Archewell only had two donors

[Blip]

Interesting to see that Archewell donations were 99% made up of donations from just TWO one-off donors, one of £10M and one of £3M.
Speculation that this was £10M from Oprah for the interview and £3M from Tyler.

This doesn't look very sustainable to me.

Archetypes conversations were unscripted. Neither were the conversations for Better Up /CICF/ Harvest Home/ Gloria Steinman etc. scripted.

Are you going to tell me the Gates and Obamas do not work now, because they have advisors and strategists? That is the difference with the institution. You can tell if someone was not really involved in how they deliver their speech, they mumble or read out the whole thing in a stiff manner.

Anyway, didn't one of you say they lost their staff just now.

Also, where did OP hear about OW and TP. Could the two donors be H&M themselves?

Sounds more like CT's article was trying to distract from the Guardian article.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/how-the-british-royal-family-hides-its-wealth-from-public-scrutiny?CMP=share_btn_tw

X post at @MrsMaxDeWinter

I did not know the 16 also included Jason Knauf/ Christian/ and all those other KP staff !
Talk about con reporting !

And they include people who lost their jobs when Harry and Meghan left. And one, Sarah Latham, who was going to leave the palace anyway but stayed on for a few months at the request of the Queen.

According to @MarshaMelrose however, all these people worked for Archewell!

The only information I have seen dissecting this 'foundation' has been from American contributors. They all say it hides more than it shows. The flowery statement preceding the tax return was a joke.

The one hour a week is what they are ascribing to the foundation - not the sum total of their work generally. It does not include for-profit ventures like Spare, Podcasts, documentaries. Nor established ventures like Invictus.

It's in line with the standard hours a member of a board of a charitable foundation lists.

Embarrassingly bad UK journalism on this.

Here's an American source on how this works:

https://www.newsweek.com/why-prince-harry-meghan-markle-one-hour-week-work-foundation-1792184?amp=1

I expect the 'donations' were their own offerings from money they have got from selling their tittle tattle.

I don't know how well the foundation is fulfilling its aims or what information may not be disclosed.

But criticisms based on hours worked and percentage of holdings donated in a year aren't sensible. If the press wants to offer an honest critique, they can do better than that.

@notanotheroneagain You don't seem to understand archwell has several arms, some of which include the Netflix deal and another media arm, the Spotify one. The charitable side is the one they do little work on (1 hour a week). For this 1 hour a week they earn nothing. All their earnings come from the media arms so that's where they put their efforts.

The charity arm only has 3 employees...H&M and the boss. No one else. All only work 1 hour a week with the boss getting a 6 figure salary, presumably to coordinate everything.

All. the 'charitable' work H&M claim as their own are 'partnerships' they have hitched their name to, and those partners do the work as they always have, with no payout from archwell. The charities gain (🤔) from the association with royalty (where have we seen that?) and H&M get the glory despite doing SFA.

@Oftenaddled The tax returns are in the public domain and have been pulled apart by Americans, who know how their system works.

Really good post^^. Totally agree with this. And it's significant I think that people are finally making a stand.

@DewinDwl You do realise Harry is attacking free speech? There are restrictions on the press following the Levinson enquiry. It's a slippery path when you gag the press and restrict free speech.

The internet does need looking at as it the Wild West and far more damaging than newspapers, that's where Harry should be focusing his efforts, but his wife used the internet very much to her own benefit, so that's awkward.

Harry has outraged Americans by going on record as saying the 1st amendment is bonkers so he is meddling in American politics and trying to gag Americans too.

‘crappy politicians are unchallenged. ‘
Like the sturgeons and trump?

That's okay. I'm not a reader of US sites or press and I don't want to get sucked into this ongoing drama about this couple and the royal family. If there's other evidence that the foundation is not functioning properly, that's significant.

But what has been reported in the UK press and discussed on this thread just isn't unusual in context of American foundations. It would be sensible for people to think about media sensationalism and make sure they're not jumping on a bandwagon - and I accept that some like you will have done this.

I don't think it's fair to include playing polo, that's one of his hobbies isn't it? Who thinks doing their hobby is some sort of sacrifice? Other stuff they are doing for charity fair enough but playing polo isn't some sort of sacrifice for him, I didn't know she played to be honest.

There are restrictions on the press following the Levinson enquiry. It's a slippery path when you gag the press and restrict free speech

The newspapers can still publish freely what they find by legal means.

They are however subject to the law, which forbids interception of communications (other than in very specific circumstances, such as by police and security/intelligence services)

Phone hacking is illegal.

'Archetypes conversations were unscripted. Neither were the conversations for Better Up /CICF/ Harvest Home/ Gloria Steinman etc. scripted.'

Your comment was about speeches, not conversations. And do you honestly think there's been no discussion prior to these 'conversations' of the content and direction?

Ben Browning and Rebecca Sananes have departed Archewell recently and there's talk of Fara Taylor leaving too.

'Are you going to tell me the Gates and Obamas do not work now, because they have advisors and strategists'

But it's ok for you to suggest members of the RF don't work because they have the same - as do Harry and Meghan.

Archewell had a very unlucky start, right at the beginning of the pandemic. I'm not remotely surprised that it has been slow to grow. I hope it starts to do better, and that we see projects that are its own initiative (rather than co-funding work that is done by others, though I expect that will also continue). #

I think it really needs to do things itself, so people know what it does and can get behind those initiatives. Giving to a body that only gives to someone else strikes me as unnecessarily circuitous, especially as although you might support a general area you might not have chosen the recipient project.

This is a foundation, not a charity. All foundations retain revenue, it would be fiscally irresponsible not to- Obama, Clinton foundations did the same & Archewell has performed better than those in its first year.

I think it really needs to do things itself, so people know what it does and can get behind those initiatives. Giving to a body that only gives to someone else strikes me as unnecessarily circuitous, especially as although you might support a general area you might not have chosen the recipient project.

It’s a foundation. That’s what they do.

Not necessarily.

And it certainly need not be the whole of what they do.

At the end of the day, two donors does not sound very impressive. But fair dos, they left the royal family and needed to do something. My idea of charity is that you give money and it goes directly to the people/animals or whatever who need it. A naive view.

Exactly !

The Gates Foundation only took on their own projects after years of operations. All this time they worked exactly like Archewell. The malaria project only started 2 decades ago, long after they had been established with funds.

And yes, all foundations have to have a commercial side, otherwise how do they get funding.

All these heat and fury over the finances and work of a couple who live in another country and left the royal family more than three years ago, and none at all over the recent revelations about the opaque finances of the actual royals who live in the UK.

Colour me shocked.

Once more, it's not a charity. It's a foundation.

Though they do donate money directly.

When you play it to donate 3M it stops being just a 'hobby'.