More News on Harry and Meghan

[Viviennemary]

Two little bits of news I read today. First the bells won't ring out at Westminster Abbey for Meghans birthday next month and she'll be devastated. No I don't think she'll even expect them to ring. And I had to smile at Bogart the dog was left behind in Canada because it didn't take to Harry. What else could she do. Hardly leave Harry behind. And it would have been a worry with a baby in the house too. She did the right thing here.

[TofinoSurf]

Full letter here

www.republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/royalcharityletter.pdf


Summary here

www.republic.org.uk/what-we-do/news-and-updates/campaigners-report-sussex-royal-and-royal-foundation-charity-commission

[ChicCroissant]

Harry setting up his own charity/foundation meant splitting the Royal Foundation which was originally the four of them (or at least three of them, I'm assuming Meghan was added as well).

How are they planning to fund Archewell if they've put all the money into Travalyst? It is not a registered charity but a private limited company.

[ChicCroissant]

The Royal Foundation also passed money directly to Travalyst, so it's not just Harry.

[CallmeAngelina]

By the way, does anyone know what the latest is about H&M transferring their Sussex Royal Instagram followers over to their new account?
Last I heard, they wanted to do this but weren't being allowed. I think they were claiming "special" treatment.
But I've not seen or heard anything about a new account.

[TofinoSurf]

Travalyst was set up as a limited company in April 2020 but no details on companies house before that.

Harry holds 75% shares in Travalyst


beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12546940/filing-history

[EthelMayFergus]

I think the intention was for Travalyst to be registered as a charity, I remember the 'Just call me Harry' speech about six months ago and I was left with the impression that it was a not for profit company. However as TofinoSurf's link shows, that's not what happened when it was registered in April.

[scaevola]

Charities often merge or split. There's nothing that suggests impropriety in assigning the assets, as both organisations are British registered charities with broadly similar aims (note I'm not saying it must be fine, it's more that there's nothing obviously wrong)

A grant from a charity to a non-charitable organisation which is carrying out a project which is in line with the charity's aims may well be OK as well. It will depend on the paper trail. The robust reposnse form the charity suggests they are confident they can demonstrate it was a sound decision.

But the idea that a British charity (Sussex Royal) which is (reportedly) winding up, can just give its assets to a non-charitable entity is problematic. Normally, on winding up, all assets must be donated to other similarly purposed charities.

It gets complicated when the desired recipient is abroad, where the laws about definition of a charity (and other charitable entities) can differ significantly.

The aim of the British rules is to prevent charitable assets (the fruits of benevolence) being taken into private hands.

What country is Travelyst domicile does in?

[Oldbutstillgotit]

H’s legal team , Schillings, have issued a statement refuting the allegations . Omid Scobie has Tweeted it.
Will try to link( don’t hold your breath....)

[scaevola]

x-posted

You can't just give transfer British charitable assets to a private company.

If that is indeed what they propose to do (that was my reading of the first linked doc). But that is republican.org's assertion about events - we do not know how accurate their account is.

Still it's been reported to the right people, so we'll get considered findings at some point

[SunbathingDragon]

@EthelMayFergus

I think the intention was for Travalyst to be registered as a charity, I remember the 'Just call me Harry' speech about six months ago and I was left with the impression that it was a not for profit company. However as TofinoSurf's link shows, that's not what happened when it was registered in April.

Wasn’t the truth behind him asking to just be called Harry because he wasn’t allowed to use his royal family links, hence dropping the title Prince for the talk?

[YouSayWhat]

How do they manage to keep getting themselves into these situations?

[BedknobsNoBroomsticks]

@YouSayWhat

How do they manage to keep getting themselves into these situations?

It just seems to be one disaster after another. Do they have anyone advising them?

[Oldbutstillgotit]

Article updated to include lawyer’s response

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8541853/Campaigners-report-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-Sussex-Royal-charity.html

[Myimaginarycathadfleas]

@TofinoSurf

Does anyone know what the consequences are if a charity breaches UK regulations?

It depends on the breach, and the intent. Honest mistakes are viewed very differently from wilful mismanagement or criminal activity. The former is much more common than the latter.

[TofinoSurf]

^The Schillings spokesman said: 'The Duke of Sussex has always and continues to remain deeply committed to his charitable work. This is his life's focus, and his devotion to charity is at the very core of the principles he lives by, and is obvious through the impact and success of his many charitable projects throughout the UK and beyond.
'To this point, it is deeply offensive to today see false claims made about the Duke of Sussex and his charitable work. It is both defamatory and insulting to all the outstanding organisations and people he has partnered with.
'Travalyst (which was founded within Sussex Royal) is a non-profit organisation for which the duke receives no commercial or financial gain, as is the case with all of his charitable commitments. The duke has not, nor has he ever, had any personal financial interest in his charitable work. The interest has always been clear: to support others and to make a positive difference.
'Had the appropriate course of action been followed for these false allegations, it would have clearly demonstrated that anything related to Sussex Royal, Travalyst, or any of the duke's charitable endeavours is transparent and above board.
'To suggest otherwise is unequivocally wrong and will be acted upon accordingly with the weight of the law. The avenue through which this was publicly and salaciously created only suggests a hunger for media attention as well as a shared and attacking agenda, which is neither right nor just.^


Oh dear 🙈 lengthy and emotional compared to the two charity responses. And threat of legal action?

There is no explanation about Travalyst being a limited company and Harry a shareholder though. So I'm confused. At the time payments were made then maybe it was all above board and all not-for-profit but that doesn't explain what's happening now.

[Myimaginarycathadfleas]

[quote Oldbutstillgotit]Article updated to include lawyer’s response

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8541853/Campaigners-report-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-Sussex-Royal-charity.html[/quote]
That response from their lawyer is all bluster. It doesn't matter if the Duke is deeply offended. If payments have been made that shouldn't have been, it will need to be sorted out. If they haven't, there will be an audit trail to confirm it.

When it comes to the management of charitable funds the law rightly makes no distinction. He is as accountable as anybody.

[Myimaginarycathadfleas]

[quote Oldbutstillgotit]Article updated to include lawyer’s response

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8541853/Campaigners-report-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-Sussex-Royal-charity.html[/quote]
That response from their lawyer is all bluster. It doesn't matter if the Duke is deeply offended. If payments have been made that shouldn't have been, it will need to be sorted out. If they haven't, there will be an audit trail to confirm it.

When it comes to the management of charitable funds the law rightly makes no distinction. He is as accountable as anybody.

[Oldbutstillgotit]

@ TofinoSurf I agree - very shoot from the hip response and I too am confused . But that could be the wine !

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

When it comes to the management of charitable funds the law rightly makes no distinction. He is as accountable as anybody

Maybe worth remembering that the Charity Commission is funded by the Treasury and goes under Gov.uk - otherwise known as her majesty's government. That being so, does anyone really imagine Harry would be as accountable as anyone else if anything's been done incorrectly?

What confuses me, though, is why the cash was transferred to Travalyst at all; I thought their current focus was supposed to be on Archewell ... or black lives matter ... or helping the world to come through Covid ... or something?

[Viviennemary]

As to what their charitable endeavours are it seems to be changing every week. They are like a boat adrift on the ocean IMHO. If this carries on they are going to lose all credibility.

[Pancakeorcrepe]

Omg that response from their lawyer is all wrong! All huffy puffy, I take offence, blah blah, media attention and then threatening with legal action!! And then Harry is surprised that he gets criticised. This is way! Completely OTT and unprofessional reactions. You can tell he is not used at all at being even lightly questioned. If everything is so transparent, he should be grateful at the opportunity to demonstrate how above board it all is. But instead he throws a toddler tantrum! Again the reaction came out a few hours after the article was published, shows what a hot head he is.

[TofinoSurf]

So looking into it further Travelyst is actually registered as a

Private company limited by guarantee without share capital

Which seems to indicate a non-profit company but I don't understand why Harry is listed as holding 75% or more shares.

I'm actually at the start of studying accountancy so eventually I will learn this stuff. But it's why I'm finding it interesting.

[Myimaginarycathadfleas]

Maybe worth remembering that the Charity Commission is funded by the Treasury and goes under Gov.uk - otherwise known as her majesty's government. That being so, does anyone really imagine Harry would be as accountable as anyone else if anything's been done incorrectly?

I'd be surprised if H is personally involved so someone else will no doubt have to do all the explaining.

[TofinoSurf]

These were the charity responses

A Royal Foundation spokesperson said: 'The grants made to Sussex Royal were to support the charitable work of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They were fully in line with governance requirements and were reported transparently.


^A spokesman who worked with the Sussex Royal foundation said: 'Grants made to the non-profit organisation Travalyst are for the ongoing development of projects that will support communities, wildlife, and the environment through sustainable travel and tourism.
'All grants have been made impartially and objectively, fully in line with governance requirements, and have been reported transparently in full accordance with regulations.^

[Oldbutstillgotit]

No response from William even though he was also named in the letter of complaint.