to take a concept wholly conceived and developed by one vendor and ask another to do it instead. Who would spearhead that? Not the one proposing it in the first place.

How does that work? “Give us your brilliant plan for this idea you had so we can decide if we want someone else to execute it.”

Do you think any vendor would agree to that?

thisiswheretheseagullfliesaway · 19/01/2024 02:40

AliceOlive · 18/01/2024 16:19

Was it at anyone using the daily mail as a source of info about what Harry is doing?

It was the absolute bat shittery comments, some were reaching so far they could be yoga professionals.

EncantoSpice · 19/01/2024 09:11

How did it go from Spare to Peter Philips 😂 he’s something like the 16th spare now

OP posts:
AliceOlive · 19/01/2024 11:58

thisiswheretheseagullfliesaway · 19/01/2024 02:40

It was the absolute bat shittery comments, some were reaching so far they could be yoga professionals.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, dear.
As I don’t recall seeing your user name before perhaps you are new here so let me explain.

Firstly, this is a bat shittery.

Secondly, none of these people quoting the daily mail read the daily mail.

AliceOlive · 19/01/2024 11:59

EncantoSpice · 19/01/2024 09:11

How did it go from Spare to Peter Philips 😂 he’s something like the 16th spare now

That was the entire point. Distract, derail, dismiss. 🤣🤣🤣

thisiswheretheseagullfliesaway · 19/01/2024 15:43

AliceOlive · 19/01/2024 11:58

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, dear.
As I don’t recall seeing your user name before perhaps you are new here so let me explain.

Firstly, this is a bat shittery.

Secondly, none of these people quoting the daily mail read the daily mail.

Edited

Nope not new here since 2004.

wildernesssw · 19/01/2024 15:44

Deflect, deflect...

AliceOlive · 19/01/2024 16:23

thisiswheretheseagullfliesaway · 19/01/2024 15:43

Nope not new here since 2004.

Should I have indicated that was sarcasm?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page