Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Harry and Meghan statement on Afghanistan

845 replies

Mummyoflittledragon · 17/08/2021 18:42

“The world is exceptionally fragile right now.
As we all feel the many layers of pain due to the situation in Afghanistan, we are left speechless.
As we all watch the growing humanitarian disaster in Haiti, snd the threat of it worsening after last weekend’s earthquake, we are left heartbroken.
And as we all witness the continuing global health crisis, exacerbated by the new variants and constant misinformation, we are left scared.
When any person or community suffers, a piece of each of us does so with them, whether we realise it or not. And though we are not meant to live in a state of suffering, we are as a people, being conditioned to accept it. It’s easy to find ourselves feeling powerless, but we can put our values into action - together.
To start, we encourage you to join us in supporting a number of organisations doing critical work. We also urge those in positions of global influence to rapidly advance the humanitarian dialogues that are expected to take place this fall at multilateral gatherings such as the U.N. General Assembly and the Leader’s Summit.
As an international community, it is the decisions we make now - to alleviate suffering among those we know and those we may never meet - that will prove our humanity.”

  • THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUFFOLK

H&M are being criticised for making this about them and for not calling out Biden, notably the FLOTUS is report as being a personal friend of H.

What do mumsnetters think?

OP posts:
Cacacoisfarraige · 20/08/2021 09:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Mummyoflittledragon · 20/08/2021 09:37

To put this into perspective, Harry could pledge 1.5m to his charity, call off the event for the next 3 years and the beneficiaries wouldn’t be worse off. Not exactly a Ponzi scheme but not far off.

Righto. I’m now wondering how much the royal polo matches net.

OP posts:
Serenster · 20/08/2021 09:47

There’s a lot of people with no idea of how the entire third sector works posting here….Hmm

BeckyWithTheAverageHair · 20/08/2021 10:00

@Serenster thanks to Harry and Meghan, a lot of Mumsnet posters have become experts in how charities and foundations should be run! Grin

SueSaid · 20/08/2021 10:14

'thanks to Harry and Meghan, a lot of Mumsnet posters have become experts in how charities and foundations should be run! '

I've no idea how any are ran but I think saying '1.5m from his grubby memoirs will be contributed to the charity' seems crass.

Just say 'we support' or 'we will contribute'. Why must Harry always be such an attention seeker.

Coronateachingagain · 20/08/2021 10:16

@Serenster

There’s a lot of people with no idea of how the entire third sector works posting here….Hmm
There is a lot of people that are wondering how much exactly this pair contribute to these events and how much they get out - Talking actual funding apart from showing up and free PR.
BrilloPaddy · 20/08/2021 10:17

They've not got the presence or pull like the Obamas or Clintons to run a multi million $ foundation..... even though their egos are telling them otherwise.

It's quite funny watching their descent into obscurity. They really are the gifts that keep on giving.

Coronateachingagain · 20/08/2021 10:18

[quote Cacacoisfarraige]@Coronateachingagain

A press announcement said that the event raised 3.5m - I would say that Harry’s promised donation must be included. Revenue from the event were £2m in 2019 so I thought 2m + 1.5m is the 3.5 mentioned. I know I’m mixing currencies but it just gives you an idea[/quote]
Ah it is your assumption then that he contributed 1.5m? You seem yo be generous or did you see that figure coming from him somewhere

Marmaladeagain · 20/08/2021 10:32

I think a good few people on MN have fallen for the line that H&M are altruistic people - H&M are all about preserving their enormous wealth (which they wish to make even more enormous and keep as much of it for themselves as they can).

It's an opaque business and the US view on wealthy individuals is vastly different to the European view which is why there isn't a problem in making yourself hugely wealthy by posing as a "saint". If only the fans would give over being duped and believing the idea that H&M are doing anything other than utilising a system that exists to preserve the wealth of the wealthy in the US. I feel a bit sorry for people that genuinely believe H&M's drivel.

from one of the links, not about H&M about US system of wealth redistribution: " What they are advocating is in many ways anathema to the European social model by which states such as ours redistribute wealth, with a high level of social provision for all. Central to this is the concept that corporations and individuals pay their taxes and are good citizens.

US-style philanthropy turns this notion on its head in several ways. The role of the state as arbiter of people’s needs is usurped, with the individual themselves deciding how their money is redistributed. This chimes well with contemporary US libertarian doctrine, but is not really how we think (for the time being).

Philanthropy in the US also helps square the rather awkward circle drawn when the pillars of the establishment make vast fortunes in an anti-social fashion. The 19th-century French author Honoré de Balzac is credited with the phrase “behind every great fortune there is a great crime”, and to a certain extent the massive wealth of the large handful ofuber-wealthy Americans who keep the US philanthropy wheel turning has been amassed at the expense of ordinary fellow citizens. Most demonstrably, this is done by their paying as little tax "as possible, while expecting their customers and employees to shoulder the burden of running the state in which they operate.

www.marketwatch.com/story/even-celebrities-with-charitable-foundations-in-their-names-often-arent-all-that-generous-new-york-post-reports-2020-01-06

www.irishtimes.com/business/is-us-style-philanthropy-really-the-best-option-1.1440091

Serenster · 20/08/2021 10:32

Trying to summarise, and be helpful.

Charities need to be well organised and well-run. They are custodians of donations, which money they are trusted to use to fulfill their charitable purposes.

Well-run charities, like any organisation, need to plan and budget. If they have programmes that run over time/indefinitely (like a rolling vaccine programme and health education, rather than say, building something) they need to ensure they will have, and continue to have a steady cash flow to fund operations, including paying the people who deliver those programmes.

That cash flow has to come from somewhere. Unless you are one of the fortunate charities like the Wellcome Trust or GOSH with tens of millions in the bank, that money comes from fundraising.

Generally, charities will have different income streams, to reduce the risk the cash will dry up. These can include regular giving by individual donors, or corporate partners, getting bequests from wills, one- off appeals and donations from high-net worth individuals, like Prince Harry.

A charity would be badly advised to put a huge amount of reliance on just the high net worth individuals. They may hit a bad year (financiers after the 2008 crisis for example), may fall from grace (some big former benefactors are currently in jails but of course they could just be cancelled) or they may develop a new, superseding interest. All charities would love to have a regular big private donor like George Michael was to the NSPCC, but they are very rare.

All fundraising opportunities take work to turn them into actual cold hard cash. The charity needs to have a profile, needs to have a way to get its stories out there, needs to build a platform to attract donors. Some do it just because of the nature of their work (average people are probably pretty well-disposed to donate to the RNLI for example, or the Air Ambulances). Others need to create some kind of draw. Glamour and the chance to experience a bit of a luxury lifestyle is one of those.

To do any of this though, charities need good, honest, professional and skilled staff. Accountants, CFOs, fundraisers, content creators etc etc. If you don’t bother with that on the basis you just want to get the cash out there, you end up with a Camilla Batmanjelidh type running an organisational shambles with no records. And if you’re not getting regular government funding, as she was, you’ll run out of money.

So any professional charity is always going to spend a lot of money on it’s staff. It’s normally the biggest cost for any organisation, why would a charity be any different? And Zi don’t work for free, so why should they? People working in the third sector already get paid less than they would in the private sector.

So, I don’t find it at all odd that Sentable continues to host events like this. The global brand awareness it raises must be invaluable to them, let alone the money it brings in even after the costs are deducted.

Velcropaws · 20/08/2021 10:34

[quote SugarCaneHarvest]@Velcropaws - do they use local horses? Each team will typically have 16 horses (four for each player) - so two teams alone will require 32 horses. It really is a game for the rich.[/quote]
I've no idea but if there are three polo clubs in one state, I wouldn't imagine gathering 32 polo ponies together would be an issue.

Serenster · 20/08/2021 10:35

By the way I completely agree with comments on the line that Meghan and Harry’s Archewell foundation is an tax efficient money management vehicle for them, with the fig leaf of charitable giving on it. It is not a charity as UK people understand it.

Serenster · 20/08/2021 10:37

You don’t ride a strangers polo pony!!! You keep your own. One reason why it’s a sport for the very wealthy, or the heavily sponsored. Grin

(The Olympics modern pentathlon makes the athletes ride a strange pony and can be carnage because of it, as this year’s event demonstrated…)

BeckyWithTheAverageHair · 20/08/2021 10:41

@Serenster

By the way I completely agree with comments on the line that Meghan and Harry’s Archewell foundation is an tax efficient money management vehicle for them, with the fig leaf of charitable giving on it. It is not a charity as UK people understand it.
No, but I think posters are confusing H&M's Archewell foundation with Sentebale.
SugarCaneHarvest · 20/08/2021 10:42

@Serenster totally and by all accounts polo players can ride up to ten different (of their own) ponies at one tournament, it costs an astronomical amount to host one of these events - probably more than it costs to run one World Central Kitchen outlet for an entire year.

Marmaladeagain · 20/08/2021 10:45

Serenster we are talking about Foundations and US style charity really - so looking up history of Harry's charity isn't their future style of charity that H&M's sainthoods (by their fans) are based on. So some posters have done a it's just a bit of mooching and wouldn't want to give the impression that any of what has been said about H&M's style of charity being about making money and keeping their own money - whilst styled as philanthropists - which in the US is a form of redistribution of wealth to good causes. The US charity section cannot be compared to UK charity.

So rich man plays polo and announces £1.5m given from some murky book he is doing about the UK RF on how badly he was treated by them (all the while clinging for dear life to his titles). It is an exercise in pure vanity by Harry wanting his own style of RF in the US. He is an unpleasant indvidual IMO.

Serenster · 20/08/2021 10:53

No, @Marmaladeagain, there’s been a lot of discussion about Sentabale’s operations, staff costs and the cost-benefit of it holding the polo event that Prince Harry participated in.

Sentable is a UK registered charity with international operations. It will have no interest in Prince’s Harry’s own accounting of any sums he gives them as a donation. They will gratefully accept it and continue with their fundraising activities. Muddling up how Archewell operates with their function is, to me, incorrect and unhelpful.

Marmaladeagain · 20/08/2021 10:55

Becky - it isn't being confused - it's different conversations happening in a thread and some overlapping.

You'd probably be better worrying on behalf of the misguided posters falling for the whole Foundation is something saintly baloney than us chatting about H's previous history of charity. Dicussing the fact H is giving (yes it's vague) £1.5 from his memoirs at some stage.

H&M are having problems defining what it is their visions are for Foundations (legally speaking) and reshaping etc. Hence the era of visibility Grin

They've put the cart before the horse and might have to focus on the branding before fully utilising the Foundation vehicles. They're very much beginners and it's not been going too well for them (slight problem in forgetting to the have the glittering Obama style careers first - who'd have guessed that might be the clincher).

BeckyWithTheAverageHair · 20/08/2021 11:04

You may not be confused @Marmaladeagain but I'm pretty sure a few other posters are.

Velcropaws · 20/08/2021 11:08

Serenster very interesting and informative post.

Before anyone is put off donating to the charity sector, most charities in the UK are much smaller in scale and run on a shoe string. The financial realities of running a small charity are indeed crushing. A fight every day - and time taken away from end-users - to fill in countless bids for corporate donations which always come with huge strings attached. And a good 70% rejected so time wasted.

The uncertainty about where the funding situation will be in five years time leaves small charities unable to plan in the way we would like to. Lots of energy and stress and constantly teetering on the brink. It's a precarious existence. You have to fight for, and justify, ever penny. Which is all correct and good and exactly as it should be of course and incredibly challenging at the same time!

As an aside, Camilla Batmanghelidjih always gets a bad wrap on Mumsnet, but to be accurate, it was a false accusation of sexual abuse that endangered the charity, not mismanagement:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/12/mismanagement-claims-kids-company-founder-thrown-out-camila-batmanghelidjh

Also as another aside, I know of a small charity in the East Midlands (community kitchen) who received a cash donation from Meghan Markle without fanfare. It was a small donation from her perspective probably, but absolutely massive to them. It got in to the local papers but it was the recipients who publicised it:

www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/meghan-markle-donates-10000-hyson-5225946

Marmaladeagain · 20/08/2021 11:10

serenster - there wasn't any muddling between the two - they were separate conversations.

In the last three days - Harry had an announcment about Afhanistan; then his announcement on AW about being "scared" and "layers of pain"; his announcement (via OS) about Finding Freedom and then announcment about £1.5 m giving from his grubby memoirs.

Some conversations on H&M overlap as their PR is incoming and barrage style; so conversations overlap.

H&M have endless PR try to bury the last PR that bombed. Releasing book on Diana's anniversary on 31.8.21 - endless opportunities for maxium tasteless PR are taken.

You might want to help the poor dears that think H&M do any of this for any other reason than to make themselves more wealthy than they are and most importantly to ensure they pay as little tax as they possibly can.

Becky: the confusion is weighted heavily on the side of the "can do no wrong" posters so I'd worry more about them Grin

Marmaladeagain · 20/08/2021 11:15

Yes velcro giving to UK charities is a very good idea (mostly) it is much more accountable and less open to abuse and we don't do Foundation style tax vehicles (which is what they are).

That's one of the reasons why mixing the UK and US charity sectors is annoying and Harry is happy to misrepresent away knowing that the UK hear the word "philanthropy" and think something different.

Velcropaws · 20/08/2021 11:21

@Serenster

You don’t ride a strangers polo pony!!! You keep your own. One reason why it’s a sport for the very wealthy, or the heavily sponsored. Grin

(The Olympics modern pentathlon makes the athletes ride a strange pony and can be carnage because of it, as this year’s event demonstrated…)

You don’t ride a strangers polo pony!!! You keep your own. One reason why it’s a sport for the very wealthy, or the heavily sponsored

It depends at what level you play: low, medium or high goal.

For fancy charity events it will be high goal and may be a mix of owner-owned ponies & some that are borrowed for high profile visitors.

Velcropaws · 20/08/2021 11:23

Meant to add there that the professional players have their own ponies of course.

SugarCaneHarvest · 20/08/2021 11:41

@Velcropaws

Meant to add there that the professional players have their own ponies of course.
And you can bet the 'borrowed' ponies for high profile visitors come from the likes of Figueras - flown in from Argentina and not borrowed from a local stables down the road.
Swipe left for the next trending thread