Archewell report by Charity Watch

[BemusedAmerican]

It's tax time and Charity Watch is revising charity ratings. Archewell Foundation is now old enough to have a rating:
https://www.charitywatch.org/charity-donating-articles/archewell-foundation-charitywatch-rating

Here is info about Charity Watch for the curious: https://www.charitywatch.org/about-charitywatch/mission-goals

And then there's this - again optics and compliance about a Royal charity. Meanwhile intemperate hammers rain down on Archwell which is just a minor cottage industry compared to the behemoth of the Palace.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60404077

I feel slightly differently about Prince Charles being handed bags of cash. Namely the donor is of a culture where they don’t mind that sort of thing at all.
And secondly, he doesn’t need any more money. He’s so rich he’s not likely have a pang of “that could be mine!” It seems more likely that he’s mentally rubbing his hands together at how much more help he can provide with £3m smackeroonies.

(and no wrongdoing was found).

The Sussexes aren’t really in that financial position. Their grifting makes them look desperate for money so the optics would be different whether they trousered the cash or not. Or billed their foundation for their expensive clothes…

The cash for honours seems more egregrious and besides the Palace has the huge administrative machines available to an an institution of the state at it's disposal and should for the sake of the institution be beyond reproach. Archewell will inevitably be a seat of your pants type of organistion, no dount well meaning, but yet to find it's feet. Let's be honest here folks on both sides are picking their cudgels to satisfy an agenda with faux concern for propriety and it does appear Charles was aware of the bags and wise counsel would be to say, thanks but can he do it through more acceptable means, precisley to avoid what did indeed happen - a minor scandal. That smells of a lack of judgement which may well have been inherited by his wayward son.

Forgive me if I misread your post but you seem to be implying that Archewell has a corrupt smell about it which has the whiff of an internet rumour rather than an established fact.

Meanwhile intemperate hammers rain down on Archwell which is just a minor cottage industry compared to the behemoth of the Palace.

Well yes, Charles has a literal lifetime’s experience behind him of establishing and developing charitable enterprises that have achieved tangible, long term benefits. Despite this Charles does not, to my knowledge, leverage this to constantly tell the world what a fantastic, admirable person he is.

In contrast, Archewell is a nascent charity with a modest list of attainments to date and a declining rate of donations . But it’s constantly leveraged by its directors to position themselves as major advocates for mental health, family care, and gender equity and cultural catalysts for positive change, reflecting their core belief that representation matters, and that communities can be enhanced through learning, healing, and inspirational support. Etc etc. (That’s Meghan’s bio there I’m quoting). So evidence it’s poorly run behind the scenes matters.

Some of us haven't forgotten, but for whatever reason few want to hear it when it concerns Charles

The point that he has a vastly larger admin machine is valid, which almost makes it worse, but that doesn't alter H&M's culpability for their own affairs - it's possible for two or more people to be wrong at the same time, and with the backgrounds if this lot is almost to be expected

The difference is I'm charitably giving them the benefit of the doubt whereas I get the impression that you have already made your mind up and Harry's lese majeste will never be forgotten or forgiven. Interestingly Boris' ex-mistress seems now willing to forgive. It is a foundation of Christ's teachings after all. But not interestingly about adultery.

“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 1 Corinthians 6:18 ESV / 2,619 ...

https://archive.ph/YzMTj

Yes - sancifying the Monarch requires quite a bit of sweeping inconvenient truths under the carpet lest the besmirch the institution. I would also hazard a guess (apart from Princess Anne's dog incident) that every and any trangression that requires legal counsel will have the very highest scope for leeway, and action if any will need to be signed off by the most senior policeman - probably one who has a gong and would like an upgrade when the eventually retire.

And as lovely as Harry is (sorry!) he's hardly the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I beg your pardon?

It’s the alternative Thought For The Day. Tehran style.

The second bit is a non sequiter not related to my first comment so I take what I think may be your point of the confusion of mixed messaging. Apologies if it read that way it's my disordered mind.

My first sentence I hope was quite clear I get the impression you're no fan of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex ?

Don't worry you will wear me down I don't think I have your impressive stamina and I've no desire to be a third rate Rousette. Let's keep to the forgiveness, that works in the modern era and anyway Corinthinians is the product of Paul's fevered mind not Jesus.

Hmmm, that article is two years old. Do we know what the outcome of the investigation was?

And it is not exactly the same as what is being alleged for Archwell. The accusation is that a single staff member was offering possible honours in exchange for donations to the charity- with the money then being used for charitable purposes. Extremely over enthusiastic fund raising by one person and the charity gave full cooperation to the police. Complete transparency and cooperation with the police.

vs.

Archwell being unable to keep their charity registration up to date because they haven’t filed important financial documents and won’t reveal the names of their main donors or what happened to the interest on their millions of invested monies. It’s the response here that is different. We didn’t do it and even if we did it was a mistake or someone else’s fault. And why does anyone care etc. Suspicious and frankly alarming. Is this really a charity or is it a tax shelter? Where did all the money go? Who donated? What is the quid pro quo inherent in that donation.

Try to compare this to the investigation into Charles’s charity is like comparing apples and pears.

Archewell is not technically a charity AFAIK. I think it's a foundation. Means they can raise loads of dosh from their mega rich pals and take a nice big cut for their expenses and dole out what's left to worthy causes. Thats my take going off what I've read about them.

It was no further action and Fawcett described as Charles' "closest confidant" was the fall guy. Quite a whiff about it all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66569843

Lol at this word salad to try and justify your hypocrisy because that is what it is.

You're haply to justify it for Charles but not for Harry & Meghan just because you don't like them thats what it comes down to. 🤣

A lot of this type of stuff is about tax management.

Archewell is a mix of for-profit and not-for-profit organizations founded in 2020 by Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

The not-for-profit part of Archewell is The Archewell Foundation, which focuses on uplifting and uniting communities through acts of compassion. It supports various causes, including mental health, gender equity, and disaster relief.

The for-profit divisions, Archewell Audio and Archewell Productions, focus on creating impactful content through podcasts, documentaries, and other media.

The tax management of the donors.

Right, so official police investigation clears Charles’s charity of wrong doing= suspect. But official charity watchdog saying Archwell is delinquent and has failed to provide key info= nothing to see here/ victimisation and wrong.

Good to see those mental gymnastics at work. The only issue is that only those with an extreme obsession with H&M buy it. Everyone outside that echo chamber sees them for who they really are- grifters who use their foundation to horde their wealth and also give a thin veneer of being humanitarians. It’s all self service.

Those poor deluded Nigerians taken in by a pair of grifters - quite the feat wouldn't you say ?And when it comes to hording wealth the Windsors are truly world class. Opaque in their barely there tax arrangements, gets first dibs at any law to make sure they aren't impacted , all topped off with King Charles and his predecessors trousering huge amount of cash from folks dying without a will or next of kin. Harrys grifting, if that's what it is is chump change in comparison.

The king is profiting from the deaths of thousands of people in the north-west of England whose assets are secretly being used to upgrade a commercial property empire managed by his hereditary estate, the Guardian can reveal.

The Duchy of Lancaster, a controversial land and property estate that generates huge profits for King Charles III, has collected tens of millions of pounds in recent years under an antiquated system that dates back to feudal times.

Financial assets known as bona vacantia, owned by people who died without a will or known next of kin, are collected by the duchy. Over the last 10 years, it has collected more than £60m in the funds. It has long claimed that, after deducting costs, bona vacantia revenues are donated to charities.

However, only a small percentage of these revenues is being given to charity. Internal duchy documents seen by the Guardian reveal how funds are secretly being used to finance the renovation of properties that are owned by the king and rented out for profit.

The Adultery reference is unexpected.

Is that about the bodyguard or the surf instructor?

No the poor Nigerians continue to suffer persecution and poverty, while the rich and corrupt hob nob with the grifters. Do keep up.

It was aimed at Petronella Wyatt the article I linked where like Tina Brown she is saying forgive and bring back Harry the Palace is failing (she was one of Boris' many mistresses) and the then Prince Charles popped into my head for some reason.

So where Archwell skirts the dodginess factor is that it is a mixture of profit and not for profit; who audits the potential flow (likely one way!) between the branches? Is “expenses” not regulated? Can I set up a charitable foundation and dictate my own generous entertaining, travel and clothing reimbursal?

Ah. Just like the bodyguard and the surf instructor popped into my head for some reason.

The more the merrier eh.