WeAreInvictus - X

[ConstantGarden1]

A fitting endorsement from Fred Hargreaves OBE who on X wrote, “As ever, a genuine and heart-felt speech from the Duke of Sussex - the driving force and passion behind the #InvictusGames. So good to see this Award, and share the stage with Elizabeth, Kirsty and Israel.”

From the Royal Website, how the ‘driving force’ - Harry - brought Invictus into being:

https://www.royal.uk/invictus-games

Positive Harry posts have been flooding X. Haters were out too. Some negatively posting in a quasi-forensic manner. No ‘gotcha’ revelations, however, nor tens of thousands of likes which the repost of Harry’s speech on ESPN by the knowledgeable Robert Griffin III now has. In less than 2 days 51+K likes and still rising.

I also checked out some (too many) #Sussexsquad posters. It revealed teachers, veterans, different nationalities, colours, creeds, nurses, retired folk etc etc. Thus I formed a completely different understanding about the use of the hashtag to support the Sussex family. There were also very strange users of the hashtag too. The hashtag was additionally utilised to send the message out on X to put the anti-Harry and Meghan posters or ‘derangers’, as they are often called, on mute and not to engage. Quite a restrained and civil position to promote and many did just that. Invictus awareness was successfully brought to those who had never heard of the international fraternity of veterans with disabilities and injuries by this hashtag alone.

Watching the videos on X I saw Harry speak with sincerity and humility under pressure. His words, “The truth is, I stand here not as Prince Harry, Pat Tillman Award recipient, but rather a voice on behalf of the Invictus Games Foundation and the thousands of veterans and service personnel from over 20 nations who have made the Invictus Games a reality. This award belongs to them. Not to me.”

Harry has now been awarded, by a very diverse online presence, a new respect. And I do believe he’s also a jolly good fellow…and so say many, many, many of us. 😊💙

I am so glad I went on my very new X twitter account for I was disgusted with the Daily Mail’s use of Pat Tillman’s mother to denigrate Prince Harry as it was totally uncalled for. Call it for what it was - a hit piece of journalism designed to create a mini storm online. We know nothing about the context of how they obtained words supposedly said by Pat’s mother about Harrry. I was aghast too at how Pat’s widow has also been treated by some online posters. Her foundation may not be perfect but she does more than anyone to honour him. Pat’s mother also did not go on any mainstream American media either where her complaints would have been listened to and would have provided the much needed context for the hate motivated article by a newspaper under the spotlight for its nefarious journalism and click bait articles about Harry.

Harry’s response was beautiful. The way Harry acknowledged Pat’s mother went further than him being a royal. It was a standout out moment of what being human is all about. I do believe he’s also a jolly good fellow…and so say many, many, many of us. 😊💙

I don’t think Reid got a mention, did he?

Well quite.

The timing is suspiciously unfortunate but I’m sure it was the right decision for him to step down.

Waiting for the whispers to start.

They’ll come.

I cannot understand how the Invictus Games Foundation is still registered as a UK charity.

Although from the Charity Commission website it does state that

Trustee payments
No trustees receive any remuneration, payments or benefits from the charity.

Of course Harry isn't listed as a 'Trustee' but is a 'Patron'

If anything shows you that actual words matter, then @pearlfritillary has done just that.

Not a mention.

"Fucking grifter" did someone say?

Reid quoted in the DE today on his resignation. Not a word to say about Harry, but clearly stating that the IG need a fresh vision.

Read today's Daily Express. Mild article, but telling in what it doesn't say.

it's that "not much being left in the pot at the end of (the expenses)" which bothers me.

Can I point out the similar situation when Harold was president of the Queen's Commonwealth Trust? The overwhelming cost of 'staff' all but wiped out donations. And as a bonus he got to puff the controversy engulfed BetterUp on the official site too.

Astounding how the press who were allegedly totally invested in hacking his rather banal private phone messages aren't running with his use of charitable funds.

Let's hope they start looking now.

Odd how the wicked old British Press - who apparently are out to get him and his wife - always let things like this and Africa Parks and the bought awards slide.

Thank you. I’m glad you concur and have picked up on it too.
It’s all smoke and mirrors. As everything seems to be with Harry.
Along with this, briefing Johnny Mercer and destroying evidence. How can people still not believe that he’s deceitful?

Interestingly, I wouldn’t say that being deceitful is necessarily his aim. It’s almost as if he genuinely doesn’t think he’s doing anything wrong in briefing people inappropriately, destroying evidence, and speaking his truth rather than the actual truth. He doesn’t see anything wrong because he is, after all, Prince Harry and according to him that is enough. Deluded

The financial summary that has been posted up thread is one that is produced from a charity's annual return, and never shows very much detail (this is common to all England and Wales charities, it's not Invictus trying to be shady).

If you want to look more closely into the finances of Invictus, then you need to click on "accounts and annual returns" on the CC website and download the latest version. There is a full set of Charity Accounts there.

I have attached a screenshot of Note 17, related party transactions. Of course, we still don't know what expenses, if any, were paid directly by the Charity (and therefore no reimbursement required), though.

Destroying evidence is deceitful but other than that, you have a point. Maybe his issues are, his sense of entitlement and delusion.

Very interesting. Some real evidence for a change.

@RockaLock 2021 surely we are looking at a time when COVID was in its initial aftermath?

I'm a very firm believer in transparent accounting - for nothing else it puts paid to suspicions of 'shady' .

@RockaLock The accounts are no more transparent.

Also, how do you explain this?

I don’t believe for a second that Harry and Meghan pay for their own accommodation, security, transportation (although I do believe that they have generous friends who let them borrow private jets). Also, make-up artists, hairdressers and of course the clothes. They are known to not like spending their own money.

Most, if not all of it will be covered by Invictus.

I was just pointing out that Invictus have filed a full set of accounts, which give as much detail as any other set of statutory accounts for charities of a similar size 🤷‍♀️

I haven't waded through the Trustees' report, because they are always interminably dull, but if you did you might (or might not) find some explanation as to why the costs of delivering their charitable activities have increased - that sort of thing is generally covered if the yoy change is large, but as I say, I haven't bothered to read this one.

And as I said, the related party note merely shows that PH was not reimbursed for any expenses, nor was he paid any fees for attending. It does not, however, tell us whether the Charity paid for any of their expenses directly (therefore no reimbursement needed). Unfortunately you will never find this amount of detail in any set of statutory accounts, as much as we would all like to know how much Invictus have shelled out for PH&M to attend.

Pay for Archie and Lilibet's attendance?! 😯

Unlike Harry's lack of response to the African Parks scandal.

The financial summary that has been posted up thread is one that is produced from a charity's annual return, and never shows very much detail

If you want to look more closely into the finances of Invictus, then you need to click on "accounts and annual returns" on the CC website and download the latest version. There is a full set of Charity Accounts there.

This was what you posted @RockaLock which absolutely reads as though what I had posted upthread was deliberately vague. The full set of charity accounts do not give any further information or clarity so you pointing posters in that direction was not useful for those of us talking about increased transparency. The reason why I posted what I did upthread is so that people don’t have to wade through accounts when it’s perfectly summarised. Especially as no further explanation is available. That being said, thanks for the information, I’m always happy to be pointed in the right direction when it comes to facts and figures!

It does not, however, tell us whether the Charity paid for any of their expenses directly (therefore no reimbursement needed).

I think this is it in a nutshell @RockaLock thank you.

@RockaLock the related party note you quoted relates to period of lockdown surely, (to 2021)? Have you a similar link to a statement for the latest set of accounts?

I am, genuinely, interested to see this.

Well, there is further information in the stat accounts - just not as much as we would like to see!

But rarely occasionally you can glean some good titbits from stat accounts, so it's worth a look.

(For full disclosure, I am an accountant currently working for a charity with a senior royal as our Patron. I am not by any means a fan of H&M, but I try to be fair when judging them).

@pearlfritillary those accounts are for the year ended 31 Dec 2022, and are currently the most recent set filed. The next set, for the year ended 31 Dec 2023, should be filed by the end of October.